We have gotten this far...Vote as if you were a Democrat...This poll will be open for 100 days...
Hillary
or
Obama
There is no undecided factor, sorry...:o
philliez
Barack Obama
Standard.
Touch Bass, Saturday. Come on man :D
MisterOpus1
Ron Paul!
Dang. Nevermind.
Congrats on Hillary gaining a whopping 10 delegates on Obama. Looks like that's about as far as she'll go from here on out.
Q5echo
quote:
Originally posted by MisterOpus1
Congrats on Hillary gaining a whopping 10 delegates on Obama. Looks like that's about as far as she'll go from here on out.
she gained over 200,000 on the popular vote. she already has 300,000 in her Florida pocket. all she needs to do is gain another 200,000 (depending on the difference in North Carolina) and she's in it to still win it.
unwise is the one who underestimates the Clinton machine.
Zild
I'd vote for both of them to die. And traditionally I have been a Democrat.
DJ Eco
quote:
Originally posted by MisterOpus1
Congrats on Hillary gaining a whopping 10 delegates on Obama. Looks like that's about as far as she'll go from here on out.
Pride's getting the best of the Obama supporters. You, and they, are failing to realize the buyer's remorse people are getting in having once supported Obama. Hillary got $10 million on Wednesday. Not only that, but she has gotten the most Democrat votes during any primary in history... And the Obama supporters are still claiming she's "breaking up the party." I don't know... All the pundits and talking-heads are starting to see the reality, so should you.
Lebezniatnikov
quote:
Originally posted by DJ Eco
Pride's getting the best of the Obama supporters. You, and they, are failing to realize the buyer's remorse people are getting in having once supported Obama. Hillary got $10 million on Wednesday. Not only that, but she has gotten the most Democrat votes during any primary in history... And the Obama supporters are still claiming she's "breaking up the party." I don't know... All the pundits and talking-heads are starting to see the reality, so should you.
lol.
1. She's raised $10 mill this week but she is still in debt.
quote:
"The Clinton campaign itemizes its debts to vendors, totaling $10.3 million by the end of last month, but since January, when Clinton infused her campaign with $5 million, the campaign hasn't been adding in that loan when reporting its overall debt to the Federal Election Commission," the Center for Responsive Politics said.
"An FEC representative tells us Clinton's debt to herself, even if she won't be paying it back, should be lumped in with the campaign's debts to others on the first page of the monthly filings, not just listed deeper within her disclosure forms -- that's how the other big self-funder in 2008, Mitt Romney, reported the $42 million he lent himself."
Including the loan would put her debt as of March 30 at $15.3 million, the nonpartisan group said.
2. Obama has a lead in the popular vote, so how is this so-called "record" Clinton's? Methinks you are counting the states that don't count.
quote:
In an analysis of the popular vote, the political Web site RealClearPolitics.com calculated that Sen. Obama now leads Sen. Clinton 14.4 million votes to 13.9 million. The gap both narrows and widens depending on how the popular vote is counted, though.
The RealClearPolitics total doesn't include 1.2 million votes cast by Florida and Michigan voters. Both states lost their seats at the national convention this summer in Denver as punishment for holding their primaries out of turn, but are certain to get back at least some votes, the Democratic Party has said.
Sen. Obama took his name off the Michigan ballot, so he got no votes there. But Sen. Clinton remained on the ballot, and the New York senator picked up 329,000 votes. Both candidates were on the ballot in Florida, which Sen. Clinton won by about 300,000 votes. If those two states' disputed votes are counted, Sen. Clinton would lead in the popular vote by 123,000.
The RealClearPolitics estimate also doesn't include the results of four caucus states that didn't release numbers. The Web site calculates that Sen. Obama would net 110,000 votes if its estimate of those vote totals were included. That would still leave him behind by 13,000 votes, or 0.04%, of the 30.7 million cast.
Another good point on the popular vote shenanigans:
quote:
Popular Vote: Listen Up, Obama Surrogates (Updated)
by PocketNines
Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 10:00:27 PM PDT
Dear Obama Surrogate,
You are going to be on cable news shows in the next two weeks, and you are going to be confronted with the notion of the popular vote being a legitimate measuring stick.
I must say that thus far I have been generally very unimpressed with you as a group. You flub around, you let yourself get bullied by giant s like Joe Scarborough and you never make super-easy points.
So listen up, I am going to make this easy for you. Do not screw this up. Use the three obvious points, and use concrete examples, which I have helpfully provided for you. If you do not say these three things, you are a total failure as a surrogate.
* PocketNines's diary :: ::
*
Point Number 1: If the popular vote determined the nominee, no candidate would ever go to Iowa or New Hampshire. They'd spend all their time in big urban areas all over the country from the outset of the campaign, racking up raw numbers. What would be the point of even visiting New Hampshire if you could camp out in Brooklyn? Concrete Example: Barack Obama would not have spent only a day and a half in California before the Feb 5 primary. He would have never gone to Idaho. Duh.
Point Number 2: If the popular vote determined the nominee, no state in its right mind would ever hold a caucus, instantly disenfranchising itself. Concrete example: Minnesota-Missouri. Minnesota gets credit for 214K votes, and Missouri gets 822K votes, but they each get 72 delegates. Is Missouri's voice 4 times more important than Minnesota's?
Point Number 3: The arbitrary distinction between who gets to vote in these primaries is nothing like the general election, where everyone registered gets to vote. In the primaries, sometimes it's just Dems, sometimes Dems and Indies, sometimes anyone. Concrete example: Texas gets a million more votes than similar overall population New York (2.8M to 1.8M), even though New York is far more Democratic, simply due to this arbitrary restriction on who can vote (NY = closed, Texas = open).
Overall point: regardless of the fact that Obama will win the popular vote, it is completely illegitimate in this race. THIS IS NOT LIKE POPULAR VOTE IN THE GENERAL ELECTION.
Think you can remember this, Obama surrogates? I mean, re-read it if you have to. Rehearse in front of a mirror. Get a buddy to critique you.
I heard Chuck Todd say that superdelegates think popular vote is the real measuring stick. That is so unbelievably asinine that if it's true, it only demonstrates how badly you, the Obama Surrogates, have failed.
Get your together and start making these points.
You're welcome.
I FORGOT:
I am waiting for the first Obama surrogate to say, with mockery dripping, that (even in its dishonest spasms of stupidity for including Florida and Michigan where the candidates for office did not even campaign but had a name recognition buzzpoll) the Clinton argument requires that Obama gets zero votes in Michigan. (!!!!) Then demand that an opposing Clinton surrogate own that intellectual point implicit in their argument.
Update (rewritten for clarity):
In the spirit of stating your opponents' best argument for them up front, then dismantling it, lay it out this way:
When the Clintons and their surrogates deceptively argue for the popular vote, they appear at first glance to be making a simple, moral, populist argument, that all votes are equal. Right? That's the implication, and why it rolls off their tongues so easily.
But where is the inherent morality in open versus closed primaries that arbitrarily limit turnout and whether Republicans and independents get to pick the Democratic nominee in some states but not others?
Are caucuses inherently immoral? Many states chose them as their form of selecting a nominee.
Is it moral to alter the game strategy only after the fact?
Make the opposing Clinton surrogate make a moral case that Minnesota = 1/4 of Missouri, because their argument insists that it should. Make them argue from a principle standpoint that Minnesota = 1/4 of Missouri. Make them argue that. Put them in that position. It'll expose this whole can of worms.
Fir3start3r
Where's the abstain button?? :p :toothless
MisterOpus1
quote:
Originally posted by Q5echo
she gained over 200,000 on the popular vote. she already has 300,000 in her Florida pocket.
Straw man. When did Florida ever count for the Democratic nomination ever since they've been given a big fat Null and Void from their shenanigans to the DNC?
quote:
all she needs to do is gain another 200,000 (depending on the difference in North Carolina) and she's in it to still win it.
Win what, the popularity vote?
Huh, I guess in a world where that actually meant she would win the nomination, instead of the reality of the delegate count actually determining the nomination, that would actually mean something.
But in actuality, you're posing a bit of a scare tactic regardless. It's highly unlikely with the 9 remaining states left that she'll overtake even the popular vote. But it's next to impossible for her to even win the delegate count:
Her 5 minutes of fame after Pennsylvania were up. Reality will set in either May 4th or at the very latest, May 20th.
quote:
unwise is the one who underestimates the Clinton machine.
Believe me, I know. But this is no longer an underestimation - it's becoming a matter of math, and it's simply not going to add up for her this time. And the remaining supers, the ing cowards that I believe they are, will not turn in droves against the clear frontrunner at this point in the game.
Like I said before, this sucker was over after Super Tuesday.
MisterOpus1
quote:
Originally posted by DJ Eco
Pride's getting the best of the Obama supporters. You, and they, are failing to realize the buyer's remorse people are getting in having once supported Obama. Hillary got $10 million on Wednesday. Not only that, but she has gotten the most Democrat votes during any primary in history... And the Obama supporters are still claiming she's "breaking up the party." I don't know... All the pundits and talking-heads are starting to see the reality, so should you.
I don't have much to add to Lebez' post, but I would encourage you to attempt to underscore the math and probability of her trying to somehow win the rest of the delegates by over 70% from here on out, considering she hasn't even come close to that in the past.
Not only that, but each state that she doesn't win by around 71%, the percentage she needs for the subsequent remaining states goes up, while Obama's goes down.
And that line about her winning the "most Democratic votes during any primary in history" has been repeated ad nauseum by Hillary and her supporters (thought I saw this from Jerome Armstrong at MyDD.com). Unfortunately for you guys, I also find it strange how you count states that seemingly are not being counted, let alone a state to which Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot........
Magnetonium
Dont worry guys, superdelegates will steal the show.
BTW, where's the "Other" option ... both candidates suck hairy balls.
