TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Why should Hillary leave the race?
Pages (11): « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 »

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 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?

Okay, well read this:

quote:

One thing many people haven't noticed about Hillary Clinton's 55 percent to 45 percent victory over Barack Obama in the Pennsylvania primary is that it put her ahead of Obama in the popular vote. Her 214,000-vote margin in the Keystone State means that she has won the votes, in primaries and caucuses, of 15,112,000 Americans, compared to 14,993,000 for Obama. If you add in the votes, as estimated by the folks at realclearpolitics.com, in the Iowa, Nevada, Washington and Maine caucuses, where state Democratic parties did not count the number of caucus-attenders, Clinton still has a lead of 12,000 votes. Moreover, she may be able to maintain that lead, despite an expected Obama victory in North Carolina on May 6, by rolling up big popular vote margins in West Virginia on May 13, Kentucky on May 20 and Puerto Rico on June 1. So it's likely that Clinton will be able to argue that undecided super-delegates should heed the will of the people. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...clinton_an.html

Okay, now, I'll be the first person to agree to the reality that popular vote does not really matter in an election. It simply doesn't, there's no other way for me to say it does. Let's make the obvious assumption that Obama still remains ahead in the delegate count further down the road. Many of you (in this thread even) are saying that she can't win unless she gets bigger numbers from the superdelegates, thus (according to some of the commenters in this thread, I don't remember who), undermining the delegate count and "going against the will of the people." Well, the popular vote, I think, more clearly shows the will of the people. The delegate and electoral college system itself is something our country put in place to slightly undercut the importance of the popular vote. No disagreement here, just yet. However, the SUPERDELEGATE system is just another extra piece of the puzzle put by our country to slight undercut the importance of the delegate system. So, assuming Clinton comes up slightly on top with popular vote at the end, but short on delegates, who's to say that it's impossible that some (or many, who knows) superdelegates WILL go by the will of the people and narrowly make Clinton the candidate? I sure as hell can't say this will happen for sure, nobody knows. But that's the point; being that this is all a possibility, put yourself in Clinton's shoes, would you step down? I repeat (for those in the back), this is not me saying THIS IS ALL GOING TO HAPPEN. This is me saying, this is a possibility. It's not our democratic duty to drop everything we're doing and support Obama. It's our democratic duty to let the systems (which we may hate) of how people are elected, go to work.

BTW, a bit off topic, but wanted to give you a big congrats:

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...d=&pagenumber=1

I've fallen off the trance tract a bit myself over the past couple of years, but every now and then I come around and listen to a notable trance set. Still contemplating on seeing Tiesto in a month here in KC.......

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 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.

Just to address your disagreement with the effectiveness of the "triangulation strategy", here's some things to keep in mind with Obama's strength in the other states, his "50-state trategy". It's from the same article as my earlier reply.

quote:

There are states where Obama runs stronger than Clinton. They include most of the West -- notably Colorado, a state Democrats lost in 2000 and 2004 but which has trended their way since. They include states in the Upper Midwest, like Minnesota, and New England states like Connecticut and New Hampshire, which Democrats won in 2004 but where Clinton seems weak. But Clinton seems to run stronger than Obama in the industrial (or formerly industrial) belt, running west from New Jersey through Pennsylvania and Ohio to Michigan and Missouri. Obama's weakness among white working-class voters in the primaries here suggests he is poorly positioned to win votes he will need to carry these states in November. This is not a minor problem -- we're talking about 84 electoral votes. Obama has also fared poorly among Latino and Jewish voters in every primary held so far. This is of consequence most notably in Florida, which has 27 electoral votes. In 2000, Al Gore won 67 percent of the vote in Broward County and 62 percent in Palm Beach County -- both have large Jewish populations. In this year's Florida primary, Obama lost those counties to Clinton by 57 percent to 33 percent and 61 percent to 27 percent. No Democrat can carry Florida without big margins in Broward and Palm Beach. Obama's weakness among Latinos and Jews could conceivably put California's 55 electoral votes in play. Los Angeles County delivered an 831,000 vote plurality for John Kerry in 2004. Most of that plurality came from areas with large numbers of Latinos and Jews. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...clinton_an.html

With all this being said, I respect you for the other reasons you support the 50-state strategy. However, I simply don't agree and believe in it. I will admit that maybe, it's because where I live that I don't really benefit from the 50-state strategy within the states that you have mentioned, I'll admit that. That maybe why I'm not so supportive of it. A bit selfish, yes, I know. However, I never really looked at the implications of the 50-state strategy, and am glad you've brought them up, as I haven't really heard about any of that.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 BTW, a bit off topic, but wanted to give you a big congrats: http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...d=&pagenumber=1 I've fallen off the trance tract a bit myself over the past couple of years, but every now and then I come around and listen to a notable trance set. Still contemplating on seeing Tiesto in a month here in KC.......

Thank you man! And to stay off topic a slight little bit more (hehe back to something you said earlier), I too was a Dodd supporter. When he dropped out my whole family scrambled for who to support. My brother and I went for Obama while my parents went for Clinton. However, as Super Tuesday got closer, I did more research and decided I would go for Clinton here on Super Tuesday. From the get-go, I've said that we are lucky to have two great candidates (relatively speaking) to choose from. They're not my favorites, but it could be worse. None of my replies are trying to change anyone's mind about their favorite candidate. I simply feel like there is no reason she should drop out. That's mine and many people's opinions, as is the opposite argument as well. Now, continuing on with the discussion... haha....

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Eco Okay, well read this: Okay, now, I'll be the first person to agree to the reality that popular vote does not really matter in an election. It simply doesn't, there's no other way for me to say it does. Let's make the obvious assumption that Obama still remains ahead in the delegate count further down the road. Many of you (in this thread even) are saying that she can't win unless she gets bigger numbers from the superdelegates, thus (according to some of the commenters in this thread, I don't remember who), undermining the delegate count and "going against the will of the people." Well, the popular vote, I think, more clearly shows the will of the people. The delegate and electoral college system itself is something our country put in place to slightly undercut the importance of the popular vote. No disagreement here, just yet. However, the SUPERDELEGATE system is just another extra piece of the puzzle put by our country to slight undercut the importance of the delegate system. So, assuming Clinton comes up slightly on top with popular vote at the end, but short on delegates, who's to say that it's impossible that some (or many, who knows) superdelegates WILL go by the will of the people and narrowly make Clinton the candidate? I sure as hell can't say this will happen for sure, nobody knows. But that's the point; being that this is all a possibility, put yourself in Clinton's shoes, would you step down? I repeat (for those in the back), this is not me saying THIS IS ALL GOING TO HAPPEN. This is me saying, this is a possibility. It's not our democratic duty to drop everything we're doing and support Obama. It's our democratic duty to let the systems (which we may hate) of how people are elected, go to work.

The first thought I had was I was wondering if Barone might be seemingly making a false comparison between counted vote tallies and estimated caucus goers, and then lumping them altogether. I recalled reading his blog back in early April where he initially made this projection:

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/barone/...gate-count.html

He took some rightful heat from it, and had to reply to the criticism:

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/barone/...pular-vote.html

I found this criticism in line with my thought on lumping in these caucuses you stated above:

quote:

The final four states--Iowa, Nevada, Maine and Washington--all held caucuses. But unlike Florida and Michigan, none of them even kept track of how many people voted for each candidate. (This is standard operating procedure in some caucuses, where delegates are awarded proportionally in thousands of precincts.) Wonks can devise equations to estimate the popular vote all they want, but mixing precise vote totals from other states with caucus approximations--which are, by definition, inaccurate--is mixing apples and oranges. Besides, thousands of voters in Iowa entered the caucuses intending to support Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd and Dennis Kucinich, but were forced to jump to Obama, Edwards or Clinton once their preferred candidate didn't reach the 15-percent viability threshold; in Nevada, the same thing happened to Edwards supporters. How can you possibly pretend to count people required to resort to their second choices? http://www.blog.newsweek.com/blogs/...te-fallacy.aspx

And his update is also a bit revealing:

quote:

UPDATE: There's an even deeper inconsistency here: combining vote totals from primary states and caucus states (at least the ones that keep track) effectively underrepresents those caucus states simply because they chose to hold caucuses. I'll let reader "obholmen" make the point for me: Allow me to use my own state of MN as an example. Minnesota is a caucus state with results of 66-32% in favor of Obama which yielded an excess of caucus voters of 73,115 for Obama. This figure is included in the media created margin of approximately 700,000 for Obama. But, because turnout in Caucus states is considerably lower than in primary states (Clinton is right about that), the margin of victory is also held down. Neighboring Wisconsin has a similar sized electorate. If the same number of voters turned out for a Mn primary as in Wisconsin and if Obama had the same 66-32% majority, his voter margin would have been over 340,00 rather than merely 73,115. Or, if Obama carried a hypothetical Mn primary by the same pct as neighboring Wisconsin (58-41%), then Obama's popular vote margin would have been 190,000 instead of merely 73,115. Even if Obama's margin of victory would only have been 10%, his popular vote margin would have been 110,000 --- still considerably more than he is credited with when only including caucus margin of victory. Treating the vote totals in caucus states in the same category as primary vote totals significantly disadvantages the caucus states. Even though Mn's electorate size is comparable to Wisconsin, there were 5 times as many voters in the Wis primary as in the Mn caucus. This makes the Wisconsin primary 5 times more important than Mn even though the electorates are essentially equal. Another reason why it is a myth to suggest there is such a thing as a popular vote total. If the rules are unfair, change them but do so before the primary season not after. For this season, stick with the rules.

And BTW, Barone once again added Florida and Michigan in his vote tally:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...vote_count.html

which last I recall, Obama's name WASN'T EVEN ON THE MICHIGAN TICKET.

The tallies are what we have now for all the states that counted and played by the rules. Obama has a clear lead, and I cannot see a scenario with the remaining states (plus that ones that actually counted in the past) to which she would catch him in even this measure of popular votes.

Can you conceive one outside of trying to count approximated tallies on caucuses and two states, one in which Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot?

Speaking of associations with known terrorists:



Of course we should all take Hillary at her word that she had nothing to do with this.

Of course.

quote:

Originally posted by Groundhog Boy I seem to recall most of the assassinations in the last 50 years happening to members of the left.

right, by "members of the left"...with the exception of maybe James Earl Ray.

by and large though, it just takes a crazy person really.

one word, creepy

Just imagine the democratic machine when it gets behind Obama fully.

They will make him out to be a black JFK, mark my words, and McCain will eventually have another temper tantrum and call Obama a foul name "off camera" and then political correctness will win the election.

Aherm, well, at least that's what I HOPE will happen.

Also, can someone explain to me why McCain has such stiff arms? It's something I always notice when I see him on the news. Does he have a medical condition? 'Nam injuries? Fake robot arms?

Yes he was almost tortured to death after being shot down. He probably would have died if the Vietnamese hadn't found out his father was an Admiral.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Eco Aside from this all, I'm going to bring back the "She's ruining and splitting the party issue." Please, intelligent people, hear me out. 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. Obama wins all these open caucuses where anyone can vote.

Open caucuses? Where?

http://www.buildthevote.org/page.as...cus_Eligibility

quote:

I can't stress this enough, that winning a caucus against Hillary doesn't mean he's going to be McCain there.

This argument is pedantic. Because Hillary wins the Democratic strongholds that vote Dem all the time, she's the better candidate? How exactly does this argument work? Obama wins the purple states that actually have a shot in hell of turning Dem. In case you haven't noticed, winning Democratic strongholds wasn't quite good enough in 2000 or 2004. I'll take a Democrat who can turn Virginia blue. Or Georgia.

Also, your argument about caucuses being irrelevant is stupid. Look at turnout rates - in Minnesota 240,000 people turned out for the caucus (NOTE: Not 5000 as you disingenuously suggest). I'll take a candidate who can motivate people to commit a substantial amount of time to the democratic process over a candidate who only wins in places where voting is convenient.

quote:

If she stays the course, and loses, then we can say she lost and lost fairly, and move on with our lives.

She already has. Your argument that Obama can't win without superdelegates is pointless. No candidate can. The point is that Hillary needs to win two for every one that Obama wins. Not going to happen in anybody's wildest dreams (except for yours and Mark Penn's apparently).

quote:

Anyone with a brain of their own will rally together for the Dems in November's election,

Interesting. So you concede that New York and California will vote for Obama regardless of him losing to Hillary there.

quote:

Also, your basketball analogy does not work, because in basketball at the end of the day, you're still on two opposing teams and exhausting your opponent is considered a good thing.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Eco 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.

You do know that Kos was for Hillary before being for Obama, right?

quote:

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.

So you admit that Obama has a lead in the popular vote? Great, thank you. Also, ask yourself this: how many people are voting for Hillary because they remember Bill's presidency fondly? More than a few I would imagine.

But to your main point here:

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.asp

Or are those facts biased as well?

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Eco 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.

You've provided absolutely no proof that Democrats won't vote for Obama (a Democrat) in an election against a Republican.

This is how I see it:

Obama = Democrats + Majority of Independents + A Few Republicans

Clinton = Democrats + Minority of Independents + No Republicans

Who is more electable in a general election?

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Eco Okay, well read this: Okay, now, I'll be the first person to agree to the reality that popular vote does not really matter in an election. It simply doesn't, there's no other way for me to say it does. Let's make the obvious assumption that Obama still remains ahead in the delegate count further down the road. Many of you (in this thread even) are saying that she can't win unless she gets bigger numbers from the superdelegates, thus (according to some of the commenters in this thread, I don't remember who), undermining the delegate count and "going against the will of the people." Well, the popular vote, I think, more clearly shows the will of the people. The delegate and electoral college system itself is something our country put in place to slightly undercut the importance of the popular vote. No disagreement here, just yet. However, the SUPERDELEGATE system is just another extra piece of the puzzle put by our country to slight undercut the importance of the delegate system. So, assuming Clinton comes up slightly on top with popular vote at the end, but short on delegates, who's to say that it's impossible that some (or many, who knows) superdelegates WILL go by the will of the people and narrowly make Clinton the candidate? I sure as hell can't say this will happen for sure, nobody knows. But that's the point; being that this is all a possibility, put yourself in Clinton's shoes, would you step down? I repeat (for those in the back), this is not me saying THIS IS ALL GOING TO HAPPEN. This is me saying, this is a possibility. It's not our democratic duty to drop everything we're doing and support Obama. It's our democratic duty to let the systems (which we may hate) of how people are elected, go to work.

This article includes Florida, and more importantly Michigan (where Obama wasn't even on the ballot) in coming up with those numbers.

Obama has the popular vote lead, and will only expand it in the remaining primaries. Thus, if the superdelegates break in the numbers Hillary needs (~70%) to her, that goes against the will of the people.

That's the argument.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov You've provided absolutely no proof that Democrats won't vote for Obama (a Democrat) in an election against a Republican. This is how I see it: Obama = Democrats + Majority of Independents + A Few Republicans - conservative democrats Clinton = Democrats + Minority of Independents + No Republicans Who is more electable in a general election?

see above for more accurate representation.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 see above for more accurate representation.

See above for total lack of substantiation to a pretty major claim.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Also, your argument about caucuses being irrelevant is stupid. Look at turnout rates - in Minnesota 240,000 people turned out for the caucus (NOTE: Not 5000 as you disingenuously suggest). I'll take a candidate who can motivate people to commit a substantial amount of time to the democratic process over a candidate who only wins in places where voting is convenient.

I don't remember mentioning Minnesota? I listed specific states (and I could be wrong) but none of them included Minnesota. As far as "motivating people to commit a substantial amount of time to the democratic process", that's great and all, but many people are just not in the position to cancel half their work-days to sit in a room at a caucus for 3-4 hours. I wouldn't have AND couldn't have, does that make me less of a Democratic voice? No, it's called blue-collar America. As far as being patient with "the democratic process", I think screaming for Hillary to step down goes against the democratic process. Let's see til the end who the Americans want, based on what the "process" was laid out for. Bill Maher, who enjoys taking many a swipe at Hillary Clinton, said it best a few weeks ago:

quote:

If voting can destroy the Democratic Party, then the party isn�t very democratic. Democrats need to stop freaking out about how this long primary battle between two popular candidates needs to be �settled yesterday! Because the candidates are bloodying each other! They�re causing irreparable harm! Mommy and Daddy are fighting!� Hey you people need to reach into your teenager�s knapsack and pull out a Paxil or Prozac and chill out. Democrats, your task is not just to choose between this pair, it�s to grow a pair. Now, I know the idea of a very close race brings up some pretty bad memories for Democrats, but these are Democratic primaries.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov She already has. Your argument that Obama can't win without superdelegates is pointless. No candidate can. The point is that Hillary needs to win two for every one that Obama wins. Not going to happen in anybody's wildest dreams (except for yours and Mark Penn's apparently).

I personally don't know anyone who can see into the future. I also personally don't think she has the high chance of winning, nobody's saying she does. But let the democratic process, as you called it before, prove you right. She's not exactly losing by Huckabee margins here.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Interesting. So you concede that New York and California will vote for Obama regardless of him losing to Hillary there.

Who knows? I consider myself pretty intelligent and would vote for whoever the Dem candidate is. I would HOPE most other people would do the same, but we don't know. Nobody does, not even Kos.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Also, your basketball analogy does not work, because in basketball at the end of the day, you're still on two opposing teams and exhausting your opponent is considered a good thing.

This is preseason basketball. Any weakness that was exposed during this time will either pass or be able to be countered against for November. C'mon, you really think the Republicans weren't going to bring up the Wright situation? The blue-collar vs. elitist argument? Michelle Obama's patriotism for this nation? First of all, these are no longer big breaking stories for the Republicans to use. The shock of Reverend Wright or his view on "guns and religion" will ware off by the time he starts running against McCain, if that is the case. If he can't handle the blows now, then he and his campaign advisors have seriously underestimated who they're going up against in November. McCain's really not a stellar candidate to be going up against but the Republican machine is a brutal one, when campaign season comes again. Hillary's jabs at him, and vice versa, are a tickle compared to what he would be down the line. He should be thanking the media (and whoever was responsible these past months) for getting the worst part over (by confronting people's discovery of his less redeeming qualities); if he is, in fact, chosen as the candidate, the money will come in and the race will go on. Your analogy of him being an exhausted opponent scares me. If he's exhausted now, how's he going to go up against McCain, and most importantly, how's he going to be our president?

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Also, ask yourself this: how many people are voting for Hillary because they remember Bill's presidency fondly? More than a few I would imagine.

How many people are voting for Obama because he's black and/or young? C'mon, we can play this game all day long, it's irrelevant. There's as many people voting for Hillary because of Bill as there people voting for Obama cos he's "dreamy".

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov You do know that Kos was for Hillary before being for Obama, right?

I was for Obama before I was for Hillary. Who is Kos to me? I could care less (which is my point).

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov You've provided absolutely no proof that Democrats won't vote for Obama (a Democrat) in an election against a Republican.

Nobody can PROVE anything right now. You can't 100% prove that more superdelegates than expected will go for Hillary. You can't 100% prove that she won't be able to keep up with a good fight until the end. Polls were wrong many times during this campaign (for both candidates). Nor can we see into the future, like I've said a few times. For all we know, a huge scandal surrounding Obama erupts in early May, and the superdelegates will be thanking god for still being able to choose Hillary. We just don't know, that's my point. So as long as someone has better than an impossible shot at winning (Huckabee's was impossible, as was Paul's, this is not), let democracy takes it course!

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Eco I don't remember mentioning Minnesota? I listed specific states (and I could be wrong) but none of them included Minnesota.

I apologize - I didn't realize you were only cherry-picking states that work for your argument.

quote:

As far as "motivating people to commit a substantial amount of time to the democratic process", that's great and all, but many people are just not in the position to cancel half their work-days to sit in a room at a caucus for 3-4 hours. I wouldn't have AND couldn't have, does that make me less of a Democratic voice?

Yes. That makes you less motivated, and less likely to stand in line to vote in November. It also makes you less likely to be an activist for your candidate. If you can't get off work a few hours early and participate in your democracy in action, then sorry, deal with the insinuation I throw at you. I don't care if you are poor - live on rice and ramen for a week so that you can afford to lose three hours of working at your 12.00/hr. job. If you care about the election and who will be the next President, it's a pretty small price to pay, imo.

quote:

I personally don't know anyone who can see into the future. I also personally don't think she has the high chance of winning, nobody's saying she does. But let the democratic process, as you called it before, prove you right. She's not exactly losing by Huckabee margins here.

You keep bringing Huckabee into this argument. Why? There is no comparison. Huckabee was losing by wide margins at the beginning, Hillary is losing by a moderate margin at the end. They're both inevitably going to lose the nomination. That's really the only comparison between the two I feel comfortable making.

quote:

This is preseason basketball. Any weakness that was exposed during this time will either pass or be able to be countered against for November. C'mon, you really think the Republicans weren't going to bring up the Wright situation? The blue-collar vs. elitist argument? Michelle Obama's patriotism for this nation? First of all, these are no longer big breaking stories for the Republicans to use. The shock of Reverend Wright or his view on "guns and religion" will ware off by the time he starts running against McCain, if that is the case. If he can't handle the blows now, then he and his campaign advisors have seriously underestimated who they're going up against in November. McCain's really not a stellar candidate to be going up against but the Republican machine is a brutal one, when campaign season comes again. Hillary's jabs at him, and vice versa, are a tickle compared to what he would be down the line. He should be thanking the media (and whoever was responsible these past months) for getting the worst part over (by confronting people's discovery of his less redeeming qualities); if he is, in fact, chosen as the candidate, the money will come in and the race will go on. Your analogy of him being an exhausted opponent scares me. If he's exhausted now, how's he going to go up against McCain, and most importantly, how's he going to be our president?

What? I don't recall complaining about her going negative. I'm just complaining because it's about time he addresses the Republican nominee instead of wasting time (and money) campaigning against a fellow Democrat.

And as to the basketball analogy, I'm kind of surprised that scared you. I only addressed it to show how stupid the premise of it was. And continues to be.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Eco How many people are voting for Obama because he's black and/or young? C'mon, we can play this game all day long, it's irrelevant. There's as many people voting for Hillary because of Bill as there people voting for Obama cos he's "dreamy".

Wtf? Who's voting for Obama because he's dreamy? White males? You're forgetting that the majority of women are voting for... well, the woman.

quote:

I was for Obama before I was for Hillary. Who is Kos to me? I could care less (which is my point).

The point is that you have to take Kos at least as seriously as we take you - someone who has taken his time to evaluate both candidates seriously.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Eco Nobody can PROVE anything right now. You can't 100% prove that more superdelegates than expected will go for Hillary. You can't 100% prove that she won't be able to keep up with a good fight until the end. Polls were wrong many times during this campaign (for both candidates). Nor can we see into the future, like I've said a few times. For all we know, a huge scandal surrounding Obama erupts in early May, and the superdelegates will be thanking god for still being able to choose Hillary. We just don't know, that's my point. So as long as someone has better than an impossible shot at winning (Huckabee's was impossible, as was Paul's, this is not), let democracy takes it course!

Lol. Ok, we'll stop using polls, fundraising data, and delegate counts and start relying merely on intuition and gut feelings then.

And LOL at you believing there's a snowball's chance in hell of Hillary winning 71% of remaining unpledged delegates. Her chances of winning are NOT better than "impossible" because it is, indeed, impossible.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Obama = Democrats + Majority of Independents + A Few Republicans Clinton = Democrats + Minority of Independents + No Republicans

electoral votes electoral votes electoral votes electoral votes electoral votes electoral votes...



We can both argue til we're blue in the face. You can make speculations and I can make speculations. All the Republicans (all few dozen thousand of them) that came out to vote for him in the Western states, I honestly don't think they'll make this crazy difference in November. I appreciate Mr. Opus for a very informative reply last page about what more is at stake within these states (not just electoral votes), but I still can't see it affecting the presidential run.

For every 5 or 6 or 7 electoral-vote state Obama **MIGHT** take in November (purple states), according to you at least, he puts at risk a Florida or Pennsylvania or Michigan, etc. As far as Penn. is concerned, GHB said it himself, it's a racist state! Sad but true, that could make a huge impact in November. We don't know!!! That's the thing. If Clinton wins what we won in 2004 plus an extra state here and there (an Ohio or a Nevada maybe?), there we go!....

Don't forget, there's McCain on the other side of things who can't wait to put a little effort into taking a Pennsylvania or Florida or Michigan, AND HE CAN. He'd be more than glad to hand a New Mexico or Iowa Obama's way.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Open caucuses? Where? http://www.buildthevote.org/page.as...cus_Eligibility

Idaho, North Dakota, and Minnesota, where the delegate count measured as follows with Obama's followed by Hillary's:
ID - 15-3
MN - 48-24
ND - 8-5

That's a grand total of 39 delegates net. Big change in the count there. About the same as her superdelegate lead right now.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov I apologize - I didn't realize you were only cherry-picking states that work for your argument.

haha Well, way to put your foot in Mr. Opus' mouth. Those were the states he listed as Obama having a good chance at winning in November. So no, that was someone on your end of the argument cherry-picking, and me disagreeing intelligently with by going one by one with numbers on.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Yes. That makes you less motivated, and less likely to stand in line to vote in November. It also makes you less likely to be an activist for your candidate. If you can't get off work a few hours early and participate in your democracy in action, then sorry, deal with the insinuation I throw at you. I don't care if you are poor - live on rice and ramen for a week so that you can afford to lose three hours of working at your 12.00/hr. job. If you care about the election and who will be the next President, it's a pretty small price to pay, imo.

I don't know where you're from but there are no half-days in New York, not to mention I commute out of state, sorry. Standing in line in November means going to the polls and taking 15 minutes tops out of my day before I go to work (and night-school later). Going to a 4-hour caucus is in no way similar to that. I'm glad my state had primaries, that's all. I wish all states had them, regardless of whether Clinton or Obama saw the advantage of them, it's not really important.

As far as parcitipating in "democracy in action", if we were smart, we'd do like several other countries do and make elections a Saturday-thru-Monday thing. Of course, keep the media out of doing exit polling, but that's a better system, imo. I repeat my previous argument that, if you expect everyone to be somewhere at a certain hour for several hours, that's wishful thinking. Although I also go to college, on top of working, not many people have the option of "cutting class"... once again, it's called Blue Collar America. Go home early while working in the mines or in the factories or at the construction job, see if you have a job the next day, or someone to cover your shift.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.