PDA

View Full Version : US National Primaries


Jae Onasi
02-08-2008, 03:00 PM
With Edwards withdrawing from the Democratic race and Romney suspending his campaign yesterday, the field has narrowed considerably,, essentially to McCain and Huckabee for the Republicans and Obama and Clinton for the Democrats. It looks like McCain will win the Republican nomination, but the Democratic race is still hotly contested. Obama has won more states, but Clinton has more delegates at this time. How do you think the race will go next?

Totenkopf
02-08-2008, 06:34 PM
I've heard that if it goes to the superdelegate stage, then HRC seems to have it in the bag. Either way, the result will be termed historic.

MdKnightR
02-09-2008, 01:20 AM
I'm just hoping for a miracle. :D

RedHawke
02-09-2008, 02:00 AM
Meh! I want to vote 'None of the above' is that ok? :p

Arcesious
02-09-2008, 12:48 PM
I'm a republican but Obama is the best choice of them left, since Romney dropped out IMO.
The democrats are going to win, and for me that's a very bad thing. Their winning will be good for soem people's incomes, but it will ravage mine... :(
Why I say that is because it seems like hillary will win, but if it was obama who won i'd be okay with that. I don't want mccaine or huckabee though... despite the fact that I'm a Christian, Huckabee doesn't seem that smart with economy, and mccaine seems to want the goverment like in the 1980's, and his CPAC speech didn't get though to me, just seemed to be more promises that wouldn't be fulfilled.

Achilles
02-09-2008, 02:33 PM
It looks like McCain will win the Republican nomination, but the Democratic race is still hotly contested.Depending on what happens with Romney's delegates, Huckabee could win every primary between now and the convention and still not catch up. McCain's lead is commanding.

Obama has won more states, but Clinton has more delegates at this time. How do you think the race will go next?90% of Clinton's delegate lead is made up of super delegates, who can change their minds 100 times between now and the convention. Granted, since they are committed it isn't likely that they will, but we'll just have to wait and see how things shape up between now and then.

The democrats are going to win, and for me that's a very bad thing. Their winning will be good for soem people's incomes, but it will ravage mine... :( Really? You make more than $250,000 dollars per year? Obama wants to eliminate income tax for those that make under $50,000 a year. If you fit in the latter category rather than the former, it would seem that would be a very good thing for your income.

Totenkopf
02-09-2008, 03:18 PM
Depending on what happens with Romney's delegates, Huckabee could win every primary between now and the convention and still not catch up. McCain's lead is commanding.

Huckabee is out of the running for anything other than a spot in a McCain administration. Heard there were ~1200 rep delegates left, and you need >1000 to get nomination.


Really? You make more than $250,000 dollars per year? Obama claims to want to eliminate income tax for those that make under $50,000 a year. If you fit in the latter category rather than the former, it would seem that would be a very good thing for your income.


Fixed. More populist empty promises. Makes you wonder how he's going to make up for all the lost revenue. Who's he going to try to soak to get it. The "rich"? Last time a luxury tax was attempted, the rich just held onto their money and put many businesses out of work. Yeah, go Obama! [heavy sarcasm]

SilentScope001
02-09-2008, 03:28 PM
Fixed. More populist empty promises. Makes you wonder how he's going to make up for all the lost revenue.

Simple. He doesn't. :)

EDIT: I mean, the deficit hawks are dead. Even McCain will decide to keep some tax cuts, and I'm no certain he'll actually do any real budget cuts. We're going to run up deficits and national debts for a very, very long time. Oh well. I hope America doesn't have any problems....

PoiuyWired
02-10-2008, 05:47 PM
I've heard that if it goes to the superdelegate stage, then HRC seems to have it in the bag. Either way, the result will be termed historic.

So, for the young people out there. Presidents are either Bush or Clinton. Eitherway, people who have been living in the White House for a long long time.

Well, unless Obama can win... but so far it seems like HRC is getting a bit ahead. Oh, it is also interesting to see the Demographics of the vote.

mur'phon
02-10-2008, 05:54 PM
I'm hoping Obama gets nominated, If for no other reason that he seems more likely to beat McCain. McCain seems like the best kandidate the republicans could have chosen, though his age could be a problem if Huckabee becomes vice pres.

Achilles
02-10-2008, 06:24 PM
Look like Obama is on track for a sweep this weekend. I'm willing to bet that he'll sweep again on Tuesday. HRC might be able to take back some ground in March, but between pumping $5 million personal dollars into her campaign and firing her campaign manager today, I think there might be blood in the water.

@mur'phon: When McCain wins the nomination, he won't take Huckabee as a running mate. He'll need to choose someone that will boost his numbers within a demographic he can't win by himself. Since Huckabee failed to capture the evangelical vote, I imagine McCain will look for someone from the far Religious Right to bolster his conservative credibility.

mur'phon
02-11-2008, 02:08 AM
I imagine McCain will look for someone from the far Religious Right to bolster his conservative credibility.

How reasuring......... :xp:

Totenkopf
02-11-2008, 02:34 AM
Frankly, no matter who gets nominated on either side, the choices are going to alienate 40-50% of the eligible voters. The Dems are too far to the left and the Reps will be seen as too far to the right, even though they are drifting leftward themselves (but not as fast as the dems). Given hrc's neagtives, will Obama look elsewhere for a veep if he manages to edge her out?

Achilles
02-11-2008, 02:47 AM
How reasuring......... :xp:Indeed. Perhaps you can take some comfort in knowing that it won't be Ann Coulter. Maybe Newt Gingrich? He actually showed up pretty favorably in early polls despite the fact that he never indicated that he was going to run. Might have to worry about a Democratic congress looking for some payback though if that happens. Hmmm.

Jae Onasi
02-11-2008, 10:00 AM
Huckabee theoretically could win the nomination, but he'd have to win something like 80% of the remaining vote. He hasn't been able to do in any of the states he's won. I don't know if McCain would take someone just to make the "Religious Right" happy. I wouldn't be surprised to see Romney or even Giuliani on the ticket as VP nominee. He's looking to win, and if the US public is disenchanted with the extreme right and want to move left, as it appears to me they want to do, then McCain would have a better chance of winning with a more moderate candidate. He's going to have to appeal to independents and more conservative Democrats in order to win the Nov. election.

Obama swept (http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/02/09/obama-wins-nebraska-democratic-caucuses-huckabee-takes-kansas-gop-contest/) this weekend's primaries and caucuses. Clinton has 1136 delegates right now, and Obama has 1108. I don't remember ever seeing a primary this close, particularly after a Super Tuesday election. I don't remember seeing a candidate who has so utterly captivated his followers and voters like Obama has, either. My aunt, who has adored him since his speech to the National Democratic Convention 4 years ago, is inspired by him, and other supporters I talk to feel the same. If he wins the nomination I could easily see him as President. I don't think McCain can create that level of inspiration across a wide cross-section of the public, and he'll have to fight the disenchantment with Bush's brand of Republicans.

Ann Coulter (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,327605,00.html) said she'd campaign for HRC if McCain wins. Her segment on Hannity and Colmes (look for the one 'Not Backing Mac') (http://www.foxnews.com/hannityandcolmes/index.html) is just...I don't know what...., and I laughed through parts.

CHOP-E
02-11-2008, 10:39 AM
the democrats are pretty much screwed everyone hates clinton and we're not going to have a black muslum for president because of the redneck vote

mimartin
02-11-2008, 10:43 AM
Ann Coulter (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,327605,00.html) said she'd campaign for HRC if McCain wins. Her segment on Hannity and Colmes (look for the one 'Not Backing Mac') (http://www.foxnews.com/hannityandcolmes/index.html) is just...I don't know what...., and I laughed through parts.
Didnít these political mouth pieces have a field day when Alec Baldwin said something about it was ďtime to leaveĒ if Bush got into office. Now these same ďpolitical extremistsĒ are making just as stupid comments because the American people are going with McCain instead of someone more conservative.

It sounds like someone needs their blanket and bottle to me.

I want a picture of Ann Coulter supporting Hillary Clinton.

Moreover, she lies less than John McCain. I'm a Hillary girl now. She lies less than John McCain. She's smarter than John McCain, so that when she's caught shamelessly lying, at least the Clintons know they've been caught lying. McCain is so stupid, he doesn't even know he's been caught. :lol:

Rogue Nine
02-11-2008, 11:01 AM
the democrats are pretty much screwed everyone hates clinton and we're not going to have a black muslum for president because of the redneck vote
Um, if everyone hates Hillary Clinton, then why are so many people voting for her? And Barack Obama is a professed Christian.

Achilles
02-11-2008, 12:15 PM
Huckabee theoretically could win the nomination, but he'd have to win something like 80% of the remaining vote. He hasn't been able to do in any of the states he's won. I don't know if McCain would take someone just to make the "Religious Right" happy. I wouldn't be surprised to see Romney or even Giuliani on the ticket as VP nominee. Anything is possible. I don't know why he would though considering that Romney would be a controversial pick and picking Rudy wouldn't help him win any votes that he couldn't get himself.

He's looking to win, and if the US public is disenchanted with the extreme right and want to move left, as it appears to me they want to do, then McCain would have a better chance of winning with a more moderate candidate. He's going to have to appeal to independents and more conservative Democrats in order to win the Nov. election. I suppose that's one way of looking at it. Considering the number of times I've heard "record turnout" over the last few weeks, it may be that "the left" has decided not to sit on the sidelines when "the right" goes to the polls. Similarly, McCain is going to great pains to paint himself as a conservative (take his speech at CPAC, for instance). If the scenario you suggested is closest to reality, then I think he's making a huge mistake by courting the right so openly.

Clinton has 1136 delegates right now, and Obama has 1108.Obama has the lead in pledged delegates. Clinton's lead is entirely superdelegates which may or may not change their mind before the convention. Regardless, if Obama does well again tomorrow, he'll take the lead in both pledged delegates and superdelegates.

I don't remember ever seeing a primary this close, particularly after a Super Tuesday election. I don't remember seeing a candidate who has so utterly captivated his followers and voters like Obama has, either. My aunt, who has adored him since his speech to the National Democratic Convention 4 years ago, is inspired by him, and other supporters I talk to feel the same. If he wins the nomination I could easily see him as President. I don't think McCain can create that level of inspiration across a wide cross-section of the public, and he'll have to fight the disenchantment with Bush's brand of Republicans. I think you're right. This will definitely be an old school vs new school fight if those two go to the general election.

Ann Coulter said she'd campaign for HRC if McCain wins.Yep :)

That's one way to make sure that Hillary won't get my vote.

the democrats are pretty much screwed everyone hates clinton and we're not going to have a black muslum for president because of the redneck vote Snopes vs. Smear campaigns (http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp)

EDIT: Apparently Hillary doesn't see changing campaign managers as "significant" (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080211/ap_on_el_pr/clinton). :rolleyes:

JediMaster12
02-11-2008, 01:41 PM
I didn't vote because I didn't know what to do. My mother said go with the lesser of two evils but who determines which is more evil. I am registered as a declined to state so I could vote Republican if I wanted. Unfortunately I am ticked off at both parties so I really can't back any corner. I may be liberal in principle on some issues but some I am conservative. To be honest I don't know about Obama or Clinton. If either one is chosen it would have to take some serious convincing to get me to vote for either of them.

Totenkopf
02-11-2008, 01:57 PM
Well, you could always hold your nose and vote for McCain, as he's slighty less liberal than either of the 2 of them. Another election lacking a clear choice in candidates and possible even direction. Big surprise. :rolleyes:


Um, if everyone hates Hillary Clinton, then why are so many people voting for her? And Barack Obama is a professed Christian.

Probably b/c they'd vote for Goofy or Satan if they headed the democrat ticket. And, yeah, the same could be said of the other side too. Still, if you believe polls and such, hrc has VERY high negatives amongst the general population and that's not good when you're going into an election. It has a tendency to suppress your own side's votes or increase the turnout on the other side (or both). As to what a politician professes........they'll often say whatever it takes to get elected.

El Sitherino
02-11-2008, 02:26 PM
Personally I see the country as screwed on all fronts. All potential runners have some sort of agenda or group their pushing/backing. It's a matter of degree.

Hillary I'd have to say is the most definite no vote. This woman effectively sees Mario Brothers in the same light as Grand Theft Auto and will have no problem backing political agenda to heavily restrict interactive media (ie. Video Games). Plus the woman is a raging lunatic with her point-point clap-clap approach to celebration.

McCain, he used to be the one common face of the Republican party that I could always have at least a little bit of moral support for. The man would hold his ground and stuck to his principles rather well. However this race he seems to have kinda staggered, probably with all the BS flinging by a scared Republican party trying to get someone into the big race with a chance to win. I would be giving it to Ron Paul for the Republican nomination if American politics actually made sense and people actually did what they say they believe, however McCain I'm giving my tally to on this, despite any opinions on his ability to hold an office now.

Obama. I don't really have too large of an opinion on him, I'm not sure he'd be great for the job, however I have no reason to believe he'd be outright bad for it. All in all, I have to give him my vote in this race. He doesn't have a very extended history in politics and definitely no expertise in global resolution of issues/etc. However he has potential, which is more than I can say for the others.

All in all, Obama seems like the breathe of fresh air from this stagnant upper-class-ruled whitewash event in our lives.

mimartin
02-11-2008, 02:36 PM
I am registered as a declined to state so I could vote Republican if I wanted. Unfortunately I am ticked off at both parties so I really can't back any corner. I may be liberal in principle on some issues but some I am conservative. To be honest I don't know about Obama or Clinton. If either one is chosen it would have to take some serious convincing to get me to vote for either of them.
I've decided that I am voting in the Republican Primary in Texas March 4th. Since Texas will definitely be a red state come November this will be my only chance to have my vote counted. I also donít care if the Democrats nominated Obama or Clinton as I will vote for either come this November. So I will make Ann Coulter day and vote for John McCain.

For the first time in my life I am in political heaven as I like all three of the front runners.

Tommycat
02-11-2008, 09:12 PM
Clinton scares the heck outa me.... Obama might be a good president, but you know darn good and well there's gonna be a lot of white supremicists out there that are gonna want him dead. A vote for Obama would be like a vote for his VP because the likelihood is that he won't complete a full term. It would be nice if I'm wrong about it, but there are just too many racists out there that would not want to see a black president. It is a shame really. I'm pretty sure that was one of the reasons that Powell decided not to run a while back.

Actually, the best chance the Republicans have is for McCain to have a VP other than Romney(I liked him too). He is not very popular amongst a large section of the GOP. Primarily the more hard right. If he doesn't find someone popular with that group, then he may convince them to stay home on election night. That's where Huckabee comes in. Hard religious background, and really a pretty likable guy(if not a bit Jim Neighbors like). I really wish the GOP would get off the HARD religious right. I would have liked to see what Romney could do(even if he was a bit too Ken Doll perfect... I swear it was amazing to see him with a hair out of place haha).

MdKnightR
02-12-2008, 02:08 AM
I didn't vote because I didn't know what to do. My mother said go with the lesser of two evils but who determines which is more evil. I am registered as a declined to state so I could vote Republican if I wanted. Unfortunately I am ticked off at both parties so I really can't back any corner. I may be liberal in principle on some issues but some I am conservative. To be honest I don't know about Obama or Clinton. If either one is chosen it would have to take some serious convincing to get me to vote for either of them.


This situation is simple to diagnose.....vote Libertarian. I'm a Libertarian, so I can see where you're coming from. Sure, I'm backing Ron Paul, but its no big secret that he's still a Libertarian at heart. If Ron doesn't get the Republican nomination and sticks to his guns by not running as a third party or an independent, then I'll be voting for the Libertarian nominee. Don't vote for the lesser of two evils, because in the end, you still wind up with a devil in the White House. You can never go wrong if you vote your conscience.

Totenkopf
02-12-2008, 05:58 AM
Then, again, the proverbial road to hell is paved with good intentions. :xp:

Jae Onasi
04-24-2008, 01:14 AM
Well, apparently Leno, Letterman, and Stewart aren't enough pop press, so now we move to the WWE. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbaxHjxOlo4). :D (thanks to Niner for linkage!)


Latest status of the Primaries--McCain's got enough delegates to make him the presumptive nominee for the Republicans, and Obama and Clinton are fighting it out for delegates for the Democratic nomination. Obama has more overall votes and states but they're quite close, and Clinton just won by a good 10 percentage points or so in PA. It looks like neither one will have enough delegates when the Democratic National Convention takes place--that's going to make things very interesting to be sure.

Rogue Nine
04-24-2008, 01:19 AM
DO YOU SMELL
WHAT
BARACK
IS
COOKING



>_>

Achilles
04-24-2008, 01:19 AM
The status of the pledged delegate count (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwd88C25J-0)

Of course, after arguing for months that this election was all about delegates, Hillary is now saying that the "real" metric to watch is popular votes (which she clearly winning via Hillary-math (TM)).

EDIT:
Well, apparently Leno, Letterman, and Stewart aren't enough pop press, so now we move to the WWE. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbaxHjxOlo4). :D (thanks to Niner for linkage!) Wow. I think I just threw up in my mouth a little bit.

Totenkopf
04-24-2008, 01:27 AM
DO YOU SMELL
WHAT
BARACK
IS
COOKING



>_>


I'm trying not to. want to avoid achille's reflux problem. ;)

Arcesious
04-24-2008, 09:19 AM
Well i deffinitly dson't want Mccain. Obama seems like a good choice, but I can't say I really know what his plan with the economy is. Hilary on the other hand... I can't trust Hilary. If you want Bill Clinton's economy-running style, why don't you just elect him a third time. Hilary obviously isn't up for the job, because all i see is her saying she's going to do things, (same with barrack), but I just can't trust her. It's that cheesy smile, the lies in the Clinton administration, and all that sucking up to the public that I simply can't trust... Right on CNN She says 'I love Indiana!'. Sure it may be her home state but seriously, that is definitly sucking up to the public... I just can't trust her, you know what I mean? She's only saying things liek that to get votes-everything she says sounds completely planned out as what the public wants to hear. I don't really like Barrack either but we've only got three choices left and we have to choose one of them...

mur'phon
04-24-2008, 09:40 AM
She's only saying things liek that to get votes-everything she says sounds completely planned out as what the public wants to hear.

Unlike the others..................
Its an election, the candidates will say anything to get elected.

JCarter426
04-24-2008, 09:50 AM
Unlike the others..................

:rofl: Precisely one of the reasons I didn't vote in the primary. "Blasphemy!", you say? Well, no. :p

1. I despise primary elections in general--but I'm not so dumb as to not vote in a primary out of the principle of the thing. :p

2. I live in Massachusetts, and I'm a registered Independent, which means--as of this year--I can vote in either primary. Voting in the Republican primary was kind of pointless, because everyone knew Romney was going to drop out. So that leaves the Democratic primary.

3. It wouldn't have mattered who I voted for, because it's all going to come down to the superdelegates' votes (one of the reasons I despise primary elections).

4. And even if my vote did matter, I doubt that either Clinton or Obama has any shot at beating McCain in November.

5. And even if they did, I don't like Clinton or Obama any more than I like McCain, since the two of them seem so bent on violating the Constitution in order to enforce their beliefs on the country. And McCain isn't any better.

Rant over. :p

Achilles
04-24-2008, 11:26 AM
Obama seems like a good choice, but I can't say I really know what his plan with the economy is. Now (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/) you do. ;)

If you want Bill Clinton's economy-running style, why don't you just elect him a third time.Because it would violate the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution.

2. I live in Massachusetts, and I'm a registered Independent, which means--as of this year--I can vote in either primary. You could have re-registered with a party and then switched back...like I did :)

3. It wouldn't have mattered who I voted for, because it's all going to come down to the superdelegates' votes (one of the reasons I despise primary elections). And the reason it's going to come down to superdelegates? Because not enough voters broke for one candidate or another :D

Not that your one, single vote would have turned the tide, but if everyone that subscribed to this school of thought voted, then it might not have been up to the supers after all :)

4. And even if my vote did matter, I doubt that either Clinton or Obama has any shot at beating McCain in November.:lol:
Let's think this through.

The Republican race has pretty much been over for a few months now. No one is going after McCain. He's "running" unopposed. He's eating a free lunch. His numbers are never going to be better than they are right now.

In contrast, Barack and Hillary are beating the snot out of each other. They are on the war path daily. They can't sneeze without someone posting it on YouTube. Their numbers are most likely never going to be worse than they are right now (<= obviously conjecture).

And what do we see? We see McCain (at his best) pretty much tied with the Dems (at their worst). Obama pulled in 40 million in Feb. Hillary 20 million. McCain 12. With all due respect sir, what fantasy world do you live in where McCain looks like the clear winner in November? :D

5. And even if they did, I don't like Clinton or Obama any more than I like McCain, since the two of them seem so bent on violating the Constitution in order to enforce their beliefs on the country. Huh?

PS: You do know that Barack was a constitutional law professor right? ;) One of the things that made me decide on Obama is that he wants to bring us back to the Constitution. So I'm not sure why you think he wants to "violate" it.

mimartin
04-24-2008, 12:23 PM
5. And even if they did, I don't like Clinton or Obama any more than I like McCain, since the two of them seem so bent on violating the Constitution in order to enforce their beliefs on the country. And McCain isn't any better. When did Clinton, Obama or McCain ever put forth a law or make a campaign promises that would violate the Constitution? Just because the current administration seems to believe the oath of office is merely words, does not mean the next person to take that oath to uphold the Constitution will not actually take that oath seriously.

P.S. Have you looked at the Economic Numbers lately? Foreign Policy, Religious Freedoms and National Security are important to people, but with the economy in a downturn and people worried about their next pay check, people will vote for their pocket books. ďItís the economy, stupidĒ got Bill Clinton into the White House and it will get Obama or Hillary into the White House next year.

Well, apparently Leno, Letterman, and Stewart aren't enough pop press, so now we move to the WWE. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbaxHjxOlo4). :D (thanks to Niner for linkage!) Makes mental note not to click on anymore of Jaeís links. :D

Is Ron Paul running as an independent? After this display he may get my vote. My problem with Mr. Paul is my question of his sanity, but obviously he is just as sane as these three.

Does their appearance on WWE mean that all three candidates support steroid and HGH usage?

Totenkopf
04-24-2008, 03:33 PM
PS: You do know that Barack was a constitutional law professor right? One of the things that made me decide on Obama is that he wants to bring us back to the Constitution. So I'm not sure why you think he wants to "violate" it.

Yeah, that's really reassuring. :rolleyes:

Problem the dems face, though, is that fairly significant fractions of one candidate's voting block have said they'd vote for McCain if their candidate got hosed at the convention. Outside of Ann Coulter, haven't heard many reps say they'd vote hilary/obama if McCain's their candidate.

Inyri
04-24-2008, 05:25 PM
Does their appearance on WWE mean that all three candidates support steroid and HGH usage?If you eat chicken nuggets at McDonald's does it mean you support mistreatment of chickens? Let's not get jumpy just because they're politicians. :p

Arcesious
04-24-2008, 05:47 PM
Because it would violate the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution.

It was rhetorical... I'm only saying that Hilary is not as good with math as her husband is, and her being president wouldn't be the same as him being president.

Inyri
04-24-2008, 05:47 PM
her being president wouldn't be the same as him being president.Why? Because they're actually two different people? :p

mimartin
04-24-2008, 08:48 PM
Because they're actually two different people? :pWith Hilary we wouldnít be worried about what is happening in the Oval Office with the interns. We would have to worry about what Bill was doing in the Lincoln Bedroom with them.

It was rhetorical... I'm only saying that Hilary is not as good with math as her husband is, and her being president wouldn't be the same as him being president. What facts do you have that she wouldnít be a better President than her husband? Remember Bill and Hilary Clinton married in 1975 and must share many of the same values. If you believe FoxNews or Rush Limbaugh she ran Bill Clintonís White House. Funny the have changed their tune over the past 8 years and now say she has no experience. Personally, I do not believe she will get the Democratic Nomination over Obama, but if elected to the White House I see Hilary Clinton Presidency being very similar to her husbands, only with more self-control.

If you eat chicken nuggets at McDonald's does it mean you support mistreatment of chickens? Yes, and if you buy gas you are supporting Muslim extremist. Wait someone at the door. I will not be back for a while the man at the door is saying something about GuacamoleÖmaybe Guantanamo or something like that.

JCarter426
04-24-2008, 10:12 PM
You could have re-registered with a party and then switched back...like I did :)

You misunderstand; that used to be the case. Starting this year, a registered Independent actually can vote in the primary.

And the reason it's going to come down to superdelegates? Because not enough voters broke for one candidate or another :D

Not that your one, single vote would have turned the tide, but if everyone that subscribed to this school of thought voted, then it might not have been up to the supers after all :)

Actually, believe it or not, Clinton won by one vote in my district. :D But you're absolutely right. That's where points 4 and 5 come in. ;)

The Republican race has pretty much been over for a few months now. No one is going after McCain. He's "running" unopposed. He's eating a free lunch. His numbers are never going to be better than they are right now.

In contrast, Barack and Hillary are beating the snot out of each other. They are on the war path daily. They can't sneeze without someone posting it on YouTube. Their numbers are most likely never going to be worse than they are right now (<= obviously conjecture).

And what do we see? We see McCain (at his best) pretty much tied with the Dems (at their worst). Obama pulled in 40 million in Feb. Hillary 20 million. McCain 12. With all due respect sir, what fantasy world do you live in where McCain looks like the clear winner in November? :D

Eh, you do have a point, but still, the longer Clinton and Obama tear each other up, the better McCain's chances are. All he has to do is sit back while they kill each other for him.

When did Clinton, Obama or McCain ever put forth a law or make a campaign promises that would violate the Constitution?

They all run on platforms of immigration reform, the war in Iraq, repairing the economy, etc. None of these are the responsibilities of the president, and in order to accomplish any of these, they will have to increase the powers of the executive branch to more ridiculous proportions than they already are.

If they want to do all these things, they should stay in the senate.

mimartin
04-24-2008, 10:32 PM
They all run on platforms of immigration reform, the war in Iraq, repairing the economy, etc. None of these are the responsibilities of the president, and in order to accomplish any of these, they will have to increase the powers of the executive branch to more ridiculous proportions than they already are. The Commander and Chief should take no responsibility for the armed forces? Look at Article Two of the Constitution to verify all of these fall under the President authority. Any action taken by congress in regards to any of these platforms must be signed into law or vetoed by the President. I understand that checks and balance has been a foreign concept over the last eight years, but it is how our founding fathers (the ones that actually wrote the Constitution) envisioned our government working. I see all three of these candidates restoring the government back to the power structure intended by our founding fathers and relinquish the power seized in the name of fear by the current administration.

JCarter426
04-24-2008, 10:38 PM
"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States."

Oh, the Commander in Cnief has every right to direct the armed forces--in times of war. And only Congress has the power to declare war. Tell me, when was the last time Congress declared war?

mimartin
04-24-2008, 10:54 PM
"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States."

Oh, the Commander in Cnief has every right to direct the armed forces--in times of war. And only Congress has the power to declare war. Tell me, when was the last time Congress declared war? And which of the three is responsible for the troops being over there? Are you advocating the next president do nothing? Are they just to leave our troops over there to find their own way home? Sorry, but Iím President now and since the war is unconstitutional you have to make your own way home. I canít get my hands dirty. The troops are already in service the only way around that is to elect a President that can turn back time.

I fail to see how any person entering the Presidency would not be violating the Constitution under your definition. Getting rid of the office of President seems to be the only alternative, but that too would violate the Constitution.

I wonder if there is such a thing as a Declaration of Dependence, perhaps we can draft one of those. Would the British take us back or perhaps the Canadians? :D

Achilles
04-24-2008, 11:01 PM
You misunderstand; that used to be the case. Starting this year, a registered Independent actually can vote in the primary. Huh? So then why didn't you vote again?

Actually, believe it or not, Clinton won by one vote in my district. :D But you're absolutely right. That's where points 4 and 5 come in. ;) Except neither point 4 or 5 are accurate :)
(Well, half of 5. Not liking either candidate isn't subject to right or wrong).

Eh, you do have a point, but still, the longer Clinton and Obama tear each other up, the better McCain's chances are. All he has to do is sit back while they kill each other for him.Perhaps. We only have a few more weeks until this thing is over, so I don't share your opinion that McCain's big chances are still ahead of him. Also, considering Hillary's "kitchen sink" strategy, all of McCain's talking points have largely lost their significance, IMHO. Is the Jeremiah Wright nontroversy going to suddenly have a new lease on life just because it's coming from McCain in a general election? I seriously doubt it, but that's only my opinion.

They all run on platforms of immigration reform, the war in Iraq, repairing the economy, etc. None of these are the responsibilities of the president, and in order to accomplish any of these, they will have to increase the powers of the executive branch to more ridiculous proportions than they already are. Using this same logic we could argue that appointing cabinet positions is "violating of the constitution in order to enforce their beliefs on this country" as well. :rolleyes:

McCain is also running on a platform of immigration reform, Iraq, and the economy, yet you only specified the two democratic contenders in your original point. Why is that?

If they want to do all these things, they should stay in the senate.Where they can be one voice amongst the masses instead of practicing genuine leadership. Cynicism, ftw!

Oh, the Commander in Cnief has every right to direct the armed forces--in times of war. And only Congress has the power to declare war. Tell me, when was the last time Congress declared war?I want to say WWII, but it actually may have been Korea. Do I win anything if I guessed correctly? :D

mimartin
04-24-2008, 11:19 PM
Perhaps. We only have a few more weeks until this thing is over...
My prediction is the Democratic nominee will be decided sometime between August 25 and 28. I want to say WWII, but it actually may have been Korea. Do I win anything if I guessed correctly? :DThe last formal declaration of war was WWII. The last time Congress authorized a military engagement was October 16, 2002 H.J. Res. 114 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:H.J.RES.114:)

You get half a cookie (http://www.blubberbuster.com/images/cookie_half.jpg).

JCarter426
04-24-2008, 11:22 PM
McCain is also running on a platform of immigration reform, Iraq, and the economy, yet you only specified the two democratic contenders in your original point. Why is that?

Because I was only talking about the Democratic primary. ;) Even back then it was clear Romney was going to drop out, so there was no point in voting in the Republican primary. But yes, McCain's platform is no more relevant than Clinton's or Obama's. They aren't just making promises they won't keep; they're making promises they can't possibly keep.

I want to say WWII, but it actually may have been Korea. Do I win anything if I guessed correctly? :D

Yup, it was WWII all right. You get half a cookie. :D

EDIT: Bah, mimartin beat me to it.

Achilles
04-25-2008, 12:12 AM
My prediction is the Democratic nominee will be decided sometime between August 25 and 28. If this thing goes to the convention, I'm going to blame you, drive to Texas, and toilet paper your house.

The last formal declaration of war was WWII. The last time Congress authorized a military engagement was October 16, 2002 H.J. Res. 114 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:H.J.RES.114:)

You get half a cookie (http://www.blubberbuster.com/images/cookie_half.jpg).
That doesn't count! Voting to turn the decision over to someone else is not the same thing as making the decision. I want all my cookie! (om nom nom nom)

JCarter426
04-25-2008, 03:11 AM
Not only does it not count, but as I recall, that was not a vote to go to war, but a vote to call for a vote to go to war if certain conditions were met (namely, among other things, if weapons of mass destruction were found). Such conditions were never met, because of course there were no WMDs in Iraq, and Congress never voted for war.

Of course, not a single Congressmen could have possibly been dense enough to think that by voting so, they weren't doing to go to war. Which was exactly the point; we got war in Iraq, but Congress was still able to deny ever voting for the war in case anything bad happened.

mimartin
04-25-2008, 10:58 AM
If this thing goes to the convention, I'm going to blame you, drive to Texas, and toilet paper your house.Don't let the rubber snakes scare you.:D

Hilary Clintonís chief advisor was known as the comeback kid during his political career, so I just donít see her getting out of the race until either Obama has the required delegates to win (impossible) or the DNC makes another decision about what to do with Florida and Michigan (not going to happen). So I guess that leaves when she hears Obama make his acceptance speech at the convention.
That doesn't count! Voting to turn the decision over to someone else is not the same thing as making the decision.Oh, I agree, but it is amazing how many wars the United States has been in when compared to how many time Congress has actually declared war. You may also want to inform Obama of the difference, Iíve heard him say more than once that his opponents authorized the war in Iraq.

I want all my cookie! (om nom nom nom)
The cookie verdict stands! You sir, hedged your bet by saying WWII or possibly Korea. Since Korea had no declaration of war or even a congressional authorization for military engagement I determined that you only deserved half a cookie. Now if you want to take this decision further I suggest we get a mediator, I suggest stoffe, as I believe she can be completely impartial (however, I would rather have Jae, considering the resent debate between you and her in another thread).

However, in the interest of peace and in the name of friendship. Here are your cookies (http://www.kattitudes.com/pix/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=6605&g2_serialNumber=1). :D

JCarter426
04-25-2008, 11:05 AM
You may also want to inform Obama of the difference, Iíve heard him say more than once that his opponents authorized the war in Iraq.

And I've said more than once that the only reason he didn't "authorize" it was because he wasn't in office at the time.

Oops, that was a harsh personal jab, wasn't it? :p

Achilles
04-25-2008, 12:16 PM
Don't let the rubber snakes scare you.:D Those I can outrun.

Hilary Clintonís chief advisor was known as the comeback kid during his political career, so I just donít see her getting out of the race until either Obama has the required delegates to win (impossible) Impossible? Extremely unlikely maybe, but his odds are significantly better than Hillary's and she's still in the race. But of course the SDs could decide things right now if they wanted to.

or the DNC makes another decision about what to do with Florida and Michigan (not going to happen). So I guess that leaves when she hears Obama make his acceptance speech at the convention. Well, just Florida now. Michigan was told yesterday that they won't be seated (for however long that lasts).

Oh, I agree, but it is amazing how many wars the United States has been in when compared to how many time Congress has actually declared war. You may also want to inform Obama of the difference, Iíve heard him say more than once that his opponents authorized the war in Iraq. Excellent point :)

The cookie verdict stands! You sir, hedged your bet by saying WWII or possibly Korea. *sigh* You are right. :(

Since Korea had no declaration of war or even a congressional authorization for military engagement I determined that you only deserved half a cookie.If I had cheated and used Google, I would have known that. I remember a time when honesty stood for something, sir! :D

Now if you want to take this decision further I suggest we get a mediator, I suggest stoffe, as I believe she can be completely impartial (however, I would rather have Jae, considering the resent debate between you and her in another thread). :lol:

However, in the interest of peace and in the name of friendship. Here are your cookies (http://www.kattitudes.com/pix/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=6605&g2_serialNumber=1). :D*hands one to mimartin and another to JCarter426*

And I've said more than once that the only reason he didn't "authorize" it was because he wasn't in office at the time.

Oops, that was a harsh personal jab, wasn't it? :p It's possible. But then again lots of things are possible. Seems to me that he was taking a pretty big risk speaking out against it, so it's not as though he was trying to score some quick political points by doing so. Not sure how we go from that to "he probably would have voted for it", but everyone is entitled to their opinions. :)

mimartin
04-25-2008, 02:22 PM
Well, just Florida now. Michigan was told yesterday that they won't be seated (for however long that lasts). Now that is the problem with only getting my news from a weekly television program, I did not know that. Not my fault, blame those capitalist pigs at HBO for only putting Bill Maher on once a week.

Besides Iím in training for the March of Dimes walk held this weekend in Houston, I donít have time to be depressed by watching a real news program and I been a good boy lately so I havenít to punish myself by watching FoxNews. That and you did not PM about that developement.
If I had cheated and used Google, I would have known that. I remember a time when honesty stood for something, sir! :D Is that an accusation against my good name? :D

I knew the Korean War was not authorized by Congress. For the past 32 years Iíve heard my stepfather say he was not a soldier, he was a cop, as the Korean War was a police action. I did google it, as you get old, it is always a good idea to double check your facts when possible.

Achilles
04-25-2008, 04:37 PM
That and you did not PM about that developement. I only PM stuff that I find alarming or that I think you'll find interesting. ;)

Is that an accusation against my good name? :D I don't see a moderator post, so I think my message is still allowed to exist as I intended it. We'll see.

I knew the Korean War was not authorized by Congress. For the past 32 years Iíve heard my stepfather say he was not a soldier, he was a cop, as the Korean War was a police action. I did google it, as you get old, it is always a good idea to double check your facts when possible.I suppose I could have double checked as well, but I wanted to test my memory more than I wanted to provide the correct answer. Good thing we didn't have money riding on that one :)

JCarter426
04-25-2008, 09:07 PM
*hands one to mimartin and another to JCarter426*

Mmm...cookie... :D

It's possible. But then again lots of things are possible. Seems to me that he was taking a pretty big risk speaking out against it, so it's not as though he was trying to score some quick political points by doing so. Not sure how we go from that to "he probably would have voted for it", but everyone is entitled to their opinions. :)

That's true. Still, I think he would have voted for it just like everyone else. It would have been an even bigger risk to speak out against the war back then.

Arcesious
04-25-2008, 10:45 PM
I wish we had good candidates for once... None of these candidates are really that great at all... But sadly, there's nothing we can do about it...

(BTW, the CEO of cookie factory is wondering where all of his cookies are going... :xp: )

JediRevan
04-26-2008, 10:08 PM
With the way the primaries have been turned into a circus, I would not be surprised at all if the noncommitted delegates chose Edwards and Huckabee to be put on the November ballot.

Jae Onasi
04-27-2008, 12:07 AM
Now if you want to take this decision further I suggest we get a mediator, I suggest stoffe, as I believe she can be completely impartial (however, I would rather have Jae, considering the resent debate between you and her in another thread).


I get the cookie--I knew it before anyone answered (though I couldn't post fast enough from a smartphone), and without having to look it up. :xp: However, I'll break it into pieces and share with anyone who attempted to give an answer. :D

Huckabee can't win--McCain already has well over the number of delegates needed to win the Republican nomination, and the Republican party doesn't have the same super-delegate craziness that the Democratic party has.

JediRevan
04-27-2008, 04:27 PM
The only two candidates worth voting for have dropped out of the primaries: Huckabee and Edwards.

mimartin
04-27-2008, 04:55 PM
I get the cookie--I knew it before anyone answered (though I couldn't post fast enough from a smartphone), and without having to look it up. :xp: However, I'll break it into pieces and share with anyone who attempted to give an answer. :D
Remove Jae from possible mediator list as cookies clearly outweigh impartiality. :D. Perhaps stoffe or tk102 may be a better choice when Achilles and I have our next disagreement. Although I have my doubts about tk102 not taking the cookie for himself too.

The only two candidates worth voting for have dropped out of the primaries: Huckabee and Edwards.
In your opinion, in your opinion. In my personal opinion, the three remaining candidates are the best options we have had in my lifetime. All three seem to me to be better than the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave or at least canít be any worst.

Totenkopf
04-27-2008, 05:26 PM
Never say it couldn't get worse. ;)

mimartin
04-27-2008, 05:50 PM
Never say it couldn't get worse. ;) All three seem to me to be better than the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave or at least, I hope with all my heart and pray to God that it does not get any worst.Fixed

Is that better Totenkopf? You were indeed correct it could always get worst. I donít see how, but I felt the same way 8 years ago when I cast my vote for the current guy up there.

Jvstice
04-27-2008, 05:56 PM
It could be worse. For example, there's still Jeb Bush and his son who are very much interested in politics. Or you could see Pat Robertson and Al Sharpton win on a united platform of all they have in common, which is extremism.

Achilles
04-27-2008, 07:32 PM
The only two candidates worth voting for have dropped out of the primaries: Huckabee and Edwards.I would vote for Edwards. People who say they would vote for Huckabee either didn't read his FairTax proposal, didn't understand his FairTax proposal, or are wealthy enough to benefit from his FairTax proposal ;)

JediRevan
04-27-2008, 09:56 PM
Remove Jae from possible mediator list as cookies clearly outweigh impartiality. :D. Perhaps stoffe or tk102 may be a better choice when Achilles and I have our next disagreement. Although I have my doubts about tk102 not taking the cookie for himself too.


In your opinion, in your opinion. In my personal opinion, the three remaining candidates are the best options we have had in my lifetime. All three seem to me to be better than the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave or at least canít be any worst.


If you want to vote for one of the Three Stooges, I would agree. From what I've seen lately with Obama, Clinton, and McCain, Larry, Moe, or Curly could do a better job running the country.

Totenkopf
04-27-2008, 11:09 PM
If you want to vote for one of the Three Stooges, I would agree. From what I've seen lately with Obama, Clinton, and McCain, Larry, Moe, or Curly could do a better job running the country.


What about Shemp or Joe, the "forgotten" Stooges? :xp:


Never say it couldn't get worse.


All three seem to me to be better than the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave or at least, I hope with all my heart and pray to God that it does not get any worse.

Fixed

Is that better Totenkopf? You were indeed correct it could always get worse. I donít see how, but I felt the same way 8 years ago when I cast my vote for the current guy up there.

NOW it's fixed. :lol: Seriously, though, I agree that Bush has made a mess of things on a number of fronts.

mimartin
04-27-2008, 11:53 PM
If the three running are the Three Stooges, then Bush and Cheney must be Lloyd Christmas and Harry Dunne. What about Shemp or Joe, the "forgotten" Stooges? :xp: I liked Shemp, but there was a reason Joe Besser and Curly Joe DeRita were forgotten.

Achilles
04-28-2008, 12:44 AM
If the three running are the Three Stooges, then Bush and Cheney must be Lloyd Christmas and Harry Dunne."Oooo. That's warm."

JediRevan
04-28-2008, 08:58 AM
Shemp and Joe are already living at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave

Jae Onasi
04-29-2008, 10:56 AM
We clearly need a Three Stooges thread. Curly is better! :D

I'm annoyed with Dean and Pelosi right now saying one of the two Dems should drop out to get it over with. Shouldn't people in the states that remain to vote have their say on the matter? I understand not wanting a '68 style convention and wanting to get this resolved to focus on going after McCain, but those two could be a little more adroit about it rather than implying 'screw the last states, we're going to decide it now'.

The Source
04-29-2008, 11:53 AM
We clearly need a Three Stooges thread. Curly is better! :D

I'm annoyed with Dean and Pelosi right now saying one of the two Dems should drop out to get it over with. Shouldn't people in the states that remain to vote have their say on the matter? I understand not wanting a '68 style convention and wanting to get this resolved to focus on going after McCain, but those two could be a little more adroit about it rather than implying 'screw the last states, we're going to decide it now'.
I'm annoyed by Dean, Hilary, Obama, and McCain. I think all of the candidates are seriously flawed, inexperienced, and untruthful. None of them deserve the presidency. Obama's racism, Hilary's control issues and emotional swings, and McCain's Democratic run as a Republican. It is almost as if the system was hijacked by the Democrats, and each of them are bringing out the worse in our country. Grrr...

mimartin
04-29-2008, 12:47 PM
I'm annoyed by Dean,QFT
Obama's racism, I haven't seen any racism on Obama's part, unless you mean him saying the words "those people." Now if you are talking about people Obama associates with, namely Rev. Wright, then you may have a point, but I for one donít know if Rev. Wright is a racist from a 30 second sound bite. I watch Rev. Wrightís comments on CSPAN yesterday morning and judging strictly by those comments I would say he was not a raciest. Iím just not willing to label someone a raciest, without some comprehensive proof. I cannot see into a manís heart as clearly as some of the talking heads on television can.
Hilary's control issues You have a point there.
and emotional swings, People are not allowed mood swings now? Iíd actually like to have someone that showed some emotion in the White House. Iíd like to actually know they cared about the young men and women coming back home in flag draped coffins. I would like to see any emotion out of the President beside anger for eight straight years. Or was this just a way of saying she is a woman?

McCain's Democratic run as a Republican. He is more moderate than the typical Republican that makes it this far in the election process, but look at his voting record (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/m000303/key-votes/) he is a Republican. Besides he is the Republican candidate for President, that make him a Republican be default.

...each of them are bringing out the worse in our country. Grrr...Something like war, high gas prices, unemployment, strained allied relation, huge deficit, mortgage crisis, bipartisan bickering...?

Achilles
04-29-2008, 01:05 PM
People are not allowed mood swings now? Iíd actually like to have someone that showed some emotion in the White House. Iíd like to actually know they cared about the young men and women coming back home in flag draped coffins. I would like to see any emotion out of the President beside anger for eight straight years. Or was this just a way of saying she is a woman? I can't speak for Mr. The Source, but I know that many people are put off by the perception that her "emotions" are being faked in the name of opportunism. Of course no one can say for certain what Hillary really thinks and feels, but to those of us that are a little skeptical of her rhetoric and cynical about her campaign, the timing of some of her "relevations" is a little too convenient. My 2 cents.

The Source
04-29-2008, 01:26 PM
I can't speak for Mr. The Source, but I know that many people are put off by the perception that her "emotions" are being faked in the name of opportunism. Of course no one can say for certain what Hillary really thinks and feels, but to those of us that are a little skeptical of her rhetoric and cynical about her campaign, the timing of some of her "revelations" is a little too convenient. My 2 cents.
You hit it on the nail man. :lol:

When it comes to Obama, I think he is a liar, racist, and inexperienced. He is also no JFK. Before JFK was in office, he fought in a unpopular war. Obama gave tickets to people who didn't feed their car meters.

Why racist and liar? Since this is a strong subject, I should at least give you my interpretation.

#1 - His mentor-reverend was caught on several occasions spewing racial comments and unpatriotic garbage.

#2 - Obama was married by Rev. Wright.

#3 - Obama's children were baptized by Rev. Wright.

#4 - Obama gave a donation of $30,000 to support Rev. Wright's congregation. Why? He believes in his message.

#5 - Instead of addressing his own beliefs, Obama's racial speech was more like a lecture. He got away with not answering the question.

#6 - Obama's wife, "For the first time in my adult life, I feel a sense of hope in America." Why? Because her husband is winning in the Democratic race. If he was loosing in the race, how would she feel?

#7 - Obama and his family were hiding his middle name. Brock Husein Obama. After someone had mentioned his middle name, Obama's wife yelled, "You should not use his middle name." Why not? Do they have something to hide? Of course they do.

#8 - Obama's wife called her fellow Americans sloths, fat, and lazy. Yeah, we know we may have this problem, but what type of leader comes out and degrades people.

#9 - Instead of leaving Rev. Wrights congregation, Obama stays for 20 years. Why? Obama believes in the racist spew his reverend is selling.

#10 - Obama's wife, "Only Obama can heal your souls". No offense psycho. Only myself, Jesus Christ, and God can do that. And they call themselves Christian. Bull Shnite!

#11 - Obama's father and step father are Islamic. His mother was an atheist. Are you telling me that Islam had no impact on his life? The question to Obama, "What type of influence has Islam had on your life?"

#12 - "Hope and Change" - Why does he not fill us in on his plans? Hope for who? What type of change? Why does he not have substance? All he does is make speeches with words, which he does not explain or fill with meaning.

HERE ARE SOME CLIPS (http://wtkk.everyzing.com/viewMedia.jsp?dedupe=1&res=226358454&index=1&col=en-aud-pod_wtkk-ep&e=19758113&il=en&num=10&s=PZSID_0000701953;Jay+Severin%2C+WTKK%2C+Boston%2 C+MA&start=0&expand=true&match=query,channel&filter=0&y=0&x=0)

FULL LIST OF AUDIOS (http://wtkk.everyzing.com/results.jsp?s=PZSID_0000701953;Jay+Severin%2C+WTKK %2C+Boston%2C+MA&start=0&num=10&col=en-aud-pod_wtkk-ep&filter=0&dedupe=1&expand=true&match=query,channel&x=0&y=0&il=en)

Since it would take too long, just click on Jay Severin's comments. He is the man!

JCarter426
04-29-2008, 03:05 PM
#1-4, 9, 11: Five words--separation of church and State. His religious beliefs, whether they are the same as Mr Wright's or not, have absolutely nothing to do with whether he would be a good (or bad) president.
#6, 8, 10: Mrs Obama isn't running for president. Though she does appear to be a psycho. Still not the point. ;)
#7: Of course they have something to hide. If I had a name like that and lived in a racist, fear-mongering country, I'd have something to hide too. Also, it's Barack, and Hussein has two Ss.

Can't argue with #5 or #12, though.

The Source
04-29-2008, 03:58 PM
#1-4, 9, 11: Five words--separation of church and State. His religious beliefs, whether they are the same as Mr Wright's or not, have absolutely nothing to do with whether he would be a good (or bad) president.
#6, 8, 10: Mrs Obama isn't running for president. Though she does appear to be a psycho. Still not the point. ;)
#7: Of course they have something to hide. If I had a name like that and lived in a racist, fear-mongering country, I'd have something to hide too. Also, it's Barack, and Hussein has two Ss.

Can't argue with #5 or #12, though.
Very untrue. Very foolishly untrue. Since we live in a post-911 world, his Islamic influences should be at the center of questioning. Also, the people around him reflect the man. If he didn't believe in any of those racial remarks, he wouldn't have surrounded himself with those people.

"Its not who you are on the inside, its what you do that defines you."

JCarter426
04-29-2008, 04:01 PM
"Its not who you are on the inside, its what you do that defines you."

Do I really need to point out the hypocrisy of that argument? You're saying that Obama's "Islamic influences" are what define him, not his attempts to change the country for the better.

Beliefs have NOTHING to do with anything.

Totenkopf
04-29-2008, 04:22 PM
That's a bit naive. We're dealing with an election cycle here and politicians often say what they think will get them elected. What Obama believes will impact his decision making on HOW he intends to pursue his real objectives. It might be better to say that SOME of his beliefs have no bearing on what he will or won't do.

JCarter426
04-29-2008, 04:25 PM
Well, they do, obviously. They're not supposed to, though, which is what irritates me the most.

SilentScope001
04-29-2008, 04:29 PM
I hate Obama with a passion, and even I know Obama has no Islamic influence whatsoever. I mean, his calls to target Pakistan without asking for the government's premission? Wheter you agree with it or not, that policy doesn't sound like someone that would favor Muslims to me.

Beliefs have NOTHING to do with anything.

Bah? Of course they do. Beliefs are exactly how you justify how you do something. I mean, if a person is an Atheist, and he is a President, it would be reasonable to see that Atheist push policies that would benieft his 'non-religion'. For example, he would likely be pro-stem cell research, because of his trust in science and his distrust of religious arguments.

JCarter426
04-29-2008, 04:40 PM
Bah? Of course they do. Beliefs are exactly how you justify how you do something. I mean, if a person is an Atheist, and he is a President, it would be reasonable to see that Atheist push policies that would benieft his 'non-religion'. For example, he would likely be pro-stem cell research, because of his trust in science and his distrust of religious arguments.

Doesn't matter; the President's job isn't to make laws, but to enforce the ones that are already there. Even if religious beliefs do matter, with the President they don't.

Totenkopf
04-29-2008, 04:43 PM
I hate Obama with a passion, and even I know Obama has no Islamic influence whatsoever. I mean, his calls to target Pakistan without asking for the government's premission? Wheter you agree with it or not, that policy doesn't sound like someone that would favor Muslims to me.

By that rationale, many Muslims aren't pro-Muslim either. However, I think it interesting that he'd "openly" attack Pakistan (making Pakistani cooperation virtually impossible), a country of >160 million people when he obviously thinks we can't handle Iraq, a mere 25 million or thereabouts. Yeah, I want this guy's finger on the bomb. :rolleyes:

SilentScope001
04-29-2008, 04:46 PM
Doesn't matter; the President's job isn't to make laws, but to enforce the ones that are already there. Even if religious beliefs do matter, with the President they don't.

The President, being an influential person, however, can issue Executive Orders, which in a way can operate like laws, send the budgets over to Congress for approval (meaning he can choose to divert money from Absitence Programs over to the National Science Foundation), and being a rather powerful figure in his own party, can convince certain Senators and Represenatives to introduce 'laws' that he himself supports. The President weilds a ton of soft power, and he can (attempt to) ram down his beliefs if he so chooses.

Totenkopf
04-29-2008, 04:51 PM
Doesn't matter; the President's job isn't to make laws, but to enforce the ones that are already there. Even if religious beliefs do matter, with the President they don't.


On the other hand, the president does usually choose the people who head the bureaucracies that make all the "little laws" by fiat that affect much of what we do. A president would be unwise to say..."God told me to ignore this law and leave it unenforced", but that doesn't mean that his beliefs about particular laws might not impact how he goes about enforcing them. Take immigration as an example. We already have leaders who are ignoring the laws for a number of reasons. Who's to say that one of them might not be a religiously influenced belief about dealing with poor people.

JCarter426
04-29-2008, 04:57 PM
The President, being an influential person, however, can issue Executive Orders, which in a way can operate like laws, send the budgets over to Congress for approval (meaning he can choose to divert money from Absitence Programs over to the National Science Foundation), and being a rather powerful figure in his own party, can convince certain Senators and Represenatives to introduce 'laws' that he himself supports.

The wonderful system of checks and balances...well, if only it actually worked. ;) The President doesn't actually have much power, as enumerated in the Constitution, but since Congress seems to have given up 75% of its authority, that's no longer the case.

However, a president's beliefs have only as much importance as the voters give them. If they didn't make such a big fuss about whether a president was against abortion or for stem cell research, then it would be quite a different country. Sometimes those checks do actually work, and even these days there are some things beyond the president's reach.

mimartin
04-29-2008, 04:58 PM
Bah? Of course they do. Beliefs are exactly how you justify how you do something. I mean, if a person is an Atheist, and he is a President, it would be reasonable to see that Atheist push policies that would benieft his 'non-religion'. For example, he would likely be pro-stem cell research, because of his trust in science and his distrust of religious arguments. I agree with this statement for the same reason I believe a Christian President would push his/her perceived religious agenda regardless of the facts. I once believed religious beliefs had nothing to do with the ability of someone to do their job. Then Achilles and ET Warrior pointed out to me if a politician felt that judgment day was in the near future, why worry about the environment. It sounds logical to me. A President represents all the people and the only agenda he/she should be pushing is the peoplesí agenda. Yea, I know politics does not work that way, special interest rules the worldÖyada yada yada.

Doesn't matter; the President's job isn't to make laws, but to enforce the ones that are already there. Even if religious beliefs do matter, with the President they don't.The President does the budget, which is approved by Congress, so he had tremendous power in what gets funded and what dies. Without money Congress can pass anything, but it may never be funded. Operation Head Start anyone?

Jae Onasi
04-29-2008, 06:58 PM
I once believed religious beliefs had nothing to do with the ability of someone to do their job. Then Achilles and ET Warrior pointed out to me if a politician felt that judgment day was in the near future, why worry about the environment. It sounds logical to me.
Not necessarily. I think Christ could come back in 3 minutes if he wanted, or in another 3 million years. However, I think that even if we knew he was coming back in 3 years or whatever near-future time you want to use, it would not absolve us of our duty to take care of the environment. We have one earth and we need to take care of it, regardless of the timing of Christ's return.


Source: There are lots of people with the name "Hussein", and not all of them are Muslims, as if that mattered anyway. One of my favorite people in Ohio has an Arabic name. He happens to be an Arab Christian from Nazareth, Israel.

Obama converted to Christianity. I think his exposure to Islam can only be a benefit. He'll hopefully have a better understanding of how the religion shapes and defines the Middle East, because whoever wins is going to have to work a lot with the issue of Iraq in particular and the Middle East in general.

Achilles
04-29-2008, 07:41 PM
Not necessarily. I think Christ could come back in 3 minutes if he wanted, or in another 3 million years. However, I think that even if we knew he was coming back in 3 years or whatever near-future time you want to use, it would not absolve us of our duty to take care of the environment. We have one earth and we need to take care of it, regardless of the timing of Christ's return.It would be nice if everyone thought that way :)

Unfortunately, a lot of prominent conservatives don't share your viewpoint :(

mimartin
04-29-2008, 08:58 PM
Not necessarily...Oh I think the same way, but it is oblivious not everyone shares that view. Since I thought that way I never considered it an issue at least until the non-believers brained washed me. :D

Jae Onasi
05-07-2008, 09:39 AM
Well, yesterday's primaries were in NC and IN. Obama won easily in NC, and Clinton won very narrowly in IN. Clinton canceled her morning appointments apparently, though last night she mentioned she was going on to campaign in WV. Will she withdraw or continue on?

tk102
05-07-2008, 10:09 AM
Oregon's primary is on May 20. We all vote by mail and my ballot arrived yesterday. If she does drop out, I will be slightly pissed off. This would be the first time in 12 years since I've been here that my vote might actually count for something. I've been waiting so patiently to vote against her. :(

Det. Bart Lasiter
05-07-2008, 11:41 AM
Oregon's primary is on May 20. We all vote by mail and my ballot arrived yesterday. If she does drop out, I will be slightly pissed off. This would be the first time in 12 years since I've been here that my vote might actually count for something. I've been waiting so patiently to vote against her. :(lol votes that matter, tk you so crazy.

I think it's nice that Howard Dean has just come out and acknowledged that the popular vote won't decide this.

Anyway, tk I recommend you fold your ballot into an origami swan and FedEx it back to them. Logically, that should count as one thousandth of a wish.

The Source
05-07-2008, 11:43 AM
Well, yesterday's primaries were in NC and IN. Obama won easily in NC, and Clinton won very narrowly in IN. Clinton canceled her morning appointments apparently, though last night she mentioned she was going on to campaign in WV. Will she withdraw or continue on?
I am in no way a pure Democrat or Republican. However, I think Clinton should stay in for the long haul. Since Brock cannot close the deal himself, I think this needs to be fought to the end. At this point in the game, there would be no reason why she should call it quits. I love the media, "Should she quit now" - "If she doesn't win here or there, she will have no other choice but to call it quits.". You know how many times I witnessed the media's incompatence. They act as if they control the proccess. Plus, who the hell really knows what the percentages are. Every time the media opens their mouths about 'polls', they allways get the numbers wrong.

Plus, Obama's position as a canadate occured before the 'Rev. Wright' issues, and before he started to define himself. Who knows how many of his previous supports have jumped ship. Lol...

Achilles
05-07-2008, 12:42 PM
According to this morning's headlines, she's vowing to stay in to the end. Realistically speaking there is no less reason for her to drop out than there was a month ago, so I don't see why the nth acknowledgment of the impossible odds she's up against will make a difference.

What I think will make a difference is the money. At some point the donors will figure out that they are throwing their money away and stop. The fact that Hillary lent her campaign $6.4 million last month (bringing to total to $11.4) leads me to suspect that this might already be happening. Then the question becomes, how much of her own money is she willing to spend on a race she can't win?

Jae Onasi
05-07-2008, 12:55 PM
@ Source--The number of pledged and super-delegates is not subject to opinion polls, however. So far Obama is ahead in popular vote and pledged delegates. Neither can win the party's nomination outright right now--it's going to come down to the super-delegates' votes, and the only question is if it's going to get cleared up early in the summer or if the fight is going to go all the way to the convention. Clinton's only advantage is that she has a greater political machine in place with the super-delegates, and so she could conceivably swing those votes enough in her direction to win the nomination. That would create a firestorm of controversy, however, if Obama's won the popular vote, as it appears he will do.


@Achilles--I agree on the money--Obama's outspent her and received a lot more donations than she has. Clinton's major donors have already maxed their donations, and Obama clearly has the advantage in grass-roots donations. If you can predict who's going to win based on donations at this point, Obama will win hands down.

Edit--didn't see your post above til after I had replied to Source. :)

Achilles
05-07-2008, 12:59 PM
Don't forget that he is within 40 delegates of having the majority of pledged delegates (he currently has the lead but neither candidate has the majority). Also the incredible amount of money he is raising. These two things will also help his chances with the super delegates.

JCarter426
05-07-2008, 03:44 PM
Well, that was an interesting night. For a while there it looked like Clinton could actually lose Indiana. She may still be in the race, but she has even less of a chance to win the nomination than she did a week ago.

Gavroche
05-07-2008, 04:27 PM
Yep, er, I feel like I'm intruding on this thread, but there is something I can't help but keep wondering about those Primaries in America.

From what I read or hear, there is a rough 50/50 between Democrats and Republicans in America. Fine. So each side has fair chances to win those elections.

Now Democrats have been split in two, between Obama and Clinton. 'K. Wouldn't be a problem if the choice has been made quickly, Democrats would now stand with one leader that would be more than a match for McCain.
But the choice has not been done... And the struggle goes on and with each day passing Obama and Clinton keeps bashing each other so that now Democrats are bashing themselves within their ranks.

So what I'm wondering is, once that Clinton or Obama shall have been chosen to represent the Democrats, one half of them will be thrilled, but what is the other half going to do? Get sulky? Seeing how they are fighting against each other, I just can't imagine them eventually voting for "the other guy". So it's going to be 25% for Democrats and 50% for Republicans...

So, do I just miss something very important (highly probable) or did Democrats just already lose before the votes even began?
Thanks for helping me to figure that out!

SilentScope001
05-07-2008, 04:53 PM
So what I'm wondering is, once that Clinton or Obama shall have been chosen to represent the Democrats, one half of them will be thrilled, but what is the other half going to do? Get sulky? Seeing how they are fighting against each other, I just can't imagine them eventually voting for "the other guy". So it's going to be 25% for Democrats and 50% for Republicans...

As a Democrat/Republican, I'm going to offer the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.

Good News for Democrats: The vast majority of Democrats will not vote for a Republican. Only a minority of people (say, around 10-20%) would be willing to cross over and vote for McCain if their favorite Democratic candinate loses the nomination. And that small minority will shrink once McCain and the Democrat start attacking each other. The base will unite.

Bad News For Democrats: Every vote counts, especially in swing states. So if that small minority defects to McCain, and if that small minority lives in competitive states, McCain could very well win the election.

Ugly News For Democrats: McCain is suffering from the same problem, true, with the base upset, but it is done on a smaller scale, and they are more likely to boycott the polls rather than vote for the Democrats. McCain however is known of actually being a likable guy, trusted more than the Democrats on several issues, even that of Iraq (even though many Americans do disagree with McCain's plan). So cross-over votes are more likely for the Democrats, because McCain is not associated with Bush as much as, say, Chency. The Democrats need to start defining McCain, but in the end, McCain has a better trackrecord than both Clinton and Obama, so it is a hard thing to do, even if they unite.

EDIT: Hopeful News For Democrats: At least several 'attack ads' have been aired already, allowing for the candinates to weather them out before the actual general election. If Obama was nominated early, the Wright episode would have ruined him and the Democrats greatly. If Clinton was nominated early, then her organization would really need to be boosted to compete with McCain (because her organization could not handle Obama's grassroot efforts effectively). Plus, if one candinate really is seen as bad to general election chances, that candinate can easily be thrown under the bus.

Citations:

I'm trying to dig up articles to back up my view, but all I got right now is one, I'll add in more later.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/105691/McCain-vs-Obama-28-Clinton-Backers-McCain.aspx (If McCain vs. Obama, 28% of Clinton Backers Go for McCain)

EDIT4: Oh sod it. Is Clinton's knockout blow going to come in...West Virginia?

(2) I am very interested in next week's election in West Virginia. Everybody expects Hillary Clinton to win, but I can't help but wonder if they'll be surprised by the size of the margin.

We can reasonably expect it to be enormous. From a socioeconomic standpoint, West Virginia is almost entirely comprised of the sort of counties that Obama has done poorly in. The median white income in West Virginia is about $30,000 per year. African Americans comprise roughly 3% of the state's population. This puts it somewhere between Belmont County, Ohio and Greene County, Pennsylvania. Clinton won 72% of the vote in Belmont and 75% in Greene. From another angle, we see a similar situation. If we take the counties of Ohio, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia that border West Virginia, we see that Clinton won on average 63.5% of the countywide vote. However, if we exempt the counties in Maryland and Virginia that border the eastern panhandle of West Virginia, her share of the vote jumps to 70.1%.

So, how would this be surprising? To date, you'd have to look closely to see Obama's poor results among working class whites in Appalachia. If you only take the 55-45 margins in Ohio and Pennsylvania, without drilling down a bit deeper, you might think, "That's not so bad." That probably will not be possible next week. The whole state of West Virginia should mimic what we saw in southern Ohio, southwestern Pennsylvania, and southwestern Virginia.

How will the press and the superdelegates react if Clinton wins by 30 points, 40 points, even 50 points? Remember that John Kennedy essentially wrapped up the 1960 nomination with a win in West Virginia because it proved that he had crossover appeal. What happens if Obama "proves" the opposite? Psychologically speaking, are people prepared for a loss of this magnitude, having fully absorbed the countywide details of previous results, or will this come as a shock to them?

Obama's impending loss in West Virginia might reinforce the previous point - an Obama electoral college victory might look different than anything a Democrat has ever put together. A Democrat has won the White House having lost West Virginia just once. Woodrow Wilson did it in 1916. Again, this is not a sign of any impending electoral doom for Obama should he win the nomination. States can and do move into and out of a party's voting coalition. Take Delaware and New Jersey, for instance. Both usually supported the GOP when it won the White House, but this is no longer the case. The point here is simply that an Obama victory might look like something we've never seen before.

Everything else in that article (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/2008/05/reflections_on_the_democratic.html) favors Obama though. :)

The Source
05-07-2008, 05:56 PM
Yep, er, I feel like I'm intruding on this thread, but there is something I can't help but keep wondering about those Primaries in America.

From what I read or hear, there is a rough 50/50 between Democrats and Republicans in America. Fine. So each side has fair chances to win those elections.

Now Democrats have been split in two, between Obama and Clinton. 'K. Wouldn't be a problem if the choice has been made quickly, Democrats would now stand with one leader that would be more than a match for McCain.
But the choice has not been done... And the struggle goes on and with each day passing Obama and Clinton keeps bashing each other so that now Democrats are bashing themselves within their ranks.

So what I'm wondering is, once that Clinton or Obama shall have been chosen to represent the Democrats, one half of them will be thrilled, but what is the other half going to do? Get sulky? Seeing how they are fighting against each other, I just can't imagine them eventually voting for "the other guy". So it's going to be 25% for Democrats and 50% for Republicans...

So, do I just miss something very important (highly probable) or did Democrats just already lose before the votes even began?
Thanks for helping me to figure that out!
If I am repeating some of SilentScope001 is saying, please forgive me for any repetition.

First, some of the media is waking up to another conundrom. If Obama wins the nomination, 14-20% of Hillary voters have a great chance of defecting. If Hillary wins the vote, 10% African Americans will not vote at all.

Second, the democratic party has another issue. According to some of the analysis I have been hearing, Obama can't make the vote. Why? He has been elected by college students and African Americans. Obama is unable to obtain enough caucason male and female voters.

Third, what the media is not talking about is something interesting. Why is Hillary staying in the race? There is a massive amount of unpledged delegates in which have the potential to sway her way. The media is trying to keep that under-wraps.

Fourth, Hillary has gotten all the votes, which in a general election make a difference. Even though Brock has the most popular vote, Hillary has every state she needs to win the election.

Fifth, if the Democrats do not allow the Florida and MIchican votes count, there will be major backlash in the general election. Since they have not been added to Hillary's total yet, Hillary seems to be having issues with delegate. Brock Obama was asked by Hillary to do a recount in Florida and Michican, and he said, "No way man." Brock is in the way of the recount. Florida and Michican are essential to winning the presidency. Backlash is sure to come.

Sixth, in order to win the primary, you have to obtain 2,025 delegates. Since Hillary knows this is the case, no one has the right to tell her to quit. The race is still on. The number of unpledged delegates is estimated around 200.

Brock is winning only by 149 votes. If you really think about that number, that is not the majority vote.

tk102
05-07-2008, 06:12 PM
If anything, the Democratic Party is more invigorated than ever due to the tight primary race. All the media attention has been encouraging Democrats to participate in the electoral process. Even Democrats in states that have primaries as late as Oregon have been registering (http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/120918572488500.xml&coll=7&thispage=1) in record numbers.

Likewise, if the dollars raised represent relative enthusiasm for a party, the GOP equally screwed. "For example, in the last month alone Obama raised $55 million, Clinton $35 million and McCain $12 million. That is a 90 to 12 money advantage and money is the motherís milk of politics." --Source (http://www.atmoreadvance.com/articles/2008/04/17/opinion/columns/col3.txt)

The Source
05-07-2008, 06:22 PM
If anything, the Democratic Party is more invigorated than ever due to the tight primary race. All the media attention has been encouraging Democrats to participate in the electoral process. Even Democrats in states that have primaries as late as Oregon have been registering (http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/120918572488500.xml&coll=7&thispage=1) in record numbers.

Likewise, if the dollars raised represent relative enthusiasm for a party, the GOP equally screwed. "For example, in the last month alone Obama raised $55 million, Clinton $35 million and McCain $12 million. That is a 90 to 12 money advantage and money is the motherís milk of politics." --Source (http://www.atmoreadvance.com/articles/2008/04/17/opinion/columns/col3.txt)
My only issue with your first comment is: The television media is allways biased towards Democrats. Allways. They were even hyping John Kerry.

tk102
05-07-2008, 06:24 PM
The television media is allways biased towards Democrats. Allways. Except Fox of course. Maybe that doesn't count as television media. :p

The Source
05-07-2008, 06:28 PM
There is one current day example, and I am sure there are others. Michael Ducacus, Gov. of Massachusetts. He was hyped by the media, and he ended up loosing the election. Obama is the next Ducacus. Many people are seeing this. Ducacus himself had mentioned it on the radio.

Fox?! Lol... UFOs? :xp:

Jae Onasi
05-07-2008, 10:41 PM
I followed Dukakis' campaign. Barack Obama could run circles around Dukakis. He's smarter, more polished, more articulate.

The money issue--in politics, the one who can raise the most money is far more likely to win. That's not always true, but it is often true. I wouldn't make last month the model for fundraising, however--McCain's already won the nomination and is not getting near the attention that Obama or Clinton are getting. A better comparison might be from when all three were in the running for their parties' nominations. The Democrats have raised far, far more funds than the Republicans have and that is significant, but I don't think the big donors for the Republicans have come out of the woodwork yet. I suspect they're waiting to see who the VP nominee will be.

@Gavroche--There are more Democrats than Republicans in the US, so any Republican seeking to win the Presidential election has to gain more support from moderate Democrats than does a Democratic nominee from moderate Republicans. It also depends on the states they win because of the electoral voting for President, but that's another story, too. :)

In terms of what happens when either Clinton or Obama loses the nomination--theoretically the loser could take his or her support and go for McCain, but both candidates have said they want a united party and would support whoever won. Neither Obama nor Clinton want to see another Republican in the Oval Office, and they'd rather give each other their support than to give it to McCain. Their ultimate goal is to see a Democrat in the office.

I would not be surprised to see an Obama-Clinton ticket. I think that unless some horrible skeleton comes out of Obama's closet rendering him unwinnable in the general election, he's going to be the nominee. He has more popular votes, more delegates, and is gaining more super-delegates by the day. If Clinton and Obama are both agreeable to that ticket, I think they would be utterly unbeatable in the November general election. They have absolutely energized the Democratic party in a way I've not seen since Bill Clinton's first race for the White House, and I think even more than that. This may be a long drawn out battle for the two, but the record voter registrations and turnouts in states that normally only have a token say and small turnouts this late in the nomination process will bring even more people to the Democratic party.

Gavroche
05-08-2008, 03:48 AM
OK, so I guess media outside the US just tends to insist only on the opposition between Obama and Clinton, while in fact Democrats won't be dumb enough to get stuck after either one's nomination.
I'll keep watching what's going on in America, thanks for the answers :)

SilentScope001
05-08-2008, 10:14 AM
The Democrats have raised far, far more funds than the Republicans have and that is significant, but I don't think the big donors for the Republicans have come out of the woodwork yet. I suspect they're waiting to see who the VP nominee will be.

Correction: The Democratic candinates has raised far, far more funds than the Republican candinate. The actual Republican party has raised more money than the Democratic Party. Still, fundraising is a big problem for the Republicans, especially for the possiblity of a 'veto-proof congress'.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and its Senate counterpart have reportedly raised $66 million for this election cycle so far. The Republican committees have raised $20 million. While the seesaw is somewhat righted by fundraising by the Republican National Committee ($22 million versus only $3 million for the Democrats), the rest of the picture is pretty alarming for Republicans.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/a_vetoproof_congress.html

mimartin
05-08-2008, 11:22 AM
Except Fox of course. Maybe that doesn't count as television media. :p:tsk: Fox News is "Fair and Balanced." I saw it on television, so it must be true. :xp:

Tommycat
05-08-2008, 11:45 PM
:tsk: Fox News is "Fair and Balanced." I saw it on television, so it must be true. :xp:
If you use a stopwatch, you might be suprised bu how balanced it really is. Sure the hosts may be more right leaning, but the left leaning guests tend to get more air time. Granted because most people are used to the heavy left leaning media, it appears that Fox News is far right.

By no means am I actually making the claim that it is truly fair and balanced, just that it isn't so far right as you might think. It is actually nice to hear some of the good things that come out of Iraq.

mur'phon
05-09-2008, 12:38 AM
My problem with fox has less to do with the amount of air time given to each "side" and more to do with the fact that they seem to love to set a stammering lefty ranter up against a well-spoken/diciplined righty.

SilentScope001
05-09-2008, 12:53 AM
There is a small chance that Clinton may pull off a sweep, taking West Virgina, Kentucky, and Pureto Rico, according to RCP, but RCP then claims it is rather unlikely for it to happen. It is rather likely that she will at the very least claim one of those three...er...places. Yes places. Not states. (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/2008/05/not_quite_yet_1.html)

Tommycat
05-09-2008, 01:17 AM
My problem with fox has less to do with the amount of air time given to each "side" and more to do with the fact that they seem to love to set a stammering lefty ranter up against a well-spoken/diciplined righty.
That isn't so much Fox's fault. They invite them, but the more articulate boycott going on Fox.

Corinthian
05-09-2008, 01:18 AM
I dunno. They had Bill Clinton on there not too long ago.

Tommycat
05-09-2008, 04:15 AM
I dunno. They had Bill Clinton on there not too long ago.
Again I say... Hehe. Just kidding. He's a really good orator...

Anyway... We now return you to your regularly scheduled topic...
The Democrats may have been gathering cash, but while McCain has been able to campaign for his presidency, They're spending more money saying why the future candidate for their party shouldn't be president. Well one of them is... So technically McCain doesn't have to spend as much right now.

The Source
05-10-2008, 11:53 PM
Since the race for the Democratic nomination is almost over, I can honestly say that Obama will be the 'Democratic nomination' for president. However, I do not see Hillary as his Vice President.

My prediction:
Here is how Hillary will be nominated for President, and how the race will be played out for the genderal election:

Tom John McCain and (His Unknown Running Mate)
Republican Party

vrs.

Brock Barack Obama and John Edwards
Democrat Party

vrs.

Hillary Clinton and Joe Liberman
Independant Party

Since Hillary has the essential states to win the presidency, her best bet is to declare herself as independant. She will be able to take a mess of votes away from both canidate, and it will ensure her success now or in 2012.

Web Rider
05-11-2008, 12:31 AM
Hillary Clinton and Joe Liberman
Independant Party

Since Hillary has the essential states to win the presidency, her best bet is to declare herself as independant. She will be able to take a mess of votes away from both canidate, and it will ensure her success now or in 2012.

ERROR: CRITICAL READ FAILURE. BUFFER OVERRUN.

No, not gonna happen. Aside from Liberman and Hillary being politically close in terms of ideologies, Hillary will not switch to independant. Not matter how desperate the Independant party gets. She's already got enough heat on her, switching parties to win the election would strip her of any credibility she may have had.

Additionally, it will not strip votes from both candidates, it will strip voted from the democrats, ensureing another "4 more years!" which is the last thing this country needs.

SilentScope001
05-11-2008, 10:28 AM
Aside from Liberman and Hillary being politically close in terms of ideologies,

...Huh? Liberman endorsed McCain for the Presidency, and is likely to speak at the Republican convention. And the Democrats want to kick Liberman out of their cacacus as punishment for that. You're telling me Clinton is just like him?

You DON'T go out and declare an indepedency candinacy every time you are upset, that just makes you look like an idiot. As for if she'll/he'll receive VP pick, I think it's a rather dumb move that both Obama and Clinton would not want to consider. You'll get the worst of both sides, Obama's inexperience, and Clinton's "bad repuation".

I think I may be convinced that Clinton will lose the nomination (but she will lose in a divided convention, not lose now), but I can take comfort that she can be able to take over the Popular Vote by June 3rd, and thereby turn the tables around: Obama will be the one who is overturning the will of the people by using the superdelegates. I can also take comfort however in the following:

We have all but forgotten Flordia and Michigan.

Obama is set to declare victory when he gets a majority of 2,025 delegates, but that excludes both Flordia and Michigan, major swing states who violated the Democratic party rules by having their primaries early. If you include Flordia and Michigan, then the amount of delegates needed to win will ALSO increase, which will benieft Clinton a lot. Plus, counting Flordia and Michigan will also aid in increasing her popular vote tally.

If Clinton is to prevail, she needs to ensure that those delegates get seated in a way that will benieft her (as in, don't just go and spilt it 50-50 Flordia and Michigan, so that Obama gets 'free' delegates too), and the only group that can do that...is not the Superdelegates, but the Rules and Ways Commitee.

We're going to see a ton of fights over there. And it's a fight that is needed. Snubbing your nose at Flordia is...quite simply...dumb.

Jae Onasi
05-11-2008, 11:06 AM
There's no chance for an independent ticket. Lieberman won as Senator after losing the Dem primary because the Republicans and moderate Democrats let him know in overwhelming numbers that they would re-elect him if he ran on an indy ticket. His situation was extraordinary and had unique aspects that allowed that to happen. Those same dynamics would not be present at the national level.

I'm not sure if Edwards will run as VP or not with his wife fighting a recurrence of her cancer.

Edit: Obama didn't campaign in either MI or FL because he was following the Dem leadership that had already said the delegates wouldn't be seated from those states. He wasn't even on the FL ballot. Seating delegates from those states would be very controversial.

SilentScope001
05-11-2008, 12:11 PM
He wasn't even on the FL ballot.

Yes he was. He wasn't on the MI Ballot. There's the difference.

Seating delegates from those states would be very controversial.

Which is why I think Clinton will lose the nomination.

If, however, I was in charge of the Democratic Party, I would half Flordia's delegates (like how the Republicans penalized Flordia), and then spilt MI's delegates 50-50 to Obama and Clinton. I think neither Clinton nor Obama offically campagined in Flordia, and since they were both on the ballot, you can be ensured that any who wanted to vote for Obama get counted.

MI, on the other hand, had Obama not on the ballot, and even if you give ALL of the 'None of the Above' votes to Obama, you still have to worry about lowered turnout for Obama.

However, this compromise will likely weaken both Clinton's hand, which is why I'm not so happy with it.

Achilles
05-11-2008, 01:21 PM
According to the Associated Press count, Obama officially overtook Clinton on super delegates yesterday. More than a few of these new SDs have left Camp Hillary to throw in with Barack, so while his number is growing, hers is shrinking.

For tk102's sake, I'm hoping that Clinton waits until the 21st to drop out.

Corinthian
05-11-2008, 04:03 PM
Hilary isn't going to give up any time soon, I'm betting. She's too stubborn. She's going to keep clinging on until it is absolutely impossible for her to win.

As for her being Obama's VP, unless she institutes a plan to have him assassinated, which I actually don't see being beneath her, unfortunately, I really doubt she's willing to take the 'Mostly-useless' spot.

Tommycat
05-12-2008, 04:02 AM
Clinton isn't dumb. She may be a nut job, but she isn't stupid. She knows as well as we do that if she were to run as an independent, it would only split the democratic vote and pretty well ensure that McCain gets elected.

With either one winning the primary it's going to hurt the winner. If Obama wins then he has disenfranchised the voters of FL and MI. If Clinton wins(by including FL and MI) she cheated the election by using delegates that were not supposed to be used.

Corinthian
05-12-2008, 04:34 AM
Which is exactly why I'm really hoping Hilary pulls the cat out of the bag and wins. I think McCain has a good bet of beating her. I don't think he's got as good of a chance of beating Obama, the man's got charisma, even if I despise his politics.

Jae Onasi
05-12-2008, 09:22 AM
Clinton and Obama are two of the most energetic campaigners I've seen in a long time. I think McCain will have a tough fight no matter who wins--he's representing the party that so many are now disenchanted with. He's already starting the race with that handicap.

Achilles
05-14-2008, 06:39 PM
John Edwards will be endorsing Barack Obama tonight. So much for his pledge not to endorse.

Jae Onasi
05-14-2008, 08:43 PM
Oh, I knew he'd give an endorsement to someone--that was a political inevitability given the delegates he held. A small number, to be sure, but in a race with this relative level of closeness, no delegate is unimportant. I think he's timed it to blunt the impact of Clinton's double-digit win in WV yesterday.

EnderWiggin
05-14-2008, 09:27 PM
With either one winning the primary it's going to hurt the winner. If Obama wins then he has disenfranchised the voters of FL and MI. If Clinton wins(by including FL and MI) she cheated the election by using delegates that were not supposed to be used.

I'm an Obama-ite, but seriously? How can you say that the delegates in MI and FL were not supposed to be used?

They made mistakes there, sure. But IMHO it is not in this country's best interests to completely remove two states from the process. We'll have to pull out our old 48-star flags (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1a/US_flag_48_stars.svg) for the convention.

_EW_

Achilles
05-14-2008, 10:44 PM
Oh, I knew he'd give an endorsement to someone--that was a political inevitability given the delegates he held. A small number, to be sure, but in a race with this relative level of closeness, no delegate is unimportant. More than a few of them had already made their endorsements, so I don't think Edward's blessing was a necessity.

I think he's timed it to blunt the impact of Clinton's double-digit win in WV yesterday.Could be. Considering just how little impact Clinton's predicted win had, I don't think it likely though. Personally, I think he was too chicken**** to endorse before the North Carolina primary which was held last week. Oh well :(

I'm an Obama-ite, but seriously? How can you say that the delegates in MI and FL were not supposed to be used? Well, MI clearly violated the rules, so I don't think they should be allowed to flaunt guidelines without having to face the consequences.

They made mistakes there, sure. But IMHO it is not in this country's best interests to completely remove two states from the process.Is it in the Democratic party's best interest to set a precedent that the rules can be ignored without having to worry about the clearly-stated repercussions being enforced? It's not as though the states are being kicked out the union or invited not to participate in the general election.

Arcesious
05-15-2008, 01:57 AM
I found John edwards speech today be quite inspiring. I only hope that Obama lives up to what he says. If not... I'll be sorely disappointed. It sounds very much like it is meant truthfully, but, sadly, being a sceptic somewhat, I have to realize that it may all be just said to get people to vote... I won't know until after the oath of office is taken. And if Mccaine wins due to electoral college I would expect a huge protest to ensue... Who's really better? I don't know. I'd say I'm pretty one-sided about being against Mccaine, and Hillary I simply don't trust- just an instinct that she doesn't really mean what she's saying, that 'little voice in my head' telling me there's something not right about her... But.. Barack... I hope he lives up to his words and the words of his endorsers. Or else my sig change will have been in vain...

Jae Onasi
05-15-2008, 08:47 AM
More than a few of them had already made their endorsements, so I don't think Edward's blessing was a necessity.Maybe not an absolute necessity, no, but certainly not unimportant.

Could be. Considering just how little impact Clinton's predicted win had, I don't think it likely though. Personally, I think he was too chicken**** to endorse before the North Carolina primary which was held last week. Oh well :(I thought I saw him at a Clinton rally before the NC primary, too, though that could have been old footage. He gives me the impression of being a 'go the way the political winds blow' kind of guy. He also could be maneuvering for a VP spot. Who knows.

Well, MI clearly violated the rules, so I don't think they should be allowed to flaunt guidelines without having to face the consequences.I agree. All the Democrat candidates knew the rules ahead of time, all of them initially agreed to abide by the party leaders' decision on MI and FL.

If the Dems are going to let MI get away with it, I'm going to petition the WI Dem party to move up the primary date so we can have more of a say in the primary decisions. It's annoying to have a primary after super-Tuesday because my vote usually makes no difference other than letting the presumptive winner know how I feel about him/her.

SilentScope001
05-15-2008, 11:35 AM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/may/15/johnmccain.uselections2008

McCain is planning to declare victory and withdraw in 2013. Meh. So all the candinates (even the Libertaraian President candinate, Mr. Bob) is calling for withdrawal from Iraq. So much for change.

Achilles
05-15-2008, 01:03 PM
Maybe not an absolute necessity, no, but certainly not unimportant. You're right, Jae. It would appear that Edwards' endorsement is having some impact (Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/obama_edwards)). I have to admit that I'm a little shocked. I really did think his endorsement was just about useless at this point.

Arcesious
05-15-2008, 03:55 PM
Useless in the perspective the experienced politician, inspiring and encouraging in the perpective of the average voter...

Totenkopf
05-15-2008, 05:41 PM
Well, regardless of who ends up winning the primary, there's still the general election. Have to wonder how disaffection with the end choice will play in November. Given that a sig % of potential voters in the primary have indicated that they'd vote for McCain rather than the other candidate, it'll be interesting to see if they maintain that position or just opt out of voting altogether. Of course, there's always the democrat penchant for rigging elections (illegals, animals, mulitple vote casting, etc...) to offset that problem down the road. ;)

Achilles
05-15-2008, 05:58 PM
Useless in the perspective the experienced politician, inspiring and encouraging in the perpective of the average voter...Perhaps, but again I doubt it. Edwards' captured a very small percentage of the vote before he dropped out, so where would his endorsement carry the most weight? His home state of North Carolina. Therefore proclaiming that he would not endorse, period, and then turning around and endorsing after his home state voted...:rolleyes:

He lost a lot of credibility with me when he ran on a platform of challenging the status quo then failed to endorse Obama after dropping out the race himself. Perhaps if he had not spent so much time attacking Hillary for representing the status quo, I could cut him some slack, but IMO he simply revealed himself as a typical opportunistic politician.

Jae Onasi
05-31-2008, 03:38 PM
15 May: They're all pretty much opportunistic, the only question is 'how opportunistic are they'. The only ones who I ever met/studied who weren't like that (at least to the usual degree) were Bill Proxmire and Paul Simon.


31 May:

DNC meeting news (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/31/dean-calls-for-party-healing-at-dnc-meeting/)

The DNC has agreed to allow FL delegates to each have half a vote per the agreement at the by-laws meeting today. At this time, they're still arguing about what to do with the MI delegates--Obama wasn't even on the ballot in that state so the situation is not quite so clear there.

EnderWiggin
05-31-2008, 04:20 PM
So pretty much it's still at an impasse.

_EW_

Achilles
05-31-2008, 04:28 PM
Yes and no. Hillary got the sweeter deal out of FL but not the exact scenario that she wanted. Re: Michigan, I think the most equitable options won't favor either of them (which kinda sorta ends up favoring Obama since he doesn't gain anything but doesn't lose anything either).

Litofsky
05-31-2008, 05:46 PM
At this point, I think that, assuming that Michigan won't be recounted, Florida's delegates are borderline-worthless. If I'm correct, there are one hundred fifty delegates in Florida. Now, for Hillary Clinton, I think that seventy-five delegates would help, but it wouldn't assure her a win at all.

I might be completely wrong, but, at this point, it seems that Obama will be the Democratic Presidential Candidate.

Jae Onasi
05-31-2008, 05:52 PM
Obama only needs about 40 more delegates before this meeting, while Clinton needs 200 or so to win. Even if she gets a lot of those votes and he only gets a few, he doesn't need that many more to secure the nomination.

Achilles
05-31-2008, 06:14 PM
I might be completely wrong, but, at this point, it seems that Obama will be the Democratic Presidential Candidate.Pretty much.

Hillary knows that no matter what she won't be able to catch up to Obama on the delegate count. Her goal was to get the FL and MI "wins" validated so that she could use the bump in popular votes to improve her case with the remaining superdelegates.

Right, wrong, or indifferent the democratic nominating process is determined by the number of delegates. This is something that Hillary has acknowledged (quite forcefully at times) when it was convenient for her to do so. Now that this metric isn't working to her favor, she's changed her focus to popular votes.

EDIT: Based on the new numbers, if Obama averages 50% in the 3 remaining contests, he'll only need 20 superdelegates to secure the nomination.

Achilles
06-02-2008, 03:21 PM
I hesistant to put too much into this until I actually hear a fat lady singing, but this might finally be the end.

Link (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/02/clinton-summons-top-donor_n_104715.html)
Snippet:Hillary Clinton has summoned top donors and backers to attend her New York speech tomorrow night in an unusual move that is being widely interpreted to mean she plans to suspend her campaign and endorse Barack Obama.

EnderWiggin
06-02-2008, 04:19 PM
No f***ing way!

After all this talk about her taking it to convention, that's what she better do. Keep your word, HRC.

_EW_

mimartin
06-02-2008, 04:28 PM
Does this mean she got something in return? VP?:xp::(

Litofsky
06-02-2008, 04:39 PM
I hesistant to put too much into this until I actually hear a fat lady singing, but this might finally be the end.

Link (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/02/clinton-summons-top-donor_n_104715.html)
Snippet:

Wow. That's amazing, despite the fact that it should have happened weeks ago. Perhaps we should have a thread dedicated to the possibilities of a Vice President for Barack Obama?

Anyways, I wonder what she'll get (or what she thinks she'll get) in return...

Achilles
06-02-2008, 04:48 PM
Normally, the VP slot is used to boost the credentials for an incumbent run. Since Hillary doesn't need this and there are more powerful positions that she would be a good fit for, I don't see why she would even want the Vice Presidency. I think we'd see some place in the Cabinet or maybe a position of higher authority in the Senate before we saw this but I'm not taking any wagers :)

Ravnas
06-02-2008, 04:53 PM
Personally, I think if Obama puts Hillary anywhere in his cabinet, it should involve working on healthcare because that has been one of the issues she really has pushed for.

mimartin
06-02-2008, 04:54 PM
Normally, the VP slot is used to boost the credentials for an incumbent run. Since Hillary doesn't need this and there are more powerful positions that she would be a good fit for, I don't see why she would even want the Vice Presidency. I think we'd see some place in the Cabinet or maybe a position of higher authority in the Senate before we saw this but I'm not taking any wagers :)
Yes, but those postions are not one beat of the heart from the office of President. The VP is.

Achilles
06-02-2008, 05:04 PM
I think the last thing Hillary needs after her three references to RFK's assassination is for anything to happen to Obama while he's in the Oval Office.

The people behind the Vince Foster (et cetera) stuff would lose their flippin' minds.

mimartin
06-02-2008, 05:13 PM
The people behind the Vince Foster (et cetera) stuff would lose their flippin' minds.
First you caused food to get all over my monitor at home, now I have Dr. Pepper all over my monitor at work. Either I'm going to have to stop reading your post or I need a monitor shield.

Achilles
06-02-2008, 05:26 PM
The good news that you don't have any more monitors to sully (right?).

EnderWiggin
06-02-2008, 05:30 PM
:rofl:

Only you would see that as a silver lining :D

_EW_

mimartin
06-02-2008, 05:32 PM
The good news that you don't have any more monitors to sully (right?).
Not unless I start viewing the forum from my employees' work stations, then I have three more computers to damage. The office manager does a pretty good job of limiting me to only working at my desk, other wise I will have papers strung across the entire office.

Achilles
06-03-2008, 03:56 AM
The last two primaries are today. ARG has Obama ahead by 4 in Montana and Hillary ahead by 26 in S. Dakota (I just checked Wikipedia and confirmed that S.Dakota's main exports are survivalism and Jesus Camp).

Obama is about 45 total delegates away from the finish line right now. If he picks 10 pledged delegates tonight (5 from SD + 7 or 8 from MT - wiggle room), he'll only need 21% of the super's to wrap things up. Let's see how many endorsements he picks up today.

Jae Onasi
06-03-2008, 09:41 AM
It will be an interesting day for sure. Clinton is at her home in NY today, I imagine discussing what she's going to do next. Obama is holding a rally in MN today.

My good friends in SD who are neither survivalists or Jesus campers would like to remind Achilles that he should not believe everything Wiki says about SD. :D

Achilles
06-03-2008, 10:47 AM
Obama is holding a rally in MN today.Pretty ballsy rally too. It's the venue for the Republican national convention.

Litofsky
06-03-2008, 04:39 PM
It will be an interesting day for sure. Clinton is at her home in NY today, I imagine discussing what she's going to do next. Obama is holding a rally in MN today.

Do you think that Hillary Clinton will be announcing her concession today? She cannot win without swaying almost every super-delegate, which is very unlikely.

EnderWiggin
06-03-2008, 05:17 PM
Yeah, well. He's at 2111 right now, according to FOX.

So he needs what... 7 delegates?

It's all over but the shouting.

_EW_

Jae Onasi
06-03-2008, 05:52 PM
Do you think that Hillary Clinton will be announcing her concession today? She cannot win without swaying almost every super-delegate, which is very unlikely.

I think she's working on a concession. She might not like what the handwriting on the wall says, but she's not completely blind. I wouldn't be surprised to hear about wheeling and dealing between Dean, Obama, and Clinton going on today, too.

The Source
06-03-2008, 05:56 PM
Its the end of the world as we know it. Lol...

At least we can get into the general election now. Everyone's dirty laundry is about to be center stage. Even though Brock Obama has some in the news, I am sure McCain's friends will find more damaging tidbits.

I have a funny feeling about this one. Presidant Obama? Vice Presidant Clinton? Where is the second coming of Christ?

DarthAve
06-03-2008, 05:58 PM
???? Is this for rizzle? (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/03/AR2008060300273_pf.html) I found it at the top of DrudgeReport, and I've been told they're quite accurate. Going to check CNN, brb.

Edit: CNN Reports that Obama needs 12 delagates, but Fox News just put that he's 6 over the needed 2,118. I'M SO CORNFUSED.

Achilles
06-03-2008, 06:00 PM
I heard on NPR in the car that a Hillary spokesperson announced that she would be interested in the Vice Presidency.

Honda makes a heck of a steering wheel.

The Source
06-03-2008, 06:06 PM
???? Is this for rizzle? (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/03/AR2008060300273_pf.html) I found it at the top of DrudgeReport, and I've been told they're quite accurate. Going to check CNN, brb.

Edit: CNN Reports that Obama needs 12 delagates, but Fox News just put that he's 6 over the needed 2,118. I'M SO CORNFUSED.
...and NBC's count says he is not close enough. Someone is wrong somewhere.

Arcesious
06-03-2008, 06:08 PM
If it'll unite the democratic party for Clinton to be VP, then I say let them do that 'dream ticket'. I would prefer someone better as VP, but if it unites that party, then good. I have a feeling that the democrats are going to win this year... :) I sure don't want Mccaine... Republicans and Clinton supporters please don't take offense to what I just said.

Edit: CNN Reports that Obama needs 12 delagates, but Fox News just put that he's 6 over the needed 2,118. I'M SO CORNFUSED.


I trust CNN more than all the other media... But I don't fully trust it. Although, it may just be a problem of misinformation, or a set of media political stunts.

Achilles
06-03-2008, 06:10 PM
I (begrudgingly) agree. If that's what it takes to make a sure thing, then I'll go along, but it stinks on principle.

The Source
06-03-2008, 06:10 PM
If it'll unite the democratic party for Clinton to be VP, then I say let them do that 'dream ticket'. I would prefer someone better as VP, but if it unites that party, then good. I have a feeling that the democrats are going to win this year... :) I sure don't want Mccaine... Republicans and Clinton supporters please don't take offense to what I just said.
:D **Raises a Pitchfork**
"Get that Democrat!" :lol:

KinchyB
06-03-2008, 06:30 PM
Honda makes a heck of a steering wheel.

:lol: - Great quote...

RE the topic at hand...yup, various sources are saying Obama has it or is close enough to clinch it tonight (which makes me very happy).

Not sure what to think of Hillary as the VP potential :rolleyes:...but it does almost guarantee the election. Oh well... as long as Bush III (this is a semi-official nickname, right? :D ) isn't in i'm happy.

jonathan7
06-03-2008, 06:55 PM
:lol: - Great quote...

RE the topic at hand...yup, various sources are saying Obama has it or is close enough to clinch it tonight (which makes me very happy).

Not sure what to think of Hillary as the VP potential :rolleyes:...but it does almost guarantee the election. Oh well... as long as Bush III (this is a semi-official nickname, right? :D ) isn't in i'm happy.

Being a Brit, I'm somewhat loathed that I can't vote for America's president, purely as the president is the most powerful man in the world; still at least we have the queen (though the rest of the family are about as useful as flip-flops are in the Arctic).

I hope Obama gets in, and Achilles is right that Hill, would be a good VP for reasons stated above. (I'm not a fan, as I think she would do it purely so she would have a shot at president again, in 4 or 8 years time, or 24 style she could try subterfuge ;)) Has there ever been a female VP?

Achilles
06-03-2008, 07:04 PM
Has there ever been a female VP?Nope. Last guy that tried lost. I wore ET pajamas and watched cartoons everyday when that happened.

Jae Onasi
06-03-2008, 07:05 PM
Fox news has just announced that Obama has enough delegates to secure the nomination, link is here (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/06/03/ap-obama-clinches-democratic-nomination-with-superdelegates/).

The reason there's a discrepancy is that Associated Press has based their report on superdelegate endorsements that have not been made officially public.

What an amazing race!

Achilles
06-03-2008, 07:38 PM
RealClearPolitics shows Obama as being 10 delegates away from the nomination.

Litofsky
06-03-2008, 07:45 PM
Well, I think that we all know the result of these primaries. Obama's won for the Democrats, and has been in the lead for quite some time now. Of course, now we get to see if he'll be able to take on John McCain.

To me, it all depends on his Vice President (i.e., if he isolates Hillary Clinton supporters if she isn't on his ticket, or near to him).

Jae Onasi
06-03-2008, 07:52 PM
RealClearPolitics shows Obama as being 10 delegates away from the nomination.

Yeah, it depends on who's doing the head-counting. He should pick up those 10 tonight with the last 2 primaries in any case if they aren't counting the delegates the AP is.

Achilles
06-03-2008, 07:55 PM
Whoops. I posted that as an update, not a challenge. Sorry for not being more clear about that :(

Jae Onasi
06-03-2008, 08:00 PM
Oh, I didn't perceive it that way. There is some discrepancy in the numbers depending on which source knows what about the superdelegate votes.

EnderWiggin
06-03-2008, 08:06 PM
Wow. It's finally over. Now we can focus on the real prize.

_EW_

Ravnas
06-03-2008, 10:43 PM
And Now its over. Obama had about 12 delegates over the required amount to win. So its official, the democratic nominee is Barack Obama:clap2:. Oh and one line in his victory speech stood out for me....

"We are Americans First."

God, The McCain/Obama debates are going to be fun to watch:D.

EnderWiggin
06-03-2008, 11:40 PM
Yes.

Jae and Darth InSidious and I were all talking about the speech. Apparently it was really good. Jae gave me the highlights, and I'm excited to see how Obama shapes up as a candidate.

"McCain is not change."

_EW_

Ravnas
06-03-2008, 11:42 PM
I'm not ashamed to admit that I nearly cried in that speech.

The Source
06-04-2008, 01:05 AM
When I hear or read the word change, I have to wonder what exactly does it mean. As it is used to convey a message, people can interprate the word in many ways. Regardless about who gets into office, there will no doubt be some type of change. I am not an Obama fan in any way. From my personal perspective, anyone who can gather thousands of individuals through blind faith, without being God or Christ, has to be someone very dangerous. If Obama wins the general election, I personally believe we will see something very new. I believe we will see something that we are not going to like.

After watching a controversial war being carried out, I am one for some serious changes and ideologies. I just don't trust someone who can move thousands of individuals, and he can do so by not defining who, what, and how he is going to change the world. If he was someone who had a serious and moral message, with detailed facts and plans, he wouldn't have hidden certain aspects of his life.

When Obama's wife said, "Our souls need to be mended, and only Obama can do it", the first thing I said was, "Your not a Christian are you. A real Christian knows that only you, Christ, and God can mend your soul."

I send a big congrats to the Democrats of the forums, and I hope you got the one your looking for.

Corinthian
06-04-2008, 02:14 AM
Hilary as VP? Oh, I hope Obama says no, for his sake. Because I wouldn't put it past her to dose his morning coffee with strychnine.

At any rate, the race is over. Too bad, I was just starting have fun. Rush is going to be awfully disappointed.

Achilles
06-04-2008, 03:49 AM
It appears that McCain is now actively attempting to woo Hillary supporters. Looks like Obama may have to consider her as VP out of necessity.

jonathan7
06-04-2008, 04:43 AM
From my personal perspective, anyone who can gather thousands of individuals through blind faith, without being God or Christ, has to be someone very dangerous. If Obama wins the general election, I personally believe we will see something very new. I believe we will see something that we are not going to like.

That sounds more like Bush than Obama to me.

When Obama's wife said, "Our souls need to be mended, and only Obama can do it", the first thing I said was, "Your not a Christian are you. A real Christian knows that only you, Christ, and God can mend your soul."

I think you are reading far too much into that, besides I think religion should be an irrelevance, however I think unfortunately it is quite an important thing in the Presidential election, and I don't think in the apparent land of 'freedom' that it should be. I would also argue that, it is not my place to judge where anyone stands with Jesus, I would also dispute the 'you' part; I think only Christ can mend an individuals soul. Just my 2 cents :)

I for the sake of the World hope Obama gets in, I don't think the world can cope with another 4-8 years of non-exsistant American foreign policy.

Litofsky
06-04-2008, 07:46 AM
I for the sake of the World hope Obama gets in, I don't think the world can cope with another 4-8 years of non-exsistant American foreign policy.

Something I've learned from observation: Where there is a void, Nature will fill it. If water is removed from a pond, more water will rush to reestablish the equilibrium. So, if America's removed from the equation, what do you think will happen? Unless we get off our butts, someone else will assume the influential title of Superpower.

On another note, Hillary congratulated Obama, but did not concede. I almost wish she was his Vice-President, if for the only purpose of escaping McSame McCain and his Presidency.

jonathan7
06-04-2008, 08:51 AM
Something I've learned from observation: Where there is a void, Nature will fill it. If water is removed from a pond, more water will rush to reestablish the equilibrium. So, if America's removed from the equation, what do you think will happen? Unless we get off our butts, someone else will assume the influential title of Superpower.

On another note, Hillary congratulated Obama, but did not concede. I almost wish she was his Vice-President, if for the only purpose of escaping McSame McCain and his Presidency.

To clarify, I didn't really mean non-exsistant foreign policy, just bad, not that Britains is any better, but we arent what we used to be, so we affect things alot less.

Rev7
06-04-2008, 07:20 PM
Link (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/04/democrats.wednesday/index.html)

Thoughts?

jonathan7
06-04-2008, 07:28 PM
Link (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/04/democrats.wednesday/index.html)

Thoughts?

I'm turning around on some of my statements above, having seen the Hillary megalomaniac and have seen her ego, if I were Obama, I wouldn't want her as VP.

On a side note, I think McCain foolish to try and 'face-off' with Obama as I think he will get slaughtered.

Litofsky
06-04-2008, 08:31 PM
I'm turning around on some of my statements above, having seen the Hillary megalomaniac and have seen her ego, if I were Obama, I wouldn't want her as VP.

On a side note, I think McCain foolish to try and 'face-off' with Obama as I think he will get slaughtered.

I should think that the best way to assure the Presidency would be to have Hillary Clinton as his Vice-President. That way, Obama will have the woman vote as well, which was threatened by not picking Hillary (I'm not implying that being a woman means that you'll vote for Hillary, only that her biggest supporters are women).

Anyways, from what I've seen, Barack is a powerful, charismatic speaker, while John McCain is... less influential. He seems older and much more frail (to me). Anyways, if they were to go head-to-head, I think Obama would be the clear victor.