NationStates Jolt Archive

Perhaps your problem is that schooling involves more than just English comprehension?

You expect Clinton to bow out graciously, but even though Obama is the perceived victor, you want to persue your pound of flesh. That makes you a Shylock and perhaps you mock Portia, but you will know your reward.

Carry on, but I do believe you do dis-service to the goal of unity.

Oh, the irony.

Tell him to go fuck himself. That'll probably help. Or you could stop with the fallacious arguments and pretend like this is debate?

I'm not surprised things get heated, either: it is an election, and this is a forum full of political animals.

That's why I'm stopping in from time to time to remind people that, when things do get a bit heated, they should back away a bit before the flames erupt.

You and CH, for example, could stop attributing motives to each other, or predicting each other's behaviour.

How about CH stops telling people to go fuck themselves? The mods chose not to rule on it the first time, but, clearly, he thinks that intellectual dishonesty makes one immune to the rules.

Stop it now, Jocabia. This is silly. Quit raking up past post-punchups. There's plenty to discuss about the US election.

Not according to the Constitution. There is no requirement whatsoever that electoral college members of a given state be chosen by popular vote.

And, because of the electoral college, it is perfectly possible for someone to receive more of the overall popular vote and not the majority of the electoral votes.

It is the place of the courts to uphold these things, not change them for the better. From what I understand, what the Supreme Court did was essentially to say, "This isn't our business. You have to have your electors chosen by a certain date. Do it."

^ This. We are not a democracy. Claiming that our Republic isn't a legitimate system demonstrates an utter lack of understanding of our system.

pound of flesh = Obama supporters continuing to mock Clinton and her supporters, such as you have done on this post

So, if I mock you, you won't vote for Obama? Will you vote for him if I treat you real nice? Because I won't vote for him if he picks Clinton. Nor will I if he doesn't. I won't vote for McCain either. Or Nader, or Barr or Baldwin.

You see, the victimization narrative is, at this point, bereft of any meaning to me. Does it really have any to you? I don't think so, because, at this point, your definition of "mocking", "attacking", "rudeness" and other such concepts is utterly skewered.

Let me give you a quick newsflash here: We have a world that's growing warmer, we have a war that's growing deadlier and wronger, we have a church-state separation that's growing weaker and we have a Republican Party that's growing insaner.

Obama treated Clinton well, her followers treated Obama's followers like crap, and when Obama's followers got fed up and reacted, Clinton followers, which had been fed a victimization/sexism narrative Clinton NEVER BOTHERED TO BACK UP, began claiming to be victims THEMSELVES and claiming they won't vote for Obama "because of the (non-existent) sexism", "because of his supporters (reacting)", or whatever the hell else.

And you know what will happen?

The people that give a damn about the world will vote for Obama, and the people that don't or that actually somehow believe McCain is better will not. That simple. Obama does not have an obligation to put Clinton on the ticket. Her supporters that claim they would vote for Obama only with Clinton on the ticket are either going to vote for him anyways or wouldn't vote for him under either circumstance. And being willing to doom the world over people mocking you on the Internet after calling anyone that disagreed with you sexist and whatnot is just not reasonable. Most people are at least somewhat reasonable.

I don't know why you seem to think Clinton is the second coming of Gandhi, Mother Theresa, Superman and Jesus Christ all mixed together, and at this point I don't care: Obama is doing better than McCain without her, her supporters are supporting Obama, and nobody is buying the whole victimization narrative. Clinton would galvanize the Republican Party completely by being on the ticket, and that's why she won't get on it. It is THAT SIMPLE.

So, yeah, I await your counterpoint. I would like it to be something different from claiming victimization of Clinton supporters, claiming I made no argument regardless of what I say, claiming my post is "too hateful" or whatever is in lieu of making an argument. I really, really would.

Any vice president choices yet?

Any vice president choices yet?

Corny, can I plagiarize that "ABC - Anybody But Clinton" post you made? :D

Any vice president choices yet?

Oooh, Greal! Nice to see ya.

Not yet. Not officially anyway. We've been laying various bets on the Democratic VP(Me, I think Sebilius) but most of us agree that either Romney or Huckabee will be McCain's VP.

Er ... I moved Greal's post and Jocabia's most recent one from the first stickied Obama vs McCain thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=558767), which has now been locked.

Any confusion this may cause is obviously all your own fault, nothing to do with me, and I wasn't even there at the time.

Oooh, Greal! Nice to see ya.

Not yet. Not officially anyway. We've been laying various bets on the Democratic VP(Me, I think Sebilius) but most of us agree that either Romney or Huckabee will be McCain's VP.

If he puts Huck on the ticket, he's TOAST! :D

Stop it now, Jocabia. This is silly. Quit raking up past post-punchups. There's plenty to discuss about the US election.

I'm sorry, past?

I found a site. Rehash this (http://www.myspaceantics.com/images/funny/buy-a-vowel.jpg).

Perhaps you are the next contestant on "Do You Want to Buy a Vowel"?

:)

By past do you mean an hour and a half ago?

I wouldn't bring it up if he didn't think it's still not flaming.

I'm sorry, past?



http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13765050&postcount=69

By past do you mean an hour and a half ago?

I wouldn't bring it up if he didn't think it's still not flaming.

Leave it be. There's no need to continue this little unnecessary quarrel.

This thread is continued here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=558266&page=6).

Oooh, Greal! Nice to see ya.

Not yet. Not officially anyway. We've been laying various bets on the Democratic VP(Me, I think Sebilius) but most of us agree that either Romney or Huckabee will be McCain's VP.

I can guarantee that none of these are correct.

As much as I can guarantee is that Obama will choose an older white guy and McCain will choose a younger white guy.

I doubt Strickland either.

My guess is Biden or Webb for Obama.

I wouldn't count Clinton out but I strongly doubt it.

McCain is far harder to call, it has to be someone presidential because, in the back of everyone's minds will be the fact that he could pop his clogs within 4 years - although I doubt he will, he think he gains more advantage than Obama in choosing a female VP.

Not yet. Not officially anyway. We've been laying various bets on the Democratic VP(Me, I think Sebilius) but most of us agree that either Romney or Huckabee will be McCain's VP.

I still think it will be Obama/Clinton. With 2000 & 2004 being as close as they were, the Democrats do not need to lose too many of the Clinton supporters. Also Clinton is vicious in a debate and maybe people will actually watch them this time!

I can guarantee that none of these are correct.

As much as I can guarantee is that Obama will choose an older white guy and McCain will choose a younger white guy.

I doubt Strickland either.

My guess is Biden or Webb for Obama.

I wouldn't count Clinton out but I strongly doubt it.

McCain is far harder to call, it has to be someone presidential because, in the back of everyone's minds will be the fact that he could pop his clogs within 4 years - although I doubt he will, he think he gains more advantage than Obama in choosing a female VP.
That's why I say he'll choose Huckabee for his charisma. McCain has to know that he has very little of his own anymore, so he has to make up for it with someone charismatic. Huckabee fits that bill easily.

Perhaps your problem is that schooling involves more than just English comprehension?

You expect Clinton to bow out graciously, but even though Obama is the perceived victor, you want to persue your pound of flesh. That makes you a Shylock and perhaps you mock Portia, but you will know your reward.

Carry on, but I do believe you do dis-service to the goal of unity.

For the love of god, stop. Just stop. You are so wide of the mark, intent, question...hell, I'm not even sure you even read the same post. It's embarrassing. Just stop. I can't bear to watch this anymore. It's like watching someone walk into a pole, get up, and then walk right back into the poll over and over again. Just...fucking move on...

That's why I say he'll choose Huckabee for his charisma. McCain has to know that he has very little of his own anymore, so he has to make up for it with someone charismatic. Huckabee fits that bill easily.

I just think, and Lord knows I am generally wrong, that Huckabee is simply too divisive a character for McCain, he does need some independents.

Romney has the same problem for different reasons.

They'll be polling heavily to help determine who will be the best fit and I simply doubt that either polls well in key areas.

I would bring in an economist, someone with a good track record in lowering taxes, I just don't know who that would be.

For the love of god, stop. Just stop. You are so wide of the mark, intent, question...hell, I'm not even sure you even read the same post. It's embarrassing. Just stop. I can't bear to watch this anymore. It's like watching someone walk into a pole, get up, and then walk right back into the poll over and over again. Just...fucking move on...

Why don't you start by not replying?

Why don't you start by not replying?

What're ya bucking for hall monitor or something?

What're ya bucking for hall monitor or something?

Totally :)

No running either.

Barringtonia, you are hereby appointed Chalkboard Monitor. You get to rub out Words and be persecuted by Terry Pratchett's dwarfs.

CToaN, if you're mean you'll be Putting Up Chairs After Class Monitor.

But Kyronea's recent excellent advice has won the position of supreme power: Stationery Cupboard Monitor!

Scissors! ... Sharpened Pencils!

CToaN, if you're mean you'll be Putting Up Chairs After Class Monitor.


Ah man...


...totally making a chairamid....

I just think, and Lord knows I am generally wrong, that Huckabee is simply too divisive a character for McCain, he does need some independents.

Romney has the same problem for different reasons.

They'll be polling heavily to help determine who will be the best fit and I simply doubt that either polls well in key areas.

I would bring in an economist, someone with a good track record in lowering taxes, I just don't know who that would be.

The thing about Huckabee is that his charismatic appeal has that irritatingly frustrating tendency of making people not bother to research him and only appreciate him for his ability to talk. (Obama has this problem too, sadly, but that's what happens when you have charismatic people.)

Still, apart from that you've a point. Maybe Guiliani...except no, because no one's going to buy his old 9/11 crap.

Maybe Bloomburg?

I still think it will be Obama/Clinton.
I hope you are right, but I do believe that there are too many Obama supporters out there who want to punish Clinton.

With 2000 & 2004 being as close as they were, the Democrats do not need to lose too many of the Clinton supporters.
For sure!!!

Also Clinton is vicious in a debate and maybe people will actually watch them this time!
I see her as a huge plus in that regard and of course for her other strengths.

EDIT: I found a site dedicated to the "dream ticket (http://www.voteboth.com/)".

I hope you are right, but I do believe that there are too many Obama supporters out there who want to punish Clinton.

And the victim complex raises it's ugly head again. Some people don't support her. It's not punishment. It's just a rational reaction to her behavior.

For the love of god, stop. Just stop. You are so wide of the mark, intent, question...hell, I'm not even sure you even read the same post. It's embarrassing. Just stop. I can't bear to watch this anymore. It's like watching someone walk into a pole, get up, and then walk right back into the poll over and over again. Just...fucking move on...
You guys love serving it up but don't like the rebounds. This is not your personal thread. IF you can't bear to read what I write, do as suggested and put me on ignore. I promise not to be offended if you don't reply.

You guys love serving it up but don't like the rebounds. This is not your personal thread. IF you can't bear to read what I write, do as suggested and put me on ignore. I promise not to be offended if you don't reply.

It's not about what you write but that you don't actually read what you're replying to.

If you'd debate, it wouldn't matter what opinion you hold. Instead you play this silly games.

Support your claims. Address the rebuttals.

The thing about Huckabee is that his charismatic appeal has that irritatingly frustrating tendency of making people not bother to research him and only appreciate him for his ability to talk. (Obama has this problem too, sadly, but that's what happens when you have charismatic people.)

Still, apart from that you've a point. Maybe Guiliani...except no, because no one's going to buy his old 9/11 crap.

Maybe Bloomburg?

Having looked at possible contenders, I quite like Rob Portman as a good fit.

These people all make excellent points. I think the Dems need to take heed and take the best shot:

The snippets are here (http://www.theweekdaily.com/news_opinion/top_stories/41487/could_an_obamaclinton_ticket_win.html).

Still, “don’t rule it out,” said Dick Polman in The Philadelphia Inquirer. If they’re forced into a political “shotgun marriage,” you can be sure that “love has nothing to do with it.” It’s about “pragmatics,” and Clinton and Obama “conjoin perfectly” as “political bedfellows.” The arguments against the joint ticket are “all good points,” they’re just not new ones. With all the “bad blood spilled,” nobody ever thought Reagan would pick George H. W. Bush, nor did they think Kennedy would invite the hostile, “legendary ego” of Lyndon Johnson onto his ticket. They did, and both tickets won.

The American Debate: Obama-Clinton? Stranger things have happened (http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20080511_The_American_Debate__Obama-Clinton__Stranger_things_have_happened.html)

They’d better learn how to cooperate if the Democrats want to win the White House, said Steve Mitchell in The Detroit News. Two of the party’s most important “constituencies” are African American and women, and each group is increasingly siding with Obama and Clinton, respectively. The Democrats need both, and a joint ticket is “the only way” to bring the winning coalition to the table. As for whether it’s a “dream ticket” or a “nightmare ticket” for Democrats, “that will be answered in November.”

Primary results leave Democrats with dilemma (http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080508/POLITICS01/805080311/1408)

More snippets here (http://www.theweekdaily.com/news_opinion/top_stories/43749/will_clinton_help_obama_beat_mccain.html).

Whether Obama picks Clinton as his running mate or not, said John Farmer in the Houston Chronicle, the election could hinge on "how he deals with her." The election is Obama’s to lose, but he didn’t exactly have a strong finish in the long primary fight against Clinton—rather he "limped across the finish line like a runner in deep oxygen deficit." The polls show he’ll face a tough race against Republican John McCain in the fall, and he’ll need Clinton’s “upbeat support” to win.

It's a long, long way from June to November (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/5824508.html)

Clinton’s “classy speech” was certainly a start, said Jennifer Skalka in National Journal’s The Hotline blog. She “endorsed Barack Obama for a resounding chorus of reasons,” but “the boom of boos that echoed in this historic hall at almost every mention of his name illustrated the depth of the divide in the party.” She did her part to “make peace with her detractors,” but she can’t do the job alone.

Further expansion of the John Farmer article:

His handling of Clinton is important because Obama has limped across the finish line like a runner in deep oxygen deficit. Of the last 16 primaries, he lost 10, including some of the largest states (Pennsylvania, Ohio, Texas). Were it not for his 11-state victory string in February, much of it in small states that he'll lose in November, Obama would not be the nominee; Clinton would have won.

In short, his primary victory, as historic and as good as it was for the country, has been overplayed as a guarantee of victory in November.
I think that says a mouthful and hopeful it hits home with the Obama supporters, who appear more willing at this time to crucify rather than reconcile.

I still think it will be Obama/Clinton. With 2000 & 2004 being as close as they were, the Democrats do not need to lose too many of the Clinton supporters. Also Clinton is vicious in a debate and maybe people will actually watch them this time!

Very unlikely, for reasons that have been covered exaustively - personality clash, backseat-driver syndrome, the pile of antipathy that she brings (which was increased by her campaign), etc., etc.

I think Camille Paglia put it quite nicely the other day:
Hillary for veep? Are you mad? What party nominee worth his salt would chain himself to a traveling circus like the Bill and Hillary Show? If the sulky bearded lady wasn't biting the new president’s leg, the oafish carnival barker would be sending in the clowns to lure all the young ladies into back-of-the-tent sword-swallowing. It would be a seamy orgy of scheming and screwing. Hillary could never be content with second place. But neither could an alpha male like Obama. The vice-president should be an accomplished but subordinate personality. An Obama-Hillary ticket might tickle party regulars, but it would be a big fat minus in the general election. Republicans have shrewdly stockpiled a mammoth arsenal of past scandals to strafe Hillary with. Only a sentimental masochist would want to relive the tawdry 1990s.

I suppose I shouldn't have been surprised at the ecstatic media lockstep praising Hillary's so-called concession speech last weekend. This is the same herd of sheep who bleated to Bush's beat and brought us the Iraq fiasco. I first heard the speech on the radio as I was driving back to Philadelphia from a family event in upstate New York. I was shocked and appalled at Hillary's inflammatory demagoguery, which was obviously intended to keep her candidacy alive through the August convention and beyond. The echo in the museum's marble entry hall gave the event an eerily retro quality, as if it were a 1930s fascist rally. Hillary's turgid, preachy rhythms were condescending and manipulative, and her climaxes were ear-splittingly strident. It was pure Evita, a cult of personality masquerading as populism. When I later saw the speech on TV, I was disgusted by how Hillary undercut her insultingly brief endorsement of Obama with a flat expression and cold, dead eyes. The only thing that got her blood racing was the blatantly stoked hysteria of her screeching worshipers.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2008/06/11/hillary/index.html

You guys love serving it up but don't like the rebounds. This is not your personal thread. IF you can't bear to read what I write, do as suggested and put me on ignore. I promise not to be offended if you don't reply.

Dude, if you want to write whatever, that's fine. But don't hit 'quote' to random posts and pretend that they're actual responses to what's been written. You seriously haven't a fucking clue what my post was about and you've demonstrated it over and over again. Your responses have fuck all to do with what I wrote. My frustration isn't that you're 'dishing it out' but that your response is a total non-sequitor to what I wrote.

Fuck it, I'll spell it out for you despite the fact that you'll just give a "But spaghetti isn't a vegetable" response like that has anything to do with anything.

I wrote-
But as I look over at Obama's growing lead on Electoral-Vote.com and I think of the reasons not to crow about it (it's waaaaaayyyy to early to crow about polls for a November election, the polls are a bit of a mismash and don't all reflect events like Clinton's concession or any thing else that might have happened in the past week or so, etc.)
which in the parenthetical describes the numerous concerns I have with polls this early in general and that collection of polls specifically. I in fact bring up no reason why I should 'crow' about it. This is the only time I mention polls at all, and in fact only use this little bit of anecdotal story telling to provide my launching off point for my larger speculation. The poll is nothing more than what I was reading when I came up with an entirely separate question, a question that is not at all reliant on what the polls currently say.

But then you responded-
But, but, but you can't start using Electoral-Vote.com, bec ause it has already been trashed by your peers. :D

Besides, that site disagrees with RCP. Electoral vote dot com gives Michigan to Obama based on the most recent poll, but RCP says uh-uhh:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/mi/michigan_mccain_vs_obama-553.html

Yup, RCP (ECV) gives a more realistic picture:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/

You don't want to go against your playbook do you?

Besides, you now have to start using Rasmussen Reports:

Electoral College History (http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/electoral_college_history)

:D
Despite the fact that I actually criticized the poll in a way consistent with what I've been saying all along, despite the fact that I based no conclusions on what the poll currently said, despite the fact that the poll had nothing to do with the situation I proposed except that it is what I was reading when it occurred to me. Did anything you wrote there address this?
I wonder if that's going to be Obama's Gore, a Gore within his own party, the whisper, "Well, Obama won, but Clinton would have won by more." When he hits his first real hurdle, his first stumbling block as president, that every president goes through, will he have to face the whispers within his own party, "Clinton wouldn't have had that happen to her..." Is he going to be shackled by the every present and artificially perfect ghost of the 'could have been' candidate? Does anyone actually see our favorite Clinton supporter acknowledging Obama's achievements or respecting his hurdles? How endemic is this? Or is it nothing, the candidacy will be a footnote as she moves on to her post run political life?
No, it didn't. It had fuck all to do with this, the actual question of the post.

We invited you to re-read the post, that you had missed the parenthetical that addressed this accusation-
But, but, but you can't start using Electoral-Vote.com, bec ause it has already been trashed by your peers.
...
You don't want to go against your playbook do you?

Did you go back, assess the question? Realize that I had in fact criticized the polls in a manner consistent with the way that I have criticized them in the past? No, you claimed you knocked me off my pony-
I read all of your gobbly gook.....that is why I was jousting with you. I do believe that I knocked you off your pony though and you were the one that got Gored. :D

Now, this time you included Gore's name so we have to assume you didn't just stop reading once you saw "Electoral-vote.com," but you still fail to demonstrate any understanding of what was written. Granted I was less than generous in pointing out this failure, but really-how many at bats do you want, Casey? Given a third opportunity to actually read the post and demonstrate some understanding of it, you instead decided to go on a Merchant of Venice kick for some reason-
Perhaps your problem is that schooling involves more than just English comprehension?

You expect Clinton to bow out graciously, but even though Obama is the perceived victor, you want to persue your pound of flesh. That makes you a Shylock and perhaps you mock Portia, but you will know your reward.

Carry on, but I do believe you do dis-service to the goal of unity.
This still doesn't address anything that was said. Now you seem to go on about the 'pound of flesh' I seem to want (with no indication of what that might be) and then start casting me in a role, with a nice chaser of how I'm somehow fucking party unity.

At this point, I have given up any hope that you have read or understand what was written. It is clear that either you are incapable of reading it, or instead have so entrenched yourself into what you've decided to run with that after claiming to have 'knocked me off my pony' it is too hard to admit that you missed the train on that post, so you have to continue the embarrassing charade even though everyone else can see whats happening. So, and again perhaps not as generous as I could have been, I give you an out, you can move on. Clearly you are not going to be addressing the question at hand or acknowledging any actual understanding of what was written.

And that brings us to this, that somehow I can't bear the brunt of your rebuttals. I submit to you that since this 'rebuttals' have fuck all to do with what was written they are not, in fact, rebuttals. What was written wasn't that I 'can't handle your rebounds,' but in fact begging you, once again, to actually address what was written. It was a fools crusade. Such pleas have fallen of deaf ears so many times in the course of this debate, I don't know what I was thinking.

I think Camille Paglia put it quite nicely the other day:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2008/06/11/hillary/index.html

"What party nominee worth his salt would chain himself to a traveling circus like the Bill and Hillary Show?"

People remember "that show" as when we had more groceries, more vacation money, more everything! All she has to say is "Bill got it fixed in the 90s after one Bush broke it and I was taking notes"! :D

"What party nominee worth his salt would chain himself to a traveling circus like the Bill and Hillary Show?"

People remember "that show" as when we had more groceries, more vacation money, more everything! All she has to say is "Bill got it fixed in the 90s after one Bush broke it and I was taking notes"! :D

We seem to have different memories of that time period. I remember it as a time when US politics became much more divisive, the culture wars really got underway, the first lady tried to claim she was a twofer, the president was involved in sordid sex scandals, and US post-Cold War foreign policy started really getting fucked over.

And if she starts claiming that kind of BS again, she'll show that she thinks she can shoehorn her way into being Obama's chaparone. He doesn't need one, and the suggestion that he does would be just as highly insulting as it was when it was being made here last week.

We seem to have different memories of that time period. I remember it as a time when US politics became much more divisive, the culture wars really got underway, the first lady tried to claim she was a twofer, the president was involved in sordid sex scandals, and US post-Cold War foreign policy started really getting fucked over.

And if she starts claiming that kind of BS again, she'll show that she thinks she can shoehorn her way into being Obama's chaparone. He doesn't need one, and the suggestion that he does would be just as highly insulting as it was when it was being made here last week.

With our foreign policy in the 7th level of hell right now, does anyone even remember what foreign policy was in the 90s? Uhhhh! Yea! Former Yugoslavia! Quick war!

Most people sneezed and missed the culture wars since most the issues are regulated by each state.

Don't think she can shoehorn anything at this point. Number crunching is what it's going to come down to.

With our foreign policy in the 7th level of hell right now, does anyone even remember what foreign policy was in the 90s? Uhhhh! Yea! Former Yugoslavia! Quick war!

Bill Clinton's FP set the stage for almost all of the Bush admins FP. Rawanda, Sudan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran... all screwed due to Bill. Iraq and Afghanistan in particular, although you can lay a fair bit of responsibility at Daddy Bush's feet for those as well.

Most people sneezed and missed the culture wars since most the issues are regulated by each state.

You may have forgotten, but many others have not.

Don't think she can shoehorn anything at this point.

Indeed. As I said, it's quite unlikely she'll be VP.

Number crunching is what it's going to come down to.

Again, indeed. TUO brings far too many negatives and pushes away more than she brings to the table. After all the hand wringing last week, the Dems are uniting behind Obama (http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11551760). Having TUO on the ticket pushes away the indies and Obama Republicans (http://www.republicansforobama.org/?q=consider)/Obamacons (http://www.amconmag.com/2008/2008_03_24/article.html).

More on the Obamacons:

Mr. Right?

The rise of the Obamacons.

Bruce Bartlett, The New Republic Published: Wednesday, June 25, 2008

The New Yorker is hardly the optimal vehicle for reaching the conservative intelligentsia. But, last year, Barack Obama cooperated with a profile for that magazine where he seemed to be speaking directly to the right. Because he paid obeisance to the virtues of stability and continuity, his interlocutor, Larissa MacFarquhar, came away with the impression that the Illinois senator was an adherent of Edmund Burke: "In his view of history, in his respect for tradition, in his skepticism that the world can be changed any way but very, very slowly, Obama is deeply conservative."

As The New Yorker's assessment shot across blogs, many conservatives listened eagerly. A broad swath of the movement has been in open revolt against George W. Bush--and the Republican Party establishment--for some time. They don't much care for the Iraq war or the federal government's vast expansion over the last seven-and-a-half years. And, in the eyes of these discontents, the nomination of John McCain only confirmed the continuation of the worst of the Bush-era deviations from first principles.

But it was hardly inevitable that this revolt would translate into enthusiasm for the Democratic standard-bearer. After all, you could see similar signs of unhappiness four years ago, and none of that translated into mass defections to the John Kerry camp. And, despite Ann Coulter's vow to campaign for Hillary Clinton over John McCain, the old bête noir of the right would have never attracted many conservatives. That's what makes the rise of the Obamacons such an interesting development. Conservatives of almost all ideological flavors (even, gasp, some supply-siders) have been drawn to Obama--out of a genuine affection and a belief that he may actually better embody movement ideals than McCain.

There have been a few celebrated cases of conservatives endorsing Obama, like the blogger Andrew Sullivan and the legal scholar Douglas Kmiec. But you probably have not have heard of many of the Obamacons--and neither has the Obama campaign. When I checked with it to ask for a list of prominent conservative supporters, the campaign seemed genuinely unaware that such supporters even existed. But those of us on the right who pay attention to think tanks, blogs, and little magazines have watched Obama compile a coterie drawn from the movement's most stalwart and impressive thinkers. It's a group that will no doubt grow even larger in the coming months.

The largest group of Obamacons hail from the libertarian wing of the movement. And it's not just Andrew Sullivan. Milton and Rose Friedman's son, David, is signed up with the cause on the grounds that he sees Obama as the better vessel for his father's cause. Friedman is convinced of Obama's sympathy for school vouchers--a tendency that the Democratic primaries temporarily suppressed. Scott Flanders, the CEO of Freedom Communications--the company that owns The Orange County Register--told a company meeting that he believes Obama will accomplish the paramount libertarian goals of withdrawing from Iraq and scaling back the Patriot Act.

Libertarians (and other varieties of Obamacons, for that matter) frequently find themselves attracted to Obama on stylistic grounds. That is, they believe that he has surrounded himself with pragmatists, some of whom (significantly) come from the University of Chicago. As the blogger Megan McArdle has written, "His goal is not more government so that we can all be caught up in some giant, expressive exercise of collectively enforcing our collective will on all the other people standing around us in the collective; his goal is improving transparency and minimizing government intrusion while rectifying specific outcomes."

In nearly every quarter of the movement, you can find conservatives irate over the Iraq war--a war they believe transgresses core principles. And it's this frustration with the war--and McCain's pronouncements about victory at any cost--that has led many conservatives into Obama's arms. Francis Fukuyama, the neoconservative theorist, recently told an Australian journalist that he would reluctantly vote for Obama to hold the Republican Party accountable "for a big policy failure" in Iraq. And he seems to view Obama as the best means for preserving American power, since Obama "symbolizes the ability of the United States to renew itself in a very unexpected way."

You can find similar sentiments coursing through the Boston University professor Andrew Bacevich's seminal Obamacon manifesto in The American Conservative. He believes that the war in Iraq has undermined the possibilities for conservative reform at home. The prospects for a conservative revival, therefore, depend on withdrawing from Iraq. Thus the necessity of Obama. "For conservatives, Obama represents a sliver of hope. McCain represents none at all. The choice turns out to be an easy one," Bacevich concludes.

How substantial is the Obamacon phenomenon? Well, it has even penetrated National Review, the intellectual anchor of the conservative movement. There's Jeffrey Hart, who has been a senior editor at the magazine since 1968 and even wrote a history of the magazine, The Making of the American Conservative Mind; and Wick Allison, who once served as the magazine's publisher.

Neither man has renounced his conservatism. Both have come away impressed by Obama's rhetorical acumen. This is a particular compliment coming from Hart, who wrote speeches for both Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan. They both like that Obama couches his speeches in a language of uplift and unity. When describing his support for Obama, Allison pointed me in the direction of a column that his wife (who has never supported a Democrat) wrote in The Dallas Morning News: "He speaks with candor and elegance against the kind of politics that have become so dispiriting and for the kind of America I would like to see. As a man, I find Mr. Obama to be prudent, thoughtful, and courageous. His life story embodies the conservative values that go to the core of my beliefs."

But, if you're looking for the least likely pool of Obamacons, it would be the supply-siders. And you can even find some of those. Take Larry Hunter, who helped put together the economics passages in the Contract with America and served as chief economist for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. He concedes that Obama is saying the wrong things on taxes but dismisses it as electioneering. Of far greater importance, in Hunter's view, is that Obama has the potential to "scramble the political deck, break up old alliances, and bring odd bedfellows together in a new coalition." And, what's more important, he views the Republican Party as a "dead, rotting carcass with a few decrepit old leaders stumbling around like zombies in a horror version of Weekend at Bernie's, handcuffed to a corpse." Unless the Republican Party is thoroughly purged of its current leadership, Hunter fears that it "will pollute the political environment to toxic levels and create an epidemic that could damage the country for generations to come."

I know what Hunter and the rest of the Obamacons are talking about. As a conservative, I share their disgust with a Republican Party that still does not see how badly George W. Bush has misgoverned this country. But, while I am sympathetic to the Obamacons and have a number of friends that are, I am not one of them. I'm not ready to join the other side.

Still, I have enjoyed watching the phenomenon, which has the potential to remake the political landscape. It will also produce some of the good comedy that inevitably accompanies strange bedfellows. The blogger Dorothy King, an archeologist and strong conservative, recently outed herself as an Obamacon. This was a culturally awkward position for her. She wondered, "Do I now, as a newly minted Obamaphile liberal elitist, have to serve my guests Chablis? Or would any old chardonnay do? ... Am I even meant to admit to going to the supermarket? Should I pretend to only go to the local Farmers' Market?" There, undoubtedly, will be much more of such dislocation in the months to come.
http://www.tnr.com/story_print.html?id=46a816dc-f843-41ec-9fe4-fbeac17bcfca

The answer is NO. Florida law distinguishes two kinds of recount requests, a "protest" before the certification date and a "contest" after the certification date. By no means is the certification date an absolute deadline (and I do not think it would even be constitutionally allowable if that were the case). Electoral disputes, in fact, can continue even after the inauguration of the debatably-elected official (and have). If the certified vote total does not agree with the actual intended preference of the voters, it can and must be overturned, no matter when that fact is discovered. That is the law, in Florida and in every state. It has always been bedrock American law. It was never even questioned, until this one case when we overthrew everything our system is based on.

Apparently the US Congress disagreed when they allowed the Florida votes to be counted. No one challenged that in Congress nor was their a motion to dismiss them even though there should have been.

Corny, can I plagiarize that "ABC - Anybody But Clinton" post you made? :D

Hehe!

Be My Guest

I still think it will be Obama/Clinton. With 2000 & 2004 being as close as they were, the Democrats do not need to lose too many of the Clinton supporters. Also Clinton is vicious in a debate and maybe people will actually watch them this time!

Clinton will actually hurt the Dems more by being on the ticket. That will just galvanize the entire party against them both.

And the victim complex raises it's ugly head again. Some people don't support her. It's not punishment. It's just a rational reaction to her behavior.

100% correct.

We seem to have different memories of that time period. I remember it as a time when US politics became much more divisive, the culture wars really got underway, the first lady tried to claim she was a twofer, the president was involved in sordid sex scandals, and US post-Cold War foreign policy started really getting fucked over.

And if she starts claiming that kind of BS again, she'll show that she thinks she can shoehorn her way into being Obama's chaparone. He doesn't need one, and the suggestion that he does would be just as highly insulting as it was when it was being made here last week.

Spot on accurate.

Spot on accurate.

Ya know, it's a really weird feeling arguing the same side as you here, and not against you with CH on my side... politics, strange befellows, and all that jazz. And some growing up on your part, if you don't mind my saying. ;)

Bill Clinton's FP set the stage for almost all of the Bush admins FP. Rawanda, Sudan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran... all screwed due to Bill. Iraq and Afghanistan in particular, although you can lay a fair bit of responsibility at Daddy Bush's feet for those as well.

Iraq is for getting defense contracts signed. (nothing to do with terrorism, WMDs, Al Quada) And nothing to do with Bill.

Afganistan and Iraq were given boosts by Reagan! Not Bill!

The Iran/Contra scandel was during the Reagan era. Not Bill's

But yes! Some of the blame goes to Bush Sr!

Iraq is for getting defense contracts signed. (nothing to do with terrorism, WMDs, Al Quada) And nothing to do with Bill.

Afganistan and Iraq were given boosts by Reagan! Not Bill!

The Iran/Contra scandel was during the Reagan era. Not Bill's

But yes! Some of the blame goes to Bush Sr!

Oy vey! Only partially accurate but Bill deserves blame as well and you are basically giving him a free pass.

Iraq is for getting defense contracts signed. (nothing to do with terrorism, WMDs, Al Quada) And nothing to do with Bill.

Conspiracy theory, correct, partially correct, correct, and dead wrong.

To suggest that Clinton's FP re Iraq from Jan 1993 to Jan 2001, including the no fly zones, a screwed up incremental containment policy, Operation Desert Fox, and the screwed up conclusions of the aftermath of ODF had nothing to do with Iraq is to say that he wasn't president at the time.

Afganistan and Iraq were given boosts by Reagan! Not Bill!

Err... what part of post-Cold War did you fail to understand?

The Iran/Contra scandel was during the Reagan era. Not Bill's

I'm so glad you understand that Regan was a what part of post-Cold War president... Oops.

But yes! Some of the blame goes to Bush Sr!

Only some. The lions share for creating the mess Dumbya clusterfucked was Bill's.

Bill set up the flaming mess of poo on the white hose doorstep and rang the bell. Dumbya came and jumped all in it.

And Afghanistan - aren't you glad Bill wasn't in power when the civil war the Mujahideen and the Taliban took over Afghanistan, and gave it over to Al Qaida. Oh wait. Oops!

To suggest that the two Bushs have helped screw up US post-Cold War FP, but Bill didn't have a hand in it is again to deny he was ever president. Was he president? If so he had a hand in this current clusterfuck.

You guys love serving it up but don't like the rebounds.

What rebounds? Did you by any chance ANSWER my very, very long post at any point? No you haven't. If you'll excuse me, I'll re-quote it:

So, if I mock you, you won't vote for Obama? Will you vote for him if I treat you real nice? Because I won't vote for him if he picks Clinton. Nor will I if he doesn't. I won't vote for McCain either. Or Nader, or Barr or Baldwin.

You see, the victimization narrative is, at this point, bereft of any meaning to me. Does it really have any to you? I don't think so, because, at this point, your definition of "mocking", "attacking", "rudeness" and other such concepts is utterly skewered.

Let me give you a quick newsflash here: We have a world that's growing warmer, we have a war that's growing deadlier and wronger, we have a church-state separation that's growing weaker and we have a Republican Party that's growing insaner.

Obama treated Clinton well, her followers treated Obama's followers like crap, and when Obama's followers got fed up and reacted, Clinton followers, which had been fed a victimization/sexism narrative Clinton NEVER BOTHERED TO BACK UP, began claiming to be victims THEMSELVES and claiming they won't vote for Obama "because of the (non-existent) sexism", "because of his supporters (reacting)", or whatever the hell else.

And you know what will happen?

The people that give a damn about the world will vote for Obama, and the people that don't or that actually somehow believe McCain is better will not. That simple. Obama does not have an obligation to put Clinton on the ticket. Her supporters that claim they would vote for Obama only with Clinton on the ticket are either going to vote for him anyways or wouldn't vote for him under either circumstance. And being willing to doom the world over people mocking you on the Internet after calling anyone that disagreed with you sexist and whatnot is just not reasonable. Most people are at least somewhat reasonable.

I don't know why you seem to think Clinton is the second coming of Gandhi, Mother Theresa, Superman and Jesus Christ all mixed together, and at this point I don't care: Obama is doing better than McCain without her, her supporters are supporting Obama, and nobody is buying the whole victimization narrative. Clinton would galvanize the Republican Party completely by being on the ticket, and that's why she won't get on it. It is THAT SIMPLE.

So, yeah, I await your counterpoint. I would like it to be something different from claiming victimization of Clinton supporters, claiming I made no argument regardless of what I say, claiming my post is "too hateful" or whatever is in lieu of making an argument. I really, really would.

There. Will you answer it now or is it "too hateful", "no argument", "has the wrong number of vowels", etc? Se eu escrever em português você me responde? ("If I write in Portuguese, will you answer me?") Ou eu tenho que te arrumar uma URL com um babaca te mandando para aquele lugar?

Clinton will actually hurt the Dems more by being on the ticket. That will just galvanize the entire party against them both.
That is not what the polls are saying:

Democrats Weigh In On Unity Ticket (http://www.gallup.com/video/107698/Democrats-Weigh-Unity-Ticket.aspx)

Gallup Daily: Obama Gets Slight Bounce With Clinton as VP (http://www.gallup.com/poll/107716/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Gets-Slight-Bounce-Clinton.aspx)

That is not what the polls are saying:

Democrats Weigh In On Unity Ticket (http://www.gallup.com/video/107698/Democrats-Weigh-Unity-Ticket.aspx)

Gallup Daily: Obama Gets Slight Bounce With Clinton as VP (http://www.gallup.com/poll/107716/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Gets-Slight-Bounce-Clinton.aspx)

Do they say anything about the HUGE increase in Republican turnout if she gets in the ticket?

That is not what the polls are saying:

Democrats Weigh In On Unity Ticket (http://www.gallup.com/video/107698/Democrats-Weigh-Unity-Ticket.aspx)

Gallup Daily: Obama Gets Slight Bounce With Clinton as VP (http://www.gallup.com/poll/107716/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Gets-Slight-Bounce-Clinton.aspx)

Oh brother. I know what polls say BUT...if Clinton is on the ticket, you cannot sit there and tell me with a straight face that the Republicans are not going to jump on it and turn out their base wholesale.

Do they say anything about the HUGE increase in Republican turnout if she gets in the ticket?

Looking at those polls, they seem to be Dem only, ignoring the Indies and the GOP/Con dissenting/"anti-Bush"-con votes that TUO drives away... Check that Obama Republican website I linked above - lottsa GOP folks saying they'll vote Obama, but not if TUO is co-candidate.

Looking at those polls, they seem to be Dem only, ignoring the Indies and the GOP/Con dissenting/"anti-Bush"-con votes that TUO drives away... Check that Obama Republican website I linked above - lottsa GOP folks saying they'll vote Obama, but not if TUO is co-candidate.

Indeed.

we are going to have an Obama nation

sounds sorta bad but I feel elation

I don't like rap I like masturbation

Let me end this rhyme with a sweet quotation

"Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all . . . Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality. It involves the compromise, the art of what's possible. At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise. It's the art of the impossible. If God has spoken, then followers are expected to live up to God's edicts, regardless of the consequences. To base one's life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime, but to base our policy making on such commitments would be a dangerous thing." -- Obama

Looking at those polls, they seem to be Dem only, ignoring the Indies and the GOP/Con dissenting/"anti-Bush"-con votes that TUO drives away... Check that Obama Republican website I linked above - lottsa GOP folks saying they'll vote Obama, but not if TUO is co-candidate.

Ja... Nihongo de, "quod erat demonstrandum" wa nani de iu ka? :p

Tokoro de, TUO no imi wa nani desu ka?

That is not what the polls are saying:

Democrats Weigh In On Unity Ticket (http://www.gallup.com/video/107698/Democrats-Weigh-Unity-Ticket.aspx)

Gallup Daily: Obama Gets Slight Bounce With Clinton as VP (http://www.gallup.com/poll/107716/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Gets-Slight-Bounce-Clinton.aspx)

obama is getting that bump anyways, as the party continues to rally behind him. he doesn't have it totally locked down just yet, but it is rapidly moving towards him. check the trendlines of the fucking crosstabs.

this is a good year for dems by any measure. the fact that some clinton supporters are a little slow doesn't show anything. a significant part of what makes it such a good year is the way that mccain is tied to the past and a hugely unpopular war and that the republican coalition is coming apart at the seams. now, if you don't remember, the mere name 'clinton' drives right wingers insane(r). she could single handedly reunite the fracturing right wing coalition around a common crazy ideal again.

and her mindblowingly stupid original support for the war means that she was clearly and publicly wrong on the major issue of the times, the issue that has been driving democratic activism. the activists of the party would not be as willing to do the necessary ground work for her as they are for obama. we already saw this play out in the primary - the activists jumped directly to the relative unknown, while clinton won where she won on name recognition and the racism of significant parts of the usian public. this was also evident in, for example, the early straw polling on dkos. clinton was never in the top spot there. when the field was crowded, she wasn't even in the running - behind fucking kucinich, fer fucks sake. the party activists view clinton as another round of the same old same old that has been shafting them for decades, and view obama as dean done right.

they'd work for her still, but not with the same level of manic excitement. so that, combined with the republican crazification unity factor, combined with making obama look weak, combined with her ties to everything that is wrong with the democratic party makes her just about the worst thing obama could do short of being caught in bed with a dead white girl or a live black nationalist boy.

Conspiracy theory, correct, partially correct, correct, and dead wrong.

To suggest that Clinton's FP re Iraq from Jan 1993 to Jan 2001, including the no fly zones, a screwed up incremental containment policy, Operation Desert Fox, and the screwed up conclusions of the aftermath of ODF had nothing to do with Iraq is to say that he wasn't president at the time.



Err... what part of post-Cold War did you fail to understand?



I'm so glad you understand that Regan was a what part of post-Cold War president... Oops.



Only some. The lions share for creating the mess Dumbya clusterfucked was Bill's.

Bill set up the flaming mess of poo on the white hose doorstep and rang the bell. Dumbya came and jumped all in it.

And Afghanistan - aren't you glad Bill wasn't in power when the civil war the Mujahideen and the Taliban took over Afghanistan, and gave it over to Al Qaida. Oh wait. Oops!

To suggest that the two Bushs have helped screw up US post-Cold War FP, but Bill didn't have a hand in it is again to deny he was ever president. Was he president? If so he had a hand in this current clusterfuck.

So I'm right about Reagan, he just gets a free pass because of the era?

So exactly what would you have done if you were our 90s president? (about Iraq & Afganistan) Call them up and say "We don't trust you guys anymore! Can we have our weapons back???"

Currently, the foreign policy is a disaster because of Bush's Yippie-Ki-Yea language! (that he said the other day he regreted) North Korea was a wait & see nation until Bush added them to the Axis of Evil in 2001! And all the hell we needed after that was for more Mexicans to hate us so Bush sugessted a wall be built along the border, even though it will never be built!

That is not what the polls are saying:

Democrats Weigh In On Unity Ticket (http://www.gallup.com/video/107698/Democrats-Weigh-Unity-Ticket.aspx)

Gallup Daily: Obama Gets Slight Bounce With Clinton as VP (http://www.gallup.com/poll/107716/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Gets-Slight-Bounce-Clinton.aspx)

Those polls only count Democrats. It doesn't say anything about Independants.

Those polls only count Democrats. It doesn't say anything about Independants.

at least one of the questions was not just for dems - the gallup tracking poll one

Perhaps your problem is that schooling involves more than just English comprehension?

You expect Clinton to bow out graciously, but even though Obama is the perceived victor, you want to persue your pound of flesh. That makes you a Shylock and perhaps you mock Portia, but you will know your reward.

Carry on, but I do believe you do dis-service to the goal of unity.

I don't think people would be lashing out at Clinton if it were not for the manner in which she ran her campaign. I also think that you just make it worse because you don't want to debate. You want to throw out your spam and think t's the end. People rebut and provide contrary information, but you just stick to the same evidence and argument over and over. This whole buy a vowel thing is just childish. If i want to tell you to go fuck yourself I'll just say it and take my licks from the mods. At least I'm not being a p_nk _ss b_tch about it. :) "carry on."

"What party nominee worth his salt would chain himself to a traveling circus like the Bill and Hillary Show?"

People remember "that show" as when we had more groceries, more vacation money, more everything! All she has to say is "Bill got it fixed in the 90s after one Bush broke it and I was taking notes"! :D

This is what she pretty much said. "It took one Clinton to clean up after the first Bush, and it'll take another to clean up after the second one."

You give Bill Clinton far too much credit for the 90's economy. I admit he was a much better Prez than Bush (either one). You do realize though how much Presidents really have over the economy right? He happened to be in the right place when tech went bananas, good for him. He also happened to rely on alan Greenspan (the real controller of the economy with more power than Prez at the fed). I really wish people here had more macroeconomic knowledge than they do. Hell, they can be advisers to McCain though. :(

You give Bill Clinton far too much credit for the 90's economy. I admit he was a much better Prez than Bush (either one). You do realize though how much Presidents really have over the economy right?

Yes I do! Another title the president has is "Commander in Chief" When the Commander in Chief orders soldiers into battle, that costs a great deal of money. The more that is spent, the greater burden on the economy.

Or if the Commander in Chief uses unecessary hawkish language as part of his foreign policy, the defense plans have to be beefed up since you now have a nation that is more angry with you. That costs a lot of money too!

This is Bush's fault! (http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174884)

Those polls only count Democrats. It doesn't say anything about Independants.
The one poll only includes Democrats.

The other poll:

The specific question included on the Gallup Poll Daily tracking for Wednesday asked Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents directly if they would "like to see Barack Obama choose Hillary Clinton as his vice presidential running mate", or if they would rather he choose someone else.
Of note, earlier I posted a poll which demonstrated a rise amongst Independents and Republicans concerning Clinton's favourability, since the middle of Feb., while Obama's was declining.

Whether it was coincidence or not, the electoral college maps that I posted also demonstrated a strong continuous upswing amongst voters that would vote for Hillary over McCain.

Snip.

Hey, CH, will you answer my post or just ignore it due to the fact that it's inconvenient for your poorly-thought little beliefs?

Clinton is just too risky.

...

oh fucking christ. even when you are actually right about something, you conspire to make yourself wrong.

there is one poll question you linked to that actually contained everybody, and you missed it. and the extra clinton points are known to be from democrats, not 'democratic-leaning independents'. its the difference between the obama supporters who say they would vote for clinton had history turned out differently and the whiny clintonites who refuse to say the reverse. these numbers are well established.

I don't think people would be lashing out at Clinton if it were not for the manner in which she ran her campaign.
Clinton was under attack from Obama supporters from the get go. If you don't think so, go back to the earlier threads. Go back to the earlier OP-Eds that were written.

I also think that you just make it worse because you don't want to debate.
I don't want to debate? That is laughable. I have been under constant attack by Obama supporters from the beginning. There seems to be a hive mind that I should have no right to back Clinton, that I should "move on". I post pro Clinton articles/polls/data and all I hear in return is the pontifical outpouring of the Obamalites. Suggesting that you are somehow a "superior fighter", that I am a "toothless tiger", a "punching bag", or a "tool", is not conducive to the matter at hand. That my friend is not debate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_personal_attacks).

You want to throw out your spam and think t's the end. People rebut and provide contrary information, but you just stick to the same evidence and argument over and over.
Most of my evidence was constantly changing/evolving, often making my arguments stronger. When I ask posters to back up their claims, they don't respond, or they go into attack mode.

BTW, here is one that you didn't respond to:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13759430&postcount=539

This whole buy a vowel thing is just childish. If i want to tell you to go fuck yourself I'll just say it and take my licks from the mods. At least I'm not being a p_nk _ss b_tch about it. :) "carry on."
When you get tired and had enough, then it is time to end it. The benefit of not feeling compelled to respond to that poster anymore has been uplifting. I believe that the subtle approach is far better than using a sledge hammer.

oh fucking christ. even when you are actually right about something, you conspire to make yourself wrong.

there is one poll question you linked to that actually contained everybody, and you missed it. and the extra clinton points are known to be from democrats, not 'democratic-leaning independents'. its the difference between the obama supporters who say they would vote for clinton had history turned out differently and the whiny clintonites who refuse to say the reverse. these numbers are well established.
This should clarify the situation:

http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/080605VPChoice_hjnbvfr.gif

The specific question included on the Gallup Poll Daily tracking for Wednesday asked Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents directly if they would "like to see Barack Obama choose Hillary Clinton as his vice presidential running mate", or if they would rather he choose someone else.
The other poll that included the Obama bounce was due to adding Clinton on the ticket and was asked of national registered voters:

http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/080605Obamaclinton_vbytrws.gif

In short, including Clinton's name as the Democratic vice presidential nominee shifted a small number of voters into the Democratic camp as contrasted to the straight Obama versus McCain ballot, with McCain's support basically unchanged.

For someone as seemingly concerned with 'junk science' you'd think you'd be a little more critical of the evidence that you do present.

Never mind that the poll presented showing a waining in enthusiasm towards the so-called 'dream ticket' and a drift towards people who just don't care, but there is a shocking lack of context.

How does that compare with bumps that he might receive with anyone else on the ticket with him? Would the bump be as prevalent if you included a VP candidate for McCain? Is there a demographic that isn't already starting to drift to Obama that would benefit from Clinton that wouldn't also be handled by time/other VP choices?

More importantly, what will a Clinton Vice Presidency mean to the candidate beyond the immediate polls?

The truth of the matter is a 'slight bump' when you add an additional name on the ticket is not a compelling enough reason to include that person. Especially when that evidence is offered without any sort of controlling context like the effect of other candidates or of adding a name to the opponent as well. If a 'slight bump' is all she has to offer, keep trying.

She has an important future in the party. Being shoehorned into the Vice Presidency just might not be it. She actually understands this and has been trying to get ahead of supporters like you trying to force the issue. Some just haven't caught on yet.

Yes I do! Another title the president has is "Commander in Chief" When the Commander in Chief orders soldiers into battle, that costs a great deal of money. The more that is spent, the greater burden on the economy.

Or if the Commander in Chief uses unecessary hawkish language as part of his foreign policy, the defense plans have to be beefed up since you now have a nation that is more angry with you. That costs a lot of money too!

This is Bush's fault! (http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174884)

*sighs*

There's no arguing with Dragontide. No matter the evidence presented, he's going to believe whatever the hell he wants to.

Plus that only shows "Obama/None" v "Obama/Clinton" - We don't see what effect any other vp might have.

*sighs*

There's no arguing with Dragontide. No matter the evidence presented, he's going to believe whatever the hell he wants to.

Yea, honestly, Bush-bashing got old a long time ago. yes, he's a shitty president who's hurt the country badly. No, he's not personally responsible for every single bad thing that's ever happened.

Plus that only shows "Obama/None" v "Obama/Clinton" - We don't see what effect any other vp might have.

Most likely the bump Obama gets when Hillary name is mentioned is from her supporters. Anyone else wont give you the result HILLARY can.

Most likely the bump Obama gets when Hillary name is mentioned is from her supporters. Anyone else wont give you the result HILLARY can.

Yep...

A democratic defeat in 2008.

Yep...

A democratic defeat in 2008.

There are many people he could pick who would guarantee that - Rev. Wright, for example. While Clinton would hurt him she would by no means make it impossible for him to win.

Most likely the bump Obama gets when Hillary name is mentioned is from her supporters. Anyone else wont give you the result HILLARY can.

Sebelius would provide a boost among women, Webb or Clark among military men/people who want someone strong of foreign policy, etc. Clinton may have the most immediate effect (would affect a current poll) any other vp would help by November when they are studied by people and the media. Clinton's been in the limelight for ~5 months, so people know more about her. When the same happens to any other VP choice they'll have more of an effect.

Apparently the US Congress disagreed when they allowed the Florida votes to be counted. No one challenged that in Congress nor was their a motion to dismiss them even though there should have been.
Again you are mistaken: apparently you have not been as obsessive about the minutiae of this case as I have been.

Many in Congress did move to protest the electoral votes of Florida: it was in fact a rather raucous and noisy scene. However, the counting of the electoral votes is done by a Joint Session, and the procedural rules are that a motion of protest will only be opened for debate (as happened in 1868, 1876, and 1960; 1876 being the only time it led to a prolonged dispute) if it is co-sponsored by at least one member of each body. No *Senator* joined the Representatives in protesting, so the motions were dismissed. This happened because the Senators were heavily pressured to stay silent by-- none other than Al Gore himself.

Gore of course had his reasons: since his lawyers had freely participated in the Supreme Court arguments, he was in a poor position to say that the Court had no right to make the decision. And, of course he was aware that people who (like myself) persist in regarding the decision as flatly unacceptable were (and still are) distinctly in the minority. Americans have a strong streak of what Oliver Wendell Holmes called "legal pragmatism", the notion that "Often in the law it is less important that an issue be settled correctly, than that it be *settled*". Aside from pro-Bush people who thought the Court's decision was fine, there were a lot of pro-Gore people who thought it was terrible, but figured "oh well, he stole it fair and square; let's get over it and move on".

I continue to disagree. This was one of the issues which it was crucial to settle *correctly*. I predicted way back in January 2001 (not on this board, of course, but on the boards I hung out on at the time) that abandoning the bedrock principle of our system would put ALL of our Constitutional principles up for grabs. I really didn't expect to live to see the day when America practiced indefinite detention without trial or even charges, and secretly tortured and sometimes murdered the prisoners it held in such a formerly-un-American way, but we have indeed seen it come to pass.

I like John McCain because he defends the strong Christian values of this country that hold together the moral fabric that our nation clings to like a barnacle to a whale.

Dude, now you're just making things up. Constitutionally allowable? Have you read Article II? The states decide how they allocate electors. It can be based on just about anything. Some states are passing laws that their electors won't be allocated based on the vote of their state at all. But, of course, you know that, right? Since you can tell me what's "constitutionally allowable" and whatnot?
Have you ever heard of a thing called the Civil War? Since then, the States are not given as much latitude as they had under the original Constitution. In particular, read the 14th Amendment: if any part of the population is denied the right to vote for the Presidential electors, that State's representation in Congress will be diminished in that proportion. Yes of course I am aware that Florida considered allocating electors without any popular vote at all. The Republicans backed off of that when it was pointed out that, in that case, Florida would be allowed to have ZERO members of the House of Representatives (that's right, it would be allowed to have 100% of the population is disenfranchised in the Presidential election, but in that case the Congressional delegation would be diminished by 100%; that's what the text says, it doesn't even say that a State gets to retain one single seat in such a case).
There is no "bedrock American law" like the one you stated. You're completely full of it. Cite this "bedrock American law". I'd love to see it.
The Preamble to the United States Constitution. If our elections are not determined by what We the People choose, then on what basis does the Constitution itself have any legal force?
I have already cited the Florida statutory text that the intent of the voters is controlling: essentially identical boilerplate language is in the election laws of every single state. It has always, from the beginning of the nation, been understood as the principle on which everything else is based.

Have you ever heard of a thing called the Civil War? Since then, the States are not given as much latitude as they had under the original Constitution. In particular, read the 14th Amendment: if any part of the population is denied the right to vote for the Presidential electors, that State's representation in Congress will be diminished in that proportion. Yes of course I am aware that Florida considered allocating electors without any popular vote at all. The Republicans backed off of that when it was pointed out that, in that case, Florida would be allowed to have ZERO members of the House of Representatives (that's right, it would be allowed to have 100% of the population is disenfranchised in the Presidential election, but in that case the Congressional delegation would be diminished by 100%; that's what the text says, it doesn't even say that a State gets to retain one single seat in such a case).

The Preamble to the United States Constitution. If our elections are not determined by what We the People choose, then on what basis does the Constitution itself have any legal force?
I have already cited the Florida statutory text that the intent of the voters is controlling: essentially identical boilerplate language is in the election laws of every single state. It has always, from the beginning of the nation, been understood as the principle on which everything else is based.

Like I said, making things up. It wasn't Florida that has passed a law where the vote in their state doesn't determine the application of their electors, it was DE. IL is another one consider the same thing.

According to the US Constitution the laws of the state determine the allocation of electors. It says nothing about how it must do so. In fact, it says it is up to them. The fourteenth amendment doesn't change that. It only says they cannot be disenfranchised. And they wouldn't have to be, of course. See they could simply say, "we did our best to determine an outcome and used the certified results required by our law." Their law doesn't require a recount of the undervotes. It requires a recount and it had already happened. It also doesn't require that the electoral count reflect the votes of their state.

Now, I'll wait for you to quote the law that actually supports your claim that there can be no deadline in FL. You say you cited the statute, but you didn't. You loosely referenced it. Quote the actual statute.

As far as that bullshit "we the people" argument. There wouldn't be an electoral college if "we the people" were supposed to choose the President. We don't. We choose electors according to the laws of our states and THEY choose the President.

Like I said, making things up. It wasn't Florida that has passed a law where the vote in their state doesn't determine the application of their electors, it was DE. IL is another one consider the same thing.
I said Florida had *considered* it during the 2000 debacle. I have not heard anything about Delaware or Illinois considering any such thing (source?), but if they go through with it, they forfeit their seats in Congress.
According to the US Constitution the laws of the state determine the allocation of electors. It says nothing about how it must do so. In fact, it says it is up to them. The fourteenth amendment doesn't change that.
You are mistaken. Read the text.
It only says they cannot be disenfranchised. And they wouldn't have to be, of course. See they could simply say, "we did our best to determine an outcome and used the certified results required by our law."
You are mistaken on two counts here. Florida didn't "do its best" (the Supreme Court stopped it from doing so; Florida could have finished recounting). And the Florida law does NOT require that the certified results stand, if subsequently they are challenged.
Their law doesn't require a recount of the undervotes.
The law requires that the intent of the voters control.
Now, I'll wait for you to quote the law that actually supports your claim that there can be no deadline in FL. You say you cited the statute, but you didn't.
What I SAID was that I had cited the statutory language on the intent of the voter, which I had. I did not claim to have cited the statute on post-certification "contests" versus pre-certification "protests", or the case-law in which such contests have continued even after inauguration of the disputedly "elected" official. As you claim to be a Floridian, it ought to be easier for you than for me to look these things up. Your earlier demand that I cite the statute on voter intent when I had already done so gives the strong impression that you don't really give the damn what the facts or the laws are and that if I bother to cite Florida law in more detail you will just act like CH about it and pretend not to have seen.
As far as that bullshit "we the people" argument. There wouldn't be an electoral college if "we the people" were supposed to choose the President. We don't. We choose electors according to the laws of our states and THEY choose the President.
You are not understanding my point, but in this case I am willing to assume that it was a failure on my part to convey it.
Why are the "laws of the states" laws in the first place? Because legislators voted for them. But why are they legislators? Because they were chosen by procedures in the state constitutions. Why are the state constitutions "laws"? The people ratified them.
WHY IS THE U.S. CONSTITUTION "LAW" IN THE FIRST PLACE? Only because the people voted for it. It has no other basis.
In the Bizarro world described by people who think Bush "won" the election in Florida even if, in fact, more voters in Florida wanted Gore, I do not understand what you think the purpose of holding an election is. If an election is just some kind of sporting event (a player intended to shoot a basket, but it clanked off the rim, so it doesn't count; a voter intended a particular candidate, but the cardboard didn't detach, so it doesn't count), there is no moral reason for me to feel bound by the results. I did not agree with President Reagan, but I was given the opportunity to participate in the process which chose him, and so I was bound by the result; I never did learn to like him, but I never doubted he was the legitimately elected "President". But what is Dubya to me? I was never consulted about this notion about deciding who fills this important office by mechanical mishaps and a final umpiring by the Nine (I agree with James Madison, as cited in Breyer's dissent: "It would be unthinkable to allow the Supreme Court a role [in deciding disputed Presidential elections], since it is the body least responsive to the popular will").

So: while I recognize that Dubya controls a great preponderance of force, and that it is prudential to avoid getting in trouble with the government, I feel no moral obligation to abide by any law passed over his signature or any court decision rendered by judges he appointed; I would evade any of them if I can get away with it.

Plus that only shows "Obama/None" v "Obama/Clinton" - We don't see what effect any other vp might have.
The important thing to note is that the bump was PLUS 5, which flies in the face of the naysayers here.

As far as that bullshit "we the people" argument. There wouldn't be an electoral college if "we the people" were supposed to choose the President. We don't. We choose electors according to the laws of our states and THEY choose the President.

Call me crazy, but I've always disagreed with that. I don't honestly think the electoral college serves a real purpose anymore, and as we've seen in the past, the electoral college can sometimes bring on a rather horrible result. (Obviously not even remotely guaranteed, and yes I realize that is an extremely rare event, but that's beside the point.)

But what do you think about this? Think we should ditch the EC, or should we hold onto it? (I say at least divvy up the electoral votes by percentage of the vote in the state rather than being winner takes all...)

The important thing to note is that the bump was PLUS 5, which flies in the face of the naysayers here.

But again, it did not take into account the effect on non-Democrat leaning independents and possible Republicans who would vote for Obama, which would be far more negative than any positives Obama would gain.

He does not need a chaparone, and he's not going to get one.

The important thing to note is that the bump was PLUS 5, which flies in the face of the naysayers here.

except that it doesn't. listen, we know that there are lots of people who came off the primary swearing that it was hillary or nobody, bitterly declaring to the heavens that they were voting for mccain rather than not-clinton.
we've met them here.
these people are fooling themselves - this was always obvious. and lo and behold, immediately after she conceded they started moving his way. but they aren't all there yet, so including her on the ticket artificially raises his numbers. but they will be on board without her by the end. she does nothing for him that he won't do all on his own, and hurts him deeply in other ways.

But again, it did not take into account the effect on non-Democrat leaning independents and possible Republicans who would vote for Obama, which would be far more negative than any positives Obama would gain.
The poll interview was with "national registered voters". That would include all subsets.

A few days ago, I posted a poll that showed that Clinton's favourable ratings among Independents had risen to 54, and Obama's had declined to less than 50 since the middle of Feb. Also, Clinton's favourable ratings amongst Republicans had doubled to 24, matching Obama's decline to 24. Explain that.

He does not need a chaparone, and he's not going to get one.
Chaperone is going to be the operative word now huh? Obama needs Hillary on the ticket.

Call me crazy, but I've always disagreed with that. I don't honestly think the electoral college serves a real purpose anymore, and as we've seen in the past, the electoral college can sometimes bring on a rather horrible result. (Obviously not even remotely guaranteed, and yes I realize that is an extremely rare event, but that's beside the point.)

But what do you think about this? Think we should ditch the EC, or should we hold onto it? (I say at least divvy up the electoral votes by percentage of the vote in the state rather than being winner takes all...)
I totally agree with you here. The general election should be about the people and the people should elect the President. Whoever is +1 wins.

The poll interview was with "national registered voters". That would include all subsets.
Does it? Can you please link to the poll again and point out where it says this?

A few days ago, I posted a poll that showed that Clinton's favourable ratings among Independents had risen to 54, and Obama's had declined to less than 50 since the middle of Feb. Also, Clinton's favourable ratings amongst Republicans had doubled to 24, matching Obama's decline to 24. Explain that.

Again, please show this poll. (As for explaining it, that would have to wait till I see the poll to see what exactly it says.)


Chaperone is going to be the operative word now huh? Obama needs Hillary on the ticket.

It is the operative word in this case because that's exactly how she'll be perceived.

Senator Clinton CAN help Senator Obama, but not by being on his ticket. She can help him much better by giving him her support publicly and possibly serving in his cabinet. Putting her on the ticket would cause too many negatives to be worth it.

Obama, since Hilary's out ):

Obama needs Hillary on the ticket.

No, he doesn't. And he knows he doesn't. By the way, will you answer that post of mine, or so I find myself, once more, wasting my time with you? If you won't answer, tell me, please, what is your excuse now?

For someone as seemingly concerned with 'junk science' you'd think you'd be a little more critical of the evidence that you do present.
I have been critical of RCP for many good reasons, Because I am critical of one poll, doesn't exclude the possibility that other polls may be similarly lacking.

Never mind that the poll presented showing a waining in enthusiasm towards the so-called 'dream ticket' and a drift towards people who just don't care, but there is a shocking lack of context.
I think you are being a tad overdramatic in regards to the context; however in regards to a softening of support in the poll there can be a multitude of reasons and that is why polls invariably go up and down. The largest point is that a majority of Democrats support Clinton on the ticket. If you remove the one who are indifferent, Clinton scores 60% of those that cared to make themselves heard.

How does that compare with bumps that he might receive with anyone else on the ticket with him?
Unless someone polls for that answer, we don't know.

Would the bump be as prevalent if you included a VP candidate for McCain?
Obviously it would be one of three results.....the same, higher, or lower.

Is there a demographic that isn't already starting to drift to Obama that would benefit from Clinton that wouldn't also be handled by time/other VP choices?
All intangilbles.

More importantly, what will a Clinton Vice Presidency mean to the candidate beyond the immediate polls?
More intangibles. I believe that the benefit would be greater for the candidate. It will be interesting to see more polling data and then comparisons can be made.

The truth of the matter is a 'slight bump' when you add an additional name on the ticket is not a compelling enough reason to include that person.
5% is a rather large bump if one considers just how many votes that would represent. If Kerry had received 1.2% more of the vote in Ohio in 2004, Bush would have been defeated.

Especially when that evidence is offered without any sort of controlling context like the effect of other candidates or of adding a name to the opponent as well. If a 'slight bump' is all she has to offer, keep trying.
I think it is a rather huge bump.

She has an important future in the party. Being shoehorned into the Vice Presidency just might not be it.
But it makes the most sense if Obama wants the keys to the White House in Jan.

She actually understands this and has been trying to get ahead of supporters like you trying to force the issue. Some just haven't caught on yet.
If Clinton is tossed aside like a rag doll, I believe the consequences will be devestating for the Dems.

You seem to suggest that you know what it is that Clinton wants and that others are crowding her space?

I said Florida had *considered* it during the 2000 debacle. I have not heard anything about Delaware or Illinois considering any such thing (source?), but if they go through with it, they forfeit their seats in Congress.

Uh, no, they don't. First, we're only talking about representatives, not all of Congress. Second, there is NO law that says they must select electors in a winner take all system. There are TONS of options all legal. Deleware's IS legal. Never heard of NPV? The Constitution only requires that everyone be permitted to vote equally. That is all it requires. How that vote is used is irrelevant. The NPV bill would make it so electors are not selected as a result of state vote. There is nothing illegal about it. But, hey, there's no rule you have to have the first clue what you're talking about.

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/explanation.php

You are mistaken. Read the text.

This is not an argument. Let me know when you have one. Shaking your head is contrary, but it doesn't mean I'm wrong. Would you like to tell me where in the text it says what you claim. You seem to think vague references to law is the same as supporting your argument. It isn't.

You are mistaken on two counts here. Florida didn't "do its best" (the Supreme Court stopped it from doing so; Florida could have finished recounting). And the Florida law does NOT require that the certified results stand, if subsequently they are challenged.

No, it did. Counting undervotes is NOT REQUIRED. You may have wanted it to be required. There is no requirement federal or otherwise that you take ballots and guess at the intention of the voter. The Supreme did not stop the recount. A full statewide recount occurred. The Supreme Court stopped the counting of undervotes which is NOT REQUIRED.

The law requires that the intent of the voters control.

You keep saying this. Give the exact law and its text. I'll wait.


What I SAID was that I had cited the statutory language on the intent of the voter, which I had. I did not claim to have cited the statute on post-certification "contests" versus pre-certification "protests", or the case-law in which such contests have continued even after inauguration of the disputedly "elected" official. As you claim to be a Floridian, it ought to be easier for you than for me to look these things up. Your earlier demand that I cite the statute on voter intent when I had already done so gives the strong impression that you don't really give the damn what the facts or the laws are and that if I bother to cite Florida law in more detail you will just act like CH about it and pretend not to have seen.

Cite the law. Stop with the vague references. Why would it be easier as a Floridian? Also, I don't live there now. I've lived there on and off and my family has lived there since 1995. You realize this is the internet. You have the same access to Florida law on the internet as I do, as Germans do, as Russians do.

You didn't cite the law. You vaguely referenced it. Show the text. Showing your sources is a requirement for debate. I read in a Florida newspaper that you're a pedophile. You have access to newspapers. Go ahead. Look it up. (See, how silly things become when you don't have to actually demonstrate your case.)

You are not understanding my point, but in this case I am willing to assume that it was a failure on my part to convey it.
Why are the "laws of the states" laws in the first place? Because legislators voted for them. But why are they legislators? Because they were chosen by procedures in the state constitutions. Why are the state constitutions "laws"? The people ratified them.
WHY IS THE U.S. CONSTITUTION "LAW" IN THE FIRST PLACE? Only because the people voted for it. It has no other basis.

Seriously, you're completely off the rails at this point. How does rambling like this help your case? Yes, people vote for lots of things. That has shite to do with whether or not the selection of electors is subject to Florida law and whether there is a time limit.

In the Bizarro world described by people who think Bush "won" the election in Florida even if, in fact, more voters in Florida wanted Gore, I do not understand what you think the purpose of holding an election is.

I love this. This is what it always comes down to. When you challenge the "they stole the election" loons, they eventually just end up rambling that those that recognize that Bush won don't care about votes. In order for Gore to have won, the courts had to override the state and local legislatures and change the way votes are counted. The voting as tallied followed Florida law. Florida is not required under any Federal or local statute to count undervotes.

I snipped the rest where you demonstrate that you think that there is some moral requirement for legislators and various other officials to guess at the "intent" of the voter. The intent of the voter is irrelevant. What matters is who they voted for. If you intend to vote for Gore but vote for Bush, then your vote for Bush counts. If I "meant" to write in P. Herman but I accidentally write in P. Manher. Then my vote is for P. Manher. I don't trust lawyers to guess what I had for dinner last night let alone who I intended to vote for.

Voting is a legal process and if you can't manage to do so within the bounds of the law then your vote doesn't count. The law doesn't change willy nilly based on who has the most influence. The law sets a standard for how votes are counte PRIOR to the vote. Changing it after the fact isn't morally justified. I believe that there was much FRAUD in that election. People should go to jail and I've said that repeatedly. But you don't get to change the rules after the fact. Gore lost according to the rules. Quit crying about it. It's over.

No, he doesn't. And he knows he doesn't. By the way, will you answer that post of mine, or so I find myself, once more, wasting my time with you? If you won't answer, tell me, please, what is your excuse now?
I read your post and it is just more of the same old same old. It is laced with anti Clinton bias, fluffed up with a mess of rhetoric, garnished with emotional appeal, and then you try to sell Obama as the dessert.

Your lack of facts and the fact that you seem to suggest that I can't fathom what is going on in the world doesn't exactly tweak my interest in attempting a reply, and I am certain that will not appeal to you.

The important thing to note is that the bump was PLUS 5, which flies in the face of the naysayers here.

And yet...there's no VP for McCain so we really do not know for sure how the polls played out. All we have is for an Obama/Clinton ticket but that does not coincide with a VP for John McCain.

Its called biasness. If you have a VP for one candidate, have one for the other and then poll.

Ja... Nihongo de, "quod erat demonstrandum" wa nani de iu ka? :p

Wakanai.

Tokoro de, TUO no imi wa nani desu ka?

"The Unmentionable One" AKA HRC.

So I'm right about Reagan, he just gets a free pass because of the era?[qUOTE]

Nope. If anyone/thing gets a pass, it's the era itself due to different focuses.

When the Cold War was over, Bush I was a transitory figure, and BC was the first to set post-CW FP.

[QUOTE=Dragontide]So exactly what would you have done if you were our 90s president? (about Iraq & Afganistan) Call them up and say "We don't trust you guys anymore! Can we have our weapons back???"

Currently, the foreign policy is a disaster because of Bush's Yippie-Ki-Yea language! (that he said the other day he regreted) North Korea was a wait & see nation until Bush added them to the Axis of Evil in 2001! And all the hell we needed after that was for more Mexicans to hate us so Bush sugessted a wall be built along the border, even though it will never be built!

I'm not going to bother with this here. If you really want me to show the hows and why's of BC's failed FP, we can take it to another thread. This hijack's gone on long enough. My point that other people do not view the Clinton Presidency through your rose colored glasses has either been shown or ignored.

This is what she pretty much said. "It took one Clinton to clean up after the first Bush, and it'll take another to clean up after the second one."

You give Bill Clinton far too much credit for the 90's economy. I admit he was a much better Prez than Bush (either one). You do realize though how much Presidents really have over the economy right? He happened to be in the right place when tech went bananas, good for him. He also happened to rely on alan Greenspan (the real controller of the economy with more power than Prez at the fed). I really wish people here had more macroeconomic knowledge than they do. Hell, they can be advisers to McCain though. :(

Exactly so.

Clinton is just too risky.

Indeed.

I like John McCain because he defends the strong Christian values of this country that hold together the moral fabric that our nation clings to like a barnacle to a whale.

I'm glad to see McCain isn't pandering to the "agents of intolerance" like Bush did (http://www.iht.com/articles/2000/02/29/bush.2.t_9.php)... Oh wait... he did (http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/8313.html)

If JMc hadn't sold out like this, and on Iraq, he'd be a viable choice.

Mr. John "they are corrupting influences on religion and politics" McCain should have kept good his word...

And, to inject a sorely needed bit of fun back in here...

Company markets condoms based on US presidential candidates Obama and McCain

NEW YORK (AP) -- An entrepreneur has decided to "have fun" with the U.S. presidential campaign by marketing condoms featuring images of the candidates, Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain.

Benjamin Sherman, who created the company Practice Safe Policy, says the Obama condom carries the slogan "Use With Good Judgment." The McCain version says "OLD BUT Not Expired." McCain is 71.

According to the Web site, McCain condoms "are battle tested, strong and durable, for those occasions when you just need to switch your position!" McCain served in the military in Vietnam and was held as a prisoner of war there.

While the company can't guarantee the condoms are 100 percent effective, it says it's certain "that without wearing one, there's likely to be an Obama-Mama in your future."
http://mdn.mainichi.jp/culture/waiwai/world/news/20080613p2g00m0dm013000c.html

I'll just let that one speak for itself...

Call me crazy, but I've always disagreed with that. I don't honestly think the electoral college serves a real purpose anymore, and as we've seen in the past, the electoral college can sometimes bring on a rather horrible result. (Obviously not even remotely guaranteed, and yes I realize that is an extremely rare event, but that's beside the point.)

But what do you think about this? Think we should ditch the EC, or should we hold onto it? (I say at least divvy up the electoral votes by percentage of the vote in the state rather than being winner takes all...)

I totally agree with you here. The general election should be about the people and the people should elect the President. Whoever is +1 wins.

We could award electors by Congressional district, the way Maine and Nebraska do. One elctor is awarded to the winner in each district within the state, and the overall winner gets the two "at large" electors. Neither state has split their vote yet, but it almost happened in Maine back in '92 when the 2nd District nearly went for Perot.

Wakanai.

I meant to ask how can you say "As I wanted to demonstrate". Sorry.

I read your post and it is just more of the same old same old. It is laced with anti Clinton bias, fluffed up with a mess of rhetoric, garnished with emotional appeal, and then you try to sell Obama as the dessert.

Your lack of facts and the fact that you seem to suggest that I can't fathom what is going on in the world doesn't exactly tweak my interest in attempting a reply, and I am certain that will not appeal to you.

You see, I spent that post arguing. You didn't. You only claim anti-Clinton bias, and act as if the woman was ENTITLED to be in the ticket REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE ACTUAL CANDIDATE WANTS, AND REGARDLESS OF ANYTHING.

It's not about the post. It's about your lack of arguments against it. You know it, I know it, EVERYONE HERE knows it.

If Clinton is tossed aside like a rag doll, I believe the consequences will be devestating for the Dems.

For the last time, SHE IS NOT BEING TOSSED ASIDE LIKE A RAG DOLL! She's being refused as a VP candidate by someone that has the right to, and she's likely being considered as part of the President's cabinet. TELL ME HOW IS THAT "TOSSING SOMEONE AWAY"!

EVEN SHE isn't demanding the position of VP, and is keeping a low-profile about it. You know why? BECAUSE SHE KNOWS she's not entitled by birthright to the VP spot.

Yes I do! Another title the president has is "Commander in Chief" When the Commander in Chief orders soldiers into battle, that costs a great deal of money. The more that is spent, the greater burden on the economy.

Or if the Commander in Chief uses unecessary hawkish language as part of his foreign policy, the defense plans have to be beefed up since you now have a nation that is more angry with you. That costs a lot of money too!

This is Bush's fault! (http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174884)

How did you read my saying Alan Greenspan was more responsible for the economy then Clinton, and turn it into me agreeing with Bush? As far as war goes, you're kidding right? Wars cost money and endanger military lives? Tell me more :p Our foreign policy up to this point has been atrocious. I understand all too well what the cost is to members of our armed forces. If you knew me you'd know that.

Now let's get back to Clinton. The divisiveness that started during that administration carried over right into the Bush presidency. Bush pushed it to a whole new level, allowing Karl Rove and Dick Cheney to call all the shots for their front man. The price of US lives and treasure is horrific and not necessary to this level. We fought for our own freedom and made it through without foreign military forces on our own soil. The French played a role, but they were not placed in large numbers on the US mainland. It's time for the Iraqis to step up and show they can make it on their own.

For someone as seemingly concerned with 'junk science' you'd think you'd be a little more critical of the evidence that you do present.

Never mind that the poll presented showing a waining in enthusiasm towards the so-called 'dream ticket' and a drift towards people who just don't care, but there is a shocking lack of context.

How does that compare with bumps that he might receive with anyone else on the ticket with him? Would the bump be as prevalent if you included a VP candidate for McCain? Is there a demographic that isn't already starting to drift to Obama that would benefit from Clinton that wouldn't also be handled by time/other VP choices?

More importantly, what will a Clinton Vice Presidency mean to the candidate beyond the immediate polls?

The truth of the matter is a 'slight bump' when you add an additional name on the ticket is not a compelling enough reason to include that person. Especially when that evidence is offered without any sort of controlling context like the effect of other candidates or of adding a name to the opponent as well. If a 'slight bump' is all she has to offer, keep trying.

She has an important future in the party. Being shoehorned into the Vice Presidency just might not be it. She actually understands this and has been trying to get ahead of supporters like you trying to force the issue. Some just haven't caught on yet.

Stop, you're just attacking him you elitist. Now make a reasoned response...Ooops, sorry. Do proceed Sir! :eek:

The important thing to note is that the bump was PLUS 5, which flies in the face of the naysayers here.

Ooh, all this in June?

And yet...there's no VP for McCain so we really do not know for sure how the polls played out. All we have is for an Obama/Clinton ticket but that does not coincide with a VP for John McCain.

Its called biasness. If you have a VP for one candidate, have one for the other and then poll.

Damn that statistical analysis crap again. What is it with you and extrapolating data from polls? Read it as the numbers show. That way you won't get confused with all that math stuff.

How did you read my saying Alan Greenspan was more responsible for the economy then Clinton, and turn it into me agreeing with Bush? As far as war goes, you're kidding right? Wars cost money and endanger military lives? Tell me more :p Our foreign policy up to this point has been atrocious. I understand all too well what the cost is to members of our armed forces. If you knew me you'd know that.

Now let's get back to Clinton. The divisiveness that started during that administration carried over right into the Bush presidency. Bush pushed it to a whole new level, allowing Karl Rove and Dick Cheney to call all the shots for their front man. The price of US lives and treasure is horrific and not necessary to this level. We fought for our own freedom and made it through without foreign military forces on our own soil. The French played a role, but they were not placed in large numbers on the US mainland. It's time for the Iraqis to step up and show they can make it on their own.

Reaganomics - Failed
Bush Sr's economy - Bad
Clinton's economy - Good
President Bush's economy - Worst since Herbert Hoover

This is what voters are concerned with.

Reaganomics - Failed
Bush Sr's economy - Bad
Clinton's economy - pretend
President Bush's economy - Worst since Herbert Hoover

This is what voters are concerned with.

fixed

Bob Barr!

Obama is a socialist that will ruin this country

McCain is a useless status quo candidate, not a real conservative

Ralph Nader is the socialist the helped Bush in 2000

Chuck Baldwin is a theocrat

The Green Party sucks

fixed

Voters don't live in pretendworld.

This is what Americans look at more than anything else. Policy aside, this is the number one indicator of their willingness to vote for her. Couple this with her negative numbers and she is more of a liability as VP. People will stay home not to vote for Obama far less than people will come out to vote against her. She should play the role she has said she would which is campaigning for Obama. This will help ease the rift, and will impact Obama less than her as a VP.



63% of your own party? Her trust level among independents, the people who generally (always) win the race for either side, is crap. She will not get many Republicans votes for, but a lot against. Independents favor Obama more than Clinton or McCain. This is a good sign for him not to choose her for VP.



It's gone even higher than that now. You cannot win with these numbers.

Now you didn't really respond to my post regarding 6 VP picks. Your non-response was "Hillary is better for all the reasons I've said before. No analysis of her against each candidate, just "she's better." Now debate or stop boring me.
First problem with this post, is that you put your comment inside my quote box.....it appears that you are putting words in my mouth, to the point of it makes it look as if I am using profane language. Please fix the tags and it will make it easier to respond.

The 2nd problem is that you did not provide links to the data that you provided.

And yet...there's no VP for McCain so we really do not know for sure how the polls played out.
You know exactly how the polls played out. It tells you. An Obama/Clinton ticket draws 50% of the vote, and McCain without a VP candidate draws 45%.
All we have is for an Obama/Clinton ticket but that does not coincide with a VP for John McCain.
No shit Sherlock.

Its called biasness.
There is no such word as "biasness"....if you meant bias....how is that poll biased?

If you have a VP for one candidate, have one for the other and then poll.
McCain doesn't have a VP candidate as yet, and neither does Obama, but due to all the talk in regards to Clinton as possible VP, then the question is a viable one.

The result was favourable. Obama went up 5% and McCain went down 1%.

I meant to ask how can you say "As I wanted to demonstrate". Sorry.

I understood the question fine. I just don't know the answer. No worries, eh.

Voters don't live in pretendworld.

Unfortunately, large numbers (of all stripes) actually do live there, for all practical purposes.

Obama is a socialist that will ruin this country

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

I understood the question fine. I just don't know the answer. No worries, eh.

Ah, right. Thought I had made a mistake in the phrasing of the question...

Ore no nihongo wa chotto yowai kara...

Voters don't live in pretendworld.

unfortunately, history says otherwise. or, at least, large numbers of them like to imagine that they do.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Invocation of The Montoya Principle? You win!

Invocation of The Montoya Principle? You win!

Well, most of all, ADEQUATE invocation of the principle. ;)

Obama is a socialist atheist Muslim who attends a church ran by racist blacks and he also seeks money at all costs. And he's an elitist whose mother raised him on food-stamps.

Because, apparently, it's possible to be a socialist capitalist, as well as an atheist Muslim Christian churchgoer food-stamp-raised elitist

Are we done?

Obama is a socialist atheist Muslim who attends a church ran by racist blacks and he also seeks money at all costs. And he's an elitist whose mother raised him on food-stamps.

Because, apparently, it's possible to be a socialist capitalist, as well as an atheist Muslim Christian churchgoer food-stamp-raised elitist

Are we done?

You forgot that he'll bomb Pakistan and has links with TERRORISTS OMG TERRORISTS IF YOU VOTE BARACK HUSSIEN MOHAMMED OBOMBER BIN LADEN THE TERRORISTS WIN.

I have been critical of RCP for many good reasons, Because I am critical of one poll, doesn't exclude the possibility that other polls may be similarly lacking.
Not surprisingly, this has nothing to do with what you quoted.


I think you are being a tad overdramatic in regards to the context; however in regards to a softening of support in the poll there can be a multitude of reasons and that is why polls invariably go up and down. The largest point is that a majority of Democrats support Clinton on the ticket. If you remove the one who are indifferent, Clinton scores 60% of those that cared to make themselves heard.
Again, for someone who tosses about the term "junk science" one would think you'd be more concerned about context, because if you want a statistic to tell you shit, it has to have context. Comparing a single change on one side without exploring the other options or altering any of the variables on the other side and then calling that a conclusion is a lot more like 'junk science' than averaging a set of polls.


Unless someone polls for that answer, we don't know.


Obviously it would be one of three results.....the same, higher, or lower.


All intangilbles.


More intangibles. I believe that the benefit would be greater for the candidate. It will be interesting to see more polling data and then comparisons can be made.
They aren't intangible, they aren't measured. Without measuring them, the one measure means fuck all.


5% is a rather large bump if one considers just how many votes that would represent. If Kerry had received 1.2% more of the vote in Ohio in 2004, Bush would have been defeated.


I think it is a rather huge bump.
Once again, 5 months ago she had a 20% bump to win the nomination. She is not now the candidate. You want me to get all excited about a 5% bump, just outside the margin of error, five months away from the election? Sorry, uncompelling. Especially since, yet again, it lacks any context.


But it makes the most sense if Obama wants the keys to the White House in Jan.
Your evidence for this is lacking.


If Clinton is tossed aside like a rag doll, I believe the consequences will be devestating for the Dems.
Please be specific about 'being tossed aside like a rag doll.' Where have I suggested such, or where has Obama suggested such? I believe I have been consistent in saying that she has in fact earned an important role in the party. How is that 'tossing her aside like a rag doll?' Obama in his victory speech said that she would be playing a crucial and important role. How is that 'tossing her aside like a rag doll?' Now who is being overdramatic?

You seem to suggest that you know what it is that Clinton wants and that others are crowding her space?
Just, you know, going by what she's said-
"While Senator Clinton has made clear throughout this process that she will do whatever she can to elect a Democrat to the White House, she is not seeking the vice presidency, and no one speaks for her but her," said her campaign.

You forgot that he'll bomb Pakistan and has links with TERRORISTS OMG TERRORISTS IF YOU VOTE BARACK HUSSIEN MOHAMMED OBOMBER BIN LADEN THE TERRORISTS WIN.

Yep. He'll bomb Pakistan to hunt terrorists because he's a terrorist. :p

You know exactly how the polls played out. It tells you. An Obama/Clinton ticket draws 50% of the vote, and McCain without a VP candidate draws 45%.

And that's the problem.

Reaganomics - Failed
Bush Sr's economy - Bad
Clinton's economy - Good
President Bush's economy - Worst since Herbert Hoover

This is what voters are concerned with.

You're right. Thank you for clearing that up. I thought i would be expecting a response to why Bill Clinton was far more effective than Greenspan. Bill Clinton was in the right place at the right time in terms of tech. He didn't create that industry did he? Greenspan kept inflation down and the dollar was strong. Bernake is not the successor to Alan. I hope he is not at the fed for a long haul, or that maybe he gets wise.

First problem with this post, is that you put your comment inside my quote box.....it appears that you are putting words in my mouth, to the point of it makes it look as if I am using profane language. Please fix the tags and it will make it easier to respond.

The 2nd problem is that you did not provide links to the data that you provided.

1. You couldn't figure it out who said what? Is my writing style that similar to yours?

2. I'm too tired to track down the links now. It's late and I'm tired. Before you get all up in arms about this, remember when we started these threads way back when. You did the exact same thing. I'll be back soon enough.

Edit: Now you didn't really respond to my post regarding 6 VP picks. Your non-response was "Hillary is better for all the reasons I've said before. No analysis of her against each candidate, just "she's better." Now debate or stop boring me.

Can I get an answer to a question I asked ages ago before I have to play research assistant for you? You ask for what you want, yet you expect not to have to answer the responses.

You're right. Thank you for clearing that up. I thought i would be expecting a response to why Bill Clinton was far more effective than Greenspan. Bill Clinton was in the right place at the right time in terms of tech. He didn't create that industry did he? Greenspan kept inflation down and the dollar was strong. Bernake is not the successor to Alan. I hope he is not at the fed for a long haul, or that maybe he gets wise.

You may be right but good luck explaining that to the average voter.

1. You couldn't figure it out who said what? Is my writing style that similar to yours?
Take your reply out of the quote box. That stops attributing your words as being perceived as mine. Also because your words are inside a quote box, when I click on reply, that quote box disappears and I am unable to reply to your comment.

2. I'm too tired to track down the links now. It's late and I'm tired. Before you get all up in arms about this, remember when we started these threads way back when. You did the exact same thing. I'll be back soon enough.
I don't recall that. I usually post a link or if asked, I provide one.

Edit: Now you didn't really respond to my post regarding 6 VP picks. Your non-response was "Hillary is better for all the reasons I've said before. No analysis of her against each candidate, just "she's better." Now debate or stop boring me.
I gave my answer as to why Hillary is a better candidate. If you think the others are better qualified then it is up to you to make that case.

Can I get an answer to a question I asked ages ago before I have to play research assistant for you? You ask for what you want, yet you expect not to have to answer the responses.
I am not asking you to be a "research assistant", I am just asking you to back up your material.

I am also asking you once again to back up your claims in this post:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13759430&postcount=539

I can understand your reluctance to qualify your talking points in that post.

CanuckHeaven, I was wondering if you could please answer this post:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13768075&postcount=164

Does it? Can you please link to the poll again and point out where it says this?
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13766039&postcount=126

Again, please show this poll. (As for explaining it, that would have to wait till I see the poll to see what exactly it says.)
After a considerable amount of digging, I was able to find it in the other thread:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13751545&postcount=267

It is the operative word in this case because that's exactly how she'll be perceived.
I consider the use of the word as being sexist in nature in this instance, in that if Hillary was a man, the use of the word chaperone would be inappropriate.

Senator Clinton CAN help Senator Obama, but not by being on his ticket.
She has an awful lot to offer, and as I have stated from the get go, I truly believe that the Dems will not succeed in November without her on the ticket.

Can Clinton muscle to a VP nod (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10538.html)?

She can help him much better by giving him her support publicly and possibly serving in his cabinet. Putting her on the ticket would cause too many negatives to be worth it.
50% of Democrats voted for Hillary in the primaries, especially in areas where Obama is weak. When one thinks about that long enough and hard enough that is very compelling.

From the article I linked to:

Morrison says putting Hillary Clinton on the ticket would have impact with voters. She would, he says, bring “white, working-class” people to the ticket, “the white ethnic voters” with whom Bill Clinton did well in 1992 and 1996 and with whom Al Gore and John Kerry did not do so well in 2000 and 2004.

Morrison does not diminish Obama’s accomplishments. “We have two really spectacular candidates,” he said. “They have stood up pretty well in a grueling battle for two years, and both are still standing. Neither has knocked the other out, and one is winning in the stretch.”

But Morrison said the choice of a vice president would be seen as Obama’s “first presidential decision,” and picking Hillary Clinton would reflect “the idea of bringing people together, the centerpiece of his campaign.” It would be, in other words, a good symbol.
In the end, though, it will still be about muscle.

“A lot of Democrats are very strongly for Hillary and much less so for him,” Morrison said. “The most efficient, most dramatic and most effective way to get them is to pick her.”

Hey, Clintonistas, present for you...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/15/opinion/15rich.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin

Snip.

From the article:

is a former congressman from Connecticut, [B]went to Yale Law School with Hillary and Bill Clinton, was co-chairman of Irish-Americans for Clinton-Gore and has worked closely with Hillary Clinton on immigration issues.

So, you refuse to answer my post due to what you call bias, and then proceed to use THIS as your source?

I consider the use of the word as being sexist in nature in this instance, in that if Hillary was a man, the use of the word chaperone would be inappropriate.

What? Calling HER a chaperone is sexist in nature? Do you know what that word means? Traditionally women HAD chaperones. That she being referenced as a chaperone for Obama is a slight on Obama and completely looks past her sex.

It's a reference to the idea that Obama can't be trusted with the White House without a party insider escort. You have to really ramp up the victim complex in order for it to be sexist. You also have to look entirely past that it's aimed at Obama, not Hillary, past the connotation of the word and the relevance of allowing her to be muscled onto the ticket (to use your word).

She would, he says, bring “white, working-class” people to the ticket, “the white ethnic voters” with whom Bill Clinton did well in 1992 and 1996 and with whom Al Gore and John Kerry did not do so well in 2000 and 2004.

I love how you twist assigning her a traditionally male role into sexism and post ^this in the same post. "the white ethnic voters", huh? Yeah, one of the sides is relying on bigotry. One doesn't have to look past your post to see which one.

All you guys are fucking hilarious.

What? Calling HER a chaperone is sexist in nature? Do you know what that word means? Traditionally women HAD chaperones. That she being referenced as a chaperone for Obama is a slight on Obama and completely looks past her sex.

Carefull. He will say that you are ignorant. You are right in what you say though.

It's a reference to the idea that Obama can't be trusted with the White House without a party insider escort. You have to really ramp up the victim complex in order for it to be sexist. You also have to look entirely past that it's aimed at Obama, not Hillary, past the connotation of the word and the relevance of allowing her to be muscled onto the ticket (to use your word).

Preach it dude :)

I love how you twist assigning her a traditionally male role into sexism and post ^this in the same post. "the white ethnic voters", huh? Yeah, one of the sides is relying on bigotry. One doesn't have to look past your post to see which one.

HAHA!

Anyone else notice that CH suddenly stopped using electoral-vote.com? I guess they've recently become "junk science" too, yeah?

Anyone else notice that CH suddenly stopped using electoral-vote.com? I guess they've recently become "junk science" too, yeah?

either that or he doesn't like the data that is showing Obama smacking McCain 304-221 with 13 tied.

either that or he doesn't like the data that is showing Obama smacking McCain 304-221 with 13 tied.

Well, of course. The only way Obama could possibly be gaining momentum is junk science. Because without Clinton on the ticket he can't win the "white ethnic voters".

Well, of course. The only way Obama could possibly be gaining momentum is junk science. Because without Clinton on the ticket he can't win the "white ethnic voters".

I know! I mean...how is he supposed to gain them without her! Oh the horror if she's not on the ticket.

either that or he doesn't like the data that is showing Obama smacking McCain 304-221 with 13 tied.
But with Hillary it was so much better:

Jun. 03 Electoral Votes (http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Clinton/Maps/Jun03.html): Clinton 327 McCain 194 Ties 17

:D

one of the more minor reasons is that I knew I'd be hearing about how much 'better' Clinton would be doing in those polls

But with Hillary it was so much better:

Jun. 03 Electoral Votes (http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Clinton/Maps/Jun03.html): Clinton 327 McCain 194 Ties 17

:D
Oh my prophetic soul...

But with Hillary it was so much better:

Jun. 03 Electoral Votes (http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Clinton/Maps/Jun03.html): Clinton 327 McCain 194 Ties 17

:D

Obama polls when Republicans don't run against him (http://mypenmypaper.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/find-x-lol.jpg): Obama 538 McCain 0

Let me know when you know what context is. Because here the context requires us to recognize that EVEN WITH no one actually running against her Clinton only polled a TINY bit stronger than Obama for a very short time. Good job finding x, though. Don't let anyone take that away from you.

But with Hillary it was so much better:

Jun. 03 Electoral Votes (http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Clinton/Maps/Jun03.html): Clinton 327 McCain 194 Ties 17

:D

News flash, she's not the nominee and wasn't going to be even when Jun 3rd rolled around.

News flash, she's not the nominee and wasn't going to be even when Jun 3rd rolled around.
Too bad....I really believed that this was going to be the year that the Dems knocked the Republicans out of the White House.

Oh well, at least you can be happy with McCain as President.

CanuckHeaven, I was wondering if you could please answer this post:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13768075&postcount=164

touche

Originally Posted by Cannot think of a name
one of the more minor reasons is that I knew I'd be hearing about how much 'better' Clinton would be doing in those polls

Quote:
Originally Posted by CanuckHeaven
But with Hillary it was so much better:

Jun. 03 Electoral Votes: Clinton 327 McCain 194 Ties 17

Oh my prophetic soul...
No, it is not how much better she would be doing, it was how much better she WAS doing!!

There is no prophecy there.

touche
touche? what do you mean by that?

Originally Posted by Cannot think of a name
one of the more minor reasons is that I knew I'd be hearing about how much 'better' Clinton would be doing in those polls

Quote:
Originally Posted by CanuckHeaven
But with Hillary it was so much better:

Jun. 03 Electoral Votes: Clinton 327 McCain 194 Ties 17


No, it is not how much better she would be doing, it was how much better she WAS doing!!

There is no prophecy there.
If it gets ya through the night...

Take your reply out of the quote box. That stops attributing your words as being perceived as mine. Also because your words are inside a quote box, when I click on reply, that quote box disappears and I am unable to reply to your comment.

You'd be well kept to have my words attributed to you.


I don't recall that. I usually post a link or if asked, I provide one.


I gave my answer as to why Hillary is a better candidate. If you think the others are better qualified then it is up to you to make that case.

I gave you 6 to chose from if you wanted to compare. Instead you made a blanket statement about how you already qualified it. You have not answered my question about why she is better than the 6. Have you been to a shopping site where they allowed you to click and compare? You compare them and carefully eliminate items that are of less value. But the comparison has to be made in order to do so. Saying, "I can summarily denounce them all on their face" does not work.




I am not asking you to be a "research assistant", I am just asking you to back up your material.

I am also asking you once again to back up your claims in this post:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13759430&postcount=539

I can understand your reluctance to qualify your talking points in that post.


Aye, this is the sound of you reaching dear boy. I will qualify those as being my opinion. You know how it goes right? "You'll never know until blah bleh blah." So once you ask all of the people who voted in Texas...then maybe we can play a game of gotcha. it's a simple enough answer that you thought worked before. I wouldn't want you showing hypocrisy now.

Now getting back to the debating part of this thread. Once you answer "in context" (one to one comparisons) I will go on along in this vain. I'd like to offer up this article regarding McCain and his historical situation. I'll let you make of it what you will. I think it is interesting looking at the totality of American History when assessing the situation.

Trouble for McCain? (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11090.html)

Clinton's not really a factor in their comparison here.

touche? what do you mean by that?

It's just funny. You keep on about how I am mysteriously missing your posts, but you do the same thing. People have complained since the beginning about this. And...you seem to refuse to believe I simply was not online and missed a few days. Hell, through the threads it was a continual theme for you to ignore, or maybe simply miss messages? It was far too often to be a mistake as I recall, but I'd give you the benefit of the doubt I suppose. I just think you need to ramp it down a notch. Realize that you are not on my top 10 list of priorities in life. I'm sure I am not that on yours either. If I miss a post every now and again I'll apologize in advance.

Now I've attempted to be civil towards you, perhaps reciprocity will bode well.

Right, so of to bed for me. I actually just got home from training so I am beat. 23:46 here and 05:45 on the wakeup. Until tomorrow perhaps.

It's just funny. You keep on about how I am mysteriously missing your posts, but you do the same thing. People have complained since the beginning about this. And...you seem to refuse to believe I simply was not online and missed a few days. Hell, through the threads it was a continual theme for you to ignore, or maybe simply miss messages? It was far too often to be a mistake as I recall, but I'd give you the benefit of the doubt I suppose. I just think you need to ramp it down a notch. Realize that you are not on my top 10 list of priorities in life. I'm sure I am not that on yours either. If I miss a post every now and again I'll apologize in advance.

Now I've attempted to be civil towards you, perhaps reciprocity will bode well.
Now I see what the touche was for, even though it was misapplied. I did answer Kyronea's post.

If it gets ya through the night...

This is what kills me. I just want to have a reasonable debate. In what world is it reasonable to reply to your post with what he put? It's like we're speaking two different languages.

You clearly call yourself a prophet and he acts like you called him one. That picture I linked is so apropos since he keeps acting like you're making completely different statements than you so obviously are. Worse, he absolutely REFUSES to address the context of the situation.

Is it honestly so important for him to be right that he MUST ignore reality. It doesn't make her a weaker candidate for him to simply acknowledge that her position isn't what it would be in a general election and Obama's is. It's just asking that he accept that she isn't being campaigned against by anyone thus putting the polls in context.

CH, everyone in this thread has literally begged you to simply start being reasonable. You don't have change your position, nor is anyone trying to shout you down. When you behave as you are, the debate isn't any fun.

You'd be well kept to have my words attributed to you.
Not when you use profanity.....not ever. :p

I gave you 6 to chose from if you wanted to compare. Instead you made a blanket statement about how you already qualified it. You have not answered my question about why she is better than the 6. Have you been to a shopping site where they allowed you to click and compare? You compare them and carefully eliminate items that are of less value. But the comparison has to be made in order to do so. Saying, "I can summarily denounce them all on their face" does not work.
If I don't handle my nations issues for a week, I can dismiss them all with one click....in regards to your 6 nominees, I can summarily dismiss them all because none of them is better qualified than Clinton.


In Texas the Republicans always vote for the most likely to lose to a Republican in the General Election, they vote in the primary and not the caucus. The caucus is the real indicator as to who voted for real - for the Democrats to win - in Texas. The primary is always a rigged election. Get smart. No Republican will ever vote honestly for the Clintons, even a ton of Democrats hate them.

Wow....you really made a lot of claims here....I would love to see you back them ALL up.

Aye, this is the sound of you reaching dear boy. I will qualify those as being my opinion. You know how it goes right? "You'll never know until blah bleh blah." So once you ask all of the people who voted in Texas...then maybe we can play a game of gotcha. it's a simple enough answer that you thought worked before. I wouldn't want you showing hypocrisy now.
So you were trying to pawn off your opinion then as actual "facts". Ok.

Now getting back to the debating part of this thread. Once you answer "in context" (one to one comparisons) I will go on along in this vain.
If you suggest that these people are more qualified or better suited to be VP than Clinton, then it is up to you to provide the necessary reasoning.

I'd like to offer up this article regarding McCain and his historical situation. I'll let you make of it what you will. I think it is interesting looking at the totality of American History when assessing the situation.

Trouble for McCain? (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11090.html)

Clinton's not really a factor in their comparison here.
I will look into this later.

This is what kills me. I just want to have a reasonable debate. In what world is it reasonable to reply to your post with what he put? It's like we're speaking two different languages.

You clearly call yourself a prophet and he acts like you called him one. That picture I linked is so apropos since he keeps acting like you're making completely different statements than you so obviously are. Worse, he absolutely REFUSES to address the context of the situation.

Is it honestly so important for him to be right that he MUST ignore reality. It doesn't make her a weaker candidate for him to simply acknowledge that her position isn't what it would be in a general election and Obama's is. It's just asking that he accept that she isn't being campaigned against by anyone thus putting the polls in context.

CH, everyone in this thread has literally begged you to simply start being reasonable. You don't have change your position, nor is anyone trying to shout you down. When you behave as you are, the debate isn't any fun.
In all honesty, in about a month or two we'll look back with fondness at this lunacy as the machine starts to ramp up and we're only left to 'debate' if Obama is a Black Radical Muslim with a Radical Christian Pastor who will surrender to the terrorists and raise your taxes and steal your first born. The word "evidence" will be so abused it will be a shadow of its former self, smilies as rebuttal will make CH's seem restrained. We've already seen the opening rumbles. As frustrating as this is, it will seem like a wonderland the closer we get to the conventions and then the election.

In all honesty, in about a month or two we'll look back with fondness at this lunacy as the machine starts to ramp up and we're only left to 'debate' if Obama is a Black Radical Muslim with a Radical Christian Pastor who will surrender to the terrorists and raise your taxes and steal your first born. The word "evidence" will be so abused it will be a shadow of its former self, smilies as rebuttal will make CH's seem restrained. We've already seen the opening rumbles. As frustrating as this is, it will seem like a wonderland the closer we get to the conventions and then the election.

I have already updated all my shots. :)

If I don't handle my nations issues for a week, I can dismiss them all with one click....in regards to your 6 nominees, I can summarily dismiss them all because none of them is better qualified than Clinton.
"It's true 'cause I sez it!"


If you suggest that these people are more qualified or better suited to be VP than Clinton, then it is up to you to provide the necessary reasoning.
.
Oh sweet jesus...he did, your response was the magic wave above. C'mon, you even referenced it in the same post...

In all honesty, in about a month or two we'll look back with fondness at this lunacy as the machine starts to ramp up and we're only left to 'debate' if Obama is a Black Radical Muslim with a Radical Christian Pastor who will surrender to the terrorists and raise your taxes and steal your first born. The word "evidence" will be so abused it will be a shadow of its former self, smilies as rebuttal will make CH's seem restrained. We've already seen the opening rumbles. As frustrating as this is, it will seem like a wonderland the closer we get to the conventions and then the election.

I don't agree. There will be those things, of course. There always is. But there are always those on both sides who are entirely reasonable. I watched the election discussion here four years ago. Keep in mind, at the time, I was much more conservative. I watch good and bad arguments on both sides. They are much more limited to who is making them rather than which side they're on.

In this case, as of yet, there is no one making a case against Obama that's remotely strong. This wasn't true four years ago.

I don't agree. There will be those things, of course. There always is. But there are always those on both sides who are entirely reasonable. I watched the election discussion here four years ago. Keep in mind, at the time, I was much more conservative. I watch good and bad arguments on both sides. They are much more limited to who is making them rather than which side they're on.

In this case, as of yet, there is no one making a case against Obama that's remotely strong. This wasn't true four years ago.

My biggest concern about Obama is that I can't identify the shit. He's a politician which means he's full of shit, but he hasn't been around long enough for me to figure out what kind of shit he's full of. I can't smell it and that makes me nervous.

McCain, on the other hand, is full of batshit. The ammoniaesque odor travels far and wide. :)

My biggest concern about Obama is that I can't identify the shit. He's a politician which means he's full of shit, but he hasn't been around long enough for me to figure out what kind of shit he's full of. I can't smell it and that makes me nervous.


Is it not possible that he is shitless? That he lacks the odor?

I'm going to jump ahead of this (http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/06/16/hillary_yes/) because you know it's coming.

This is essentially the counter-counter argument to putting Clinton on the ticket-
First, you often hear that Bill and Hillary could not possibly serve as obedient foot soldiers (or, more accurately, senior officers) in the Obama campaign or administration. If true, this would indeed be a disqualifier. But how, really, do any of us know that? For all the power they've enjoyed, Sen. Clinton and her husband have had to accept about as much humiliation and frustration as any two politicians you could imagine. Obama would definitely and rightly demand complete authority in his administration, and if the Clintons can't live with that, it's unlikely they'd sign on in any event. Just as important, this is a difficult threshold issue for many of the people you hear "mentioned" for the vice-presidency. Hillary Clinton is hardly the only one with a "difficult" personality, a "loose cannon" spouse, a fawning retinue of loyalists, or a habit of seeing the next president of the United States in the mirror each morning. Sure, some Obama supporters think that the Clintons are outsize villains, pathologically devoted to themselves and nothing else. But by Washington standards, where every member of Congress is a Sun King in his or her own realm, the Clintons really don't stand out as especially self-focused.
First, he makes a bit much of them accepting the second fiddle position or not accepting the job. I think that there is a realistic reason to be concerned. We only need look at her past behavior.

Start with her time as First Lady when she initiated a power struggle with Al Gore. She looked to expand the power of the married office even over the appointed office of Vice President. Her willingness to manipulate the debate in the primaries do not demonstrate a long view or change. Add to that that she could not keep Bill from setting fires it is not unrealistic to imagine that it'd be even harder for Obama to do that. That's fine when he's just a senior member of the party, a different thing all together when he's related to a top administration post.

He also makes a lot of the 'Sun King' idea, that anyone in that position would be self serving. But they would not have the brand that the Clinton's do. They won't be building theirs in the way another candidate would but exploiting it. Imagine Obama as Pepsi winning the cola war and then taking Coke on as a partner-even though Pepsi is the top brand now, the generic for soda would still be Coke. That does matter.

Second of all, we are often told that Clinton as running mate would undermine Obama's message of "change," either because of her last name and past notoriety, or her vote for the Iraq war resolution, or her symbolic role in the Washington Democratic establishment. Aside from the dubious nature of the claim that many voters are particularly interested in Obama's specific "theory of change," there's the fact that most Democratic voters, and a good majority of independents and some Republicans, look back fondly at the Clinton administration, and have never really bought into the idea (occasionally expressed by Obama) that the corruption and incompetence of Washington is as attributable to Democrats as to the GOP. Moreover, is Hillary Clinton really more identified with the Washington establishment than, say, Tom Daschle, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd or, for that matter, Al Gore (all of whose names have been floated for the veepship)?
This is kind of blind to the errors of Clinton primary campaign. One of the biggest errors was not correctly reading the electoral mood. When Clinton was running for her husband's third term, thats when she was losing. It wasn't until she broke from that that she started to turn her campaign around. This essentially suggests that what sunk the early part of her campaign is her great strength as a VP. While many do regard the 90s as 'good times' in comparison to now, I don't know that they are as blind to the divisions of the time or that they were sewing the seeds of now.

Further he dismisses the voters concern for Obama's narrative. I'd be interested in knowing what he thinks got him this far. You saw Obama dip when he went off that narrative and it is reasonable to assume that it would have the same effect. Granted it might be canceled out by whatever energy Clinton brings, but a canceling out isn't necessarily a compelling argument for someone.

As for HRC's war vote, it's important to acknowledge that the Democratic Party (and not just electeds or elites, but actual voters) is a coalition of people who supported and opposed the Iraq war, but are now largely united in favoring what Obama calls a "responsible withdrawal." (Quite a few of the alternatives to Clinton being discussed voted for the war resolution as well.) If Barack Obama can't manage to distinguish himself clearly from John McCain on this subject without a "right from the start" antiwar running mate, then he's in deep political trouble.
I'll actually grant some of this point. It's natural to make mistakes, it's the current administration to never acknowledge them or adjust on new evidence, etc. However, it's how she views that vote now that matters as well. As Jocabia has pointed out, she doesn't regret the vote, per se, but rather who got that power. That's the difference that matters.

Finally, opponents of the unity ticket argue that Clinton on the ticket will "energize" Hillary-hating conservative activists who have been relatively cool to McCain. (Talk about letting the enemy control the battlefield!) I personally have no doubt that the McCain campaign will inevitably become a low-road enterprise that, if nothing else, will energize conservatives, and its arguments against Obama are already heavily slanted toward "character" attacks. They'll get the haters no matter what, but the haters only get to vote once.
This misrepresents the concern. There is certainly going to be negative campaigning and the hate vote will be there regardless. But the ability to mobilize the anti-Clintons who are not thrilled with McCain is a factor. They only have one vote, but at the moment are liklier to stay home. Honestly, that's just as speculative as his claim.
And that brings us to what is perhaps the strongest pro-Hillary argument. Let's do something that Clintonphobes often forget to do: compare her to realistic alternatives. Obama doesn't have any obvious alternative option that will please everyone, much less provide the political payoff of an Obama-Clinton ticket. To cite just one problem, Obama will be under intense pressure to name a woman as a running mate, and under equally intense pressure not to do so, since anyone other than Hillary Clinton will be perceived as representing a "pander." But who would that other woman be? Kathleen Sebelius has no international experience. Janet Napolitano doesn't either, and she would face innuendoes about her marital status. Claire McCaskill has a shorter résumé than Obama's.

While there are plenty of qualified Democrats -- and even Republicans -- available to Obama, none is without handicaps, risks or shortcomings. Edwards and Strickland have taken themselves out of the running. Many feminists consider Jim Webb unacceptable, and many gays and lesbians feel the same way about Sam Nunn. Mark Warner's running for the Senate. Daschle's been a lobbyist. Biden's been a Washington fixture for 36 years, and supported the war resolution. Like Sebelius, Daschle, Nunn, Evan Bayh and Brian Schweitzer are from states no Democrat is likely to carry. Bayh or Dodd would immediately lose Democrats a Senate seat. Sherrod Brown's not a very unifying figure. And Al Gore excepted, none of those mentioned have been endorsed by 17 million-some-odd primary voters.
He dismisses some based on foreign relation experience, but Clinton's is not that impressive. Nor is her marriage above suspicion or attack Her resume really isn't that much more impressive than Obama's and if you combine them it's still not as long as McCain's, so she doesn't top the people dismissed on resume. He's already made the argument for the war vote, and Warner's attitude towards the vote would make the difference. With Daschle he dismisses for the opposite reason he dismissed the people without that much experience. Essentially he's saying any level of experience is going to be an issue. This isn't really an argument for anyone, much less Clinton. Then he goes on to cede states when those candidates have already managed wins in what he considers a lost cause. For his final point, second runner up has long long ceased to be a qualifier for the Vice Presidency.

While it's a better argument than we've been getting, it's still unconvincing.

Too bad....I really believed that this was going to be the year that the Dems knocked the Republicans out of the White House.

Oh well, at least you can be happy with McCain as President.

And here we see yet again that Obama cannot win unless Clinton is either A) the nominee or B) the Vice President Nominee.

Gag me if you think I'm actually going to fall for this tripe.

Is it not possible that he is shitless? That he lacks the odor?

No.

And here we see yet again that Obama cannot win unless Clinton is either A) the nominee or B) the Vice President Nominee.
Since A seems relatively impossible, then yes I truly believe in the B option.

And as I stated earlier:

"Oh well, at least you can be happy with McCain as President."

Gag me if you think I'm actually going to fall for this tripe.
Your name opposite Obama's in the straw vote at the top of this thread is noticeably absent. I suggest that you are currently hedging your bets.

Not when you use profanity.....not ever. :p

Oh no profanity, how dare I!?


If I don't handle my nations issues for a week, I can dismiss them all with one click....in regards to your 6 nominees, I can summarily dismiss them all because none of them is better qualified than Clinton.

The problem here is that the NS game is not debate. It's a game, and a limited one at that. These issues will be fixed in 2. You cannot just give me a "talk to the hand" and expect it to stand up. I gave you six individualized assessments of why these people were worthy. Now compare Hillary to those six in a head to head or admit you just want to make it easy for yourself by being lazy.


So you were trying to pawn off your opinion then as actual "facts". Ok.

Touche! Now that shit wasn't missapplied. You are the KING of presenting your opinions as facts. When called on it you said "it's just my opinion." Turnabout is fair play, even though you want to change the rules now to fit your needs. Wait...Hillary it's you!!!!!



If you suggest that these people are more qualified or better suited to be VP than Clinton, then it is up to you to provide the necessary reasoning.

Done, your turn.




I will look into this later.

Please do. It gives some perspective on how little Clinton is needed for Obama. It's from a historians perspective of course, looking over the totality of time.

No.

Any particular reason why? (I'm not saying he is, mind. I'm simply wondering about your point of view on the subject.)

Oh no profanity, how dare I!?
It is a violation of the rules for you to use quote tags and attribute dialogue to a poster, me in this case, who did not in fact write such dialogue. Please go back and change it. Thanks.

Since A seems relatively impossible, then yes I truly believe in the B option.

So what you are saying is, put her on the ballot no matter the damage that will do to the Democratic Party's chances of winning the White House. Yea right! :rolleyes:

And as I stated earlier:

"Oh well, at least you can be happy with McCain as President."

And what makes you say that?

Your name opposite Obama's in the straw vote at the top of this thread is noticeably absent. I suggest that you are currently hedging your bets.

So you are saying that I am not allowed to exercise my right on these forums to not vote in a public poll and that by doing so, you have this conspiracy that I am hedging my bets? Keep dreaming son. Its obvious your mind has been warped.

So you are saying that I am not allowed to exercise my right on these forums to not vote in a public poll and that by doing so, you have this conspiracy that I am hedging my bets? Keep dreaming son. Its obvious your mind has been warped.

May I ask why you haven't? The candidate you support is by no means a secret, so I'm not sure what you gain from not voting in the poll. (I'm just wondering, mind...why people seem to have a problem voting in public polls is beyond me...)

Too bad....I really believed that this was going to be the year that the Dems knocked the Republicans out of the White House.

Oh well, at least you can be happy with McCain as President.

McCain won't be President.

He WOULD be if Clinton were the nominee and MIGHT be if Clinton were on the ticket.

May I ask why you haven't? The candidate you support is by no means a secret, so I'm not sure what you gain from not voting in the poll. (I'm just wondering, mind...why people seem to have a problem voting in public polls is beyond me...)

Because its not a secret. Why should I vote when its already public on who I am supporting?

If I don't handle my nations issues for a week, I can dismiss them all with one click....in regards to your 6 nominees, I can summarily dismiss them all because none of them is better qualified than Clinton.

The only thing Clinton is better qualified to do than them is running a brothel.

Not If I don't handle my nations issues for a week, I can dismiss them all with one click....in regards to your 6 nominees, I can summarily dismiss them all because none of them is better qualified than Clinton.

Based on what criteria? You really have not showed us why nor proved to us why she is.

Based on what criteria? You really have not showed us why nor proved to us why she is.

I say we make a baseless claim about Clinton whenever he makes a baseless claim about Clinton.

For instance, did you know she eats kitties' heads off and then proceeds to defile their corpses?

I say we make a baseless claim about Clinton whenever he makes a baseless claim about Clinton.

For instance, did you know she eats kitties' heads off and then proceeds to defile their corpses?

Did you know that she was once a man and had a sex change operation so that the cops would not trace a string of murders back to "her"?

It is a violation of the rules for you to use quote tags and attribute dialogue to a poster, me in this case, who did not in fact write such dialogue. Please go back and change it. Thanks.

It has been eliminated. I removed it and there are no words attributed to you that you didn't write.

Did you know that she was once a man and had a sex change operation so that the cops would not trace a string of murders back to "her"?

Ooo, nice one! :D

She's also more than 1300 years old, having made a pact with the Devil to deliver souls of what would become "Americans" to him, by leading them into the Abyss about 700 years later, in exchange for immortality.

Because its not a secret. Why should I vote when its already public on who I am supporting?

Well, if nothing else, it would let you see the results of the poll without having to constantly check the other link. It's why I voted in it.

Well, if nothing else, it would let you see the results of the poll without having to constantly check the other link. It's why I voted in it.

To be even more truthful, I really don't care what the poll results are here :D

Hmmmmmmm.....

I just looked at the poll results and I noticed that another name is lacking on that list. Why is that CH?

Hmmmmmmm.....

I just looked at the poll results and I noticed that another name is lacking on that list. Why is that CH?

Because Clinton's a victim! A VICTIM, I TELL YOU!

:p

Any particular reason why? (I'm not saying he is, mind. I'm simply wondering about your point of view on the subject.)

Because he's the Democratic Nominee for President. A nomination for a major party would never go to someone honest. It would wreck the system. *nod*

Ah, I get to say this again, the kids are alright (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-women16-2008jun16,0,5593581.story)

Now that the Democratic marathon is over, Clinton supporters like Authenreith are siding heavily with Obama over McCain, polls show. And Obama has taken a wide lead among female voters, belying months of political chatter and polls of primary voters suggesting that disappointment over Clinton's defeat might block the Illinois senator from enjoying his party's historic edge among women.
...
But in a year that strongly favors Democrats, McCain faces an uphill battle to cut into Obama's advantage among women, who made up more than half of the voters in recent presidential elections.

"Women are voting for Obama because they dislike [President] Bush, they dislike McCain, they dislike the war, and they're upset about the economy, and those facts override any concerns about the Clinton-Obama primaries," Democratic pollster Mark Mellman said.


Of course, McCain will still try-
Still, McCain hopes to capitalize on the disillusionment of women who voted for Clinton. The Arizona senator has appeared recently on "The Ellen DeGeneres Show" and "The View," TV talk shows with many female viewers.

A top McCain advisor, former Hewlett-Packard Co. Chief Executive Carly Fiorina, met last week with dozens of Clinton loyalists in Ohio. On Saturday, she joined McCain in a "virtual town hall" with other Clinton supporters.

"I admire and respect her," McCain said of Clinton.

Aides suggested that McCain's support for a gas tax holiday, a hawkish foreign policy and steps against climate change would appeal to many women.

But-

"There are women still struggling with a real sense of grief that Hillary is not the nominee," said Maren Hesla, who runs campaign programs for EMILY's List, a group that promotes female candidates who support abortion rights. But that sense "will grow smaller with every day that passes from the nomination battles."
...
During the final weeks of the Democratic race, Obama took pains to praise Clinton almost daily and to avoid any appearance that he was trying to force her to drop out.

In the days since Clinton abandoned the race and endorsed him, the political arm of Planned Parenthood and other women's groups have rallied behind Obama and joined forces to attack McCain. Among other things, they have highlighted McCain's opposition to abortion rights. The Republican's moderate image, they say, has misled many women into thinking he supports abortion rights.

"It's astonishing the extent to which that's just assumed about him," said Hesla.
...
Among those most concerned about economic troubles are white blue-collar women, a swing group targeted by both the McCain and Obama campaigns.

"Women see themselves as more economically vulnerable than men, more likely recipients of the social safety net at some point in their lives, and they see a larger role for government," said Debbie Walsh, director of the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University.
...
Authenreith, a 43-year-old business owner who lives in West Jefferson, N.C., said Obama "popped out of nowhere" last year and seemed less experienced than Clinton.

But Authenreith, who was a respondent to a Times poll in February, said there was no question now that Obama would better handle the economy and, she hoped, overhaul the healthcare system.

"I know if I vote a Republican in," she said, "it will never happen."


How bad is it?
For a generation, women have favored Democrats, and men have leaned Republican. In 2000, Al Gore won 55% of the female vote; Bush offset that with 54% of the male vote.

In his run for reelection, Bush fared better among women, thanks partly to his emphasis on terrorism in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks. Although he held a 7-percentage-point lead among men over Democratic rival John F. Kerry, Bush finished just 1 percentage point behind among women.
...
An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll found a wide gap last week: Women favored Obama over McCain, 52% to 33%. The survey also found that voters who cast ballots for Clinton in the Democratic primaries preferred Obama over McCain, 61% to 19%.
All that without a Clinton VP. The kids are all right.

Because he's the Democratic Nominee for President. A nomination for a major party would never go to someone honest. It would wreck the system. *nod*

Ah, I see. So not all politicians are shitful in your eyes: just the ones of the major parties.

Ah, I see. So not all politicians are shitful in your eyes: just the ones of the major parties.

No, just the most powerful and entrenched ones without whom a potential endorsement from that party would be impossible and those capable of convincing them that becoming president would serve their interests.

Oh, and Rick Santorum. *nod*

It has been eliminated. I removed it and there are no words attributed to you that you didn't write.
Thank you. :)

So you are saying that I am not allowed to exercise my right on these forums to not vote in a public poll and that by doing so, you have this conspiracy that I am hedging my bets? Keep dreaming son. Its obvious your mind has been warped.
Yet, you vote in so many other polls.....I was sure that you would want to show your support for Obama in that regard.

My guess is that you don't want your name there when you pull your support, because you can't unvote, and your name would be listed there. That is why I say that you are hedging your bets. On other threads, you are still strongly backing the Republican Party.

So what you are saying is, put her on the ballot no matter the damage that will do to the Democratic Party's chances of winning the White House. Yea right! :rolleyes:
The problem here is that you have an anti-Clinton bias. There are definitely pros and cons to having Hillary on the ticket and I believe that the pros outweigh the cons.

The only thing Clinton is better qualified to do than them is running a brothel.
You expect Clinton to be gracious in defeat, yet you continue to slag her. This kind of politics is harmful to your candidate.

Hmmmmmmm.....

I just looked at the poll results and I noticed that another name is lacking on that list. Why is that CH?
First and foremost, I cannot vote in the general election. Secondly, I am waiting to see how Obama resolves the Hillary situation. It certainly is a huge test for him. Thirdly, if Obama doesn't do the right thing, I would be inclined to vote for Nader in this poll.

\*snip*.

Notice how our friend who claims he wants calm debate replies to all the nonsense and spammy posts but ignores the actual arguments like this one. Coincidence?

It takes two, CH. You can address the reasoned claims and foster reasoned debate or you can continue to only reply to the most vitriolic and absurd posts. Which you choose reveals your intentions, however.

First and foremost, I cannot vote in the general election. Secondly, I am waiting to see how Obama resolves the Hillary situation. It certainly is a huge test for him. Thirdly, if Obama doesn't do the right thing, I would be inclined to vote for Nader in this poll.

About half the people on that poll can't vote in the actual election. That didn't stop them.

Yet, you vote in so many other polls.....I was sure that you would want to show your support for Obama in that regard.

My guess is that you don't want your name there when you pull your support, because you can't unvote, and your name would be listed there. That is why I say that you are hedging your bets. On other threads, you are still strongly backing the Republican Party.

Really? This is what we're back to? That Corny is 'double dealing'? Of all the things going on here, that's what you're going with?

For his final point, second runner up has long long ceased to be a qualifier for the Vice Presidency.

While it's a better argument than we've been getting, it's still unconvincing.
Actually, his final point is this:

I could go on, but you get the idea: There ain't no easy running mate. Those who are so quick to dismiss the unity ticket have an obligation to come up not just with a better idea, but a better idea that can command broad support in the party. It's obviously Barack Obama's choice, and his choice alone, but he should remember that this is one year when a united Democratic Party will have an overwhelming advantage in the general election. That's a change we can believe in.
If Obama fumbles the ball on party unity, he will not convince too many that he is the one that can bring Americans together. If he cannot resolve domestic disputes, how will he be able to resolve the international ones.

He needs a strong foundation to begin with.

Actually, his final point is this:
Actually, that's his conclusion, not his final point. His conclusion is based on his points, which I disputed. He understates the effect of Clinton on the ticket or the concerns about it, and over states-sometimes as I pointed out in contridiction-drawbacks of the other candidates.


If Obama fumbles the ball on party unity, he will not convince too many that he is the one that can bring Americans together. If he cannot resolve domestic disputes, how will he be able to resolve the international ones.

He needs a strong foundation to begin with.
As noted above, he's actually doing rather well in that regard without having her on the ticket. He's bent over backwards long before the race was even over in this regard. We've listed it over and over again. He has worked to unify the party, and Clinton needs to put her own fire out as well. Shoehorning herself onto the ticket isn't the way to do that. She's already acknowledged that. Somehow you got left at the station.

so, 538's model now has obama with a 57% chance of taking fucking virginia. it sure does suck for dems to see their party so fractured and broken. or something.

Actually, that's his conclusion, not his final point. His conclusion is based on his points, which I disputed. He understates the effect of Clinton on the ticket or the concerns about it, and over states-sometimes as I pointed out in contridiction-drawbacks of the other candidates.
Let's face facts....you take one position and I take the opposite position. In the end, one of us will be right and the other will be wrong.

As noted above, he's actually doing rather well in that regard without having her on the ticket. He's bent over backwards long before the race was even over in this regard. We've listed it over and over again. He has worked to unify the party, and Clinton needs to put her own fire out as well. Shoehorning herself onto the ticket isn't the way to do that. She's already acknowledged that. Somehow you got left at the station.
Although Clinton may be downplaying the role she wants to play, I am relatively sure that she wants the co-pilots job. Perhaps they have already reached agreement on some other plum but that is just speculation.

so, 538's model now has obama with a 57% chance of taking fucking virginia. it sure does suck for dems to see their party so fractured and broken. or something.
Link? Rationale?

Let's face facts....you take one position and I take the opposite position. In the end, one of us will be right and the other will be wrong.
Don't make me explain Pancake Rain Tuesday to you again.


Although Clinton may be downplaying the role she wants to play, I am relatively sure that she wants the co-pilots job. Perhaps they have already reached agreement on some other plum but that is just speculation.

You seem to suggest that you know what it is that Clinton wants and that others are crowding her space?
Awesome. I've said plenty of times now, she has earned a place of importance in the party, forcing her way onto the ticket isn't it. Frankly, it's better for her and the party to take a position that outlasts a 4/8 year vice presidency.

Link? Rationale?

hasn't everyone that even pretends to keep up with this stuff in wonky political junkie style completely jumped on the http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/ bandwagon yet?

hasn't everyone that even pretends to keep up with this stuff in wonky political junkie style completely jumped on the http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/ bandwagon yet?

This is the first I've heard of it.

This is the first I've heard of it.

they rose to prominence during the primary by using math to out predict the pollsters. they've got a poll weighting and demographics regression formula that they put through a 10,000 run simulation. fucking cool says i.

If Obama fumbles the ball on party unity, he will not convince too many that he is the one that can bring Americans together. If he cannot resolve domestic disputes, how will he be able to resolve the international ones.


Actually, if Obama botches 'party unity', but manages to get a more-than-passing bipartisan support, he's ahead of the game.

It might be more important to court the swing vote, and disenfranchised Republicans, than to make the Clinton hardliner content.

Yet, you vote in so many other polls.....I was sure that you would want to show your support for Obama in that regard.

This isn't any other poll. I do vote in polls yes but yet at the sametime, I did not vote in several others. I already explained why I haven't voted and if you do not want to accept that then that is not my fault.

My guess is that you don't want your name there when you pull your support, because you can't unvote, and your name would be listed there. That is why I say that you are hedging your bets. On other threads, you are still strongly backing the Republican Party.

The only way I pull support is if Ed Rendell or Hillary Clinton is on the ticket. Also, I can back however the hell I want.

The problem here is that you have an anti-Clinton bias. There are definitely pros and cons to having Hillary on the ticket and I believe that the pros outweigh the cons.

The cons actually outweigh the pros. You put her on the ticket and every conservative will come out and vote against Obama.

First and foremost, I cannot vote in the general election. Secondly, I am waiting to see how Obama resolves the Hillary situation. It certainly is a huge test for him. Thirdly, if Obama doesn't do the right thing, I would be inclined to vote for Nader in this poll.

There is no Hillary situation. Also, you are trying to hammer me because I have not yet voted but yet, you yourself have not voted. I wonder how many that have voted are not Americans.

Actually, if Obama botches 'party unity', but manages to get a more-than-passing bipartisan support, he's ahead of the game.

It might be more important to court the swing vote, and disenfranchised Republicans, than to make the Clinton hardliner content.
The only problem is that perhaps that bipartisan support is collapsing on Obama? I posted a poll (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13751545&postcount=267)which clearly defined a steady decline in support, read favourability, amongst Republicans and Independents, since Jan.

Again, I think if he botches party unity, it will spell disaster for him.

The only problem is that perhaps that bipartisan support is collapsing on Obama? I posted a poll (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13751545&postcount=267)which clearly defined a steady decline in support, read favourability, amongst Republicans and Independents, since Jan.

Again, I think if he botches party unity, it will spell disaster for him.

Thanks for posting self-evident truths and polls from before she conceded. But I quite frankly fail to see how he might even botch party unity.

http://freeinternetpress.com/story.php?sid=17209 Nearly everything is favourable for Obama, and in many cases by a large margin. It's going to require a helluvan effort till the GE, but the fact that people are in this position is incredible.

On the subject of VP, after seeing Gore's endorsement, I would love for him to be on the ticket. That would be my dream team. There's no chance in hell, but I'd like to think that chance is better than picking Hilary.

Thanks for posting self-evident truths and polls from before she conceded. But I quite frankly fail to see how he might even botch party unity.

http://freeinternetpress.com/story.php?sid=17209 Nearly everything is favourable for Obama, and in many cases by a large margin. It's going to require a helluvan effort till the GE, but the fact that people are in this position is incredible.
I don't get the same read as you after reviewing that article. Of note:

In the first Washington Post-ABC News poll since the Democratic nomination contest ended, Obama and McCain are even among political independents, a shift toward the presumptive Republican nominee over the past month.
This appears to support what you call "self-evident truths and polls"?

Obama still has some work to do to unite the Democratic Party. Almost nine in 10 Republicans now support McCain, while not quite eight in 10 Democrats said they support Obama. Nearly a quarter of those who said they favored Clinton over Obama for the nomination currently prefer McCain for the general election, virtually unchanged from polls taken before Clinton suspended her campaign.
Again, this appears to support what I was saying regarding party unity?

On the subject of VP, after seeing Gore's endorsement, I would love for him to be on the ticket. That would be my dream team. There's no chance in hell, but I'd like to think that chance is better than picking Hilary.
I sincerely doubt that Gore will run. Again, your article appears to support my push for Hillary:

As Obama considers possible vice presidential running mates, Clinton remains atop the list: Unprompted, 46 percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents pick her as their top choice, and no other Democrat breaks out of single digits.
That is almost a 5 to 1 preference over any other candidate. Obama certainly has a tough choice to make, although I think it is a natural choice.

Once the Obama supporters get over their snit about this, the Dems can go forward.

You expect Clinton to be gracious in defeat, yet you continue to slag her. This kind of politics is harmful to your candidate.

You make baseless claims about six people being less fit to be VP than Clinton, I make baseless claims about Clinton's profession prior to entering politics.

Quid. Quo.

And besides, if I keep on insulting her, what are you gonna do? Not vote?

Thanks for posting self-evident truths and polls from before she conceded. But I quite frankly fail to see how he might even botch party unity.

http://freeinternetpress.com/story.php?sid=17209 Nearly everything is favourable for Obama, and in many cases by a large margin. It's going to require a helluvan effort till the GE, but the fact that people are in this position is incredible.

On the subject of VP, after seeing Gore's endorsement, I would love for him to be on the ticket. That would be my dream team. There's no chance in hell, but I'd like to think that chance is better than picking Hilary.

From june 12th. Recent updates.

Washington Post Writers Group
The Numbers Crunch by E.J. Dionne Jr.
Are the GOP's built-in disadvantages too much for John McCain to overcome?
Post Date Thursday, June 12, 2008

WASHINGTON -- At the moment, Barack Obama is winning a smaller share of Democrats than John Kerry did on Election Day four years ago. Yet Obama is beating John McCain by six points in the latest Gallup Poll. How can this be?
McCain


For all the talk this year about bipartisanship, a sharp shift in partisan loyalties toward the Democrats, visible in a series of polls this week, could prove to be the defining fact about the 2008 election.

In a report released Thursday, Gallup found that where McCain was winning 85 percent among self-identified Republicans, Obama was winning only 78 percent of Democrats.

Yet Obama led McCain in the June 5-10 survey, 48 percent to 42 percent. Obama enjoyed a seven-point advantage among independents, but Gallup noted that even if independents were excluded from the analysis, Obama still had a five-point lead because Democrats now outnumber Republicans 37 percent to 28 percent. When independents are asked their partisan leanings, the Democratic advantage reaches 13 points.

In the 2004 election, John Kerry carried 89 percent of the vote among self-identified Democrats, according to the network exit poll, but Democrats and Republicans accounted for an equal share of the electorate. President Bush won with an even larger share (93 percent) among supporters of his own party.

David Winston, a Republican pollster, acknowledges his party's problems, but is skeptical about large changes in party identification. He notes that while polls have often reported significant shifts in party loyalties during the course of campaigns, the gap between the two parties historically narrows by Election Day. Independents, who turned on the GOP in 2006, remain the key to this year's outcome, he said.

The good news for McCain is that he has consistently run ahead of his party this year. The bad news is that the GOP is in such a deep hole that McCain may not be able to climb out. When voters in a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll were asked, without candidates' names, which party they wanted in the White House, Democrats had a 16-point lead. But when they were asked to choose between Obama and McCain, Obama led by only 6 points.

Geoff Garin, a Democratic pollster who worked for Hillary Clinton's campaign this year, sees evidence for a realignment in a steady move of middle-income voters toward the Democrats. "Identification with the Democrats has crept up among voters in the $50,000- to $75,000-a-year range and is now moving up beyond that," partly in response to "the pain of the Bush economy."

The paradox is that sharp shifts in partisan identification often presage periods of bipartisanship. If Obama were to win because of the country's Democratic tilt, moderate Republicans in Congress could move his way to protect themselves against a Democratic tide. A comparable shift of worried Democrats helped Ronald Reagan build bipartisan majorities for his tax and budget programs in 1981. "There really is the potential for Barack Obama to build coalitions with Republicans in the middle -- if there are Republicans left in the middle," said Garin.

Even in the currently fractious Congress, such defections have already created bipartisan majorities for Democratic measures. In Thursday's House vote to extend unemployment benefits by 13 weeks, 49 Republicans broke with President Bush to support the measure and give it a veto-proof majority.

The realigning mood took concrete form this week in Virginia when two prominent Republicans, Vincent Callahan, former chairman of the state House Appropriations Committee, and John Chichester, former state Senate president, endorsed Democrat Mark Warner for the U.S. Senate. Callahan said he was "extremely distressed" by the condition of Virginia's GOP, adding that it risked becoming "a minority debating society."

Other signs of the party shift include the NBC/Journal poll's finding that voters preferred a Democratic Congress to a Republican Congress, 52 percent to 33 percent, even though 79 percent disapprove of Congress itself.

Alex Castellanos, a Republican consultant, says that given the Democrats' large advantages, "this should be one of Obama's high-water marks, and he's not there."

But he acknowledges that to win back the ground his party has lost, it needs a new approach to governing and cannot simply continue to run against government. "We have trapped ourselves in this world where we believe we either have to be faithful to our principles, or we have to govern," he said. "It's a recipe for not governing." That is the trap McCain needs to escape.



E.J. Dionne, Jr. is the author of the recently published Souled Out: Reclaiming Faith and Politics After the Religious Right. He is a Washington Post columnist, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, and a professor at Georgetown University.

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=8fa44c88-1e14-40fb-835a-555ae138a08f

You make baseless claims about six people being less fit to be VP than Clinton, I make baseless claims about Clinton's profession prior to entering politics.

Quid. Quo.

And besides, if I keep on insulting her, what are you gonna do? Not vote?

Did I miss where he actually answered my 6 VP choices? I don't think I could have, but maybe. I'll go back and look.

Did I miss where he actually answered my 6 VP choices? I don't think I could have, but maybe. I'll go back and look.

He did and didn't:

If I don't handle my nations issues for a week, I can dismiss them all with one click....in regards to your 6 nominees, I can summarily dismiss them all because none of them is better qualified than Clinton.

As far as Barack's favorability numbers...

http://www.pollingreport.com/o.htm

He did and didn't:

And never did explain why.

Did I miss where he actually answered my 6 VP choices? I don't think I could have, but maybe. I'll go back and look.
No I did not extrapolate on your 6 choices.

However, from the article posted by Rexmehe, it appears that I am in good company (Democrats) who think that Clinton is the best choice:

As Obama considers possible vice presidential running mates, Clinton remains atop the list: Unprompted, 46 percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents pick her as their top choice, and no other Democrat breaks out of single digits.
What can I say......Hillary! Hillary!

Again on unity:

Nearly a quarter of those who said they favored Clinton over Obama for the nomination currently prefer McCain for the general election, virtually unchanged from polls taken before Clinton suspended her campaign.
That is a sizeable number and Obama needs to go with the flow.

He did and didn't:

Oh, I saw that and commented on it earlier. I will not belabor the point at this time as you can go back and read how I (CTOAN as well) feel about a summary judgment.

And never did explain why.

Which is why I decided I might as well make baseless claims about Clinton's ability to run a brothel too.

I copycat my opponents. It's pretty enjoyable.

That is a sizeable number and Obama needs to go with the flow.

There IS no flow, because Hillary has NO CHANCE of getting the VP slot, and most people KNOW this.

As far as Barack's favorability numbers...

http://www.pollingreport.com/o.htm
A lot of those polls demonstrate what I posted earlier in that his unfavourable ratings are climbing.

No I did not extrapolate on your 6 choices.

However, from the article posted by Rexmehe, it appears that I am in good company (Democrats) who think that Clinton is the best choice:


What can I say......Hillary! Hillary!

Again on unity:


That is a sizeable number and Obama needs to go with the flow.

Ok, so I'll wait until you go through them before I make further comment.

Democrats can think what they want, but they will not be enough for the win. I showed Barack's strong numbers in a previous post among independents. Your assertion that McCain is somehow leading there is just flat wrong as the data shows.

For some more info that Shows Obama doing just fine without her.

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08.htm

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm

Dems wants Clinton by 54-43 in the one link I sent. But like I said, that's not enough to make it so. There's a sizable minority that does not want her to be chosen, and it's very important that independents and disenfranchised Republicans vote for Obama. Hillary's numbers among independents are not stellar.

That is a sizeable number and Obama needs to go with the flow.

What flow? The flow that takes them from Victory to Defeat? That flow? Yea maybe he should do that! That is if you want 4 more years of a Republican in office.

A lot of those polls demonstrate what I posted earlier in that his unfavourable ratings are climbing.

ABC News/Washington Post Poll. June 12-15, 2008. N=1,125 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3. Fieldwork by TNS.


.

"Do you have a favorable or unfavorable impression of Barack Obama?"


.


Favorable


Unfavorable


Unsure

% % %


6/12-15/08
63 33 4


4/10-13/08
56 39 5


1/9-12/08
63 30 7


10/29 - 11/1/07
51 36 13


2/22-25/07
53 30 16


1/16-19/07
45 29 25


12/7-11/06
44 23 33



NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll conducted by the polling organizations of Peter Hart (D) and Neil Newhouse (R). June 6-9, 2008. N=1,000 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.1. RV = registered voters

.

"Now I'm going to read you the names of several public figures, and I'd like you to rate your feelings toward each one as either very positive, somewhat positive, neutral, somewhat negative, or very negative. If you don't know the name, please just say so. Barack Obama."

.


Very
Positive


Somewhat
Positive



Neutral


Somewhat
Negative


Very
Negative


Don't
Know
Name/
Not Sure


%


%


%


%


%


%


6/6-9/08 RV
25 23 17 11 22 2


4/25-28/08 RV
23 23 16 17 20 1


3/24-25/08 RV
24 25 18 16 16 1


3/7-10/08 RV
25 26 18 13 15 3


1/20-22/08 RV
18 29 22 12 15 4


12/14-17/07
17 29 22 14 12 6


11/1-5/07
15 28 24 12 12 9


9/7-10/07
15 27 23 13 12 10


7/27-30/07
16 26 24 12 10 12


4/20-23/07
19 26 25 8 6 16


3/2-5/07
18 19 26 11 6 20


12/8-11/06
17 18 18 7 6 34


10/28-30/06 RV
14 17 18 5 6 40



CBS News Poll. May 30-June 3, 2008. N=930 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 4. Among registered voters, except where noted.


.

"Is your opinion of Barack Obama favorable, not favorable, undecided, or haven't you heard enough about Barack Obama yet to have an opinion?"


.


Favorable


Not
Favorable


Undecided
Haven't
Heard Refused
% % % % %


5/30 - 6/3/08
41 31 22 5 1


5/1-3/08
44 30 20 6 0


4/25-29/08
39 34 21 5 1


3/28 - 4/2/08
43 24 25 8 0


3/15-18/08
44 28 20 8 0


2/20-24/08
45 23 23 9 0


10/12-16/07
38 24 26 11 1


9/4-9/07
35 21 29 14 1


8/8-12/07
36 20 27 17 0


7/9-17/07
37 21 24 18 0


6/26-28/07
40 22 22 15 1


5/18-23/07
34 21 25 20 0


4/9-12/07
36 18 25 21 0


3/26-27/07 Adults
31 17 21 30 0


3/7-11/07 Adults
39 18 20 23 0


1/18-21/07
29 9 20 41 1


1/1-3/07 Adults
28 10 14 47

I'll take a 66% favorable to 33% unfavorable nay day. If he loses 5 points he's still at 61. Do you think you are in a position of strength on this issue? The numbers say you're wrong. You can say "going up" if it's 2 points. That doesn't make him unfavorable.

A lot of those polls demonstrate what I posted earlier in that his unfavourable ratings are climbing.

66-33. I'm happy with that.

66-33. I'm happy with that.

Also, the unfavorable ratings are NOT going up. So, yeah, CH has no claim.

Also, the unfavorable ratings are NOT going up. So, yeah, CH has no claim.
Would you like to borrow my reading glasses? :D

Also, the unfavorable ratings are NOT going up. So, yeah, CH has no claim.

Never stopped him before.

Would you like to borrow my reading glasses? :D

Maybe its time to update that perscription.

Would you like to borrow my reading glasses? :D

6/12-15/08

Favorable 63

Unfavorable 33

Unsure 4

4/10-13/08

Favorable 56

Unfavorable 39

Unsure 5

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Favorable: +7

Unfavorable: -6

Unsure: -1

No.

No.
Perhaps that is part of your problem? You only looked at one poll and you didn't look at the historical data?

Perhaps that is part of your problem? You only looked at one poll and you didn't look at the historical data?

Oh my God. Please tell me CH just did not say that.

Perhaps that is part of your problem? You only looked at one poll and you didn't look at the historical data?

The historical data tends to favor Obama as well, and your claim that I should "borrow your reading glasses" would have you say that I'm interpreting the data wrong. The fact remains that his current favorable ratings are the biggest yet, and historical data is not helping you either.

I know what I'm talking about and you don't. That's why I'm winning this argument and you're losing it.

The historical data tends to favor Obama as well, and your claim that I should "borrow your reading glasses" would have you say that I'm interpreting the data wrong. The fact remains that his current favorable ratings are the biggest yet, and historical data is not helping you either.

I know what I'm talking about and you don't. That's why I'm winning this argument and you're losing it.

You mean that is why he is losing this argument. You are not the only one involved in this you know.

I would like to point out the leftiness of this poll, saying that it is not accurate AT ALL. Too many people are voting for third parties to have this be an accurate representation of the US's view, in my opinion, and there isn't enough Democrat (only 60%?) votes to make it a worldwide poll.

*keeps on ranting until runs out of breath and has friend do CPR on him*

You mean that is why he is losing this argument. You are not the only one involved in this you know.

I think that's what I said. o_O

Edit: Ah, got what you meant. Sorry. "We're". ;)

But what did you expect? I AM an arrogant and elitist Obama supporter after all. :p

(Or an otaku that has a liking for using anime-style remarks. Either one. >.> <.< )

Oh my God. Please tell me CH just did not say that.
I forgot that you were not good with statistics, or so you claimed. Now you are an expert? :D

The historical data tends to favor Obama as well, and your claim that I should "borrow your reading glasses" would have you say that I'm interpreting the data wrong. The fact remains that his current favorable ratings are the biggest yet, and historical data is not helping you either.

I know what I'm talking about and you don't. That's why I'm winning this argument and you're losing it.
Let's see now:

CBS News Poll. May 30-June 3, 2008. N=930 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 4. Among registered

2/20-24/08 45 23
5/30 - 6/3/08 41 31

USA Today/Gallup Poll. May 30-June 1, 2008. N=1,012 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

2/21-24/08 61 32
5/30 - 6/1/08 58 37

Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. May 21-22, 2008. N=1,205 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.5.

3/5-6/08 61 28
5/21-22/08 55 40

There is 3 examples that say you are wrong.

Snip.

Ah, so your "reading glasses" are mainly composed of using only evidence that suits you, evidence from before Hillary left the campaign, as opposed to the recent one, that TAKES into account a new fact?

That's not reading glasses, that's GOUGING ONE'S EYES OFF!

I would like to point out the leftiness of this poll, saying that it is not accurate AT ALL. Too many people are voting for third parties to have this be an accurate representation of the US's view, in my opinion, and there isn't enough Democrat (only 60%?) votes to make it a worldwide poll.

it looks quite representative, given that it is a poll of us.

Ah, so your "reading glasses" are mainly composed of using only evidence that suits you, evidence from before Hillary left the campaign, as opposed to the recent one, that TAKES into account a new fact?

That's not reading glasses, that's GOUGING ONE'S EYES OFF!
This is about Obama's favourablity rating....it has nothing to do with Hillary.

This is about Obama's favourablity rating....it has nothing to do with Hillary.

1- Given that she sapped his favorability ratings until recently, yes it does.

2- Even if it didn't, the most recent poll favors him.

In 11/5, when Obama is declared the winner without Hillary's dubious "help", will you finally admit you're wrong?

This is about Obama's favourablity rating....it has nothing to do with Hillary.

if you think that, you haven't been paying attention. we've had people here openly switch their views on him once clinton dropped out and said she supported him.

Perhaps that is part of your problem? You only looked at one poll and you didn't look at the historical data?

If you're talking about previous polling data that is over a month old on the site than I have to ask what you are hoping we'll take from outdated information? If you are truly talking about historical data then you need to check out the link I gave you earlier that you said you'd look at later. I'll repost it for you again.

Now this is historical (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11090.html)

Unless Paul runs as an independent, which he's already stated several times he most likely will not do, then I'm behind Obama for no other reason than because it's not a vote for McCain.

Let's see now:

CBS News Poll. May 30-June 3, 2008. N=930 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 4. Among registered

2/20-24/08 45 23
5/30 - 6/3/08 41 31

These numbers are the best you can do and the most recent is still from before he wrapped up the nom. CONTEXT

USA Today/Gallup Poll. May 30-June 1, 2008. N=1,012 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

2/21-24/08 61 32
5/30 - 6/1/08 58 37

Oh NO, he lost 3 points and still have a rating of 58. Also, CONTEXT as these numbers were before he wrapped up the nom.

Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. May 21-22, 2008. N=1,205 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.5.

3/5-6/08 61 28
5/21-22/08 55 40

Still good numbers, but still not all that important considering the last poll they had was May 21-22. This is the stuff that gets me annoyed. Do you bother to analyze this stuff before you throw it out? Or you just see numbers that you think favor you so you throw the pasta against the wall to see if it sticks?

There is 3 examples that say you are wrong.

Do English be your first language?

Mistaking is and are does not indicate a type. It indicates poor grammar.

Otherwise I've now show your numbers to be pretty insignificant and now very relevant to current trends.

I'll just throw this poll in from PPP for the fun of it. I'm sure it's probably an outlier without even looking at RCP, but I'll do that as well.

A new Public Policy Polling survey finds Sen. Barack Obama begins the general election in Ohio with a double digit lead over John McCain, 50% to 39%.

It's a major improvement from most recent previous Ohio poll, taken at the height of the Jeremiah Wright controversy in March, which showed Obama trailing McCain 49% to 41%.

Bottom line: "The key difference for Obama is that he's got his party behind him to a much greater extent than he did then." (http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/06/17/ppp_poll_obama_up_big_in_ohio.html)

Edit: RCP on Ohio (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/oh/ohio_mccain_vs_obama-400.html#polls)

I forgot that you were not good with statistics, or so you claimed. Now you are an expert? :D

I guess my only comment about one statistical guru criticizing another guru who admits he knows little about stats is........ZzZzzzZzzz

I would like to point out the leftiness of this poll, saying that it is not accurate AT ALL. Too many people are voting for third parties to have this be an accurate representation of the US's view, in my opinion, and there isn't enough Democrat (only 60%?) votes to make it a worldwide poll.

*keeps on ranting until runs out of breath and has friend do CPR on him*

Welcome to Nationstates General. We're a bunch of left-wing crazy fuckers.

if you think that, you haven't been paying attention. we've had people here openly switch their views on him once clinton dropped out and said she supported him.

We're talking about CH here who thinks no dem can win except Hillary. He won't see why this is foolhearty. He's just as blinded as loyal republicans are who think only their candidate can win.

Some members of both parties have this mind set unfortunately.

Unless Paul runs as an independent, which he's already stated several times he most likely will not do, then I'm behind Obama for no other reason than because it's not a vote for McCain.

And this is yet another mindset.

The only problem is that perhaps that bipartisan support is collapsing on Obama? I posted a poll (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13751545&postcount=267)which clearly defined a steady decline in support, read favourability, amongst Republicans and Independents, since Jan.

Again, I think if he botches party unity, it will spell disaster for him.

No - that's the point I'm making.

If we assume that Republicans - and Republican-leaning Indies - TEND to differ from Dem voters on the issues that identify most strongly as 'Democrat' issues... then the more Obama loses the extreme Dem fringe, the more likely he is to gain Republicans and Republican-leaning indies... no?

It's not static - it'd be a swinging equilibrium.

the more Obama loses the extreme Dem fringe, the more likely he is to gain Republicans and Republican-leaning indies... no?

not if history is any guide. running to the republicans has nearly uniformly led to the actual republicans winning. this was the failure of the original clinton strategy, which sorta kept them in the whitehouse (with the perot assist), but lost them congress completely.

obama's strategy looks more like energizing the base - bringing out the african american and other minority vote in record numbers, getting the democratic activists excited and plugged into the campaign, really getting the youth out at all, but all done in a veneer that allows people disillusioned by the bush admin to have a dignified climb-down.

the trick to it is the complete crash of people identifying as republicans at all.

Regardless of what you think of the site's methodology, this is fun: go to Electoral Vote (http://www.electoral-vote.com), click Previous Report seven or eight times, then click Next Report (or just the "Back" button) repeatedly to flash through the maps in order (they load very quickly when you've already stepped through them). Looks really bad for McCain.

http://thepage.time.com/2008/06/18/new-swing-state-numbers/

Sorry if this was already posted - but hot damn. Outside the margin of error.

http://thepage.time.com/2008/06/18/new-swing-state-numbers/

Sorry if this was already posted - but hot damn. Outside the margin of error.

I do not believe it has been posted but where's the explaination for the poll?

http://thepage.time.com/2008/06/18/new-swing-state-numbers/

Sorry if this was already posted - but hot damn. Outside the margin of error.

Florida? I'd like to believe that, but that would be a huge turn around in a very short period of time. I hope it's the case, it would more than make up for the trouble he's having in Michigan.

Florida? I'd like to believe that, but that would be a huge turn around in a very short period of time. I hope it's the case, it would more than make up for the trouble he's having in Michigan.

Michigan is still leaning slightly in his favor. I believe he will be able to bring MI to the table. Florida is a different story. While I'd like to believe he can pull it there I just don't think the demographics will work for him. Retired snowbirds will vote for McCain over Obama. I'd like to not that he can certainly win without Florida.

I do not believe it has been posted but where's the explaination for the poll?

I would think you could go to the Quinnipiac (sp) site and get the info.