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?

___________________
http://thesoundofeco.com

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).

___________________
http://thesoundofeco.com

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!

___________________
http://thesoundofeco.com

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.

___________________