The narrative vs. the numbers
As decisive and impressive as Hillary Clinton’s impressive victories were, her campaign’s delegate problem remains a very awkward hurdle.
This is, of course, not a state-by-state race, but rather, a race for delegates. And on that score, Clinton made little progress yesterday.
Bill Burton, an Obama spokesman, brimmed with equal brio. “This was her last, best chance to significantly close the gap in pledged delegates,” Mr. Burton said of Mrs. Clinton, who began the night with about 50 fewer pledged delegates and 100 fewer over all. “They have failed.” […]
But for all the millions of votes Mrs. Clinton has now won, simple math is still her enemy.
That’s true. Clinton has changed the momentum of the race, and has clearly bought herself some more time on the campaign trail, but the cold, hard numbers haven’t changed much. It creates a new dynamic -- the narrative vs. the numbers.
Obama started the day with a lead in pledged delegates of about 159. There were, however, 370 pledged delegates at stake yesterday. How did Clinton do at narrowing the gap? By one count, she may have won a net gain of one vote. By some estimations, she may not have even won that much.
Notwithstanding the shift in momentum and the P.R. victory tonight’s results hand Hillary, it’s possible that she’ll finish the night without cutting into Obama’s delegate lead at all....
[I]f Obama manages to win delegates out of Texas (thanks to the caucuses) that offset Hillary’s Ohio delegate gain, she could end the night in pretty much the same position as she was in yesterday, at least as far as the pledged delegate count is concerned.
She won big victories tonight, no question, but it’s unclear yet whether the shift in narrative she’ll enjoy will transform the race’s stubborn underlying dynamic in any significant way.
Given the complexities of the process, it’s even possible, hard as it may be to believe, that when the dust settles on the March 4 contests, Obama may have lost three out of four contests, and managed to gain delegates — proving, once again, that this is a very silly process in need of reform.
.
WHY THE CLINTONS WON'T BE RELEASING THEIR TAX RETURNS?...
http://thememlingindex.com/hillary_clinton_net_worth-wealth.html
.
Wasn't Hillary expected to win these states for MONTHS?
What is the big story here? The real story is how close Obama made a race that months ago it looked like he had no shot at. Plus, it's not like Hillary trounced him.
Between the idiotic press and the non-ending political speak from the candidates, this whole election is getting really irritating. All that's left now is waiting to see how the Democrats go belly up and hand the election to McCain.
I can't really buy this msm meme of the numbers crap. What would be the point of a convention if any one candidate looks like he or she might garner enough numbers in March.
Lets suppose some nasty bit of obamas past comes to light in a month or two even.
Or he says something that puts into doubt his future competence as President, etc.
Delegate counts are not set in stone. With the race as close as it is I would like to see it go all the way to the convention.
Hillary holds the prospect of trashing the party and clinching for the GOP. I am all for fair treatment of fellow Democrats, but this shit she is feeding the fan must cease.
REPEAT - OBAMA does not have enough delegated either. She will win the popular vote in the end and all the swing states needs to beat McCain. Lets be winners this year and find out how to close a presidential election in November. Obama looked like he took a punch from a heavyweight last night. He is stumbling. Please no more posts about the math.
Did you see Tweety last night - "Here is senator Clinton winning Ohio, Do you think she will withdraw from the race?" YEA - maybe right during her Ohio victory speech she will throw the towel in....GO MSM. what a question.
Hillary is pretty tough and won't play the self-sacrificing female candidate for the boys. I also like Obama but see no reason why she shouldn't play to win. If Obama can't confront Hillary McCain will shred him.
>What is the big story here? The real story is how close Obama made a race that months ago it looked like >he had no shot at. Plus, it's not like Hillary trounced him.
>Between the idiotic press and the non-ending political speak from the candidates, this whole election is >getting really irritating. All that's left now is waiting to see how the Democrats go belly up and hand the >election to McCain.
The big story is that 99.99% of the media kept telling us "stick a fork in Hillary, she is done". Every time Jonathan Alter came on Olbermann saying the Dems "were going to be ripped apart" by Hillary staying in the race I felt like throwing a brick through my TV screen. The fact is that Hillary has won just about every state with a large delegate count, including Fla. whose delegates don't get to count. What are the idiot-pundits and turncoat superdelegates going to say now? If they are really concerned for the will of the people they are in deep shit, and better stop cramming down our throats the "phenomenon" that is Obama and realize we have ourselves a hell of a horse race here. We have a democratic process where we're supposed to let the people speak, so let's let 'em speak and hopefully the media will keep their miserable traps shut in the meantime. Their attempts to affect the outcome are truly un-American.
Just throwing this out there...
How much effect do you think it had that Republicans like Limbaugh were urging Republicans to vote in the Democratic primary - and vote for Hillary? (this was possible in Ohio) I know that many right-wingers are devious, but are there that many willing to do this to try and stop Obama's momentum?
Agreed on all points, delfina!
If Clinton can win the popular votes but still lose the delegate count, then I say she has every right to push for a brokered convention. I like Obama too, but it's no more proper for him to win the delegate count when the popular vote went to Hillary than it was for George Bush to "win" in 2000!
Well, congratulations Democratic Establishment. You’ll probably get your candidate. Be sure to thank Rush Limbaugh for putting you over the top. The GOP is salivating at the prospect of HRC as the nominee.
I speak for the majority of independents in this country, the ones the dems need to have a hope of winning in November, when I say: I’m walking. Get used to the sound of "President McCain". ‘Dim’ocrats indeed. Always snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
Hillary has every right to keep going. She's worked/planned her whole life for this. It doesn't change me from being a HUGE Obama supporter.
The truth is, none of us will know until it's all played out. Neither is beaten.
a couple memes I see circulating from Hillary supporters that personally, I find quite annoying
"Hillary has one more blue states"
Look at the map again. Obama has won twice as many blue states.
"Obama should drop out"
Yeah... seriously, i am seeing post after post acting as if Obama didnt win 12 in a row by significant margins, and doesnt lead in both the popular vote and pledged delegates. He can be in the lead as long as he wants, but as soon as Hillary wins a couple, all of a sudden 'its over'
I dont want to see this go to the convention either, but seriously - the math is pretty clear - Hillary has to win by margins of 63 - 38 in all remaining states to catch up, and thats simply not going to happen barring a miracle.
Well, Roy, if we get four more goddamned years of the fucking republicans, we'll know exactly who to thank for it. Idiots like you!
As a Texan I must say
The South Shall Rise Again!
Given enough Viagra.
McCain Thanks ‘My Friends’: The Democrats!
ChrisM70 @ 8:
Exactly. This was allegedly going on in Texas too. To me the whole "Media is too kind to Obama" thing is played out. Two years ago nobody even knew who he was. Today he's been able to command a significant lead over the most famous woman in the world WITH Rush Limbaugh working against him, Rupert Murdoch fundraising for Senator Clinton, with a significant portion of the public believing he's a Muslim who won't salute the flag, and with Russert and Hillary playing the whole Kevin Bacon 6 degrees of separation with him and Farrakhan. And somehow last night is an upset for him?
ChrisM70 @ 8:
How many repubs voted for Obama in Va and other states? The stop Hillary train was running hard on the right.
I can't see this democrats tearing the party apart BS as anything other than the talking heads blowing stupid on the airwaves.
Look at the turn out numbers of dems vs repubs. Look at the fund raising of dems vs repubs.
Even the Dems can't blow this one.
berberry @ 13:
No, it's the berberry's aka Hillbots who are the idiots.
They don't have the completed Texas caucus votes yet
It ain't over till the fat lady sings
Oprah?
Prince Roy - ever heard of reverse phycology? do you really thing Limbaugh has any effect on the voting process in the primary. The one thing every tried and true Republican fears is a HRC nominee. It will make their heads explode. Stop Obama momentum my @$@$% - it was just Rush grabbing some headlines.
The other question is what happens to the delegates pleged to Edwards' suspended campaign? Who is he going to direct that they vote for? Or Kucinich? I have a hard time seeing any of them voting for HRC, because she is corporately owned and operated - at least a lot more than is Obama.
I'm thinking that the election is hers to give to McCain, or not, depending on the choices she makes.
Hillary Clinton failed Americans when she could get ANY kind of health care reform passed in Washington DC. Her husband Bill Clinton, lost Congress to the Republicans and Bill's sexual encounter with Monica gave boost to the Republicans claim of morals in the White House which helped get GWB elected president.
And then there was the seven years of tax payers dollars wasted on "investigations" of the Clintons which proved nothing.
all this infighting amongst democrats really doesn't get us anywhere.
If Hillary becomes the nominee, I will still vote for her, albeit with a clothespin on my nose....
However were she to pick Obama as her runningmate, I might be able to take the pin off and just grin and bear it.
Having Obama on her ticket, should she be nominated, would go a long way towards keeping independents who are flocking to the dems as of late.
No matter which of them wins, they'd have to be a complete fucking idiot not to make Edwards AG.
@kevin-
no, I think it is a legitimate strategy, and one that tens of thousands of republicans used yesterday. Hard to say how many. I know I did the same thing in VA in 2000. I know lots of these guys, and they are pissing themselves with worry that Obama would be the nominee. Not one of them is afraid of HRC. In fact, they pray she is the nominee. She is the Kerry of 2008.
ChrisM70 @ 2:
That would be our worst nightmare. Can you imagine McCain appointing the next one or two Supreme Court Justices?
If Obama's supporters won't support Hillary if she wins the nom, and Hillary's supporters won't support Obama if he wins, then the democrats deserve exactly what they're going to get: more war, more tax cuts for the rich, more right-wing xian stupids on the SCOTUS and more sick people unable to afford health care.
I hope they'll be happy with that.
Cats r Flyfishn @ 22:
I'm not normally a Hillary supporter, but at least she tried to get health care reform passed. Better than nothing, I'll give her points for effort.
Bill's sexual trists shouldn't matter now, just as they shouldn't have mattered then, especially considering the pot-kettle factor with re: to his accusers.
You cannot blame the Republican's witch hunt and subsequent waste of taxpayer dollars on Bill Clinton. He didn't choose to be investigated for 7 years.
gmsingh @ 7:
The big story is that 99.99% of the media kept telling us "stick a fork in Hillary, she is done". Every time Jonathan Alter came on Olbermann saying the Dems "were going to be ripped apart" by Hillary staying in the race I felt like throwing a brick through my TV screen. The fact is that Hillary has won just about every state with a large delegate count, including Fla. whose delegates don't get to count. What are the idiot-pundits and turncoat superdelegates going to say now? If they are really concerned for the will of the people they are in deep shit, and better stop cramming down our throats the "phenomenon" that is Obama and realize we have ourselves a hell of a horse race here. We have a democratic process where we're supposed to let the people speak, so let's let 'em speak and hopefully the media will keep their miserable traps shut in the meantime. Their attempts to affect the outcome are truly un-American.
I hate to say this BUT, Hillary will tear the party apart. There are many new Democrats, mostly young or Independents that switched, who are saying that they will NOT vote in November if Hillary is the nominee. So Hillary's plan is to keep losing general elections because she is following McAuliffe's 12 state plan and not the 50 state Dean plan.
You wouldn't believe the number of people who tell me that they won't vote for Hillary but will vote for Obama. Perhaps they are just blowing hot air but I can tell you but I'm not. If it's Clinton/McCain then it's either McCain or 3rd party for me. If I am going to vote for someone who authorized that awful Iraq invasion then I'll at least pick the consistent one who stands by his vote.
If you are a Hillary fan and think I'm just a troll then explain her vote on the Iran Revolutionary Guard. For all her talk about her mistaken vote on Iraq she clearly has learned nothing when you consider that one.
Lastly, McCain will take NH (which has only 4 electoral votes) if Clinton is the nominee. That might not seem like a lot but in 2000 Bush carried NH by about 5,000 votes if my memory is right. Had Gore carried NH then he would have been the President and Florida would not even have been an issue.
Here are the reasons why I will under no circumstances vote for HRC:
--she did not oppose the war, but tried to rationalize her vote by shoving all the blame on Bush. (She had no power of independent judgment?)
--she supported Kyl/Lieberman, which essentially is the extension of the Bush doctrine into Iran.
--she is a leader in a dem controlled Congress that has caved in and kowtowed to Bush on every significant issue.
--she has yet to publicly condemn Bush for his unlawful expansion of executive branch powers. Nor has she led a fight to end his administration's spying on US citizens without a warrant.
--if she is elected, and were to be re-elected, there will have been a Bush or Clinton in the White House from 1989-2016. This is not healthy for a democracy. While it ranks last among my concerns, this is a legitimate issue.
Given the iffiness of the delegate votes, Hillary will try at least two things to get her numbers increased:
1. She'll try to sue Texas about the delegate apportionments through the caucuses, though it seems that the time to have done that was long BEFORE the vote on March 4.
2. She'll do everything she can to force the Democrats to count the delegates for Michigan and Florida at the convention.
I certainly have to agree that the way the Democrats choose a presidential candidate is the most muddled UNDEMOCRATIC way, full of chaos, that can be imagined.
Look, folks, Clinton can't win the nomination UNLESS (1) she so "bloodies" Obama that he is abandoned either by voters or superdelegates or (2) she convinces the superdelegates to side with her, despite Obama's pledged-delegate advantage. Meanwhile, to get to either point she must continue to run NEGATIVE. That, after all, was what her born-of-desperation, "kitchen sink" tactics amounted to. Think about this. You may believe she is more electable than Obama, despite considerable evidence to the contrary. But her "path" to the nomination is looking more like Sherman's march to Atlanta by the day. This really is about the old vs new politics. Seems to me that Clinton would not only prefer to win the nomination for herself (which is only possible by running a negative, hence, destructive race) but she would also prefer to lose to a candidate that has been seriously damaged and less likely to win in November. Not that she's preserving her chances in 2012 (primary losers rarely get a 2nd shot). But she may be trying to keep the Clinton machine, DLC, etc. in the saddle. If Obama wins the presidency, a new broom will sweep clean. Krugman and others who've worried out loud that Obama was not progressive enough, that he tacked to the middle, or took up Republican talking points need to rethink the question of who is a more worthy or effective Democratic standard bearer. The Clintonites have more at stake here than the nomination. Hillary Clinton wants to win, but I think she would rather go down by taking Barack Obama with her.
ChrisM70 @ 8:
This is hilarious. When the repugs cross and vote for Obama to ensure a loss in the ge, those are ok because I guess they have seen the light. If they vote for Hillary that's just plain wrong. Think up more excuses bambis.
Thanks Steve for pointing out that Obama's losses are actually gains and Hillary's victories don't count because they are actually meaningless. When Hillary wins anything shes just a big loser.
So going forward should Hillary try to win or lose? Now that's a conundrum.
Why does she drag this process out? The mean old spoilsport should just quit so that the transcendent and effulgent Obama can assume his rightful role as savior of the party and Champion of Light and Glory.
ChrisM70 @ 2:
they already have....this is just the beginning of the final act. This election is very much in doubt - I'd put my money on McCain. sad. pathetic. but true.
Destardi @ 354:
It's sad and humorous how you Hillary lemmings arrogantly pretend that she is winning when the mathematical facts clearly show she is losing with a slim chance at eventual victory. And NO one has higher negatives than old Hil. I guess denial is comforting sometimes. Hillary supporters new slogan, "Yes we cannot!"
Destardi @ 355:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rig3tgyYiAM
Destardi @ 355:
Be a man and keep your mother out of our disagreement.
Destardi @ 352:
Comparing "experience" and advocacy of the status quo is apples and oranges.
But I grant you that comparing career paths and "experience" can be very enlightening.
GWB: CEO of Arbusto and director of Harken Energy
HRC: Director of WalMart, TCBY and others
GWB: Elected Governor of Texas as a springboard to the presidency. Completely unqualified but able to rely on family name recognition, contacts, and tons of corporate cash. Accomplished nothing of note during either term.
HRC: Elected Senator of New York as a springboard to the presidency. Completely unqualified but able to rely on family name recognition, contacts, and tons of corporate cash. Accomplished nothing of note during either term.
GWB: Under the guidance of Karl Rove, elected president while relying on the same family name recognition, contacts, and mountains of corporate cash. Used a scorched earth, fear mongering campaign strategy wherein no attack was considered too slimy.
HRC: Under the guidance of Mark Penn, is campaigning for president while relying on the same family name recognition, contacts, and mountains of corporate cash. Using a scorched earth, fear mongering campaign strategy wherein no attack is considered too slimy.
Nepotism is, almost by definition, a continuation of the status quo. We've had to deal with one guy who became president solely on the basis of nepotism, and it was an unmitigated disaster . Why on earth would we want another?
What about John Quincy Adams?
somewhere Rush Limbaugh is reading this thread and laughing...
The insult-driven posts on this thread are driving me insane, and BOTH sides are at fault. I'm ashamed to be a Democrat right now, thanks. Good job guys, keep it up
:(
Saint Jack @ 351:
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-poll27feb27,0,5452138.story
To say that Obama does better in the polls against McCain than Hillary does is true... but as you can see... that ain't saying much.
What you will see is as the economic news gets worse by the day from the great American economic subprime trainwreck... Hillary's numbers will improve because she has more credibility on economic issues than Obama as the poll indicates:
As our economy gets worse by the day from the subprime collapse... Clinton's numbers will change up because she is viewed as a policy wonk on the economy and people are getting really scared.
This is what happened in Ohio... where the subprime disaster has hit the hardest. They lost 23% of their jobs to NAFTA and overseas out sourcing. the foreclosure rate jumped up 88% from last year and the unemployment is at 5.5% over the national average.
Saint Jack @ 279:
If Racism is a factor it seems to be working more in Obama's favor. Here is the Texas demographic
breakdown:
Gender by Race
................Clinton......Obama
White men........50.........47
White women.....60........39
Black men.........15........85
Black women.....17........82
Latino men........64........33
Latino women....69........29
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21226009
The White vote was almost evenly split between Clinton and Obama.
The Black vote heavily skewed towards Obama and the Hispanic vote skewed towards
Clinton.
The media seemed to be concentrating on the accusations by the Hillary campaign and taking their eyes off the ball when it came to actual facts, allowing themselves to be used as an extension of the campaign. For example, when the Canadian story (or non-story) was being promulgated, it was a nice distraction from the proven statements of Hillary in support of NAFTA dating from 1994 through 2005. These are readily available, even online, but ignored for the most part by most media. The old Karl Rove trick is in action here. The trick is to paint your opponent with your own problems, thereby distracting from your own weaknesses.
It is a sad state of affairs when these tricks are used, no matter which camp does it, because it distracts away from what informed voters want to find out about both candidates.
"As decisive and impressive as Hillary Clinton’s impressive victories were..."
So, are you saying her "impressive victories" were "impressive?"
That sounds impossible.
ChrisM70 @ 8:
Well if you look at the polling for Obama vs. McCain and Clinton vs. McCain you'll see Obama trouncing McCain on all of them (I believe +9 is the average number) and a Clinton Vs. McCain showdown McCain is edging Clinton in the averages very slightly because of Clinton's high negatives (something like 49% of the US saying they'll never vote for her).
Hell, I'm from Arizona and I know all about McCain's deviousness, but I'd have a hard time voting for Clinton for just about any reason.
ysbaddaden @ 344:
I forgot how much I appreciate your sense of humor until now. Thanks again for the National Lampoon dog cover link... been looking for that for a while. Cheers!
Ben W. @ 369:
Latest Poll show Obama and Clinton losing to McCain...
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-poll27feb27,0,5452138.story
Rasputin @ 365:
Ah I didn't see this comment until I posted...as for Clinton's numbers going up, I'm not so sure. It all depends on how the various campaigns style themselves on the Economy. Obama has already linked himself strongly with the Kennedy's and strong Democrats of the past like Roosevelt. If he can create a Neo-New Deal atmosphere for the country than I think he could sky rocket past Clinton and definitely past McCain in those regards. I'd say the same for Clinton but she has more groundwork to style herself after such past successes.
People are already calling Obama the Second Inexperienced Lawyer from Chicago (the first being Lincoln), Clinton is still Bill's wife in most people's eyes.
OT
Do Mafia memos come with bullet-points?
Ben W. @ 372:
All politics are local. Ohio's economy is not a accurate reflection of every states economy. That's why I laughed when the MSM tried to compare Wisconsin to Ohio.
Mister Anderson @ 374:
Right now the average American is saying WTF do a bunch of home foreclosures have to do with me. As long as I've got my 401K and mutual funds... it is not my problem.
The truth is that we are in the middle of the biggest financial train wreck in American history and while the MSM is reporting "Are we heading for recession" (as per Wolf Blitzer two days ago)... Bernanke The head of the Federal Reserve is testifying before congress to expect bank failures and Citigroup announced yesterday that one more down turn in the market and they will have to declare bankruptcy.
In states like Ohio... those folks are scared spitless because economically they have been devastated. It is basic psychology 101... when people are scared they will always cling to what they know rather than take a chance on something new.
As the LA Times poll points out:
Be it right of be it wrong... it doesn't matter, only the perception in the mind of the voters does and Hillary is perceived as being the strongest on the economy.
The exit polls showed a lot of things, but overwhelmingly they showed that the economy is now more important than the war and as people watch their houses drop in value... with 30% of them being lower than their mortgage estimates, and their stocks and 401Ks are dropping in value, and gas is projected to hit $4 a gallon by this summer, and food prices have jumped dramatically...
The herd is definitely spooked and America votes its wallet before all else.
Just got an email from the Obama campaign saying that the net result of yesterday's elections was a gain of 4 delegates for Hillary. Is there any independent confirmation of that
Funny thing on the way to the forum: In the movie SLING BLADE, there is a mechanical gorilla waving outside of a store as the protagonist rides through some town. Well, I go to that town often, since I live near it. The gorrilla has been replaced, but today there is also a big yellow sign outside the store. It says, "Monica Lewinsky's Ex-boyfriend's Wife For President!"
People are really getting fired up.
Me, I am done with the division between Democratic camps. I voted for Obama in my state's primary, but Hillary got over 70% of the Democrat vote. I don't care anymore. Whoever wins, and I hope it's soon, I will be at the fire station on the correct Tuesday in November to pull the lever against McCain and the culture of death.
Neither candidate can win by delegates, so those of you who keep hounding on Hillary should STFU.
Those of us in the know, Know this: You can't beat the Republicans if you are a divided party. The republicans united to put Bush in for TWO TERMS.
Now, all some of you can say is blah blah bad about Hillary; If nothing else, she proved last night that she is a fighter! And will win.
The Clintons are winners!!! But no one can win if we are divided.
Look at all of you fools that have been duped by the right wing when it comes to the Clintons. All that crap you say about her isn't even true!!! And you claim to be Democrats? You want her to drop out?
Shame!!!
ChrisM70 @ 2:
If the democrats go belly up, it will be because they made the idiotic mistake of falling for empty rhetoric over solid substance. Obama has no leadership, no principles. He's as much of a politician as anyone else running right now. Get over it, everyone is making a big mistake, and the Republicans will probably be able to capitalize on it.
Prince Roy @ 30:
Add Daddy Bush's 8 years as V.P., and it's down right nauseating. (1981-2017) That's 36 f-ing years. Holy crap!
True, Hillary may be "solid substance" but I think it's a substance that more than one-half of Americans will reject in the fall. Her negatives are just too high. More worrisome for Democrats desparate for a victory in November is that after more than four solid years of putting her best face forward, and after two solid years of front-runner, media-star status, her personal negatives have barely budged. It may not be fair. She's smart and deserving, but that's the way it is.
Hillary will obviously walk through sh*t to get the nomination. It might work. And she may be able to walk through sh*t to win the election. But what that means for America after that, I'd rather not think about it.
Prince Roy @ 120:
EXACTLY
yeah, that proved so true in 2000 and 2004. Is your real name Jeff Spicoli?
ripped off elections,or did you just conveniently forget that part.
I' m gonna cut you some slack here,cause I've been gone all day(and I doubt you're still around)
berberry @ 13:
If we get four more years of the f-----g republicans you should thank the people who voted for Hillary.
Stop whining you little baby.
bklyn @ 17:
Hmmmm, echoes of 1988 and 2004? Remember that in 1988, Democrats came to the polls almost 2-1 over the Republicans in the primaries but chose to stay at home in November rather than vote for an unsavory Democratic nominee. The last Republican that I voted for in a presidential election was Ronald Reagan in his first term in office. I won't vote for Mccain in 2008 but I also won't vote for Hillary. Don't think that the person who wins the Democratic nominee will automatically be the next president. You've got to look at which candidate is best at bringing in NEW Democratic voters and which candidate does best with independent voters.
I'm not too sure about that. With Hillary suporters voting for MCCain or staying home on election day willl be hard for Obama to win.
Lets put it this way.....
Hillary has pissed progressives off with her negative campaigning....
Some could argue it helps getting out the 'smear' before the general election, basically emptying the GOP toy chest of its most profound 'goodies'....
I can see that angle, but its a desperation tactic, and it only serves to waste the momentum building and closes the gap of possible 'independents' 'moderates' that could swing to Obama in the general...
Make no mistake about it....I will vote for the Democratic nominee in November....all those of you that give a damn about the constitution, your livelihood, the planet you live on, better realize that....the supreme court is arguably the most powerful branch of our democracy (if we can keep it - Ben Franklin)....if McCain is 'elected'....(ie, close race...where the good old e-voting is in the bank for the GOP) you'll see that 5-4 con-servative majority turn into a 7-2 or 8-1 majority....and this country will cease to exist except for the top 1% and their aristocracy over the peasant masses will be intact for generations
Obama is in the same mathematical position. He cannot win enough pledged delegates in the primary to secure the nomination. Both candidates will need the help of super delegates to get the nomination. It is a long, long time before the convention. If Clinton falters again she will not get the nomination. If Obama falters he will not get the nomination. In the past is prelude to the future perceived momentum at the end has been decisive in other years. Clinton’s wins have come in primary states where there were actual general in election type voting. . These are the core Democratic states that the Democrats have to win in the fall. Obama has had his share of wins in general polling states he also has cleverly made his ground game in caucus states pay off for him providing his delegate lead up to now. Many of these states have not voted for a Democrat for president since 1964 and won’t this time either. It is a tight race. Neither is likely to have the delegates needed at the end of the process heading into the convention. It should make for an exciting convention. Democrats shouldn’t worry about showing off their candidates in the mean time. Actually this prolonged primary is good for the Democrats because they can and will crowd McCain off the cable, evening news and front pages as long as the contest continues. Both candidates have not yet dented the core of each others support or fatally hurt the other and if that continues the super delegates should force them both on to a fusion ticket for the fall. In the mean time record numbers of Democrats are coming to the polls and each candidate is raising huge amounts of money from donors which they will be able to tap again in tandem if they are on the same ticket for the fall. It is vital for the country that the Democrats win in the fall. It is not as important which Democrat wins.
Here is why I will NEVER vote for a republican: tax cuts for the rich, the demonizing of gays and lesbians, putting the interests of large corporations above those of average people who eat food and/or need health care, etc. etc.
Not to mention that I could never, ever vote for a party that decides who their candidate is based on which xian fairy tale he believes in!
ChrisM70 @ 2:
I am there with you. Clinton has a double digit lead in New Hampshire and goes on to win and it is a "come back"! She has a double digit lead in TX which she nearly blows and most likely ends up losing the delegate count and it is a "come back!" She has a double digit lead in Ohio and maintains it and it is a "come back!" Meanwhile McCain is having press over to his house all buddy-buddy like for barbeques. Come on, Obama is winning over the people all over the country, Clinton wins in the big states where the party machine is more effective. If you want real change the only choice is Obama. Unfortunately we the people don't matter in this election, it will be decided by party insiders and either way there is going to be some bad blood between the two camps.
Prince Roy @ 30:
I'll second your reasons. I feel the same way and I'll add this one...
- the Clintons are divisive and we need a coalition builder in the White House and Hillary doesn't build coalitions. It's not her strong point.
If you believe that Democrats are not in the same corporate pockets as the GOP then you are blind. Corporate bias is the real bias in America and the Dems are just as guilty as anyone.
ChrisM70 @ 8:
I canvassed some very GOP neighborhoods and I don't think they did it at all. The fact that asking for the Dem ballot switches them to the Dem party put most of them off of it. My feeling is that Ohio is a racist f'ing place. My extended family is from there and we don't talk much, race is one of the factors, I ran into more racism door knocking than you would like to believe. I also saw on MSNBC that 20% of the exit polling results showed race was a factor, and 80% of those for which race was a factor went to Clinton. Blue color whites don't want a black man in power, more than they don't want a woman in power.
The Obama fairy tale is over. Hillary Clinton is the comeback kid. Look for Hillary to score a knockout victory in the Pennsylvania primary.
In a democracy, people VOTE for their candidates and not allow the MSM to crown victors just because they want to move to the next story.
I don't care if this goes on until September, voting as a US citizen is a privilege and an honor we take for granted.
The greatest asset to this entire primary season is that more democrats are coming out of the woodwork and hopefully it'll continue through November, regardless of McCain & Rethugs.
This emphasis on math is problematic. Even if Obama wins every state after this with 65% (incredibly unlikely), he still won't have enough delegates to win the nomination. At this point, it's irrelevant to talk about the math: no one can reach 2025.
That's a good point, John R, but it works better in attacking the whole, stupid system we have here in America than in attacking the democrats. At least SOME of the democrats are willing to push for universal health care and enabling Medicare to negotiate drug prices, which the big insurance companies do not want! So even as true as your words are, there's still a difference.
Edwards, Michigan and Florida all have available delegates. Its far from over.
ysbaddaden @ 14:
Viagra is BLUE, just wanted to point that out...
Michael @ 42:
I saw that same poll and I found it disgusting.
I think the campaigning is really going to turn ugly now. Since Clinton's attacks worked so well against Obama, he cannot remain in "deflect" mode anymore but must also make attacks against her if he's to maintain his lead.
abob @ 43:
Keep dreaming your fairy tale because the ground troops are STRONG in Pennsylvania and Hillary will not take this state. She couldn't even get enough delegates on the ballot for the primary. Obama has overwhelming support in Pennsylvania. I am very active in the Democratic Party and attend many events and the Obama supporters among the Demorats outnumber the Clinton supporters 2:1.
ENTER RALPH NADER. Ralph Nader's timing could not have been more perfect. He foresaw the corruption that is still inherent in the democrat party. The democratic establishment is going to learn the hard way yet again, that you can't contrive an election or nomination. So more Power to Ralph Nader. And to hell with the democrat party and Hillary Clinton.
I remember early in this prez race, it was taken for granted it would be H.Clinton/J. McCain. Obama was a real surprise!
So, they get M. Romney to back out...slacked on Huckabee, to get a nominee. That would leave two major states open and up for grabs..Bush's Texas and questionable Ohio .
The pundits jumped to pretend favoring H. Clinton over McCain so the Repubs in those two major states COULD temporarily cross over and vote for H.Clinton since McCain was set.
Let us NEVER forget K. Rove's statement: While we are looking one way, they are setting up the results this way. Moreover, while we study today, they already have next week planned.
I truly believe this was a far right strategy to break the Obama momentum and put their asserted Democratic candidate as frontrunner. I respect H. Clinton, but to obviously go through so many emotional stages before this last vote was telling.It's almost like saying,...I THOUGHT YOU SAID I WAS GONNA BE WINNING, therefore she directs tears to the public/ anger at Obama whom she previously adored and loved campaigning against.
Now, McCain willl win the presidency. He is up in age and probably will not be able to fulfill his duties(e.g. failing health?)...in jumps his V.P.
McCain's citizenship came into question for a purpose. If he wins, that opens the door for a possible Schwarzenegger running in the future with J.Bush as V.P.,.. then J.Bush as president.
Keep an eye on who McCain chooses as his V.P. Candidate. That is REALLY who has been "chosen" to be in office for the next 4/8 years, to continue this path the current administration has us on.
All of this is speculative, but I am using only common sense here. I don't believe for one minute this administration has accumulated so much power via arrogance and preference on "their" public to just hand it over to just any future president. Heck, they may just not give it up at all.
Critical thinking is really a much needed asset to not be taken in by events as they are shown to us.
The required box to watch regular television is first step toward controlling what we are told. Controlled Feed.
berberry @ 46:
Here is how I look at it. Politicians root out corruption in the opposition as a means of securing more power for themselves. The Dems' motives are not altruistic but rather a way to gain more power for themselves. The balance of power is important to maintain order.
I will say that the difference for me is the pace at which the GOP destroyed any goodwill. They took less than a decade to convince people they were awful corrupt idiots. Reagan was balanced against a Dem Congress, Clinton against a GOP one. It took the Dems almost 40 years to annoy people. It may take 40 more before the GOP completely holds the reigns again.
Cats r Flyfishn @ 49:
I think that definitely explains a lot of her votes. The question is, did HRC deliberately play this up by darkening Obama's skin in one of her ads?
Good morning. Is it Barrack Hysteria day?
After Hillary had her temper tantrum during the Ohio debate, the MSM has been giving her nothing but good press and Obama has been mostly ignored or given bad press. I don't think the negative campaigns are having an impact. Actually, the negative campaigns maybe working in Obama's favor because Hillary was suppose to win Texas and Ohio by at least 20 points and that didn't happen.
Wake me up when Hillary wins 12 in a row. It's funny how people think the press is so soft on Obama, but when frail, poor, weak Hillary wins a few primaries, then oh my gosh, she is the "comeback" kid again, or Obama is weakened. Come on. I also love how people say, well, HIllary is winning the big states the Democrats need to win in the general election. Um, one of them has to win, and just because they win the primary doesn't mean they will win the general. Hillary is using the same Rovian play book, throw in dirty whispers in the campaign, and feign ignorance. What, me, why, i'd never...Shallow group, shallow group of old school pols.
The Clinton folks have settled on the Armageddon strategy. They threaten to destroy the party if they cant win. It's obvious to many that Clintons winning margin are voters likely to vote McCain in the fall, and they know it. There best argument is that even though they lost the vote, the state count and the delegate race they deserve the nomination anyway? No.
Total Delegates Obama1542 Clinton1447
Pledged Delegates Obama1340 Clinton1206
Popular Vote Obama12,946,615 Clinton12,363,897
Popular Vote (w/FL) Obama13,522,829 Clinton13,234,883
I'm not in your system, but it sure seems to me that the Dems are actually 2 parties in one by the numbers. Obama leads in every category, even when you include Florida's popular vote. Shouldn't that be the indicator of who is the nominee? Popular vote?
I feel nothing but pity right now for the Democratic Party however. Why? Two of the best candidates ever to run are basically destroying each other, and splitting the party. Party leaders must be very worried, especially with the vile campaign tactics that will only get worse the longer it drags out. Looks to me like the Dems are shooting themselves in more vital areas with each passing day. One of these two candidates should drop out if either one is really a Democrat, and not just power hungry.
If McCain wins the general, meohmy, it'll be because the democrats don't give a damn about their country or anyone in it. This election is their's for the taking, but so many of them are not even willing to vote unless their favorite gets the nomination, or worse to actually vote for the republican, that the party will have no one but it's own "supporters" to blame if they lose!
And like I said before, the dems will get exactly what they deserve: eight more years of theocratic republican bullshit and war!
LOL here's a new one.
"The truth about Clinton is out there - it's obvious to everyone that she is going VERY VERY negative. She is led by a campaign manager who helped create the attitude that there is a "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy" trying to destroy President Clinton, when in reality President Clinton was having inappropriate relationships with presidential interns." (mybarrackobama blog)
What the hell is going on here. These kids OD on ecstasy or something?
I hate to bring this up - but if senator Clinton can't win the nomination I am concerned she might prefer it if McCain won - that would give her another shot in 2012 - that does not bode well for the next few weeks, it is going to get quite bloody - I suppose you could make the same argument for Obama - face it, everyone is in it for themselves, if the democratic really just wanted to win hands down they would have just picked a white southern governor.... too bad, I think it is more important that a democrat win a restore some checks and balances in the system than to provide a platform for various candidates egos - the same dynamic is working on the republican side too, but it seems especially tragic that the democrate are throwing away a free pass on the presidency...
Cat R Flyfishn(42): I wouldn't read too much into that poll. (I also saw on MSNBC that 20% of the exit polling results showed race was a factor, and 80% of those for which race was a factor went to Clinton.) All it means is that 20% of people who voted in the Ohio Dem primary are bigots. And assuming no self-haters, the percentage of whites and blacks roughly correspond to the population. It doesn't say how many of these white bigots are men.
The only new dynamic is the country becoming more informed of her corruptedness.
I have to ask ... I don't much care for Hillary and don't know as much as I should about Obama yet, so all this rancor is beginning to wear thin with me.
However, I have to ask ... with the rabid Clinton supperts and the rapid Obama supporters agree to vote for whoever gets the Dem nomination ... or, when push comes to shove, will you run off in a huff and let Republicans win?
meohmy @ 53:
VP? Dick Cheney anyone?
Sorry ... SUPPORTERS.
That's RICH...it seemed to be a "state by state" race when it was all about the 11 in a row (won/lost)...Hillary gets NO RESPECT from any area of our media (including many blogs) and it will be to our detriment. Never wise to FOLLOW A GURU or some spectacular charismatic person...take a closer look...find the strengths and weaknesses in each candidate and try to make some choices that will benefit ALL OF US!!! Please just present the facts and information and allow us to use what's left of our functioning brains....
abob @ 43:
See what happens when somebody drinks too much Kool-Aid in the morning. Thanks for the laugh this morning.
jane @ 35:
We're a long way from handing the election to the GOP, don't you think? Giving up just makes Karl Rove smile. I don't know about you but I don't want that reptile to have anything to smile about come election day.
sueinNM @ 66:
Yes We Can!
Obamaniac
Robert @ 45:
Right, but given the tower ads, you know there has to be some upside to spin for Obama, Inc. ...
it's still about the delegates,so that makes it Obama's to lose.Or hang on too.Now we'll see if he can scrap.Because whom ever the nominee is,Is going to have to FIGHT!
Cause,we all know what's comin from the repugs.
"I am a lifelong Dem., have never voted Republican ever, but should she be the nominee, I will vote McCain."
Duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh?
dan @ 64:
It doesn't matter if these bigots are men or women. It is the fact that racism will determine someone's vote. Isn't time for us to stop all this bigotry?
Micheal 42 - Blacks are voting for Obama more that whites are voting for Clinton. Sounds like the bigots are the black voters.
Liberal Traitor @ 27:
Im not sure how old you were in 93-94 when the health care issue came up for the first time or how politically aware you were during this period, but the fact that universal health care was an issue AT ALL, was a major hurdle cleared.
Couple that with the fact that the country was still in a drunken stupper with 12 years or Reagan Democrats, loosing Congress was not that surprising, especially with the immediate attacks on Clinton from day one of his presidency.
John McCain will run on nationa ldefense and national security this fall, to which I say loud and often, and perhaps you might want to also say to the Republiklan party.
THE MYTH OF REPUBLIKLAN PARTY CREDIBILITY ON NATIONAL DEFENSE AND NATIONAL SECURITY EXPLODED WITH THE PASSENGERS ON THE PLANE THAT HIT THE WORLD TRADE CENTER ON SEPT 11, 2001. FURTHERMORE THE REPUBLIKLAN PARTY APPEARS THE ONLY PARTY THAT HAS ACTUALLY DEMONSTRATED THEIR WEAKNESS ON NATIONAL DEFENSE IN THE 21ST CENTURY. OH AND WE DID HAVE ATTACKS ON OUR COUNTRY SINCE SEPT 11, 2001. THE RIGHT WING ANTHRAX KILLER KILLED PEOPLE AND SENT ANTHRAX TO 2 DEMOCRATIC SENATORS.
Get the Hunchback of John McCain T shirt at http://hunchback.democratz.org
L.A. Confidential @ 75:
Mornin LA.
who posted that up above?
that has to be the stupidest thing I've ever seen(again)
Not sure who you were quoting, LA, but don't be surprised. LOTS of dems seem to feel that way. And we can blame them for all the added death, destruction and ill-will that will occur as a result of John McCain's hundred-years war!
L.A. Confidential @ 75:
What if you aren't a Dem, have voted Republican, voted for Obama in the primary and won't vote for Hillary?
A contentious Democratic primary is only in the interests of the Republican Party. After a contentious nominating process in 68 Republicans squeaked into the WH. The American public has proven that are susceptible to the most effective propaganda machine since the collapse of the 3rd Reich. The Republicans have the American public in their crosshairs. If the public voted for a failed presidency in 2004 there's nothing to suggest that they won't fall for it in 2008.
In October, Cheney will declare martial law (for some ginned up reason) and this will all be moot. ...(Just conjecturing.) (Good night all. See you tomorrow.)
L.A. Confidential @ 75:
Wipe the drool from your chin, LA. Your candidate is deeply unpopular in your own party. Even more so among us independents, whose votes the dems desperately need. Your peurile comments on these threads establish that you are truly the 'dim' in 'dim'ocrat.
mudshark @ 80:
Read the mybarackobama.com blog.
Same "Ole" if Clinton wins nomination. Why is it so many vote against their self interests.
Working class voters and seniors in Ohio and Texas finally get a chance to vote for someone who hasn't been corrupted by the corporate structure in Washington and what do those voters do. Pull the Moron lever. I give up, the morons rule.
IF SHE WINS I WILL VOTE REPUBLICAN
IF HE WINS I WILL VOTE REPUBLICAN
i am an EDWARDS democrat and since MY LITTLE CANDIDATE didn't win the primary i'm going to take my balls and go home and cry and pout and kick the floor, holding my breath until i turn colors and mommy comes in to rub my back and tell me it will all be okay
IT IS NO WONDER THE CRYBABY DEMOCRATS CAN'T WIN AN ELECTION...
... THEY RUN HOME AND DON'T VOTE IF THEY DON'T GET THEIR ITSY BITSY WAY
BOO HOO HOO..... TIME TO CALL THE WAAAAAAMBULANCE!!!
Prince Roy @ 85:
I don't trust any of them. Obama, Clinton, McCain, you name it.
Tough call huh?
The Realist @ 78:
Bill Clinton wasn't the right choice then and Hillary Clinton isn't the right choice now.
Hillary had an opportunity to DO something about health care and when her proposal failed, she didn't go back to the table and try again. She "picked up her marbles and went home".
Right now, McCain can't even get party support. Just look at the numbers. BUT. IF you go by polls:
Obama vs. McCain Obama 47.3 McCain 42.7
Clinton vs. McCain Clinton 46.0 McCain 46.2
And nobody has even chose a VP candidate. Now, if McBarelyAbleToStand gets a VP like, say Dick Cheney, that brings over the 19-30% of the wingnuts. How do you combat that? With Hillary who they despise? I'd say the longer this goes, especially with the negative attack ads, the more John McShellShocked grins and waits. Sharpening the knife and knowing he will be the next Prez.
Bobswire - i am from texas. we are not morons. we actually have a booming economy here unlike where you live. MAybe we are the smart ones and you are just behind the curve. CLinton is better - period.
My bet is Rove and the cons are counting on Obama's base to explode, freak out, fracture, and blow the election for the Dems if Hillary get the Nomination.
Looks like they are right.
ConcernedCanuck @ 91:
An HRC candidacy is the only thing that will rally the right to McCain. It's why the GOP establishment is desperately praying for her to win the nomination.
[Deleted. Off topic-Sitemonitor]
If Hillary gets the nomination, then all the new young voters will stay home in November. We need young people to get involved. I don't hate Hillary. It's just time to get rid of the old Democratic guard and bring in some new blood.
kevin @ 92:
sorry, Kevin, but as one Texan to another, with a comment like that, you most certainly are. Enjoy the McCain years.
sueinNM @ 66:
For the most part if Obama does not get the nomination then the youth and new voters supporting him, along with a sizable chunk of the African American voters will just not show up. Apathy will rule since the corporate establishment will have won on both sides and preserved their grip on power.
Prince Roy @ 94:
Can you imagine a McCain/Cheney or McCain/Rove ticket? They would eat Hillary, spit her out, and destroy the Dem Party in the process.
Cats r Flyfishn @ 90:
Hillary had an opportunity to DO something about health care and when her proposal failed, she didn't go back to the table and try again. She "picked up her marbles and went home".
So you weren't born yet when that happened? You didn't realize that, right after that, the republicans re-took the Congress? What would have been the point of trying again with the republicans in control? Republicans are more interested in protecting insurance companies. They don't give a damn about anyone's health. Poor? Got no insurance? Got cancer? Okay, die mother-f**cker!
That's the republican attitude. I never would have believed that there are so many democrats who are willing to let that attitude prevail if they don't get their way about everything.
Apparently, there's a portion of the democratic base that's just as stupid as evangelical xian republicans.
ConcernedCanuck @ 98:
You got right.
ConcernedCanuck @ 98:
I don't think it will be either one. But if HRC wins the nomination it won't really matter. He could choose John Hagee and he'll still win.
#8
I'm willing to bet Dollars to Doughnuts that Limbaugh had an impact here in Texas.....My precinct has grown many folds since 2004 and we had record turnout for our caucus. I live in an extremely conservative county and am represented by assclown John Carter, yet we STILL had some 170 caucus-goers last night that went basically 60-40 for Obama. At least one person there ADMITTED they were a republican and they were voting to make sure that 'someone' didn't win. The Goopers fear Obama because he's pretty clean and Clinton can't beat them in the general (regardless of McCain's own problems)....So yes, he did have an impact in the open primary, which is why I feel Obama will be taking the caucus.
Prince Roy @ 94:
Rove and the Cons are cheering on the Obamaniacs.
Cats r Flyfishn @ 100:
As it is, Obama's campaign is now saying they are going to go negative as well, and dig up the Clinton mess.......oh joy......deja vu all over again. And some Dems want this to carry over into June or August? Ha! Why not just crown McCain now and get it over with?
L.A. Confidential @ 86:
Bobswire - i was not the one who stooped to call people morons for not picking the right candidate. you did. As for me - i doubt you are a native texan because most rural long term texas residents (if you look at county by county voting) voted for HRC by huge margins. I do doubt you are from TEXAS
L.A. Confidential @ 103:
I think someone dumped acid in the LA water supply.
Hillary has learned through out her turbulent career to never give up regardless of the fly-back for those around her. She has learned to never say never, this time she is risking the hopes, and aspirations of the Democratic Party and the women who have placed their hopes and aspirations in her. She is willing play brinksmanship and to fight to the very end, regardless of the cost to the Party.
- Just a few weeks ago Bill Clinton said a race between Hillary and McCain would be the most civil in recent history.
- And just this week Hillary brought out the Kitchen sink against her Democratic Opponent to redefine the lows in "dirty tactics" - (Praising McCain on National Security over Obama, employing Foreign Powers in negative campaign strategy, broadcasting fake Breaking News Items, feeding the flames of racism with the release of the turban photos)
I believe she deserves to be opposed by Democrats with as much voracity as she has shown towards Democrats and her Democratic Opponent.
She wants a fight. LETS FIGHT!
A VERY DANGEROUS PROPOSITION FOR ALL THOSE INVOLVED.
Prince Roy @ 107:
Boy are you ever ignorant.
See you later.
Dream on
berberry @ 99:
So you weren't born yet when that happened? You didn't realize that, right after that, the republicans re-took the Congress? What would have been the point of trying again with the republicans in control? Republicans are more interested in protecting insurance companies. They don't give a damn about anyone's health. Poor? Got no insurance? Got cancer? Okay, die mother-f**cker!
That's the republican attitude. I never would have believed that there are so many democrats who are willing to let that attitude prevail if they don't get their way about everything.
Apparently, there's a portion of the democratic base that's just as stupid as evangelical xian republicans.
I don't get your point. Hillary could have at least done something and now you are blaming the Republican Congress. It's all or nothing with her. Just look at her campaign. She never congratulated Obama on his wins. Last night, within the first two minutes of his speech, Obama congratulated Clinton on her wins. Hillary is all about herself and only pretends to care. Her governing style is "Yes, I can" whereas Barack's style is "Yes, we can". Barack empowers and Hillary controls.
Thomas Frank @ 108:
Oh yeah man thats a real way to bring the Country back together!
A real Win Win Situation!
kevin @ 106:
Dude, I grew up in Texas and most Texans are dumb as dirt. That rural Texans would vote HRC by those margins proves it yet again.
Cats r Flyfishn @ 100:
ridiculous,that would make the Dems turnout in even LARGER numbers,except those two asshats.If those 2 ran on a ticket......the dems would turn out 4 to 1 or more.
Onslow @ 1:
ConcernedCanuck @ 60:
The most astute examination of the situation on this thread.
If this election is botched yet again and McCantankerous is elected, I too will be a Canadian, but not so concerned.
My point, cats @ 110, is that there was NO HOPE for national health insurance after the republicans re-took the Congress. Trying again would have been a pointless waste of time and resources.
mudshark @ 113:
ridiculous,that would make the Dems turnout in even LARGER numbers,except those two asshats.If those 2 ran on a ticket......the dems would turn out 4 to 1 or more.
EXACTLY
berberry @ 99:
I'll try this again.
I don't get your point. Hillary could have at least done something and now you are blaming the Republican Congress because she didn't get her way. It's all or nothing with her. Just look at her campaign. She never congratulated Obama on his wins. Last night, within the first two minutes of his speech, Obama congratulated Clinton on her wins. Hillary is all about herself and only pretends to care. Her governing style is "Yes, I can" whereas Barack's style is "Yes, we can". Barack empowers and Hillary controls.
L.A. Confidential @ 117:
ridiculous,that would make the Dems turnout in even LARGER numbers,except those two asshats.If those 2 ran on a ticket......the dems would turn out 4 to 1 or more.
EXACTLY
yeah, that proved so true in 2000 and 2004. Is your real name Jeff Spicoli?
mudshark @ 113:
Think so? Most young people have the attention span of a puppy. If their candidate isn't chosen, think they'll care enough to vote? Prob not. That puts the older generation that helped coronate Bush twice with all the power again. Me thinks the numbers would not turn up. People will have political fatigue by then.
That's a good point, LA. I kinda think (hope?) that all these dems saying they won't vote unless their candidate wins the nom might be just blowing smoke. Kinda like Barbra Streisand's idiotic rant about moving to Canada if Bush won in '04. She's still here, I think.
Comments are closed on this entry