I say flip a coin. It's pretty obvious both are going to end up on the ticket. One goes on top the other on the VP slot 16 years of Dem leadership is better than potentially 0.

John McCain will take up residence in Ohio, Penn, and Mich for the next nine mos because if he wins those, he will likely win the nomination.

Having won Ohio by double digits while being outspent 4 to 1 by the momentous phenomenon candidate, HRC goes on to Penn now where the primary is Dem only, looks much like Ohio demographically, and where Gov Ed Rendell supports her.

SDs considering who can win in the fall may have an easy choice after all.

And what happens if she gets her ass handed to her in the general? One way or another she needs Obama.

I think she will be telling SDs that she will offer Obama the VP position if she is nominated. That will assuage some of their angst and still give Dems the best chance to win in the fall.

So, Ohio, and Ohio alone, should decide who gets the dem nominee? Well isn't that convenient...

I listened to several superdelegates from OH being interviewed this morning in OH and they said OH voters would back Obama before McCain anyday, and further noted that Obama and Hillary are both strong candidates that will carry Ohio.

In fairness, "Ohio alone" is your formulation, not at all the premise of the article.

If Obama cannot prove he can win battleground states and Dems, as in Penn, then his argument to SDs for winning in the fall is the weaker one.

Best chance for dems is Obama at the helm and Clinton at the #2 slot.

Well, that's a nice opinion, Tax. Now if you have an argument that refutes the logical one in the article, let's hear it.

This Woman Is A Crackpot !!

Obama's Strength Is Not Only In The South !!

He Has Won North Dakota, Wisconsin, Idaho Washington State, Maine, Alaska, Vermont, Missouri, Utah,Montana, Hawaii, The Virgin Islands

Far From Southern States, She Is A Hillary Ass Clown !

I Take Nothing She States As Valid !!


-Sarge

Of course, it's the Clintonista Corkster with his/her corkscrew logic. Admit it, Cork, you're really an agent provocateur tool of the right.

Ah, nothing on the thread topic, yet again, eh?

Admit it, Aunt Jomama, you have never posted a substantive post here in your life.

Deflections, ad hominem, and lame attempts at relevance are your stock and trade.

Obama is in or McCain is president, it is that simple.

Obama has the majority and if the SD choose hillary and if I were Obama I would make run as a independent.

The democratic party would than have to sit back and rethink their super communistic delegate style and begin to think about the people they are suppose to represent and support.

The problem with the Democratic party is they have set up the system that forces the people to support them instead of the other way around.

Everyone keeps dreading McCain, but what they don't realize is hillary is not any different what so ever except party. Obama gains majority of America's vote he should actually run independent.

Everyone keeps dreading McCain, but what they don't realize is hillary is not any different what so ever except party. Obama gains majority of America's vote he should actually run independent.


Theodore Roosevelt tried it and failed.

If Hillary wins and Obama runs as an indie, McCain will sweep every state.

That's true, Jeffy.

And, I think Obama is too good a Dem to run as an Indie, and smart enough to know that he would lose half of his voting support and become a pariah to the Dem party.

He needs to win Penn to have a shot at convincing SDs he can beat McCain in the battleground states.

I concur on all counts, Cork.


Again, I am beginning to see why you've chosen Clinton over Obama - she strikes me as more capable.

"Deflections, ad hominem, and lame attempts at relevance are your stock and trade"

Oh, woe is me. I have failed to impress Corky. I can't go on. Life is meaningless. I will find the nearest tall building and fling myself off of it. Oh, woe, woe, woe.

The republicans know they can beat Shillary. Obama will pull more independents than Hillary will

Clinton has won her home state of New York, as well as California, New Jersey and Michigan, representing a total of 118 electoral votes.

----

I think there's a hole in this kind of logic. Many of these states are traditionally blue states because they back the party as opposed to the person. I think these states electoral votes will go to the Democrats regardless of whether it's Clinton or Obama.

Michigan will be up for grabs, as will Ohio and Penn. Obama needs to show he can win a battlegound state.

Where does this idea of Obama "winning a battleground state" come from? He's a Democrat in a race with another Democrat. I don't see how you can extrapolate a victory within the party as a victory in the national election. Are the Democrats who voted for Clinton in Ohio going to stay home or vote McCain in November?

Obamas name was even on the ballot in Michigan.

Clinton's stunning performance on Tuesday, particularly in Ohio, makes Obama's argument that superdelegates should automatically back the will of the voters -- and not use independent political judgment about who can best compete against Republican John McCain in November -- look like an awfully simplistic calculus.

Congratulations, Corky. You are now officially a backer of the idea that voters don't matter and a group of the elite should pick the Democratic nominee for president.

Why hold primaries and caucuses at all, if that's the way the nominee should be selected? Let's save money, sit back and let party hacks choose the hackiest Democrat every four years.

Even better, let's extend the idea to the general election. If we have more party hacks than the GOP, our hack gets to be president. If not, sucks to be us.

Viva democracy!

Auntie J


Try reading the article. All your questions are answered there, Grasshopper.

Michigan will be up for grabs, as will Ohio and Penn. Obama needs to show he can win a battlegound state.

----

I think the polls showing Obama beating McCain already shows that.

... if I were Obama I would make run as a independent.

In the exceedingly unlikely event that Obama loses the primary, he'd be the favorite to win the nomination in 2012 if Clinton lost the general election. Four more years in the Senate would help take away the "inexperienced" liability. I think he'd be crazy to choose to defect from a party when he's young enough for future runs.

Clinton's stunning performance on Tuesday, particularly in Ohio, makes Obama's argument that superdelegates should automatically back the will of the voters -- and not use independent political judgment about who can best compete against Republican John McCain in November -- look like an awfully simplistic calculus.

----

Which is why crying about the MI and FL "disenfranchised" votes is ridiculous. What do those votes matter if the SD decide based on who they, not the voters, think can beat McCain?

All states don't matter, only ohio.

Fuck America, the only state that matters is ohio


hillary

Rogers

If you want to change the rules, which, including many of the convoluted state rules, prolly needs to be done, then fine.

But do it AFTER this nominating process under these 30 year old rules is over, eh?

As someone said earlier, "In fact, this is America, a free country, and you can form a political party and choose your nominee any way you want: numbers from a hat, rock-paper-scissors, or a nice game of Yahtzee."

The current rules allow those people who have basically given their careers to the Dem party to have a say in the outcome of who will represent the Party in the general.

They will consider the number of delegates and the popular vote, both of which will be very close.

They will also consider who has won the big battleground states and who can best win in the fall, as they should.

Otherwise, the George Clooney/Oprah ticket could be a winner in Dem primaries.

In the exceedingly unlikely event that Obama loses the primary, he'd be the favorite to win the nomination in 2012 if Clinton lost the general election. Four more years in the Senate would help take away the "inexperienced" liability. I think he'd be crazy to choose to defect from a party when he's young enough for future runs.

So therefore he would be out nothing if he ran as an independent.

The democratic party is so caught up in winning at all cost if they lost that they would take him back in a heart beat.

If you want to change the rules, which, including many of the convoluted state rules, prolly needs to be done, then fine.

No rule change is required for superdelegates to do the right thing and support the candidate who got the most delegates from primaries and caucuses.

The current rules allow those people who have basically given their careers to the Dem party to have a say in the outcome ...

Fuck the party hacks. Any of them who would deny the voters' choice of a nominee should face a real Democrat the next time they run for office.

-I think the polls showing Obama beating McCain already shows that.


Polls 9 months out are about as dependable as Brownie in a hurricane.

So therefore he would be out nothing if he ran as an independent.

Say what? He'd be another Lieberman if he ran against a Democrat as an independent after losing the primary.

"Auntie J


Try reading the article. All your questions are answered there, Grasshopper."

Well, looks like it's back to the ad hominem deflections for me. Congrats, a-hole, I'm going independent if your whore of Babylon wins the nomination - and it will be because of fucktards like you.

-No rule change is required for superdelegates to do the right thing and support the candidate who got the most delegates from primaries and caucuses.

That is up to them isn't it?

I want to watch while you waterboard Ted Kennedy and John Kerry until they agree to vote for Clinton.


-Fuck the party hacks.

Easy to say about people who in many cases have given their entire lives to building this Party.

"Fuck the party hacks. Any of them who would deny the voters' choice of a nominee should face a real Democrat the next time they run for office.

Posted by rcade"

Amen. Fuck 'em.

Polls 9 months out are about as dependable as Brownie in a hurricane.

----

To a degree. But if you goal is to pick the person to beat the opposition, then you need to look at such polls.

Easy to say about people who in many cases have given their entire lives to building this Party.

So what? That means they deserve a supervote that's more meaningful than millions of Americans casting a ballot or participating in their local caucus?

Every one of these party loyalists you care so much about -- solely because it's Clinton's only chance to win -- got to vote in their state's Democratic election. So the suggestion they've been disenfranchised is ridiculous.

The current rules allow those people who have basically given their careers to the Dem party to have a say in the outcome of who will represent the Party in the general.

Too funny.

The current rules allow thrown out electors to be more powerful than states.

"Easy to say about people who in many cases have given their entire lives to building this Party."

They've done a great job, haven't they? They keep losing presidential elections against morons and they can't even get their act together in their own nominating process.

And these incompetent party hacks should choose the nominee?

Fuck 'em.

"Easy to say about people who in many cases have given their entire lives to building this Party."

And what a stunning job they've done, from "YEEEHAAAW" Dean to Do-Nothings Pelosi and Reid. What do we have to show for the last 30 years? 2 terms of a whoremonger that won't admit he's a sex addict. Greeeeeaaaatttt. Republicans are only worse in comparison. That's why we need CHANGE.

If SDs were a rubber stamp, there would be no need for them. There would also be no need for a 2025 min delegate goal. The one with the most would just win.

But then, we don't have that kind of election in the general wither, what with the Electoral Collage.

Now, you may want to change all that and have mob rule, er, I mean direct democracy, but do it when we are not in the middle of an election eh,

Now that things are heating up, does anyone think Hillary will stoop low enough to jump on the "Hussein" bandwagon? Or perhaps one of her known operatives (Carville, BJ, etc)?

-- solely because it's Clinton's only chance to win -

Impugning motives is something I expect from the trolls here, but not you.

What do you propose to do about Ted Kennedy and John Kerry and others like them?

Tell them who they have to vote for?

Rather, totalitarian, that.

If Obama has more pledged delegates, more states and more votes there is no way the SDs can justify not backing him. I have heard countless undecided SDs say if they were to go against the will of the voters they would lose the young vote, and likely the black vote, for elections to come.

"2 terms of a whoremonger that won't admit he's a sex addict"

Speaking of that loud mouth buffoon, did the Hillary campaign lock him up in the basement of DNC headquarters?

Or just provide him with a harem of hot young coeds to keep him busy?

Say what? He'd be another Lieberman if he ran against a Democrat as an independent after losing the primary.

I understand what you are trying to say but there is a big difference here. Lieberman didn't lose because super delegates.

If Obama takes the majority but the supers choose clinton, no one will see him as a lieberman, they will see he was shafted.

In Americas eyes Obama will be the great cinderella which people can rally behind.

-That's why we need CHANGE

Not changing the rules about the role of SDs that everyone knew about from the start in the middle of the process.

One of the funniest days of the campaign was the day that Obama originally came out with this myth about SDs MUST vote with the popular vote.....

because it was the same day his campaign manager David Axlerod admitted that that was not the case, that SDs were tasked to vote their conscience about who would win in the fall, under the rules for the last 30 years.

-If Obama has more pledged delegates, more states and more votes there is no way the SDs can justify

Of course you are right, unless it is by a small percent of these.

But the more likely scenario is that he will have a very small percent more pledge delegates, but that she will have the popular vote and have won all the big states. Then the SDs decide.

Furthermore, I would argue that slightly more pledged delegates is irrelevant considering that the delegates were garnered over time with an election schedule that, had it been set up so that the states she won had been earlier, she could have collected a delegate number early that he could not overcome, which is what happened to her.

Impugning motives is something I expect from the trolls here, but not you.

Sorry, Corky, but I don't believe that if Hillary Clinton had a big lead in pledged delegates, you would support superdelegates overturning that lead because they thought Obama was more "electable" against McCain.

If by some miracle Clinton catches Obama in pledged delegates, I would be the first to say that superdelegates should choose her.

I guess Rogers isn't going to invite me to the Kennedy/Kerry waterboarding, lmao!!

... I would argue that slightly more pledged delegates is irrelevant considering that the delegates were garnered over time with an election schedule that, had it been set up so that the states she won had been earlier, she could have collected a delegate number early that he could not overcome, which is what happened to her.

That's an extremely odd argument. You run with the election calendar you have, not the calendar you wish you had. Clinton had as much chance to build a lead as Obama did. More of a chance, I'd say, because she began with huge name recognition.

I guess Rogers isn't going to invite me to the Kennedy/Kerry waterboarding, lmao!

If Kennedy and Kerry vote against the pledged delegate leader at the convention, they deserve strong primary challengers. Clone Ned Lamont and make them answer to him for a couple of months to save their seats.

Not changing the rules about the role of SDs that everyone knew about from the start in the middle of the process.

Huh!

Very few Americans actually knew this.

I spent the better part of this last year talking my college kids into voting. They thought it was a wasted process because their vote didn't really count.

Now they throw this in my face, "See dad, our votes really don't count." They see this as one person has more power in the vote than an entire state.

If this doesn't go with the majority, I will probably never get my kids to vote again.

Well, looks like it's back to the ad hominem deflections for me. Congrats, a-hole, I'm going independent if your whore of Babylon wins the nomination - and it will be because of fucktards like you.

Posted by Jomama at 2008-03-06 12:12 PM

Ding ding ding!!!

We have a winner!

This is exactly what is going to happen if the SD over rule the will of the people and select HRC. Obama has more popular votes and delegates.

Rogers

I support playing by the rules on SDs established before the nominating process (not "election") began.

Pledged delegates are one facet of the process. Popular vote and winning big states are just as valuable in discerning who could win in the fall, which is the SDs responsibility.

If HRC was ahead in pledged delegates, but Obama was able to persuade SDs, per the rules, that he had won the popular vote and the battleground states like Ohio and Penn, then I would accept the decision of the Party.

Your "insight" into what I might do not withstanding.

If this doesn't go with the majority, I will probably never get my kids to vote again.

Posted by moneywar at 2008-03-06 12:39 PM

But who cares, as long as Hillary wins right? lol

(that's the opinion of some here, not me mind you)

Clinton had as much chance to build a lead as Obama did. More of a chance, I'd say, because she began with huge name recognition.

----

Yea, wasn't she the inevitable one? I wonder how much play that would get if the SD voted against Obama if he was the pledged delegate leader.

RCade, RCade, RCade...

Corky's peddling a gnarly picture of unique size (to wit: Hillary Clinton) and it's of the utmost importance that the frame (in this case logic) be bent so as to accomodate said artifact. Not the other way around.

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'

`Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

Beware the Jabberwock, my son!

Pledged delegates are one facet of the process. Popular vote and winning big states are just as valuable in discerning who could win in the fall, which is the SDs responsibility.


Posted by Corky at 2008-03-06 12:40 PM

Well I guess Obama has it made then, polls show he is more likely to be beat McCain.

Impugning motives is something I expect from the trolls here, but not you.

Subverting democracy is something I expect from the trolls here, but not you.

-If Kennedy and Kerry vote against the pledged delegate leader at the convention

They would have been acting well within their role and responsibilities as SDs.


It is well enough to argue what an SD should do, or what recriminations there might be, but one needs to also be aware of what their role is under the rules.

"Clinton's stunning performance"

Was Obama leading in the Polls?

Now they throw this in my face, "See dad, our votes really don't count." They see this as one person has more power in the vote than an entire state.

----

That's the problem. There have been huge record number of voter turnouts. I think if the SDs don't choose the delegate leader, they seriously risk turning off a good chunk of their new potential base.

Well I guess Obama has it made then, polls show he is more likely to be beat McCain.

----

According to Corky, those polls are unreliable.

Pledged delegates are one facet of the process. Popular vote and winning big states are just as valuable in discerning who could win in the fall, which is the SDs responsibility.

SD's is just stupid and will kill the party.

If the majority vote is cast and the SD's over rule the party will never win in the general. Millions will not stay with the party.

Most people are not red dogs and this system assumes they are, how unrational is that!

If the majority vote is cast and the SD's over rule the party will never win in the general. Millions will not stay with the party.


Posted by moneywar at 2008-03-06 12:46 PM

But who cares, as long as Hillary wins?

Defeat from the jaws of victory, or just DJV from now on (trade marked)

I support playing by the rules ...

On the day that Michigan and Florida voted, the rules were not to seat any of those delegates because they moved the primaries up. Do you support that?

-That's an extremely odd argument.

Nuh-uh.

It is a self-evident argument. Had the schedule been different, their roles could easily be reversed.

What matters is who can win in the fall.

Someone who said when he took his Sen office in 2004 that he was in no way ready to be President, and has done little since but run for President, or someone who will have won the popular vote and all the battleground states.

If the majority vote is cast and the SD's over rule the party will never win in the general. Millions will not stay with the party.

I'll be leading that exit. My yellow dog days are over if superdelegates overturn pledged delegates.

Sarge,

As I see the idea of signing this, I would rather see if the democratic party actually believes in democracy.

It will tell the nation where they actually stand, for the people or of the people.

Someone who said when he took his Sen office in 2004 that he was in no way ready to be President, and has done little since but run for President, or someone who will have won the popular vote and all the battleground states.

This kind of comment is why I impugned your motives. It's pure hackery. The characterization that winning battleground states is important, while dismissing the fact that her opponent will have won a majority of the states, is the kind of spin I'd expect from a my-candidate-right-or-wrong tool like Terry McAuliffe. Those people say that because they are being paid to do it. The rest of us can afford to be more honest about the process.

Winning "the battleground states" is a cheesy thing to hang your hat on as a Clinton supporter. Popular vote, sure. If she leads that it's worth talking about when discussing who deserves to win. (I still think pledged delegates should rule the day, though.)

Rogers

That was a penalty ruled on by Howard Dean for moving up the primary, not even voluntarily doing so in the case of FL. It is not the established rules on the role of SDs in the entire nominating process.

I support a re-vote, which is entirely possible under the rules, and is entirely consistent.

What is wrong with that?

I'll be leading that exit. My yellow dog days are over if superdelegates overturn pledged delegates.

As will I, and hopefully get my kids to follow with a vote.

I think Corky is on the payroll.

RCADE,

Thanks for the sublime corrections too.......YD's

"It will tell the nation where they actually stand, for the people or of the people."

-Money

Now that is a statement from a "Great American" !!


-Sarge

-My yellow dog days are over if superdelegates overturn pledged delegates.

Perhaps you should have read the rule book long ago?

-It's pure hackery

No, as you say the popular vote is important. Likewise, so is who can win in the fall, which the battleground state wins help reveal.

"There is a reason some states are called general election "battlegrounds." It is because partisan identification is roughly even, or because certain groups in the electorate, such as Catholics, Hispanics or blue-collar whites, switch their allegiances -- or split their votes. That's why Clinton made so much in her victory speech about the "bellwether" nature of Ohio: "It's a battleground state. It's a state that knows how to pick a president. And no candidate in recent history, Democrat or Republican, has won the White House without winning the Ohio primary," she said.

There is no papering over the depth of the problem Obama faced there. He won only five of the state's 88 counties, an inauspicious foundation for a general election campaign. Clinton trounced him among Catholic voters, 63 percent-36 percent, according to exit polls. She beat him among voters in every income category and bested him by 14 points among those making less than $50,000 annually.

This is why Pennsylvania, which is demographically similar to Ohio -- and a must-win state for Democrats in November -- is considered such fertile ground for Clinton on April 22.

The Democratic Party is indeed developing a general election problem, and it's only partly because Obama and Clinton will be sniping at one another for the next seven weeks. Obama, the leading candidate, still hasn't shown he has appeal in a large battleground state that will be pivotal in the fall. In this sense, Pennsylvania is where Obama's back, and not Clinton's, is up against the wall."

This kind of comment is why I impugned your motives. It's pure hackery. The characterization that winning battleground states is important, while dismissing the fact that her opponent will have won a majority of the states, is the kind of spin I'd expect from a my-candidate-right-or-wrong tool like Terry McAuliffe. Those people say that because they are being paid to do it. The rest of us can afford to be more honest about the process.

Now we know why you make the blog and the big bucks!

Nice post!

Wait a minute...has anyone ever seen Hillary and Corky in the same room?????!!!!

You run with the election calendar you have, not the calendar you wish you had.

Rcade, are you channeling Rummy now?

Seriously, I think, after reviewing the posts above, LCL's article yesterday hit the nail on the head: If this spat continues, this is going to get uglier then Hillary at 6:00 am, and the Dems are going to do the impossible, namely ensure that the WH remains with the GOP.

Astounding.

No, as you say the popular vote is important. Likewise, so is who can win in the fall, which the battleground state wins help reveal.

Posted by Corky at 2008-03-06 01:00 PM

'battleground' state wins do not reveal that at all, unless you assume that people who voted for Hillary wouldn't also vote for Barack.

Or we could see what the polls say, they say Barack has a better chance of winning.

That, and Barack has more votes, and more delegates.

Or Clinton could win, DJV.

-The rest of us can afford to be more honest about the process.

The rest of us are Obamites who chose Obama's SD Myth that SDs MUST vote with their constituents over the facts as set out by his campaign manager David Axlerod, that SDs are to vote their conscience as to what would be better for the Party and the country, ie; winning in the fall.

-unless you assume that people who voted for Hillary wouldn't also vote for Barack.

Many won't. Check the exit polls.

Sarge,

Thanks, it is the only way I can see us getting our country back.

The government and the party are suppose to support the people, not the other way around.

They are suppose to be our slaves.

The Party is NOT the government, and has it's own rules. If you don't like them, wait 'till after the Convention and work to change them.

-unless you assume that people who voted for Hillary wouldn't also vote for Barack.

Many won't. Check the exit polls.

Posted by Corky at 2008-03-06 01:08 PM

Many, many more won't vote for Hillary, especially if she is appointed by SD instead of the popular vote.

DJV

What about the SuperDuper Delegate....

Could John Edwards 26 delegates be pledged to either Hillary or Obama?

Or vice versa Corky. Many Barack voters won't vote for hillary. Should a few big states decide america? Unless Hillary wins fair and square she shouldn't be the nominee

Sarge,

It is nice to see you back, we need you around more often, that military mind is good for all to hear.

"ad hominem....

Posted by Corky at 2008-03-06 11:08 AM"

Kettle, meet pot.

-a my-candidate-right-or-wrong tool

So, what I am hearing is that if Obama leads the pledged delegates by 1 vote, he should be the nominee?

Two votes? Three? How many?

How many before the SDs cannot consider popular vote and ability to win battleground states?

Tool is as tool does.

The Party is NOT the government

By extention, they are the government, and the fact you try and separate that fact lends to the problems we currently face.

Had the schedule been different, their roles could easily be reversed.

Yeah, but this isn't a parallel universe so the schedule wasn't different and their roles aren't reversed.

Beware the Jabberwocky, my son!

"Check the exit polls."

So those polls are accurate?

ROTFLMAO

"I think Corky is on the payroll.

Posted by Pirate at 2008-03-06 12:57 PM"

I hope they don't pay her very much. She does more harm than good to her side, imo.

The rest of us are Obamites who chose Obama's SD Myth that SDs MUST vote with their constituents over the facts as set out by his campaign manager David Axlerod, that SDs are to vote their conscience as to what would be better for the Party and the country, ie; winning in the fall.

----

Not me, by rule they can vote for whomever they want. I think it would extremely stupid and would have very negative consequences if they did while not considering the voters.

The party is supposed to represent the people. Not the other way around.

That's why the SDs are stupid to begin with.

-So those polls are accurate?


That you don't know the difference between exit polls and projection polls neatly explains the hysterical laughter.

Are those the same exit polls, including in particular Ohio's, that were somehow wrong in 2004? Or are these more reliable somehow?

That you don't know the difference between exit polls and projection polls neatly explains the hysterical laughter.

Posted by Corky at 2008-03-06 01:39 PM

The same exit polls that had Kerry winning but a huge amount?

Damn, beat me to it Monte!

Funny thing is, I could have voted for Clinton before she started pulling these shenanigans. But now, no way in hell am I going to.

-You've jumped to an erroneous conclusion

No, you questioned the exit polls being accurate when I questioned the accuracy of projected polls.

It isn't surprising that you don't know the difference, just mildly amusing.

Are those the same exit polls, including in particular Ohio's, that were somehow wrong in 2004? Or are these more reliable somehow?

Posted by mOntecOre at 2008-03-06 01:42 PM

Same voting machines as well...how convenient.

I support a re-vote, which is entirely possible under the rules, and is entirely consistent. What is wrong with that?

If the party lets me vote again, I'll head right back to the polls. It seems a little weird to reward Florida and Michigan like that. Turnout would be ginormous.

-Turnout would be ginormous

Yep, Fl Dems would be psyched for the primary AND the general election. Especially those who know that Hillary fought for this while Obama poo-pooed the idea.

Corky: I'm sorry about calling you a hack. I'm being a an ahole on this subject today.

But the "I won battleground states so I'm more electable" argument is bogus. The ability to win in places like Ohio and Florida in a primary doesn't say how well a candidate will do in that state in a general election. The other side either ain't voting (in a closed primary) or are voting for a variety of reasons, such as to hurt the Dem (open ones).

Hillary winning Ohio doesn't necessarily mean Obama would have more trouble there in the general. Too many factors are in play. Did she win by appealing to Democrats in a manner that turns off Republicans and independents? Is his crossover appeal real, or just a mirage conjured up by hatred of Hillary that would disappear upon her defeat in the primary? Who knows?

Superdelegates aren't going to swoop in and demonstrate better judgment than the voters. If the party hacks had better judgment, they wouldn't have a superdelegate system at all. It's a disaster waiting to happen. The best chance Democrats have is to go with the voters. It's one of the things that separates us from the GOP. We're less comfortable with top-down decision making from our party elite, and more comfortable with the mob.

"I support a re-vote, which is entirely possible under the rules, and is entirely consistent. What is wrong with that?"

They Broke The Rules !!

They Were Advised 18 Months Prior Not To Change Their Primary Date.

They Wanted To Change The Dates So They Would Have A Greater Impact On The Election.

We Are A Country Of Rules And Laws, The Were Advised That If They Continued On To Have An Earlier Date They Would Not Have Their Delegates Counted.

The Nominees All Agreed Not To Campaign In The 2 States.

(Obama Was Not Even On The Michigan Ballot)

They Held The Primary Earlier Being Fully Aware Of The Consequences !!

Sorry Fuck Them They Broke The Rules After 8 Years Of Bush Doing It Why Should It Be Stood For Now ?

Oh They Are Sounding Off Because It Will Benefit Clinton That Is Why The GOP Governor Is More than Happy To Help His Buddy Out And Michigan's Hillary Supporters !!

-Sarge

Barack Obama likely to Win Texas
Things may not be as bad for Obama as they seemed Tuesday night. In the Texas primary Hillary Clinton leads in primary delegates by 65 to 61. But Obama is leading by a whopping 12% in the Caucus count. So far only 40% caucus results have come in and he is greadually increasing his lead. Even if the ultimate caucus result remains the same i.e. Obama's 56% to Clinton's 44%, Obama will win Texas overall (not counting the Super delegates). This is how the math works out:

Delegate Allocation:
Primary (99% results in) Clinton 65 Obama 61
Caucus (40% results in so far
Obama 56% Clinton 44%
assuming total 67 delegates
allocated on this basis) Clinton 29 Obama 38

Total Delegates Clinton 94 Obama99


Once all the caucus results are in, Obama should claim victory in Texas.

-Sarge

Superdelegates aren't going to swoop in and demonstrate better judgment than the voters. If the party hacks had better judgment, they wouldn't have a superdelegate system at all. It's a disaster waiting to happen. The best chance Democrats have is to go with the voters. It's one of the things that separates us from the GOP. We're less comfortable with top-down decision making from our party elite, and more comfortable with the mob.

Yet the Democrats are the ones with the Superdelegates, no? Isn't their sole purpose to swoop in and save you guys from yourselves when you elect another Dukakis?

"The ability to win in places like Ohio and Florida in a primary doesn't say how well a candidate will do in that state in a general election."

They Are Blue States, A Zombie Democrat Will Carry A Blue State In A General Election !!

So How Is That A Gaugeable? It Is The Red State Wins That Count , The Cross Over And Independent Especially The Heartland Blue Dog Democrat !!

-Sarge

- I'm being a an ahole on this subject today.

Rob will be suing for copyright infringement.

But it is their duty, under the rules they are elected by, to consider what is best for the Party, ie, who can best win in November.

----

Ah, there's some spin. The best for the party might not be who can best win in Nov. The SD's need to also consider the future of the party past this election. If they overrode the pledged delegates, as some have already stated, they would leave the party. There would such a blacklash, it would hurt the party far greater, in my opinion.

"It's one of the things that separates us from the GOP. We're less comfortable with top-down decision making from our party elite, and more comfortable with the mob."
--RCADE

"Yet the Democrats are the ones with the Superdelegates, no? Isn't their sole purpose to swoop in and save you guys from yourselves when you elect another Dukakis?"
--COOKFISH

Saving one from oneself would be the underlying theme of near everything the party does.

- If they overrode the pledged delegates

True, if it were a lot of pledge delegates on one side. But 1? 2? 10? 20? How many is too many to be overridden by the overall popular vote and the demonstrated ability to win the necessary battleground states?

If there is a pledge delegate lead of more than about 4-5 percent of the total, I doubt they would have much choice.

Unless they were much braver than we think.

True, if it were a lot of pledge delegates on one side. But 1? 2? 10? 20? How many is too many to be overridden by the overall popular vote and the demonstrated ability to win the necessary battleground states?

----

By then, I would like at real data like polls. You would be closer to the general election.

If the polls show Candidate A leading McCain by a good margin as opposed to Candidate B, then you choose Candidate B. How can you really say Candidate B is the best choice? What data would you have to support that? None.

like=look

I think the SD's wield too much power. About 40% of the delegates needed are determined by a select few.

in arifmatic fo an fi benine

FTFA: She doesn't have the numbers that plot a clear path to the nomination. He doesn't have the numbers that plot a clear path to a Democratic victory in the fall.

Hmm. I post a piece from Newsweek and CORKY posts one from some unknown opinionist at RealClearPolitics. RCADE puts this one one the front page - LMAO!

Here's the reality - Obama will STILL be ahead in June.:

Obama - won 27 contests
Clinton- won 15 contests

Obama - 154 elected delegate lead
Clinton- 154 elected delegate deficit

Ohio? Shit, Obama was down by 29 points in both Ohio and Texas, yet will still likely come out with more delegates than Clinton when Tuesday's contests are added up.

Here's a fact:

I will not vote for Hillary Clinton under any circumstances (add almost everyone I know to that list - including Republicans who WOULD vote for Obama)

Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton 2.0 or Bush 3.0 - NO THANKS!

All the 'big states' Hillary has won are blue anyway - except Ohio.

Obama has a chance to turn several red states - including Virgina - blue.

He can attract the independent voters McCain will get if Hillary's the nominee. Youth voters (who made up a sizeable percentage of first time primary voters back Obama, not the Democratic Party.

Obama's the far stronger candidate in the fall. He consistantly polls higher than Clinton vs McCain

Wanna lose the White House in the fall? Make Clinton the DEM nominee.

Coco and Corky are the two most common clown names LOL

Well, the clown expert would know.


- A Corky thread?

Yeppers. And I have yet to call your candidate, "dangerous and amoral".

Which seems to belie a touch of VRWC koolaide still trapped in the synapses.

One unknown bloggers opinion is better than another?

uh-huh.

Well, the clown expert would know.

A quick Google search coupled with your actions on this site don't neccessitate my being any kind of clown expert.

Why would the NAFTA haters in OH vote for McCain if Obama gets the nomination? Has he said he will renegotiate it too?

"SUSA survey says Obama will win more electoral votes and states in the fall"

Let John Phillip Susa stick to what he's good at: conducting the Marine Corps Band.
Corky

"SUSA survey says Obama will win more electoral votes and states in the fall"

Polls are meaningless.

Corky

p.s. Has anyone seen the latest exit polls out of Ohio?

Tthe Chicago Sun-Times reports that the national co-chair of Mrs. Clinton's presidential campaign, Los Angeles mayor Antonio Villaraigo, also got Rezko donations.

Of the other five defendants, three have donated to the Clintons or to Clinton supporters, three have donated mostly to Republicans, and at least two have donated to Obama's political opponents. None have donated to Obama.

Now let's see if Corky is right about the press doing its job.

GAL

With 5 weeks to kill between Mississippi and Pennsylvania I expect the press will do some digging of their own.

The Tan Family could be a very sticky subject for Clinton. They were among Jack Abramoff's top clients and owners of sweat shops in the Marianna Islands - a U.S. Territory.

McCain's sitting on a mountain of very damaging investigative material from his Indian Affairs Committee query.

Turns out Clinton herself took contributions from the Tan family at the same time Congress was looking into their dirty business dealings and Clinton would have been aware of their dirty deeds.

She hasn't been 'vetted'. Not at all. Plenty of time for that now.

"Clinton transparancy" is an oxymoron.

AU,

"Let s/he who is without sin cast the first stone." Did Hillary really think she could raise questions about Obama's ethics and that no one would look into her past or Bill's? Or maybe she knew they would but figured she could deflect any reports by singing, "Why is everybody always picking on me"?

Sorry Hillary No Cigar !!

-Sarge

You are an idiot.

Fribo You Are; You Fuck !

-Sarge

GAL

They haven't even begun to dig into Hillary's past dealings.

Corky thinks she's been 'fully vetted' as Hillary claims.

I got news, LOTS of news for Corky. Just wait......

PSSSST:

Hillary hasn't returned a dime of the Tan Family money funneled into her PAC.

Shhhhhh

But these days Sen. Clinton is being quiet about all that. A spokesman for Friends of Hillary did not respond to repeated requests for comment on the Willie Tan contributions."

What do you mean she won't answer questions? I'm shocked. Shocked I tell you.

Neither Obama nor Hillary have enough delegates at this point to win.
If Hillary won every single state's primary from here on out she still would not have enough delegates to win the nomination.

Right now there is HUGE wheeling and dealing going on behind the scenes with the Democrat's super delegates. Each SD is working on getting something for giving over their vote. Whether it's promise of a position in the new administration, a favorite "cause" getting special attention after the election, whatever -- each of those super delegate votes comes at a "price" to the candidates.

back rooms, cigar smoke, wheelin' and dealin'

Sorry Hillary No Cigar !!

-Sarge

You are an idiot.

Posted by fribo

Hey Fri-Bitch !

The Truth Hurts You, Just Can't Handle It !!

-Sarge

The 'other math' problem the DNC has with Hillary are the numbers of Senate and House seats they'll lose with her at the top of the ticket.

Do Democratic leaders want a 'working majority' in Congress, or a repeat of the '94 election and gridlock?

From the Yahoo article:

The message to be taken from Clinton's victories, again, depends on which campaign is doing the spinning.

"In order to have a plausible path to the nomination, they needed to score huge delegate victories and cut into our lead," Obama campaign manager David Plouffe said in an e-mail to supporters. "They failed."

Clinton's campaign pointed to her earlier victories in states like New Jersey, New York and California, and they questioned why Obama couldn't win in Texas and Ohio on Tuesday.

"We think she can bring Ohio in a general election," said Harold Ickes, a chief strategist for Clinton. "We are not sure (Obama) can do that."

----

It's the same logic that Corky has been using all day. Has to be involved with the Clinton campaign in some way.

Yeah, it's a conspiracy, Pirate.

Not like the thread article and several others posted don't say the same thing.

The paranoia around here is as thick as the posters.

I never said it was a conspiracy. I just think you are involved with the campaign.

"We think she can bring Ohio in a general election," said Harold Ickes, a chief strategist for Clinton. "We are not sure (Obama) can do that."

Hmmm Polls show them both beating McCain in Ohio by equal margins.

Even if Corky was working for the Hillary campaign, so what?
He was here posting before the campaign started and if he's decided to work for Hillary during the election -- no big deal.

It's not like some of the brand new usernames we see that pop up on here from time to time and splash some spam for one candidate or another.

If Corky decided to get involved with the Hillary campaign (paid or volunteer) while the campaign in in full swing it's because he likes politics and wants Hillary to win. Same way if another one or two regular DR posters now gung ho for Obama decided to work (paid or volunteer) for his campaign and continued to post on here.

However -- and this is for all sides -- sometimes something different besides Hillary and Obama would be nice to read for a change, though. Maybe it will die down after the primaries are over.

How many more months of this crap? (grin)

I am surprised that Hillary's people are still trying to throw out the spin that she should be annointed just because she won in the big TRADITIONAL blue states! Any democrat will win New Jersey, New York and California! That includes Obama.
Can't you guys come up with a better spin??

CHRIS

This site is political in nature. So's this thread. I found DR by accident and starting posting here first to have an outlet at my disgust with George Bush's presidency, and now to discuss this captivating election. Some of the stories about non-political things are interesting. But, those that really capture interest enough to result in a lively thread are few and far between.

Even I'm starting to get a little burned out by the long campaign. But, it is uinque in American history and facinating to follow. I'll probably take a step back during the lull in primaries and let the press do their thing in providing us detailed new information about both of them.

Sure, I like Obama. But, you don't see me posting thread after thread day after day trying to tear down Clinton. However, I will play defense and retort Corky's endless assertions of wrongdoing by Obama with facts about both Clinton and Obama from publicly available sources. I may even post a few of them if they're pertinent to why Clinton can't win. Anyone can spin anything, but the facts are Clinton cannot surpass Obama in elected delegates. It's a football game where Obama's up by 11 and Clinton has 4 minutes left on the game clock.

The facts on Hillary are not completely known. There is a mountain of information she prefers to keep from public scrutiny by choice. I suspect that'll change in the coming weeks, and questions about her claims of experience, her political relationships with contributors, and financial life will also undergo rigorous scrutiny during the lull in primary season.

The official results in CA were released. The updated totals give

Obama +4
Clinton -4

Oh, all that press with nothing to do for 5 weeks......We'll get to know the real facts regarding much about Hillary Clinton between now and then.

Did you catch the CBC's report totally debunking all the details vis a vis Obama/NAFTA/Canada?

CBC TV: No truth to Obama/NAFTA story:

corky does not care about facts. heshe wants to bury obama with lies

""Mr. Brodie, apparently seeking to play down the potential impact on Canada, told the reporters the threat was not serious, and that someone from Ms. Clinton's campaign had even contacted Canadian diplomats to tell them not to worry because the NAFTA threats were mostly political posturing."

Why don't we call Obama a socialist. Or even hillary. They have the same values for the most part except hillary has a better health care plan. They are both socialists for the most part. Canada 08? How can you pay for the thinks that they promise. Obama says he wont cut the military. They both will just say what they think we want to hear. We should not cut the military in a post 9/11 era. We have not had an attack since 9/11. If bill would have gotton osama when he could have we would have not had an attack on 9/11. Obama only has 3 yrs experience and has no plan. Hillary is better, but McCain is the best. Not perfect, but the best this country has to offer.

Barrett, is Canada socialist because they have public health care? What of the rest of the industrialized world? Only the US is not 'socialist'?

And, just for the sake of argument, why do you need a huge military to fight terrorists? They are small groups that use asymmetrical tactics. Those are best countered with small / extreme force groups. Special forces. Not a large lumbering army to take on Russia.

I am not sure any Democrat can win any Blue State in a General Election just because they are a Democrat. Just ask George McGovern. It certainly wasn't Richard Nixon's charisma that helped him carry every state in the union except South Dakota in 1972 after he had already failed at ending the Vietnam War. I think Hillary has shown she is the DNC's only real chance against McCain in the fall. The problem is that I see Obama bringing Hillary down even as VP as he is just too liberal. As a person who was born and raised in PA, I just don't see people from my hometown in Southwestern PA as a group who would support Obama - in a primary - or in a General Election. He has very little to offer people who aren't afraid to sweat, like their beer and believe in unions, tradition and waiting their turn in life.

Barrett0509

Using the military to fight terrorists is like using the military to fight crime. It's like using a hammer to kill a cloud of gnats. Wrong tool for the job.

I see you have no problem spending billions on the military to protect your sorry ass from terrorists in your closet, but balk at spending money on saving American lives through better health care. Pussies like you need to grow a pair, and think of others for once, instead of your own chicken-shit self for a change.

Wow, bob. It's truly amazing what you see. You see smokestacks on the moon, billion year old spaceships on the moon, monuments on Mars.

Now you read a post and say you see the author has no problem spending billions on military and balks at spending money on better health care. I read the same post and I did not read either of those things you attribute to him.

How is it you come about these fantastic hallucinations -- on the moon, on Mars, and even on the DR? It is truly bizarre.

Goatman

"Now you read a post and say you see the author has no problem spending billions on military and balks at spending money on better health care. I read the same post and I did not read either of those things you attribute to him."


That's because your logic circuits are fused. His stance on spending billions on the military comes from here:

"We should not cut the military in a post 9/11 era. We have not had an attack since 9/11."

That statement seems to means he has no problems spending billions on the military. What does it mean in your world?


This statement indicated to me that he balks at spending for health care for Americans:

"Why don't we call Obama a socialist. Or even hillary. They have the same values for the most part except hillary has a better health care plan. They are both socialists for the most part. Canada 08? How can you pay for the thinks that they promise."

What does it mean in your world? Is English your first language?

Impugning motives is something I expect from the trolls here, but not you.

Sorry, Corky, but I don't believe that if Hillary Clinton had a big lead in pledged delegates, you would support superdelegates overturning that lead because they thought Obama was more "electable" against McCain.

If by some miracle Clinton catches Obama in pledged delegates, I would be the first to say that superdelegates should choose her.

Posted by rcade

thats going to be impossible.. the caucus bullshit saw to that. It favors obama. A straight up primary is what is called for not a convoluted methodology that insures loss after loss for the dems.

I don't think Obama has a choice, he's got to go nasty negative.

It's what ameerica wants.

Were Wisconsin, Virginia, Maryland, and a host of others not primaries in which he beat her by a country mile?

Gal wonders why Hillcat can't seem to figure out the ole "glass house?/Don't throw stones" adage...

Or maybe she knew they would but figured she could deflect any reports by singing, "Why is everybody always picking on me"?

~Gal Tuesday.

Fe-fe, fi-fi, fo-fo, fum
I smell smoke in the auditorium

Charlie Brown, Charlie Brown
He's a clown, that Charlie Brown
He's gonna get caught
Just you wait and see
(Why's everybody always pickin' on me?)

Ha! Gal is Coasters fan! Who'da thunkit?

Hillary's ability to play the victim card and the Bully card in the same minute goes largely unseen in the MSM but Gal is see it right quick.

Fuck the party hacks. Any of them who would deny the voters' choice of a nominee should face a real Democrat the next time they run for office

~Rcade.

Damn straight!

Be Well.

I hope Hillary gets the Democrat nomination because she will get traunced in the general election. She is extremely polarizing. Most Republicans hate her so do the Dems which is why an unproven inexperienced candidate like Obama has so much popularity on the left.