The 2008 Democratic and Republican Primaries

[redfirebird2008]

Put them BOTH together and I don't see how it could lose.

I do. Seriously, there's racism and sexism at play in the primary. Why wouldn't it come into play in the general election? Middle-aged and old white men will avoid that ticket like the plague. Hillary needs an old white guy. Obama needs an old white guy.

[Marx]

I do. Seriously, there's racism and sexism at play in the primary. Why wouldn't it come into play in the general election? Middle-aged and old white men will avoid that ticket like the plague. Hillary needs an old white guy. Obama needs an old white guy.

The numbers that they are pulling in together, regardless of what you're suggesting, say the complete opposite.

[Matt]

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.

If we are still in Iraq in full force come 2012, nearly 10 years later, I do not think McCain would win re-election. Of course, I doubt he would make it through his first term. Did you see his acceptance speech, particularly his walking away afterwards? The man is decrepit.

[Matt]

Put them BOTH together and I don't see how it could lose.

Things change. I wonder if Clinton or Obama will maintain those numbers after a hard fought election. All McCain needs to do is take one state and suddenly he is the front runner.

[Marx]

If we are still in Iraq in full force come 2012, nearly 10 years later, I do not think McCain would win re-election. Of course, I doubt he would make it through his first term. Did you see his acceptance speech, particularly his walking away afterwards? The man is decrepit.

It's a sad thing to see. I almost feel sorry for the guy.

[Marx]

Things change. I wonder if Clinton or Obama will maintain those numbers after a hard fought election. All McCain needs to do is take one state and suddenly he is the front runner.

I honestly think they could maintain them. This election isn't like an other in modern history, there is a tremendous amount of interest.

[Excel]

I reckon he could come out and talk about committing a holocaust in Iraq and you would still suport him.

heh, nope

[Matt]

It's a sad thing to see. I almost feel sorry for the guy.

I do too. The man has clearly been obsessed with being president for at least the better part of the past 15 years. Now that he has finally gotten the nomination, he may just turn out to be a bit too old to handle it.

[Matt]

I honestly think they could maintain them. This election isn't like an other in modern history.

I dunno. This primary alone is showing how vulnerable both candidates are. I wonder what will happen when the GOP attack machine is in full swing against them. It should be a really fun election to watch.

[Marx]

I dunno. This primary alone is showing how vulnerable both candidates are. I wonder what will happen when the GOP attack machine is in full swing against them. It should be a really fun election to watch.

I really believe that America has finally seen what the Republican Spin Machine is. People are realizing that the Republican party has resorted to fear and smear campaign methods. I really think it will be different this time. The GOP hasn't got a lot of credit anymore.

[Matt]

I really believe that America has finally seen what the Republican Spin Machine is. People are realizing that the Republican party has resorted to fear and smear campaign methods. I really think it will be different this time. The GOP hasn't got a lot of credit anymore.

Perhaps the GOP does not, but John McCain may. Keep in mind, a lot of people still buy into the notion of him being a "maverick."

I mean, heck, a decent running mate can turn one of those crucial swing states in his favor and then we are looking at a whole different electoral college count.

[Excel]

McCains age wont matter if he runs against Hillary. Obama is so much more visibly younger that would have an effect.

[Marx]

Perhaps the GOP does not, but John McCain may. Keep in mind, a lot of people still buy into the notion of him being a "maverick."

I mean, heck, a decent running mate can turn one of those crucial swing states in his favor and then we are looking at a whole different electoral college count.

Very true Matt. But we also have to remember, the conservative base and religious right are not behind him. At least not yet. His support draws more from Independents. I have a hard time believing that he could pick a bible-thumper (aka the Mike Huckabee or Mitt Romney type) as his VP without completely shutting down his "Independent Maverick" support.

Quite the Catch22 going on with him too.

[redfirebird2008]

Perhaps the GOP does not, but John McCain may. Keep in mind, a lot of people still buy into the notion of him being a "maverick."

I mean, heck, a decent running mate can turn one of those crucial swing states in his favor and then we are looking at a whole different electoral college count.

You mean like Crist from Florida? Yep.

[Matt]

Very true Matt. But we also have to remember, the conservative base and religious right are not behind him. At least not yet. His support draws more from Independents. I have a hard time believing that he could pick a bible-thumper (aka the Mike Huckabee or Mitt Romney type) as his VP without completely shutting down his "Independent Maverick" support.

Quite the Catch22 going on with him too.

I think thats what makes Sarah Palin the ideal choice for him. She is conservative, but she is also young, attractive, and energetic. Plus, no matter how conservative she is, simply having picked a woman will say to independents that he still has that maverick streak in him.

Plus, I reckon the bible thumpers and neo-cons will get behind him by November. They ***** now, but when the choice is him or Obama or Clinton, they will vote straight ticket Republican.

[redfirebird2008]

I think thats what makes Sarah Palin the ideal choice for him. She is conservative, but she is also young, attractive, and energetic. Plus, no matter how conservative she is, simply having picked a woman will say to independents that he still has that maverick streak in him.

Plus, I reckon the bible thumpers and neo-cons will get behind him by November. They ***** now, but when the choice is him or Obama or Clinton, they will vote straight ticket Republican.

Yep, they'll fall in line. They always do, no matter how much they complain.

[hippie_hunter]

I think thats what makes Sarah Palin the ideal choice for him. She is conservative, but she is also young, attractive, and energetic. Plus, no matter how conservative she is, simply having picked a woman will say to independents that he still has that maverick streak in him.

Plus, I reckon the bible thumpers and neo-cons will get behind him by November. They ***** now, but when the choice is him or Obama or Clinton, they will vote straight ticket Republican.

I don't think that Palin will become the VP nomination now that she's pregnant.

[Kelly]

The Democrats will get behind whoever ends up with the nomination.....the Republicans will, and already are getting behind McCain.......

It is the Independents these people better be worried about.........McCain has those that lean to the right already there for him.....but there are more that lean to the left.

Your "straight ticket" voters will stay "straight ticket" voters......the independents are the key.

[Excel]

The Democrats will get behind whoever ends up with the nomination.....the Republicans will, and already are getting behind McCain.......

It is the Independents these people better be worried about.........McCain has those that lean to the right already there for him.....but there are more that lean to the left.

Your "straight ticket" voters will stay "straight ticket" voters......the independents are the key.

Which is where Mr. Obama comes in :cwink:

[Kelly]

Which is where Mr. Obama comes in :cwink:

Not with my colleagues who are independents like myself........his "change" lingo just isn't enough......it makes us "feel good", but its going to take more than that. There are quite a few months to go........I don't think true independent voters have come anywhere near making a decision. Obama is far left, and that scares many independent voters. See theres a difference between a college using the lingo...."I'm an independent voter" and those of us that have been voting that way for decades....."Independent Voters" are not far left or right.......so the "change" lingo is speaking to some........but I don't think ANY OF THEM (candidates), should count those chickents....the only one that truly has the "Independent Voters" to the right in a large %, is McCain.....and his age still scares many of them.....

So, I'll wait and see....:yay:

[Excel]

I'm an independent as well. Obama will be much mroe effective with independents than Clinton would

[Kelly]

I'm an independent as well. Obama will be much mroe effective with independents than Clinton would


Both are left......

Obama appeals to the idealistic independents...........*shrugs* but in the end most vote on straight issues.....of which haven't seen much debated on those between the two of them until the last couple of debates.

The thing is, there are ALOT of independents out there that are Socially liberal, and Fiscally Conservative.............don't mess with their bottomline.

[Matt]

I don't think that Palin will become the VP nomination now that she's pregnant.

Really? When did that happen? Tsk, she was the perfect choice for McCain too.

[Excel]

shes cute :up:

[hippie_hunter]

Really? When did that happen? Tsk, she was the perfect choice for McCain too.

She just revealed that she's seven month's pregnant and is due in May.

[redfirebird2008]

It's gonna be her 5th kid! Wow. LOL.

[Matt]

She just revealed that she's seven month's pregnant and is due in May.

Well, if she is only due in May I suppose she could be up and ready in time to campaign when it counts, plus McCain would have a baby to kiss on hand.

[redfirebird2008]

Well, if she is only due in May I suppose she could be up and ready in time to campaign when it counts, plus McCain would have a baby to kiss on hand.

ROFL! :woot:

[Matt]

I just feel bad for the kids. Apparently she is known for picking horrible baby names. Her four other children's names:

Track, Bristol, Willow, and Piper. At this rate she may as well become McCain's running mate simply to so this kid will have secret service around to protect it from the inevitable grade school wedgies :csad:

[redfirebird2008]

haha yeah.

[Lightning Strykez!]

Well, I didn't think I'd ever say this but...I'm actually getting a little bored with this fiasco now. I was so expecting this thing to wrap up before the spring, but now they are dragging it out into more states...it's kinda like, "Ehn" for me; it's lost the thrill and excitement for the time being.

For the next several weeks we're going to be treated to nothing but more trash-talk, mudslinging and back-biting over everything but the major issues. Hillary thinks she has some wind in her sails and we're already seen how ugly she can get. Not interested. :rolleyes:

Wake me up when the Dem nominee is chosen, a Veeper is announced, and they go toe-to-toe with McCain & Co. That's when it will get exciting again as far as I'm concerned...

[souvlaki]

Well, I didn't think I'd ever say this but...I'm actually getting a little bored with this fiasco now. I was so expecting this thing to wrap up before the spring, but now they are dragging it out into more states...it's kinda like, "Ehn" for me; it's lost the thrill and excitement for the time being.

For the next several weeks we're going to be treated to nothing but more trash-talk, mudslinging and back-biting over everything but the major issues. Hillary thinks she has some wind in her sails and we're already seen how ugly she can get. Not interested. :rolleyes:

Wake me up when the Dem nominee is chosen, a Veeper is announced, and they go toe-to-toe with McCain & Co. That's when it will get exciting again as far as I'm concerned...

Yeah, I'm kind of in the same position as you right now. I haven't payed attention to the news the last few days, and this is the first time I've actually visited this board since Wednesday. I think there is a caucus today in Wyoming, but I haven't gone out of my why to find out how that is going. Really, though it is kind of pointless paying close attention now anyhow. It's going to likely go back and forth the next few months... may get slightly interesting again if they re-do Florida and Michigan, but really, nothing is likely to change between now and the convention.

[SentinelMind]

Uhmm....we're gonna wait until the Democratic nominee will have 2 months to campaign????

[souvlaki]

Uhmm....we're gonna wait until the Democratic nominee will have 2 months to campaign????

What are you talking about?

[Matt]

What are you talking about?

I believe he was saying that if it goes to the convention, (August 28th-30th, I believe) that will really only give the Democratic candidate two months to campaign against McCain as opposed to the other Democratic nominee. However, I'm sure the DNC will pick up the slack and start campaigning against McCain prior to that.

[The Senator]

I believe he was saying that if it goes to the convention, (August 28th-30th, I believe) that will really only give the Democratic candidate two months to campaign against McCain as opposed to the other Democratic nominee. However, I'm sure the DNC will pick up the slack and start campaigning against McCain prior to that.

The DNC has already started sending out mailings and emails, and are apparently planning a few ad campaigns by the beginning of April...

[Matt]

The DNC has already started sending out mailings and emails, and are apparently planning a few ad campaigns by the beginning of April...

I just wonder how much weight it will carry without an actual candidate behind it?

The Democrats might be screwing themselves hard. All this energy and momentum these candidates are creating will be lost as well as the new voters they are bringing in will quickly become bored with it if it drags out until August.

[SentinelMind]

It'll have to be nothing but attack ads against McCain....

"McCain.....he's just like Bush....don't vote for him....vote ...for change....vote for the future....vote...uhm...Democrat in 2008.......this ad was approved by DNC."

[Marx]

I just wonder how much weight it will carry without an actual candidate behind it?

The Democrats might be screwing themselves hard. All this energy and momentum these candidates are creating will be lost as well as the new voters they are bringing in will quickly become bored with it if it drags out until August.

McCain is going to have enough trouble just trying to stay in the headlines. All of this confliction within the Democratic Party is getting tons of free media coverage.

[Kelly]

McCain is going to have enough trouble just trying to stay in the headlines. All of this confliction within the Democratic Party is getting tons of free media coverage.



That's true.....BUT....really all he needs to do is get his name out there 2 or 3 times in the next 3 months.....let the Democrats shoot themselves in the foot......hell he won't have to do a thing. He will get a natural pop at the Convention......and then the real fireworks begin.

[Marx]

That's true.....BUT....really all he needs to do is get his name out there 2 or 3 times in the next 3 months.....let the Democrats shoot themselves in the foot......hell he won't have to do a thing. He will get a natural pop at the Convention......and then the real fireworks begin.

I'm definately anticipating the first meeting between the Democratic nominee and John McCain.

[Lightning Strykez!]

Yeah, I'm kind of in the same position as you right now. I haven't payed attention to the news the last few days, and this is the first time I've actually visited this board since Wednesday. I think there is a caucus today in Wyoming, but I haven't gone out of my why to find out how that is going. Really, though it is kind of pointless paying close attention now anyhow. It's going to likely go back and forth the next few months... may get slightly interesting again if they re-do Florida and Michigan, but really, nothing is likely to change between now and the convention.

Well if it's any solace to you, there was indeed a caucus in Wyoming. They just announced that Barack Obama has taken the victory.

[Lightning Strykez!]

The Democrats might be screwing themselves hard. All this energy and momentum these candidates are creating will be lost as well as the new voters they are bringing in will quickly become bored with it if it drags out until August.

Exactly.

Kel and others have mentioned that Democrats will vote for whoever the nominee is, but my concern is, it may be too little, too late when it's all said and done.

[\S/JcDc\S/]

If we knew for sure the democrats vote for who the nominee is then the race would be over. Apparently regardless of the math Hillary is going all the way to the convention with this.

[Lightning Strykez!]

And if it does, it will all but guarantee McCain's nomination in the General Election. Hillary clearly doesn't care...it seems she'd be willing to sabotage an Obama presidency before conceding this for the good of the party. Which...makes me wonder why she started running in the first place, if it wasn't for the sake of the Democratic party and the nation at large. :rolleyes:

This is beginning to resemble a farce now.

[Kelly]

Exactly.

Kel and others have mentioned that Democrats will vote for whoever the nominee is, but my concern is, it may be too little, too late when it's all said and done.

They won't lose the base, but they will lose the first time voters if in the end Clinton wins.......it seems these voters are looking for "anything" new.......and if Obama doesn't end up being the candidate, they won't vote. Hell if they are busy with something else the day of the November elections, they won't vote......right now they are excited as hell.....if the "excitement" begins to fade even alittle.....those voters will fade as well.

[Lightning Strykez!]

That's a good point Kel. The question is, could the excitement be sustained ALL THE WAY to the GE even if Obama was the only candidate now?

Sometimes, voting can be a fad.

[Marx]

That's a good point Kel. The question is, could the excitement be sustained ALL THE WAY to the GE even if Obama was the only candidate now?

Sometimes, voting can be a fad.

Especially among the younger crowd.

[Lightning Strykez!]

I have a feeling though that Obama can generate an enthusiastic hype around the GE in young people's minds--kinda like the way movie studios build anticipation for a comic book movie 1 or 2 years waaaaaaaay in advance. Obama can make the whole process into an "event" for young people, esp. with the right marketing.

Hillary? Not so much.

[Marx]

I have a feeling though that Obama can generate an enthusiastic hype around the GE in young people's minds--kinda like the way movie studios build anticipation for a comic book movie 1 or 2 years waaaaaaaay in advance. Obama can make the whole process into an "event" for young people, esp. with the right marketing.

Hillary? Not so much.

Well let's hope that whoever the Democratic nominee is that they will be able to continue the rallying and support through the GE. I really think they can if it is done right.

[souvlaki]

Well if it's any solace to you, there was indeed a caucus in Wyoming. They just announced that Barack Obama has taken the victory.

Ironically I tuned into CNN long enough to hear them refered to Wyoming as a slight win for Hillary, and keep mentioning how she picked up 4 delegates. Only CNN could call a 23% win for Obama as a slight win for Hillary. Someone wanna try explaining this to me? My mind was kind of blown by that one. Media bias my ass.

[Marx]

Ironically I tuned into CNN long enough to hear them refered to Wyoming as a slight win for Hillary, and keep mentioning how she picked up 4 delegates. Only CNN could call a 23% win for Obama as a slight win for Hillary. Someone wanna try explaining this to me? My mind was kind of blown by that one. Media bias my ass.

Maybe they just meant that essentially it boiled down to a tie? :huh:

[Kelly]

I know that in my posts, I sound like a Non-Obama fan......and that is soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo not the case. I would LOOOOOVE for him to come into the presidencey and do a full paradigm shift in the thinking of politics in Washington. I want that SOOOOOO much for my students and their future.

I am also a realist, who has seen my fair share of polticians over the last 3 decades. Reagan did that somewhat in the Republican party, but we have again lost alot of those Conservatives, and in my mind, thats a shame.

If Obama were not so far Left, I would be in the frontline of his campaign. Unfortunately, I cannot swallow some of the far left's Fiscal Policy......and that may be too much for me to try and get passed in order to pull the lever for his name. BUT, there is also a part of me that knows that the President, only votes yes or vetos this fiscal policy.......and in the end it is the Congress more specifically the House of Represenatives where this decision making falls upon..........SO, maybe if there is a paradigm change in the Executive Branch that will move into the Legislative Branch......Right now there is too much of an "If" factor.......hopefully that will change as I see more debate on the ISSUES, rather than...."the feel good" stuff.

[redfirebird2008]

Maybe they just meant that essentially it boiled down to a tie? :huh:

Then why did they call Texas a huge win for her, when in fact it wasn't? 4 delegates is hardly a big win with 126 up for grabs, particularly when you end up losing in the overall delegate count. The media will spin it in favor of dragging this thing out. When Obama was down, they favored him. Now that Clinton's down, they favor her. Dragging it out longer means better ratings. Better ratings = $$$$$. Cha-ching!

[Matt]

And if it does, it will all but guarantee McCain's nomination in the General Election. Hillary clearly doesn't care...it seems she'd be willing to sabotage an Obama presidency before conceding this for the good of the party. Which...makes me wonder why she started running in the first place, if it wasn't for the sake of the Democratic party and the nation at large. :rolleyes:

This is beginning to resemble a farce now.

No candidate should run for the sake of their party. That mentality is what has allowed both parties to become so corrupt. Perhaps Clinton really feels that she is the best person for this country right now and therefore is willing to fight until the very end for the nomination. I mean, really, why is everyone saying "Clinton should drop out for the good of the party!" when mathematically she is still very much in the race but no one is saying "Obama should drop out for the good of the party!"?

Granted, Clinton is no saint, I am simply playing Devil's advocate. She probably reckons if Obama loses to McCain, she will become the automatic front runner for 2012 and will stand a chance then, so she will take him down with her and let McCain have four years.

But still, it is a double standard that people expect Clinton just stand aside in the name of unity but not Obama.

[Marx]

No candidate should run for the sake of their party. That mentality is what has allowed both parties to become so corrupt. Perhaps Clinton really feels that she is the best person for this country right now and therefore is willing to fight until the very end for the nomination. I mean, really, why is everyone saying "Clinton should drop out for the good of the party!" when mathematically she is still very much in the race but no one is saying "Obama should drop out for the good of the party?!?"

Granted, Clinton is no saint, I am simply playing Devil's advocate. She probably reckons if Obama loses to McCain, she will become the automatic front runner for 2012 and will stand a chance then, so she will take him down with her and let McCain have four years.

But still, it is a double standard that people expect Clinton just stand aside in the name of unity but not Obama.


True again Matt.

[Matt]

I have a feeling though that Obama can generate an enthusiastic hype around the GE in young people's minds--kinda like the way movie studios build anticipation for a comic book movie 1 or 2 years waaaaaaaay in advance. Obama can make the whole process into an "event" for young people, esp. with the right marketing.

Hillary? Not so much.

Call me crazy, but I am scared by this. Everyone has a right to vote, for whatever reason they want...but thats not always a good thing. I do not think young people should be trained by the Obama campaign (for lack of better wording) to see Politics as the equivilant to a wrestling match where they root for the cool, young, candidate. I honestly think an entire generation having their views shaped to view politics like a sports match is far more dangerous for our democracy than 4 years of McCain or even Bush somehow weaseling another 4 years in the White House. Its a bit irrational, I suppose, but an entire generation of voters being like Excel just scares the hell out of me.

[redfirebird2008]

But still, it is a double standard that people expect Clinton just stand aside in the name of unity but not Obama.

When has Obama thrown her under the bus and praised McCain? Not once.

[Marx]

Call me crazy, but I am scared by this. Everyone has a right to vote, for whatever reason they want...but thats not always a good thing. I do not think young people should be trained by the Obama campaign (for lack of better wording) to see Politics as the equivilant to a wrestling match where they root for the cool, young, candidate. I honestly think an entire generation having their views shaped to view politics like a sports match is far more dangerous for our democracy than 4 years of McCain or even Bush somehow weaseling another 4 years in the White House. Its a bit irrational, I suppose, but an entire generation of voters being like Excel just scares the hell out of me.

Please don't ever say that again! :cwink:

[redfirebird2008]

Call me crazy, but I am scared by this. Everyone has a right to vote, for whatever reason they want...but thats not always a good thing. I do not think young people should be trained by the Obama campaign (for lack of better wording) to see Politics as the equivilant to a wrestling match where they root for the cool, young, candidate. I honestly think an entire generation having their views shaped to view politics like a sports match is far more dangerous for our democracy than 4 years of McCain or even Bush somehow weaseling another 4 years in the White House. Its a bit irrational, I suppose, but an entire generation of voters being like Excel just scares the hell out of me.

Likewise, in Texas polls 56% of respondents who felt race was VERY IMPORTANT were Clinton supporters. And nationwide, 1 out of 5 white Clinton supporters will not vote for Obama, whereas only 3% of black Obama supporters will not support Clinton. I'm afraid of racism, and I'm afraid there's plenty of it still going on against Obama.

[Matt]

When has Obama thrown her under the bus and praised McCain? Not once.

So what? It shouldn't be about party. I give you that Clinton was probably just trying every tactic in the book, but maybe, just maybe, knowing them both personally, she really believes that McCain would make a better president than Obama. This is a DEMOCRACY! Not a "Fall in line with whatever your party says.....acy" Clinton is a citizen of the United States first and foremost and therefore she has the right to say whatever she wants about the presidential candidates.

[Matt]

Likewise, in Texas polls 56% of respondents who felt race was VERY IMPORTANT were Clinton supporters. And nationwide, 1 out of 5 white Clinton supporters will not vote for Obama, whereas only 3% of black Obama supporters will not support Clinton. I'm afraid of racism, and I'm afraid there's plenty of it still going on against Obama.

There is racism going FOR Obama too as plenty of people (Our own Excel included) are voting for him simply on the grounds that he is black. Both are stupid reasons to vote. We are getting all kinds of new voters this election, either because the candidate is black (either against him or for him), because the candidate is young, because the candidate is "cool," etc. All are stupid reasons to vote and that scares me about this election. People like that are better left sitting at home on election day.

[Marx]

Likewise, in Texas polls 56% of respondents who felt race was VERY IMPORTANT were Clinton supporters. And nationwide, 1 out of 5 white Clinton supporters will not vote for Obama, whereas only 3% of black Obama supporters will not support Clinton. I'm afraid of racism, and I'm afraid there's plenty of it still going on against Obama.

The issues of Racism and Sexism are still very prevelant in our society. Unfortunately.

[redfirebird2008]

So what? It shouldn't be about party. I give you that Clinton was probably just trying every tactic in the book, but maybe, just maybe, knowing them both personally, she really believes that McCain would make a better president than Obama. This is a DEMOCRACY! Not a "Fall in line with whatever your party says.....acy" Clinton is a citizen of the United States first and foremost and therefore she has the right to say whatever she wants about the presidential candidates.

When you make one statement ("the important thing is the Democrats winning in November") and then later in the same session throw your fellow Democrat under the bus, it's a direct flip-flop on the matter if she's then saying that she would rather have McCain than Obama. And it's not a "was" situation. She is using this experience and commander in chief threshold every day in her stump speech. So with each new audience she meets, she's saying that she wants the party to beat John McCain but then later on saying that she'd rather have McCain than Obama as President. Flip...flop.

[redfirebird2008]

There is racism going FOR Obama too as plenty of people (Our own Excel included) are voting for him simply on the grounds that he is black. Both are stupid reasons to vote. We are getting all kinds of new voters this election, either because the candidate is black (either against him or for him), because the candidate is young, because the candidate is "cool," etc. All are stupid reasons to vote and that scares me about this election. People like that are better left sitting at home on election day.

And as I mentioned, only 3% of the black voters would not vote for Clinton, yet 20% of whites would not vote for Obama. The numbers against McCain:

93% Clinton, 96% Obama. That's still incredible loyalty from the black voters to the Democratic party. I don't see the same thing going on with white Democrats, and it's a damn shame.

[Kelly]

There is racism going FOR Obama too as plenty of people (Our own Excel included) are voting for him simply on the grounds that he is black. Both are stupid reasons to vote. We are getting all kinds of new voters this election, either because the candidate is black (either against him or for him), because the candidate is young, because the candidate is "cool," etc. All are stupid reasons to vote and that scares me about this election. People like that are better left sitting at home on election day.

Do we say that for those that "only" vote for a candidate who is a Christian, or do we say that to "only" those that will vote for a white male, or those who "vote" if the candidate is pro same sex marriage. Or those that choose to go by "one" issue. Rather than the whole. Do we say that about those that vote simply because they are Democrat or Republican, not knowing what the issues are????

We will be fighting ignorance in the voting booth forever......that is why our forefathers chose a Republic, rather than a direct Democracy.

We are a tribal voting community......it has been this way since Day 1. I'm extremely excited that young people are getting into the voting booth. I do want them to use their "RIGHT" to vote. The right to vote doesn't have stipulations of "how" or "why". It doesn't state that you have to know "all of the issues" or even vote on issues. My hope is that the issues will come out in the end, and those things will be looked at clearly. But I will never say someone needs to stay home on voting day. That is their voice......that is their right.

[Matt]

Do we say that for those that "only" vote for a candidate who is a Christian, or do we say that to "only" those that will vote for a white male, or those who "vote" if the candidate is pro same sex marriage. Or those that choose to go by "one" issue. Rather than the whole. Do we say that about those that vote simply because they are Democrat or Republican, not knowing what the issues are????

We will be fighting ignorance in the voting booth forever......that is why our forefathers chose a Republic, rather than a direct Democracy.

We are a tribal voting community......it has been this way since Day 1. I'm extremely excited that young people are getting into the voting booth. I do want them to use their "RIGHT" to vote. The right to vote doesn't have stipulations of "how" or "why". It doesn't state that you have to know "all of the issues" or even vote on issues. My hope is that the issues will come out in the end, and those things will be looked at clearly. But I will never say someone needs to stay home on voting day. That is their voice......that is their right.

I do say that about anyone who votes for a stupid reason. If you cannot vote for someone for a reason other than their skin color, gender, religion, "coolness" or whatever, you shouldn't be voting as your voice is one of stupidity. It sounds snobbish, but people voting based on gay marriage and the guy they want to have a beer with is what stuck us with Bush for 8 years.

[Marx]

I do say that about anyone who votes for a stupid reason. If you cannot vote for someone for a reason other than their skin color, gender, religion, "coolness" or whatever, you shouldn't be voting as your voice is one of stupidity. It sounds snobbish, but people voting based on gay marriage and the guy they want to have a beer with is what stuck us with Bush for 8 years.

It doesn't sound snobbish.

[The Senator]

I do say that about anyone who votes for a stupid reason. If you cannot vote for someone for a reason other than their skin color, gender, religion, "coolness" or whatever, you shouldn't be voting as your voice is one of stupidity. It sounds snobbish, but people voting based on gay marriage and the guy they want to have a beer with is what stuck us with Bush for 8 years.

A very valid point indeed.

[The Senator]

And as I mentioned, only 3% of the black voters would not vote for Clinton, yet 20% of whites would not vote for Obama. The numbers against McCain:

93% Clinton, 96% Obama. That's still incredible loyalty from the black voters to the Democratic party. I don't see the same thing going on with white Democrats, and it's a damn shame.

You're insinuating that white voters owe it to themselves to start flocking to Obama. I'm white, and I didn't vote for Clinton because she was white. I voted for her because I thought she was the best candidate. Doesn't it strike you as possible, just possible, that most of Clinton's voters voted for her because they liked her? Not because she was the "white" candidate? Anyway, If these voters were/ are so bigoted, then why on Earth would they vote for Clinton? She's a woman, almost in the same boat as Obama except you're replacing race with gender.

[redfirebird2008]

You're insinuating that white voters owe it to themselves to start flocking to Obama. I'm white, and I didn't vote for Clinton because she was white. I voted for her because I thought she was the best candidate. Doesn't it strike you as possible, just possible, that most of Clinton's voters voted for her because they liked her? Not because she was the "white" candidate? Anyway, If these voters were/ are so bigoted, then why on Earth would they vote for Clinton? She's a woman, almost in the same boat as Obama except you're replacing race with gender.

What is 1/5? It's still a vast minority, so it fits your "most white voters" scenario. I never said most of her voters were voting for her because she's white and the facts support this. 20% of the white Democratic voters appear to either like her or not like Obama, or a combination of the two. All I'm pointing out is that black Democrats are more loyal to the Democratic party and the Clintons than white Democrats are to the Democratic Party and Obama. This was in response to Matt's assertion that more racism is coming into play with black voters.

Now, if we wanna bring up the sexism argument. Against McCain, they both get the same support from male Democrats (84%) which means that male Democrats will not vote against Clinton, whereas 14% less female Democrats will for Obama. Clinton receives 93% to Obama's 79%. Just to show that I'm not pulling this out of my ass, go here:

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=1254

Scroll down to the part where it says "Clinton Draws More Support Among Democrats."

[The Senator]

What is 1/5? It's still a vast minority, so it fits your "most white voters" scenario. I never said most of her voters were voting for her because she's white and the facts support this. 20% of the white Democratic voters appear to both like her and not like Obama. All I'm pointing out is that black Democrats are more loyal to the Democratic party and the Clintons than white Democrats are to the Democratic Party and Obama. This was in response to Matt's assertion that more racism is coming into play with black voters.

I don't get why white voters who voted for Clinton have to be so loyal to the Democratic party, especially if the other choice is a candidate they don't agree with. At work, I get calls all the time from people saying "I don't want you think I'm a racist, but I just don't like that Obama because I think he's too inexperienced." Believe it or not, there are voters in this primary which vote on the issues, and the issue they have a problem with is Obama's lack of experience more than anything. Of the 20% you quoted, probably 7% of them aren't voting for Obama purely because of race. But the majority of those voters are more than likely not willing to vote for him because they simply don't like him as a candidate.

[Marx]

What is 1/5? It's still a vast minority, so it fits your "most white voters" scenario. I never said most of her voters were voting for her because she's white and the facts support this. 20% of the white Democratic voters appear to both like her and not like Obama. All I'm pointing out is that black Democrats are more loyal to the Democratic party and the Clintons than white Democrats are to the Democratic Party and Obama. This was in response to Matt's assertion that more racism is coming into play with black voters.

The Clinton's will always have the vast majority of loyalty. They have done alot for the party. I'm not going to say that there isn't a small amount of people who wouldn't vote for Barack because he is African-American, because there are. I'm also not going to that there isn't a small group of people who would never vote for Hillary because she is a woman, because there are.

Race and sex continue to play roles in today's world. Hopefully at some point all that will change.

[Marx]

I don't get why white voters who voted for Clinton have to be so loyal to the Democratic party, especially if the other choice is a candidate they don't agree with. At work, I get calls all the time from people saying "I don't want you think I'm a racist, but I just don't like that Obama because I think he's too inexperienced." Believe it or not, there are voters in this primary which vote on the issues, and the issue they have a problem with is Obama's lack of experience more than anything. Of the 20% you quoted, probably 7% of them aren't voting for Obama purely because of race. But the majority of those voters are more than likely not willing to vote for him because they simply don't like him as a candidate.

As hard as that may be to believe, not everyone likes Barack.

[Kelly]

I think Obama's race, change, etc......all clearly bring people to the voting booth who have "never" voted before...........the question to me is....will they take it all the way to the vote for President, if he doesn't win the candidacy.......if he's the VP, yes, they will be there......but if its Clinton, will they even care? That is the big question in my mind. The vast majority of the Super Delegates are "old time" DNC, and I think there is behind the scenes **** going on at full force RIGHT NOW, within the DNC. I think the Michigan/Florida fiasco is going to be what puts another Republican in office for another 4 years...........The DNC is screwing itself right now......McCain won't have to do a thing, but sit back and watch the **** hit the fan.

[Excel]

So what? It shouldn't be about party. I give you that Clinton was probably just trying every tactic in the book, but maybe, just maybe, knowing them both personally, she really believes that McCain would make a better president than Obama. This is a DEMOCRACY! Not a "Fall in line with whatever your party says.....acy" Clinton is a citizen of the United States first and foremost and therefore she has the right to say whatever she wants about the presidential candidates.

You know Obama and Hillary personally???

[Marx]

I think Obama's race, change, etc......all clearly bring people to the voting booth who have "never" voted before...........the question to me is....will they take it all the way to the vote for President, if he doesn't win the candidacy.......if he's the VP, yes, they will be there......but if its Clinton, will they even care? That is the big question in my mind. The vast majority of the Super Delegates are "old time" DNC, and I think there is behind the scenes **** going on at full force RIGHT NOW, within the DNC. I think the Michigan/Florida fiasco is going to be what puts another Republican in office for another 4 years...........The DNC is screwing itself right now......McCain won't have to do a thing, but sit back and watch the **** hit the fan.

I think if Barack is still on the ticket they will care.

[Kelly]

I think if Barack is still on the ticket they will care.


Read the sentence right before the one you highlighted.....:yay:

[Matt]

You know Obama and Hillary personally???

No, I was saying Hillary knows both McCain and Obama personally.

[Marx]

Read the sentence right before the one you highlighted.....:yay:

Ok Kel, since you put it like that - I wonder as well. :cwink:

[Kelly]

Hey if anyone wants to start a Pennsylvania Primary thread this might be the time......there are a few issues that are coming out with this primary that are pretty interesting.....

[Marx]

Florida mail-in primary plan "gaining traction"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080309/ap_on_el_pr/primary_scramble

[\S/JcDc\S/]

The only way imo to have any votes count is to redo it. As for the mail in primary for Florida, CNN is covering that to death... and I think it's either 1. Do it the way it was supposed to be done in the first place and find the money. or 2. Let the penalty stand for not following the rules.

Obviously Hillary doesn't deserve to have votes handed over to her where Obama didn't even participate. The Clinton camp wants those votes badly thinking it will get her closer, imo she won't be nearly as far ahead with a redo and I welcome it so hopefully the party will feel all votes were counted and he won.

[Marx]

The only way imo to have any votes count is to redo it. As for the mail in primary for Florida, CNN is covering that to death... and I think it's either 1. Do it the way it was supposed to be done in the first place and find the money. or 2. Let the penalty stand for not following the rules.

Obviously Hillary doesn't deserve to have votes handed over to her where Obama didn't even participate. The Clinton camp wants those votes badly thinking it will get her closer, imo she won't be nearly as far ahead with a redo and I welcome it so hopefully the party will feel all votes were counted and he won.

Regardless of who comes out ahead, in a contest this close, all of the states need to weigh in.

[\S/JcDc\S/]

I agree with that. It's making the party look idiotic after the Bush/Gore situation that disenfranchised voters. Now we are throwing away votes. It is true they may not affect the outcome and cost more, but the votes still should be in for the sake of the party imo.

[Addendum]

But the Democratic party, as well as the Republican party (I'm aware that there are other political parties in the US, but they honestly don't make a dent) has the right to set up the rules for the primaries and caucuses. The states follow the rules. The candidates agreed to the rules in place last year, before the first debate started.

I have no sympathy for Michigan and Florida. They knew exactly what the consequences were if they moved up the date of their primaries and/or caucuses. It's not like the rules and consequences for breaking them were locked in a filing cabinet in a broom closet in the basement of an abandoned building in Washington DC that just happened to burn down a few months ago.

[Marx]

But the Democratic party, as well as the Republican party (I'm aware that there are other political parties in the US, but they honestly don't make a dent) has the right to set up the rules for the primaries and caucuses. The states follow the rules. The candidates agreed to the rules in place last year, before the first debate started.

I have no sympathy for Michigan and Florida. They knew exactly what the consequences were if they moved up the date of their primaries and/or caucuses. It's not like the rules and consequences for breaking them were locked in a filing cabinet in a broom closet in the basement of an abandoned building in Washington DC that just happened to burn down a few months ago.

The party's leaders broke the rules Addendum, not the voters. I understand where you're coming from, but it isn't right or fair to silence the voices of the actual voters in those states.

[Addendum]

The voters in Michigan and Florida have no one to blame but the party leaders in their states, not the DNC.

The states were the one that "silenced the voices". The DNC simply enforced their rules

[Lightning Strykez!]

But still, it is a double standard that people expect Clinton just stand aside in the name of unity but not Obama.

The difference here though is that Obama is in the lead Matt. He's winning. If the situations were reversed, people would be calling for him to stand down as well--there's no double-standard there.

[Lightning Strykez!]

Likewise, in Texas polls 56% of respondents who felt race was VERY IMPORTANT were Clinton supporters. And nationwide, 1 out of 5 white Clinton supporters will not vote for Obama, whereas only 3% of black Obama supporters will not support Clinton. I'm afraid of racism, and I'm afraid there's plenty of it still going on against Obama.

Well of course there is.

There are many people (operative word being "MANY") who are terrified of the very concept of BLACKS living in the WHITE house. I hate to say it but...it's true. :(

[Lightning Strykez!]

Alas my friends, the adventure goes on.

With so much drama going on between Obama and Clinton, talks of joint-ticketship (is that a word?), and the DNC faced with big-state issues, there are some interesting things brewing behind the scenes that might have an impact on determining the Democratic nomination. It is perhaps now--more than ever--that race vs. gender will take center stage due to the varied demographics in these two states.

So...wage your bets now and tell us what you think the outcome will be. Since the contests are a long way off, we're going to be here awhile.:applaud

[rdh007]

Well, yeah. Will it turn out like the Chris Rock/Bernie Mac movie? Or will it be like a White House version of that plane movie with Snoop Dogg? I never saw either, but I'm reasonably certain it won't be either one.

[Marx]

A new primary thread! Woo-hoo!

I wager that Hillary will win Pennsylvania by "Ohio-size" margins.

[Handsome Rob]

Mississippi for the win, because that's my home state.

Mississippi goes to Sen. Obama. Pennsylvania goes to Sen. Clinton.

[rdh007]

^I agree.

[Excel]

Obama takes Mississippi, Hill takes Pennsylvania by a few

[Excel]

A new primary thread! Woo-hoo!

I wager that Hillary will win Pennsylvania by "Ohio-size" margins.

10%? im down with that (he size of the loss, not the wager) :up:

[Matt]

The difference here though is that Obama is in the lead Matt. He's winning. If the situations were reversed, people would be calling for him to stand down as well--there's no double-standard there.

Of course there is. The lead isn't substantial enough to call for either candidate to step down as it is still anyone's election. It is not as if Obama has the nomination all but locked and Clinton won't quit (ala Huckabee).

[Matt]

Well, yeah. Will it turn out like the Chris Rock/Bernie Mac movie? Or will it be like a White House version of that plane movie with Snoop Dogg? I never saw either, but I'm reasonably certain it won't be either one.

My money is on it being like Blacula! :cwink:

[hippie_hunter]

Obama wins Mississippi by 15%

Clinton wins Pennsylvania by 15 - 20%

[Excel]

Obama owns Hillary:
"
With all due respect, I've won twice as many states as Sen. Clinton. I've won more of the popular vote than Sen. Clinton. I have more delegates than Sen. Clinton. So, I don't know how somebody who is second place is offering the vice presidency to the person who is in first place. I mean, I'm just wondering…'cause if I was in second place I could understand it. But I'm in first place right now."

[Matt]

Probably, and this is just a guess...probably because Hillary is winning the states that will put the president in the White House where as Obama is winning states that are historically and will continue to be Republican strongholds come November.

[Excel]

We shall see if they continue...Matt you said Obama had no chance becuase the young people who love him don't vote; hows that worked out?

[Matt]

We shall see if they continue...Matt you said Obama had no chance becuase the young people who love him don't vote; hows that worked out?

:huh: I challenge you to find one post where I've ever said he has no chance. I said historically they do not vote but never said he has no chance.

[Excel]

Ill save it, I exagerated. But the points the same,you said he would lose cause they wouldnt vote. When/if Obamas the nominee I think he'll take a lot of unexpected states.

[Kelly]

We shall see if they continue...Matt you said Obama had no chance becuase the young people who love him don't vote; hows that worked out?


What I believe has been discussed about young people is that they do not historically vote in the presidential elections.........BUT Obama has been bringing them to the caucases, BUT if he does not win the candidacy will they still vote? Another question that has been brought up, is when MTV/Sean Combs pushed the "Vote or Die" young people talked the talk, but didn't walk the walk, including Puffy himself.......THAT is what has been discussed in that area.:yay:

BTW, Matt is correct in his "historic" comment. Historically that age group does not vote. You are wrong in saying that Matt said "Obama has no chance because young people don't vote".

[comicgirl]

A new primary thread! Woo-hoo!

I wager that Hillary will win Pennsylvania by "Ohio-size" margins.don't bet on it..........I live in Harrisburg and have family in Philly, State College and da Pitts(whoot!). This is not Hillary country.

[Matt]

Ill save it, I exagerated. But the points the same,you said he would lose cause they wouldnt vote. When/if Obamas the nominee I think he'll take a lot of unexpected states.

Firstly, it is much much much easier to organize a get out to vote movement and get young people to go to caucuses or primaries in one or two states as opposed to doing it on a nation-wide level on November 4th. Its a whole different ball game. To assume that just because he can do it on a state level means he can do it on a national level is naive. It is the equivilant to saying a good baseball player will also be a good football player. Could Obama turn out to be a Bo Jackson? Sure. Time will tell.

Second, for him to take these unexpected states he will have to overcome the demographics and cultures of the individual state. Obama is not going to suddenly change the voting trends of a state like Georgia rhat has stood for years simply because he can get a few college students at the polls.

[comicgirl]

Firstly, it is much much much easier to organize a get out to vote movement and get young people to go to caucuses or primaries in one or two states as opposed to doing it on a nation-wide level on November 4th. Its a whole different ball game. To assume that just because he can do it on a state level means he can do it on a national level is naive. It is the equivilant to saying a good baseball player will also be a good football player. Could Obama turn out to be a Bo Jackson? Sure. Time will tell.

Second, for him to take these unexpected states he will have to overcome the demographics and cultures of the individual state. Obama is not going to suddenly change the voting trends of a state like Georgia rhat has stood for years simply because he can get a few college students at the polls.Dude, he's already p-owned Hillary in the "predominately" white States (Iowa, New Hampshire, etc.,etc.) she was supposed to roll up.

[Excel]

I don't know. It seems that every he goes, he tieher takes the lead or rapidly gains in the polls. He was down 15% in Texas two weeks out, lost by 3%. Down in Cali Ohio by 15% or more 2 weeks out, lost by 10%.

In place he campigns his supports grows and his oppositions shrinks. Obviously his opposition right now is Hillary so it might not take that much to change their minds, but still. Give him 3 months of soul campaigning for his party and I think he would surprise.

[Excel]

What I believe has been discussed about young people is that they do not historically vote in the presidential elections.........BUT Obama has been bringing them to the caucases, BUT if he does not win the candidacy will they still vote? Another question that has been brought up, is when MTV/Sean Combs pushed the "Vote or Die" young people talked the talk, but didn't walk the walk, including Puffy himself.......THAT is what has been discussed in that area.:yay:

Well I think the answer would be a very obvious NO if Hillarys the nominee in reguards to their voting

BTW, Matt is correct in his "historic" comment. Historically that age group does not vote. You are wrong in saying that Matt said "Obama has no chance because young people don't vote".

I know

[Kelly]

Well I think the answer would be a very obvious NO if Hillarys the nominee in reguards to their voting



I know


Well, then I think that might bring to light what some around here have been saying......."they were voting for a rock star" rather than issues. Because honestly, there is little difference between Hillary and Obama on the issues.

[Matt]

Dude, he's already p-owned Hillary in the "predominately" white States (Iowa, New Hampshire, etc.,etc.) she was supposed to roll up.

Just because he can win in "white states" doesn't mean he can sway Republican voters in hardcore Republican states. Mind you, a lot of these states that he is winning, they are 75 % Republican. So even if he is winning by a huge margain, the primaries consist mostly of the Democratic voters. Come November he will not win them.

[Excel]

Well, then I think that might bring to light what some around here have been saying......."they were voting for a rock star" rather than issues. Because honestly, there is little difference between Hillary and Obama on the issues.

Which why it' so close, but theres a very large difference between them when it comes to personalites, and all they need to hear "I dislike dthe war from the beginning, she supported it; I bring people together, shes the most polarizing figure in politics" and their hooked.

[Excel]

Just because he can win in "white states" doesn't mean he can sway Republican voters in hardcore Republican states. Mind you, a lot of these states that he is winning, they are 75 % Republican. So even if he is winning by a huge margain, the primaries consist mostly of the Democratic voters. Come November he will not win them.

Well that's not saying anything. Its like saying "I dont think John McCain will win California" as if its some less-than-obvious comment.

[comicgirl]

Just because he can win in "white states" doesn't mean he can sway Republican voters in hardcore Republican states. Mind you, a lot of these states that he is winning, they are 75 % Republican. So even if he is winning by a huge margain, the primaries consist mostly of the Democratic voters. Come November he will not win them.good arguement; we'll see. One thing PA also has.........lot's of Reps crossing to Obama because they A. See McCain as weak; not forceful/motivated enough to be Pres.


..........I was shocked too when I first heard it around here (PA). Hillary may get PA, but not by much. The whole FL/MI "redo" is being pushed by Clinton supporters. It stinks.

[Matt]

Well that's not saying anything. Its like saying "I dont think John McCain will win California" as if its some less-than-obvious comment.

Its not states like California or Georgia that matter though, that's my point. Clinton is winning in states that DO MATTER. PA, Flordia, Ohio, etc.

[Excel]

We'll see how PA or a Florida revote goes. Just because she won in Ohio doesnt mean Obama wont. Whoever gets the nominee will take Ohio, McCain loves NAFTA.

[Excel]

good arguement; we'll see. One thing PA also has.........lot's of Reps crossing to Obama because they A. See McCain as weak; not forceful/motivated enough to be Pres.


..........I was shocked too when I first heard it around here (PA). Hillary may get PA, but not by much. The whole FL/MI "redo" is being pushed by Clinton supporters. It stinks.

No it doesn't. FLA and MICH revotes might closen the gap, but they would almost defiently put Obama within 15-30 super delegates to clinch 2025.

Esimated delegate counts after wyoming, Mississippi:
Obama: 1608
Clinton: 1480

In Pennsylvania, I will give Hillary 90 delegates to Obamas 68, a 57-43 win for Hillary.

In North Carolina, I will have them split. Obama leads polls big early, and Hillary has never won a state where Obama lead in polls early. She has 1 place where he lead in most polls leading up to , which was New Hampshire. Even Texas polls final averge on RCP had Hillary winning by 2% average. So, assuming Hillary does the so far impossible and catches Obama in North Carolina and they split the delegates, i touwld go 59 for Hillary, 57 for Obama.

Totals right now would be:

Obama: 1733:
Clinton: 1629

Now in Indiana, West Virginia, Oregon, and Kentucky, I will give Hillary 56%-44% wins.
That adds 89 to Obama, and 114 to Hillary's.

Totals so far:
Obama: 1822
Clinton: 1743

I'll give her 60%-40% wins in South Dakota and Montana. Thats would give her an additional 18 delegates to Obamas 12.

The only remaining place would be Puerto Rico. If she win 65-35, that gives her 36 and Obama 19.

Final totals:
Obama: 1853
Clinton: 1797


Florida has 210 delegates, Hillary got 50% to Obama 33% in January. Edwards took 14%. Now, obviously it would be closer. Given the demos, it screams another Cali. Ill give Hillary 56%-44%.

Michigan has 156 delegates and current polls have them tied. Ill say Hillary wins, 54-46. The 2 states would give hillary 191 more delagates, and would give Obama 165 more.

The totals would be the following:

Clinton: 1988
Obama: 2018

As you can see, despite only being 40 back, Obama would only need 7. As Matt has so helpfully told us, Obama could find 7 supers n promise them crap to secure the nom.

[comicgirl]

No it doesn't. FLA and MICH revotes might closen the gap, but they would almost defiently put Obama within 15-30 super delegates to clinch 2025.



As you can see, despite only being 40 back, Obama would only need 7. As Matt has so helpfully told us, Obama could find 7 supers n promise them crap to secure the nom.Fingers crossed, Ex.

[Matt]

We'll see how PA or a Florida revote goes. Just because she won in Ohio doesnt mean Obama wont. Whoever gets the nominee will take Ohio, McCain loves NAFTA.

Thats not true. Ohio has a heavy religious right base. That is why Bush won it. If McCain picks the proper running mate, he can take it.

[Excel]

Same goes for Barack. All your saying is Obama hasnt got the state lockedodnw but that would be a bit obvious.

[Matt]

Isn't a lot of that article based on guess work and what-if's Excel?

[Marx]

Probably, and this is just a guess...probably because Hillary is winning the states that will put the president in the White House where as Obama is winning states that are historically and will continue to be Republican strongholds come November.

Exactly the point. The states in which a Democrat has to win...the voters simply prefer Hillary, not Barack.

[Matt]

Same goes for Barack. All your saying is Obama hasnt got the state lockedodnw but that would be a bit obvious.

No, I am saying Hillary is winning states THAT MATTER (i.e. SWING STATES) by significant margains that will likely translate to November. Obama cannot say the same. Hillary is striking cords with all the right demographics needed to win the swing states. Obama cannot say the same. If you think for a second Excel, that super delegates do not look at those kind of things, you are even dumber than I thought (which says something).

[Marx]

No, I am saying Hillary is winning states THAT MATTER (i.e. SWING STATES) by significant margains that will likely translate to November. Obama cannot say the same. Hillary is striking cords with all the right demographics needed to win the swing states. Obama cannot say the same. If you think for a second Excel, that super delegates do not look at those kind of things, you are even dumber than I thought (which says something).

And THAT'S one heck of an argument. One that the Superdelegates will not just brush aside.

[Excel]

using slates calc, here are my current predictions...

Current count:
Obama: 1589
Hillary: 1470

Results (Clinton-Obama)

Mississippi: 43%-57% (13-19)
Pennsylvnia: 55%-44% (87-71)
Guam: 35%-65% (3-1)
Indiana: 53%-47% (38-34)
North Carolina: 46%-54% (53-62)
West Virginia: 45%-55% (13-15)
Kentucky: 54%-46% (28-23)
Oregon: 45%-55% (23-29)
Montana: 44%-56% (6-10)
South Dakota: 43%-57% (6-9)
Puerto Rico: 65%-35% (36-19)
Florida: 56%-44% (118-92)
Michigan:48%-51% (75-81)

Totals:
Clinton: 1969
Obama: 2054

I have him eclipsing the mark by 29. Tweak it so clinton wins go ahead, unless eh wins reallllly big hell be with 5-10 super delegates upon convention AT WORST.

[Excel]

Isn't a lot of that article based on guess work and what-if's Excel?

Yeah, the guessing is she blows him out in every state and he still wins using this:

http://www.slate.com/features/delegatecounter/

[comicgirl]

Exactly the point. The states in which a Democrat has to win...the voters simply prefer Hillary, not Barack.Dude, you can get a different read in different polls. Factors depend upon sex, social-economic status, religious beliefs, etc. I've done research polls with health care plans, etc.; sometimes people will tell you what they want you to hear.






Let Fl and MI go down like they bamboozed Obama out of the nom. and see how much voters "prefer" her.

[Marx]

Dude, you can get a different read in different polls. Factors depend upon sex, social-economic status, religious beliefs, etc. I've done research polls with health care plans, etc.; sometimes people will tell you what they want you to hear.






Let Fl and MI go down like they bamboozed Obama out of the nom. and see how much voters "prefer" her.

All I'm saying CG is that she has one heck of an argument. A very valid one.

[Excel]

Yall keep deneying MATH.

With Florida and Michigan revotes, this probably wont go the convention.

[souvlaki]

Isn't a lot of that article based on guess work and what-if's Excel?

Wait... What? Did you actually read it? Did you want the article to give her 20% wins in every state between now and June? That article was pretty worse case scenario for Obama.

[Matt]

Wait... What? Did you actually read it? Did you want the article to give her 20% wins in every state between now and June? That article was pretty worse case scenario for Obama.

I was talking about the parts that not only will Florida and Michigan be counted but also re-voted.

[Excel]

The point was to show why Obama and his folk should want them to revote n be counted.

[Matt]

However, it is a big what if. There is talks of restoring Florida and Michigan with half their delegates like the RNC. There is talk of letting it stand as is and restoring the delegates (in which case Obama is kinda screwed in regards to those two states). There is talks of not restoring them at all. I personally think the latter will happen as a re-vote would be expensive as hell...soooo...like I said, that article is guess work that relies on pretty heavy assumptions.

[Super_Ludacris]

Let the Obama swag show roll on :)

[Excel]

However, it is a big what if. There is talks of restoring Florida and Michigan with half their delegates like the RNC.

Talk is cool, you and I both know thats impossible. Obama was not on the Michigan ballet.

There is talk of letting it stand as is and restoring the delegates (in which case Obama is kinda screwed in regards to those two states).

Dean has said over his dead body and Obama was not on the Michigan ballot. So...

There is talks of not restoring them at all.

Exactly, they will be redone or not counted at all. Either way favors Obama to go in with aignificant delegate and popular vote lead.

[souvlaki]

However, it is a big what if. There is talks of restoring Florida and Michigan with half their delegates like the RNC. There is talk of letting it stand as is and restoring the delegates (in which case Obama is kinda screwed in regards to those two states). There is talks of not restoring them at all. I personally think the latter will happen as a re-vote would be expensive as hell...soooo...like I said, that article is guess work that relies on pretty heavy assumptions.

First, if you are still suggesting that Obama will go into the convention with a delegate and popular vote lead without Florida and Michigan, that's fine and dandy. I will happily take that bet any day, and if that is what you are basing your argument that Hillary will win it on, then it's just as weak an argument now as it was before. If you are suggesting they will take the vote as is, not a chance in hell, ESPECIALLY in Michigan. I think even Michigan voters would have a serious problem with this, because obviously he wasn't on the ballot. If they split the delegates in half between them that also works to Obama's advantage. I dont think any of us people talking about the math expect any of you to concede she's going to lose it, but for God sake just be realistic about it and acknowledge that her chances are not very good. Math is not something you can just debate, or pretend like it's wrong.

[souvlaki]

btw Matt, I'm not arguing with you because I think your argument about the super delegates has no merit. I just think it is unrealistic for you or any of the people in this thread to just expect Clinton to just walk into the convention behind in delegates and have the super delegates side with her. You talk about it like it's a foregone conclusion. You have nothing to base this on other than Clinton will make people promises. That's fine if you offer that as a possibility, but seriously, quit talking about it like it's going to happen because you know perfectly well it will never be that simple, ESPECIALLY with someone that is behind in delegates, and who's only defense going into the convention is "well, I won the bigger states".

[Marx]

btw Matt, I'm not arguing with you because I think your argument about the super delegates has no merit. I just think it is unrealistic for you or any of the people in this thread to just expect Clinton to just walk into the convention behind in delegates and have the super delegates side with her. You talk about it like it's a foregone conclusion. You have nothing to base this on other than Clinton will make people promises. That's fine if you offer that as a possibility, but seriously, quit talking about it like it's going to happen because you know perfectly well it will never be that simple, ESPECIALLY with someone that is behind in delegates, and who's only defense going into the convention is "well, I won the bigger states".

It isn't a foregone conclusion, but neither is Barack getting the nomination. I think all of us are just saying that they both have very valid arguments.

[Matt]

btw Matt, I'm not arguing with you because I think your argument about the super delegates has no merit. I just think it is unrealistic for you or any of the people in this thread to just expect Clinton to just walk into the convention behind in delegates and have the super delegates side with her. You talk about it like it's a foregone conclusion. You have nothing to base this on other than Clinton will make people promises. That's fine if you offer that as a possibility, but seriously, quit talking about it like it's going to happen because you know perfectly well it will never be that simple, ESPECIALLY with someone that is behind in delegates, and who's only defense going into the convention is "well, I won the bigger states".

I'd say her defense is a pretty good one to swing super delegates (many of whom owe the Clinton family favors). Its not simply "I won big states." It is "I won the SWING STATES where as he won states that are pre-determined Republican strong holds."

I give you, its not much of a defense, but stranger things have happened. If I had to pick a winner, I'd say Obama. I'm just saying Clinton isn't as out of it as the media or posters who do not understand what they are talking about and basically just copy and paste what smarter people say (Excel) claim.

[Matt]

Talk is cool, you and I both know thats impossible. Obama was not on the Michigan ballet.



Dean has said over his dead body and Obama was not on the Michigan ballot. So...



Exactly, they will be redone or not counted at all. Either way favors Obama to go in with aignificant delegate and popular vote lead.

Obama made the choice not to be on the Michigan ballot. Its not the DNC's or Clinton's or the tax payer's (who will have to pay the millions of dollars for another election with Obama's name on the ballot) problem that he was short sighted. At least that is the argument she will make about restoring the states' votes. How much merit it has is a matter of opinion. I personally think it holds quite a bit of weight. Why should the tax payers have to spend cash for A SECOND election because Obama made the choice not to be on the Michigan ballot the first time?

That being said, again, I think it will just stay as it is. Dean is too damn stubborn to back down over this. I personally think Clinton would be smart to let it go. She has a better chance winning based on super delegates without the Michigan and Florida delegates in play.

[Excel]

I'd say her defense is a pretty good one to swing super delegates (many of whom owe the Clinton family favors). Its not simply "I won big states." It is "I won the SWING STATES where as he won states that are pre-determined Republican strong holds."

I give you, its not much of a defense, but stranger things have happened. If I had to pick a winner, I'd say Obama. I'm just saying Clinton isn't as out of it as the media or posters who do not understand what they are talking about and basically just copy and paste what smarter people say (Excel) claim.

Heh, Matt that list of the worst case scenario was made by myself, its not from any article.

[Marx]

Obama made the choice not to be on the Michigan ballot. Its not the DNC's or Clinton's or the tax payer's (who will have to pay the millions of dollars for another election with Obama's name on the ballot) problem that he was short sighted. At least that is the argument she will make about restoring the states' votes. How much merit it has is a matter of opinion. I personally think it holds quite a bit of weight. Why should the tax payers have to spend cash for A SECOND election because Obama made the choice not to be on the Michigan ballot the first time?

That being said, again, I think it will just stay as it is. Dean is too damn stubborn to back down over this. I personally think Clinton would be smart to let it go. She has a better chance winning based on super delegates without the Michigan and Florida delegates in play.

I highly doubt she'll let it go, and she shouldn't. For a party that fought so hard in 2000 for every single vote to turn around 8 years later and deny votes is incredibly moronic.

[Matt]

I highly doubt she'll let it go, and she shouldn't. For a party that fought so hard in 2000 for every single vote to turn around 8 years later and deny votes is incredibly moronic.

Never the less, she is basically guaranteeing a loss if there is a re-election and she splits the delegates with Obama.

[Matt]

Heh, Matt that list of the worst case scenario was made by myself, its not from any article.

And can you honestly say most of it wasn't taken from the thoughts of others? You expect me to believe you sat down and calculated the math and came up with all of that? Please, I believe that as much as I believe you aren't voting for Obama strictly on the grounds that he is black.

[Excel]

And can you honestly say most of it wasn't taken from the thoughts of others? You expect me to believe you sat down and calculated the math and came up with all of that? Please, I believe that as much as I believe you aren't voting for Obama strictly on the grounds that he is black.

Its not too hard...

http://www.slate.com/features/delegatecounter/

type in the % and it tell you the delegates :up:

[Matt]

So you did exactly as I said? Copy and pasted someone elses' thoughts because you don't know what you are talking about. :up:

[Rated-X]

Florida mail-in primary plan "gaining traction"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080309/ap_on_el_pr/primary_scramble
This will get even more worse very quickly. Mail Fraud is written all over this idea. Blocks of people or certain areas either not receiving ballots or ballots appear missing, incorrectly filled out, not re-submitted in a timely fashion, ballots kickout for various reasons. I can see fraud is written all over this. And we are talking about Florida too.



1. Do it the way it was supposed to be done in the first place and find the money. or 2. Let the penalty stand for not following the rules.

I say #2

[Excel]

So you did exactly as I said? Copy and pasted someone elses' thoughts because you don't know what you are talking about. :up:

Heh, no thats not what I did...I typed my own %'s, which had Hillary winning by 10% everywhere...looked at the number of total pledged delegates, and curent supers and added them...none elses thoughts, nothing that challenging...:huh:

[Matt]

Which has been done on every news program from Meet the Press to Wolf Blitzer. So yeah, you are pretty much just copying and pasting the thoughts of others.

[Matt]

Which has been done on every news program from Meet the Press to Wolf Blitzer. So yeah, you are pretty much just copying and pasting the thoughts of others.

[souvlaki]

I'd say her defense is a pretty good one to swing super delegates (many of whom owe the Clinton family favors). Its not simply "I won big states." It is "I won the SWING STATES where as he won states that are pre-determined Republican strong holds."

Still, Matt... how is her going into the convention with less delegates but picking up a lead from super delegates any more a bunch of what if's then the article Excel posted? At least Excel has math on his side. You complain about all the hypotheticals of an article that pretty much shows what would happen in a worst case scenario for Obama, but yet the best response you can provide is something that has even more what if's.

[Matt]

Unlike him, though, I have not predicted the winner or guaranteed anything. I am simply saying it is possible. I have not been as bold to call either Clinton or Obama's candidacy dead.

[souvlaki]

Which has been done on every news program from Meet the Press to Wolf Blitzer. So yeah, you are pretty much just copying and pasting the thoughts of others.

He didn't copy and paste. He did MATH. You talk like 1+1=3 depending upon who is adding it up.

[souvlaki]

Unlike him, though, I have not predicted the winner or guaranteed anything. I am simply saying it is possible. I have not been as bold to call either Clinton or Obama's candidacy dead.

I don't think Excel was saying his win was guaranteed. What he is saying is that Obama has a lot better chance at winning then some people around here believe. They don't both have a 50/50 chance. One is at a clear advantage, the other at a clear disadvantage. One just has to play it cool and not screw up too badly for the next few months, the other is depending on a bunch of unrealistic scenarios to kill her rival's campaign.

[Matt]

No, he didn't do math. He entered in hypothetical percentages and then let the computer calculate them and then spouted off the same things Blitzer, Russert, O'Reilly, etc have been saying for weeks.

[souvlaki]

No, he didn't do math. He entered in hypothetical percentages and then let the computer calculate them and then spouted off the same things Blitzer, Russert, O'Reilly, etc have been saying for weeks.

Well yeah... y'know, those computers have never been all that trustworthy when it comes to calculating simple math.

[Matt]

I don't think Excel was saying his win was guaranteed. What he is saying is that Obama has a lot better chance at winning then some people around here believe. They don't both have a 50/50 chance. One is at a clear advantage, the other at a clear disadvantage. One just has to play it cool and not screw up too badly for the next few months, the other is depending on a bunch of unrealistic scenarios to kill her rival's campaign.

Its not unrealistic at all that super delegates will determine the election. In fact at this point it is a probability as I do not see Howard Dean stepping down on the issue with Michigan and Florida. Clinton DOES have more connections amongst party insiders than Obama. That is why it is about 50/50 or at least 60/40. Super delegates will vote based on who can offer them the most. At least a good majority of them will. The ones who will vote with their constituents are few and far between. The question at this point is, will Obama's lead be enough that the few who vote with their state can put him over the top or will Clinton's influence win out?

[Matt]

Well yeah... y'know, those computers have never been all that trustworthy when it comes to calculating simple math.

I'm not talking about his calculations. I am talking about the assumptions he is making with them such as Florida and Michigan will not only have their delegates restored but will also have re-elections.

[Excel]

Matt, I passed 3rd grade. I know how to add. Looking at the delegate breakdowns and adding up the totals isn't rocket science nor is "pretty much copy and pasting" what some else said. That would be an article with all those and I simply...copy it and paste it over here claiming its my own. That isn't what I did.

Matt stop putting words in my mouth, I never guarenteed anything or made any asusmptions. All I said was Obama and his people should want them to revote.

I have math on my side, you don't. It's very unlikely albeit possible Obama loses the nomination, just admit your wrong, jesus. She can take 60/40, the math shows he probably wont even need 40%

[souvlaki]

Its not unrealistic at all that super delegates will determine the election. In fact at this point it is a probability as I do not see Howard Dean stepping down on the issue with Michigan and Florida. Clinton DOES have more connections amongst party insiders than Obama. That is why it is about 50/50 or at least 60/40. Super delegates will vote based on who can offer them the most. At least a good majority of them will. The ones who will vote with their constituents are few and far between. The question at this point is, will Obama's lead be enough that the few who vote with their state can put him over the top or will Clinton's influence win out?

That is the problem with your argument. How big of a lead does Obama need to have for you to concede that he's in a good position to win no matter the situation? If you take into account the super delegates that have already endorsed a candidate, how much of a lead does he need for you to say that any promises Clinton can make cannot possibly convince all the super delegates to change sides? Clinton's support is literally shrinking every day. Every day there is another delegate supporting Obama. I'd suspect if he wins Mississippi he will go into Pennsylvania either with a super delegate lead, or pretty close to Clinton. Then there are the super delegates that are adamant that they will go with the winner in pledged delegates. There are the so called "party elders", who at this point seem to either support the winner in pledged delegates, or seem like they would more likely vote for Obama (Howard Dean, Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi, Bill Richardson).

[Kelly]

I could see Excel coming up with those numbers on his own.....and them being pretty close to right.......HE'S A NUMBERS BOY, he's proven that in enough Box Office threads....

[souvlaki]

Obama wins Mississippi.

[Marx]

Its not unrealistic at all that super delegates will determine the election. In fact at this point it is a probability as I do not see Howard Dean stepping down on the issue with Michigan and Florida. Clinton DOES have more connections amongst party insiders than Obama. That is why it is about 50/50 or at least 60/40. Super delegates will vote based on who can offer them the most. At least a good majority of them will. The ones who will vote with their constituents are few and far between. The question at this point is, will Obama's lead be enough that the few who vote with their state can put him over the top or will Clinton's influence win out?

The problem is Matt that all the Obama "die-hards" refuse to even admit to the possibility of him NOT gaining the nomination. Truth of the matter is, you are exactly right. I have no doubt that this will come down to the supers. And if that's the case, Clinton has alot more insiders than Obama does. Supers are not tied to anyone or anything. They are completely independent and answer to no one. It's not a bunch of what-if scenarios, that is fact. Whether some would like to admit it or not. Hillary Clinton's bid for the presidency is not dead. And a Barack Obama nomination is far from a certainty. Everyone needs to be objective.

[Marx]

Obama wins Mississippi.

Not at all surprising given the composition of the electorate.

[souvlaki]

The problem is Matt that all the Obama "die-hards" refuse to even admit to the possibility of him NOT gaining the nomination. Truth of the matter is, you are exactly right. I have no doubt that this will come down to the supers. And if that's the case, Clinton has alot more insiders than Obama does. Supers are not tied to anyone or anything. They are completely independent and answer to no one. It's not a bunch of what-if scenarios, that is fact. Whether some would like to admit it or not. Hillary Clinton's bid for the presidency is not dead. And a Barack Obama nomination is far from a certainty. Everyone needs to be objective.

Says the person not being objective. Noone is saying that it is impossible for Clinton to win. And certainly noone has said the super delegates are anything other than independent voters. It IS however a big huge what-if situation though if you hinge your hopes on the super delegates voting in huge numbers for Clinton. There are so many different things that need to align perfectly for this to happen. My problem is not with people not saying Obama is a sure thing, my problem is that people like you can actually look at all of these different factors and completely ignore them because they dont fit your view. All I'm saying is there are way too many different things that have to happen in order to insure a Clinton victory, yet not nearly as many for Obama. At this point Obama can lose the rest of the way by decent margins and still be at an advantage going to the convention. If Hillary really wants to win this thing she needs to get super delegates to come out for her NOW.

[Kelly]

Super Delegates are not just everyday Democrats.....they know the lay of the land....and don't think that they aren't looking at this map.

Summary of results of the past four Presidential elections (1992, 1996, 2000, 2004)
RED States carried by the Republican in all four elections

BLUEStates carried by the Democrat in all four elections

PINKStates carried by the Republican in three of the four elections

LIGHTBLUEStates carried by the Democrat in three of the four elections


http://img262.imageshack.us/img262/3020/votingmapax4.png

[Marx]

Says the person not being objective. Noone is saying that it is impossible for Clinton to win. And certainly noone has said the super delegates are anything other than independent voters. It IS however a big huge what-if situation though if you hinge your hopes on the super delegates voting in huge numbers for Clinton. There are so many different things that need to align perfectly for this to happen. My problem is not with people not saying Obama is a sure thing, my problem is that people like you can actually look at all of these different factors and completely ignore them because they dont fit your view. All I'm saying is there are way too many different things that have to happen in order to insure a Clinton victory, yet not nearly as many for Obama. At this point Obama can lose the rest of the way by decent margins and still be at an advantage going to the convention. If Hillary really wants to win this thing she needs to get super delegates to come out for her NOW.

I do think I'm being objective Souv. There are people in here that think Clinton winning is "impossible" and that Obama is a "sure thing." Both of these candidates have very valid arguments for the nomination. I look at all the factors because everything should be considered. Saying that Clinton has more party insiders is a fact. I have never said if Obama winning was in my viewpoint or not. I have a tremendous amount of respect for both him and Clinton. I just think that we need to look below the surfaces of all the candidates, including Barack. I have a really hard time believing that the supers will come out now. They aren't going to risk looking like fools for picking the wrong side. You know?

[souvlaki]

I do think I'm being objective Souv. There are people in here that think Clinton winning is "impossible" and that Obama is a "sure thing." Both of these candidates have very valid arguments for the nomination. I look at all the factors because everything should be considered. Saying that Clinton has more party insiders is a fact. I have never said if Obama winning was in my viewpoint or not. I have a tremendous amount of respect for both him and Clinton. I just think that we need to look below the surfaces of all the candidates, including Barack. I have a really hard time believing that the supers will come out now. They aren't going to risk looking like fools for picking the wrong side. You know?

If they aren't going to risk looking like fools for picking the wrong side what makes you think they will vote against the delegate/popular vote winner? You cant have it both ways.

[Marx]

If they aren't going to risk looking like fools for picking the wrong side what makes you think they will vote against the delegate/popular vote winner? You cant have it both ways.

I'm not saying that they will vote against the delegate/popular vote. I'm not saying that they won't. They can vote for whoever they want. I don't know how they're going to vote. You were saying that Hillary needed to get them out to support her now. I'm saying that that will not happen for the same reason they all aren't going to come out for Obama. This will go to the convention. The supers are going to wait to see how this plays out. If it does indeed go to a convention, Clinton does have more party insiders. That's just a fact. Will that influence make her the victor? We'll have to wait and see. No one knows what the supers will do. But both candidates have a reason to think the way that they do.

[Matt]

Like Kel said, the super delegates know the lay of the political landscape. They are going to vote both who can give them the most and who they think will beat McCain. Clinton winning major swing states (as Kel's map displays) shows why Clinton's argument will be a convincing one for them. Will it be enough to give her the election? Time will tell. She will enter the convention at a disadvantage. There is no denying that. However, many Obama supporters spout out like fact (Excel) that the advantage is too much for Clinton to overcome with super delegates and that is just not true.

[The Senator]

Like Kel said, the super delegates know the lay of the political landscape. They are going to vote both who can give them the most and who they think will beat McCain. Clinton winning major swing states (as Kel's map displays) shows why Clinton's argument will be a convincing one for them. Will it be enough to give her the election? Time will tell. She will enter the convention at a disadvantage. There is no denying that. However, many Obama supporters spout out like fact (Excel) that the advantage is too much for Clinton to overcome with super delegates and that is just not true.

With every contest she loses, it becomes more and more difficult for Hillary Clinton to bet all her hopes on the Democratic Convention. However, with the bulk of super delegates coming from the big states she won in, such as California, Texas and New York, the outcome of the convention will remain uncertain. That will be especially true if both her and Obama keep winning states interchangeably each week. I believe that while Obama will lead her in delegates and the popular vote, Hillary Clinton still has a shot with super delegates... however small some people may think it is...

[Excel]

It all depends...if she needs 200 and obama need 100, hell get atleast 50 out of guilt, and could def. find another 50 to promise crap to. Unlike hillary, he could say to each one" with you i have 50 n nomination" n they wont pass it up.

[Rated-X]

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/Revote_picture_clouds.html

[Matt]

I don't think Excel was saying his win was guaranteed.

By the way souvlaki:

Obama: 2008 DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE

[Marx]

This will get even more worse very quickly. Mail Fraud is written all over this idea. Blocks of people or certain areas either not receiving ballots or ballots appear missing, incorrectly filled out, not re-submitted in a timely fashion, ballots kickout for various reasons. I can see fraud is written all over this. And we are talking about Florida too.





I say #2

My co-workers and I were talking about the exact same thing. I just don't see how you can stop the kind of fraud that this idea could potentially have to deal with.

[Excel]

:whatever:

Yeah, the projection had him at 2028...therefore he would win...I didnt say the projection was guarenteed....stop putting words in my mouth because you've been proven wrong, Matt :up:

[Matt]

:whatever:

Yeah, the projection had him at 2028...therefore he would win...I didnt say the projection was guarenteed....stop putting words in my mouth because you've been proven wrong, Matt :up:

How am I putting words in your mouth when you are the one saying the stuff? I am simply pulling up your quotes. YOU are the one who said "I don't know jack about politics. I am voting for Obama because he is black" (exact quote). YOU are the one who has guaranteed he was the winner. Not me.

[Excel]

Your not using the full quote in order to make it sound as though I meant something else, its called misquoting. I think I would know what I said and what I meant better than you would :up:

[Matt]

Your not using the full quote in order to make it sound as though I meant something else, its called misquoting. I think I would know what I said and what I meant better than you would :up:

I am not taking it out of context at all. Did you or did you not say you know nothing about politics and support Obama because he is black? That was the extent of the post. There may have been an "Obama FTW" in there as well.

The rest of the post from the other quote is you ranting about how you can't see super delegates ignoring the popular vote.

I am not taking it out of context as I am posting it in the context you said it. Taking it out of context would be posting it as if you were serious if you were in reality being sarcastic or exaggerating for effect. Neither of which you were doing.

[Excel]

I said I knew nothing about politics 2 months ago; I have learned much so that no longer applies. You posted my qoute- "OBAMA DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE" as if I was randomly saying...it was the result of a prediction post, not a "gaurentee" :rolleyes:

[Matt]

I said I knew nothing about politics 2 months ago; I have learned much so that no longer applies. You posted my qoute- "OBAMA DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE" as if I was randomly saying...it was the result of a prediction post, not a "gaurentee" :rolleyes:

Sounds like one to me.

And even if you have learned more, you still supported Obama because of his skin color before you did. Therefore the entire foundation of your knowledge is based on this man's policies who you support because of his color. Are you familiar with the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine?

[Excel]

No it isn't. Since your so informed on my stance, you'd know that I personally don't even look at most of the issues being discussed, only ones I really give a damn about are the war in Iraq and the way the world view's us. Theres is 110% what I think of them as people, and I like Obama as a person enough to trust his judgement. Hell I even trust McCain more than I trust Hillary. So my knowledge really has nothing to do with his policies, it's all personal.

[Matt]

No it isn't. Since your so informed on my stance, you'd know that I personally don't even look at most of the issues being discussed, only ones I really give a damn about are the war in Iraq and the way the world view's us. Theres is 110% what I think of them as people, and I like Obama as a person enough to trust his judgement. Hell I even trust McCain more than I trust Hillary. So my knowledge really has nothing to do with his policies, it's all personal.

And that is why you shouldn't be allowed to vote :up:

[Excel]

No, I have every right to vote. Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I am wrong, deal with it :up:

[The Senator]

No it isn't. Since your so informed on my stance, you'd know that I personally don't even look at most of the issues being discussed, only ones I really give a damn about are the war in Iraq and the way the world view's us. Theres is 110% what I think of them as people, and I like Obama as a person enough to trust his judgement. Hell I even trust McCain more than I trust Hillary. So my knowledge really has nothing to do with his policies, it's all personal.

You trust the person who wants to keep us in Iraq for 100 years more than the person who has vowed to start removing troops from the region sixty days after she takes office?

You're insane.

[Excel]

I trust that McCain says what he actually believes and would like accomplish, cant say the same for Hillary. Does not mean I agree with McCain, just that I trust and believe him more.

[The Senator]

I trust that McCain says what he actually believes and would like accomplish, cant say the same for Hillary. Does not mean I agree with McCain, just that I trust and believe him more.

So let me get this straight: Your number one issue is the war in Iraq, but you don't care what happens in Iraq, right? You just want whoever is running for President to do what they say they'll do?

:huh:

[Excel]

I never said I would VOTE for John McCain, Ill be voting for Hillary over him if shes the nominee (IF I vote) over him due to that reason. I just said I believe what McCain says more than I believe Hillary.

[Matt]

No, I have every right to vote. Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I am wrong, deal with it :up:

You're right, you have a right. Never-the-less, if you can't conjure up a better reason to vote than "I like him and he's black" then you simply ought not exercise your right. Democracy is all about responsibility and if you cannot be more responsible than to support a candidate for those reasons, you should at least be responsible enough to abstain.

[Excel]

Its not like hell win by 1 vote, Matt

[Kelly]

Ya'll are getting boring, and screwing the damn thread........


http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/8451/tweety1ts8.gif

[Matt]

Its not like hell win by 1 vote, Matt

If every person who voted based on your logic didn't vote, he wouldn't be close to being the front runner. You guys are the new religious right of 2004. Sending this country under the train because you can't be bothered to actually read up on the issues so you'll vote for the candidate who seems "nice" or whose sex organ or skin color you like.

[Matt]

Ya'll are getting boring, and screwing the damn thread........


http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/8451/tweety1ts8.gif

Well in all fairness Kel, the PA primary is not for 6 weeks and even though the thread title says Mississippi, I doubt even Mississippians care about the Mississippi primary. We're keeping this thread alive until it gets closer to the PA primary :cwink:

[Marx]

Florida Democrats reject "mail-in" primary plan

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/13/floridas-dems-reject-mail-in-primary-plan/

[Marx]

Michigan Democrats closer to primary resolution

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080313/ap_on_el_pr/primary_scramble

[redfirebird2008]

Good to see Michigan is moving forward. Looks like Florida is kind of stuck in gridlock on this at the moment. Hopefully they can come up with something.

[souvlaki]

A little premature, but democrats in Michigan are finalizing plans for a primary in June. They may actually have a decision by today. Good news. Hopefully Florida will follow.

[Matt]

Hillary was stupid to push this. It could very well be what puts Obama over the top.

[Malice]

Well, if this happens, its great for McCain, because if this happens and causes one of the Dems to loose because of it, it will seem like a stolen election for one...and vice versus if it does not happen.

This may push McCain over the top because of the huge fracture now in the Dem Party.

[StorminNorman]

Hillary was stupid to push this. It could very well be what puts Obama over the top.

Hillary has no chance without it, and she knows Florida will go large for her. Michigan has a lot of those blue collar workers that Hillary thrives on.

Most of all, though - Hillary has a great advantage with Super Delegates from those states - where Hillary really believes she can gain big.

[Marx]

Good to see Michigan is moving forward. Looks like Florida is kind of stuck in gridlock on this at the moment. Hopefully they can come up with something.

While they may be gridlocked now, I have confidence in the states to get this worked out. If they truly want their voters to matter, they will come to some kind of a compromise.

[The Senator]

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I have a feeling Michigan might swing to Obama, but Florida will definitely stay with her.

[Matt]

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I have a feeling Michigan might swing to Obama, but Florida will definitely stay with her.

As bad as it is to say it Michigan is going to be very simple.

It is going to come down to blue collar union workers vs black voters. Those are the two weights that will tip the scale, if you will, in one or the other's favor. If the union workers turn out more, Hillary will win. If the black voters turn out more, Obama will win.

[Chris B]

I think Hillary would still win Florida and I think she would hold on to Michigan as well. MI does have similar demographics to Ohio.

[Kelly]

Well in all fairness Kel, the PA primary is not for 6 weeks and even though the thread title says Mississippi, I doubt even Mississippians care about the Mississippi primary. We're keeping this thread alive until it gets closer to the PA primary :cwink:



That's not what I was talking about...............:o but we have moved on, and tweety is put away for the moment.

[Lightning Strykez!]

Fear the Tweety, you fools. :mad:

[Gilpesh]

It all depends on how many republicans vote in those primaries.

[Tron5000]

They agreed to play by the same set of rules. Now, they're trying to change the rules right before the end of the game. This is fun to watch.

[Marx]

So Florida is now refusing a "do-over" and Michigan may be following suit. This is going to be quite interesting.

[Venom'sDad]

So Florida is now refusing a "do-over" and Michigan may be following suit. This is going to be quite interesting.

I am completely shock that both states are now not considering a re-vote. Understand, I think it would be unfair to change the rules after the fact; so yes, I'm glad to see the idea of a re-vote falling apart; but I was sure the DNC would bow under pressure; being view as controlling and disenfranchising votes.

It's not a done deal as of yet; but I am shocked neitherless. :eek:

[Marx]

I am completely shock that both states are now not considering a re-vote. Understand, I think it would be unfair to change the rules after the fact; so yes, I'm glad to see the idea of a re-vote falling apart; but I was sure the DNC would bow under pressure; being view as controlling and disenfranchising votes.

It's not a done deal as of yet; but I am shocked neitherless. :eek:

I still think the DNC will cave at the convention. They do not want to risk disenfranchising that many voters in a general election.

[StorminNorman]

Keeping an eye on the polls in Pennsylvania and North Carolina:

The only poll done in North Carolina since the Rev. Wright chaos shows Obama with a statistically irrelevant 1% lead.

Pennsylvania, as I predicted, has moved decidedly to Hillary. A Public Policy Polling survey shows Hillary with a 26% lead in a poll that took place 3/15-3/16 while a Quinnipiac taken 3/10-3/16 shows Hillary with a 12% lead.

It should be noted, as well, that the PPP polling proved to be quite accurate in Texas and Ohio which showed trends for Clinton in both Ohio and Texas the weekend before their primaries.

[Kelly]

Anywhere there is a large Jewish and or blue collar population, Obama's % will drop.

[terry78]

Anywhere there is a large Jewish and or blue collar population, Obama's % will drop.

The jewish community is not for Obama?

[Kelly]

The jewish community is not for Obama?


Lol...no

[terry78]

Lol...no

I wasn't aware. So I assume it's Hilary then. Because McCain is like the opposite end of the spectrum.

[Kelly]

I wasn't aware. So I assume it's Hilary then. Because McCain is like the opposite end of the spectrum.

With the comments of late from his pastor, and combined with the fact that his church gave Farrakan an award......no, Obama really didn't have much of the Jewish vote, and probably lost what little he had.

I can assure you that is EXACTLY why Clinton is wanting the Florida (high Jewish vote) and Michigan (high blue collar vote) back in the count.....also, IF they allow those two states to participate in the convention, and it comes down to a brokered convention (which it is looking like each day we get closer) then those 2 states will be huge.


Right now 55% of polled democrats will not be happy if the Super Delegates change their vote from the popular vote of their state......BUT only 20% say they would vote for a 3rd party/not vote if Hillary Clinton wins....78% say they would vote for her if this happened.

Man, the **** is going to hit the fan in Denver, and it will make the 1968 convention look like kids play.......interesting....interesting stuff....

[Matt]

I find those poll numbers to be a bit inaccurate. Two months ago, right after McCain won New Hampshire, you likely would've found at the very least 20 % of Republicans claiming the will vote third party if he wins the nomination. I doubt that number is more than 2 % now. Straight ticket D voters will vote Obama or Clinton regardless of who wins the nomination. They are talking tough right now because the nomination is up in the air and it is a very very emotional campaign. Come November they will be rallied behind their candidate. The independents are who will really decide this election.

[Kelly]

I find those poll numbers to be a bit inaccurate. Two months ago, right after McCain won New Hampshire, you likely would've found at the very least 20 % of Republicans claiming the will vote third party if he wins the nomination. I doubt that number is more than 2 % now. Straight ticket D voters will vote Obama or Clinton regardless of who wins the nomination. They are talking tough right now because the nomination is up in the air and it is a very very emotional campaign. Come November they will be rallied behind their candidate. The independents are who will really decide this election.

They very well could change their mind, and probably will and will vote the straight party vote they have for years.....UNLESS that 20% or a good portion of that 20% are young, college or black voters......if that is the case....i doubt that % will change much, if any. Those 3 groups are very "iffy" in their voting record..........and if that is a good portion of that 20%, then that will make a difference.

[StorminNorman]

I find those poll numbers to be a bit inaccurate. Two months ago, right after McCain won New Hampshire, you likely would've found at the very least 20 % of Republicans claiming the will vote third party if he wins the nomination. I doubt that number is more than 2 % now. Straight ticket D voters will vote Obama or Clinton regardless of who wins the nomination. They are talking tough right now because the nomination is up in the air and it is a very very emotional campaign. Come November they will be rallied behind their candidate. The independents are who will really decide this election.

I would argue that should Obama lose, a lot of the youth vote - infamous for their low voter turn out - will stay home rather than support Hillary.

You are completely correct, however, in that almost all Straight Democrat voters will stay that way this year.

[Matt]

They very well could change their mind, and probably will and will vote the straight party vote they have for years.....UNLESS that 20% or a good portion of that 20% are young, college or black voters......if that is the case....i doubt that % will change much, if any. Those 3 groups are very "iffy" in their voting record..........and if that is a good portion of that 20%, then that will make a difference.

I would argue that should Obama lose, a lot of the youth vote - infamous for their low voter turn out - will stay home rather than support Hillary.

You are completely correct, however, in that almost all Straight Democrat voters will stay that way this year.

I'd argue the groups you cite will get bored with this and lose interest by November anyhow. Plus it is much easier to organize a get out the vote movement on a state-to-state basis. It is far more difficult to do it on a national level on the same day, so I wonder how much of that vote will carry over anyway.

[Kelly]

I'd argue the groups you cite will get bored with this and lose interest by November anyhow. Plus it is much easier to organize a get out the vote movement on a state-to-state basis. It is far more difficult to do it on a national level on the same day, so I wonder how much of that vote will carry over anyway.


Very possible.....the "get out and vote" campaigns by MTV and others....though I commend their heart....................did little to change the outcome.

[hippie_hunter]

Too long for me to copy and paste (I'm lazy right now). Basically the plans for a legitimate do over are now dead, mostly because of the Obama camp.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/20/michigan.florida/index.html

Seriously, I did not need another reason to dislike Obama :o

[StorminNorman]

Obama doesn't want the voices of the people to be heard? Interesting.

[The Senator]

If Hillary Clinton does strongly in the remaining contests-- which all polls indicate she has strong leads in most of the remaining states, and is closing the gap in states like Indiana and North Carolina where Obama once had double-digit leads-- many believe that Hillary's campaign will look at the results from both MI and FL and will use the popular vote to her advantage. If she leads in the popular vote, especially if MI and FL seal the deal, she will make the case that the delegates and super delegates should nominate the winner of the popular vote. That way, they won't have to base it on delegate totals. I believe Obama's people supported that idea before he led in the delegate count, and I hope he won't back away from that idea if this is what happens come the middle of June.

[Gilpesh]

Um... why are you using this to hate on Obama?

Michigan jumped the gun and was punished for it. So you say, people who cheat should be superficially punished for a little then completely let off the hook?

The only real push to redo this state and Florida is just because how they turned out in the vote.

[StorminNorman]

Um... why are you using this to hate on Obama?

Michigan jumped the gun and was punished for it. So you say, people who cheat should be superficially punished for a little then completely let off the hook?

The only real push to redo this state and Florida is just because how they turned out in the vote.

The people who cheated?


The PEOPLE who cheated?


You are telling me the people that went out and voted, taking time out of their day - those people cheated? The people that got screwed are NOT the people who cheated - but the people whose voice was silenced by this. Thanks to Obama, the supposed united of everyone, they won't even have a chance to have that made up to them.

Obama is working against Democracy here.

[hippie_hunter]

Um... why are you using this to hate on Obama?

Michigan jumped the gun and was punished for it. So you say, people who cheat should be superficially punished for a little then completely let off the hook?
Because Michigan pretty much admitted that they ****ed up and were planning a completely legitimate primary that would have followed DNC standards and wishes to allow the Michigan delegates to be seated and would have had both candidates on the ballot, unlike Florida which just simply demands its delegates to have seats.

The DNC was completely willing to allow Michigan and Florida's delegates to be seated as long as there was a re-vote to DNC standards and funded by Michigan and Florida, not the DNC.

The reason why a completely legitimate contest did not formulate in Michigan is because the Obama camp was completely unresponsive, uncooperative, and did not want it to happen because they knew they would lose in Michigan (a Rust Belt state where Clinton won in the previous primary), it would not allow people who voted in the Republican primary to vote (something both the DNC and RNC forbid), and it was not a caucus.

The only real push to redo this state and Florida is just because how they turned out in the vote.
Clinton's pushing because of how they voted.

But it's completely undemocratic to cut Michigan and Florida. Especially since Michigan was completely willing to follow DNC standards and have the do-over which Howard Dean wanted.

[The Senator]

The people who cheated?


The PEOPLE who cheated?


You are telling me the people that went out and voted, taking time out of their day - those people cheated? The people that got screwed are NOT the people who cheated - but the people whose voice was silenced by this. Thanks to Obama, the supposed united of everyone, they won't even have a chance to have that made up to them.

Obama is working against Democracy here.

It's only Democracy if Obama will win, and with polls showing him behind in Florida and in a dead hit with Clinton, he had to do what was in the best interest of Democracy.

[The Senator]

I understand that both states went against the party's wishes and held their primaries ahead of schedule. I understand that, because of this, the results of those contests shouldn't have been held up.

But Howard Dean and the DNC gave both states a chance to redo their primaries. It would allow voters the chance to have their voices heard legitimately. Party rules say that the results from states which hold their primaries ahead of schedule won't count. However, there is nothing in the party's rule book which says states cannot have a second primary if the results of their first primary are declared null and void. Therefore, there is a legitimate reason for both states to vote again.

I don't see how Obama can campaign against letting Michigan and Florida do a re-vote, especially since voters in Florida have overwhelmingly (30%) said that they will not vote for the Democratic candidate in the general election if their vote isn't counted in the primary. I don't see why Obama wants to disenfranchise two diverse, important states so he can win the delegate count in the end. Meanwhile, he's sacrificing himself come the general election, especially if Michigan voters follow the same route as Florida and goes for McCain.

And the latter is especially scary, considering Obama is statistically tied with McCain in Michigan at this very moment. That's seventeen votes in the electoral college we stand to lose from a traditionally Democratic state.

[Gilpesh]

The people who cheated?


The PEOPLE who cheated?

Yeah. The ones who scheduled the Michigan primary. Not the ones that voted.

You are telling me the people that went out and voted, taking time out of their day - those people cheated? The people that got screwed are NOT the people who cheated - but the people whose voice was silenced by this. Thanks to Obama, the supposed united of everyone, they won't even have a chance to have that made up to them.

I didn't say the voters. I don't know who made the primary earlier. But from what I've seen, those people were warned not to do it or else the delegates would be removed. They didn't change, delegates gone.

Obama is working against Democracy here.

Of course he is.

Because Michigan pretty much admitted that they ****ed up and were planning a completely legitimate primary that would have followed DNC standards and wishes to allow the Michigan delegates to be seated and would have had both candidates on the ballot, unlike Florida which just simply demands its delegates to have seats.

At least they know they did wrong... maybe they should have realized that beforehand and rescheduled in the first place.

The reason why a completely legitimate contest did not formulate in Michigan is because the Obama camp was completely unresponsive, uncooperative, and did not want it to happen because they knew they would lose in Michigan (a Rust Belt state where Clinton won in the previous primary), it would not allow people who voted in the Republican primary to vote (something both the DNC and RNC forbid), and it was not a caucus.

Really... so the agreed upon rules made clear that Michigan was off limits because of their eff-up... have to get changed because afterwards, they went whoops?

Clinton's pushing because of how they voted.

But yet... she's right?

But it's completely undemocratic to cut Michigan and Florida. Especially since Michigan was completely willing to follow DNC standards and have the do-over which Howard Dean wanted.

Yeah it is undemocratic. But it is also against the rules to jump the gun which they did. Maybe he should have tried a little harder for Michigan but earlier that's what was told to him, not be on the ballot and not run there.

It's only Democracy if Obama will win, and with polls showing him behind in Florida and in a dead hit with Clinton, he had to do what was in the best interest of Democracy.

No. It'd only be a democracy if Clinton won. Cause she's better at the good ole politician routine.

[The Senator]

No. It'd only be a democracy if Clinton won. Cause she's better at the good ole politician routine.

I don't care who wins Michigan or Florida. Yeah, she has an advantage because she won them once before, but if Obama were to win them, it wouldn't matter to me. What matters to me is our prospects for the general election. We need to keep Michigan on our side. And if that state goes for McCain because we couldn't count their votes, then we will have forfeited the election by disenfranchising millions of voters. The Democrats need Michigan to win, plain and simple.

[hippie_hunter]

Yeah. The ones who scheduled the Michigan primary. Not the ones that voted.
They wanted their voices heard more and they were punished for it. If you ask me the DNC is being rather unfair here.

I didn't say the voters. I don't know who made the primary earlier. But from what I've seen, those people were warned not to do it or else the delegates would be removed. They didn't change, delegates gone.
But why should the voters be punished for a move the party leaders and state government made? Especially since they were willing to do one that's completely legitimate that the DNC was willing to allow.

At least they know they did wrong... maybe they should have realized that beforehand and rescheduled in the first place.
But why should a completely legitimate re-do that follows DNC standards that the DNC would allow be blocked because Obama doesn't want to?

Really... so the agreed upon rules made clear that Michigan was off limits because of their eff-up... have to get changed because afterwards, they went whoops?
But the rules really aren't being changed here. Michigan's first primary is completely null and void because it violated DNC rules and standards plus it didn't have Obama on the ballot.

They set up a second primary that completely follows DNC rules and standards. Michigan itself was going to pay for it which the DNC demanded.

Tell me one rule that is being changed in this circumstance.

But yet... she's right?
She's right in principle that Michigan and Florida should get seated at the convention and get counted.

But she's completely wrong and a cold hearted ***** for her motives, she only supports this because Michigan is a guaranteed win for her.

Yeah it is undemocratic. But it is also against the rules to jump the gun which they did. Maybe he should have tried a little harder for Michigan but earlier that's what was told to him, not be on the ballot and not run there.
Again, tell me how this second legitimate primary violates DNC rules. This new Michigan primary would have not violated a single rule.

What we have here is Obama wanting to break DNC rules by wanting a primary that would have had people who voted in the Republican primary vote in the Democratic one (voting in both primaries is completely forbidden).

What we have here is Obama blocking a completely legitimate contest because it is not a caucus and it does not allow people to vote twice.




No. It'd only be a democracy if Clinton won. Cause she's better at the good ole politician routine.[/quote]

[Gilpesh]

I don't care who wins Michigan or Florida. Yeah, she has an advantage because she won them once before, but if Obama were to win them, it wouldn't matter to me. What matters to me is our prospects for the general election. We need to keep Michigan on our side. And if that state goes for McCain because we couldn't count their votes, then we will have forfeited the election by disenfranchising millions of voters. The Democrats need Michigan to win, plain and simple.

They should study up a little and see it isn't the DNC shutting them down, but their party leaders in their state. Maybe they should look at those decisions and rethink them instead of blindly attacking the wrong people.

What we have here is Obama wanting to break DNC rules by wanting a primary that would have had people who voted in the Republican primary vote in the Democratic one (voting in both primaries is completely forbidden).

What we have here is Obama blocking a completely legitimate contest because it is not a caucus and it does not allow people to vote twice.

Although... republicans voting in that primary helps Clinton more... because every match up between Clinton and McCain ends in McCain being president. Also, Clinton practically lost to... uncommitted, in a primary... so it isn't just hating that he'll lose.

[Lightning Strykez!]

But it's completely undemocratic to cut Michigan and Florida. Especially since Michigan was completely willing to follow DNC standards and have the do-over which Howard Dean wanted.


It's "undemocratic" to break the rules. Michigan and Florida violated them and they are being held accountable. Sometimes there are no "do overs"; this is not an episode of Curious George people.

As far as blaming Obama--that's ridiculous. He'd benefit just as much, if not more than Hillary because of the way delegates are allocated.

[StorminNorman]

It's "undemocratic" to break the rules. Michigan and Florida violated them and they are being held accountable. Sometimes there are no "do overs"; this is not an episode of Curious George people.

As far as blaming Obama--that's ridiculous. He'd benefit just as much, if not more than Hillary because of the way delegates are allocated.

So its better to teach some large, powerful State DNC folk a lesson than honor the voices of the people?

Yes - thats fantastic for the country.

Obama would not benefit at all if these states were thrown in. Especially after Wright - Clinton would win delegates in both the pledged and Super delegates. Obama knew that and instead of being a man of character, he opted to act in his own self gain - instead of letting millions of American's voice their opinion.

[Lightning Strykez!]

^

No.

He wasn't trying to hear this before this whole mess with Wright jumped off. His stance on this issue never changed. The only person pushing for this was Hillary and you better believe it wasn't for "letting millions of Americans voice their opinion." :rolleyes:

As far as teaching the DNC a lesson? Psssh. All I see is one power-play being trounced by another power-play. Democracy has nothing to do with it--it's all about prestige and power of influence for all of these people. Meh. :dry:

[Addendum]

The thing about Florida is that they'd first have to change state law to allow mail-in votes. It's illegal in the state of Florida

[hippie_hunter]

It's "undemocratic" to break the rules. Michigan and Florida violated them and they are being held accountable. Sometimes there are no "do overs"; this is not an episode of Curious George people.
Yes they are being held accountable. Florida is demanding that their delegates just simply be seated. Michigan's race is null and void. Therefore they are not being seated.

However, the rule didn't ban them from seating their delegates. They are completely allowed to seat their delegates, as long as they hold new and vaild contests after February 5. There is no rule that stated Florida and Michigan aren't allowed. The rule was with the exception of Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada, no state could hold their contest before February 5, 2008.

There is no rule that bars a do over. As a matter in fact, the DNC stated that a do-over was completely acceptable as long as Florida and Michigan paid for them. Michigan decided to hold a new, completely legitimate primary that followed DNC rules. Therefore not a single rule was being violated here.

As far as blaming Obama--that's ridiculous. He'd benefit just as much, if not more than Hillary because of the way delegates are allocated.
Yes it is Obama's fault. It's the fault of his supporters and camp on why Michigan is being silenced here. He knew he was going to lose because Clinton won here last time, because Michigan is a Rust Belt state (an area that Obama is screwed thanks to NAFTAGate), because it wouldn't allow people who already voted in the Republican primary to vote in the Democratic one (which the DNC does not allow), and because it wasn't a caucus (funny that the least democratic electorial process is the one that favors Obama the most).

The Clinton camp agreed to it. The DNC agreed to it. The Obama camp was completely unresponsive, uncooperative, and just like what Obama did to Colbert in South Carolina he sent his pathetic little foot soldiers to do his dirty work and block something he didn't want.

How the hell can someone twist the facts around in this case?

[Matt]

The real undemocratic aspect of all of this is giving Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada such a ridiculously disporportionate ammount of power. We need a nation-wide primary.

[The Senator]

They should study up a little and see it isn't the DNC shutting them down, but their party leaders in their state. Maybe they should look at those decisions and rethink them instead of blindly attacking the wrong people.

That isn't going to sway them. The fact of the matter is, those voters are only going to care that their voices weren't heard at all when deciding the Democratic nominee.

If we have to defend Michigan in the general election, we may have a problem.

[The Senator]

The real undemocratic aspect of all of this is giving Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada such a ridiculously disporportionate ammount of power. We need a nation-wide primary.

Or we need to do regional primaries. The south votes one week; the northeast the next; the midwest the week after that... that's something I'd rather see, considering Iowa and New Hampshire do not represent the country as a whole. Meanwhile, some of the larger, more diverse sates-- such as Michigan, Pennsylvania, or Ohio-- usually don't get their say until the nominee has been wrapped up.

Also, I'm sick and tired of watching candidates mingle at events such as the Harkin Steak Fry, when they should be campaigning for peoples' votes and not pandering to one specific state.

[Gilpesh]

(an area that Obama is screwed thanks to NAFTAGate)

Funny how you call Obama undemocractic... then bring up the outright lie that was thrown around to make him lose.

Nice democracy you got there.

[Matt]

Or we need to do regional primaries. The south votes one week; the northeast the next; the midwest the week after that... that's something I'd rather see, considering Iowa and New Hampshire do not represent the country as a whole. Meanwhile, some of the larger, more diverse sates-- such as Michigan, Pennsylvania, or Ohio-- usually don't get their say until the nominee has been wrapped up.

Also, I'm sick and tired of watching candidates mingle at events such as the Harkin Steak Fry, when they should be campaigning for peoples' votes and not pandering to one specific state.

Agreed. :up:

My only reservation about reigional primaries, is essentially, which ever reigion votes first will determine the nomination and each reigion has very distinct demographics, so a candidate who is most qualified, could have his campaign sunk in one day if, for example, the south votes first, and they'd rather vote for a good ol' boy southerner over a northeastern, elitist, yankee senator and sadly there are many who would think that way. I'd rather just see it all on one day.

[hippie_hunter]

Funny how you call Obama undemocractic... then bring up the outright lie that was thrown around to make him lose.

Nice democracy you got there.

Whether or not it is true it is still going to hurt him badly in the Rust Belt states. He isn't going to win the Rust Belt states at all because of that rumor. Whether or nor not it's true.

And personally, I'm not going to believe the Obama camp's own mouth when it comes to that one. Everything I've seen pointed it being true and Obama lied about it :whatever:

That would be like believing the Clinton camp's own mouth that they weren't responsible for releasing the picture of Obama in Muslim garb when everything else points to the opposite conclusion.

[Matt]

Funny how you call Obama undemocractic... then bring up the outright lie that was thrown around to make him lose.

Nice democracy you got there.

It doesn't matter if it is true or not (and just because Obama's campaign says its not, doesn't mean it isn't. Funny thing about politicans, they lie). What matters is how it is percieved. Perception is everything.

[Darthphere]

One has nothing to with the other. How illogical are Obama supporters?

As someone who woke up at 6:30 AM on a Tuesday morning (I think) to go vote in the Democratic primary, this really doesn't surprise me. I told my dad that morning as we went out together to vote that our votes wouldn't count because of what simply put is bureaucracy. He didn't care, my dad just recently became a US Citizen and this is his first time and my first time voting for President of the United States. We went in knowing our votes wouldn't count, we accepted that but we did it anyway. We didn't have a say in moving the Primary up, and frankly, I don't understand what the big deal about moving them up was in the first place. If we get a chance to revote, I'll wake up at 6:30 AM once again and go cast my vote. Because we're taught at an early age that "every vote counts" that "voting is every citizens responsibility" and all that other rhetoric. They never told us "Every vote counts except when some bureaucratic party rule is broken!"

[Gilpesh]

Whether or not it is true it is still going to hurt him badly in the Rust Belt states. He isn't going to win the Rust Belt states at all because of that rumor. Whether or nor not it's true.

And personally, I'm not going to believe the Obama camp's own mouth when it comes to that one. Everything I've seen pointed it being true and Obama lied about it :whatever:

That would be like believing the Clinton camp's own mouth that they weren't responsible for releasing the picture of Obama in Muslim garb when everything else points to the opposite conclusion.

It doesn't matter if it is true or not (and just because Obama's campaign says its not, doesn't mean it isn't. Funny thing about politicans, they lie). What matters is how it is percieved. Perception is everything.


http://www.forbes.com/reuters/feeds/reuters/2008/03/03/2008-03-04T000047Z_01_N03391783_RTRIDST_0_CANADA-OBAMA-UPDATE-1.html

:whatever:

Of course this would be shot down as a biased source blah blah blah.