Originally posted by DJ Eco
Okay, imagine a basketball game where the first winner to get to 11 wins. Team 1 has been doing well but Team 2 has come back, with their main man injured and a rookie substitute in his place. There's 2 minutes left in the game and they're down 7-6. Nobody will ever call it quits in a scenario like this, especially if it's not deemed impossible, which it isn't.
You Clinton people are really getting annoying with the sports analogies. There is no comparison, whatsoever, to the primaries. First of all, Obama is guaranteed a certain percentage of "points" for every group of "points" that she gets. 2nd, this race is so much farther apart than 7-6 in a game where an average of 2 points given for each basket that it's not even funny. It's more like being down 125-140 in the All Star game with 2 minutes left, no time outs, all your players on their last fouls before being ejected and a 35 second shot clock.
I will present a challenge to Hillary and all of her supporters. You've been presented with a plethora of logical mathematical data showing that you can not win this nomination without the superdelegates usurping the will of the people who voted. If you disagree, please provide concrete numbers as evidence of your path to victory. Do not include outrageous hypotheticals like Florida or Michigan counting at this point. It's not going to happen. They can't count the former elections because of fairness. I've heard tons of anecdotes from both Obama and Clinton supporters who didn't vote at all because they were told it wouldn't count and others where people swapped parties to vote Republican so it could count in some way. How can you say that the votes should stand if that happened as much as it did?
quote:
Okay, so in your opinion (which is valid and I can't disprove it), Clinton won because of a large amount of people who voted blindly because of race. Okay, so take the states that Obama won 90% of the Black vote, and only winning by maybe 5-10% at best and say that he won those because of a large amount of people who voted blindly because of race. Include in that big jambalaya the Black superdelegates who are voting for him, not because they necessarily want to, but because they feel pressured (and scared) to, and we have one big circus of a race-driven campaign.
1 in 7 voters in the PA primary admitted that race mattered to them. ADMITTED it. 75% of these people voted for Clinton. I'm not denying that Obama gets a lot of black votes because he's black, but in no state is the black population so proportionately high that it matters tremendously when it comes to delegate counts, especially considering the delegates available in states where the "I'm only voting for him because he looks like me" vote matters. PA had 156 (I think) delegates available. That's a hell of a lot sway for the "I won't vote for the black/"Muslim" guy (oh, there's a lot of these Hussein Obama people in PA, btw). I wanted to pull my hair out when politics got brought up when I was home for Christmas because of some of things that people were saying.
Posted by DJ Eco on Apr-26-2008 03:37:
quote:
Originally posted by DJ Eco
See, that's where you're wrong. Every Obama supporter likes to put two and two together, although, it's not always so easy. Think about it. 10,000 to 80,000 people are showing up to the caucuses in these red/battleground states of maybe a few million people. You shouldn't assume a 60/40 win by Obama in a red-state means he's gunna beat McCain in November. It doesn't even mean he has a credible shot. Obama supporters have been using this "two and two makes four" math which doesn't really apply. We won't win these red states, it's not happening.
Just adding on to these comments I made^^^ plus in response to the states you mentioned that Obama could take in November:
- Iowa: a total of 8% of the population voted in the caucus
- S. Carolina: a total of 11% of the population voted in the primary
- Nebraska: less than 2% of the state's population voted in the caucus
- Maryland: less than 15% of the state's population voted in the primary (this state went Dem last time)
- Wisconsin: about 24% of the state's population voted (this state went Dem last time)
I could go on and on about these numbers but I think you get the point. I'd rather bank on a candidate who can reinforce her strength in the Dem strongholds, than bank on a candidate to take these states like Nebraska, Iowa, or S. Carolina (and more) in November, it simply won't happen!!! A 10-15% gap in a state like Nebraska whose Dem voter turnout was less than my 20x10 block neighborhood doesn't mean "OMG, he's gunna take this state in November!" It's wishful thinking and that's a horrible strategy to run with.
Posted by Groundhog Boy on Apr-26-2008 03:40:
Oh, BTW, in case you haven't heard Gabriel Guerra-Mondragon, the ambassador to Chile during Bill's presidency and Hillary fundraiser ($500K) and supporter for THIS campaign just defected to Obama today because someone sat her down and explained the inevitable mathematical conclusions.
Posted by DJ Eco on Apr-26-2008 03:44:
quote:
Originally posted by Groundhog Boy
That's a hell of a lot sway for the "I won't vote for the black/"Muslim" guy (oh, there's a lot of these Hussein Obama people in PA, btw). I wanted to pull my hair out when politics got brought up when I was home for Christmas because of some of things that people were saying.
You're speaking like PA is its own isolated universe. There's talk, and a lot of it, like that over here. My own grandpa, who's an immigrant and has many Black friends AND several Muslim friends even said he doesn't like Obama because he's a Muslim. I see that as ignorancee as much as you do, and this conversation is happening everywhere; yes, even in New Jersey and New York. You can't play the race card because Obama lost there, simply because you're "from there". There's so much to consider, like the massive amounts of spending he has dwarfed her on, or the obvious bandwagon for the past few months by the mass media FOR Obama and against Hillary. I'm not part of the "Hillary people"... I was a strong Obama supporter and worked for his campaign and fundraisers, I've simply opened my eyes a bit more and didn't get so googly eyed with pics like his Christ-like cover on Rolling Stone. The pop-icon he has become and the ignorance of so many of his "supporters" around me, coupled with his iconsistency and lack of taking a stand on issues, forced me to look elsewhere for my candidate, so I'm not some Clinton talking-head, I've done my research too.
Posted by DJ Eco on Apr-26-2008 03:46:
quote:
Originally posted by Groundhog Boy
Oh, BTW, in case you haven't heard Gabriel Guerra-Mondragon, the ambassador to Chile during Bill's presidency and Hillary fundraiser ($500K) and supporter for THIS campaign just defected to Obama today because someone sat her down and explained the inevitable mathematical conclusions.
Typical Obama rationality, to think an endorsement means anything. Kennedy and his niece rallied around Obama, and he lost in Massachusetts. Where is Oprah now? Where are the Kennedy's now? All he has is Bill Richardson by his side going everywhere and on every show, like a bulldog. This is a campaign, not a popularity match over endorsers; she's got her fair share too, for the record.
Posted by MisterOpus1 on Apr-26-2008 03:48:
quote:
Originally posted by DJ Eco
You're lumping in all the delegates together. People who really don't know all the info or whatever make outlandish statements like "Hillary can't win unless a strong superdelegate result pushes her ahead." I don't know what fuzzy math you're accusing me of, but the same goes for Obama.
As I posted this in another thread:
There's nothing outlandish about it. As it stands now, she has to capture around 71% in each of the states coming up. And considering she's never come close to that in the past, the likelihood and statistical probability are pretty darn low. And with each state she doesn't go over 71%, her percentage needed climbs while Obama's declines. Sorry, but that's how it breaks down for her.
quote:
Without superdelegates, neither of them can clinch the nomination, no other way to see it. I hate the idea of SDs as much as the next guy, but she has every shot at winning it as much as he does,
Give me a viable reason why the supers would turn on the frontrunner now in bulk. And please don't say it would be secondary to his "gaffs", i.e. media whoring of his past associations (to which they do quite splendidly on every frontrunner, even on Hillary when she was ahead). Please tell me why the supers, in their divine wisdom, would want to do differently from what the American public has thus far, decided who should be the candidate.
And then give me a count of how many undecided supers have gone towards Hillary versus Obama over the past 2 or so months, and tell me why that trend would somehow miraculously reverse itself drastically toward Hillary's favor. I sure hope you're not going to tell me because she won Pennsylvania, a state to which she was heavily favored by some 20% over a month ago and won by 9.4% instead.
quote:
especially if he keeps his recent amazing PR breakthroughs up, he's really fucking up, guys.
I'm curious as to how Obama is "fucking up" by his associations of people, especially those to which Hillary's own fucking husband had pardoned from the same group. Oh that's right, of course she had no idea about them. How silly of me to think a woman of her intelligence was, ummm, not paying attention to things like that while her husband was President.......
quote:
See, that's where you're wrong. Every Obama supporter likes to put two and two together, although, it's not always so easy. Think about it. 10,000 to 80,000 people are showing up to the caucuses in these red/battleground states of maybe a few million people. You shouldn't assume a 60/40 win by Obama in a red-state means he's gunna beat McCain in November. It doesn't even mean he has a credible shot. Obama supporters have been using this "two and two makes four" math which doesn't really apply. We won't win these red states, it's not happening.
There's a bit of a narrow scope of view that I believe you're falling for here. It's not just a matter of trying to be competitive in those states that very well may swing towards McCain in the end. There's a bit more at stake with a 50-state strategy that Obama is employing, and it has quite a bit more payoff versus the Clinton triangulation strategy.
Clearly McCain will likely win his home state, so it would seem that it matters little that Obama polls better there, right? Well this helps out the two House Democratic freshman running for re-election campaigns this year there, Rep. Mitchell (AZ-05), and Rep. Giffords (AZ-08). If Obama can have a decent showing there, not only will the chances of these two freshmen Representatives winning their re-elections be enhanced, but the Republicans will have to devote more time and money in clearly a Red state.
Now contrast that to the record of the Clintons in the White House and how well the Democrats fared in Congress with their wonderful triangulation (strangulation) strategy. How well did we do back then? And what on earth makes you think Hillary and her advisors (McCauliffe for fuck's sake?!?!) would try anything differently?
Furthermore, take a look at this article on what Obama DID gain from Pennsylvania:
Central Pennsylvania is the most Republican part of the state. We have found again and again in this primary season that, outside of the South, white Democrats in heavily Republican areas tend to prefer Obama more than other areas. It is unclear what has caused this trend, but the observations in central Pennsylvania are consistent with it.
Finally, we should note the irony of central Pennsylvania's support of Obama. These are the locations where you can find many of the "small towns" about which Obama was speaking in San Francisco - and yet they seemed to be tilted in his favor. In a certain sense, small town Pennsylvanians preferred Obama more than the rest of the state!
So it's not just the white Dems, but Independents and cross-over Republicans. Strange that. And all this time I thought Hillary would have control of something like that in a state that clearly favored her over Obama.....
quote:
It's the big states with millions of people in them that Hillary is winning. Not only that, but it's the Democratic states that Hillary is winning. If Hillary were to drop out, it will make many people wonder if states like Jersey, Florida, Michigan, and Pennsylvania (among many others) will cave into McCain, it's a huge possibility.
Huh, so wait a gosh darn minute, Batman. You mean to tell me that in a state like California, a state that Hillary clearly won over Obama, that he's faring better than she is against McCain?
Gosh, how strange. Apparently, it would seem that, that, that, Obama might actually WIN THOSE BIG STRONGHOLD DEMOCRATIC STATES AFTERALL?!?!?!?!
Holy mindfuck Batman!
Try not to jump right the hell over Lebez's point like that again. Please tell us why Obama would seemingly have no chance in winning those big Democratic stronghold states just because another, uhh, Democrat beat him in the primary?
quote:
But the talking-heads and Obama-bots don't want to face that reality.
Yes, that reality to which clearly demonstrates that Obama has a better chance against McCain so far.
That reality that demonstrates that Obama has won more contests than Hillary.
That reality that not only has Obama won the caucuses which are clearly favored towards the hardcore supporters (wow, what a horrible thing to think about), but just so happened to have won a few primaries over Hillary as well.
That reality that Obama has raised more money than Hillary. Christ, Obama can fart loudly in his sleep for donations more than Hillary's camp.
That reality that Hillary is in debt.
That reality that Obama has more delegates than Hillary.
That reality that Obama has more of the popular vote than Hillary.
That reality that Hillary is running out of states to catch Obama in any realistic manner.
That reality that the likelihood of Hillary winning 71% of the vote in each of the remaining states is, well, a slap against reality.
But we're supposed to believe YOUR reality instead? The reality that despite all these things that clearly favor Obama as the candidate, the supers are going to somehow overturn the will of the primary electorate, spur a civil war in the Democratic party, just for Hillary to win the nomination?
Jesus, what the fuck are you smoking, and can you please keep it away from the rest of us?
quote:
I think we need to keep the states we had with Kerry and Gore and add one or two and we have the presidency.
Yeah, those worked rather swimmingly for us, didn't it? But let's not think about those things I mentioned above, and just hope and pray that Florida and Ohio will seemingly jump right in our laps.
quote:
You're delusional if you think Obama has a shot against McCain in 98% of the red states he won against Hillary in (with 5,000-person caucuses).
No one thinks he'll win in Republican stronghold states. That was never the point. And as stated above, there's more to the strategy than that - it's drying up the money-well in states that run Red for Republicans, which was a big reason why we pulled off so many big wins in Congress in 2006. Plus Obama seems to have quite a propensity of raking in cash, so being competitive with the Republicans is much more likely now.
This is very much a finance game as it is a political strategy game, and the two are very much intermingled now. Plus it puts those purple states even more into play for Obama. So it's nothing but a straw man argument to state that Obama and his "Obamabots" believe we'll win the dark red states like Texas, Arizona, etc.
quote:
As far as bringing up polls, any intelligent adult knows how flawed polls are, no matter who's in front or behind. One week, Hillary's polling better against McCain, another week Obama. Let's not bring 1000-person polls into this.
Yes, let's just go by sweeping, unsupported assertions instead. That's always much better.
And much more fun too, I suppose.
The problem for you, however, is that the polls have consistently demonstrated for quite some time now that Obama is more competitive than McCain in a number of states in question. For example:
North Carolina:
McCain (R) 47 (51)
Obama (D) 47 (42)
So outside of unsupported assertions on your behalf, what else can you come up with?
Posted by Groundhog Boy on Apr-26-2008 03:52:
quote:
Originally posted by DJ Eco
Typical Obama rationality, to think an endorsement means anything. Kennedy and his niece rallied around Obama, and he lost in Massachusetts. Where is Oprah now? Where are the Kennedy's now? All he has is Bill Richardson by his side going everywhere and on every show, like a bulldog. This is a campaign, not a popularity match over endorsers; she's got her fair share too, for the record.
Right before I walk out the door for the night - THEY DON'T HAVE TO BE OUT CAMPAIGNING BECAUSE THE MATH SAYS THAT THE ELECTION ESSENTIALLY OVER.
Hillary's just hanging around like Huckabee was, trying to garner support for 2012 when they think they might have a chance to run again.
Posted by MisterOpus1 on Apr-26-2008 03:57:
This is worth asking:
quote:
If Barack is such a bad candidate, and he is so unelectable, and it is such a bad idea to have him as the Democratic nominee, why can�t Hillary beat him?
Why is she behind him in every conceivable metric? Why is she behind in pledged delegates? Why is she behind in the popular vote (and don�t insult my intelligence by trying to pass that sheer nonsense the morons at certain pro-Clinton blogs are lapping up)? Why are super delegates flocking to Obama, while Hillary has picked up only a handful in the past few months. Why has she won fewer states? Why is she trumpeting her narrow delegate pickup in PA, when it is less than the number of net delegates Obama picked up in a variety of other states? Why is she behind in fund raising? Why was she unable to turn her double digit lead a year ago into any actual primary wins? Why, with her starting financial advantage and name recognition, was she held to a tie on Super Tuesday?
Why to those questions and a hundred more like them. If your candidate is so much better, why is Obama kicking her ass? Why?
And then please tell me how Clinton plans on winning the nomination and seemingly reversing an obvious trend in all these measures.
Posted by DJ Eco on Apr-26-2008 04:09:
quote:
Originally posted by MisterOpus1
So outside of unsupported assertions on your behalf, what else can you come up with?
I can come up with that there's no need for cursing or hostility or smartassedness in your reply, Batman. No need to imply that I'm smoking something because I have the view I do, and not yours. It's a waste of my Friday night to further argue with someone that sees absolutely nothing beyond polls and views that are copied and pasted on HIS favorite sites that are rooting for HIS candidate... Every week there are different numbers. Oh jeez, Batman, look!!!! This week, Hillary can beat McCain with a larger margin than Obama can (which is the truth for this week's poll numbers LOL)... C'mon, you seem smarter than that to give importance to the day's poll numbers.
And for the record, you prove my point, everytime you guys link a Daily Kos article, you're linking yet another guy out there with a view like yours, who isn't necessarily more intelligent or qualified than you; it has no bearing to my views and is just another opinion from an opinionated opinion-writer. Let me link you to pro-Hillary blogs and see how you guys react. We all give credibility and enjoy reading articles that agree with us, so a Daily Kos link is no different than you linking someone's opinion on here you agreed with.
quote:
Originally posted by Groundhog Boy
Right before I walk out the door for the night - THEY DON'T HAVE TO BE OUT CAMPAIGNING BECAUSE THE MATH SAYS THAT THE ELECTION ESSENTIALLY OVER.
Then why is he struggling to raise money in these days, while Hillary gets $10 million overnight? Why did he outspend her 4-1 in Pennsylvania? He's in a rut, dude, and people are voting for her and continuing to support her for the simple reality that, it's not over. Obama's 2% lead over Hillary in popular votes is testament that there's many people that agree.
Posted by LazFX on Apr-26-2008 04:14:
quote:
Originally posted by DJ Eco
Then why is he struggling to raise money in these days, while Hillary gets $10 million overnight? Why did he outspend her 4-1 in Pennsylvania? He's in a rut, dude, and people are voting for her and continuing to support her for the simple reality that, it's not over.
seriously stop...... she is ruining the party, riding that same song and dance that we will have to hear when its Mac and Obama.....
she is wasting resources and does not care about "us".....
Posted by DJ Eco on Apr-26-2008 04:17:
quote:
Originally posted by LazFX
seriously stop...... she is ruining the party, riding that same song and dance that we will have to hear when its Mac and Obama.....
she is wasting resources and does not care about "us".....
And at least 47% of the Democratic Party disagrees with you, so touche'!
Posted by LazFX on Apr-26-2008 04:19:
quote:
Originally posted by DJ Eco
And at least 47% of the Democratic Party disagrees with you, so touche'!
and thats why she is counting Mich and Fla... even after saying she would not???
Posted by DJ Eco on Apr-26-2008 04:36:
quote:
Originally posted by LazFX
and thats why she is counting Mich and Fla... even after saying she would not???
No. Obama has 48.5% of popular vote and Hillary has 47%, not counting Michigan and Florida. By counting Michigan and Florida, they're dead-even at 47.5% popular vote. Before the other guys say it, obviously, this has no bearing on our delegate-system. I'm simply proving to you that she is not "destroying" the party, when just about half of it is backing her. I don't have time to reply to everyone of Mr. Opus' remarks, but this is one thing that's common sense and a talking-point that's easy to poke holes through. Keep in mind that popular vote INCLUDES independents and Republicans that had voted (which Obama has strength with). So if there's anyone with the Democratic support, it's her... Once again, not insinuating anything toward the campaign itself, just showing how you're wrong.
Posted by MisterOpus1 on Apr-26-2008 05:20:
quote:
Originally posted by DJ Eco
Why is there a pattern of her winning our Democratic strongholds, where there are closed primaries and no Republicans and Independents are allowed to vote.
Umm, because they are closed primaries and no Republicans and Independents are allowed to vote for someone else?
Was that one of those Clintonite rhetorical questions? That's fun!
quote:
Obama wins all these open caucuses where anyone can vote.
Caucuses tend to be where the most ardent supporters go, considering the restricted hours and methodology of voting there compared to all-morning/all-afternoon/early-evening primaries.
But I find it funny how you seemingly believe it's a bad thing that not only is he winning in caucuses where the most ardent Democratic supporters land, but in environments where "anyone can vote". Gosh, the nerve of such people other than Democrats who consider voting for a candidate! How dare Obama attract those durn Independents and cross-over Republicans like that!
How would he ever accomplish anything with such a broader base of support other than his own hardcore Democratic base! Oh the misery!!!!!
quote:
I can't stress this enough, that winning a caucus against Hillary doesn't mean he's going to be McCain there.
Then compare the polls of electability in those states comparing McCain to Obama or McCain to Clinton.
Oh, that's right, you're allergic to polls. You Clintonites seemingly love unsupported statements instead. I keep forgetting.
quote:
Not only that, but if she's winning all these strong Dem states, how is she breaking up the party?
I'll let the NYTimes, a paper that initially endorsed Hillary, answer that question:
quote:
Voters are getting tired of it; it is demeaning the political process; and it does not work. It is past time for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to acknowledge that the negativity, for which she is mostly responsible, does nothing but harm to her, her opponent, her party and the 2008 election.
If nothing else, self interest should push her in that direction. Mrs. Clinton did not get the big win in Pennsylvania that she needed to challenge the calculus of the Democratic race. It is true that Senator Barack Obama outspent her 2-to-1. But Mrs. Clinton and her advisers should mainly blame themselves, because, as the political operatives say, they went heavily negative and ended up squandering a good part of what was once a 20-point lead.
On the eve of this crucial primary, Mrs. Clinton became the first Democratic candidate to wave the bloody shirt of 9/11. A Clinton television ad � torn right from Karl Rove�s playbook � evoked the 1929 stock market crash, Pearl Harbor, the Cuban missile crisis, the cold war and the 9/11 attacks, complete with video of Osama bin Laden. �If you can�t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen,� the narrator intoned.
If that was supposed to bolster Mrs. Clinton�s argument that she is the better prepared to be president in a dangerous world, she sent the opposite message on Tuesday morning by declaring in an interview on ABC News that if Iran attacked Israel while she were president: �We would be able to totally obliterate them.�
By staying on the attack and not engaging Mr. Obama on the substance of issues like terrorism, the economy and how to organize an orderly exit from Iraq, Mrs. Clinton does more than just turn off voters who don�t like negative campaigning. She undercuts the rationale for her candidacy that led this page and others to support her: that she is more qualified, right now, to be president than Mr. Obama.
Mr. Obama is not blameless when it comes to the negative and vapid nature of this campaign. He is increasingly rising to Mrs. Clinton�s bait, undercutting his own claims that he is offering a higher more inclusive form of politics. When she criticized his comments about �bitter� voters, Mr. Obama mocked her as an Annie Oakley wannabe. All that does is remind Americans who are on the fence about his relative youth and inexperience.
Democratic talk of an early, hard-hitting campaign to "define" and tar Arizona Sen. John McCain appears to have fizzled for lack of money, leading to a quiet round of finger-pointing among Democratic operatives and donors as McCain assembles a campaign and a public image relatively unmolested.
Despite the millions of dollars pooling around Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton, anti-McCain funds have fallen far short of the hopes set in November, when a key organizer, Tom Matzzie, reportedly told The Washington Post that the "Fund for America" would raise more than $100 million to support the activities of a range of allied groups.
The Democratic National Committee, too, is organizing an anti-McCain campaign, but a spokeswoman, Karen Finney, said fundraising to support that effort has met "mixed" results.
So while news releases and Internet ads have been launched, the largest-bore weapon in contemporary politics � a sustained television campaign � hasn't. That's because, people involved say, the soft-money groups don't have the soft money.
"Many of the people who would normally be involved in such an effort are overly focused on the primary, which is a mistake," said Michael Vachon, a spokesman for George Soros, who is the largest individual donor to the Fund for America, which in turn has passed on at least $1.4 million to what was expected to be the main attack group, an organization called the Campaign to Defend America.
"We know we're going to have a good Democratic nominee � it's time for Democrats to turn their attention to John McCain," Vachon said. http://dyn.politico.com/printstory....032895D16CBD06F
McCain is currently smelling like a rose to the press and having a rather successful time building back up his base as we continue our infighting amongst ourselves. To the press McCain can do no wrong and is not being asked the much-needed probing questions in the same manner that they�ve attached on Obama (and even Hillary in the past). IOW, they�re hitting McCain with kid gloves, and the message that the Democratic party needs to fight against the Right Wing Noise Machine is being re-directed against one another within the party.
quote:
No... A few of Obama's friends in Congress and the House, who are very outspoken, are up in flames about her still being in the race, and the general perception by an Obama supporter is that the party is falling apart. If the party were falling apart like many of you say it is, making Clinton call it quits is no way to solve it. That would anger the almost 50% of Dems who actually voted for her.
How does one �make� Hillary, or any candidate for that matter, quit?
No one can do that, especially someone as egotistical and narcissistic as Hillary.
So again you seem to be creating a bit of a straw man argument, considering that the likelihood of those voters for Hillary turning away from the Democratic vote and voting for McCain instead is unlikely for the broad majority of them.
quote:
If she stays the course, and loses, then we can say she lost and lost fairly, and move on with our lives.
You still seem to be dodging the one big question: if she has mathematically little chance of catching Obama in the delegate count, shy of the supers turning en masse against the electorate, why is she still here?
quote:
Anyone with a brain of their own will rally together for the Dems in November's election, regardless of what I said earlier about Jersey or Florida or Michigan folding.
Huh, and just a minute ago you just implied that angering the Hillary base would seemingly be a detriment to Obama if she was somehow �forced� out of the race.
Strange.
quote:
I think the unfair thing and the worst way to solve this situation is to pressure her to step down, a bigger scandal within the history of current Democratic party could not be commited.
If she has mathematically little chance of catching Obama in the delegate count, shy of the supers turning en masse against the electorate, why is she still here?
Posted by MisterOpus1 on Apr-26-2008 05:36:
quote:
Originally posted by DJ Eco
I can come up with that there's no need for cursing or hostility or smartassedness in your reply, Batman. No need to imply that I'm smoking something because I have the view I do, and not yours.
It�s not your view, it was your inherent and direct tone towards Obama supporters such as myself and Lebez. I�m more than willing to drop some of the hostility and cursing if you are willing to drop the silly labeling (�Obamabots�) on your end. Until then it will continue.
quote:
It's a waste of my Friday night to further argue with someone that sees absolutely nothing beyond polls and views that are copied and pasted on HIS favorite sites that are rooting for HIS candidate...
Yes, we sure don�t want to spend time using polls that seemingly take the opinions of, ummm, voters. That would be bad, bad, BAD!
Incidentally, wasn�t there a time to which the Clintons and the DLC were utilizing polls a wee bit too much in the past? Oh the irony.
As for quoting sites, it would certainly behoove you to, at the very least, make an attempt to address the arguments posed, rather than make silly ad hominem attacks like you are currently doing now.
quote:
Every week there are different numbers. Oh jeez, Batman, look!!!! This week, Hillary can beat McCain with a larger margin than Obama can (which is the truth for this week's poll numbers LOL)... C'mon, you seem smarter than that to give importance to the day's poll numbers.
As stated previously, it�s not merely looking at a snapshot picture of the polls that I am relying on, but a trend in all of those polls together that have shown consistency in Obama�s favor over the past few months.
quote:
And for the record, you prove my point, everytime you guys link a Daily Kos article, you're linking yet another guy out there with a view like yours, who isn't necessarily more intelligent or qualified than you; it has no bearing to my views and is just another opinion from an opinionated opinion-writer.
If there was an opinion made from another blogger, again it would behoove you to try and address that opinion as right or wrong with at least a modicum of substance to support your counterargument, rather than make yet another ad hominem fallacy.
quote:
Let me link you to pro-Hillary blogs and see how you guys react. We all give credibility and enjoy reading articles that agree with us, so a Daily Kos link is no different than you linking someone's opinion on here you agreed with.
You�re at liberty to link any argument from a blogger that you choose, just as we�re at liberty to actually attempt to address those arguments rather than sidestep the argument completely and try to attack the blogger making the argument.
And by the way, the author that I linked from Daily Kos was actually a former Republican and Reagonite turned Democrat and Obama supporter. Funny how Obama attracts people like him and not just his "Obamabot" hardcore libruls.
And you've apparently wanted us to believe that Hillary's chances are still great, but yet John Cole asks very good questions that I would like to see you answer if you can.
So I'll post his message again, just in case:
quote:
If Barack is such a bad candidate, and he is so unelectable, and it is such a bad idea to have him as the Democratic nominee, why can�t Hillary beat him?
Why is she behind him in every conceivable metric? Why is she behind in pledged delegates? Why is she behind in the popular vote (and don�t insult my intelligence by trying to pass that sheer nonsense the morons at certain pro-Clinton blogs are lapping up)? Why are super delegates flocking to Obama, while Hillary has picked up only a handful in the past few months. Why has she won fewer states? Why is she trumpeting her narrow delegate pickup in PA, when it is less than the number of net delegates Obama picked up in a variety of other states? Why is she behind in fund raising? Why was she unable to turn her double digit lead a year ago into any actual primary wins? Why, with her starting financial advantage and name recognition, was she held to a tie on Super Tuesday?
Why to those questions and a hundred more like them. If your candidate is so much better, why is Obama kicking her ass? Why?
Posted by Groundhog Boy on Apr-26-2008 12:41:
quote:
Originally posted by DJ Eco
Then why is he struggling to raise money in these days, while Hillary gets $10 million overnight? Why did he outspend her 4-1 in Pennsylvania? He's in a rut, dude, and people are voting for her and continuing to support her for the simple reality that, it's not over. Obama's 2% lead over Hillary in popular votes is testament that there's many people that agree.
You're joking about him "struggling to raise money," right? If not, you're utterly delirious.
There's a reason he's able to outspend her 4-1 (which is an exaggeration in itself - he spent $11.2 million, she spent $4.8 - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24264781/). Last I checked, that's about 2.33 to 1, but why would I expect math to matter when it's obviously not important in this process.
FYI, he's raised $35-50 million/month in the past 4 months, averaging about $110/supporter. As of 3/31/08, he had $51 million in cash on hand according to http://opensecrets.org/pres08/summa...638&cycle=2008. He's got so much and the nomination is already so locked that he's already supporting fundraising for the DNC to support the general election (the RNC has a war chest of $31 million which far surpasses the DNC since everyone's wasting their money supporting this nomination process that should be over).
What's Hillary's average? $2300 per lobbyist which obviously isn't cutting it because her big $10 million windfall from the PA win did nothing more than pay off her debt, which she needs to pay off and stop screwing small business owners like she has been for some time now.
Posted by Groundhog Boy on Apr-26-2008 12:58:
quote:
Originally posted by MisterOpus1
Caucuses tend to be where the most ardent supporters go, considering the restricted hours and methodology of voting there compared to all-morning/all-afternoon/early-primaries.
Those crazy caucus states "primarily dominated by activists, they don't represent the electorate" (by hideous woman that I'll never support 2/11/08)
Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
It has nothing to do with the personality of either candidate, merely the mathematic inevitability of Obama as the nominee. Hillary can claim she's the "better" candidate, but at this point it's too late for that. She can't win. So it's time to face the music and get behind the party so they can begin to fight against the GOP machine as a united front.
You really think they need to fight it that hard? Its a sure win mate.
Posted by DJ Eco on Apr-26-2008 15:32:
I simply do not have enough time to argue everything you've replied. I can show you, if I take 2 hours out of my life, polls where she has been consistently beating him vs. McCain. It brings me to my main point; polls don't really matter. Back a couple months when the Hillary camp was touting the polls in which they were on top, I wasn't even a Hillary supporter so I said THEN that polls are bullshit, and I say NOW that polls are bullshit.
What I did want to reply this time was a challenge or more of another question to you. What's the problem with allowing a revote in Michigan and Florida. It might be too late and I don't know if they're even doing it, but your conclusions about a 50-state approach don't take into account that Florida is more important than a state like Nebraska (where 35,000 people voted) or South Carolina. We're talking about 5.5 million voters who have not been given their voices and many who will be disgruntled, come November. This is way beyond a Hillary/Obama discussion. It's about what's fair and why we should have a revote. If Obama wins, good for him, same for Hillary. But I can't see one reason why we shouldn't. Please enlighten me.
As for your views on a caucus, I couldn't disagree more. It's our selection of a Democratic leader that's at stake. They should allow the voice of Democrats and only Democrats in selecting him/her. Once again, this is beyond a Hillary/Barack discussion, but something I would apply to any open-caucus in the past, it's just dumb. If there were a caucus here in my state, I wouldn't have gone. I go to college, I have three jobs, and I simply don't have time to stay 3 hours in a room for the caucus. It's a flawed system, whether Clinton would have won them or Obama, and you're not seeing my point on that. Let the Inds and crossover-Reps vote for us in November, no need for them to shape our decision just yet. For example, what if Joe Lieberman ran for president on the Dem ticket. The open caucuses and primaries would be packed to the brim with crossover-Republicans, think about it. But... is he necessarily OUR choice? It's a hypothetical but I'm just showing how the system is flawed, in my opinion.
I'm not going to debate you on numbers, and I regret bringing issues of money and spending (they're insignificant and are unimportant to the discussion, as I shoulda known). But please answer what, at least to me, seems like a few common sense points and questions about the system and how it's hurting us in this election that no one expected would go this far. Leave the Hillary/Barack shite out of it when answering it too, they're simply general questions, and I look forward to hearing what you have to say.
Posted by DJ Eco on Apr-26-2008 15:45:
quote:
If Barack is such a bad candidate, and he is so unelectable, and it is such a bad idea to have him as the Democratic nominee, why can�t Hillary beat him?
Why is she behind him in every conceivable metric? Why is she behind in pledged delegates? Why is she behind in the popular vote (and don�t insult my intelligence by trying to pass that sheer nonsense the morons at certain pro-Clinton blogs are lapping up)? Why are super delegates flocking to Obama, while Hillary has picked up only a handful in the past few months. Why has she won fewer states? Why is she trumpeting her narrow delegate pickup in PA, when it is less than the number of net delegates Obama picked up in a variety of other states? Why is she behind in fund raising? Why was she unable to turn her double digit lead a year ago into any actual primary wins? Why, with her starting financial advantage and name recognition, was she held to a tie on Super Tuesday?
Why to those questions and a hundred more like them. If your candidate is so much better, why is Obama kicking her ass? Why?
It's called momentum. He swept the people and the media off their feet. He got an amazing start and more or less kept it going until this past month. Momentum is nothing new, and it's no crazy concept nor is it a talking-point from the Hillary campaign. Bill won cos of momentum, as Bush Sr. crashed and burned. It's nothing negative but I certainly don't see any other reason as to why he's "kicking her ass", which I couldn't disagree more with. McCain was kicking Huckabee's and Paul's ass. This is not kicking ass. This is him getting a run for his money, while keeping onto the gains he made early on thanks to the initial momentum.
Originally posted by DJ Eco
I simply do not have enough time to argue everything you've replied. I can show you, if I take 2 hours out of my life, polls where she has been consistently beating him vs. McCain.
Be my guest. I devoted a little time to reply to you last night. It�s common knowledge here to at least expect a similar courtesy in return for debate or discussion, especially when it may actually support an argument you are attempting to make.
But as of yet, you are seemingly devoted to purporting opinions only, the very same opinions I have heard from Clinton supporters and bloggers alike. There�s nothing wrong with that, of course, especially when you share those opinions of others. But I think it�s worth pointing out since you�ve rightfully accused me of sharing the opinions of those �Obamabots�, which really is just so gosh darn, condemning�..
quote:
It brings me to my main point; polls don't really matter. Back a couple months when the Hillary camp was touting the polls in which they were on top, I wasn't even a Hillary supporter so I said THEN that polls are bullshit, and I say NOW that polls are bullshit.
Don�t get me wrong, I don�t support my entire argument around polls. They are merely used to support my argument. That and a few of the well-known facts that I laid out to you:
quote:
That reality that demonstrates that Obama has won more contests than Hillary.
That reality that not only has Obama won the caucuses which are clearly favored towards the hardcore supporters (wow, what a horrible thing to think about), but just so happened to have won a few primaries over Hillary as well.
That reality that Obama has raised more money than Hillary. Christ, Obama can fart loudly in his sleep for donations more than Hillary's camp.
That reality that Hillary is in debt.
That reality that Obama has more delegates than Hillary.
That reality that Obama has more of the popular vote than Hillary.
That reality that Hillary is running out of states to catch Obama in any realistic manner.
That reality that the likelihood of Hillary winning 71% of the vote in each of the remaining states is, well, a slap against reality.
Combined with the polls I was using, and combined with the fact that the likelihood of those big Democratic stronghold states in all likelihood will go to the Democratic nominee no matter who it is, I�m a little more convinced that Obama is a better candidate overall.
And as much as you hate polls, I can�t help but to give you a couple more that demonstrates Hillary�s unfavorability ratings, which are consistently higher than Obama�s:
While Clinton retains a big edge over Obama on experience, public impressions of her have taken a sharply negative turn. Today, more Americans have an unfavorable view of her than at any time since The Post and ABC began asking the question, in 1992. Impressions of her husband, former president Bill Clinton, also have grown negative by a small margin.
In the new poll, 54 percent said they have an unfavorable view of Sen. Clinton, up from 40 percent a few days after she won the New Hampshire primary in early January. Her favorability rating has dropped among both Democrats and independents over the past three months, although her overall such rating among Democrats remains high. Nearly six in 10 independents now view her unfavorably. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...ml?hpid=topnews
While there�s no doubt that going negative unfortunately helps, it also hurts. You know the old saying about throwing shit at someone � often times you�ll get a bit on you. The way Hillary handled herself in Pennsylvania was a disgrace, latching on to the ridiculous character assassinations by the media and the Right Wing Machine.
Which, by the way, it begs the question � why does a Democratic candidate feel it was appropriate to give credence of a Republican candidate for the Presidential position over the frontrunner in her own party? Do you really feel what she said about that was appropriate at all?
quote:
What I did want to reply this time was a challenge or more of another question to you. What's the problem with allowing a revote in Michigan and Florida. It might be too late and I don't know if they're even doing it, but your conclusions about a 50-state approach don't take into account that Florida is more important than a state like Nebraska (where 35,000 people voted) or South Carolina. We're talking about 5.5 million voters who have not been given their voices and many who will be disgruntled, come November. This is way beyond a Hillary/Obama discussion. It's about what's fair and why we should have a revote. If Obama wins, good for him, same for Hillary. But I can't see one reason why we shouldn't. Please enlighten me.
I believe we covered some of this ground already, didn�t we?:
We can talk hypotheticals until we�re blue in the face, and I think it�s unfortunate that our party in both of those states acted the way they did and forced the hand of the DNC to disqualify them. If the voters are pissed off, then they should be pissed at their Democratic leaders in that state for breaking the rules. You�re right, it wasn�t fair, but that�s the reality of it.
And the situation that we have now is not going to change, and ALL of the candidates (including Hillary) initially agreed to not having those two states count. It sucks, but that�s the reality. And so is the reality that a revote for those two states will simply not happen. I�m afraid that the Clinton supporters are going to have to stop with the wishful thinking here and accept that reality.
And as to my prior argument on the 50-state strategy, again you seemingly sidestepped my main point that more is at play than just the Presidency, and thankfully Obama has come to embrace that himself. And I prefer a candidate that puts more than just 3 states into play, which will in the long run attract more voters to the Democratic side throughout the entire country. If you want a Hillary win and a concentration on Ohio and Florida, fine, that�s your belief and you�re entitled to it. I would contend, however, that attracting voters in ALL the states benefits the Democratic message and party overall for many more years to come, rather than just 2 states that we�ve unfortunately lost in the past few elections to Republicans.
IOW, our previous strategy sucked. It came up short, and the DNC along with Obama got tired of doing the same thing that the DLC and it�s Clinton advisors continually told them to do, over and over. It was a losing strategy, hoping and praying that our message will somehow woo over the voters in the swing states, while clinging to the message that the fucking DLC-Clintonite consultants were giving to them that consistently hurt our party and our chances of winning the Congressional majority and presidency.
So we tried something different in 2006, and won rather convincingly. Now in a time to which a president has the lowest approval ratings ever (hovering at 28%), an endless war, an economy that�s tanking, and a GOP candidate that essentially shares the exact same views and to which we can rightfully hang the Bush albatross around his neck, we have a candidate that�s going after ALL voters in every state and attracting ridiculously record-high new Democratic voters.
But you want us to believe it�s a bad thing because Florida and Michigan voters are pissed at us. Huh, and that message would change, how again, if the supers went against the party electorate and put Hillary in rather than the current nominee who�s ahead by every measurable standard?
Yeah, that sure wouldn�t piss off Democratic voters country-wide or anything. Nope. Not at all.
quote:
As for your views on a caucus, I couldn't disagree more. It's our selection of a Democratic leader that's at stake. They should allow the voice of Democrats and only Democrats in selecting him/her. Once again, this is beyond a Hillary/Barack discussion, but something I would apply to any open-caucus in the past, it's just dumb. If there were a caucus here in my state, I wouldn't have gone. I go to college, I have three jobs, and I simply don't have time to stay 3 hours in a room for the caucus. It's a flawed system, whether Clinton would have won them or Obama, and you're not seeing my point on that. Let the Inds and crossover-Reps vote for us in November, no need for them to shape our decision just yet.
Unfortunately for Hillary, not nearly as many will crossover for her as they will for Obama. What makes you think it�s okay to ignore that until November? You think they�ll suddenly crossover for Hillary on November 3rd, when it�s been consistently demonstrated up until that point that they haven�t crossed over for her in the past, especially in comparison to Obama�s numbers?
quote:
For example, what if Joe Lieberman ran for president on the Dem ticket. The open caucuses and primaries would be packed to the brim with crossover-Republicans, think about it. But... is he necessarily OUR choice? It's a hypothetical but I'm just showing how the system is flawed, in my opinion.
I�m not exactly crazy about caucuses myself, and you may be surprised that most Obama supporters feel that way as well. In all likelihood that system will change for the shared feelings we have about it. I believe I�ve already mentioned that to you in a previous thread. But it is the situation we have now, so why continue to bitch about something that cannot be changed?
It wouldn�t happen to be because your favored candidate is behind, and has no real viable means of catching up in any way, would it?
quote:
I'm not going to debate you on numbers, and I regret bringing issues of money and spending (they're insignificant and are unimportant to the discussion, as I shoulda known).
On the contrary, I would contend the money issue is vitally important. It is absolutely essential for a candidacy race, and any political consultant and analyst (even the ones I don�t like) would tell you that.
quote:
But please answer what, at least to me, seems like a few common sense points and questions about the system and how it's hurting us in this election that no one expected would go this far. Leave the Hillary/Barack shite out of it when answering it too, they're simply general questions, and I look forward to hearing what you have to say.
I�ve answered as best as I can, but I don�t think we can leave Hillary and Obama out of these questions because they are in the center of them as well as the people who are in their corner and what each corner truly represents. To me Hillary represents the same ol� triangulation/strangulation strategy and the horrible DLC-beltway consultant bullshit that�s gotten us into so much of a losing battle for both the Congress and the Presidency. I respect Hillary for her views on most things, and again I would vote for her over McCain, but another candidate out there with a refreshing viewpoint and philosophy is out there that I prefer now.
One other thing to note about me. I was originally an Edwards supporter, and remained one until he dropped out. I was on the fence for a while between Obama and Dodd after that, but became an Obama supporter briefly, only to switch to Dodd because of Dodd�s incredible stance in the Senate against the FISA shenanigans. I didn�t support Dodd because of his electability chances, obviously, so understand that I do not sit on the principles of the �most electable� candidate alone. And then I switched back to Obama once Dodd dropped out. That may or may not be germane to the conversation, but I thought I�d share that background with you regardless. Take it as you will.
Posted by MisterOpus1 on Apr-26-2008 19:01:
quote:
Originally posted by DJ Eco
It's called momentum. He swept the people and the media off their feet. He got an amazing start and more or less kept it going until this past month. Momentum is nothing new, and it's no crazy concept nor is it a talking-point from the Hillary campaign. Bill won cos of momentum, as Bush Sr. crashed and burned. It's nothing negative but I certainly don't see any other reason as to why he's "kicking her ass", which I couldn't disagree more with. McCain was kicking Huckabee's and Paul's ass. This is not kicking ass. This is him getting a run for his money, while keeping onto the gains he made early on thanks to the initial momentum.
I agree he has momentum, but I disagree that that�s all it is. To me momentum is something of a temporary basis. Obama has been consistently ahead of Clinton by most measurable standards from the start, and has remained that way by all measurable standards ever since.
That�s not just momentum � that�s an irreversible trend for the Democratic nomination.
Let me address some of those arguments in the first link on �buyer�s remorse�:
quote:
-- The elitist argument. Clinton (and Republican John McCain) are having some success in redefining Obama by describing him as an elitist, a modern-day Adlai Stevenson, a previous Illinois politician with a golden tongue and an egg head. Obama's slip about "bitter" small-town voters who cling to guns and God, has fueled attacks from both the populist Left and Right.
And yet, as I demonstrated with this article:
quote:
[C]entral Pennsylvania is the most Republican part of the state. We have found again and again in this primary season that, outside of the South, white Democrats in heavily Republican areas tend to prefer Obama more than other areas. It is unclear what has caused this trend, but the observations in central Pennsylvania are consistent with it.
Finally, we should note the irony of central Pennsylvania's support of Obama. These are the locations where you can find many of the "small towns" about which Obama was speaking in San Francisco - and yet they seemed to be tilted in his favor. In a certain sense, small town Pennsylvanians preferred Obama more than the rest of the state!
He�s did better in those areas he was supposedly farting on with his �elitist� attitude.
quote:
-- Debate missteps. Obama's off-kilter performance during the one and only Pennsylvania pre-primary debate showed that he can be put on the defensive by relentless pummeling, whether it's from ABC TV questioners or a tough opponent. If he thinks Clinton is tough, just wait for former POW McCain. One debate misstep sealed the fate of Michael Dukakis in 1988. Is Obama one step away from a fatal goof in a debate with McCain?
Anyone that quotes that debacle of a debate of assassination against Obama by the ABC newscasters, is nothing but laughable. Stephanopolis and Gibson made asses out of themselves, and the opinion was far more weighted against their unbelievable non-issue �gotcha� questions than Obama�s responses. I would venture to guess that the upcoming McCain/Obama debates are not going to be the fucking circus type environments full of non-issue questions that ABC had done. Of course the GOP would love nothing but to focus on these moments instead of the actual issues, considering they�d get their asses handed to them on issues and policies (especially considering the past 8 years). So it�s a pretty safe bet to say that the media won�t be focusing so exclusively away from the issues, at least not to the level that ABC did that night.
quote:
-- Where's the beef? Clinton has been repeatedly making fun of Obama's soaring rhetoric and exceptional speaking skills. She claims he's a talker and not a do-er. Between now and November, he has to show that there is serious substance and well as plenty of sizzle.
That�s about as asinine a point as this writer can make. God forbid we actually have someone who�s articulate and intelligent in the White House for a change. But give me a break here � Obama can and does talk about substance whenever it�s brought up. His website to which I posted to you (have you even read it), outlines in detail all the substance one needs to know about his policies.
But then we have the news cycle running with �elitist� and �bitter� bullshit, and of course Clinton jumps on the bandwagon, takes the reins, grabs the fucking whip, and rides that shit out to the bitter end (pun intended). And yet she and this author has the nerve to ask, �Uhh, why don�t you talk about substance?�
Well Jesus, Hillary, news twits and Bush lapdog media, why the fuck won�t you talk about the issues and substance in the first place then so he CAN ACTUALLY TALK ABOUT SUBSTANCE, rather than attempt to sideswipe him with fucking Wright-gate, Bitter-gate, stinky-fucking-underwear-gate, and God knows what else is out there that�s about as important to our country as the lint between my fucking toes?!?!?!
Unbelievable.
(sidenote: Eco - my anger here is not directed towards you, but the author, just in case you were wondering).
quote:
-- Catholic voters. Whether their national origin is Latin American or European, Catholics have sided strongly with Clinton against Obama. Catholic voters -- a quarter of the U.S. electorate -- are one of the most important swing blocs in November. Catholics favored George Bush in 2004 but swung to Democratic congressional candidates in 2006. Obama needs to gain the loyalty of most of these pro-Clinton Catholic Democrats if he is going to win in November.
Here comes an easy one for the Democrats � all they have to do is tie the albatross of Rev. Hagee�s endorsement around McCain, that wonderful, fun-loving nutbag minister who thinks the Catholic church is the whore of the antichrist, and they�ve got themselves a ballgame.
quote:
-- Money isn't buying him happiness. Obama is outspending Clinton by margins of 3-to-1 and more. He seems to be flushing money down the political toilet. The Illinois senator has raised more than any presidential candidate in American history, but he's going to have to be smarter about spending his money. Or he needs a more effective message.
Man, what a douche bringing up money as if that�s somehow not in Obama�s favor. The guy can sneeze $10 million in a minute, and Hillary has to drum up support for that just to help her get out of debt. Please.
And as one poster below the article stated:
quote:
"even if Barack Obama backs in to the nomination..."
backs in? really??
last i checked...he's winning, but nice framing there.
Indeed.
As for the second piece by Samuelson, again I take issue with a few things he mentioned. For example:
quote:
A favorite Obama line is that he will tell "the American people not just what they want to hear but what we need to know." Well, he hasn't so far. Consider the retiring baby boomers. A truth-telling Obama might say: "Spending for retirees -- mainly Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid -- is already nearly half the federal budget. Unless we curb these rising costs, we will crush our children with higher taxes.
Yes, and a �truth-telling� Hillary or McCain might also somehow try and address the rising costs somehow as well, but neither candidate have taken this on directly. Admittedly that�s unfortunate, but I don�t see how Obama should be held to a different standard than the other two candidates in this regard.
quote:
�Reflecting longer life expectancies, we should gradually raise the eligibility ages for these programs and trim benefits for wealthier retirees. Both Democrats and Republicans are to blame for inaction. Waiting longer will only worsen the problem."
Again I wonder if such criticism can be shared across the board, or if we�re only trying to hold Obama to a different standard here?
quote:
Instead, Obama pledges not to raise the retirement age and to "protect Social Security benefits for current and future beneficiaries." This isn't "change"; it's sanctification of the status quo. He would also exempt all retirees making less than $50,000 annually from income tax. By his math, that would provide average tax relief of $1,400 to 7 million retirees -- shifting more of the tax burden onto younger workers. Obama's main proposal for Social Security is to raise the payroll tax beyond the present $102,000 ceiling.
I�m curious as to why the author thinks that raising the payroll tax, which has been done continually since its inception in 1983, is somehow a bad thing if it keeps SS/Medicare solvent and would affect the top 6% of Americans only.
Regardless, I can agree that not everything Obama or Hillary has proposed are terrific or even fiscally realistic ideas. But again I wonder exactly how Hillary�s proposals are somehow more realistic at this present time. The unfortunate bottom line is that no matter who becomes president, they�ve got a huge fiscal burden on their shoulders thanks in large part to the idiot presidency and his GOP Congress over the past 8 years (and yes, some of the blame on the Democratic Congressional members too for going along with it all). It won�t be pretty, and it�s a safe bet to say that some hard decisions are going to be made. But that�s the hand that the Bush Administration has essentially passed off to, which will suck for everyone.
quote:
He has run on the vague promise of "change," but on issue after issue -- immigration, the economy, global warming -- he has offered boilerplate policies that evade the underlying causes of the stalemates. These issues remain contentious because they involve real conflicts or differences of opinion.
How exactly are these �stalemate� issues? The only �stalemate� that was created was secondary to a GOP-run Congress and GOP Presidency for the first 6 years, to which collectively bent us all over. Now the �stalemate� is a Democratic-led Congress just over a year old butting heads with the Bush Administration and his GOP turds in Congress that won�t allow any Democratic proposals to go through no matter what. They don�t believe in compromise of any sort, unless it�s completely in their favor.
That was the �underlying� cause to the stalemate. Get the fucking turds out of office, and see what happens. How does this author expect Obama to say that point any more succinctly, let alone differentiate it from Hillary in any way?
Posted by MisterOpus1 on Apr-26-2008 19:07:
Here's a couple interesting reads I found today as well:
quote:
"Pennsylvania did the job of calming any nerves that existed," said Clinton campaign spokesman Jay Carson. "It showed that the big states around the country think she's the best person to be president."
But that opinion is far from unanimous. More than 70 top Clinton donors wrote their first checks to Obama in March, campaign records show. Clinton's lead among superdelegates, a collection of almost 800 party leaders and elected officials, has slipped from 106 in December to 23 now, according to an Associated Press tally.
... There are signs that the anger voiced by some African Americans is beginning to extend to the Democratic donor base. Campaign finance records released this week show that a growing number of Clinton's early supporters migrated to Obama in March, after he achieved 11 straight victories. Of those who had previously made maximum contributions to Clinton, 73 wrote their first checks to Obama in March. The reverse was not true: Of those who had made large contributions to Obama last year, none wrote checks to Clinton in March.
"I think she is destroying the Democratic Party," said New York lawyer Daniel Berger, who had backed Clinton with the maximum allowable donation of $2,300. "That there's no way for her to win this election except by destroying [Obama], I just don't like it. So in my own little way, I'm trying to send her a message."
The message came in the form of a $2,300 contribution to Obama.
Donors are not the only ones who have made the leap. Gabriel Guerra-Mondrag�n served as an ambassador to Chile during Bill Clinton's presidency, considered himself a close friend of Sen. Clinton, and became a "Hill-raiser" by bringing in about $500,000 for her presidential bid.
But he had a fitful few weeks as the battle between Clinton and Obama turned increasingly negative. Last week, he decided he had seen enough.
"We're just bleeding each other out," Guerra-Mondrag�n said when asked why he had decided to join Obama's finance committee. "Looking at it as coldly as I can, I just don't see how Senator Clinton can overcome Senator Obama with delegates and popular votes. I want this fight to be over -- the quicker, the better."
The Obama converts include William Louis-Dreyfus. The billionaire New York financier said he had been impressed by Clinton's performance in the Senate and distressed by eight years of the Bush administration when he donated the maximum to her campaign last August. Then, he said, he began watching more closely.
"However much one might have supported the Clintons, or one might support the usual suspects in the Democratic Party, I began to believe Obama represents a new approach. He gives off such a sense of relevance that he's sort of irresistible," Louis-Dreyfus said.
He also expressed, as did other big givers who crossed to Obama, exasperation about the tone of the Clinton campaign and frustration with the candidate herself.
"At the end of the day, all she had to do was open her mouth for me not to believe her," Louis-Dreyfus said.
Who the hell are Clinton supporters wanting in office, Hillary or Bubba?
Posted by MisterOpus1 on Apr-26-2008 19:11:
Hillary's campaign advisors also had some very interesting viewpoints as well:
quote:
Harold Ickes, a top adviser to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign who voted for Democratic Party rules that stripped Michigan and Florida of their delegates, now is arguing against the very penalty he helped pass.
In a conference call Saturday, the longtime Democratic Party member contended the DNC should reconsider its tough sanctions on the two states, which held early contests in violation of party rules. He said millions of voters in Michigan and Florida would be otherwise disenfranchised - before acknowledging moments later that he had favored the sanctions.
CBSNews.com: And also this week, the governors of Florida and Michigan came out and seemed open to a revote in those states for their delegations to count at the Democratic convention. What is the position of your campaign on a possible revote?
Terry McAuliffe: Well, what we have said is that these folks have already voted. I mean, people talk about a revote. But there is no appetite in Florida or Michigan by the state legislatures. I mean, there's no money. Who is going to pay the tens of millions of dollars to do this?
I've been informed that the Florida legislature, under no circumstances, would pay to have the Democrats redo it. So I agree with what has been said. The governors of both states have kept saying that the state parties in these two states need to work with the national party and come to some resolution of this matter. We just can't leave 2.3 million voters, 1.75 million in Florida, and over 600,000 in Michigan, who went in and voted. They've already voted. And we just need to count the votes.
Move your primary too early, Terry McAuliffe warned, and Michigan will lose half its delegates to the 2004 Democratic convention.
"The closest they'll get to Boston will be watching it on television," McAuliffe vowed. "I will not let you break this entire nominating process for one state. The rules are the rules."
Michigan Democrats backed down. McAuliffe's hard-line stance prevented a free-for-all among competing states that year, and it set the tone for future mutinies.
Yep. Makes sense.
Posted by MisterOpus1 on Apr-26-2008 19:20:
More evidence of the power of the 50-state strategy:
quote:
�In the U.S. Senate race in Kansas, two-term incumbent Republican Pat Roberts said he raised $522,024 in the year�s first quarter and had about $3 million on hand.
Democrat Jim Slattery raised $288,000 in the 12 days he had to raise money in the quarter after he filed paperwork on March 19.
.....Fellow Republican Jim Ryun, the former congressman from the district who lost the seat in 2006, said he raised $247,000, giving him $461,000 on hand.
Democratic incumbent Nancy Boyda said she raised $220,000 during the quarter with $812,000 cash on hand.
You see, THIS is why this is so significant. I remember full well how my Rep. Boyda was trailing the huge Republican incumbent, Jim Ryun, by all marks, but continued to collect $ and became more and more competitive with him in a clearly red state where Ryun had the luxury of winning fairly easily over the years. Had the grassrooters not paid attention to her, she would have lost pretty handily.
And yet with enough $, enough attention by the DNC to my district, and enough drive and determination by Boyda and us supporters, she pulled off what many consider one of the most suprising upsets in the 2006 campaign.
And now we've got yet another major contender with Jim Slattery in play going against the powerful incumbent for the U.S. Senate seat, Pat Roberts.
That's why I support the strategy. That's why I devote my volunteer time and money to Slattery, Boyda, and Obama, even while I'm on a clinical rotation and studying for my Board exam.
Pages (11): «1 [2] 34567891011»
