The 2008 Democratic and Republican Primaries [Archive] - Page 11

Marx

03-05-2008, 12:53 AM

Its a gamble. He is pretty much guaranteed another 8 years in the Senate, but risks cooling off. There are a lot of variables with the VP spot. Clinton is a lousy president, has a Nixon-esque scandal, doesn't even get 4 years, etc. And if any of those come to pass, Obama is tied to that. On the other hand it will keep him in the national spotlight for at least 8 years guaranteeing him at the very least name recognition in 2016. It is a gamble and a call that only he can make. I'm not sure I would take it if I were him. The next president's job is going to suck. Bush has dug a lot of holes and it will be a hard task for that person to fill them. It could very well result in 4 years of cleaning up someone elses' mess which creates the perception of being useless and losing in 2012.

That's true in any case. I just don't believe that it would benefit Hillary Clinton at all to take a VP spot. (Which is why she's "in it to win it.")

Matt

03-05-2008, 12:54 AM

But going into the convention with less delegates I think she has a much better argument for a VP position than the nomination. It just looks a lot less shady than her going into that convention with less delegates and coming out the winner. Even with Obama coming out with a VP position, it just looks shady all around if the winner in delegates and the popular vote loses the nomination. I'm okay with a Clinton/Obama ticket, but it just doesn't make sense if he still has a lead in delegates and the popular vote at the end. If the difference in either is negligible then she has a decent argument. But if we are talking a 50+ delegate lead, noone is going to look at that and say it doesn't smell funny when Clinton comes out on top. People are going to look at that and just decide in the future that the whole primary process is completely useless, and become completely apathetic toward it in the future. She may be up there in age after those eight years are through, but it saves her an embarrassing loss, and for that matter, a potential career ending loss. Maybe she can broker a deal with Obama allowing her to appoint some of her own choices to his cabinet.

Hell, maybe she might even broker an agreement for a Supreme Court appointment. That is the kind of power I could picture her dreaming about.

It might not make sense, but thats politics. Clinton will not take the number 2 spot nor will Obama give it to her (she will hurt his ticket more than help it). Having him on HER ticket on the other hand will help her a lot, which may result in whoever brokers the deal supporting a Clinton/Obama ticket as opposed to vice versa.

Matt

03-05-2008, 12:54 AM

That's true in any case. I just don't believe that it would benefit Hillary Clinton at all to take a VP spot. (Which is why she's "in it to win it.")

No doubt. Taking the number 2 spot is a horrible call for her.

Marx

03-05-2008, 12:55 AM

OK you are right, he didn't lose. One thing I will say. If Obama is a running mate, he'd be the strongest in history. A running mate that can raise $50 million in a month? That's unheard of. Speaking of which, if he was the running mate I would want his people to take over all the grassroots work because Hillary's campaign is AWFUL at the grassroots level. Her website is ugly, cluttered, etc. and the organization on the ground is lacking.

Not to mention their organizing capabilities.

souvlaki

03-05-2008, 12:56 AM

What about a guaranteed Supreme Court nomination? That would be right up her alley I would think.

Marx

03-05-2008, 12:57 AM

What about a guaranteed Supreme Court nomination? That would be right up her alley I would think.

What would be up her alley? Picking the nominee? Or her becoming the Supreme Court nominee?

Matt

03-05-2008, 12:58 AM

What about a guaranteed Supreme Court nomination? That would be right up her alley I would think.

Its not worth conceding the election ove.r

redfirebird2008

03-05-2008, 12:59 AM

What would be up her alley? Picking the nominee? Or her becoming the Supreme Court nominee?

Being a nominee.

souvlaki

03-05-2008, 12:59 AM

What would be up her alley? Picking the nominee? Or her becoming the Supreme Court nominee?

If Obama guaranteed an appointment on the Supreme Court. She's power hungry, and that is arguably the most powerful position in the country.

Marx

03-05-2008, 01:00 AM

Being a nominee.

If Obama guaranteed an appointment on the Supreme Court. She's power hungry, and that most arguably the most powerful position in the country.

That's true. I just don't think that she would concede the Presidency for it.

Matt

03-05-2008, 01:02 AM

I doubt Clinton has any desire to be on the Supreme Court.

souvlaki

03-05-2008, 01:03 AM

I doubt Clinton has any desire to be on the Supreme Court.

I'd beg to differ. In all honesty, it would probably give her more control for a longer period of time than being President ever would.

redfirebird2008

03-05-2008, 01:03 AM

That's true. I just don't think that she would concede the Presidency for it.

It would be a safer, more influential job than the Presidency actually. This goes either way since they are both accomplished lawyers, and I know for a fact that protecting the Constitution is a huge issue for both of them thanks to the last 7 years of assault on it.

Marx

03-05-2008, 01:04 AM

I doubt Clinton has any desire to be on the Supreme Court.

I personally wouldn't mind seeing a Clinton on the Supreme Court, but she wants the Presidency. The what-if scenarios are truly limitless to this.

souvlaki

03-05-2008, 01:05 AM

That's true. I just don't think that she would concede the Presidency for it.

She may not concede the Presidency, but if she goes into the convention with less delegates, they may just say to her "Okay... what do you want other than the Presidency. Whatever you want, it's yours." She may not have a choice in the matter, but I wouldn't be shocked if she has her pick over anything else.

redfirebird2008

03-05-2008, 01:05 AM

I doubt Clinton has any desire to be on the Supreme Court.

Guarantee you that both she and Obama want to protect the Constitution. One way to do that is being a Supreme Court judge. Another is Attorney General, and another is President. Obviously the 3rd one is the goal for them both, but they both do want to protect it and the Supreme Court is a great place of influence on this matter.

Marx

03-05-2008, 01:07 AM

She may not concede the Presidency, but if she goes into the convention with less delegates, they may just say to her "Okay... what do you want other than the Presidency. Whatever you want, it's yours." She may not have a choice in the matter, but I wouldn't be shocked if she has her pick over anything else.

I just have a hard time thinking that The Clintons (major party heads) wouldn't have a say so in the matter.

hippie_hunter

03-05-2008, 01:09 AM

It would be a safer, more influential job than the Presidency actually. This goes either way since they are both accomplished lawyers, and I know for a fact that protecting the Constitution is a huge issue for both of them thanks to the last 7 years of assault on it.

Yes their approval of the PATRIOT Act, hate crimes, Clinton's support for DOMA, and violating the Second Amendment is proof that they have such a huge desire to protect the Constitution :whatever:

souvlaki

03-05-2008, 01:09 AM

Actually, yeah... I'm thinking Supreme Court nomination may be more realistic than a VP pick, and would fit her perfectly. Plus, could you picture the look on the faces of Republicans when Obama announces that nomination? It would be completely priceless.

redfirebird2008

03-05-2008, 01:10 AM

12% lead for Obama in the caucus with 22% reporting. It had dropped down to 8% with 13% reporting.

souvlaki

03-05-2008, 01:11 AM

I just have a hard time thinking that The Clintons (major party heads) wouldn't have a say so in the matter.

Well, if they are offered their pick at anything else, they may take the opportunity. I mean, Presidents are only in office for eight years. We are talking about a good 30 years of a major say in the way this country is run. That may be too tempting to pass up.

redfirebird2008

03-05-2008, 01:14 AM

Primary delegate breakdown:

http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pJ0M6W5tNQCPLz7oU3-llfg

Marx

03-05-2008, 01:14 AM

Well, if they are offered their pick at anything else, they may take the opportunity. I mean, Presidents are only in office for eight years. We are talking about a good 30 years of a major say in the way this country is run. That may be too tempting to pass up.

You have a very valid point Souv. If Florida and Michigan are seated though it may all be over before Barack has a chance to make deals.

Marx

03-05-2008, 01:16 AM

Primary delegate breakdown:

http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pJ0M6W5tNQCPLz7oU3-llfg

Thanks for that! It's going to be intresting to see what exactly the final delegate count will be once all is said and done in all four states.

redfirebird2008

03-05-2008, 01:17 AM

So she might only get 1 delegate from the primary, and if he wins the caucus by 10% or more, he ends up winning by around 5 delegates in Texas. What an effed up system. LOL.

Marx

03-05-2008, 01:20 AM

So she might only get 1 delegate from the primary, and if he wins the caucus by 10% or more, he ends up winning by around 5 delegates in Texas. What an effed up system. LOL.

And she may get 7 delegates from Ohio. Wow...all that, and THAT'S all she gets!:shock

redfirebird2008

03-05-2008, 01:22 AM

And she may get 7 delegates from Ohio. Wow...all that, and THAT'S all she gets!:shock

Yep. The main thing for her tonight was stopping his momentum, not necessarily making a big move in the delegates. She probably NEEDED to make a big move, but Obama's fundraising made it impossible for her to win both states by ridiculous margins (25ish each). Even though her attacks seem to have worked to get some nice wins tonight, his overall ad blitz was strong enough to keep from getting blown out even in Ohio.

Zen

03-05-2008, 09:07 AM

You have a very valid point Souv. If Florida and Michigan are seated though it may all be over before Barack has a chance to make deals.
if Obama is still leading by more then 50 delegates in the end, Florida and Michigan will not allow her to overcome him.

she might eek out a popular vote tally, but she mostly likely wouldn't get a pledged delegate lead.

Darthphere

03-05-2008, 10:01 AM

Zen

03-05-2008, 10:07 AM

I got to say, the media is always making me laugh nowadays. Before last night it was all the drama "Hillary needs Texas and Ohio to stay alive!" now that she's done that the headlines all read "Hillary wins Ohio and Texas but is it too late?". Gotta love how the media is marketing this.

actually the major media outlets are saying how this race will go on and it will be hard fought for, im not sure what media your referring to, but major media outlets don't agree with your statement.

Do you think hillary can close the delegate lead obama has on her somehow? please enlighten us... because i don't see the reality that she can't as spin, but im open to interpretation

Darthphere

03-05-2008, 10:16 AM

actually the major media outlets are saying how this race will go on and it will be hard fought for, im not sure what media your referring to, but major media outlets don't agree with your statement.

Do you think hillary can close the delegate lead obama has on her somehow? please enlighten us... because i don't see the reality that she can't as spin, but im open to interpretation

The point I was trying to make is that the media is really trying to make this as provocative as possible. Every website I went to this morning had a similar headline about "It might be too late." Now as you can see for yourself most websites have the possible Obama/Clinton ticket headline.

Zen

03-05-2008, 10:17 AM

The point I was trying to make is that the media is really trying to make this as provocative as possible. Every website I went to this morning had a similar headline about "It might be too late." Now as you can see for yourself most websites have the possible Obama/Clinton ticket headline.

i agree with that. :up:

i thought you were saying they had pulled a double take on her or something.

bell110

03-05-2008, 10:30 AM

If this poll took place last week, I would have picked Obama for the Dems, but it looks like Hillary is catching up with him. I was wrong about McCain, he won the Reps pretty easily. Paul just going to focus on his congressional run now.

Matt

03-05-2008, 10:41 AM

if Obama is still leading by more then 50 delegates in the end, Florida and Michigan will not allow her to overcome him.

she might eek out a popular vote tally, but she mostly likely wouldn't get a pledged delegate lead.

She doesn't need to lead, she just needs to keep him from having a ridiculous lead, which she should accomplish once she takes PA.

At this point, even if Obama swept every state by 10 % of the vote, he still would not have enough delegates to win the nomination. Same for Hillary. It is going down to the convention and with all of Clinton's inside connections, I gotta say that is probably bad news for Obama. Then again, a brokered convention is probably bad news for her as well and the only real winner from this is John McCain.

Zen

03-05-2008, 10:48 AM

She doesn't need to lead, she just needs to keep him from having a ridiculous lead, which she should accomplish once she takes PA.

At this point, even if Obama swept every state by 10 % of the vote, he still would not have enough delegates to win the nomination. Same for Hillary. It is going down to the convention and with all of Clinton's inside connections, I gotta say that is probably bad news for Obama. Then again, a brokered convention is probably bad news for her as well and the only real winner from this is John McCain.

i don't know if i beleive the super delegates are going to vote over the popular voice to satisfy political ties... how that would be taken in the media would ensure clinton would loose against john McCain

the only solution would be if Obama is her VP. which im not sure he would accept if she won with such an underhanded approach.

redfirebird2008

03-05-2008, 11:24 AM

Excel

03-05-2008, 12:38 PM

why does everybody think obamas screwe din pennsylvania?

Marx

03-05-2008, 12:40 PM

why does everybody think obamas screwe din pennsylvania?

Pennsylvania is pretty much the exact same electorate as here in Ohio.

Excel

03-05-2008, 12:42 PM

Hillary will win this nomination.

Obama will win Wyoming and North Carolina - but Hillary will win in Pennsylvania in Ohioan type numbers. Maybe more. Hillary and Bill did more for Pennsylvania than possibly any other person right now - and the Pennsylvania Governor does a fantastic job selling it (and them).

Pennsylvania is also made up of the Steel workers in Pittsberg and other sorts of Blue Collar jobs which Hillary reclaimed and shouted proudly she owned.

Again - assuming we get Florida and Michigan: Part Deux - you have the possibility of Obama going 0-5 in the last five IMPORTANT primaries, holding a vote count higher in popular vote AND a slight lead if not a minuscule trail.

That is all very likely to happen.

Polls for Penn have Clinton with 4% n 6% leads. In Ohio, her lead never slipped uner 15% until this week.

redfirebird2008

03-05-2008, 12:44 PM

Pennsylvania is pretty much the exact same electorate as here in Ohio.

Except Hillary doesn't have the 25 point lead she did recently in Ohio. More like 9 currently.

Excel

03-05-2008, 12:44 PM

Pennsylvania is pretty much the exact same electorate as here in Ohio.

Polls in Penn have it close, Ohio never was.

redfirebird2008

03-05-2008, 12:45 PM

Polls in Ohio have it close, Ohio never was.

You mean polls in Pennsylvania. :cwink:

Excel

03-05-2008, 12:45 PM

Except Hillary doesn't have the 25 point lead she did recently in Ohio. More like 9 currently.

4% n 6%

Marx

03-05-2008, 12:50 PM

Polls in Penn have it close, Ohio never was.

Hillary Clinton definately has more momentum going into Pennsylvania. The Clinton's as a whole have done more for that state than just about anybody ever has.

redfirebird2008

03-05-2008, 12:51 PM

He's going to wipe out her delegate gains from last night with Wyoming and Mississippi.

Zen

03-05-2008, 12:51 PM

Zen

03-05-2008, 12:53 PM

Hillary Clinton definately has more momentum going into Pennsylvania. The Clinton's as a whole have done more for that state than just about anybody ever has.

is that reflected in the polls?

redfirebird2008

03-05-2008, 12:55 PM

is that reflected in the polls?

Yeah. I think she had much bigger advantages going in Texas and Ohio than Pennsylvania judging by the polls just 3 weeks ago in those states (both above 20 point leads for Hillary).

Excel

03-05-2008, 12:56 PM

plus obama has 6 friggin weeks...

if anything has been shown to be clear its that this candidate makes good use of time in closing gaps in the polls, look at any exponential curve of any race on realclearpolitics.com... the Obama Campaign closed the 20+ point lead in ohio to 10, and texas...to 3. i don't see how Obama can be seen as anything other than very formidable especially after he wins wyoming and mississippi

Thats very true...he is by far the most effective campaigner.

On the super delegates...

The thing they will be most concerned about is bring the party together to rally and defeat john mccain im november, and by eliminating the most popular candidate-right now its obama and should stay that way-is not how you rally or bring people together and they know it. The best thing is a joint ticket, and what they will do is put the most popular person and one in best position to defeat mccain (something theyll determine by polls and votier demos) and put that on top and offer the VP to the other.

And guess what? Its just about mathetmatically IMPOSSIBLE Hillary catches him in total votes and delegates. It IS mathematiclaly impossible she matches his state count.

redfirebird2008

03-05-2008, 01:00 PM

http://www.burntorangereport.com/upload/08TXPresDems.png

At the start of 2008, she was in the high 40's and he was in the mid 20's. In late 2007, she was in the 50's and he was in the teens.

Zen

03-05-2008, 01:00 PM

Yeah. I think she had much bigger advantages going in Texas and Ohio than Pennsylvania judging by the polls just 3 weeks ago in those states (both above 20 point leads for Hillary).

thats what im saying in a subtle way, he was saying the clintons have done so much for Pennsylvania, yet the polls currently are only giving Clinton 9 points...

Zen

03-05-2008, 01:01 PM

http://www.burntorangereport.com/upload/08TXPresDems.png

At the start of 2008, she was in the high 40's and he was in the mid 20's. In late 2007, she was in the 50's and he was in the teens.

what is this showing? delegates? states?

redfirebird2008

03-05-2008, 01:03 PM

what is this showing? delegates? states?

It's showing a poll in Texas over time from 2007 all the way to now. Just shows how far behind he was and how much of a gap he closed on her in a very short period of time.

Zen

03-05-2008, 01:09 PM

It's showing a poll in Texas over time from 2007 all the way to now. Just shows how far behind he was and how much of a gap he closed on her in a very short period of time.

yeah, nearly every state shows polls that illustrate a giant swing of support beginning when he starts campaigning in the state... the curves in the graphs for every state, including the ones hillary has won (except for arkanas) are hard to ignore...

the man is a master of the exponential curve at the last minute, even in races he looses.

Marx

03-05-2008, 01:10 PM

Thats very true...he is by far the most effective campaigner.

On the super delegates...

The thing they will be most concerned about is bring the party together to rally and defeat john mccain im november, and by eliminating the most popular candidate-right now its obama and should stay that way-is not how you rally or bring people together and they know it. The best thing is a joint ticket, and what they will do is put the most popular person and one in best position to defeat mccain (something theyll determine by polls and votier demos) and put that on top and offer the VP to the other.

And guess what? Its just about mathetmatically IMPOSSIBLE Hillary catches him in total votes and delegates. It IS mathematiclaly impossible she matches his state count.

State counts do not matter though in a contest that will be decided by delegates and superdelegates. Hillary Clinton has a very valid argument - "As Ohio goes, so goes the nation." While I may seem baised in my agreement with that because I live in Ohio - it is a well known fact that no Democratic candidate has ever gotten the nomination without winning Ohio in the primary. No President has ever gotten the White House without winning Ohio.

redfirebird2008

03-05-2008, 01:12 PM

yeah, nearly every state shows polls that illustrate a giant swing of support beginning when he starts campaigning in the state... the curves in the graphs for every state, including the ones hillary has won (except for arkanas) are hard to ignore...

the man is a master of the exponential curve at the last minute, even in races he looses.

He's not a master of anything. It just goes to show how strong the Clinton name is within the party and how it's a big advantage starting out. People are asked, "Who do you support, Clinton or Obama?" and the response is likely, "Who the hell is Obama?"

redfirebird2008

03-05-2008, 01:13 PM

State counts do not matter though in a contest that will be decided by delegates and superdelegates. Hillary Clinton has a very valid argument - "As Ohio goes, so goes the nation." While I may seem baised in my agreement with that because I live in Ohio - it is a well known fact that no Democratic candidate has ever gotten the nomination without winning Ohio in the primary. No President has ever gotten the White House without winning Ohio.

Might wanna check your history on that last statement. At the very least, JFK and FDR (his final term) did it.

Marx

03-05-2008, 01:15 PM

Might wanna check your history on that last statement. At the very least, JFK and FDR (his final term) did it.

Then I will amend my statement to say the last 30-40 years.

redfirebird2008

03-05-2008, 01:17 PM

Then I will amend my statement to say the last 30-40 years.

There ya go. :cwink:

StorminNorman

03-05-2008, 01:22 PM

Polls for Penn have Clinton with 4% n 6% leads. In Ohio, her lead never slipped uner 15% until this week.

Those will go up after Tuesday and get Ohioan sized. The voters are very similar in Pennsylvania.

Excel

03-05-2008, 01:27 PM

Those will go up after Tuesday and get Ohioan sized. The voters are very similar in Pennsylvania.

We shall see. If they do then I think she'll win, but if they remain under 10% itll be very close at worst for Obama.

Heres the official count, latest:

Obama: 1,562
Clinton: 1,461

Obama wil lhave, give or take a few, roughly a 100 over delegate lead when all is said and done and roughyl 140 delegate lead in the all important PLEDGED delegates as remember, super delegates are supposed to follow them.

Up comes Mississippi with 33. I will say Obama takes about 21, Mississippi is 38% Black compared to 1% Latino, a gain of 9. Wyoming has 12, I'll say they get split. Obama will have about 100-110 delegate lead and a pledged delegate lead over 150 heading into Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania itself has about 150 pledged delegates. Assuming she heavily wins, she will STILL be down.

Thats why Im gonna say it now...Pennsylvania is ALSO must win for her. Should she fail to win Pennsylvania, her chances of regaining the delegate lead-all those super delegetes who fled to early included even- will be effectivly over. A loss there would be similiar to what Huckabee did for republicans. It would be obvious-at that point-who the countries voters have picked as the candidate, and dragging it out longer would make her look bad in the public and the eyes of the party.

Im not saying she needs to drop out, but to have any real chance to get those super delegates over she needs to take Pennsylvania.

Matt

03-05-2008, 01:27 PM

Pennsylvania will come up Hillary for numerous reasons.

Firstly, as The Marx has stated, we are the exact same electorate as Ohio. Blue collar, steel mill workers and farmers. That is PA. And both of those demographics have proven overwhelmingly pro-Clinton

Second, as I believe The Marx has also stated, Bill Clinton did a lot for PA during his tenure. That is the reason PA has been a strong hold Democrat swing state for both Gore and Kerry. It is why PA will vote for his wife.

Third, she has Rendell's endorsement and that means a lot in PA. He has a fairly decent approval rating and most PA Democrats adore the guy.

Fourth, look at the demographics. It will probably be a lot like Texas where Obama will need the urban areas to stay relevant as Clinton will sweep through the farmer and steel-worker rural areas. The problem is, PA's urban areas are unique. There are really only two MAJOR urban areas in PA. Pittsburgh and Philadelphia (I don't count Erie as I wouldn't say it is a major area. Its a bit smaller than Youngstown Ohio. It doesn't have enough voters to swing things). Pittsburgh, despite being an urban area will not be won based on the minority vote that Obama relies on as was the case with Texan urban areas. Pittsburgh is pretty much just a glorified steel town. It is strife with blue collar workers, the ones who put Clinton over the top in Ohio. So it should go for Clinton. The other major urban area, is Philadelphia. Philadelphians ADORE Rendell, their former mayor and probably the best mayor they've had in 50 years, at least. Rendell has endorsed Clinton. That will at the very least split the Philadelphia vote if not tip it in Clinton's favor.

Fifth and finally, the momentum from last night is going to be huge. No one is going to care about the two small state primaries between last night and PA. All eyes are going to be on PA. Clinton will be running a vicious campaign with momentum on her side for once.

It will be hard for Obama to beat her here.

StorminNorman

03-05-2008, 01:28 PM

We shall see. If they do then I think she'll win, but if they remain under 10% itll be very close at worst for Obama.

Heres the official count, latest:

Obama: 1,562
Clinton: 1,461

Obama wil lhave, give or take a few, roughly a 100 over delegate lead when all is said and done and roughyl 140 delegate lead in the all important PLEDGED delegates as remember, super delegates are supposed to follow them.

Up comes Mississippi with 33. I will say Obama takes about 21, Mississippi is 38% Black compared to 1% Latino, a gain of 9. Wyoming has 12, I'll say they get split. Obama will have about 100-110 delegate lead and a pledged delegate lead over 150 heading into Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania itself has about 150 pledged delegates. Assuming she heavily wins, she will STILL be down.

Thats why Im gonna say it now...Pennsylvania is ALSO must win for her. Should she fail to win Pennsylvania, her chances of regaining the delegate lead-all those super delegetes who fled to early included even- will be effectivly over. A loss there would be similiar to what Huckabee did for republicans. It would be obvious-at that point-who the countries voters have picked as the candidate, and dragging it out longer would make her look bad in the public and the eyes of the party.

Im not saying she needs to drop out, but to have any real chance to get those super delegates over she needs to take Pennsylvania.

Florida and Michigan, Excel, Florida and Michigan is where Hillary could retake the lead.

StorminNorman

03-05-2008, 01:29 PM

Matt

03-05-2008, 01:29 PM

Excel

03-05-2008, 01:31 PM

Matt what are you talking about? These 2 states were called must wins. She won, ok cool now she doesnt have huge pressure to drop out. She is still down big and withthe race so close, a 100 delegate lead is a big lead.

We'll see. Pennsylvania is defiently a must win for her. If Obama takes it then he is guarenteed to head in the convention leading in pledged delegates and over delegates, as well as popular vote. With 2 months of nothing leading up the convention and the media reiterating Obama winning in all 3 things, its downright impossible the democrats will go AGAINST convention wisdom and give the nomination to the less-popular of the 2.

Marx

03-05-2008, 01:33 PM

We shall see. If they do then I think she'll win, but if they remain under 10% itll be very close at worst for Obama.

Heres the official count, latest:

Obama: 1,562
Clinton: 1,461

Obama wil lhave, give or take a few, roughly a 100 over delegate lead when all is said and done and roughyl 140 delegate lead in the all important PLEDGED delegates as remember, super delegates are supposed to follow them.

Up comes Mississippi with 33. I will say Obama takes about 21, Mississippi is 38% Black compared to 1% Latino, a gain of 9. Wyoming has 12, I'll say they get split. Obama will have about 100-110 delegate lead and a pledged delegate lead over 150 heading into Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania itself has about 150 pledged delegates. Assuming she heavily wins, she will STILL be down.

Thats why Im gonna say it now...Pennsylvania is ALSO must win for her. Should she fail to win Pennsylvania, her chances of regaining the delegate lead-all those super delegetes who fled to early included even- will be effectivly over. A loss there would be similiar to what Huckabee did for republicans. It would be obvious-at that point-who the countries voters have picked as the candidate, and dragging it out longer would make her look bad in the public and the eyes of the party.

Im not saying she needs to drop out, but to have any real chance to get those super delegates over she needs to take Pennsylvania.

That is where I disagree with you Excel. The Superdelegates don't have to follow anything or anyone. They were put in place about 40 years ago to excerise independent judgement in the case they were needed to be the ones to decide an election.

Matt

03-05-2008, 01:36 PM

Matt what are you talking about? These 2 states were called must wins. She won, ok cool now she doesnt have huge pressure to drop out. She is still down big and withthe race so close, a 100 delegate lead is a big lead.

Just because they were must wins doesn't taint the fact that she won them. She has momentum now. Plain and simple. Obama needs something big to gain it back and winning the Guam, Virgin Island, and Mississippi primaries will not be enough.

We'll see. Pennsylvania is defiently a must win for her. If Obama takes it then he is guarenteed to head in the convention leading in pledged delegates and over delegates, as well as popular vote. With 2 months of nothing leading up the convention and the media reiterating Obama winning in all 3 things, its downright impossible the democrats will go AGAINST convention wisdom and give the nomination to the less-popular of the 2.

Again, he won't take PA. I have already explained why. And the super delegates WILL give a less popular candidate the nomination if they feel that she can do more for them.

Excel

03-05-2008, 01:36 PM

Florida and Michigan, Excel, Florida and Michigan is where Hillary could retake the lead.

We'll see what happens. Again to be honest it wouldn't surprise if nothing is done and the situation is left as it is because either way itll end with a lot of democrats pissed at eachother at a time when its critical they come together. It would be most logical to just leave it as it is...it sucks for the voters in the states but they knew the rules. They broke them so they lost their say. You dont change the rules in the middle of the game.

No they aren't. Super delegates have absolutely no ethical or legal obligation to follow the popular vote or their state's delegate assignments. They can vote for whoever they please for whatever reason they please. They aren't the electoral college. There are no guidelines. They go to whoever offers them the most.

I never used the word legal, but I dont believe that. If it is widely known Obama is the unanimous leader, they will go with him. To get a job at the White House, you have to win it first. And to that, they'll go with the most popular candidate/ the one who looks most likely to beat John McCain and baring some drastic change of events, Obama will be both of those.

They'll then offer the VP to whoever is the loser of the 2.

That is where I disagree with you Excel. The Superdelegates don't have to follow anything or anyone. They were put in place about 40 years ago to excerise independent judgement in the case they were needed to be the ones to decide an election.

Again, lok at the media attention this thinsg getting right now. For 2 months, you'll have the media claiming three tihings: Obama leads in delegates. Obama leads in votes. Obama leads in states. He is 3/3. The media will make him the winner in the eyes of the public ands by the time the convention rolls around, super delegates will know it would be campaign suicide to give it Hillary.

Obviously, Matt, Norm, Marx-they CAN give it to Hillary. There is no rule saying they cant. I just find it unlikely theyll go AGAINST the voters when so many people know about it.

Matt

03-05-2008, 01:38 PM

Excel

03-05-2008, 01:41 PM

No, they won't have to go with the unanimous leader. There is no obligation. They are not the electoral college. Are you really so naive to think they would do it out of the goodness of their hearts?

Matt I know theres no obligation. They will be thinking about WINNING the White House. Going against the voters and defying media expecations (theyll paint Obama as the winner) and giving the nomination to the lesser popular candidate would be suicide for November, and they'll know it. While ideally they might want to go with Hillary because she can do more for them personally, they will realize they wont get ANYTIHNG AT ALL if they dont win the White House first.

Marx

03-05-2008, 01:43 PM

We'll see what happens. Again to be honest it wouldn't surprise if nothing is done and the situation is left as it is because either way itll end with a lot of democrats pissed at eachother at a time when its critical they come together. It would be most logical to just leave it as it is...it sucks for the voters in the states but they knew the rules. They broke them so they lost their say. You dont change the rules in the middle of the game.

I never used the word legal, but I dont believe that. If it is widely known Obama is the unanimous leader, they will go with him. To get a job at the White House, you have to win it first. And to that, they'll go with the most popular candidate/ the one who looks most likely to beat John McCain and baring some drastic change of events, Obama will be both of those.

They'll then offer the VP to whoever is the loser of the 2.

Again, lok at the media attention this thinsg getting right now. For 2 months, you'll have the media claiming three tihings: Obama leads in delegates. Obama leads in votes. Obama leads in states. He is 3/3. The media will make him the winner in the eyes of the public ands by the time the convention rolls around, super delegates will know it would be campaign suicide to give it Hillary.

Obviously, Matt, Norm, Marx-they CAN give it to Hillary. There is no rule saying they cant. I just find it unlikely theyll go AGAINST the voters when so many people know about it.

There is absolutely no way that nothing will be done about Florida and Michigan. Howard Dean will have his *** handed to him if something is not done. The Superdelegates will go for whoever can do the most for them. To them, voter opinion doesn't really account for that much. They weren't put in place to serve the voter.

Marx

03-05-2008, 01:44 PM

StorminNorman

03-05-2008, 01:47 PM

Matt

03-05-2008, 01:47 PM

Matt I know theres no obligation. They will be thinking about WINNING the White House. Going against the voters and defying media expecations (theyll paint Obama as the winner) and giving the nomination to the lesser popular candidate would be suicide for November, and they'll know it. While ideally they might want to go with Hillary because she can do more for them personally, they will realize they wont get ANYTIHNG AT ALL if they dont win the White House first.

That would be the case if it were not for 80 % of registered Democrats saying they would get behind the winner, regardless of who it is. A senator can give them just as much (if not more than) the president. They won't care about who wins they white house. They will care about doing what is right by themselves. Plain and simple.

Marx

03-05-2008, 01:48 PM

What rule did the VOTERS OF FLORIDA or MICHIGAN break? The state parties MAY have - the voters did not.

Exactly. And you CANNOT supress the actual voters of those states because the state party leaders broke the rules.

Excel

03-05-2008, 01:49 PM

There is absolutely no way that nothing will be done about Florida and Michigan. Howard Dean will have his *** handed to him if something is not done.

Than what? They broke the rules, they will have to be penalized in some way. Maybe fewer delegates, who knows.

The Superdelegates will go for whoever can do the most for them. To them, voter opinion doesn't really account for that much. They weren't put in place to serve the voter

I know they weren't but that is besides the point. By August, Obama will be the presumptive nominee same way McCain has been the past month due to his 3 wins in delegates and votes.

They wont go against it. They could, but its very unlikely.

A Clinton/Obama ticket is more than capable of winning the White House.

Theyll try that first for sure. They will get them together in the summer and say "Obama will you be Hillary VP?" and hell more than likely say No because hes won th emost votes and delegates. Theyll ask it to Hillary, and shell either say yes OR shell say and that she should be the nominee out of stubburnness, because she would be 0/3 in the 2 measureable stats while Obamas 3/3.

At this point...they give it to Obama and say start looking for a. VP

StorminNorman

03-05-2008, 01:50 PM

Than what? They broke the rules, they will have to be penalized in some way. Maybe fewer delegates, who knows.

If the states hold primaries later, there will be no more penalties since the punishment was for moving the primaries up so soon.

Having late primaries would warrant no punishment and the delegates would be just as large as normal.

Excel

03-05-2008, 01:51 PM

What rule did the VOTERS OF FLORIDA or MICHIGAN break? The state parties MAY have - the voters did not.

They went early. What might happen is they revote or something and don'tget any delegates, I dont know. There is no fair way to end it, either way one side will get screwed. The thing thats closest to being fair is to simply uphold the rules that every other state had able to follow.

And of course should they revote and Obama wins, youll have Hillary complaining the earlier ones shoulda counted.

Marx

03-05-2008, 01:53 PM

Than what? They broke the rules, they will have to be penalized in some way. Maybe fewer delegates, who knows.

I know they weren't but that is besides the point. By August, Obama will be the presumptive nominee same way McCain has been the past month due to his 3 wins in delegates and votes.

They wont go against it. They could, but its very unlikely.

Theyll try that first for sure. They will get them together in the summer and say "Obama will you be Hillary VP?" and hell more than likely say No because hes won th emost votes and delegates. Theyll ask it to Hillary, and shell either say yes OR shell say and that she should be the nominee out of stubburnness, because she would be 0/3 in the 2 measureable stats while Obamas 3/3.

At this point...they give it to Obama and say start looking for a. VP

For starters, the RNC only stripped HALF of the delegates instead of being overzealous and stripping them all away from their voters. And secondly, Hillary has won every state that a Democrat absolutely has to win in a general election. Obama can argue leads all he wants. Truth be told, Hillary has the more strategic argument.

Matt

03-05-2008, 01:54 PM

Am I the only one who thinks Floridians and Michigan-ites should burn in hell for wanting to give their high population states disporportionate influence by taking the influence away from states as prominent and powerful as Iowa and New Hampshire?

Marx

03-05-2008, 01:55 PM

They went early. What might happen is they revote or something and don'tget any delegates, I dont know. There is no fair way to end it, either way one side will get screwed. The thing thats closest to being fair is to simply uphold the rules that every other state had able to follow.

And of course should they revote and Obama wins, youll have Hillary complaining the earlier ones shoulda counted.

That's not the voter's fault. That is the fault of the state party leaders.

Marx

03-05-2008, 01:56 PM

Matt

03-05-2008, 01:57 PM

Iowa and New Hampshire aren't what they once were though in the process.

Thats arguable. They didn't make much of a difference this time because the media created two super candidates. But look at what New Hampshire did for McCain and look what Iowa did for Kerry just 4 years ago. It is ridiculous to let two of the smallest states in the Union have that much power.

Marx

03-05-2008, 02:00 PM

Thats arguable. They didn't make much of a difference this time because the media created two super candidates. But look at what New Hampshire did for McCain and look what Iowa did for Kerry just 4 years ago. It is ridiculous to let two of the smallest states in the Union have that much power.

I would completely agree Matt. I never have understood the influence that they have over the political process. I think it's ridiculous. Those states are not representative of the larger picture of the nation. Not in my opinion.

Excel

03-05-2008, 02:01 PM

And secondly, Hillary has won every state that a Democrat absolutely has to win in a general election. Obama can argue leads all he wants. Truth be told, Hillary has the more strategic argument.

Thats not saying much. If Obamas the nominee its not like he wont carry California in the GE same way if Hillary the nominee its not like she'll win Texas. Ohio is the only state that really applies to.

Marx

03-05-2008, 02:02 PM

Thats not saying much. If Obamas the nominee its not like he wont carry California in the GE same way if Hillary the nominee its not like she'll win Texas. Ohio is the only state that really applies to.

It says alot to me. In the states that a Democrat absolutely has to win in a general election, the voters have preferred and voted for her. Not him.

Matt

03-05-2008, 02:04 PM

Thats not saying much. If Obamas the nominee its not like he wont carry California in the GE same way if Hillary the nominee its not like she'll win Texas. Ohio is the only state that really applies to.

Texas could be a swing state this time around. There are plenty of LBJ-Democrats down there. It became a Republican stronghold in 2000 and 2004 because Bush was their Governor. Doesn't have to be that way this time.

As for swing states, there are plenty that Clinton has won that Obama cannot win in a general election. Florida and Ohio are two of the most important states. PA will likely be a Clinton strong hold as well and Obama cannot guarantee that.

Excel

03-05-2008, 02:06 PM

That's not the voter's fault. That is the fault of the state party leaders.

I know that and it sucks that because of the party chairs, their votes may not count. Either way, one side gets screwed. If they follow the rules, Clinton is ****ed over. If they ignore the rules, Barack is ****ed over.

But last I checked, the outcome an event following rules is more fair than determining the outcome by ignoring them. Again, is a dissappointing situation and there is no fair strategy AND we dont know the outcome. What if they revote and Obama wins? Hillarys gonna claim those shouldnt count. What if they revote and Hillary wins, but Barack got more votes inthe initial election than Hillary did in the 2nd? He could argue he has more support.

There are zoens of ways to twist it because its just a bad, bad situation. The fairwest way is to just follow the rules. Every other state has, why couldn't these 2?

Excel

03-05-2008, 02:07 PM

Texas could be a swing state this time around. There are plenty of LBJ-Democrats down there. It became a Republican stronghold in 2000 and 2004 because Bush was their Governor. Doesn't have to be that way this time.

As for swing states, there are plenty that Clinton has won that Obama cannot win in a general election. Florida and Ohio are two of the most important states. PA will likely be a Clinton strong hold as well and Obama cannot guarantee that.

How bout those southern states obama won heavily? He isnt beating her in votes for nothing. The deal is that Obama would have a good chance at carrying most if not all of the swing states Hillarys taken in the GE. Could Hillary get the ones he had?

Thats a defining NO.

Marx

03-05-2008, 02:12 PM

How bout those southern states obama won heavily? He isnt beating her in votes for nothing. The deal is that Obama would have a good chance at carrying most if not all of the swing states Hillarys taken in the GE. Could Hillary get the ones he had?

Thats a defining NO.

That's why we need a Clinton/Obama ticket. Both can pull in what the other can't. I just think Hillary has a better chance at winning the battleground states in a general election. That has already been proven by the voters preference of her over him in those primary states.

hippie_hunter

03-05-2008, 02:13 PM

why does everybody think obamas screwe din pennsylvania?

1. Clinton now has some much needed momentum in the industrial states.

2. Pennsylvania has a similar electorate as Ohio.

3. She leads in the polls.

4. Obama is royally f**ked in the industrial states because of NAFTAGate. He can kiss winning Pennsylvania, Indiana, West Virginia, and if they redo Michigan good bye because of that **** up.

Excel

03-05-2008, 02:20 PM

That's why we need a Clinton/Obama ticket. Both can pull in what the other can't. I just think Hillary has a better chance at winning the battleground states in a general election. That has already been proven by the voters preference of her over him in those primary states.

Obama/Clintons better. Clintonites will vote for her no matter. If Obama aint on top, his youngsters wont show up on election day.

Marx

03-05-2008, 02:22 PM

Obama/Clintons better. Clintonites will vote for her no matter. If Obama aint on top, his youngsters wont show up on election day.

I think they will because he is still on the ticket. They aren't going to abandon him just because he isn't in the top spot. He will plead and plead to them. (And they will listen because he is so inspirational.)

hippie_hunter

03-05-2008, 02:22 PM

Marx

03-05-2008, 02:23 PM

hippie_hunter

03-05-2008, 02:24 PM

hippie_hunter

03-05-2008, 02:25 PM

I really don't think so. He will still be on the ticket and thus "still doing his thing."

I was refering to the general election than the primaries. With the primaries, I agree with your sentiment. The youngsters are somehow mesmerised by him.

Marx

03-05-2008, 02:26 PM

That said, a Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton ticket isn't going to happen. They can't stand each other, neither of them want the #2 spot, and they'll probably need a white man to try and bring balance to the ticket.

With the numbers they are both bringing in, I think they will be fine together. I have a very difficult time believing that after all of this, they BOTH would not end up on the ticket together. I think that is inevitable at this point.

hippie_hunter

03-05-2008, 02:28 PM

With the numbers they are both bringing in, I think they will be fine together. I have a very difficult time believing that after all of this, they BOTH would not end up on the ticket together. I think that is inevitable at this point.

No way, ever watch the debates with them. They look like they want to rip each other's throats and they've been far too negative with each other.

Marx

03-05-2008, 02:28 PM

I was refering to the general election than the primaries. With the primaries, I agree with your sentiment. The youngsters are somehow mesmerised by him.

In the general election I think some will be lost regardless. But with him still being on the ticket, it will be far from a a bust on the republican/independent support front.

Excel

03-05-2008, 02:29 PM

I was refering to the general election than the primaries. With the primaries, I agree with your sentiment. The youngsters are somehow mesmerised by him.

Because they want change and when youve have old white guys for president the past 12 years (Bill wasnt old in 1992) and the field is all old white guys except for an old white WOMEN running against a young black guy...its not hard.

That and Obama gives is his speeches as if he's a minister pumping people up. An Obama-Mccain one on one debate could be hilarious given just how freaking different the two men are on the outside and when it comes to communicating.

Excel

03-05-2008, 02:30 PM

No way, ever watch the debates with them. They look like they want to rip each other's throats and they've been far too negative with each other.

I dissagree, I think they like eachother-or atleast Barack likes Hillary- a lot more than people think. They agree on just about every single issue and Obama comes off as someone who is hard to dislike and also its hard to make him dislike you. He seems very....open.

Marx

03-05-2008, 02:31 PM

No way, ever watch the debates with them. They look like they want to rip each other's throats and they've been far too negative with each other.

I have watched all the debates. It's all political. They both want to be the nominee. They are going to stand their ground in public because they both need the support. Kerry and Edwards ripped each other apart as well, then ended up running together in the end.

Marx

03-05-2008, 02:33 PM

I dissagree, I think they like eachother-or atleast Barack likes Hillary- a lot more than people think. They agree on just about every single issue.

I think they both have a deep respect for one another. That has also been stated on tv in the debates.

hippie_hunter

03-05-2008, 02:36 PM

Of course they're going to say that they respect each other, but they look pissed off when the other person opens their large annoying mouth. They look like they want to kill each other.

Marx

03-05-2008, 02:37 PM

Of course they're going to say that they respect each other, but they look pissed off when the other person opens their large annoying mouth. They look like they want to kill each other.

Kerry and Edwards did the exact same thing to one another.

Excel

03-05-2008, 02:41 PM

Bottom line, if one thinks the other will help em win the white house, theyll accept them.That said, I doubt Hillary accepts VP. Obama MIGHT, but I jujt cant imagine Hillary doing it.

Knives

03-05-2008, 03:38 PM

I have to agree with excel in this case. Clinton supporters are far more willing to vote for Obama than some Obama supporters voting for Clinton.

Will most Obama supporters vote for Clinton? Of course they will. But the independents and Republicans that voted for him, along with some Democrats, will more likely favor McCain over Clinton. And that will be her undoing if she gets the nomination.

I agree. I dont think she has any chance of beating McCain. A Clinton/Obama ticket I think would easily win though, if it even happens. I have no clue how this primary is going to turn out, but I am about exhausted of seeing these two do the republicans work for them by ripping eachother into shreds. Clinton especially.

Marx

03-05-2008, 03:40 PM

I agree. I dont think she has any chance of beating McCain. A Clinton/Obama ticket I think would easily win though, if it even happens. I have no clue how this primary is going to turn out, but I am about exhausted of seeing these two do the republicans work for them by ripping eachother into shreds. Clinton especially.

Dubya's endorsement of McCain might just be the remedy for the Democrats political in-fighting.

Knives

03-05-2008, 03:48 PM

Dubya's endorsement of McCain might just be the remedy for the Democrats political in-fighting.

Agreed. The BEST thing they can do to overthrow McCain is just yell BUSH and MCCAIN in the same sentence over and over again from here til November.

hippie_hunter

03-05-2008, 03:58 PM

Dubya's endorsement of McCain might just be the remedy for the Democrats political in-fighting.

As long as Bush doesn't actively campaign for McCain, I think his endorsement will help him instead of hurting him by gathering the Republicans together to vote for him.

If he does actively campaign for him, then he'll be in trouble because it'll obviously put off Democrats and independents who would vote for him.

Knives

03-05-2008, 04:28 PM

He'll campaign for him in republican only events, so he can get McCain money, but everytime they are together, the democrats will show that all over the place, which will definately hurt him with independents. Also, are the far right still pissed at McCain and refusing to vote for him or what?

redfirebird2008

03-05-2008, 04:58 PM

I see that Barack is ahead by 12% again in the caucus. The vote-counting for the caucus has been incredibly slow so far. They were at 34% at 3 AM this morning and right now they're only at 39%. But I guess it's not surprising. My parents live in the Houston area and they said the local news was reporting at 10:30 PM or later that some of the caucuses hadn't even started! What a nightmare for all those people that showed up at 7 PM wanting to caucus.

Marx

03-05-2008, 05:20 PM

redfirebird2008

03-05-2008, 06:19 PM

I still see no point in having a caucus in the same state that you have a primary. It makes no sense at all! But I digress. :whatever:

That's why we're Texas. Only state in the union that can fly our flag at the same height as the U.S. flag. In other words, we can do whatever the eff we want! :woot:

Arkady Rossovich

03-05-2008, 08:40 PM

STOP, posting this spam that is on the verge of trolling....

Post it again, and you'll have a few days off.

souvlaki

03-05-2008, 09:00 PM

Florida and Michigan, Excel, Florida and Michigan is where Hillary could retake the lead.

Howard Dean drew a line in the sand today. Either the state parties can organize new primaries themselves, or Clinton can broker a deal with Obama. Both are unlikely to happen. So don't hold your breath on that one, guys.

souvlaki

03-05-2008, 09:05 PM

Btw, any people actually playing into Clinton's statement today that she may consider Obama as a running mate are suckers.

hippie_hunter

03-05-2008, 09:19 PM

Howard Dean drew a line in the sand today. Either the state parties can organize new primaries themselves, or Clinton can broker a deal with Obama. Both are unlikely to happen. So don't hold your breath on that one, guys.

I think one way or another Michigan and Florida will end up being seated at the convention by either simply letting them seat their delegates or redos.

souvlaki

03-05-2008, 09:19 PM

Obama's internal predictions for the primaries were "leaked" today to Bloomberg. Their predictions for last night's race were oddly right on the money, as were all of the previous races. Interestingly they also predict him losing Pennsylvania. This makes me wonder why they didn't underplay the elections last night if they knew they would probably lose them. Obama has done a lot of things right in this game, but he is horrible at setting up expectations. He really should have pulled a Bill Clinton, and called himself the "comeback kid" last night in Texas.

http://images.politico.com/global/bloombergspreadsheet.jpg

Excel

03-05-2008, 09:19 PM

Well, after everything has apparently been counted, Hillary gained a net of 4 delegates.

So she is still behind Obama by more than 100 delegates.

Obama only needs 46% of the remaining delegates to win the nomination. So he could lose all the remaining states and still win.

Hillary's victory is impressive and she is spinning it just like I would if I were her, but seriously, she's going to have to win everything that is left by big numbers to carry this off, and I don't think that's going to happen.

hippie_hunter

03-05-2008, 09:22 PM

Obama only needs 46% of the remaining delegates to win the nomination. So he could lose all the remaining states and still win.

I want you Obama supporters to get this through your heads:

"There are not enough votes left among pledged delegates for anybody to win the nomination," said Mary Frances Berry, former chairwoman of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission. "One person's going to be ahead, one's going to be behind. It will come down to the superdelegates."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/05/dems.next/index.html

souvlaki

03-05-2008, 09:22 PM

I think one way or another Michigan and Florida will end up being seated at the convention by either simply letting them seat their delegates or redos.

Not if the state parties have to organize them. The state parties want the DNC to reinstate the current results. The DNC is saying they have to organize new primaries, but the old ones will not be counted no matter how big of a fuss they make. That is the way they are playing it, and the state parties will not organize a new primary, mark my word. And Hillary certainly wont be able to broker a deal with Obama.

hippie_hunter

03-05-2008, 09:24 PM

Not if the state parties have to organize them. The state parties want the DNC to reinstate the current results. The DNC is saying they have to organize new primaries, but the old ones will not be counted no matter how big of a fuss they make. That is the way they are playing it, and the state parties will not organize a new primary, mark my word. And Hillary certainly wont be able to broker a deal with Obama.

I agree with you that Clinton isn't going to broker a deal with Obama. People who fully believe in that are rather naive.

But Michigan and Florida will most likely find someway to be counted by the way Hillary Clinton wants or the way the DNC says is acceptable. The race is just far too close to not seat them and it is also not fair to the voters of those states despite the fact that their party knowingly broke the rules.

Lightning Strykez!

03-05-2008, 09:27 PM

Wow, this thread blew up overnight. :p

Anyway, my thoughts on the results? An unmitigated sense of "Mehness". :dry: This thing is not wrapped up yet and the mudslinging is going to get really nasty now. But you know what dissapoints me the most?

Hillary is nothing more than a WINO: Winner In Name Only.

The only reason--and I mean the ONLY reason--she prevailed is because she engaged in some dirty character assasination. Her "kitchen sink" ploy worked because she played off of fear tactics. So to me, her "victory" is hollow--because it wasn't earned on "the issues." :down

I just hope Obama doesn't drop his "nice guy" approach and retaliate. He's taken the high road through each besmirching (even congratuating her last night at his rally), but I'm not sure he will take much more of this crap sitting down. And oddly enough, his "cool under fire" attitude is part of his charm and appeal. Not to mention, all of this mess is proving to be low-hanging fodder for the Republicans. Yeah, "Way to go Hillary, you are the Comeback Kid indeed." :rolleyes:

Again. "Meh." :dry:

Excel

03-05-2008, 09:28 PM

But at the same time, it isn't fair to the other states that did follow the rules.

"There are not enough votes left among pledged delegates for anybody to win the nomination," said Mary Frances Berry, former chairwoman of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission. "One person's going to be ahead, one's going to be behind. It will come down to the superdelegates."

It is in our heads. We firmly believe the super delegates will listen to the voters and go with the most popular candidate. For 2 months after the last primary to the convention, when the media talks about how they dont know who the democratic nominee is, despite all the contests being over, you'll here 1 thing:

Barack Obama won the most delegates, votes, and the most states.

After 2 months of that, he'll be the presumtive nominee and I doubt the super dels will over rule that.

Excel

03-05-2008, 09:30 PM

Wow, this thread blew up overnight. :p

Anyway, my thoughts on the results? An unmitigated sense of "Mehness". :dry: This thing is not wrapped up yet and the mudslinging is going to get really nasty now. The thing that disgusts me the most?

Hillary is nothing more than a WINO--Winner In Name Only. The only reason--and I mean the ONLY reason--she prevailed is because she engaged in some dirty character assasination. Her "kitchen sink" ploy worked because she played off of fear tactics. So to me, her "victory" is hollow--because it wasn't earned on "the issues." :down

I just hope Obama doesn't drop his "nice guy" facade and retaliate. He's taken the high road through each besmirching (even congratuating her last night at his rally), but I'm not sure he will take much more of this crap sitting down. And oddly enough, his slowness to get angry is part of his charm and appeal.

Again. "Meh." :dry:

Well, unfortuantely at this point he pretty much as to. He cannot let settle into this fighter role and him as the big leader. This race ha sproved who the media treats as the underdog is the ultimate benifactor.

Lightning Strykez!

03-05-2008, 09:32 PM

Florida and Michigan, Excel, Florida and Michigan is where Hillary could retake the lead.

You really believe that Dean & Pelosi and Co. are going to rewrite the rules for ONE candidate who's desperately trying to get ahead in delegates? What message will that send to:

1.) All of the candidates--present and past--who abided by the rules and didn't campaign, and

2.) The Democratic Party itself?

They will open up a can of worms if they even touch Michigan and Florida--it will reek of favoritism towards Hillary--and if anything will split the party, that would do it. Plus, it would look like they are deliberately trying to dismantle Obama--who played by Party Rules. Have you thought of what kind of impact will resonate through onlookers--especially minority voters?

Ehn. :down

Excel

03-05-2008, 09:36 PM

As I said, nomatter how unfair it is to the voterws of the two states, it is still MORE unfair to go back and redo as if the rules did not count.

EITHER WAY some gets screwed-if they count, Obama does, if they dont, Hillarey does. No way is really fair.

HOWEVER, coming to the conclusion by following the rules is more fair than coming tothe conclusion by ignoring them.

hippie_hunter

03-05-2008, 09:43 PM

But at the same time, it isn't fair to the other states that did follow the rules.
I bet that if Obama won Florida and Michigan you'd be saying that they should seat those delegates :o

It is downright unfair to the voters of Florida and Michigan for what the DNC did and is downright undemocratic. At the very least they should redo those primaries (especially Michigan since Obama wasn't on the ballot) to give the VOTERS a voice.

It is in our heads. We firmly believe the super delegates will listen to the voters and go with the most popular candidate. For 2 months after the last primary to the convention, when the media talks about how they dont know who the democratic nominee is, despite all the contests being over, you'll here 1 thing:

Barack Obama won the most delegates, votes, and the most states.

After 2 months of that, he'll be the presumtive nominee and I doubt the super dels will over rule that.
So...the superdelegates are not obligated to the voters, they'll go for whomever they want and if Obama has a lead of 100 or so delegates like he has now, it's not really going to matter.

Excel

03-05-2008, 09:48 PM

I bet that if Obama won Florida and Michigan you'd be saying that they should seat those delegates :o

Your right that I would hope they counted, but I would atleast admit that logically they shouldn't be.

It is downright unfair to the voters of Florida and Michigan for what the DNC did and is downright undemocratic. At the very least they should redo those primaries (especially Michigan since Obama wasn't on the ballot) to give the VOTERS a voice.

The voters have a voice, they voted for those super delegates that cost them election.

YES I KNOW its unfair and sucks forthe regular voters but unfortunately rules are rules. You cant change them in the middle of the game because candidate wants them to. Period. Every game or election that has rules is like that and one as important as this shouldn't be any different.

So...the superdelegates are not obligated to the voters, they'll go for whomever they want and if Obama has a lead of 100 or so delegates like he has now, it's not really going to matter.

Dude I get it. They dont have to. Please get it through your head- I believe theyll go with the most popular candidate. And when Obama leads in delegates, votes, and states, he clearly is the more popular of the 2. It aint rocket sicence, the reasoning behind it isnt hard to comprehend.

Lightning Strykez!

03-05-2008, 09:49 PM

I bet that if Obama won Florida and Michigan you'd be saying that they should seat those delegates :o

Obama is in the lead. He wouldn't need them at this point with all things equal.

And if Hillary was in the lead, you can believe me that she would'nt be contesting this issue. :rolleyes:

hippie_hunter

03-05-2008, 09:52 PM

Obama is in the lead. He wouldn't need them at this point with all things equal.
My point was toward's excel's attitude, the way he acts, if Obama won Florida and Michigan he'd probably be saying that they should be seated.

And if Hillary was in the lead, you can believe me that she would'nt be contesting this issue. :rolleyes:

Actually I think she was contesting that issue before Obama took the lead. It's a reason why she won by a rather large margin in Florida.

hippie_hunter

03-05-2008, 09:58 PM

Your right that I would hope they counted, but I would atleast admit that logically they shouldn't be.
Well logically sure...the state parties broke the rules. But in reality it is completely undemocratic and makes the Republicans look like the good guys, they punished Florida and Michigan, but they didn't completely take away their voice.

Same with the superdelegates, the Republicans don't rely heavily on those while the Democrats are in a situation to where they will decide the election.

The voters have a voice, they voted for those super delegates that cost them election.
They didn't vote for the delegates that cost them the election. They were punished before they could vote. It's completely undemocratic.

YES I KNOW its unfair and sucks forthe regular voters but unfortunately rules are rules. You cant change them in the middle of the game because candidate wants them to. Period. Every game or election that has rules is like that and one as important as this shouldn't be any different.
I don't think that Florida and Michigan should be simply seated. Obama wasn't on the ballot in Michigan and he didn't campaign in Florida. It would be unfair to him if they were simply seated. Simply seating them is also very undemocratic. But they should be redone to give the voters of those states a fair voice and hopefully try and settle this.

Dude I get it. They dont have to. Please get it through your head- I believe theyll go with the most popular candidate. And when Obama leads in delegates, votes, and states, he clearly is the more popular of the 2. It aint rocket sicence, the reasoning behind it isnt hard to comprehend.
If the margin was larger you'd have a very good point. But it's too slim right now to beleive that such a situation will happen, especially with the ties the Clintons have.

It's all going to have to be a wait and see situation.

Excel

03-05-2008, 10:03 PM

Well logically sure...the state parties broke the rules. But in reality it is completely undemocratic and makes the Republicans look like the good guys, they punished Florida and Michigan, but they didn't completely take away their voice.

Ok, so while we're at it, lets make whoever wins most delegates and votes wins all the super delegates because if super delegates don't give it to the person who has themost delegates or votes than its "completely undemocratic and makes the Republicans look like the good guys"

You cant have it both ways :o

Kelly

03-05-2008, 10:07 PM

The RNC is laughing their asses off.

hippie_hunter

03-05-2008, 10:20 PM

Ok, so while we're at it, lets make whoever wins most delegates and votes wins all the super delegates because if super delegates don't give it to the person who has themost delegates or votes than its "completely undemocratic and makes the Republicans look like the good guys"

You cant have it both ways :o

Or we can just get rid of the superdelegates. That would work.

Chris B

03-05-2008, 10:22 PM

I was hoping it would end last night. Granted, I'm not a big fan of either Hillary or Obama, but a brokered convention isn't doing the Democratic Party any favors down the line.

Lightning Strykez!

03-05-2008, 10:24 PM

The RNC is laughing their asses off.

They are indeed. :p

:csad:

Chris B

03-05-2008, 10:24 PM

Lightning Strykez!

03-05-2008, 10:33 PM

Where is the link that says Hillary is hinting at taking Obama for a Veeper? Anyone got it?

Excel

03-05-2008, 10:34 PM

Where is the link that says Hillary is hinting at taking Obama for a Veeper? Anyone got it?

Its wrong. They asked her and she said at this point its obviously been talked about, but they have idea whode be first or second.

Excel

03-05-2008, 10:34 PM

Or we can just get rid of the superdelegates. That would work.

Thats by far the best solution Ive heard :up:

souvlaki

03-05-2008, 10:35 PM

My point was toward's excel's attitude, the way he acts, if Obama won Florida and Michigan he'd probably be saying that they should be seated.

Actually I think she was contesting that issue before Obama took the lead. It's a reason why she won by a rather large margin in Florida.

Not an exact quote, but in January she said something to the effect of:

"Well, it's not like the delegates in those states will be counted anyway."

That is what kills her argument. She didn't raise the issue until she realized she was not going to clench the nomination after Super Tuesday. If she made a point of protesting it BEFORE it was ruled that those delegates would not be counted she may of had an argument. As it stands now she has nothing other than her own selfish reasons to seat them. It's not fair to the voters, but if they want to complain to anyone, they should complain to their state, not blame Obama for it.

Besides, with McCain in the race Florida was never going to be a swing state in November in the first place. Michigan? Well, considering uncommitted got almost half the votes without Obama and Edwards even campaigning in that state I have a feeling that state wasn't an easy win for her either.

souvlaki

03-05-2008, 10:39 PM

Where is the link that says Hillary is hinting at taking Obama for a Veeper? Anyone got it?

She said it on television this morning. I think it was Meet the Press? She didn't say she would do it, but she hinted that she would consider it. And she did it for a reason. If there people on the fence that see that she's considering him as a VP they may flock to her in hopes of a "dream team" ticket. What's sad is I can see people falling for it too.

Lightning Strykez!

03-05-2008, 10:40 PM

Its wrong. They asked her and she said at this point its obviously been talked about, but they have idea whode be first or second.

I've read that Obama rejected this idea when asked about it today. Or is it' denounce'?? :whatever:

Anyway, the talk of a joint ticket is a well-known Clintonian trap. It would give people the excuse of voting for her with the fantasy that since she would pick him, they'd get both--a classic 2 for 1 deal. It would also soothe guilt-ridden ones with a feelgood way of stealing the election from the guy who won the most popular, delegate and state totals.

Meh. Hopefully he won't fall for that ruse. :down:

Lightning Strykez!

03-05-2008, 10:41 PM

She said it on television this morning. I think it was Meet the Press? She didn't say she would do it, but she hinted that she would consider it. And she did it for a reason. If there people on the fence that see that she's considering him as a VP they may flock to her in hopes of a "dream team" ticket. What's sad is I can see people falling for it too.

We were thinking/posting the same thing--exactly. :up:

She is the Queen of Spin. She has no intentions of making that man her VP. After she's told the entire nation he's unqualified and inexperienced, why would she want him in her administration?!?? Yet she'll flirt with the idea...just...to get more votes.

souvlaki

03-05-2008, 10:46 PM

I want you Obama supporters to get this through your heads:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/05/dems.next/index.html

And you guys should get through your heads that unless it is so close that one of them has a lead in the popular vote and the other has a lead in delegates, the super delegates will not vote against the delegate leader. Let me lay out a scenario for you. Say Obama gets through all the states, and after Puerto Rico he has an 80+ delegate lead, and the lead in the popular vote. In the weeks leading up to the convention, the media (because, by Clinton supporters own admission, they apparently are Obama-centric) will play this up, mention the delegate lead over and over, will take poll after poll showing that the public thinks the super delegates should side with the will of the people, etc. etc. Even if the super delegates dont want to vote for Obama, they will inevitably be pressured into it.

souvlaki

03-05-2008, 10:49 PM

We were thinking/posting the same thing--exactly. :up:

She is the Queen of Spin. She has no intentions of making that man her VP. After she's told the entire nation he's unqualified and inexperienced, why would she want him in her administration?!?? Yet she'll flirt with the idea...just...to get more votes.

Well, I concede it IS possible. But only if she goes into the convention with a slight lead in the popular vote, and if Obama has a lead in the delegate count. At that point, if they broker a deal, I could foresee her being forced into it. But that is a hell of a lot of if's.

Excel

03-05-2008, 10:52 PM

And you guys should get through your heads that unless it is so close that one of them has a lead in the popular vote and the other has a lead in delegates, the super delegates will not vote against the delegate leader. Let me lay out a scenario for you. Say Obama gets through all the states, and after Puerto Rico he has an 80+ delegate lead, and the lead in the popular vote. In the weeks leading up to the convention, the media (because, by Clinton supporters own admission, they apparently are Obama-centric) will play this up, mention the delegate lead over and over, will take poll after poll showing that the public thinks the super delegates should side with the will of the people, etc. etc. Even if the super delegates dont want to vote for Obama, they will inevitably be pressured into it.

Exactly. Like McCain in the past few weeks, Obama will be made the pressumptive nominee and they wont dare reverse for fear of losing in November.

souvlaki

03-05-2008, 10:55 PM

Exactly. Like McCain in the past few weeks, Obama will be made the pressumptive nominee and they wont dare reverse for fear of losing in November.

It's not just that. Some of the super delegates have constituents to worry about, as well as a desire to be re-elected. If they are seen as going against the will of the people, they will have hell to pay. Politicians care a lot more about being re-elected, than receiving favors from a candidate that in all likelyhood may have difficulty getting elected in November.

Excel

03-05-2008, 10:57 PM

The Senator

03-05-2008, 11:13 PM

It's not just that. Some of the super delegates have constituents to worry about, as well as a desire to be re-elected. If they are seen as going against the will of the people, they will have hell to pay. Politicians care a lot more about being re-elected, than receiving favors from a candidate that in all likelyhood may have difficulty getting elected in November.

Do you think the members of Charlie Rangel's district are going to vote against him when he's up for re-election because he's a Clinton delegate, while his district primarily voted for Obama? Most constituents don't even know what a Superdelegate is, let alone care one way or the other how their Congressman/ State Rep/ community organizer cast their ballot at the convention.

souvlaki

03-05-2008, 11:42 PM

Or we can just get rid of the superdelegates. That would work.

The super delegates should be in place to make a vote under extenuating circumstances, such as if something were to happen to the candidate that has the lead. Otherwise they should go with the will of the people.

Last I checked, the Democratic Party was the party of Jefferson. Y'know, the guy that said:

"The will of the people... is the only legitimate foundation of any government, and to protect its free expression should be our first object." --Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Waring, 1801. ME 10:236

"The measures of the fair majority... ought always to be respected." --Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1792. ME 8:397

"To consider the will of the society enounced by the majority of a single vote as sacred as if unanimous is the first of all lessons in importance, yet the last which is thoroughly learnt. This law once disregarded, no other remains but that of force, which ends necessarily in military despotism." --Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, 1817. ME 15:127

"The voice of the majority decides."----Thomas Jefferson: Parliamentary Manual, 1800. ME 2:420

For those of you dont accept those quotes, I have plenty more.

The Senator

03-05-2008, 11:44 PM

The super delegates should be in place to make a vote under extenuating circumstances, such as if something were to happen to the candidate that has the lead. Otherwise they should go with the will of the people.

Last I checked, the Democratic Party was the party of Jefferson. Y'know, the guy that said:

"The will of the people... is the only legitimate foundation of any government, and to protect its free expression should be our first object." --Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Waring, 1801. ME 10:236

"The measures of the fair majority... ought always to be respected." --Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1792. ME 8:397

"To consider the will of the society enounced by the majority of a single vote as sacred as if unanimous is the first of all lessons in importance, yet the last which is thoroughly learnt. This law once disregarded, no other remains but that of force, which ends necessarily in military despotism." --Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, 1817. ME 15:127

"The voice of the majority decides."----Thomas Jefferson: Parliamentary Manual, 1800. ME 2:420

For those of you dont accept those quotes, I have plenty more.

Superdelegates were installed to settle brokered conventions. They weren't intended for anything else, but they've gained a lot more influence as of late.

souvlaki

03-05-2008, 11:45 PM

Do you think the members of Charlie Rangel's district are going to vote against him when he's up for re-election because he's a Clinton delegate, while his district primarily voted for Obama? Most constituents don't even know what a Superdelegate is, let alone care one way or the other how their Congressman/ State Rep/ community organizer cast their ballot at the convention.

There are always going to be exceptions, but by and large there will be more than enough super delegates more concerned about how they are perceived by their constituents then by what Clinton has to offer them. We've seen proof of that in the last month with super delegates that were undecided, or leaning toward Clinton switching.

The Senator

03-05-2008, 11:48 PM

There are always going to be exceptions, but by and large there will be more than enough super delegates more concerned about how they are perceived by their constituents then by what Clinton has to offer them. We've seen proof of that in the last month with super delegates that were undecided, or leaning toward Clinton switching.

I don't think constituents care one way or another how their Congressman votes. All politics are local; they could care less how a candidate acts when deciding a national election. An esteemed incumbent who has been there for decades, bringing money to the district and proved that he's viable, is going to be re-elected, even if he casts his vote for Clinton when Obama won his district with 80% of the vote.

souvlaki

03-05-2008, 11:48 PM

Superdelegates were installed to settle brokered conventions. They weren't intended for anything else, but they've gained a lot more influence as of late.

And what should settle it is the will of the people. They are not stupid, they are not going to just overturn that if Obama is still ahead in the popular vote, and delegate count. Like I said, we are supposed to be the party of Jefferson, and he will be rolling around in his grave the day his party leaders overturn the will of the people.

souvlaki

03-05-2008, 11:53 PM

I don't think constituents care one way or another how their Congressman votes. All politics are local; they could care less how a candidate acts when deciding a national election. An esteemed incumbent who has been there for decades, bringing money to the district and proved that he's viable, is going to be re-elected, even if he casts his vote for Clinton when Obama won his district with 80% of the vote.

You are being naive if you think that wont be the first thing brought up by any of the opponents of those candidates in the next election. And I think you are also being naive if you think the super delegates wont at least consider the possibility of what their constituents think. Actually, no... you are not being naive. You are arguing this because it's the only argument your candidate has going into a brokered convention. If the situation were reversed you'd be saying the same thing I'm saying right now.

The Senator

03-05-2008, 11:54 PM

And what should settle it is the will of the people. They are not stupid, they are not going to just overturn that if Obama is still ahead in the popular vote, and delegate count. Like I said, we are supposed to be the party of Jefferson, and he will be rolling around in his grave the day his party leaders overturn the will of the people.

I'm talking about a truly brokered convention, like 1968, when the vote was split between god knows how many candidates. In the end, a candidate who barely sought the nomination became the nominee. The idea is, the guys who decide these issues know what's in the best party interest and can prevent something cataclysmic from happening.

Also... I don't know how we can claim Jefferson as our own when he didn't even found the Democratic Party. Not to mention this party has changed positions so many times, it's hard to associate any leader before 1933 to a modern political party.

The Senator

03-06-2008, 12:01 AM

You are being naive if you think that wont be the first thing brought up by any of the opponents of those candidates in the next election. And I think you are also being naive if you think the super delegates wont at least consider the possibility of what their constituents think.

You're basically assuming that people in majority-Democratic districts are going to vote for their Republican opponents over a petty issue such as who they cast their convention ballot to, completely ignoring their accomplishments for that district which they have made their top priority. That goes against every proven theory on how elections are decided.

Will these politicians consider what their constituents think? Some will, some won't. It depends on their district, how competitive the race is, and whether their constituents care one way or another.

You also seem to forget that Democrats don't solely vote in these districts... general elections are open to everyone... even members of the opposing party.

Actually, no... you are not being naive. You are arguing this because it's the only argument your candidate has going into a brokered convention. If the situation were reversed you'd be saying the same thing I'm saying right now.

I'm not arguing that all of Clinton's supporters will support her through the convention, or that some of her supporters won't flock to Obama. I'm arguing that it's ridiculous to assume that how a Congressman votes at the convention-- which is a secret ballot, by the way, so the constituents will never truly know who voted for whom-- is going to decide whether that Congressman is re-elected to a seat he pretty much owns until he ****s up royally. This isn't an instance of him ****ing up royally.

As for if this situation was reversed... I probably wouldn't bring this up at all, because I know how elections work and I happen to be aware that something this petty isn't going to sway an election.

souvlaki

03-06-2008, 12:08 AM

I'm talking about a truly brokered convention, like 1968, when the vote was split between god knows how many candidates. In the end, a candidate who barely sought the nomination became the nominee. The idea is, the guys who decide these issues know what's in the best party interest and can prevent something cataclysmic from happening.

Also... I don't know how we can claim Jefferson as our own when he didn't even found the Democratic Party. Not to mention this party has changed positions so many times, it's hard to associate any leader before 1933 to a modern political party.

And 1968 is an election I dont think the Democratic Party wants to repeat. Everything our country stands for and was founded upon were largely based upon the words, and opinions of Jefferson. How dare you call yourself a Democrat and just dismiss him like that? I personally care a lot more about his opinion than Hillary Clinton's. The day our party puts their own interests before the will of the people is the day I stop being a Democrat. It's an insult to everything our founding fathers fought for. It also makes us look like the jackass of the nation after the big to do we made over the 2000 election.

The Senator

03-06-2008, 12:13 AM

And 1968 is an election I dont think the Democratic Party wants to repeat. Everything our country stands for and was founded upon were largely based upon the words, and opinions of Jefferson. How dare you call yourself a Democrat and just dismiss him like that?

How dare I study Jefferson and understand that he didn't found the modern Democratic movement, he actually helped found the early Republican movement, which later became the Jacksonian Democratic movement, which later became the Populist movement... which has somehow transformed itself into the current Republican movement which called for limited government intervention and regulation. So basically we're claiming Jefferson as our own because he said a few words which align with how we want to portray ourselves for the time being.

I personally care a lot more about his opinion than Hillary Clinton's. The day our party puts their own interests before the will of the people is the day I stop being a Democrat. It's an insult to everything our founding fathers fought for. It also makes us look like the jackass of the nation after the big to do we made over the 2000 election.

Well, then our party should do what's in its best interest come June 8... when every contest has been wrapped and every vote has been counted. Until then, no one should argue anything and the Obama/ Clinton threads should be locked until then, since this nomination is far from decided.

souvlaki

03-06-2008, 12:14 AM

You're basically assuming that people in majority-Democratic districts are going to vote for their Republican opponents over a petty issue such as who they cast their convention ballot to, completely ignoring their accomplishments for that district which they have made their top priority. That goes against every proven theory on how elections are decided.

Will these politicians consider what their constituents think? Some will, some won't. It depends on their district, how competitive the race is, and whether their constituents care one way or another.

You also seem to forget that Democrats don't solely vote in these districts... general elections are open to everyone... even members of the opposing party.

I'm not arguing that all of Clinton's supporters will support her through the convention, or that some of her supporters won't flock to Obama. I'm arguing that it's ridiculous to assume that how a Congressman votes at the convention-- which is a secret ballot, by the way, so the constituents will never truly know who voted for whom-- is going to decide whether that Congressman is re-elected to a seat he pretty much owns until he ****s up royally. This isn't an instance of him ****ing up royally.

As for if this situation was reversed... I probably wouldn't bring this up at all, because I know how elections work and I happen to be aware that something this petty isn't going to sway an election.

And I'm saying after the supposed Obama-centric media play up the fact that he has a lead in delegates, and the popular votes, even those superdelegates that want to vote for Clinton will be pressured into reconsidering their vote by their peers. Do you think they are willing to risk pissing off their constituents for a candidate that may not even win? There is certainly nothing guaranteed come November if a brokered convention goes against the person leading in delegates and popular votes. What can Clinton possibly promise them that would sway their votes if she cant even guarantee them a win?

The Senator

03-06-2008, 12:23 AM

And I'm saying after the supposed Obama-centric media play up the fact that he has a lead in delegates, and the popular votes, even those superdelegates that want to vote for Clinton will be pressured into reconsidering their vote by their peers. Do you think they are willing to risk pissing off their constituents for a candidate that may not even win? There is certainly nothing guaranteed come November if a brokered convention goes against the person leading in delegates and popular votes. What can Clinton possibly promise them that would sway their votes if she cant even guarantee them a win?

Like I said, the convention is a secret ballot. Candidates don't even have to reveal who they supported, so even if the convention turns out to be a divisive, horrible catastrophe, then these guys don't even have to admit who they voted for. It's as simple as that, if this does turn out to be an issue in localized politics... which it undoubtedly won't.

souvlaki

03-06-2008, 12:25 AM

How dare I study Jefferson and understand that he didn't found the modern Democratic movement, he actually helped found the early Republican movement, which later became the Jacksonian Democratic movement, which later became the Populist movement... which has somehow transformed itself into the current Republican movement which called for limited government intervention and regulation. So basically we're claiming Jefferson as our own because he said a few words which align with how we want to portray ourselves for the time being.

Well, then our party should do what's in its best interest come June 8... when every contest has been wrapped and every vote has been counted. Until then, no one should argue anything and the Obama/ Clinton threads should be locked until then, since this nomination is far from decided.

Jefferson and Madison founded the Democratic Republican party in 1792. It later split into different factions, one of them being the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party is known as "the party of Jefferson". Your pal Bill has said he lists Jefferson as his biggest inspiration, and his favorite president. Everything we do today was set into motion by Jefferson. He probably had a bigger influence on the way our country is run than any other politician, ever. I personally put a lot more merit in his feelings on the matter than any other person. There is nothing outdated, or not relevant about his statements regarding the importance of the will of the people. Those words are as important today as they were 200 years ago.

And I never said it's something that should be decided now. You noticed I said every time that IF we go into a brokered convention and one of the candidates has a lead in delegates and a lead in the popular vote, then they should go with the will of the people. I didn't say if Obama did, and I didn't say if Obama has a lead in delegates, and Clinton has a lead in the popular vote. And for the record, I think that second one is a very real possibility. If that happens, as far as I'm concerned the convention is fair game. But IF there is a leader and delegates, AND the popular vote, then as far as I'm concerned the people have spoken.

souvlaki

03-06-2008, 12:33 AM

Like I said, the convention is a secret ballot. Candidates don't even have to reveal who they supported, so even if the convention turns out to be a divisive, horrible catastrophe, then these guys don't even have to admit who they voted for. It's as simple as that, if this does turn out to be an issue in localized politics... which it undoubtedly won't.

It wont make us look like any less of a joke. In states/counties/cities where an election is close, that may make enough people in the middle flee to the other side. There are always going to be people that will vote along party lines regardless. But independents are going to think long and hard before voting for a democrat. Not to mention the black vote. Republicans have been trying to court their vote for years. This might actually push them over the edge. I think people just assume that African Americans are always a safe bet for Democrats. They are not. If they are denied what they perceive to be their candidate, they may rethink their party affiliation.

The Senator

03-06-2008, 12:38 AM

Jefferson and Madison founded the Democratic Republican party in 1792. It later split into different factions, one of them being the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party is known as "the party of Jefferson".

You seem to ignore every single realignment period in the history of the Democratic Party, as well as the foundation of the Democrat-Republicans as it was.

The D-R formed from the anti-federalist movement. They supported limited government intervention, especially in regards to Alexander Hamilton's national bank system. Economically, the D-R are similar to the current party, which believes everyone should have their fair share and that specialized, corporate interests shouldn't speak for the will of the people. That is correct. What's incorrect is the social policy.

The Jefferson/ Jackson Democrats were proponents of slavery and segregation from the Civil War through the 1930s, at least. Democrats dominated Southern politics, whereas Republicans dominated the North. You see where the realignment occurred? Our party switched platforms at the hands of LBJ and Hubert Humphrey, who saw that the only way to solidly gain Northern voters was to reject segregation. Additionally, they rejected segregation and supported the Civil Rights Act, which gave them a huge advantage over Barry Goldwater-- who opposed the Civil Rights Act and went on to lose the 1964 election because of it. LBJ and Humphrey caused the South to realign to the Republicans, because now the Democrats supported ending segregation while some Republicans started to favor it instead. Meanwhile, the New Deal Coalition which emerged in the 1940s caused the Democrats to favor larger government, one which had almost unlimited control over peoples' lives. Additionally, the New Deal swung poor, rural voters our way once again, which was strange considering we attracted some of the wealthiest voters between 1897 and 1932, when Republicans appealed to the poor and lower-middle-class.

Going back to the foundation of the D-R, I don't see how Thomas Jefferson intended this party to be. At the very least, I don't think he intended for us to become based around the idea of big government.

But seriously... I'm only giving the abridged version of this... my point is, this party has realigned so many times, I find it hard to believe we can trace the modern party back to a specific person or a specific faction before 1933, when FDR took office and shaped what has become the modern Democratic movement.

souvlaki

03-06-2008, 12:44 AM

You seem to ignore every single realignment period in the history of the Democratic Party, as well as the foundation of the Democrat-Republicans as it was.

The D-R formed from the anti-federalist movement. They supported limited government intervention, especially in regards to Alexander Hamilton's national bank system. Economically, the D-R are similar to the current party, which believes everyone should have their fair share and that specialized, corporate interests shouldn't speak for the will of the people. That is correct. What's incorrect is the social policy.

The Jefferson/ Jackson Democrats were proponents of slavery and segregation from the Civil War through the 1930s, at least. Democrats dominated Southern politics, whereas Republicans dominated the North. You see where the realignment occurred? Our party switched platforms at the hands of LBJ and Hubert Humphrey, who saw that the only way to solidly gain Northern voters was to reject segregation. Additionally, they rejected segregation and supported the Civil Rights Act, which gave them a huge advantage over Barry Goldwater-- who opposed the Civil Rights Act and went on to lose the 1964 election because of it. LBJ and Humphrey caused the South to realign to the Republicans, because now the Democrats supported ending segregation while some Republicans started to favor it instead. Meanwhile, the New Deal Coalition which emerged in the 1940s caused the Democrats to favor larger government, one which had almost unlimited control over peoples' lives.

Going back to the foundation of the D-R, I don't see how Thomas Jefferson intended this party to be. At the very least, I don't think he intended for us to become based around the idea of big government.

But seriously... I'm only giving the abridged version of this... my point is, this party has realigned so many times, I find it hard to believe we can trace the modern party back to a specific person or a specific faction before 1933, when FDR took office and shaped what has become the modern Democratic movement.

Once again, it doesn't make what Jefferson says on the matter any less relevant. Even if you dismiss what party Jefferson would vote for if he were alive today, you cannot dismiss his influence on our country, and you can not dismiss that he was very clear in his feelings regarding the will of the people. If we vote one way and the Democratic Party overrules our vote our country ceases to be about the will of the people, and becomes about the best interests of the politicians. And that makes our system even more corrupt than it already is. That is not the country I want to live in, and I would hope that is not the country you want to live in either. That just puts us on a slippery slope that may lead to God knows what in the future.

The Senator

03-06-2008, 12:51 AM

Once again, it doesn't make what Jefferson says on the matter any less relevant. Even if you dismiss what party Jefferson would vote for if he were alive today, you cannot dismiss his influence on our country, and you can not dismiss that he was very clear in his feelings regarding the will of the people. If we vote one way and the Democratic Party overrules our vote our country ceases to be about the will of the people, and becomes about the best interests of the politicians. And that makes our system even more corrupt than it already is. That is not the country I want to live in, and I would hope that is not the country you want to live in either.

I have no more expectations from this country. What I want-- true equality for everyone, unlimited wealth and resources, peace and prosperity, and non-partisanship-- will never happen; so I'm willing to accept things the way they are and live with the consequences.

On that note, I am officially off for a day because I have to spend 3 hours tomorrow writing the exact same things I've been saying in the past page and a half... but for a grade :csad:

hippie_hunter

03-06-2008, 01:06 AM

The super delegates should be in place to make a vote under extenuating circumstances, such as if something were to happen to the candidate that has the lead. Otherwise they should go with the will of the people.

Last I checked, the Democratic Party was the party of Jefferson. Y'know, the guy that said:

"The will of the people... is the only legitimate foundation of any government, and to protect its free expression should be our first object." --Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Waring, 1801. ME 10:236

"The measures of the fair majority... ought always to be respected." --Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1792. ME 8:397

"To consider the will of the society enounced by the majority of a single vote as sacred as if unanimous is the first of all lessons in importance, yet the last which is thoroughly learnt. This law once disregarded, no other remains but that of force, which ends necessarily in military despotism." --Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, 1817. ME 15:127

"The voice of the majority decides."----Thomas Jefferson: Parliamentary Manual, 1800. ME 2:420

For those of you dont accept those quotes, I have plenty more.

I feel that the superdelegates need to go away because of the very quotes you mention. The system the Democrats are having right now feel very undemocratic with them taking away Florida and Michigan and having superdelegates decide the nomination.

WaterEagle

03-06-2008, 03:03 AM

Cool

Matt

03-06-2008, 09:15 AM

It's not just that. Some of the super delegates have constituents to worry about, as well as a desire to be re-elected. If they are seen as going against the will of the people, they will have hell to pay. Politicians care a lot more about being re-elected, than receiving favors from a candidate that in all likelyhood may have difficulty getting elected in November.

I don't think their super delegate voting is enough to cause them to elections. Hell, the only super delegates whose names I have really heard in in the past few months are the few really publicized undecided ones like Al Gore and Bill Richardson. Most people don't know who they are. Furthermore, do you really think their Democratic constitutents will turn around and vote Republican because they didn't vote for Obama? I doubt it.

redfirebird2008

03-06-2008, 09:40 AM

I have no more expectations from this country. What I want-- true equality for everyone, unlimited wealth and resources, peace and prosperity, and non-partisanship-- will never happen; so I'm willing to accept things the way they are and live with the consequences.

On that note, I am officially off for a day because I have to spend 3 hours tomorrow writing the exact same things I've been saying in the past page and a half... but for a grade :csad:

Well at least you've already said it. Copy and paste your posts to a Word document and use them as reference to write your paper. :yay:

redfirebird2008

03-06-2008, 09:42 AM

I feel that the superdelegates need to go away because of the very quotes you mention. The system the Democrats are having right now feel very undemocratic with them taking away Florida and Michigan and having superdelegates decide the nomination.

Michigan feels democratic to you? Feels more like communism or fascism to me. One person on the ballot.

hippie_hunter

03-06-2008, 10:33 AM

Michigan feels democratic to you? Feels more like communism or fascism to me. One person on the ballot.

If you've read my posts before, that if there is a state that needs to be redone it is Michigan because Obama wasn't on the ballot and didn't campaign there at all.

Just like not seating Michigan's delegates is undemocratic, simply seating them is also undemocratic. It needs to be redone and the voters should have a voice. Plain and simple.

If the DNC needs to punish Michigan, do what the Republicans did by taking away half of the delegates, not taking them all away.

redfirebird2008

03-06-2008, 10:57 AM

If you've read my posts before, that if there is a state that needs to be redone it is Michigan because Obama wasn't on the ballot and didn't campaign there at all.

Just like not seating Michigan's delegates is undemocratic, simply seating them is also undemocratic. It needs to be redone and the voters should have a voice. Plain and simple.

If the DNC needs to punish Michigan, do what the Republicans did by taking away half of the delegates, not taking them all away.

I agree with you 100%. I am all for re-doing the vote in Michigan and Florida, or at the very least seating them with some kind of penalty (25% penalty for Florida...50% for Michigan). Re-doing both is the best thing and hopefully someone will pony up to pay for new primaries -- perhaps Obama and Clinton could do it. I don't think it's the DNC's responsibility to pay for this because Dean has already reached out to both states and made offers to help pay for re-do's but they have outright refused until now to even consider re-doing those elections. Now that they are considering it, after slapping the DNC in the face when the offer was on the table, I don't think it's up to anyone but the states and/or the candidates to pay for a re-do.

hippie_hunter

03-06-2008, 12:09 PM

Darthphere

03-06-2008, 12:11 PM

Superman is one of the super delegates, too bad he's a Reagan-Era Republican.

hippie_hunter

03-06-2008, 12:16 PM

Will he vote for McSkrull, Skrullton, or Skrullbama?

redfirebird2008

03-06-2008, 12:20 PM

Granted if Michigan was redone, I think there is no way Obama is going to win that state. NAFTAGate, his allowing Michigan to be simply punished, and Clinton's insistence that they be seated has pretty much guaranteed her an easy victory if they do end up redoing it.

Jesse Jackson won the Michigan primary, which should give you an idea of how strong the black vote is there. It's a lot stronger than in Ohio or Pennsylvania. And "NAFTA-gate" has been spun and manipulated by Clinton in the first place. Plus the Canadian government is investigating the leak of the memo, which they believe to be illegal. Goolsbee claims that the memo's summary of his statements is incorrect to begin with, but of course the media and Clinton's damage has already been done on this matter.

hippie_hunter

03-06-2008, 12:28 PM

NAFTAGate, as in the lie by a parliament member that's being investigated by the Canadian government for it? Yeah, the truth of the matter is starting to come out and it looks like a smear job by the guy who started it. Jesse Jackson won the Michigan primary, which should give you an idea of how strong the black vote is there. It's a lot stronger than in Ohio or Pennsylvania.

Ummm....sorry to tell you this, but NAFTAGate was proven to be true.

It's being investigated by the Canadian government because such the Canadian Prime Minster said that it was unfair to Obama and possibly illegal.

Also, Michigan is another state that was affected negatively by NAFTA and has a lot of blue collar workers like Ohio. I honestly can't see Obama winning any of the Rust Belt states at all because of NAFTAGate.

NAFTAGate being true + Obama being supportive of Michigan's punishment + Clinton's insistence of seating Michigan's delegates = Easy Clinton win

redfirebird2008

03-06-2008, 12:33 PM

Darthphere

03-06-2008, 12:35 PM

Will he vote for McSkrull, Skrullton, or Skrullbama?

Skrullnader.:csad:

hippie_hunter

03-06-2008, 12:36 PM

NAFTAgate was not proven to be true. Goolsbee and Obama have both said that the memo was an incorrect summary of Goolsbee's statements. The only thing that was proven true was that the meeting took place, though that too was reported incorrectly in the beginning as if he had met with a high ranking Canadian official when it turned out to be the Chicago Consulate.

Of course Obama's own economic advisor and Obama are going to say that it was an incorrect summary of his statements. He's trying to save face.

I'm going to believe that just as much as I believe that the Clinton campaign wasn't responsible for releasing the picture of Obama dressed up in Muslim garb :o

Excel

03-06-2008, 01:44 PM

Matt

03-06-2008, 01:47 PM

Excel

03-06-2008, 01:55 PM

Excel, off of the top of your head (though I'm sure you will Google it simply to avoid proving my point) how many super delegates are there that you can vote for in state or local elections? Who are they? Who have they endorsed?

The fact is, most people do not know who the super delegates are and do not care enough to research and vote against them.

I never said that. I think theyll follow the popular vote n pledged delegate leader as that candidate is undoubtedly the most popular of the 2. Numbers a d facts don't lie.

Read this. Unless Floruida and Michigan are infact redone and Hillary wins big, she's pretty much done unless she can convince the superdelegates to go against the popular vote.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/119010/page/1

To overtake him in delegates in the remaiing states, she has to beat him by an average of 23%. Its roughly the same with popular vote.

Excel

03-06-2008, 02:51 PM

Popular Vote Totals, including Fl. and Michigan.

Clinton: 13,265,992
Obama: 13,225,770

I am giving Obama 0 votes for Michigan while Hillary gets her 328,151. If I gave Obama the rest of the votes-or about 267,000-it would like this:

Clinton: 13,265,992
Obama: 13,492,770

And Obama has a 235,000 vote lead.

Without Florida and Michigan its:

Clinton: 12,080,633
Obama: 12,656,729

hippie_hunter

03-06-2008, 02:51 PM

Excel

03-06-2008, 02:55 PM

The states 6 weeks away. Polls are usless right now, even if they show Obama winning. And NC isnt until May. Both are still must wins for Clinton though.

hippie_hunter

03-06-2008, 02:56 PM

I never said that. I think theyll follow the popular vote n pledged delegate leader as that candidate is undoubtedly the most popular of the 2. Numbers a d facts don't lie.

Read this. Unless Floruida and Michigan are infact redone and Hillary wins big, she's pretty much done unless she can convince the superdelegates to go against the popular vote.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/119010/page/1

To overtake him in delegates in the remaiing states, she has to beat him by an average of 23%. Its roughly the same with popular vote.

She's not done because neither candidate can win the pledged delegate vote. And apparently she is convincing superdelegates to go against the popular vote because right now she still has the lead in superdelegates.

It's all going to come down to how well Clinton is going to do from now on and how the Clinton uses their political expertise to get more superdelegates.

Excel

03-06-2008, 02:59 PM

Hippi shes been over 225 super delegates since September. There hasnt been any convicing on her part going on for a while. They all went to her early because they thought nobody else had a chance.

The convincing has been on Obamas side-at this time a month ago she had over 140 more (245-103 on super tuesday) than him, now she has 35 more (242-207). Obamas doing the convincing, not her. It would not surprise me in the least if is leading pl edged AND super delegates by the time Penn rolls around.

Matt

03-06-2008, 03:00 PM

The popular vote won't matter all that much to super delegates. Especially when you consider that Clinton is winning the states that will be necessary to take the White House. Excel, do you really believe what you are saying? Is it what you WANT to happen? Or are you just really so naive as to how the system works?

Marx

03-06-2008, 03:01 PM

Well it looks like that Clinton has gotten some much neede momentum from her victories in Texas, Rhode Island, and Ohio.

Her lead in Pennsylvania has risen to a high of 15% over Obama:

Pennsylvania (Rasmussen)
Clinton: 52%
Obama: 37%

Once a solidly Obama state has now become a competitive state in North Carolina, where Obama's lead has shrunk from over 10% in polls to now 4%:

North Carolina (PPP (D))
Obama: 47%
Clinton: 43%

And Clinton has retaken the lead in two national polls over Obama:

Gallop
Clinton: 48%
Obama: 44%

Rasmussen
Clinton: 48%
Obama: 43%

I must say things have turned around. Hillary actually has a very valid argument that she is truly the one that should be the nominee. That's why people like Excel are so p*****. Everyone needs to face the facts - Florida and Michigan will both be resolved. If Hillary continues into PA, NC, and the remaining "rust belt" states and pulls off victories (which I believe she will,) what will Obama say then to try and counter it? Not much can be said, I suspect.

Matt

03-06-2008, 03:04 PM

He will claim that he has the popular vote and the delegate lead, which will be true. But Clinton will tell the Super Delegates that they are there to ensure that the party wins, as opposed to heed the people's wishes. She will point out that she has won every state that is crucial to taking the White House including the always important Ohio. Plus she will call in every favor from party insiders she has. If Clinton takes PA and Florida and Michigan get their delegates restored or have a re-election in which Clinton wins, I wouldn't be suprised to see Obama drop out on the condition of being her running mate.

Excel

03-06-2008, 03:09 PM

I'm not so sure Michigan and Florida will be resolved. Its very expensive to redo elections, but I am not so convinced Hillary will do well enough to pul ahead even with these states.

1. Obama wasnt on the ballot in Michigan where Hilliary won but it wasnt anything huge.

2. He didnt campaign in Florida, and every state has shown that where he campaigns, the race tightens. Florida would at best be another cali/ohio, a 10% victory for Hillary which while good, is not going change the race.

But thats assuming they are even counted. And if you want to talk must win big states she won...dude, get real.

-If Obama runs, is he gonna lose Ohio to NAFTA-lover McCain? Of course not.
-If Obama runs, is he going to lose California to McCain? Of course not.
-If Hillary runs, will she win Texas? Probably not, though her chances are about the same as Barracks.

The fact, Hillary supporters and she herself seem to believing in la-la land. A place where election rules dont apply (Michigan and FL), a place where you can ***** about the public needa voice (in FL and MICH) but than say you should win the nominatrion even if you dont win the popular vote, a place where you can win the nomination despite being the obviously less popular candidate (by having less votes & pledged delegates).

And while by rule, the last ones are POSSIBLE...they are far from PROBABLE.

The popular vote won't matter all that much to super delegates. Especially when you consider that Clinton is winning the states that will be necessary to take the White House. Excel, do you really believe what you are saying? Is it what you WANT to happen? Or are you just really so naive as to how the system works?

Yes I believe it, they arent my words. They are what the majority of analysts on tv are saying: theres no way they go against the pledged delegate/popular vote leader. Even Sean Hnanity, who wants Hillary as the nominee, is saying theres no way Democrats give her the election of Obama leads in votes and pledged delegates.

Excel

03-06-2008, 03:11 PM

He will claim that he has the popular vote and the delegate lead, which will be true. But Clinton will tell the Super Delegates that they are there to ensure that the party wins, as opposed to heed the people's wishes.

And elimating the most popular candidate and the one doing best in polls vs. McCain is the way to do that :huh:

She will point out that she has won every state that is crucial to taking the White House including the always important Ohio.

Are trying to say that John McCain would win Ohio against Obama? McCain LOVES Nafta.

Plus she will call in every favor from party insiders she has. If Clinton takes PA and Florida and Michigan get their delegates restored or have a re-election in which Clinton wins, I wouldn't be suprised to see Obama drop out on the condition of being her running mate.

Umm, no that wont happen. He's shattering fundraising records and would the leader in the votes and delegates. Logically, if anybody would drop out and join the other, it would Hillary joining him.

Matt

03-06-2008, 03:14 PM

And elimating the most popular candidate and the one doing best in polls vs. McCain is the way to do that :huh:

In favor of the one who is winning in every crucial state, yes. Clinton is winning the states that matter. Someone can win the popular vote and lose the election. Popular vote and nationwide polls mean jack. All that matters are the swing states.

Are trying to say that John McCain would win Ohio against Obama? McCain LOVES Nafta.

Bush has won it twice.

Umm, no that wont happen. He's shattering fundraising records and would the leader in the votes and delegates. Logically, if anybody would drop out and join the other, it would Hillary joining him.

Hillary won't take number 2. If Obama thinks it is going to come down to the convention and Clinton can swing more super delegates he will try for vice-presidency.

Marx

03-06-2008, 03:22 PM

I'm not so sure Michigan and Florida will be resolved. Its very expensive to redo elections, but I am not so convinced Hillary will do well enough to pul ahead even with these states.

1. Obama wasnt on the ballot in Michigan where Hilliary won but it wasnt anything huge.

2. He didnt campaign in Florida, and every state has shown that where he campaigns, the race tightens. Florida would at best be another cali/ohio, a 10% victory for Hillary which while good, is not going change the race.

But thats assuming they are even counted. And if you want to talk must win big states she won...dude, get real.

-If Obama runs, is he gonna lose Ohio to NAFTA-lover McCain? Of course not.
-If Obama runs, is he going to lose California to McCain? Of course not.
-If Hillary runs, will she win Texas? Probably not, though her chances are about the same as Barracks.

The fact, Hillary supporters and she herself seem to believing in la-la land. A place where election rules dont apply (Michigan and FL), a place where you can ***** about the public needa voice (in FL and MICH) but than say you should win the nominatrion even if you dont win the popular vote, a place where you can win the nomination despite being the obviously less popular candidate (by having less votes & pledged delegates).

And while by rule, the last ones are POSSIBLE...they are far from PROBABLE.

Yes I believe it, they arent my words. They are what the majority of analysts on tv are saying: theres no way they go against the pledged delegate/popular vote leader. Even Sean Hnanity, who wants Hillary as the nominee, is saying theres no way Democrats give her the election of Obama leads in votes and pledged delegates.

With all due respect Excel, the same exact thing can be said about Obama's supporters.

In favor of the one who is winning in every crucial state, yes. Clinton is winning the states that matter. Someone can win the popular vote and lose the election. Popular vote and nationwide polls mean jack. All that matters are the swing states.

Bush has won it twice.

Hillary won't take number 2. If Obama thinks it is going to come down to the convention and Clinton can swing more super delegates he will try for vice-presidency.

That's the bottom line right there. In the states that a Democrat absolutely HAS TO win, those voters PREFER and have VOTED FOR Hillary Clinton. Whether you want to admit it or not Excel, that is a very valid argument for the nomination. Barack could position himself so well right now it's ridiculous. A VP spot now, then 8 years, run again and win? Come on, who could pass that up? Running as VP now would shatter any inexperienced argument that could be leveled against him.

hippie_hunter

03-06-2008, 03:22 PM

The states 6 weeks away. Polls are usless right now, even if they show Obama winning. And NC isnt until May. Both are still must wins for Clinton though.

Think about it this way the states Obama will win (Wyoming, South Dakota, Guam, Montana, Mississippi) offer very few delegates and since the Democrats divide their delegates proportionally, they're aren't going to make that big of a deal.

The states that Clinton will win (Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Puerto Rico, most likely Indiana) offer a lot more delegates and will close the gap. Especially since she'll win by very good margins.

The remaining states Oregon and North Carolina are probably going to be very competitive too and can help either candidate if they win those.

So the likely scenario that we'll have here after June 1, is a gap of Obama leading with less than 100 delegates. Neither candidate having the number necessary to obtain the nomination. They'll probably settle the Michigan and Florida debate as a result to try and settle it before the end of August for the convention, which will result in Clinton victories closing the gap even further.

Currently, the situation is most likely favoring Clinton right now over Obama.

Excel

03-06-2008, 03:24 PM

In favor of the one who is winning in every crucial state, yes. Clinton is winning the states that matter. Someone can win the popular vote and lose the election. Popular vote and nationwide polls mean jack. All that matters are the swing states.

Thats wrong, Matt. If the super delegates give the nomination to someone other than the pledged delegate leader, the democratc party will have effectivly done the following:

-turned its most popular candidate against the party
-turned the majority of the people who voted against the party (as they voted for the one who end up not getting the nomination)
-assured a loss in november

the press and media for the nominee would be so bad, it wouldnt even be funny. All through election day it would be the nominee didnt deserve the nomination, and McCain would runaway with it.

If I know it, the superdelegates do too.

Bush has won it twice.

That was 4 and 8 years ago and with all due respect, against John Kerry. Obamas is a much more effective campaigner than he was.

Hillary won't take number 2.

And...

If Obama thinks it is going to come down to the convention and Clinton can swing more super delegates he will try for vice-presidency

But given that we'll have 2 months of the media shoving one thing down our throats: Obama is the party leader in pledged delagates, votes, and states- that by the time the convention rolls around, he will be the presumptive nominee barring some major scandal.

Losing when your leader is possible, but QUITTING when your the leader wont happen Matt, and you know it. Yeah, in some funky "what if" situation he might, but the likely hood in that ever happening is 1-1000000000.

As I said, a month ago he trailed in super delegates 245-103. It is now 242-207. By the time the convention rolls around, they will be roughly the same. I think the clintons will inevitably be able lure away some to vote for her, but the majority will give it to Obama.

Theres a newswekk article that does the math-if hillary wins every state between now and the convention by 15% or more, the final pledged delegate tally would be something like 1650-1620 Obama. Add in his 200 supers and hes less than 200 away from the nomination. Given theres what, 450 undecided ones less, he would maore than likely get the 175 or so he needs to get the nomination.

Of course, we all know Hillary wont be winning every state left to come by 15%, so chances are by the time the convention rolls around, he'll only need 50-100 of the supes to go to him to get the 2,025 nessecary.

Excel

03-06-2008, 03:27 PM

With all due respect Excel, the same exact thing can be said about Obama's supporters.

When it comes to his expirience, sure. But his judgment shown in his actions makes up for it. I said again, Hillary clearly does have more expirience than him.

But if you look at their decisions, its obviously she only has more expirience when it comes to making bad decisions and flip-flopping. Where were those 30+ years when she voted to go war in Iraq? :huh:

Obama had none as she has so obviously told us but he still made the right decision.

That's the bottom line right there. In the states that a Democrat absolutely HAS TO win, those voters PREFER and have VOTED FOR Hillary Clinton. Whether you want to admit it or not Excel, that is a very valid argument for the nomination. Barack could position himself so well right now it's ridiculous. A VP spot now, then 8 years, run again and win? Come on, who could pass that up? Running as VP now would shatter any
inexperienced argument that could be leveled against him.

Which is why I think that if they come to him and say, at the convention "the super delelagates have chosen Hillary, for the good of the party, join her" he MIGHT consider it even though it would damage his own credibility.

But Matt is saying he will DROP OUT-QUIT-when is leading in pledged delegates and votes- and would at the tim ebe the presumptive nominee.

Thast just nonsense.

Marx

03-06-2008, 03:28 PM

As I said, a month ago he trailed in super delegates 245-103. It is now 242-207. By the time the convention rolls around, they will be roughly the same. I think the clintons will inevitably be able lure away some to vote for her, but the majority will give it to Obama.

Theres a newswekk article that does the math-if hillary wins every state between now and the convention by 15% or more, the final pledged delegate tally would be something like 1650-1620 Obama. Add in his 200 supers and hes less than 200 away from the nomination. Given theres what, 450 undecided ones less, he would maore than likely get the 175 or so he needs to get the nomination.

Of course, we all know Hillary wont be winning every state left to come by 15%, so chances are by the time the convention rolls around, he'll only need 50-100 of the supes to go to him to get the 2,025 nessecary.

The Superdelegate support for Obama came to him as a result of those people feeling that Hillary was a sinking ship. That isn't the case. Not anymore. With regard to the second thing I bolded - You are completely missing the point.

redfirebird2008

03-06-2008, 03:29 PM

Think about it this way the states Obama will win (Wyoming, South Dakota, Guam, Montana, Mississippi) offer very few delegates and since the Democrats divide their delegates proportionally, they're aren't going to make that big of a deal.

The states that Clinton will win (Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Puerto Rico, most likely Indiana) offer a lot more delegates and will close the gap. Especially since she'll win by very good margins.

The remaining states Oregon and North Carolina are probably going to be very competitive too and can help either candidate if they win those.

So the likely scenario that we'll have here after June 1, is a gap of Obama leading with less than 100 delegates. Neither candidate having the number necessary to obtain the nomination. They'll probably settle the Michigan and Florida debate as a result to try and settle it before the end of August for the convention, which will result in Clinton victories closing the gap even further.

Currently, the situation is most likely favoring Clinton right now over Obama.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/119010

Read it.

Excel

03-06-2008, 03:34 PM

The Superdelegate support for Obama came to him as a result of those people feeling that Hillary was a sinking ship. That isn't the case. Not anymore.

Ok, for real: stop acting like every super delegate is Hillarys to lose; that they dont join Obama they just leave her.

Hillarys lost 3 super delegates since then and only of 1 of them to Obama, so only one of them has infact felt she was a "sinking ship". The other 100 he's gotten are MAJORLY due to them belonging to districts he won, thus they are supporting what THEIR voters-the people who elected them-have said.

:rolleyes:

With regard to the second thing I bolded - You are completely missing the point.

I get the point, its just a bad and unnrealistic one. The leader wont drop out.

hippie_hunter

03-06-2008, 03:36 PM

http://www.newsweek.com/id/119010

Read it.

You completely ignored what I said. I never said that Clinton will take the lead. It isn't going to happen and Obama's certainly going to keep it. I downright said that.

But the gap is going to get smaller if her campaign is going the way it is now (gaining in North Carolina and Pennsylvania). And if they redo the vote in Florida and Michigan, the gap will get smaller again.

Frankly, right now the situation favors Clinton, especially if she manages to close the gap to an even smaller margin.

Marx

03-06-2008, 03:37 PM

When it comes to his expirience, sure. But his judgment shown in his actions makes up for it. I said again, Hillary clearly does have more expirience than him.

But if you look at their decisions, its obviously she only has more expirience when it comes to making bad decisions and flip-flopping. Where were those 30+ years when she voted to go war in Iraq? :huh:

Obama had none as she has so obviously told us but he still made the right decision.

Which is why I think that if they come to him and say, at the convention "the super delelagates have chosen Hillary, for the good of the party, join her" he MIGHT consider it even though it would damage his own credibility.

But Matt is saying he will DROP OUT-QUIT-when is leading in pledged delegates and votes- and would at the tim ebe the presumptive nominee.

Thast just nonsense.

1. Hillary voted for the resolution to give the President the authority to go to war as a last resort. She did not vote to immediately go to war. Bush manipulated everyone and rushed to war because he got the "ok." To her defense.

2. I don't see how he would damage himself by doing that. It would show everyone that he cares about the party MORE THAN himself. Think about this - A Clinton/Obama ticket could very well win 2 terms. Then Obama could run on his own accord (he would only be 54,) WIN (which I believe that he would) and go 2 more terms - giving the Democratic party control for the next 16 years.

If it would be Obama/Clinton (which I am convinced will never happen because she has nothing to gain by running as a VP,) it could go 2 terms and that's it.

Hillary isn't going to run again, and who could blame her? You know? It makes much more sense for the longevity of the White House for it to be Clinton/Obama.

3. The only way that I see Obama bowing out with a delegate lead would be the situation I just described in #2. He would set himself up ridiculously well by taking VP now.

It's a win win if you ask me Ex.

Matt

03-06-2008, 03:38 PM

...why are we arguing with Excel when he clearly has no idea what he is talking about?

Marx

03-06-2008, 03:40 PM

Ok, for real: stop acting like every super delegate is Hillarys to lose; that they dont join Obama they just leave her.

Hillarys lost 3 super delegates since then and only of 1 of them to Obama, so only one of them has infact felt she was a "sinking ship". The other 100 he's gotten are MAJORLY due to them belonging to districts he won, thus they are supporting what THEIR voters-the people who elected them-have said.

:rolleyes:

I get the point, its just a bad and unnrealistic one. The leader wont drop out.

That's not what I meant. I realize how I typed it. I just meant that the majority of delegates are coming to Obama because he went on a 12-0 winning streak. And rightfully so. The Superdelegates want to be on the winning side. :cwink:

redfirebird2008

03-06-2008, 03:41 PM

And if her administration has potentially disastrous things go on, whether it be her policies or scandals? Bush ran as the anti-Clinton candidate. Obama and Clinton are running as anti-Bush candidates. If Obama is part of her administration and there is anything whatsoever for the right wing to harp on (which there will be because they disagree on pretty much every issue with the Democrats), they will associate Obama as part of the previous administration, blah blah blah. Same kind of crap that Gore went through and the same thing McCain will go through. So no, it's not a win-win for Obama.

Marx

03-06-2008, 03:41 PM

...why are we arguing with Excel when he clearly has no idea what he is talking about?

Because I think I can get through to him. Lost cause or not, I'm trying to make a reasonable point to him :yay:

Excel

03-06-2008, 03:42 PM

You completely ignored what I said. I never said that Clinton will take the lead. It isn't going to happen and Obama's certainly going to keep it. I downright said that.

But the gap is going to get smaller if her campaign is going the way it is now (gaining in North Carolina and Pennsylvania). And if they redo the vote in Florida and Michigan, the gap will get smaller again.

Frankly, right now the situation favors Clinton, especially if she manages to close the gap to an even smaller margin.

The situation wont favor clinton until she leads in votes or pledged delegates. Period, there is not much more to it.

1. Hillary voted for the resolution to give the President the authority to go to war as a last resort. She did not vote to immediately go to war. Bush manipulated everyone and rushed to war because he got the "ok." To her defense.

2. I don't see how he would damage himself by doing that. It would show everyone that he cares about the party MORE THAN himself. Think about this - A Clinton/Obama ticket could very well win 2 terms. Then Obama could run on his own accord (he would only be 54,) WIN (which I believe that he would) and go 2 more terms - giving the Democratic party control for the next 16 years.

If it would be Obama/Clinton (which I am convinced will never happen because she has nothing to gain by running as a VP,) it could go 2 terms and that's it.

Hillary isn't going to run again, and who could blame her? You know? It makes much more sense for the longevity of the White House for it to be Clinton/Obama.

3. The only way that I see Obama bowing out with a delegate lead would be the situation I just described in #2. He would set himself up ridiculously well by taking VP now.

It's a win win if you ask me Ex.

Except joining her would be doing and make him exactly what he says hes not: a business a susual washington insider.

Excel

03-06-2008, 03:43 PM

...why are we arguing with Excel when he clearly has no idea what he is talking about?

shut it, im not jman nor am i the one expecting the frontrunner and leader to quit when hes about to win :o

Again we have yet to see Obama really go on the offensive since pre Feb-5, which is when he pulled ahead of her. If he goes back to it, he'll be fine,

Marx

03-06-2008, 03:43 PM

Matt

03-06-2008, 03:43 PM

shut it, im not jman nor am i the one expecting the frontrunner and leader to quit when hes about to win :o

Jman is ten times smarter than you are in this topic and I am not expecting him to drop out, I am expecting him to cut a deal. There is all the difference in the world.

Matt

03-06-2008, 03:45 PM

Because I think I can get through to him. Lost cause or not, I'm trying to make a reasonable point to him :yay:

You can't. This is the kid who has said the only reason he is voting for Obama is because he is black. There is no getting through to him. Countless others have pointed out the flaws in his logic, he just does not understand it (or want to hear it, pick one).

Marx

03-06-2008, 03:47 PM

The situation wont favor clinton until she leads in votes or pledged delegates. Period, there is not much more to it.

Except joining her would be doing and make him exactly what he says hes not: a business a susual washington insider.

That's where we seem to disagree Ex. With Obama on the ticket, I don't believe either one would be seen that way. And let's face it - Obama isn't exactly what he says he is. No one is. If something that beneficial to him and the party came up, you better believe he'll jump. They're all politicians, regardless of the speeches they make or the promises they make. If there's a deal, a very beneficial one, it will be taken.

Excel

03-06-2008, 03:48 PM

Jman is ten times smarter than you are in this topic and I am not expecting him to drop out, I am expecting him to cut a deal. There is all the difference in the world.

No there is not. Your expecting to quit the race to be the nominee and settle for being the VP when is the leader. there is no difference at all.

redfirebird2008

03-06-2008, 03:48 PM

Gore didn't lose if you remember correctly.

Yes I realize that, but you do realize if the same crap were to happen to Obama, he'd also get screwed by the Supreme Court thanks to Bush's appointments in the last 7 years. Granted, he hopefully would not have to deal with Nader stealing 2% of the vote or whatever it was. Another thing about that is that Bush shouldn't even have been close but he was...and it was close enough for the Repubs to steal it.

Matt

03-06-2008, 03:49 PM

No there is not. Your expecting to quit the race to be the nominee and settle for being the VP when is the leader. there is no difference at all.

Of course there is a difference between cutting a deal for a sure thing and taking a 50/50 chances, in which case you may lose and get nothing at all.

redfirebird2008

03-06-2008, 03:51 PM

Of course there is a difference between cutting a deal for a sure thing and taking a 50/50 chances, in which case you may lose and get nothing at all.

What exactly would he gain? Be an employee under her so she can yell at him like a child some more ("Shame on you Barack Obama!")?

hippie_hunter

03-06-2008, 03:51 PM

http://current.com/items/88854218_the_democratic_messiah

Marx

03-06-2008, 03:51 PM

You can't. This is the kid who has said the only reason he is voting for Obama is because he is black. There is no getting through to him. Countless others have pointed out the flaws in his logic, he just does not understand it (or want to hear it, pick one).

Seriously? Is that true Ex? You need to be voting for who you feel the best candidate is based on what they stand for and the policies that they represent. Not the color of their skin or their gender.

Granted, Barack and Hillary are 95% the same on all the issues.

Excel

03-06-2008, 03:51 PM

Of course there is a difference between cutting a deal for a sure thing and taking a 50/50 chances, in which case you may lose and get nothing at all.

Yeah except it would not be 50/50.

Matt

03-06-2008, 03:54 PM

Yeah except it would not be 50/50.

...sigh...if it goes to the convention with him only up by 100 or so delegates and Hippie_Hunter was good enough to explain to you why that will likely happen, then yes, it will be about a 50/50 shot based on who can swing the most super delegates.

Excel

03-06-2008, 03:54 PM

Seriously? Is that true Ex? You need to be voting for who you feel the best candidate is based on what they stand for and the policies that they represent. Not the color of their skin or their gender.

Granted, Barack and Hillary are 95% the same on all the issues.

Its 1 reason (Im black) but is has more to do with I dont like Hillary and do like him as PEOPLE. Matt thinks it the only reason though :whatever:

redfirebird2008

03-06-2008, 03:56 PM

Seriously? Is that true Ex? You need to be voting for who you feel the best candidate is based on what they stand for and the policies that they represent. Not the color of their skin or their gender.

Granted, Barack and Hillary are 95% the same on all the issues.

Tell that to the voters of Texas. LOL. Apparently the whites and Latinos voted on race just as much as the blacks judging by the exit polls. 7% of voters found race "most important" and of that 7%, 56% voted for Clinton, 44% for Obama. So it's not just going on with blacks, that's pretty obvious. There's racism going on both ways, and in the case of Texas, it's a free for all because it's going on with blacks, whites, and Latinos.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#TXDEM

Go to page 4 of 6.

Matt

03-06-2008, 03:56 PM

What exactly would he gain? Be an employee under her so she can yell at him like a child some more ("Shame on you Barack Obama!")?

Well, odds are they would be just like Clinton and Gore where he makes his own schedule and they basically never cross pathes with the exception of the State of the Union address and few other times a year they need to be seen together in public. He will go about his business (which will be nothing, because the VP really doesn't have much outside of showing up at the right photo ops) and she will go about hers. Then in 8 years he will be the automatic front runner for the Democratic nomination and likely face very few if any challengers (unless the Clinton administration is a total cluster ****). Plus he won't risk "cooling off" (as he will by 2012 if he loses the nomination). Its a pretty big benefit.

Marx

03-06-2008, 03:56 PM

What exactly would he gain? Be an employee under her so she can yell at him like a child some more ("Shame on you Barack Obama!")?

Is it really so obvious that NO ONE sees it? He takes VP now, goes 8 years, runs again, wins, goes 8 years on his own.

Hillary is not the "evil she-devil" that some of you describe her as. She is a very savvy politician and a very well respected and admired member of the Democratic party. Just because you personally dislike her should not discredit what she could accomplish and what she stands for in the Party.

Matt

03-06-2008, 03:58 PM

Tell that to the voters of Texas. LOL. Apparently the whites and Latinos voted on race just as much as the blacks judging by the exit polls. 7% of voters found race "most important" and of that 7%, 56% voted for Clinton, 44% for Obama. So it's not just going on with blacks, that's pretty obvious. There's racism going on both ways, and in the case of Texas, it's a free for all because it's going on with blacks, whites, and Latinos.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#TXDEM

Go to page 4 of 6.

That does not excuse it on either side. Voting based on race is stupid, plain and simple.

hippie_hunter

03-06-2008, 04:00 PM

Hillary is not the "evil she-devil"

Ummmm....yes she is :o

Marx

03-06-2008, 04:00 PM

Well, odds are they would be just like Clinton and Gore where he makes his own schedule and they basically never cross pathes with the exception of the State of the Union address and few other times a year they need to be seen together in public. He will go about his business (which will be nothing, because the VP really doesn't have much outside of showing up at the right photo ops) and she will go about hers. Then in 8 years he will be the automatic front runner for the Democratic nomination and likely face very few if any challengers (unless the Clinton administration is a total cluster ****). Plus he won't risk "cooling off" (as he will by 2012 if he loses the nomination). Its a pretty big benefit.

It is very unlikely that this Clinton Administration would be a cluster **** if the previous Clinton Administration is any clue. This country was set very well in the 90's.

Matt

03-06-2008, 04:00 PM

Its 1 reason (Im black) but is has more to do with I dont like Hillary and do like him as PEOPLE. Matt thinks it the only reason though :whatever:

Your words, not mine:

Heh I dont know jack about politics. All I know is Barrack is black and the rest suck, so he has my vote :up: :up:

Are you serious?

How is my voting for him because hes black any different than the hate Romney gets for being a mormon? Or the support Huckabee gets from evangelicals.

He is like me.

redfirebird2008

03-06-2008, 04:01 PM

Is it really so obvious that NO ONE sees it? He takes VP now, goes 8 years, runs again, wins, goes 8 years on his own.

Hillary is not the "evil she-devil" that some of you describe her as. She is a very savvy politician and a very well respected and admired member of the Democratic party. Just because you personally dislike her should not discredit what she could accomplish and what she stands for in the Party.

Read what I wrote. She's called him a plagiarizer, talked to him like a child, etc. It's not about being a "she devil" or anything like that. It's about how she has treated him as a person. If he feels she's disrespected him (I'm sure he does...I'd be pissed if someone called me a plagiarizer or talked down to me the way she has to him...he's a grown man for crying out loud) and feels that she would continue disrespecting him if he worked under her, I can easily see him NOT wanting to work for her.

It's not about me not "seeing" your point. I've seen it and I've thought about it. It makes sense politically, but I'm just saying that she's done some pretty personal attacks on his character during this campaign. I guess if McCain can forgive Bush then Obama can forgive Clinton but who knows. I'd never forgive someone who accused me of plagiarism like she did, but as I've said before, I am still a student so it's a serious issue to me.

Matt

03-06-2008, 04:02 PM

It is very unlikely that this Clinton Administration would be a cluster **** if the previous Clinton Administration is any clue. This country was set very well in the 90's.

I don't believe it would be a cluster ****. At the same time, I don't believe it would be that great either. Probably just eight years of the status quo. We need someone like Sherrod Brown who will actually bring about change as opposed to using it as a buzz word in the White House, which is why I would rather have 4 years of McCain now than eight years of Clinton.

Matt

03-06-2008, 04:03 PM

Read what I wrote. She's called him a plagiarizer, talked to him like a child, etc. It's not about being a "she devil" or anything like that. It's about how she has treated him as a person. If he feels she's disrespected him (I'm sure he does...I'd be pissed if someone called me a plagiarizer or talked down to me the way she has to him...he's a grown man for crying out loud) and feels that she would continue disrespecting him if he worked under her, I can easily see him NOT wanting to work for her.

It's not about me not "seeing" your point. I've seen it and I've thought about it. It makes sense politically, but I'm just saying that she's done some pretty personal attacks on his character during this campaign. I guess if McCain can forgive Bush then Obama can forgive Clinton but who knows. I'd never forgive someone who accused me of plagiarism like she did, but as I've said before, I am still a student so it's a serious issue to me.

How is it any worse than him indirectly calling her racist? Its just the nature of the beast. They know not to take it seriously.

redfirebird2008

03-06-2008, 04:03 PM

How is it any worse than him indirectly calling her racist? Its just the nature of the beast. They know not to take it seriously.

When did he ever do that? Never, not once. Don't mistake him for his supporters. His supporters are the ones doing that.

Marx

03-06-2008, 04:04 PM

Ummmm....yes she is :o

Ummmm....no, she's really not. As I just stated, just because you personally dislike her should not discredit her standing in the party and the things she could accomplish.

I think Dennis Kucinich (my Representative here in Ohio and former Presidential candidate) is an absolute nut job. But I continue to vote for him because the alternative is far more scary.

Excel

03-06-2008, 04:05 PM

Your words, not mine:

Ok? I just said it was 1 reason and the rest mainly because I dislike the other candidates????

Matt

03-06-2008, 04:06 PM

When did he ever do that? Never, not once. Don't mistake him for his supporters. His supporters are the ones doing that.

His MLK day comments were invoking the race card and indirectly referring to her as racist, while doing it covertly enough that she could not call him on it.

Marx

03-06-2008, 04:07 PM

Read what I wrote. She's called him a plagiarizer, talked to him like a child, etc. It's not about being a "she devil" or anything like that. It's about how she has treated him as a person. If he feels she's disrespected him (I'm sure he does...I'd be pissed if someone called me a plagiarizer or talked down to me the way she has to him...he's a grown man for crying out loud) and feels that she would continue disrespecting him if he worked under her, I can easily see him NOT wanting to work for her.

It's not about me not "seeing" your point. I've seen it and I've thought about it. It makes sense politically, but I'm just saying that she's done some pretty personal attacks on his character during this campaign. I guess if McCain can forgive Bush then Obama can forgive Clinton but who knows. I'd never forgive someone who accused me of plagiarism like she did, but as I've said before, I am still a student so it's a serious issue to me.

If it's for the good of the party, and ultimately extremely beneficial to you - you'll go for it. Plain and simple, regardless of what she has said to him or about him. John Kerry and John Edwards ripped one another apart - they came together and ran on the ticket. McCain and Bush can't stand one another, but here we are 8 years later, Bush is endorsing McCain. That's politics.

Matt

03-06-2008, 04:11 PM

Ok? I just said it was 1 reason and the rest mainly because I dislike the other candidates????

Your exact words. "My voting for him BECAUSE he is black." "I don't know Jack about politics, all I know is Barrack is black."

You can try to reword it however you want now-a-days. The fact is you had no interest in politics or in a candidate until you learned he was black. From that moment on, you were devoted to him. I reckon he could come out and talk about committing a holocaust in Iraq and you would still suport him. No matter what you learned about him afterwards, you were devoted to him from the beginning because he was black. Therefore any future change of hearts are irrelevant as they are all built on that foundation.

hippie_hunter

03-06-2008, 04:11 PM

I don't believe it would be a cluster ****. At the same time, I don't believe it would be that great either. Probably just eight years of the status quo. We need someone like Sherrod Brown who will actually bring about change as opposed to using it as a buzz word in the White House, which is why I would rather have 4 years of McCain now than eight years of Clinton.

I think if McCain wins he'll end up winning re-election if he manages to not croak the bucket.

I'm thinking that Mark Warner will pull a Hillary Clinton, do a term and a half in the Senate and run in 2016.