Here is polling from this weekend...
Pollster Dates Clinton Obama
Rasmussen 4/14/08 50 41
SurveyUSA 4/12-14/08 54 40
ARG 4/11-13/08 57 37
Quinnipiac 4/9-13/08 50 44
What are the predictions from the TulsaNow pundits?
Clinton by +10%. 81 delegates to Obamas 77.
McCain gets 75% of the vote but 100% of the delegates.
[edit]The dreaded double post[/edit]
RCP POLL AVERAGES
Democratic Presidential Nomination
RCP Average
Obama48.4%
Clinton41.0%
Obama +7.4%
General Election: McCain vs. Obama
RCP Average
McCain (R)44.8%
Obama (D)45.0%
Und6.3%
Obama +0.2%
General Election: McCain vs. Clinton
RCP Average
McCain (R)46.2%
Clinton (D)44.8%
Und5.5%
McCain +1.4%
Mathematically, can Hillary turn it around? Does the party want her to?
There is no mathematical disadvantage to Hillary Clinton at this point. There's still a realistic chance that the Democrats may have a brokered convention this year.
She is tenacious enough and feels entitled enough to the nomination, I don't see her stepping aside before the convention. I just don't see it happening. She's going to do what's best for Hillary, not what's best for her party. Right now, she's McCain's best ally, it's keeping the focus off him.
B.O. will not lose this race and Billary will eventually throw the towel in long before Denver.
However, one must wonder what the Clittons game is. I believe they are up to no good knowing that 8 years of a democrat in the White House would be the end of their dynasty. Instead, their plan seems to be try to destroy any chance of an 8 year term and re-enter the race in 4 years as a repolished unifier. The only sacrafice is America has got to go through 4 more years of Bushenomics and war.
Wait and we will see....
If Obama loses by more than ten points, it will be a real sign that he has lost his luster.
That means he can't win.
How soon after a humiliating loss in Pennsylvania should he drop out?
Today's polling from Zogby has the race dead even (C-45%, O-44%). Interesting take on Clinton's attacks:
quote:
This is not a year for negative campaigning and Clinton's pounding of Obama on his controversial description of small town voters in Pennsylvania does not seem to be working.
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1481
Whether Clinton can win or not may depend on whether she pays "street money" (//%22http://www.star-telegram.com/national_news/story/578038.html%22). Ultimately, I think that Hillary will probably be able to squeeze out a win, but by 5% or less.
Should we continue our ongoing wager, RM?
Clinton by six, which means nearly nothing in terms of her gaining delegates.
She needs delegates bad, and whatever gains she has in PA will be erased by Obama in North Carolina.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
If Obama loses by more than ten points, it will be a real sign that he has lost his luster.
That means he can't win.
How soon after a humiliating loss in Pennsylvania should he drop out?
How is this hyperbole helpful?
If he loses by 10 points he is still way ahead in popular vote and pledged delegates. All indications are he will win SC by a greater margin that Hillary wins PA.
Do you really think losing PA is meaningful or do you think it is just a matter of one state preferring Hillary, as the polls have indicated all along? Because if the former, your view is not supported by all the other data available - including the fact that Obama is more popular nationally than ever before. Which goes back to my hyperbole question...
Last night's debate was devastating to both candidates. I watched it with my wife and a few of her friends (2 union teachers, hardcore libs).
When the debate was over all agreed that the only winner was the guy that wasn't there.
Hillary came across as desperate and ill-equipped. Then evasive. Finally just unprepared.
Obama solidified his media manufactured persona by falling apart under mild questioning.
Hillary did no favors for herself, but she showed us nothing new, and we expected her inability to explain the road to her goals. She was unable to pump any sunshine ;-)
But. . . . Obama seemed totally exposed. No magic. No charisma. Deer in the headlights. Amazing failure. I am interested to see how the media band-aids serve to mend his wounds?
No matter, he will get the nomination for his party, but with this amateur night performance in a relatively mild forum, I strongly doubt his ability to stand up to McCain in a real debate.
Prior to this extended primary Obama had McCain beat by between 13% to 18%. But after the infighting they are statistically even. The Republicans couldn't have asked for a better gift.
"You go girl!"
In order to get power and retain it, it is necessary to love power; but love of power is not connected with goodness but with qualities that are the opposite of goodness, such as pride, cunning, and cruelty. – Leo Tolstoy
(http://www.gambling911.com/Hillary-Clinton-Large-10.jpg)
Just wait until Obama faces down McSame in the debates. It will be sad. I just worry people will feel so sorry for McSame that they will be willing to live with the Repug Veep choice over Barack. Not gonna happen. Landslide coming....
I appreciated the repeated questioning when they wouldn't answer a direct question, i.e., when they questioned O about his stance on registration of guns. They made a point of mentioning that he never bothered to answer the question when they asked the same question of Hillary.
The questions could have been harder and more compelling, but it was clear from that segment that they wouldn't be answering them anyways.
Hill dog by 12.....
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Just wait until Obama faces down McSame in the debates. It will be sad. I just worry people will feel so sorry for McSame that they will be willing to live with the Repug Veep choice over Barack. Not gonna happen. Landslide coming....
For the sake of your candidate, I hope so.
Perhaps someone should suggest that he prepare himself more for direct questions (not related to fluffy speeches and talking points). That's what got him off his skateboard last night. He was expected to take a stance of his own on issues. No projected platforms or "I want" speeches.
I admire him because it's obvious that he understands that he must remain unknown to be viable. His personality and platform is currently projected on him by his supporters. This allows him to be anything to anyone.
If he shows the slightest inkling of his own opinion, the cult of personality will be broken, and all of the clever Huffingtonesque or Soroesque nicknames for whoever his opponent is will be of little aid.
I wish him the best, because last night was hard to watch. It was the wizard when they pulled away the curtain.
(http://battellemedia.com/images/wizard-behind-curtain.jpg)
quote:
admire him because it's obvious that he understands that he must remain unknown to be viable.
(http://www.gifs.net/Animation11/Science_and_Body/Hands_and_Feet/Clapping.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Just wait until Obama faces down McSame in the debates. It will be sad. I just worry people will feel so sorry for McSame that they will be willing to live with the Repug Veep choice over Barack. Not gonna happen. Landslide coming....
For the sake of your candidate, I hope so.
Perhaps someone should suggest that he prepare himself more for direct questions (not related to fluffy speeches and talking points). That's what got him off his skateboard last night. He was expected to take a stance of his own on issues. No projected platforms or "I want" speeches.
I admire him because it's obvious that he understands that he must remain unknown to be viable. His personality and platform is currently projected on him by his supporters. This allows him to be anything to anyone.
If he shows the slightest inkling of his own opinion, the cult of personality will be broken, and all of the clever Huffingtonesque or Soroesque nicknames for whoever his opponent is will be of little aid.
I wish him the best, because last night was hard to watch. It was the wizard when they pulled away the curtain.
(http://battellemedia.com/images/wizard-behind-curtain.jpg)
I think you're overstating it just a tad. Obama was off his game, definitely. But he looked exhausted more than anything, which, one assumes, is what a slugfest campaign like this might do to a person. I'm not telling you not to knock him for a bad performance, but don't overstate it either. You've seen him give a good show, too . . . and when he does he's completely on.
That's why having 26 Democratic debate face-offs like this becomes completely useless over time. Someone's gonna have a bad one . . . hell, someone might have a couple of bad ones . . . but what you've learned by #26 is exactly bupkiss. You learned everything important by #18 at the latest.
Are you kidding me! These face offs yield nothing, whether they're dem v dem or rep v dem. After any of these morons, Clinton, McCain, or Obama regurgitate their talking points at least twice I'm done...
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Are you kidding me! These face offs yield nothing, whether they're dem v dem or rep v dem. After any of these morons, Clinton, McCain, or Obama regurgitate their talking points at least twice I'm done...
Uh, that was my point.
I saw a good portion of the debate last night. I thought Hillary wone it. I like Obama but that only made me more frustrated that he didnt answer the questions about "knowing someone who said something extreme or did something wrong" with the same clear moral voice I have heard him speak in before.
"Pushing people away doesnt help them learn good from you. A good person that is growing will impart that upon the people they are around" "Everyone needs to learn something and grow, why else would we need mentors or pastors?, What kind of world would it be if those people pushed us away or disowned us because we were not perfect, were mistaken in our beliefs?" "Though pastors are to be teachers, even pastors learn from their flock, how many times have you heard a sermon from a pastor telling a story about something he learned from someone in his church? I think we all have" I am a good person, I wouldnt want to be pushed away from those wiser than me that I could learn from because they dont agree with me. I wouldnt want to push others away because they have sinned or I disagree with them either.
Something of that sort, would have been great. He knew the question was coming and should have formulated an aswer like that. And heck even turned it on the Republicans who so often are the people who "push others away" because they dont believe like they do.
I expected better from Obama. Hopefully he will get back on his game. I can imagine that a person in the middle of all of this has a lot less quiet time to think, to gather the better angels of ones thoughts and come up with answers to these questions like you can at other times. I still think he can, and he must in order to win in this heated, electoral cauldron.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
I expected better from Obama. Hopefully he will get back on his game. I can imagine that a person in the middle of all of this has a lot less quiet time to think, to gather the better angels of ones thoughts and come up with answers to these questions like you can at other times. I still think he can, and he must in order to win in this heated, electoral cauldron.
And that's my frustration right now. We've seen both of these candidates be excellent at different times, IMO, but it feels like we've gotten to the point of creating useless pitfalls for them. I don't know what's being proven anymore other than useless tit-for-tat. Talking Points Memo (//%22http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/189511.php%22) said "Obama looked weary and had what I can only think to compare to the look of a staggering boxer," and it seemed that way to me, too. That's why I can't shake the notion that the primary has completely exited out of the realm of the political and into straight up useless entertainment.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Are you kidding me! These face offs yield nothing, whether they're dem v dem or rep v dem. After any of these morons, Clinton, McCain, or Obama regurgitate their talking points at least twice I'm done...
Definately.
But I seem to recall that from every debate in the past 40 years.
Harvard Law. President of the Harvard Law Review, and he can't think on his feet any better than he showed last night? Tsk Tsk.
Did anyone catch the comment when they were talking about gaffes? Obama said something along the lines of: "We are campaigning. Every minute of everything we say is recorded, so they are going to catch every mistake." That made him sound like a machine to me.
I think he might have been better-served to show some humility with a comment like: "I'm only human, I make mistakes."
Again, hardly a debate, more like a forum.
Gaffes....????
Like al queda? Or was it Shi'ites?
We're still waiting for Dumbya to say he's made mistakes......
So, RM--what's your prediction?
You posted this on another thread--you'll stop talking about Hillary if she loses, but that Obama supporters should admit he has problems if he loses by double digits. I'll say this, if he loses by double digits, then I think he should rethink his strategy, and that Hillary should stay in till the end--we'll see then what happens. But what happens when she wins by less than double digits? What if she ends up with only a handful of more delegates (which will be erased in the North Carolina primary)? If she wins by 5% or less, will you admit that her staying in the race really serves no purpose other than increasing the odds of a McCain presidency?
Barack Obama will stomp McCain.....it's the millenium prediction!
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/04/19/MNN7107FVE.DTL&type=politics
'Millennial Generation' set to rock the vote
Carla Marinucci, Chronicle Political Writer
Sunday, April 20, 2008
No, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama hasn't been in the habit of wearing an American flag on his lapel.
Yes, he's got some controversial acquaintances and has made some slipups lately about working Americans who "cling" to religion.
So won't it be easy for Republican Sen. John McCain, Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton - and the media - to keep painting Obama as an ultraliberal elitist who is out of touch with American values and working people?
In another era - when Baby Boomers were the overwhelmingly dominant generation - maybe so.
But with just two days until Pennsylvania kicks off the final round of primaries, political observers say there's clear evidence that the election of 2008 represents a new universe - and a new generation - when it comes to White House contests. And the political phenomenon of Barack Obama is symbolic of the game-changing attitudes and growing influence to be wielded by the upcoming generation of "Millennial" voters - the largest and most diverse generation in American history, born between 1982 and 2003 - who already are helping to shape the race.
Authors Morley Winograd and Michael Hais, who just released "Millennial Makeover: MySpace, YouTube and the Future of American Politics," a book that examines the seismic generational and cultural realignments at play on the political stage this year, say the political pileups of the past week represent a perfect example of how the 20-somethings have managed to reshape conventional politics in the current race for the White House.
There was Obama's brouhaha over the "bitter" comments in San Francisco - fueled by Clinton, McCain and the media - followed by a rough Philadelphia debate in which Clinton got tough and ABC moderators got tougher, peppering him about his recent stumbles and gaffes.
That looked to be a perfect storm that might have swamped a first-time presidential candidate, but it wasn't Obama who took the body blows. Instead, ABC's George Stephanopoulos and Charles Gibson, the journalists, were publicly pummeled for "gotcha games," and Clinton came away with nary a new superdelegate in her pocket.
Nothing sticking
Meanwhile, Obama literally brushed it all off as the old way of doing things, while both Pennsylvania and national polls appear to suggest that none of it has stuck to him. Indeed, he looks even stronger, said Winograd, a former senior adviser to Vice President Al Gore during the Clinton administration.
Twenty-somethings "are driving the presidential race in a huge way," said Annemarie Stephens, an organizer for the youth-oriented "Nation for Change" rally to celebrate Obama's campaign today at Frank Ogawa Plaza in Oakland. The event, which will star gospel, hip-hop and ethnic musicians - like similar rallies planned in nearly all 50 states today - has been put together almost entirely on the Internet, she said.
"People are concerned about the well-being of this country," she said. "It's no longer politics as usual; we're not going to stand for the pettiness."
Jordan D'Amato, 20, a political science major at UC Berkeley and one of the "Millennial Generation," says coming of age in an era of the two-term presidency of George W. Bush has had a clear impact on his political outlook.
"I think the country is headed in the wrong direction, and there have been monumental failures, like the war in Iraq," the health care system and the economy, he said.
Obama, he said, has "run a very successful campaign so far, proposing a message of hope" to address those issues.
"So when he makes a slipup, and people point out his relationship to Jeremiah Wright," the senator's controversial former pastor, "you say, 'Yes, he has faults.' " But, D'Amato said, Obama isn't influenced by pundits and politicians "trying to pick him apart."
The apparent inability of Clinton and McCain to influence voters like D'Amato and blunt Obama's trajectory underscores the different world and political view of the "Millennial Generation," which some have suggested looks increasingly like the "Obamanation."
Unlike their Boomer parents - those millions of 50- and 60-something activists born of protest and conflict who accept politics as a blood sport - the younger generation has come of age in an era of burgeoning new technologies providing tangible evidence of the promise of change.
"Unlike the conservative Gen-Xers who preceded them, or the harshly divided Baby Boomer Generation, the Millennials are united across gender and race in their desire to find win-win solutions to America's problems," Winograd and Hais write.
'Sense of urgency'
"My students feel a sense of urgency about the times and the urgency of now," said James Taylor, an associate professor of politics at the University of San Francisco. "They're not interested in personal attack, and much more interested in the hard issues facing the country. ... So to talk about his misstatements is off-putting for young people who want hope and their futures to mean something."
Indeed, said Winograd and Hais, younger voters are increasingly more likely to question - and openly dismiss - the old rules of the "gotcha" politics game.
Practically born networking on social sites like Facebook and MySpace, "their attitude regarding the media is, 'Who anointed them the experts?' " said Hais, who is credited with identifying the power of "wired" tech workers in his research as a marketing executive. " 'I'd rather pay attention to my friends online, and we'll decide what we think.' "
And neither are they wedded to blogosphere slugfests or the talking-head shouting matches that have been the last generation's hallmarks in political contests, said Hais.
Irreverent influences
Instead they look to figures like Comedy Central's Jon Stewart, who has jabbed at the kings of conflict (MSNBC's Chris Matthews and Tucker Carlson) on his "Daily Show," and tongue-in-cheek cable commentator Keith Olbermann, who has won their hearts by skewering media self-importance with nightly coronations of "The Worst Person in the World."
So far, Obama - who has referenced how the "Joshua Generation" holds the promise to make good on the past struggles of the previous "Moses Generation" - has "intuitively appeared to address these generational themes," Winograd said. "He's saying we've got to heal divisions."
By contrast, both Clinton and McCain have appeared old-school, "trying to say (Obama is) channeling Dukakis, an insensitive elite who doesn't understand people's fears and love of country," said Winograd, referring to former Massachusetts governor and failed Democratic candidate Michael Dukakis. That is "an attempt to characterize him in Boomer terms - but it's not being heard by those who listen to a civic message."
Not all political observers agree, and some suggest younger voters are a long way from proving their mettle.
"This is a generation far removed from any real troubles in this country; they've had every advantage," said Patrick Dorinson, a veteran GOP strategist in Sacramento. "They didn't sign up for the draft not knowing if they would be called; they've had the greatest prosperity of any generation in history ... look in their bedroom, and there are iPods, video games and cell phones."
He said that 20-somethings better recognize that - like it or not - they can't expect McCain, Clinton or any other contender to back off their candidate.
"This generation is going to have to step up and run this country some day," he said. "I'm sorry, politics is tough, tough sport and it should test the mettle of the people we ask to lead us.
"And we need to know that a person who leads this country can take it," he said.
Get used to it
But Winograd and Hais warn that Baby Boomers, Gen-Xers and political insiders - including candidates - who hope to continue to make a difference in the political universe have one real option: get used to the new guys.
The Millennials' power, the authors say, has only just begun to be felt.
"By 2008, almost half of the largest generation in American history will be eligible to vote, making Millennial attitudes and beliefs the key to understanding how much the dynamics of American politics will change before the first decade of the 21st century is over," they write.
"The campaigns, candidates and events of the rest of this decade will determine which party gains the lifelong allegiance of this new generation - and with it, the dominant advantage in the next civic era of American politics."
In Pennsylvania: Obama accuses Clinton of "slash and burn" tactics, while she implies that she's substance, he's flash. A13
Who are the influential Millennial Voters?
-- Born between 1982-2003, the largest and most diverse generation in history, numbering roughly 100 million, or a third of the total U.S. population.
-- More optimistic and upbeat than Gen-Xers or Baby Boomers before them, they believe they have a greater chance of bringing about social change.
-- Technology-born and bred on YouTube, Google, Napster, Facebook, MySpace and other innovations.
-- Have "confidence in the federal government" and have no fear of having a role in it.
-- Two-thirds say things in America are currently "off track."
-- Place greater significance on their feeling about the Republican and Democratic parties.
-- Voted for Democratic house candidates over Republicans by 60 to 30 percent.
Source: "Millennial Makeover: MySpace, YouTube and the Future of American Politics," Morley Winograd and Michael Hais
My prediction is that Clinton wins by eight points or more in Pennsylvania.
Obama people will immediately claim victory and say that Pennsylvanians are bitter and that Hillary was once ahead by more. They will instantly change the conversation to the delegate count and say that Hillary can't win, so the contest doesn't matter. Obama will refuse to do any more debates because he doesn't want to answer any more questions about his relationships with bad people.
Obama has outspent Hillary three to one on ads in the state and five to one in paid staffers. I have read reports that he is spending a half a million dollars a day in Pennsylvania. I can't imagine how he could lose after spending that amount of money.
Hillary just keeps winning all the big states and all the swing states. Obama folks need to realize that their candidate may have jumped the shark.
She's the shark.
quote:
Obama has outspent Hillary three to one on ads in the state and five to one in paid staffers. I have read reports that he is spending a half a million dollars a day in Pennsylvania. I can't imagine how he could lose after spending that amount of money.
Because it is an Eastern state that started off +30 for Hillary. And since when does that matter? Hillary has the cash to spend if she wanted to, but choses not to.
quote:
Hillary just keeps winning all the big states and all the swing states.
And all those pesky bitter states keep voting for Obama. Which is why he is so far in the lead.
RM, are you on the Clinton staff somehow? Co-Chair of her Oklahoma campaign or her Tulsa office or something? Your tenacity is over whelming.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
My prediction is that Clinton wins by eight points or more in Pennsylvania.
Obama people will immediately claim victory and say that Pennsylvanians are bitter and that Hillary was once ahead by more. They will instantly change the conversation to the delegate count and say that Hillary can't win, so the contest doesn't matter. Obama will refuse to do any more debates because he doesn't want to answer any more questions about his relationships with bad people.
Obama has outspent Hillary three to one on ads in the state and five to one in paid staffers. I have read reports that he is spending a half a million dollars a day in Pennsylvania. I can't imagine how he could lose after spending that amount of money.
Hillary just keeps winning all the big states and all the swing states. Obama folks need to realize that their candidate may have jumped the shark.
Considering that Clinton's very own surrogates have said she needs a
huge win, I would think Obama's team is justified in making the argument that anything short of a double digit win is meaningless. A single digit win would mean that Hillary is no better off than before Pennsylvania. After all, Obama has won 24 states by double digits. Some of those he won by 20, 30, up 60% of the votes. Absent a huge win, coupled by a huge turnout, there is no way that Hillary could catch him in the popular vote. So, if tomorrow, Hillary wins by 8%, Obama will still have more:
*pledged delegates
*popular votes
*states won
*primaries won
*caucuses won
*donors
*money raised
*cash on hand
*Governor endorsements
*Senatorial endorsements
She isn't more "electable" than Obama, given that nationwide polling, and state by state polling, show almost identical results. Winning a state in the primary means nothing when it comes to the general election (which the Clinton team likes to point out in respect to all of the "red states" that Obama won). Look at California--Hillary won there, but Obama polls better against McCain there.
Obama has gotten 8 times more superdelegate endorsements than Hillary since February. He has run a better campaign, and is in a better position financially and organizationally to run against McCain in the fall.
What argument could she possibly give to the few remaining superdelegates (many of whom are "ad-ons" and likely to reflect the results of their states' election) that they should not honor the vote of the people?
C'mon, folks.
RM knows these things as much as anyone.
He's still a Clinton supporter, and he's simply baiting you for all it's worth to get the arguments going.
This will all be over by early May, and maybe sooner.
I am not a paid campaigner, have never met Hillary, and have given her no money.
I don't know if what I write should be considered "baiting".
I just see a good candidate that is being attacked by the media and ignored by the democrat posters on this forum. I also see a campaigner that infuriates the right-wing talking heads.
Of course, the rebel in me likes Hillary and the gentlemen in me defends a woman.
I like Obama just fine, I just am trying to level the playing field.
Hillary is going to have a good day tomorrow and I am too. Hers for winning Pennsylvania, mine for our best Earth Day ever.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
I don't know if what I write should be considered "baiting".
...
I like Obama just fine, I just am trying to level the playing field.
It's baiting. [;)]
BTW, I had a hunch that Hillary's campaign was doomed months ago when she announced that her theme song was by Celine Dion. [xx(]
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
I don't know if what I write should be considered "baiting".
...
I like Obama just fine, I just am trying to level the playing field.
It's baiting. [;)]
BTW, I had a hunch that Hillary's campaign was doomed months ago when she announced that her theme song was by Celine Dion. [xx(]
I am sure that Celine Dion will help her win over those small town voters, unlike Springsteen:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Q6FcqTvanw
[;)]
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Because it is an Eastern state that started off +30 for Hillary.
Polls don't matter. They are art, not science.
I remember FOTD posting polls the day before the New Hampshire primary showing Obama winning by 13 points (Hillary won by three).
I can show you polls done in the last week showing Pennsylvania everywhere from Clinton up by 20 to Obama ahead by 5.
Saying he closed the gap when there was no verifiable number is like saying your favorite team lost the Super Bowl, but you consider it a win because they beat the point spread.
I realize he is dragging this on for his own amusement, but it's my amusement too or I wouldn't be trolling in politics...
Thank god the polls don't matter, because Hillary has a problem in many of the rest of the states and the Union as a whole if they do. Whew!
Unfortunately, actual votes do count, and they are also stacked against her.
quote:
Saying he closed the gap when there was no verifiable number is like saying your favorite team lost the Super Bowl, but you consider it a win because they beat the point spread.
Actually, it would be like saying the heavy favorite could still lose, in spite of it only being half time. I remember a super bowl not long ago, before the game even started everyone had picked a winner and declared it a perfect season. Very similar to a primary I remember where before it even started a candidate was anointed - then the first half didn't go her way and she couldn't put enough points on the board down the stretch to make a difference.
I love your sports analogies.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Because it is an Eastern state that started off +30 for Hillary.
Polls don't matter. They are art, not science.
I remember FOTD posting polls the day before the New Hampshire primary showing Obama winning by 13 points (Hillary won by three).
I can show you polls done in the last week showing Pennsylvania everywhere from Clinton up by 20 to Obama ahead by 5.
Saying he closed the gap when there was no verifiable number is like saying your favorite team lost the Super Bowl, but you consider it a win because they beat the point spread.
Yes. It was the first glimmer of polling those that say one thing, enter the ballot box and check something altogether different than was told the pollster.
Those in the know have moved on to McCain v. Obama....predicting running mates....and forecasting negative ads....
I will stick to my May 2 prognosis of being delivered from evil.
This from electoral-vote.com
With Obama as the nominee, the electoral college at the moment is Obama 260 to McCain 254 with 24 ties. With Hillary Clinton as the nominee, it is Clinton 289 to McCain 239 with 10 ties. Thus for the moment, her argument that she is more electable is true. Her strength is that she wins Florida and Ohio although he offsets this by winning Michigan and Iowa, which she loses. Also, he puts Colorado and North Carolina in play. If Obama were to win Colorado and McCain were to win North Carolina, they would each have 269 electoral votes and the new House would choose the President.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
This from electoral-vote.com
With Obama as the nominee, the electoral college at the moment is Obama 260 to McCain 254 with 24 ties. With Hillary Clinton as the nominee, it is Clinton 289 to McCain 239 with 10 ties. Thus for the moment, her argument that she is more electable is true. Her strength is that she wins Florida and Ohio although he offsets this by winning Michigan and Iowa, which she loses. Also, he puts Colorado and North Carolina in play. If Obama were to win Colorado and McCain were to win North Carolina, they would each have 269 electoral votes and the new House would choose the President.
Aren't those speculative "art" and not "science" numbers that don't mean anything? Or is that only applicable if the "art" is bad news for Hillary?
Yes. All polling is made up numbers that differ greatly based on sampling.
Obama has everything going for him tomorrow. Look at the list PMcalk made. He is ahead in
*pledged delegates
*popular votes
*states won
*primaries won
*caucuses won
*donors
*money raised
*cash on hand
*Governor endorsements
*Senatorial endorsements
He is out-spending her by millions per week in Pennsylvania. He has paid staffers in every county.
How can a loss by even one vote be anything but embarrassing for Obama?
He is ahead in everything in Pennsylvania except for the only thing that counts, votes. Why? Because the democratic voters of Pennsylvania want someone else to be their candidate.
Obama people should be worried that his message isn't working anymore. You can't just take a bunch of independents to the caucus meetings and expect them to wear down the opponents here.
If the democrats had a normal, reasonable system for electing a candidate, Obama would lose. If they had primaries instead of caucuses, Hillary would be ahead. If the had winner take all elections, Hillary would be ahead.
Obama has run a great campaign and used the screwy rules of the National Democratic Party to get ahead. If the super-delegates start going with Hillary, he should be the last one to complain.
So the new spin:
Obama is so far ahead of Hillary in every category that a loss in Pennsylvania is embarrassing.
Very interesting. At what point should Hillary be embarrasses by all her previous losses since she went in as the front runner?
quote:
If the democrats had a normal, reasonable system for electing a candidate, Obama would lose. If they had primaries instead of caucuses, Hillary would be ahead. If the had winner take all elections, Hillary would be ahead.
So, first of all the Democrat's system sucks and the Republican system is much better. Under that system, basically Florida, Illinois, NY, Texas, and California are all that matter. Also, states that chose caucuses (closer to how candidates were chosen back in the day) are crap.
IF the rules were totally different than they are, she'd be winning. Stupid reality all getting in the way. Me not having a PHD from Oxford is all that's keeping me from that tenured position at U Tulsa I've always wanted...
quote:
Obama has run a great campaign and used the screwy rules of the National Democratic Party to get ahead. If the super-delegates start going with Hillary, he should be the last one to complain.
Who has had more influence over Democratic party rules... the Clinton's or Obama? They have had as much or more authority in the party for the last 15 years than anyone else - Obama has barely had a voice. So if he loses playing by the rules Hillary helped setup... only Hillary gets to complain?
Again, these notions are very interesting.
Wow, RM, you're starting to sound....bitter. I know you're baiting, but that's ok. You are still my favorite trash guy.[;)]
I guess the rules that have been in play for the last twenty years--the ones that Hillary Clinton's husband won under--doen't suit her well. Was he just a better campaigner? Or maybe it was his message--what was that message? Oh, yeah, hope & change.
Unfortunately for Hillary, democrats don't have a system whereby a few "big states" get to decide for the rest of the country who the democratic nominee is--an elitist system, if you ask me. We have a system that allows all democrats throughout the country to have a say.
Back to sports analogies, your comments RM are equivalent to telling a football team who has excuted an almost flawless season, who is winning the superbowl by an insurmountable number, that they should be embarrassed for missing one field goal.
I admit to being a little obsessive about trying to find ways to defend my candidate. I ignore the negatives well.
I just think gardening is simpler when you plow around the stumps.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
I just think gardening is simpler when you plow around the stumps.
No discussion of a Clinton is complete without a phallic reference. Not sure how this ties in, but I'm sure it does... and I don't think it's family friendly either.
Your banter is amusing, assuming you are attempting to stir discussion and have not been taste testing the Kool-Aid.
I tried making kool-aid, but I couldn't get all that water into the little package.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
Here is polling from this weekend...
Pollster Dates Clinton Obama
Rasmussen 4/14/08 50 41
SurveyUSA 4/12-14/08 54 40
ARG 4/11-13/08 57 37
Quinnipiac 4/9-13/08 50 44
What are the predictions from the TulsaNow pundits?
Rasmussen 4/20/08 49 44
SurveyUSA 4/18-20/08 50 44
Quinnipiac 4/18-20/08 51 44
Insider Adv 4/20/08 49 39
Zogby 4/19-20/08 48 42
Suffolk 4/19-20/08 52 42
PPP 4/19-20/08 46 49
StrategicV 4/18-20/08 48 41
Or perhaps you might be interested in watching a scene from Rocky. (//%22http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8ZPtbQFFog%22)
^^I love that Hillary compares herself to Rocky (psst, Hillary--Rocky lost the fight.)
Ahh... less than 24 hours and we will be done with this. :)
I predict that Hillary will be ahead in popular votes after today. Obama says he is ahead by 800,000, but Hillary beat him by 290,000 in Florida and 320,000 in Michigan that he doesn't want to count. Yes, the votes don't count for delegate purposes, but the individuals did vote.
She will win Pennsylvania by over 200,000 today.
I am so excited! Neither of these people are my candidate, but this is the best "Soap Opera" style primary that I have ever been alive to watch.
I just heard an informal email poll, and apparently there hundreds of thousands of "operation chaos" voters heading out to the polls today to make sure Hillary stays in.
I don't think the opinion polls have any way to truly predict anything. It must be frustrating for them.
If Hill stays in this will be an exhausting primary (if it isn't already), but it will be a fascinating. They are both getting really dirty and the filth is rubbing off on other members of the party. She may well be successful in not only alienating herself from her party, but severely weakening Obama's character too. She has been more damaging to herself and Obama then any member of the republican establishment. Obama's attack ads are mild and silly, but she is really digging in. I had no idea that Obama was linked to terrorist groups?
I'm watching the ads this morning at work, it's unbelievable! I can't wait until she accuses him of eating babies!
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
I just heard an informal email poll, and apparently there hundreds of thousands of "operation chaos" voters heading out to the polls today to make sure Hillary stays in.
That is boasting and puffing up their own importance. Stop listening to Rush Limbaugh.
217,000 voters switched parties in the last four months in Pennsylvania. 92% of them switched to democrat.
Polling was done on them and 52% of them said they were voting for Obama. It is because of his appeal to independents and probable dislike of Hillary.
Operation Chaos probably accounts for a few dozen people who would go through the trouble because Rush told them too. Now when Hillary wins big, they and him, will take the credit.
As is almost always the case, Rush is lying about his own importance.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
I predict that Hillary will be ahead in popular votes after today. Obama says he is ahead by 800,000, but Hillary beat him by 290,000 in Florida and 320,000 in Michigan that he doesn't want to count. Yes, the votes don't count for delegate purposes, but the individuals did vote.
She will win Pennsylvania by over 200,000 today.
First, for Hillary to win by 200,000 votes, she would have to either win by a landslide, or there would have to be unbelievable record turnout. Your estimate of a 8% win would require a turnout of 2.5 million people. The last primary in Pennsylvania saw a turnout of 1.2 million. While I fully expect that there will be a large turnout, I think 2.5 million is beyond any reasonable expectation.
Yes, of course, if she does win by over 200,000, and if you count only the votes that were cast for Hillary in Michigan (which by the way was declared to be an unconstitutional by their state), ignore the huge numbers of votes that were cast for "anyone but Hillary", then throw in the Florida beauty contest, you might get a rough estimate that puts Hillary slightly ahead. But even then that is just a rough guess, since many states were caucuses, and it is very difficult to determine the "popular vote" in those states. And any lead will vanish once North Carolina votes.
lol, well put PM.
When you count votes from states you didn't even "compete in" - or where your opponent wasn't even on the ballot, things are desperate.
BUT... it does appear "operation chaos" is not really a factor:
quote:
A recent Keystone Poll of Pennsylvania voters, conducted by Franklin and Marshall College, found that 62 percent of Democrats who registered statewide within the last three months planned to vote for Obama.
http://www.texarkanagazette.com/news/WireHeadlines/2008/04/20/pennsylvania-voter-registration-data-ind-34.php
So lets look at facts again!
Actual Votes Tally:
Obama 13,355,209/49.5% Clinton 12,638,123/46.9%
= Obama +717,086/2.6%
With Florida (where they "did not compete):
Obama 13,931,423/48.5% Clinton: 13,509,109/47.1%
= Obama +422,314/+1.4%
Michigan simply does not count. When Obama was, by agreement, not even on the ballot the case can't even really be made that it counts. And SURELY if Clinton gets to count the Florida tally then we can estimate the Caucus votes.
All In:
Obama:14,265,507/48.6% Clinton: 13,732,971/46.8%
=Obama +532,536 +1.8%
So all in, Obama is up 532,536 votes as our best estimate. That is counting the +300K for Hillary from Florida and +100K for Obama from caucus estimates.
Pennsylvania has 4,200,000 registered democrats eligible to vote tomorrow. She needs 532,536 to even have a claim of popular vote, she needs 650,000 to have a claim that is solid. Or 13% and 16% victories respectively with 100% Democratic voter turnout.
Assuming a record breaking 50% turnout, she would need double those margins to take the lead. The highest estimate for turnout is 60%... to gain the popular vote she would have to win by 26%.
What I'm getting at, is your contention seems unlikely. Unless you count Florida and Michigan and ignore the caucuses. In which case the only problem is your prior statements that the popular vote is not what decides elections... which would drive us back to the point that no matter what, Obama will still lead in the Delegates after today.
The question is, what is the minimum # Hillary needs to win to claim a victory? Can she smile if she wins by < 10%?
I think your 8% number is close to what she needs to smile, less than 5% and it's over.
quote:
but Hillary beat him by 290,000 in Florida and 320,000 in Michigan that he doesn't want to count. Yes, the votes don't count for delegate purposes, but the individuals did vote.
I had a dream last night I paid $1mm cash for a new house, does that mean I get to move in tomorrow?
The votes in Mich and Fla are irrelevant. If Ms. Clinton had not incorrectly viewed this as a coronation tour (this morning she was quoted from Harrisburg as saying she was undergoing the 'worlds longest job interview') she might be actually leading in popular and delegate votes.
Even if she were to lose today and in NC, I don't see her backing down prior to Denver. Anyone who thinks she will has not been listening very carefully to what it is she's trying to do. She keeps saying she's more electable than Obama and she feels she's got another four months to prove it.
You all keep talking about how Michigan and Florida shouldn't count. The delegate allocations from those elections were stopped by Obama supporters, but the citizens still voted.
The individual votes should count, even if they didn't produce delegates recognized by the Democratic National Committee.
A vote by a legal citizen should be counted. To not would be undemocratic and unamerican.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
but Hillary beat him by 290,000 in Florida and 320,000 in Michigan that he doesn't want to count. Yes, the votes don't count for delegate purposes, but the individuals did vote.
I had a dream last night I paid $1mm cash for a new house, does that mean I get to move in tomorrow?
The votes in Mich and Fla are irrelevant. If Ms. Clinton had not incorrectly viewed this as a coronation tour (this morning she was quoted from Harrisburg as saying she was undergoing the 'worlds longest job interview') she might be actually leading in popular and delegate votes.
Even if she were to lose today and in NC, I don't see her backing down prior to Denver. Anyone who thinks she will has not been listening very carefully to what it is she's trying to do. She keeps saying she's more electable than Obama and she feels she's got another four months to prove it.
Familiarity breeds contempt.
So far we know that Obama flubs difficult questions. That he has not returned one punch. That he plays old politics and calls it something new and different. That slowly disturbing facts are drifting out about his background.
He has only really been in the public eye since December and the more we get to know him, the less he looks like someone who can win the presidency.
On the other hand, with much more practice and the paying of more dues he would be a stellar candidate. Let's give him a chance to learn on the job in the vice-presidency.
Does anyone else out there feel like their party has been hijacked by MoveOn? I mean have the inventors of General Betrayus ever won anything? No. And do they really think they are going to get the Republicans to hold off on the difficult questions this fall? MoveOn, I was there at your beginning but this isn't San Francisco, this is the heartland and you don't get it.
For goodness sakes, RM, if you want to violate the rules and count the unconstitutional election in Michigan, at least only count the amount by which she won--around 238,000 people showed up to vote for "anyone but Hillary." She exceeded that by only about 90,000 votes.
Maybe if your candidate had actually proposed a reasonable approach to voting in Michigan & Florida, we could have seen an election there. It was a good strategy of hers to propose something ridiculous, then claim that Obama was trying to stop them from voting. I don't think anyone is buying it, though.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
I just heard an informal email poll, and apparently there hundreds of thousands of "operation chaos" voters heading out to the polls today to make sure Hillary stays in.
That is boasting and puffing up their own importance. Stop listening to Rush Limbaugh.
217,000 voters switched parties in the last four months in Pennsylvania. 92% of them switched to democrat.
Polling was done on them and 52% of them said they were voting for Obama. It is because of his appeal to independents and probable dislike of Hillary.
Operation Chaos probably accounts for a few dozen people who would go through the trouble because Rush told them too. Now when Hillary wins big, they and him, will take the credit.
As is almost always the case, Rush is lying about his own importance.
Actually I was watching Fox news which, I guess, is just as bad as Rush in some people's eyes. They asked people to email if they were a part of "operation chaos."
I agree, I can't see it having that much of an affect, but the opinion polls have been all over the map in the last couple of weeks.
The candidates are both very negative at this point. So if this carries to the date of the convention how much damage will be dealt before the victor emerges. Meanwhile. . .
When you encounter a superior vessel sometimes it is better to fire only your smallest guns and keep the gunwales closed on your big canons until the ship comes about to demand your surrender. Once she is broadside you fire your big guns without opening the shutters, sending a hail of splinters and cannon balls through her hull at point blank, taking her by surprise and sending her to the ocean floor without reprise.
Hillary is the superior vessel for Dems, but she has significant weaknesses that, in many people's eyes, make her unelectable. These are the big guns that the Republicans are waiting to use. Obama may be an inferior ship but he dosen't have any big holes in his character yet, and, if preserved, his cult of personality could take him right into office.
If the Republicans were to demonize him the way Hillary is today, it would be very destructive to them. As long as she stays in, they don't have to. They can just use their smallest guns and slowly pull up broadside while her canons are turned the other way. By the time she does fire, it will be viewed as desperation.
Her nomination is absolutely necessary to her and to the Republicans.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
You all keep talking about how Michigan and Florida shouldn't count. The delegate allocations from those elections were stopped by Obama supporters, but the citizens still voted.
The individual votes should count, even if they didn't produce delegates recognized by the Democratic National Committee.
A vote by a legal citizen should be counted. To not would be undemocratic and unamerican.
Have you changed your party affiliation to Republican yet? [:O]
Because this wasn't Barack Obama's decision; it was the democratic party's decision. And Hillary Clinton AGREED to the rules, just like all the other candidates...
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
but Hillary beat him by 290,000 in Florida and 320,000 in Michigan that he doesn't want to count. Yes, the votes don't count for delegate purposes, but the individuals did vote.
I had a dream last night I paid $1mm cash for a new house, does that mean I get to move in tomorrow?
The votes in Mich and Fla are irrelevant. If Ms. Clinton had not incorrectly viewed this as a coronation tour (this morning she was quoted from Harrisburg as saying she was undergoing the 'worlds longest job interview') she might be actually leading in popular and delegate votes.
Even if she were to lose today and in NC, I don't see her backing down prior to Denver. Anyone who thinks she will has not been listening very carefully to what it is she's trying to do. She keeps saying she's more electable than Obama and she feels she's got another four months to prove it.
Familiarity breeds contempt.
So far we know that Obama flubs difficult questions. That he has not returned one punch. That he plays old politics and calls it something new and different. That slowly disturbing facts are drifting out about his background.
He has only really been in the public eye since December and the more we get to know him, the less he looks like someone who can win the presidency.
On the other hand, with much more practice and the paying of more dues he would be a stellar candidate. Let's give him a chance to learn on the job in the vice-presidency.
Does anyone else out there feel like their party has been hijacked by MoveOn? I mean have the inventors of General Betrayus ever won anything? No. And do they really think they are going to get the Republicans to hold off on the difficult questions this fall? MoveOn, I was there at your beginning but this isn't San Francisco, this is the heartland and you don't get it.
Moveon is to the DNC what the far Christian Right has been to the GOP. The majority of Americans are moving to the center, for certain the GOP has, if you look at their candidate for '08 and who they passed up.
I think the bullying of Obama is working against Hillary. I believe to a number of voters, it represents the old guard picking on a relative new-comer.
I also think there's more and more awareness of four more years of the last 20 years if Hillary is elected. That's good in some ways, bad in others. I think Hillary knows the situation in the Middle East pretty well but has countered the admins policies when it's been expedient.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
You all keep talking about how Michigan and Florida shouldn't count.
lol. Desperate times eh?
1. Hillary soundly defeated "undecided" in Michigan.
2.
quote:
The delegate allocations from those elections were stopped by Obama supporters
and that pesky agreement Hillary made with the DNC.
3.
quote:
To not would be undemocratic and unamerican.
Proof that Hillary supporters are taking cards straight from the Republican deck! Either that or Hermon Goering ("The people can quickly be made to do the bidding of the leader, just tell they are under attack. And decry anyone who still stands for their lack of patriotism").
You're a Nazi! I knew it. [}:)]
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Proof that Hillary supporters are taking cards straight from the Republican deck!
I take my cards from no one. I wouldn't even play poker with a republican unless I was dealing (that is untrue, I play poker with lots of republicans. They are so gullible enough to bluff and spend all their time counting their money instead of watching the cards).
Hillary wins by more than 200,000 in Pennsylvania...I will bet a Topeca coffee or chocolate to anyone who wants in.
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
For goodness sakes, RM, if you want to violate the rules and count the unconstitutional election in Michigan, at least only count the amount by which she won-
Unconstitutional? This is a party nomination process. The party makes the rules, there is nothing in the constitution that controls this process. If they wanted to settle this with a game of pin the tail on the donkey, that is totally the right of the Democrat party. Disagreeable, yes. Unconstitutional? No.
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
When you encounter a superior vessel sometimes it is better to fire only your smallest guns and keep the gunwales closed on your big canons until the ship comes about to demand your surrender. Once she is broadside you fire your big guns without opening the shutters, sending a hail of splinters and cannon balls through her hull at point blank, taking her by surprise and sending her to the ocean floor without reprise.
I prefer sports analogies, but if you want to use battle examples...
Think of this as the battle of Gettysburg. It happened almost 145 years ago in the state of Pennsylvania. The Confederate army had a string of wins, especially throughout the south, but were stopped here. In my scenario, Hillary is the Union.
The Confederate army (Obama) had more men and proven generals who had seceeded from the Union seeking change. In the battle, the Union troops stopped the assault when the charge by the Confederates was met by flanking artillery fire.
The Union troops won that battle in Pennsylvania and many consider it to be the turning point of the Civil War.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
When you encounter a superior vessel sometimes it is better to fire only your smallest guns and keep the gunwales closed on your big canons until the ship comes about to demand your surrender. Once she is broadside you fire your big guns without opening the shutters, sending a hail of splinters and cannon balls through her hull at point blank, taking her by surprise and sending her to the ocean floor without reprise.
I prefer sports analogies, but if you want to use battle examples...
Think of this as the battle of Gettysburg. It happened almost 145 years ago in the state of Pennsylvania. The Confederate army had a string of wins, especially throughout the south, but were stopped here. In my scenario, Hillary is the Union.
The Confederate army (Obama) had more men and proven generals who had seceeded from the Union seeking change. In the battle, the Union troops stopped the assault when the charge by the Confederates was met by flanking artillery fire.
The Union troops won that battle in Pennsylvania and many consider it to be the turning point of the Civil War.
I'm curious RM. Are you a Journeyman Baiter? Or have you graduated to Master Baiter status?[:P]
Latest pre-vote polls have Hillarity by 9%, still no exit polling data I can find.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/22/pa.primary/index.html
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Latest pre-vote polls have Hillarity by 9%, still no exit polling data I can find.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/22/pa.primary/index.html
Don't matter.....on to McPlain.
Rm, your Gettysburg analogy neglects that fact that the Union had all the advantages. More money, more bodies, better organization, and a larger level of support both domestic and international. And true to form, they managed to beat down the South in spite of superior battle experience.
Seems to me Obama is in the position of the Union. If he wins the war will turn and the end is in site. And if I'm not mistaken, a man from Illinois gave the victory speech following that battle.
Clinton is in the position of army of Virginia. Having early on announced her invulnerability and the certainty of her victory. Though, her Super Tuesday defeat seems to be her Gettysburg, a loss after which the struggle continued but the issue was never really in doubt.
Yeah, I'm afraid I'd have to cast the Senator from Illinois as the Union... and the women from Arkansas as the Confederacy. [:X]
quote:
Originally posted by YoungTulsan
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
For goodness sakes, RM, if you want to violate the rules and count the unconstitutional election in Michigan, at least only count the amount by which she won-
Unconstitutional? This is a party nomination process. The party makes the rules, there is nothing in the constitution that controls this process. If they wanted to settle this with a game of pin the tail on the donkey, that is totally the right of the Democrat party. Disagreeable, yes. Unconstitutional? No.
The Michigan election was determined to be unconstitutional on other grounds. http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/03/26/michigan/index.html?source=rss. It just adds to the invalidity of any results.
Salon.com where even hack pieces like this are filed as "News" not "Opinion"
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/04/22/horton/index.html
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
Familiarity breeds contempt.
True dat. Once I and other Illinois voters got to know Illinois Senator Carol Moseley-Braun better, we had alot of contempt for her...
http://www.slate.com/id/2078924/
I and other Illinois voters are familiar with Barack Obama and I assume New York voters are familiar with Hillary Clinton...
Super Tuesday results...Illinois
Obama 1,301,954 65% -- 104 delegates
Clinton 662,845 33% -- 49 delegates
New York
Clinton 1,003,623 57% -- 139 delegates
Obama 697,914 40% -- 93 delegates
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
So far we know that Obama flubs difficult questions. That he has not returned one punch.
REALLY?
"Whatchoo talkin' bout, Obama?"(http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/15551/original.jpg)
http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/15551/original.jpg
"at 11:00 on a Tuesday, a prominent politician spoke to Americans about race, as though they were adults."quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
That he plays old politics and calls it something new and different. That slowly disturbing facts are drifting out about his background.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9601.html
quote:
"She says I'm out of touch?"
The response was signature Obama: Attack first, sort out the details later, if at all. No apology, no immediate regret, just a sharp counterattack. For a candidate sometimes mocked for being too soft to win a political fistfight, he has shown an uncanny ability to take a punch and then rear back and deliver one in return.
When Obama responds this way, it leaves him open to charges that he's undermining his so-called politics of hope. But, showing remarkable dexterity, he has a knack for using these flare-ups to pivot back to the central theme of his candidacy: that politics is broken, and he knows how to change it.
Obama, it turns out, has been a devout observer of a philosophy future President Bill Clinton laid out in 1981.
"When someone is beating you over the head with a hammer, don't sit there and take it," then-Gov. Clinton told Time magazine. "Take out a meat cleaver and cut off their hand."
Barack Obama ----
"For we have a choice in this country, we can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle — as we did in the O.J. trial — or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina, or as fodder for the nightly news ... We can do that. But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we'll be talking about some other distraction ... And nothing will change. That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, 'Not this time.'"You know, it's not Obama who's out of touch. We live in a state where we will not have a vote. This state's idea of democratic politics is when a candidate for governor trots out his kids and makes them parrot his position on using a state lottery for education...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AGDqVoHdJw
(http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kw5KoCyMFrM/default.jpg)
Pretty pathetic if you ask me. And if Barack Obama somehow through some twist of fate were to win 48 states, I believe Oklahoma and Wyoming would be the lone holdouts... IMHO, Oklahoma is the polar opposite of Massachusetts when it comes to politics... both states are hopelessly "out of touch" with what's going on in the rest of the country and the "heartland"...
"Don't blame me, I voted for McGovern" was our moto when I lived in Boston. We were the lone wolf back then.....
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Rm, your Gettysburg analogy neglects that fact that the Union had all the advantages. More money, more bodies, better organization, and a larger level of support both domestic and international. And true to form, they managed to beat down the South in spite of superior battle experience.
Seems to me Obama is in the position of the Union. If he wins the war will turn and the end is in site. And if I'm not mistaken, a man from Illinois gave the victory speech following that battle.
Clinton is in the position of army of Virginia. Having early on announced her invulnerability and the certainty of her victory. Though, her Super Tuesday defeat seems to be her Gettysburg, a loss after which the struggle continued but the issue was never really in doubt.
Yeah, I'm afraid I'd have to cast the Senator from Illinois as the Union... and the women from Arkansas as the Confederacy. [:X]
I like war analogies, they mirror politics! But from what I know of the Battle of Gettysburg, I would view Hill more as General Lee. In fact, just for fun, I took Tucker et.al.'s version of the battle analysis and replaced references to the "players of old" and inserted today's cast.
Throughout the campaign, General Hillary seemed to have entertained the belief that she was invincible; most of Hillary's experiences with the party had convinced her of this, including a great victory in the senate. Although high morale plays an important role in victory when other factors are equal, Hillary could not refuse her campaign's desire to fight.
To the detrimental effects of their collective blind faith was added the fact that the campaign of Obama had many new and inexperienced commanders, and it had recently lost Ohio, one of its most important primaries.
Hillary's method of giving generalized orders and leaving it up to her lieutenants to work out the details contributed to her downfall. Although this method may have worked with Bill, it proved inadequate when dealing with corps commanders unused to Hillary's style of "command & cackle." Hillary faced dramatic differences in going from defender to invader—long supply lines, a hostile local population, and an imperative to force the enemy from its position. Lastly, after the primary, the Democrats were simply not able to coordinate their attacks. Hillary faced a new and very dangerous opponent in John McCain, and the campaign of the Republicans stood to the task and fought well on its home territory.
But Gas, Lee fought with his entire heart for what he believed in (his home, Virginia). He was a great tactician and leader by all accounts a true gentlemen. After the war he was the leading voice for reconciliation.
Hillary is clearly not a great tactician as she had no plan for failure on Super Tuesday. She fights for Hillary, pandering to whatever interest seems to suit the moment - not for any cause. I have never heard her accused of having strong leadership credentials and I doubt she will be a lead voice in the party she has sworn to tear apart if need be to get her power.
I original wrote Lee instead of "Confederacy," but I have a lot of respect for Lee.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
But Gas, Lee fought with his entire heart for what he believed in (his home, Virginia). He was a great tactician and leader by all accounts a true gentlemen. After the war he was the leading voice for reconciliation.
Hillary is clearly not a great tactician as she had no plan for failure on Super Tuesday. She fights for Hillary, pandering to whatever interest seems to suit the moment - not for any cause. I have never heard her accused of having strong leadership credentials and I doubt she will be a lead voice in the party she has sworn to tear apart if need be to get her power.
I original wrote Lee instead of "Confederacy," but I have a lot of respect for Lee.
Excellent point. She feels entitled to this position. Some humility would serve her well.
Well we're living here in Allentown
And they're closing all the factories down
Out in Bethlehem they're killing time
Filling out forms
Standing in line.
Well our fathers fought the Second World War
Spent their weekends on the Jersey Shore
Met our mothers at the USO
Asked them to dance
Danced with them slow
And we're living here in Allentown.
But the restlessness was handed down
And it's getting very hard to staaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay
aaaaaaah aaahhhhh ooooooooh ooooooh ohhhhhhh.
Well we're waiting here in Allentown
For the Pennsylvania we never found
For the promises our teachers gave
If we worked hard
If we behaved.
So the graduations hang on the wall
But they never really helped us at all
No they never taught us what was real
Iron and coke,
Chromium steel.
And we're waiting here in Allentown.
But they've taken all the coal from the ground
And the union people crawled awaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah aaaaaaaaaaah aaaaaah.
Every child had a pretty good shot
To get at least as far as their old man got.
Something happened on the way to that place
They threw an American flag in our faaaaaaaace, oh oh oh.
Well I'm living here in Allentown
And it's hard to keep a good man down.
But I won't be getting up todaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyy
aaaaaaaaaaah aaaaaaaaaaah aaaaaaaaah.
aaaaaaah aaaaaaah aaaaaaah oh oh oh.
And it's getting very hard to staaaaaaaaaaaaaay.
And we're living here in Allentown.
BILLY JOEL
Now, does that paint a clearer picture for you, professor?
I dunno... I always thought Billie Joel sounded "bitter" in that song...
Yes! And it's a bitter town now.
bfd RM bfd....
scuse me while I nod out during her "acceptance" speech.
It was no blowout.....
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0408/Clinton_Voting_for_McCain_foolish.html
April 22, 2008
Categories: Hillary Clinton
Clinton: Voting for McCain 'foolish'
"Clinton, speaking to reporters in Conshohocken just now, said she'd campaign for a united Democratic Party, no matter who's the nominee.
"Anybody who supports Barack or me would be very foolish to think voting for Senator McCain makes any sense," she said.
"Whatever differences Senator Obama and I may have...that pales in comprison with the differences we have with Senator McCain," she said earlier."
Good for Hillary for she is starting to sound calmly supportive of change and hope. No blowout, but we're finally hearing the air coming out of that tire....
"We will take back the White House and we will take back our country." H.R. Clinton (future supreme).
NEW YORK TIMES
April 23, 2008
Editorial
The Low Road to Victory
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/opinion/23wed1.html?_r=2&ref=opinion&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
The Pennsylvania campaign, which produced yet another inconclusive result on Tuesday, was even meaner, more vacuous, more desperate, and more filled with pandering than the mean, vacuous, desperate, pander-filled contests that preceded it.
Voters are getting tired of it; it is demeaning the political process; and it does not work. It is past time for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to acknowledge that the negativity, for which she is mostly responsible, does nothing but harm to her, her opponent, her party and the 2008 election.
If nothing else, self interest should push her in that direction. Mrs. Clinton did not get the big win in Pennsylvania that she needed to challenge the calculus of the Democratic race. It is true that Senator Barack Obama outspent her 2-to-1. But Mrs. Clinton and her advisers should mainly blame themselves, because, as the political operatives say, they went heavily negative and ended up squandering a good part of what was once a 20-point lead.
On the eve of this crucial primary, Mrs. Clinton became the first Democratic candidate to wave the bloody shirt of 9/11. A Clinton television ad — torn right from Karl Rove's playbook — evoked the 1929 stock market crash, Pearl Harbor, the Cuban missile crisis, the cold war and the 9/11 attacks, complete with video of Osama bin Laden. "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen," the narrator intoned.
If that was supposed to bolster Mrs. Clinton's argument that she is the better prepared to be president in a dangerous world, she sent the opposite message on Tuesday morning by declaring in an interview on ABC News that if Iran attacked Israel while she were president: "We would be able to totally obliterate them."
By staying on the attack and not engaging Mr. Obama on the substance of issues like terrorism, the economy and how to organize an orderly exit from Iraq, Mrs. Clinton does more than just turn off voters who don't like negative campaigning. She undercuts the rationale for her candidacy that led this page and others to support her: that she is more qualified, right now, to be president than Mr. Obama.
Mr. Obama is not blameless when it comes to the negative and vapid nature of this campaign. He is increasingly rising to Mrs. Clinton's bait, undercutting his own claims that he is offering a higher more inclusive form of politics. When she criticized his comments about "bitter" voters, Mr. Obama mocked her as an Annie Oakley wannabe. All that does is remind Americans who are on the fence about his relative youth and inexperience.
No matter what the high-priced political operatives (from both camps) may think, it is not a disadvantage that Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton share many of the same essential values and sensible policy prescriptions. It is their strength, and they are doing their best to make voters forget it. And if they think that only Democrats are paying attention to this spectacle, they're wrong.
After seven years of George W. Bush's failed with-us-or-against-us presidency, all American voters deserve to hear a nuanced debate — right now and through the general campaign — about how each candidate will combat terrorism, protect civil liberties, address the housing crisis and end the war in Iraq.
It is getting to be time for the superdelegates to do what the Democrats had in mind with they created superdelegates: settle a bloody race that cannot be won at the ballot box. Mrs. Clinton once had a big lead among the party elders, but has been steadily losing it, in large part because of her negative campaign. If she is ever to have a hope of persuading these most loyal of Democrats to come back to her side, let alone win over the larger body of voters, she has to call off the dogs.
I just got home from the Drillers game and it looks like my predictions are all coming true. According to MSNBC, with 90% of the vote in, she is 206,000 votes ahead and has a double digit lead.
I know you Obama fans don't want to be disturbed with reality, but your candidate just got beat badly.
Why can't Obama win any of the big states?
Why can't Obama win any of the swing states?
Why can't Obama win, even when he outspends his opponent by three to one margins?
What is wrong with Obama that so many regular democrats vote against him?
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
I just got home from the Drillers game and it looks like my predictions are all coming true. According to MSNBC, with 90% of the vote in, she is 206,000 votes ahead and has a double digit lead.
I know you Obama fans don't want to be disturbed with reality, but your candidate just got beat badly.
Why can't Obama win any of the big states?
Why can't Obama win any of the swing states?
Why can't Obama win, even when he outspends his opponent by three to one margins?
What is wrong with Obama that so many regular democrats vote against him?
RM, I know you're just bating, but your comment about "regular democrats" seriously offend me. Are you saying that only small town, white, older women are "regular democrats?" Because one of the key reasons why I am a democrat is because we embrace so many groups, and each group is just as vital to our party.
Hillary Clinton and her group have persisted in offending just about every group, apart from religious gun owners. They have offended young people as being "foolish" or "drinking koolaid" because they support Obama. They have offended African Americans. They have offended the more liberal wing of the Democratic party. Each and every group of democrats is just as "regular" and just as important to any success in November.
So, I'll turn the tables. What is wrong with Hillary Clinton that she cannot garner
even 30% of the African American vote? Why can't she get the young vote? Why can't she inspire new voters, ones that have never participated in an election? Why can she not get the more educated vote? The wealthier vote? Why can't she get more independent votes?
Your candidate did well tonight, better than I expected. In her native state, with a popular governor and mayor backing her, with demographics that suit her, she still lost a lot of ground in the last 6 weeks. This, despite what was a significant mistatement by her opponent. Ultimately, what you have is two very strong candidates, one who appeals to the blue collar voter, and one who appeals to everyone else. I expect that neither will significantly cut into the other one's demographics as long as the choice between the two remains.
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Yes! And it's a bitter town now.
bfd RM bfd....
scuse me while I nod out during her "acceptance" speech.
If life were a song, you'd be in ****-heaven FOTD. [;)]
I think it was the economic policies of Carter which sank Allentown, if you were implying that it's the fault of the Busheviks.
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
quote:
Hillary Clinton and her group have persisted in offending just about every group, apart from religious gun owners. They have offended young people as being "foolish" or "drinking koolaid" because they support Obama. They have offended African Americans. They have offended the more liberal wing of the Democratic party. Each and every group of democrats is just as "regular" and just as important to any success in November.
Mel Brooks isn't one of her consultants is he? Almost sounds like one of his movies- something to offend everyone. [}:)]
QuoteOriginally posted by pmcalk
Quote
So, I'll turn the tables. What is wrong with Hillary Clinton that she cannot garner even 30% of the African American vote? Why can't she get the young vote? Why can't she inspire new voters, ones that have never participated in an election? Why can she not get the more educated vote? The wealthier vote? Why can't she get more independent votes?
Come on now, PM, that one's just about a no-brainer.
I'll say what everyone else seems too afraid to say: Obama wins when it comes to black, single-issue voters for whom race is the single issue.
There are going to be lots of black people mobilized to vote for a serious black candidate. It's finally happened- they have a candidate who isn't a race pimp like $harpton or Jack$on, or an Uncle Tom-ish, carpet-bagging creation of the GOP like Alan Keyes.
Obama represents the opportunities which resulted from the CRA's, It's almost poetic that he was born the same year JFK took office. Men like Wright, $harpton, and Jack$on are old enough to remember segregated America and still use those visions to try and convince others there's still a race war. Hillary would have done well to take a pass on Wright, but she didn't.
McCain would do well to keep anything about race or Rev. Wright out of the campaign, assuming Obama wins the nomination. All that's going to do is mobilize more angry black people to vote against him.
Obama would do well to resist getting sucked into a slander war with another candidate, but I personally cannot imagine the pressure and how sick and tired someone would be of constant scruitiny and criticism.
I'd hope record numbers of blacks turn out at the polls this year and take part in our election process. To me, single-issue voters are as unnerving as party-liners, but if it only took one issue to get someone to take part in their governance, think about it, and begin take more interest in it instead of taking for granted others will choose for them, then so be it.
By the same token, there are others who might be mobilized to vote for the first time because they feel threatened by having a black President, or that having a President who had Muslim schooling is opening the back door for terrorists. His race could work for or against him. It stands to reason, it's going to work for him amongst black voters. He's got a little baggage to overcome, I can see why it's a valid concern of half the Democrat party.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
I just got home from the Drillers game and it looks like my predictions are all coming true. According to MSNBC, with 90% of the vote in, she is 206,000 votes ahead and has a double digit lead.
Actually, it wasn't a double-digit win.
With 99 percent of the precincts in, it's 54.70 percent of the vote for Clinton, and 45.30 percent for Obama.
That's a 9.4 percent margin, with a few Obama stronghold precincts that haven't reported in the Philadelphia metro.
That doesn't even *round up* to 10 percent.
The Hillary camp and Ed Rendell and just about everyone else said Hillary needed a "big" victory to stay in the race.
Not even breaking the 10-percent mark in victory margin isn't a big win by any stretch.
She's going to pick up a small number of delegates, and then promptly will lose them again in North Carolina.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
I just got home from the Drillers game and it looks like my predictions are all coming true. According to MSNBC, with 90% of the vote in, she is 206,000 votes ahead and has a double digit lead.
Actually, it wasn't a double-digit win.
With 99 percent of the precincts in, it's 54.70 percent of the vote for Clinton, and 45.30 percent for Obama.
That's a 9.4 percent margin, with a few Obama stronghold precincts that haven't reported in the Philadelphia metro.
That doesn't even *round up* to 10 percent.
The Hillary camp and Ed Rendell and just about everyone else said Hillary needed a "big" victory to stay in the race.
Not even breaking the 10-percent mark in victory margin isn't a big win by any stretch.
She's going to pick up a small number of delegates, and then promptly will lose them again in North Carolina.
Pretty much she won was much as people expected she was going to win. I'd say a Pennsylvania victory for Hillary was already priced in to this primary; she had to win by a landslide or lose by a landslide to change perceptions. Neither happened, so we're pretty much back where we were.
You guys are sure hard to convince.
Obama campaigned hard. He spent six weeks in the state. He spent more money in Pennsylvania than in any other state, probably a record for a presidential candidate.
And he lost big.
Tell me why you are not worried.
Question: What is wrong with Hillary Clinton that she cannot garner even 30% of the African American vote?
Answer: The Clintons were adored by Blacks (and will be again) but she is running against the most successful Black candidate to date.
Question: Why can't she get the young vote?
Answer: In the last two presidential elections there was a lot of early support from young people, but they didn't show up on Election Day.
Question: Why can't she inspire new voters, ones that have never participated in an election?
Answer: She is drawing new voters, and she is drawing the support of many women who understand that a woman's strength is found in cooperation with other women. Pmcalk, you are letting your sisters down by passing up the historic opportunity to break up the men's club.
Question: Why can she not get the more educated vote? The wealthier vote?
Answer: As Bill Clinton pointed out some people need a president more than other. The Bourgeoisie can weather most storms. The far left wing of our party lives in La La Land. But they don't count for much in the general population.
Question: Why can't she get more independent votes?
Answer: Because she is an advocate for the Democrat's core values. And she can bring home the Reagan Democrats giving us a voting majority that will make swing voters irrelevant.
Did you hear Obama's speech last night? He has lost his focus. Obama is a slow motion train wreck. How do you spell Dukakis II? O B A M A.
The Clintons are the only living winners in our party. Throw that away and be prepared to be held responsible for major train wreck.
Obama is African-American....Maybe when he needs to be...All I see is an empty suit....
quote:
Originally posted by Breadburner
Obama is African-American....Maybe when he needs to be...All I see is an empty suit....
You and Bill can play that Caucasian Card.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Clinton by +10%. 81 delegates to Obamas 77.
McCain gets 75% of the vote but 100% of the delegates.
Called it. [8D]
quote:
Originally posted by Breadburner
Hill dog by 12.....
heh...
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
Question: What is wrong with Hillary Clinton that she cannot garner even 30% of the African American vote?
Answer: The Clintons were adored by Blacks (and will be again) but she is running against the most successful Black candidate to date.
I wouldn't be so sure about "will be again." She and her husband have really offended a lot of blacks. And if the nomination goes, not to the person with the most votes, the most delegates, and the most states, but to another person based on her ability to attrack white, gun-owning blue collars, I suspect they won't be too happy.
quote:
Question: Why can't she get the young vote?
Answer: In the last two presidential elections there was a lot of early support from young people, but they didn't show up on Election Day.
Maybe because no body paid any attention to them? Maybe because they feel as though no one hears them, or takes their positions seriously? Maybe because candidates imply they are foolish?
quote:
Question: Why can't she inspire new voters, ones that have never participated in an election?
Answer: She is drawing new voters, and she is drawing the support of many women who understand that a woman's strength is found in cooperation with other women. Pmcalk, you are letting your sisters down by passing up the historic opportunity to break up the men's club.
You have said this to me before, and frankly it bugs me. I guess I missed the feminist memo that states we had to vote only for women. My mom was a feminist who taught me that feminism was about everyone being able to make choices, about changing the values and course of dialogue in our country. It is not simply about elevating any woman to a position of authority. It also bugs me how Hillary has implied that all negative comments against her are rooted in sexism. Part of being equal means to recognize that people can dislike you and it has nothing to do with your sex. Could you imagine if Obama began to imply that media was treating him unfairly because he was black?
I find it ironic that you imply that the only reason blacks vote for Obama is because he is black, yet you say that I should vote for Hillary simply because she is a women.
quote:
Question: Why can she not get the more educated vote? The wealthier vote?
Answer: As Bill Clinton pointed out some people need a president more than other. The Bourgeoisie can weather most storms. The far left wing of our party lives in La La Land. But they don't count for much in the general population.
I assume that we are talking about MoveOn, who, like the majority of Americans, opposes the Iraq war. Moveon, which was formed to defend Hillary's husband from the ridiculous impeachment hearings.
So we need presidents for certain groups of people, but not others? How about if we elect different presidents for different groups? A red state president, a blue state president, a president for gays, for the liberal elite, for the christian right.... Apparently, you think that only certain voices should be heard. How democratic of you.
quote:
Question: Why can't she get more independent votes?
Answer: Because she is an advocate for the Democrat's core values. And she can bring home the Reagan Democrats giving us a voting majority that will make swing voters irrelevant.
Voting for the war, disparaging blacks & their church, labeling democrats as "elitist" and out-of-touch, claiming to be a friend of gun owners--not democratic "core" values, if you ask me.
quote:
Did you hear Obama's speech last night? He has lost his focus. Obama is a slow motion train wreck. How do you spell Dukakis II? O B A M A.
The Clintons are the only living winners in our party. Throw that away and be prepared to be held responsible for major train wreck.
We must have listened to different speeches.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
You guys are sure hard to convince.
Obama campaigned hard. He spent six weeks in the state. He spent more money in Pennsylvania than in any other state, probably a record for a presidential candidate.
And he lost big.
Tell me why you are not worried.
Obama isn't worried. He knew that winning in Pennsylvania, with its demographics, would be nearly impossible.
He has the lead in states won, total votes and delegates, and Hillary's fast running out of time to catch up.
He's going to win in North Carolina and erase any gain Hillary had from winning Pennsylvania.
If anyone should be worried, it's Clinton supporters.
Aren't you worried, RM? [;)]
Of course. I have been worried that my candidate might not win for two months now.
Obama is a great candidate, but last month evrybody was counting eleven state victories in a row a coronation for Obama. Almost every Obama supporter on this forum called for her to drop out of the race. Now she has almost caught back up with Obama in popular vote and polls show that she is a stronger candidate against McCain.
The hundreds of uncommitted superdelegates now will have a good reason to pick either Hillary or Obama. While Obama is picking them up faster than Hillary, she is still ahead in superdelegate count.
On a related note, almost all of the Oklahoma superdelegates are still undecided. Governor Henry just announced he was for Obama. Oklahoma was carried by Hillary 55% to 31%. An Oklahoma superdelegate and elected official should not ignore such a mandate from his constituents.
If Obama people haven't been worried, they should start now and avoid the rush.
I see that I can bait RM as well as he can bait others.
[;)]
And being 600,000 votes behind in the popular vote is hardly what I would call being "almost caught up."
Henry is under no obligation to follow his state's constituents. The superdelegates are explicitly told to "use their own judgment." He has.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
An Oklahoma superdelegate and elected official should not ignore such a mandate from his constituents.
But RM, isn't ignoring constituents and voting for Hillary what you are relying on?
Unless she gets 70+% of the remaining vote, you'll need to retract that statement and encourage super delegates to vote for Hillary in spite of whatever votes actually took place.
"Obama can't close the deal"
The new line from the Hillary campaign.
Shall we analyze the psychology behind that statement?
There is something disturbing there.
Also, is anyone bothering to do the math or are you just reveling in the spin? This win means nearly nothing.
Because of the Democratic Party's proportional-representation rules, her win stands to give her a net gain of 10 to 15 delegates. That means that Barack Obama will fall from a lead of 161 in elected delegates to about 145.
After Indiana and North Carolina he will still lead by between 100 and 150.
Pelosi and Dean are pushing Super-Delegates to make up their minds and state their intentions. Know Why? (this is hilarious. . .)
Dean gets to appoint an additional 60 or so super delegates before the conference. If he knows the intension of existing super-delegates He and Pelosi may have the power to change the outcome, by careful choice of remaining delegates, without causing a war at the convention.
This is the best soap opera I have ever seen! It will end up being a movie! Mark my words!
I bet 99% of voters don't even understand what is happening right in front of them!
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
An Oklahoma superdelegate and elected official should not ignore such a mandate from his constituents.
But RM, isn't ignoring constituents and voting for Hillary what you are relying on?
Unless she gets 70+% of the remaining vote, you'll need to retract that statement and encourage super delegates to vote for Hillary in spite of whatever votes actually took place.
70% ?!? But the media said all Hillary had to do was win by double-digits, 55-45... and, of course, we all know the media's in the tank for Obama.
/sarcasm.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
...And being 600,000 votes behind in the popular vote is hardly what I would call being "almost caught up."
I know that you like to round up for Obama and round down for Clinton...According to this website...Clinton is now ahead in popular vote. Obama gets to count the estimated totals in Iowa, Nevada, Maine and Washington and Hillary gets to count Michigan and Florida. Don't say that Michigan and Florida popular votes don't count. They may not be counted for assigning delegates, but those citizens still voted.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html
Hillary is now ahead in popular vote by 11,721 votes. Obama has been ahead for months and now Hillary is ahead. If Obama doesn't win North Carolina, he is through. Two weeks is forever in campaigns. I would worry if I were you.
Floreeduh and Penn are mostly old white bigots.
Funny how mourning Joe and Pat Nixonite are continuing to banter about Billary still being alive. Keeping Hilldog alive is theirs and faux netwerks' last opportunity to beat the dems in November.
On to the new millineum....
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Floreeduh and Penn are mostly old white bigots.
Funny how mourning Joe and Pat Nixonite are continuing to banter about Billary still being alive. Keeping Hilldog alive is theirs and faux netwerks' last opportunity to beat the dems in November.
On to the new millineum....
Are you truly this retarded? I honestly feel sorry for Obama that people like you support him.
Is anyone else around here tired of hearing this jackass call everyone under the sun a racist or a bigot?
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
...And being 600,000 votes behind in the popular vote is hardly what I would call being "almost caught up."
I know that you like to round up for Obama and round down for Clinton...According to this website...Clinton is now ahead in popular vote. Obama gets to count the estimated totals in Iowa, Nevada, Maine and Washington and Hillary gets to count Michigan and Florida. Don't say that Michigan and Florida popular votes don't count. They may not be counted for assigning delegates, but those citizens still voted.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html
Hillary is now ahead in popular vote by 11,721 votes. Obama has been ahead for months and now Hillary is ahead. If Obama doesn't win North Carolina, he is through. Two weeks is forever in campaigns. I would worry if I were you.
That's extremely dishonest from you, RM, because Obama wasn't even on the Michigan ballot.
Remember, because Florida and Michigan broke the rules, those primaries won't be counted. You know that.
Even if you take away Michigan and include the dubious claim of Florida, Obama is 200,000 votes ahead. Include the caucus totals, and it jumps up to 300,000.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
...And being 600,000 votes behind in the popular vote is hardly what I would call being "almost caught up."
I know that you like to round up for Obama and round down for Clinton...According to this website...Clinton is now ahead in popular vote. Obama gets to count the estimated totals in Iowa, Nevada, Maine and Washington and Hillary gets to count Michigan and Florida. Don't say that Michigan and Florida popular votes don't count. They may not be counted for assigning delegates, but those citizens still voted.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html
Hillary is now ahead in popular vote by 11,721 votes. Obama has been ahead for months and now Hillary is ahead. If Obama doesn't win North Carolina, he is through. Two weeks is forever in campaigns. I would worry if I were you.
Hillary is only ahead in popular vote if you don't count Iowa, Nevada, Maine & Washington (which haven't released official numbers yet), if you count only those votes in favor of Clinton in Michigan's unconstitutional election, and if you throw in Florida's vote. Once you include the estimates from Nevada, Iowa, Maine & Washington, the votes are virtually tied, even under your grossly unfair scenerio.
One thing is certain....the bloodbath continues for at least 3 more months if not more. I bet Howard Dean went out and bought stock in Excedrin and Jack Daniels after last night.
Good night for Clinton;
Bad night for Obama;
Even worse night for the party....
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
...And being 600,000 votes behind in the popular vote is hardly what I would call being "almost caught up."
I know that you like to round up for Obama and round down for Clinton...According to this website...Clinton is now ahead in popular vote. Obama gets to count the estimated totals in Iowa, Nevada, Maine and Washington and Hillary gets to count Michigan and Florida. Don't say that Michigan and Florida popular votes don't count. They may not be counted for assigning delegates, but those citizens still voted.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html
Hillary is now ahead in popular vote by 11,721 votes. Obama has been ahead for months and now Hillary is ahead. If Obama doesn't win North Carolina, he is through. Two weeks is forever in campaigns. I would worry if I were you.
Your arguments for Hillary personify why so many dems and independants are sick of hearing the Clinton machine twist the truth...
I guess
"it depends on what the meaning of the words 'is' is."Unfortunately, Hillary Clinton's campaign is not about a stronger Democratic Party... HRC's campaign is about the "Clinton Legacy"... and I think history will show Bill Clinton to have been a weak president...
QUOTES...
"It depends on what the meaning of the words 'is' is." –Bill Clinton, during his 1998 grand jury testimony on the Monica Lewinsky affair
"It depends on how you define alone..." –Bill Clinton, in his grand jury testimony
"There were a lot of times when we were alone, but I never really thought we were." –Bill Clinton, in his grand jury testimony
"When I was in England, I experimented with marijuana a time or two, and I didn't like it. I didn't inhale and never tried it again." –Bill Clinton
"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans" -- Bill Clinton in 1993 from USA Today
You know the one thing that's wrong with this country? Everyone gets a chance to have their fair say." -- Bill Clinton in 1993, Philadeplphia
"I'm not going to have some reporters pawing through our papers. We are the president" -- Hillary Clinton commenting on the release of subpeonaed documents.
"This vast right-wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against my husband since the day he announced for President" -- Hillary Clinton
"Bill Clinton is an unusually good liar"- Bob Kerry, Democrat, 1996
"I'm not sure what he meant. His words are subject to multiple interpretations." -- Dem. Rep. Pete Geren on Clinton in 1994
"The President has kept all of the promises he intended to keep." - George Stephanopolous, 1996
"I just got sick and tired of lying for the fella." -- Jim McDougal on Clinton
OBAMA WASNT EVEN ON THE BALLOT
How, for the love of god, do you count an election when only one candidate was on the ballot?
Obama +316,588 +1.0%, without Michigan.
In Florida, they did not "compete." But Hillary won? You can't win a non-competition. If Hillary "won" then she competed in violation of party rules and should drop of immediately.
Obama +611,360 +2.1%
- - -
Seriously, explain how Michigan counts.
Then explain how you win a state that you did not compete in.
I still believe Hillary is ahead. Obama folk will argue forever that Michigan and Florida don't count. They must think those voters weren't really voting when they went to the polls that day. Obama folk have done everything they can to disenfranchise them, including stopping any new elections.
But under any scenario, Hillary is closing ground fast. Obama could have put her away (and shut me up) if he had gotten more votes in Pennsylvania. But he didn't.
Here is Fred Barnes column today from the National Review...
Forget delegates and the popular vote for the Democratic presidential nomination. The most important thing Hillary Clinton gained by winning the Pennsylvania primary yesterday was a better argument -- indeed, a much better argument.
Chances are, Clinton will trail Barack Obama in the delegate count when the primaries end on June 3, as she does now. And while she may cut into his lead in the popular vote in the Democratic contests, she's not likely to exceed his vote total. So the only way she can capture the nomination is by convincing roughly 300 uncommitted super-delegates that Obama cannot defeat Republican John McCain in November but she can.
This isn't an easy case to make, especially with the super-delegates who will provide the margin of victory for whoever captures the 2,025 delegates needed to win the Democratic nomination. And at the moment, they appear strongly inclined to back Obama if he leads in delegates when the primary season is finished.
But after Pennsylvania, Clinton's argument that she's a stronger opponent against McCain will be impossible to ignore or dismiss. And it's not just because Clinton was outspent by nearly 3 to 1 by Obama and got tougher coverage from the media, yet trounced him by a substantial margin in a state that the Democratic presidential nominee must win in November.
The key was how she won in Pennsylvania. She clobbered him among the voting blocs that are critical to a Democratic victory: union households, women, Catholics, working class and downscale voters, and those who didn't attend college. The Democratic nominee who doesn't win a solid majority of these voting groups is all but certain to lose in November.
In fact, she ran stronger among these voters than she had in Ohio, another state where she topped Obama. Ohio, too, is a must win state for the Democratic nominee in November.
And there was a telling number from the exit poll of voters. Nearly one-third of Clinton voters said they wouldn't vote for Obama if he's the nominee. Now, it's likely many of these voters will change their minds. But a sizeable number may remain alienated from the nominee and vote for McCain. A smaller percentage of Obama voters said they wouldn't vote for Clinton if she wins the presidential nomination.
Clinton, of course, will stress this point. She'll emphasize how important the Democratic groups she won are to the party's coalition. And she will point to her pickup of around 200,000 more popular votes than Obama in Pennsylvania -- an impressive margin.
If the votes in the Michigan and Florida primaries are included, Clinton actually is ahead of Obama in popular votes. For now anyway, the Democratic National Committee has ruled that the Michigan and Florida votes won't be counted because the states voted too early.
Her argument boils down to this: I can hold the traditionally Democratic voters critical to winning the general election and he can't, and thus I can defeat McCain and he can't. Sure, he's ahead in delegates, but he won many of them months ago, before the halo over his campaign was knocked off.
In the Democratic debate last week, she said "yes, yes, yes" when asked if she thinks Obama can defeat McCain. But, in private, she and her allies make the opposite argument: Obama can't win.
Before Pennsylvania, Clinton made the same argument, but her case was weaker. Now it's not only stronger, but it's changed the political environment. Clinton is no longer a hopeless underdog. Yes, she's still an underdog, but one with an argument and a prayer.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
I still believe Hillary is ahead. Obama folk will argue forever that Michigan and Florida don't count. They must think those voters weren't really voting when they went to the polls that day. Obama folk have done everything they can to disenfranchise them, including stopping any new elections.
1.) they weren't, the Dem party disenfranchised them before the election. They, Obama, Hillary, and anyone with access to a TV, radio, or newspaper knew that the Florida and Michigan votes were nothing more than an exercise. If Hillary had lost she would be demanding that the rules of her party be followed to the letter and the renegade states not be counted. You know that!!
quote:
Clinton, of course, will stress this point. She'll emphasize how important the Democratic groups she won are to the party's coalition. And she will point to her pickup of around 200,000 more popular votes than Obama in Pennsylvania -- an impressive margin.
2.) Popular vote means nothing. We are not a Democracy. It is a very impressive margin, but it fits the demographic for her. She appeals more to older low income, and union constituents. Her margin fit PA.
3.) Once again because of the Democrat party's proportional-representation system (designed to weaken some states and strengthen others in the primary process) she gets $cr3wed again because it only yields her 10 to 15 delegates.
4.) Now she is broke, behind, and must face primaries in states with larger African American, young, and wealthy populations.
The only thing she is doing is helping the Republican party. As long as a 3rd party candidate fails to emerge (very unlikely at this point), she has very little chance of winning the nomination. Obama has no reason to drop out and unite the party behind her, so do you think she should march this war right up to the doors of the convention?
Here's a startling stat I just learned:
Clinton has to win 71 percent of the remaining pledged delegates to catch up to Obama.
Outside of possibly her former home base of Arkansas, I can't think of a single state in which Clinton won 70 percent.
Also: Clinton has gained a grand total of five pledged delegates since March 4.
Say goodnight, Hillary.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
I still believe Hillary is ahead. Obama folk will argue forever that Michigan and Florida don't count.
I can tell you for certain I was aware of the fact that Michigan and Florida weren't going to count when they moved the primary dates. They were warned not to by the DNC, told the consequences, and the votes don't count. No matter how you slice it, they don't count.
That's a shame that the states and party got sideways and there are voters whose votes don't count, but that was the penalty and it was known well in advance of those primaries.
Again, Fla. and Mich. don't count.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
Here's a startling stat I just learned:
Clinton has to win 71 percent of the remaining pledged delegates to catch up to Obama.
Outside of possibly her former home base of Arkansas, I can't think of a single state in which Clinton won 70 percent.
Also: Clinton has gained a grand total of five pledged delegates since March 4.
Say goodnight, Hillary.
Nope, not till Denver. She's got the same mentality on this as RM, she thinks she's got the lead.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
One thing is certain....the bloodbath continues for at least 3 more months if not more. I bet Howard Dean went out and bought stock in Excedrin and Jack Daniels after last night.
Good night for Clinton;
Bad night for Obama;
Even worse night for the party....
Your personal attacks are immature.
Hundreds of thousands are registering who will not vote for Johnnie B. Goode. Hilldog is not hurting the party. She's hurting herself.
The dems will slaughter the repugs in November because of the new voters between 18 and 30 and because the repugs are running on a lame duck's failures.
My grandfather used to say, "Don't throw away the old bucket until you know if the new one holds water."
You still didn't explain how Hillary gets to count votes in a state where her opponent was not on the ballot.
Nor how she "won" a state she did not "compete" in.
- - -
In a poll in Europe Obama was favored over Clinton by 6%. There are about 710,000,000 people in Europe. That's 42.6 Million vote in favor of Obama.
Their votes don't really count, but their opinion should matter. Obama + 43,000,000!
Freedom to invent reality is fun.
McCain Celebrates Huge Pennsylvania Win
'Happiest Night of My Life,' Says Mac
Presumptive G.O.P. nominee John McCain appeared at a mammoth rally in Philadelphia last night to celebrate the results of the Pennsylvania primary, calling the contest "a huge victory for me and my campaign."
A jubilant Sen. McCain said that as the results poured in, "It became abundantly clear that the people of Pennsylvania want to send the Republicans back to the White House for another four years."
Overjoyed McCain supporters packed the ballroom at the Philadelphia Hyatt to help their candidate celebrate what he called "the happiest night of my life."
"My friends, tonight the people of Pennsylvania have delivered the White House to me on a silver platter," he said, his eyes glistening. "This is the best thing to happen to me since I married a beer heiress."
At a campaign rally of her own, Sen. Hillary Clinton also savored the results of the primary, declaring that she was "one step closer to getting my hands on a nuclear bomb."
Turning towards her husband, former President Bill Clinton, she said, "I hope that my having a nuclear arsenal at my command will make you think twice before you do anything foolish this time."
Blood visibly draining from the former president's face, Sen. Clinton glared at him sternly, adding, "I'm not kidding."
In an effort to clarify Sen. Clinton's remarks, aides later denied that she had threatened her husband with obliteration.
Elsewhere, Sen. Barack Obama agreed to a televised debate on CBS moderated by Katie Couric, saying, "If I make a gaffe, at least no one will be watching."
Andy Borowitz
Did you write that article? Because I did not see a link, or a source. I thought it was written by Andy Borowitz for the Huffington Post, but maybe that's you and you didn't sell the rights to Huffington.
Again, that is stealing. You can not just grab articles from the net and display them elsewhere. No more than I could paste a copy of Harry Potter on the web.
You can not post any portion of an article without at least a decent citation.
You CAN, use parts of an article with proper citation to discuss a point under the "fair use" doctrine.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Did you write that article? Because I did not see a link, or a source. I thought it was written by Andy Borowitz for the Huffington Post, but maybe that's you and you didn't sell the rights to Huffington.
Again, that is stealing. You can not just grab articles from the net and display them elsewhere. No more than I could paste a copy of Harry Potter on the web.
You can not post any portion of an article without at least a decent citation.
You CAN, use parts of an article with proper citation to discuss a point under the "fair use" doctrine.
Another one of your personal attacks. %99 of the time I put the link in the post and then I get ripped for not being original. You are after my arse, but this came to me vis a vie email and I placed the authors name at the base.
Here putz: http://www.borowitzreport.com/
Happier now?
I'm not into your gotcha game.
That was, in no way shape or form a personal attack. How is calling plagiarism plagiarism a personal attack? You took an article wholesale from a commercial site and posted it on another site on the internet. It doesn't matter if someone stole it first and put it in an email list, or if you read it and retyped it, or cut and pasted it.
You can't do that. Nothing personal, just what the law is.
If it seems that I am picking on you, it is because you are the primary offender who posts entire articles about 3 times a day. It's annoying, and illegal. So I finally called you on it.
Again, explain to me how that was a personal attack?
Accusing me of plagerism is a personal attack when the author is right there in the post.
You are trying to squeeze me off this board through constant personal attacks and lies about my character. Ain't gonna work.
I suggest you just ignore what you don't want to know.
I'm not trying to squeeze you off this board. You've been banned at least once before, so it's clear no one is going to squeeze you off.
You took the entire article wholesale and then stuck in a name at the very end, with no explanation, reason, or direction. That would not pass as a citation even in middle school. It does not count as "giving credit" nor does the use of entire article fall under the "fair use" doctrine.
Technically it is NOT plagiarism as no one actually thought it was your own, so I guess it's just copyright infringement or theft. Which is why i didn't use the word plagiarism in my original post.
Are you too lazy to do what would be the proper course of action and post a commentary on the article, perhaps an excerpt, and then link to it with citation? If not, then why don't you take the proper course?
I call bull sheet Cannon Fodder.....picky nonsense in light of the fact I always note my sources except when I must protect them. The author here was recognized but you were confused if the post was humor or serious[}:)]. You just gotta play games because you already petered out and have very little else to do, evidently.
Honestly, your constant posting of entire articles in a drive-by fashion is just really annoying. This one just got caught up on the mix.
We need to hook up for a beer sometime.
Posting articles from across the globe is done to stimulate not to necessarily emulate me nor fornicate with your head.
They more than often initiate interesting discussions. Sometimes, they are amusing or intriguing. Take what you want and leave the rest.....
Pennsylvania is ancient history today.
When this fascinating race is over and we have a winner, I hope everyone will remember that it's not about my candidate or your candidate. It's about bringing the troops home and saving the precious lives of our service people. I will support our party's candidate with enthusiasm because of the important work we Democrats have to do.
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
When this fascinating race is over and we have a winner, I hope everyone will remember that it's not about my candidate or your candidate. It's about bringing the troops home and saving the precious lives of our service people. I will support our party's candidate with enthusiasm because of the important work we Democrats have to do.
You know what Hometown, I think you best shut it about your concern about our military and the "precious lives of our service people." After all, a few months ago, while telling us about your "walking the earth" days in the 1970s, you stated the following: "Serving in the military struck me as being a lot like going to prison and if I had been drafted my plan was to go to Canada."
No truer words from a patriot who really cares about our military. And just so you know, every time you comment about our military, I will remind you of your words.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
Here's a startling stat I just learned:
Clinton has to win 71 percent of the remaining pledged delegates to catch up to Obama.
Outside of possibly her former home base of Arkansas, I can't think of a single state in which Clinton won 70 percent.
Also: Clinton has gained a grand total of five pledged delegates since March 4.
Say goodnight, Hillary.
Yep. Penn. yielded Hillary approx. 10 delegate gain...
http://election.cbsnews.com/campaign2008/d_delegateScorecard.shtml
quote:
Obama folk will argue forever that Michigan and Florida don't count. They must think those voters weren't really voting when they went to the polls that day. Obama folk have done everything they can to disenfranchise them, including stopping any new elections.
Oh for the love of God. I thought only evil republicans disenfranchised voters...
[:P]
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
When this fascinating race is over and we have a winner, I hope everyone will remember that it's not about my candidate or your candidate. It's about bringing the troops home and saving the precious lives of our service people. I will support our party's candidate with enthusiasm because of the important work we Democrats have to do.
HT, you are aware that there will be a "peace keeping" force left in Iraq for years after we are "out of there", don't you. Any candidate who says they are going to bring all the troops home is absolutely full of ****. Hillary and Obama will conveniently lay that campaign promise off on all of Bush's mistakes once they see the reality of the situation.
Just wait...
Same thing which became of Pelosi and Reid's two years of leadership- nothing. Tepid partisan politics with the goal of furhter besmirching Bush's legacy. Hillary isn't interested in talking issues with Obama, especially foreign policy. Look what happened the last time she tried to buff up on that. Instead, she's trying to break down the personality cult of Obama, one personal association at a time.
Honestly, I feel if Hillary wins the nomination and then Presidency, we won't see that many changes over Bush, especially in foreign policy. After all it was Bill and Hillary cheering from the sidelines in the days prior to declaring war on Iraq that there were undoubtedly un-accounted for WMD's the day BC left office. She's ducked for cover on the issue after voting for the war because she's more interested in gaining power than following her convictions- whatever those are, they do change on a weekly basis.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
I still believe Hillary is ahead. Obama folk will argue forever that Michigan and Florida don't count. They must think those voters weren't really voting when they went to the polls that day. Obama folk have done everything they can to disenfranchise them, including stopping any new elections.
Actually, Hillary Clinton held more sway over the DNC than any other candidate for the Democratic nomination and her supporters could easily have pushed for the "50% penalty" called for under party rules... she clearly could have influenced the process, but she didn't...
Fair-Weather WolverineHillary Clinton wants to seat Michigan and Florida delegates. She sang a different tune last year.
By S.V. Dáte
Posted Monday, April 14, 2008, at 3:33 PM ET
http://www.slate.com/id/2188985/
Scarcely a day goes by without Hillary Clinton exhorting fellow Democrats to count every vote—most particularly those cast in the disputed early primaries of Florida and Michigan, which she won.
"I don't understand how you can disenfranchise voters in two states you have to try to win" in the general election, she said in Pennsylvania last week. "I don't think that is smart for the Democratic Party." Clinton, of course, has a strategic need to seat the Florida and Michigan delegates, who were denied entry to the nominating convention late last year by the Democratic National Committee after the two states scheduled their primaries earlier than the DNC wished. She needs these delegates to help close her gap with the front-runner, Barack Obama.
It was a different story in October. Back then, Clinton was far and away the national front-runner—by some 20 points in a number of polls. With much less at stake in the matter, she told a New Hampshire public-radio audience, "It's clear, this election [Michigan is] having is not going to count for anything." Clinton was unwilling to take her name off the Michigan primary ballot, as Obama and her other significant rivals did, but like them she agreed not to campaign in Michigan or in Florida before their primaries.On Aug. 25, when the DNC's rules panel declared Florida's primary date out of order, it agreed by a near-unanimous majority to exceed the 50 percent penalty called for under party rules. Instead, the group stripped Florida of all 210 delegates to underscore its displeasure with Florida's defiance and to discourage other states from following suit. In doing so, the DNC essentially committed itself, for fairness' sake, to strip the similarly defiant Michigan of all 156 of its delegates three months later.
Clinton held tremendous potential leverage over this decision, and not only because she was then widely judged the likely nominee. Of the committee's 30 members, a near-majority of 12 were Clinton supporters. All of them—most notably strategist Harold Ickes—voted for Florida's full disenfranchisement. (The only dissenting vote was cast by a Tallahassee, Fla., city commissioner who supported Obama.)Six days later, when the party chairs in the DNC-approved "early" primary states urged Democratic candidates to sign a "four-state pledge" promising not to campaign in any state that violated the DNC calendar, Clinton did not object. She waited, with characteristic prudence, until the other candidates had signed, then signed herself.
On Sept. 1, the Clinton campaign issued this ringing statement:
We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process. And we believe the DNC's rules and its calendar provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that role. Thus, we will be signing the pledge to adhere to the DNC approved nominating calendar.Some argue that Hillary had little choice. "She was forced to sign away Florida because her opponents would have used it against her in New Hampshire and Iowa," says Chris Korge, Clinton's Florida finance chair. But even with Michigan and Florida cutting in line, Iowa and New Hampshire still ended up holding their caucus and primary first. Would voters in the latter two states—as opposed to Democratic Party officials—really have cared about how much later Florida and Michigan voted?
In October, after Obama and some of the other candidates withdrew their names from the Michigan ballot, Clinton declined to do the same. Her stated reason, however, was not to dissent from the DNC's decision to disenfranchise wronged Michigan, but rather to mend fences with Michigan voters come November. Besides, Hillary said, there was no reason to remove her name if the results weren't going to count anyway. "I personally did not think it made any difference," she said. At the Dec. 1 meeting of the DNC rules committee, Ickes urged Michigan DNC member Debbie Dingell to put off Michigan's primary to the DNC-sanctioned date of Feb. 5. Dingell refused, arguing that the DNC shouldn't antagonize large states that would be important in the general election just to soothe egos in the early primary states. "It is an example of the message that is sent when Iowa and New Hampshire put guns at the heads of candidates to say that they will not campaign in this state," Dingell complained.
Ickes and Clinton's other supporters on the rules committee ignored Dingell's plea and voted to strip Michigan of its delegates.What a difference four months make. "We all had a choice as to whether or not to participate in what was going to be a primary," Clinton told NPR last month.
"Most people took their names off the ballot, but I didn't." In other words, her refusal constituted a selfless pledge of solidarity with the Wolverine State rather than a tactical decision to seize what in October seemed the minor advantage of a momentum-enhancing likely victory in a Midwestern beauty contest.
Like every candidate except former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel, Clinton stayed away from the Florida state convention in October. Irate Democrats stalked Walt Disney World wearing buttons that said, "Size DOES matter," a reference to Florida's large population compared with that of Iowa or New Hampshire. When Michigan subsequently received its penalty, Clinton agreed with the other candidates that she wouldn't visit there, either. It was a decision she had cause to regret as early as Jan. 3, when she lost the Iowa caucus to Obama, coming in third, just behind John Edwards. After ignoring Florida and Michigan for months, the Clinton campaign soon couldn't say enough nice things about them. "Tonight Michigan Democrats spoke loudly for a new beginning," then-campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle exulted over Clinton's victory there on Jan. 15. "Your voices matter. And as president, Hillary Clinton will not only keep listening, but will make sure your voice is always heard."
This was an absurdly celebratory statement given that Clinton's name had been the only one of the major Democratic contenders' that appeared on the Michigan ballot. (Even so, Clinton received only 55 percent of the vote against 40 percent for "uncommitted.") Two weeks later, Clinton herself appeared in South Florida after polls closed on her victory there (50 percent to Obama's 33 percent). "I could not come here to ask in person for your votes," she told the crowd. "I am thrilled to have had this vote of confidence."
Now Clinton feels that a failure to seat the Michigan and Florida delegates would besmirch the democratic process. With Obama ahead on pledged delegates and drawing growing numbers of superdelegates, Clinton will have only a limited ability to affect whether the DNC backs off from its decisions to penalize the two states. Last summer and fall, when the DNC made these decisions, she had a lot more clout. She exercised none of it.
Just so you know, RM... Michigan voters can see through Hillary Clinton's BS...
Obama does better against McCain than Clinton in Michigan poll
by Kathy Barks Hoffman | The Associated Press
Monday April 14, 2008, 1:44 PM
http://www.mlive.com/elections/index.ssf/2008/04/obama_does_better_against_mcca.html
LANSING, Mich. (AP) -- A new poll shows Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama doing better against Republican John McCain among Michigan voters than Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton.
The poll by Lansing-based EPIC-MRA shows 43 percent of the 600 likely voters polled back Obama, while 41 percent back McCain. Eight percent say they'd vote for independent candidate Ralph Nader, while 8 percent are undecided.
McCain leads Clinton 46 percent to 37 percent. Ten percent say they'd vote for Nader and 7 percent are undecided.
Fifty-nine percent have a favorable opinion of McCain, while 55 percent feel that way about Obama and 45 percent about Clinton.
The poll was conducted April 3-8. It has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.
Yeah for Hillary! Keep on truckin!
Nothing can stop you now!
I admire the Hillary supporters. That's an optimism rarely seen outside of a casino. She's running low on cash but myself and others are giving. We have to keep this crazy train on the track!
Woo! Hoo! Bill for VP! Chelsea for Sec. State!
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
When this fascinating race is over and we have a winner, I hope everyone will remember that it's not about my candidate or your candidate. It's about bringing the troops home and saving the precious lives of our service people. I will support our party's candidate with enthusiasm because of the important work we Democrats have to do.
You know what Hometown, I think you best shut it about your concern about our military and the "precious lives of our service people." After all, a few months ago, while telling us about your "walking the earth" days in the 1970s, you stated the following: "Serving in the military struck me as being a lot like going to prison and if I had been drafted my plan was to go to Canada."
No truer words from a patriot who really cares about our military. And just so you know, every time you comment about our military, I will remind you of your words.
The two aren't mutually exclusive. They are consistent. And I'm still waiting for you to stop running away from sharing a little something about yourself. You have never answered the simple questions I asked you.
We have been at war all of my adult life. I'm tired of American men and women fighting other people's wars to secure markets for American corporations under the guise of protecting our soil. I was talking this past week with a man who enlisted and served in Vietnam. Or actually he was talking and I was agreeing with him.
There is nothing more important on our "to do" list that to stop the squandering of lives. That's why Democrats will come together before November and defeat you and your crowd.
HT:
So we went to war with Iraq because the guys and gals at Halliburton were bored? Here's a nice website you might be interested in www.rense.com
HT, as a point of order - Democrats have been in power about half of your adult life. Accounting for a good chunk of the periods we were at war. See what I'm getting at there?
And explain what markets advantages we have gained in Vietnam, Nicaragua, Haiti, Somalia, Bosnia, Afghanistan, or Iraq. I'd be interested to see what markets we opened up. The Russians have more oil contracts in Iraq than we do (a war for oil that we allowed the Iraqis to open up for competitive bidding?).
I don't suffer from altruistic delusions when it comes to American power, but you vastly over simplified things.
I meant to say "we have been at war all of my life" not "adult life." We have been at war longer than I have been alive and I'm an old man.
And Democrats have been responsible for some of that. But this time we are clear about ending this war.
I stand by my point that we say we are defending our soil when we really defending our markets.
The Republicans produced the best spokesman on this subject. Eisenhower. And for all practical purposes I think his warning about the undue power of the military industrial complex has come true.
Like we used to chant back during the day, "Hell no, we won't go." And I'm tired of seeing working class kids sent off to be killed in someone else's war.
We Democrats are about to decide who is most capable of delivering a spanking to our war mongering opponents. This mission makes our current squabble seem rather insignificant compared to the task ahead of us.
quote:
And I'm tired of seeing working class kids sent off to be killed in someone else's war.
Someone's been reading the Onion...
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
We Democrats are about to decide who is most capable of delivering a spanking to our war mongering opponents. This mission makes our current squabble seem rather insignificant compared to the task ahead of us.
You are supporting a candidate who was a part of that war-mongering machine. You can't use the excuse she was duped by Bush. She had a unique seat for all this: a member of the Senate and former First Lady to a President who claimed there were un-accounted for WMD in Iraq the day he left office.
1. The Military Industrial Complex has been very well put down, repeatedly. Any power that Haliburton has to start a war is offset but all the other industries that suffer because of it.
More steel is used in war time for government uses, more fuel, food is diverted, shipping is clogged, rubber, precious metals, explosives - all industrial goods become more expensive for everyone else. The net result is a lower standard of living in the county as we have to absorb not only the direct cost of the war, but these ancillary costs.
War only makes even hypothetical sense when a country has excess capacity and an underutilized work force. The U.S. has neither of those things. Thus, predictably, our economy suffers from a prolonged war.
Surely there are parties who stand to profit and may push for war because of it, but Military contracts don't need actual wars to be awarded anyway. So the long term losses outweigh any bennefit to the vast majority of companies.
2.
quote:
Like we used to chant back during the day, "Hell no, we won't go." And I'm tired of seeing working class kids sent off to be killed in someone else's war.
I agree, this war should only be fought by the orphans of 9/11. It's their war, not mine, so screw 'em. "Listen kid, your dad got himself killed so here's a one way ticket to Afghanistan. Grab a rifle and get on the bus."
But actually, your comment confuses me. Volunteering for the military would be a really stupid idea if you don't want to go to war. Working class, college graduate, wanting a leg up in the world, or even law school graduate - if you don't want to get shot at don't join the military. Really simple.
3 friends from college went into officer training after graduation (1 Air Force, 2 Army). One cousin is at West Point (his dad is an executive at Dell). My bosses son is a SGT. in the Marines. My cousin was a grunt in the Army until this year - his dad is a dentist.
There's my short list of people I know in the military, officers, Jag, and grunts... none really from "working class families" as you would define it. All volunteering to get shot at. Don't be tired of seeing them go off to fight - they volunteered for this. It's their war now.
Where were all the Hillarybots today? Has reality started to sink in?
We had a meeting on how to save the democrat party. You weren't invited.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
We had a meeting on how to save the democrat party. You weren't invited.
Zing!
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
We had a meeting on how to save the democrat party. You weren't invited.
Hey, wait . . . I wasn't invited, either!
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
We had a meeting on how to save the democrat party. You weren't invited.
What a bigot.
I have not read the entire thread, but I can say my position is simple (OIF vet)...I love my country more than almost anything else, BUT I wish for the days when our military joined for a cause. If man does not want to die for a cause, NO ONE should ever be able to force him to.
Before everyone tells me what most abundantly obvious, we all sign up voluntarily, let me say two things.
Sort of,
1) Selective Service (bad, very bad)
2) National Guard...never should have been the second arm of the movement.
Most of us joined many years ago not realizing that the NG would become a CRITICAL part of this war.
If people don't believe in the cause enough that they are not willing to die for it, I believe it is wrong to force him to die for it.
If there are those in the military that want to continue it, let them. But it shouldn't be contingent on requiring thousands of others to die too.
Make no mistake, I am a huge patriot. But once upon a time we fought wars with an army that chose to go to that war. 6-8 year contracts now pretty much guarantee that even in the NG, you are going to have to fight in war and in many cases twice.
Not making accusations to any one person on this board, but I do find it ironic how fast people are willing to advocate the war, but not join the battle, but then discredit veterans who have had to deal with the impact of battle when they come home and say I don't want to go back, I don't want to die for that place.
Just imagine more pain and heartache than you have ever experienced (VA said in an internal email they have had 12,000 reports of veterans committing suicide), then rethink your request to send someone through all of that, again often times two and three times.
All of war is not bloody and terrible and sure we must always consider all options.
In reality I am willing to fight these guys again if called to. I just wish we could fight them on our soil. Lets take that 1 trillion dollars and build a defense system no nation has ever seen. Then, let them try it again. I think that method will work better and save more money and lives.
I have more ideas on how to combat our enemy but I don't want to go on too long.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
We had a meeting on how to save the democrat party. You weren't invited.
What a bigot.
More like racist repugs...
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
More like racist repugs...
Guido, I rather miss the days when Aox/FOTARD used to call us Gwee-Do-Do and Con-Man, don't you?
I do have to say I chuckle a little everytime I see "repug"- pretty clever.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
More like racist repugs...
Guido, I rather miss the days when Aox/FOTARD used to call us Gwee-Do-Do and Con-Man, don't you?
I do have to say I chuckle a little everytime I see "repug"- pretty clever.
Behind his back, one of the devils refers to Guido as Gwee doe doe. But the devils think this type of personal insult fails in a blog and only serves to counter attack baiting insults. It's waisted space.
So what's the logic on what became of con-man?
quote:
Guido, I rather miss the days when Aox/FOTARD used to call us Gwee-Do-Do and Con-Man, don't you?
Ah, the good ole days....
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
More like racist repugs...
Guido, I rather miss the days when Aox/FOTARD used to call us Gwee-Do-Do and Con-Man, don't you?
I do have to say I chuckle a little everytime I see "repug"- pretty clever.
Behind his back, one of the devils refers to Guido as Gwee doe doe. But the devils think this type of personal insult fails in a blog and only serves to counter attack baiting insults. It's waisted space.
Sorta like that area right above your neck.
Bada Bing! I miss You Pee Law...
IP....you have got to get rid of that picture and/or avitar. It gives the impression it's a self portrait which I know is your intent. But it conjures up all sorts of images that surely couldn't apply.
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
IP....you have got to get rid of that picture and/or avitar. It gives the impression it's a self portrait which I know is your intent. But it conjures up all sorts of images that surely couldn't apply.
It's "avatar"...and Kip says, "Suck it Trebek"
April 23, 2008 12:15
The Role of Race in the PA Primary
http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/04/the_role_of_race_in_the_pa_pri.html
Hillary, "The Great White Hope"? "Among whites who said race was a factor in how they cast their vote, a whopping 75% supported Hillary Clinton over Obama."
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
"Among whites who said race was a factor in how they cast their vote, a whopping 75% supported Hillary Clinton over Obama."
Bogus use of statistics to play the race card.
Only 13% of voters said was race was a factor. The sample was 2,217 voters statewide. 70% of them were white and 69% of them were over 45.
So a surveyor found 1,400 white people to survey. 13% of them said race was a factor. That breaks down to 182 white people in the entire state said that race was a factor. Hillary won the state 55 to 45 per cent. 136 people said race was a factor and voted for Hillary. 101 of them were voting for Hillary on average anyway. The difference is 35 people.
2,300,000 people voted and you post a stat influenced by 35 of them.
Race-baiter.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
"Among whites who said race was a factor in how they cast their vote, a whopping 75% supported Hillary Clinton over Obama."
Bogus use of statistics to play the race card.
Only 13% of voters said was race was a factor. The sample was 2,217 voters statewide. 70% of them were white and 69% of them were over 45.
So a surveyor found 1,400 white people to survey. 13% of them said race was a factor. That breaks down to 182 white people in the entire state said that race was a factor. Hillary won the state 55 to 45 per cent. 136 people said race was a factor and voted for Hillary. 101 of them were voting for Hillary on average anyway. The difference is 35 people.
2,300,000 people voted and you post a stat influenced by 35 of them.
Race-baiter.
Another powerful insult and test of my tolerance. I did not come up with this voter breakdown theory.
"David Sirota applies his Race Chasm theory to the Pennsylvania primary in an interesting blog post this morning. The theory is really an observation, but a keen one: Obama tends to win states that have either a) virtually no African-American population, and therefore minimal white-black racial tension; or b) states with an African-American population substantial enough (greater than 17%) to overwhelm the votes of the "racially motivated white vote."
RM, Hillary is the one who continues on only to sour the election. It must make you angry but please refraim from attacking the messenger.
Greater than 95% of black males in Philly voted for Obama. Can you tell me that's not anything but a race based vote? Why is it only racist when whites vote for Clinton?
I've said it before, and I'll say it again, Obama's achilles heel is the fact that he has supporters like you. You and your ilk need to stop shielding Obama from scrutiny because he won't be afforded the same pass in the general election.
No FOTD. You are the one who wants one candidate to drop out. Why do you think it is appropriate to tell the voters in those remaining states that their votes don't matter. Never mind, the rest of America got to vote in a primary and help pick the candidates, but we Obama people know better.
I have been saying for weeks that this race is not over and Pennsylvania proved it. Obama is now in a must win situation in Indiana and North Carolina.
Obama got all those delegates before American democrats got to know him and his friends. The media gave him a pass and attacked Hillary in every way. Now, the halo has fallen off.
If Hillary wins Indiana, she will win Kentucky and West Virginia. The polls now show even North Carolina is getting closer. Obama's 25 point lead is down to single digits.
Obama has to change strategies if he is going to be the nominee. He can't afford any more mistakes.
Start worrying. Your candidate may be through in a couple of weeks.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
No FOTD. You are the one who wants one candidate to drop out. Why do you think it is appropriate to tell the voters in those remaining states that their votes don't matter. Never mind, the rest of America got to vote in a primary and help pick the candidates, but we Obama people know better.
I have been saying for weeks that this race is not over and Pennsylvania proved it. Obama is now in a must win situation in Indiana and North Carolina.
Obama got all those delegates before American democrats got to know him and his friends. The media gave him a pass and attacked Hillary in every way. Now, the halo has fallen off.
If Hillary wins Indiana, she will win Kentucky and West Virginia. The polls now show even North Carolina is getting closer. Obama's 25 point lead is down to single digits.
Obama has to change strategies if he is going to be the nominee. He can't afford any more mistakes.
Start worrying. Your candidate may be through in a couple of weeks.
let's bet.