Pennsylvania votes today

[Gan]

So who's going to win?

Predictions plz.

[Parkbandit]

Hillary by 12%

[Daniel]

Wishful thinking at its finest.

[Parkbandit]

Post your prediction dipshit.

[Daniel]

That hillary comes no where close to winning by 12%

[Parkbandit]

That hillary comes no where close to winning by 12%

Wow.. quite a leap. Such a leap, you didn't even bother posting up who was going to win in the poll.

I guess you should wait until the rest of your flock come to vote, so you can all be the same.

[Daniel]

I'm not even sure what that means.

There's only two choices. Some people are bound to be the same.

[Keller]

Clinton by 9%.

[Gan]

Wishful thinking at its finest.

Man up then. Post your prediction.

[Warriorbird]

Clinton by 10%... about half the lead she once had.

[ClydeR]

Hillary will win by 7.3 percentage points.

[Snapp]

Clinton by 5%

[Sean]

Are we doing this price is right style? 5.01%!!

[Some Rogue]

Are we doing this price is right style? 5.01%!!

Oh no you didn't...5.02%!

:nono:

[Crazy Bard]

Hillrod? Sorry, she's definitely loosing now.

[Bobmuhthol]

Obama, 6%

[Crazy Bard]

Whats Hillary's excuse for staying in the race when/if she looses in Pennsylvania?

[Bobmuhthol]

She's a goddamn hero to this country. Obama is inexperienced -- he never dodged sniper fire in Bosnia, FFS.

[sst]

I hope Hillary wins, makes it more interesting as they go at eachother

Hillary by 7%

[TheEschaton]

I would normally go with 7% for Hillary, but since people have already said that, hey, let's make it interesting: Hillary by 8%.

-TheE-

[BigWorm]

$1 dollar, Bob

Wishful thinking upset pick of the day:

Obama by 2%

[Latrinsorm]

Statistical tie.

[Gan]

Obama by 3.7%

You heard it here first.

[Xiandrena]

I just went and voted and the polls were dead

[Gan]

Not a good sign for Obama.

[Parkbandit]

The Republicans will deliver a resounding victory for Hillary, and continue the bloodletting that is the Democratic Nomination Process.

[Gan]

And the DNC said the RNC was in the process of implosion about a year ago this time.

/IRONY

[g++]

She's a goddamn hero to this country. Obama is inexperienced -- he never dodged sniper fire in Bosnia, FFS.

Lol Bob before they laugh at that you have to convince them its not true

[Parkbandit]

And the DNC said the RNC was in the process of implosion about a year ago this time.

/IRONY

I don't think the Republican party is anywhere close to being on sound footing currently. We nominated one of the most liberal, non-conservatives because it was "his turn"... so we'll see. I think the Republicans are collectively a bunch of pussies who are afraid to speak their mind and are willing to sign off on any legislation as long as they think it will make them look good.

[Bobmuhthol]

<<We nominated one of the most liberal, non-conservatives>>

I've heard both extremes on this. The Republicans say McCain is absolutely the most liberal person ever, but the Democrats say he's super duper conservative, moreso than any Republican in the history of politics. One side cites his beliefs, the other cites his voting history. Who's right?

[Parkbandit]

<<We nominated one of the most liberal, non-conservatives>>

I've heard both extremes on this. The Republicans say McCain is absolutely the most liberal person ever, but the Democrats say he's super duper conservative, moreso than any Republican in the history of politics. One side cites his beliefs, the other cites his voting history. Who's right?

Look at his voting record and it's liberal. His "beliefs" change depending on when the next election is. In 2000, he was actively talking to the powers that be in the Democratic Party to switch parties. Look at the shitty legislation that bears his name.. it's usually followed by a - Liberal senators name.

And the Democrats have only started calling him a conservative this election.. since he's the Republican nominee. The "C" word is to Democrats as the "L" word is to Republicans.

[Gan]

For the most part, McCain is liberal in the areas where I tend to be liberal. And conservative in the areas where I tend to be conservative.

I'm not complaining as I think this is the next best choice from my first pick of Guiliani.

Whats crucial at this point is this: Is a Republican what America needs right now as a President?

My vote is not set in stone yet. I want to see how the DNC falls out and who gets the nod. Then will I determine whether or not ideals win over candidate or if the candidate selection is so poor that it outweighs ideals.

[Parkbandit]

America never needs a liberal President.

Ever.

[Warriorbird]

Right. Up with dictatorships.

[Parkbandit]

Right. Up with dictatorships.


Right.. because if it's not a liberal as President, it must be a dictator.

[Warriorbird]

Right. One party rule is totally democracy!

[Parkbandit]

Right. One party rule is totally democracy!

I was referring to Liberals.. not the entire Democratic party.

And seriously.. you are pretty emotional today it seems.. bordering on the dramatic. If you need my help with the differences between dictatorship and democracy.. just say so.

Deep breaths little fella. Step away from the ledge.

[Warriorbird]

Emotional? Nah. You're just not seeing the humor in what you post today. I'm in a good mood.

[Gan]

Right. One party rule is totally democracy!

This is Amerika! You have options!

3rd party
Libertarian party
Green party
Party of Socialism and Liberation
Prohibition Party
Socialist Party USA
Socialist Workers Party
and...
All independant write in candidates.

http://www.politics1.com/p2008.htm

[Warriorbird]

I think a British style percentage system would actually get interesting results here.

[Parkbandit]

Emotional? Nah. You're just not seeing the humor in what you post today. I'm in a good mood.

It's only because you keep tossing in those meatballs man. You are the best setup man ever!

[TheEschaton]

. We nominated one of the most liberal, non-conservatives because it was "his turn"... so we'll see. I think the Republicans are collectively a bunch of pussies who are afraid to speak their mind and are willing to sign off on any legislation as long as they think it will make them look good.


I think you nominated one of the most liberal Republicans ever because the backlash is so strong against neo-conservatism that you had to put up a bunch of people with liberal streaks in them but with Rs after their name to assure reasonable people everywhere that you're not crazy.

-TheE-

[Keller]

I think you nominated one of the most liberal Republicans ever because the backlash is so strong against neo-conservatism that you had to put up a bunch of people with liberal streaks in them but with Rs after their name to assure reasonable people everywhere that you're not crazy.

-TheE-



Blah blah fantasy world blah blah terrible lawyer blah blah hypocrite blah blah :rofl:

But seriously, what neo-con was available? I personally, as a former semi-liberal, would have preferred and possibly voted for Romney who is the traditional conservative pick. Further, McCain sang "Bomb Bomb Iran". How much more neo-con sounding do you get? Plus he has the closest ties with the Bush administration. Shit, he's been groomed for years by the administration.

[TheEschaton]

Romney is not socially conservative, at least on the abortion issues. He says he is now, but I imagine he'd be pretty reasonable. He was pretty anti-gay marriage, but I think he was already thinking Presidency at that point.

I think there could have been a case for Condi running, but I think her neo-con credentials precluded her from even thinking about running, let alone winning the GOP nomination.

[Keller]

You didn't even discuss McCain being the closest candidate to the Bush administration.

[TheEschaton]

That strikes me as ridiculously weird. Why would anyone want to be so close after being push-polled like McCain was in 2000?

My only explanation is that he's been on permanent 'Nam flashback since 9/11, and he's thinking in very Nixon-esque terms. Which happen to make him very Bush-esque too.

[Parkbandit]

Hillary declared winner with less than 1% actual count voted. Looks like it's a big win for Hillary if they are making this prediction already.

Wishful thinking huh?

LOL

[Keller]

Hillary declared winner with less than 1% actual count voted. Looks like it's a big win for Hillary if they are making this prediction already.

Wishful thinking huh?

LOL

Cite?

[TheEschaton]

CNN is projecting Hillary now, with 9% in. Currently it's 54-46 (ahem, 8 points).

-TheE-

[Parkbandit]

Wishful thinking at its finest.


Dumb post of the day. You didn't even have the balls to vote.

10 point lead with 82% reporting.

[Gan]

Clinton 55%
Obama 45%

with 96% of the precincts reporting at 11pm.

Nice call PB.

:clap:

[Keller]

Clinton 55%
Obama 45%

with 96% of the precincts reporting at 11pm.

Nice call PB.

:clap:

Don't you mean "Nice call Warriorbird and Keller"?

PB was off by 2%. WB hit it on the head and I was 1% off.

[Back]

Bummer its not over. But at least its still not over. Not by a longshot.

[Gan]

Don't you mean "Nice call Warriorbird and Keller"?

PB was off by 2%. WB hit it on the head and I was 1% off.

LOL I guess my Democrat filter was on.

Let me go back and review.

[Keller]

LOL I guess my Democrat filter was on.

Let me go back and review.

I'm not a democrat.

Sure, I think certain conservative posters are luney while others are outright useless -- but I think the same of liberal posters on this forum.

[Gan]

Hillary by 12%


That hillary comes no where close to winning by 12%


Clinton by 9%.


I would normally go with 7% for Hillary, but since people have already said that, hey, let's make it interesting: Hillary by 8%.-TheE-

So here are the closest over/under. (Except for Daniel being too chicken to post a prediction)

WB wins the prize, whatever the prize is. Maybe Backlash will lend him the PC Pundit avatar... :whistle:



Bummer its not over. But at least its still not over. Not by a longshot.
Sir, this just solidified that its not over until November. Short of death, there's not a chance in hell that Hillrod will stand aside now.

[Kefka]

According to the state's website the margin looks different.

CLINTON, HILLARY (DEM)

1,230,822 54.3%


OBAMA, BARACK (DEM)

1,037,420 45.7%


So it's looking more like 54 - 46

http://www.electionreturns.state.pa.us/

[Back]

So here are the closest over/under. (Except for Daniel being too chicken to post a prediction)

WB wins the prize, whatever the prize is. Maybe Backlash will lend him the PC Pundit avatar... :whistle:



Sir, this just solidified that its not over until November. Short of death, there's not a chance in hell that Hillrod will stand aside now.

Well, its obvious who you are rooting for.

I consider anyone who posts in a politic thread a pundit and thus as entitled to wear the icon as I used to back in the day.

http://www.zendada.com/images/pundit2.jpg

http://www.zendada.com/images/pundit.jpg

[Parkbandit]

Well, its obvious who you are rooting for.

I consider anyone who posts in a politic thread a pundit and thus as entitled to wear the icon as I used to back in the day.

http://www.zendada.com/images/pundit2.jpg

http://www.zendada.com/images/pundit.jpg


Clearly, after what.. a year? You still cannot grasp a simple concept of what a "PUNDIT" means. It's not "anyone who posts in a political thread on a forum".

By your definition, people like You and Ilvane would be considered pundits.. and I'm pretty sure we've ruled out that possibility.

[Clove]

Pundit n. 1. a learned person, expert, or authority.
Yeah... this might rule out Ilvane and Backlash.

[Parkbandit]

Yeah... this might rule out Ilvane and Backlash.


This is where Backlash redefines the term Pundit..

I'm having deja vu! SOMEONE'S HACKING THE MATRIX! WHAT'S DIFFERENT!!??

[TheEschaton]

This from a Backlash who thought Obama was gonna win both Ohio and Texas, and VT, and possibly lose RI but might win it.

-TheE-

[Back]

Obama won TX. So I was dead wrong on RI.

PS. I define a “PC Pundit” as anyone with a bellybutton who posts regularly in a political thread on this forum.

[Parkbandit]

Obama won TX. So I was dead wrong on RI.

PS. I define a “PC Pundit” as anyone with a bellybutton who posts regularly in a political thread on this forum.

It's like a really bad comic book.. you know how it's going to end when you read the first page.

[TheEschaton]

Obama didn't win Texas. Hillary won the primary, and Obama won a caucus so fraught with fraud that the courts won't be able to sort through it til the next general election.

-TheE-

[Kefka]

Obama didn't win Texas. Hillary won the primary, and Obama won a caucus so fraught with fraud that the courts won't be able to sort through it til the next general election.

-TheE-

Technically, Obama did win Texas. In the end, the primaries is a race for delegates, not the popular vote. He got the most delegates in that state, so that made him the winner.

[Parkbandit]

Obama didn't win Texas. Hillary won the primary, and Obama won a caucus so fraught with fraud that the courts won't be able to sort through it til the next general election.

-TheE-

Just another example of the need for election reform.

[TheEschaton]

I'm still a bit bitter about Texas, if you can't tell. How can you expect people to vote twice?

(unless they're effete, intellectuals who have nothing better to do than caucus for Obama...)

[Clove]

I'm still a bit bitter about Texas, if you can't tell. How can you expect people to vote twice?

(unless they're effete, intellectuals who have nothing better to do than caucus for Obama...)Como la E por ejemplo.

[TheEschaton]

LOL, I like how you used the feminine "la". ;)

I'm too busy to caucus.

[Clove]

LOL, I like how you used the feminine "la". ;)

I'm too busy to caucus.I thought it was appropriate :D. Unfortunately for you... la gramática está correcta porque la letra "e" es femenina como la -E-.

[TheEschaton]

pero el "Eschaton" es una palabra masculina.

[CrystalTears]

Pero Eschaton no es masculino, entonces, Clove tiene razon. :tongue:

[Tsa`ah]

Obama didn't win Texas. Hillary won the primary, and Obama won a caucus so fraught with fraud that the courts won't be able to sort through it til the next general election.

-TheE-

Tell me .... if one takes 2/3 of a contest .... do they not win?

It's also funny how a caucus won by Obama is fraught with fraud while a caucus won by Clinton is not.


I'm still a bit bitter about Texas, if you can't tell. How can you expect people to vote twice?

How can you be bitter about Texas .... had it not been for the Rush/Republican campaign for HillRod it would have been a clear victory for Obama (primary and caucus).

Pennsylvania wouldn't have been a factor had the republicans not turned out to vote for the least electable and the least threatening to the McCain campaign.

[TheEschaton]

Uh, Hillary won the primary by 4%, which counted for 2/3rds, and Obama won the primary by about like, 11% (?), which counted for 1/3rd, and they somehow counted it as a win for Obama.

And the Texas caucus was wrought with fraud. I'm not sure which caucus you're referring to in regards to Hillary, but I think she only won Nevada, which also had fraud. In fact, I'd be willing to say caucuses in general are subject to voter fraud.

And I'm all man, CT. ;)

[TheEschaton]

and I find it surprising you now mention Republicans crossing over to vote for Hillary when it was generally denied by Obama that his wins come from Republicans/Independents as the margin of victory, and that he has no real basis of power in the Democratic party.

[Gan]

Where's the waders.

Shit is getting deep in here now.

[Clove]

...when it was generally denied by Obama that his wins come from Republicans/Independents as the margin of victory...Because Obama has no interest in denying that allegation... I mean honestly!!

Hillrod is broke. A point that Obama is going to begin hammering home in the coming weeks. How can she manage our economy... when she can't even frugally manage her own campaign funds?

[Back]

The real result is that Hillary only closed the lead by 2 delegates.

[Clove]

The real result is that Hillary only closed the lead by 2 delegates.And went in with a 20 point lead to finish with a 10 point lead.

[Latrinsorm]

effete, intellectuals who have nothing better to do than caucus for ObamaIf only I lived in Texas!! :D

[Gan]

If only I lived in Texas!! :D

Thank God for small favors.

[diethx]

Someone explain this to me. As i've said before, I don't follow politics nor have I ever really cared to educate myself on the topic (which is the reason I never post in this folder). But now i'm curious.

Why was this such a big deal? PA is not an all-or-nothing state when it comes to awarding delegates, right? Clinton ended up getting just a handful more than Obama, correct? So if it had been the other way around and he won by a slim margin, he would've received just a handful more than her. How does that affect either of them very much? The gap between the two doesn't seem to be all that different from where it was on Monday.

[Parkbandit]

Someone explain this to me. As i've said before, I don't follow politics nor have I ever really cared to educate myself on the topic (which is the reason I never post in this folder). But now i'm curious.

Why was this such a big deal? PA is not an all-or-nothing state when it comes to awarding delegates, right? Clinton ended up getting just a handful more than Obama, correct? So if it had been the other way around and he won by a slim margin, he would've received just a handful more than her. How does that affect either of them very much? The gap between the two doesn't seem to be all that different from where it was on Monday.

With the love affair the Media has with Obama, he is the presumptive nominee. You hear it all the time, "Hillary should get out because she can't win the nomination"

Yet.. he can't close the deal. The leading Democratic nominee has lost a state by 10 points. Sounds like there are some people that have issues with the guy.

[diethx]

With the love affair the Media has with Obama, he is the presumptive nominee. You hear it all the time, "Hillary should get out because she can't win the nomination"

Yet.. he can't close the deal. The leading Democratic nominee has lost a state by 10 points. Sounds like there are some people that have issues with the guy.

Right, but that didn't really answer my question :(

Unless you were trying to say that she could win the nomination regardless of a win in PA, and the media was wrong in saying that PA was a must-win state for her, and I misunderstood?

Otherwise, I guess I just don't understand what the huge deal was if it wasn't an all-or-nothing state.

[Parkbandit]

Right, but that didn't really answer my question :(

Unless you were trying to say that she could win the nomination regardless of a win in PA, and the media was wrong in saying that PA was a must-win state for her, and I misunderstood?

Otherwise, I guess I just don't understand what the huge deal was if it wasn't an all-or-nothing state.


I did answer your question.. you just didn't understand it.

From a delegate standpoint.. it wasn't that big a loss for Obama.. but BECAUSE he is the presumptive Nominee and has been for a few months now.. the fact that he can't win a state like PA makes people question his ability to be a viable candidate for the Dems.

[Back]

Someone explain this to me. As i've said before, I don't follow politics nor have I ever really cared to educate myself on the topic (which is the reason I never post in this folder). But now i'm curious.

Why was this such a big deal? PA is not an all-or-nothing state when it comes to awarding delegates, right? Clinton ended up getting just a handful more than Obama, correct? So if it had been the other way around and he won by a slim margin, he would've received just a handful more than her. How does that affect either of them very much? The gap between the two doesn't seem to be all that different from where it was on Monday.

Clinton won 2 more delegates than Obama won. Yes the media built up PA for Clinton. PA has been polled with her in the lead for a long time now. Some might say this is really good news for Obama. That PA was such a big deal and he walked away with nary dent in his delegate lead shows that he has serious electability.

[Parkbandit]

And then you have the self proclaimed political Pundit who is still as clueless as ever. You might be the only pundit I've seen yet that views last night as Good news for Obama.

Still dumb as a box of doorknobs. Even if you are an avid Obama supporter.. last night was anything but good news.

[Back]

Well, it was not the best outcome for Obama, that having been gaining 1-4 delegates... but it certainly was no where near the worst news. In fact, I think it is worse news for Clinton.

Check out this site. This guy is really good with keeping up to date polls and commentary.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

Why is it no one gets the fact that I consider you as much of a “PC Pundit” as much as I do myself or anyone else who posts here for that matter? How many freaking times do I need to post this before it sinks in? JFC some people are dense as concrete.

[Keller]

And then you have the self proclaimed political Pundit who is still as clueless as ever. You might be the only pundit I've seen yet that views last night as Good news for Obama.

Still dumb as a box of doorknobs. Even if you are an avid Obama supporter.. last night was anything but good news.

It would behoove you to actually consider the points others make before looking like an idiot/douchebag.

Obama cut Clinton's lead in PA in half from 20% to 10%. He secured his delegate lead by narrowing the margin. That's a win from his perspective. Sure, they could have narrowed it to 8%, 4%, or even won. That would have been an even stronger victory. That fact of the matter is that Hillary had a lead a few months ago and throughout the campaign she failed to gain any ground. In fact, she lost it. If she lost ground, who won it?

Sometimes I wish you'd approach any political discussion with sincerity. It would make you look like less of a partisan tool. (:rofl:)

[Mabus]

That's a win from his perspective.
Clinton may be pushing for a brokered convention, and counting on Florida and Michigan popular vote (and delegates) to be counted. That said, her popular vote gain in PA may aid her side during such a brokered debate, and could not be considered a "win" for Obama.

Plus, to quote Obama,
"A win is 50 plus one. So, if Sen. Clinton gets over 50 percent she's won...".

[Keller]

what's he saying she has won?

[CrystalTears]

From a delegate standpoint.. it wasn't that big a loss for Obama.. but BECAUSE he is the presumptive Nominee and has been for a few months now.. the fact that he can't win a state like PA makes people question his ability to be a viable candidate for the Dems.
For a while now, this point of view has always escaped me and I don't understand it. How does him not winning a state by 10 points not make him a viable candidate for the Dems?

This wasn't a contest between McCain and a democrat. It was the democrats against each other. We can't tell which side would have won the state.

So if Obama wins, he suddenly won't have at least 45% of the democratic vote? The other 55% aren't going to vote at all? What guarantee does Clinton have that her 55% would help her win the state as well?

It's an argument I've never understood.

[Mabus]

For a while now, this point of view has always escaped me and I don't understand it. How does him not winning a state by 10 points not make him a viable candidate for the Dems?

This wasn't a contest between McCain and a democrat. It was the democrats against each other. We can't tell which side would have won the state.

So if Obama wins, he suddenly won't have at least 45% of the democratic vote? The other 55% aren't going to vote at all? What guarantee does Clinton have that her 55% would help her win the state as well?

It's an argument I've never understood.
One interesting part that Obama supporters seem to skiip is that many Clinton supporters will not vote for Obama. In states like Florida, Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania this could lead to a McCain win.

Gallop Poll: If McCain vs. Obama, 28% of Clinton Backers Go for McCain (http://www.gallup.com/poll/105691/McCain-vs-Obama-28-Clinton-Backers-McCain.aspx)

[Clove]

One interesting part that Obama supporters seem to skiip is that many Clinton supporters will not vote for Obama.Reports since March have said the same for supporters of both candidates, so it's not like Hillary's supporters won't vote for Obama but Obama's supporters will vote for Hillary ( http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200803/POL20080321a.html ).
In states like Florida, Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania this could lead to a McCain win.Exactly, even if Hillary gets the candidacy and Obama supporters do the same. It's also why you've heard so many leaders in the Democrat party repeating like a mantra on the news services that "the party will come together and get behind whichever candidate wins" but it's all a lot of whistling in the dark if you ask me. Those two are sucking the oxygen out of the Democrats' fire. McCain in 2008 (party at Ilvane's).

[Back]

It's an argument I've never understood.

Because you’re smart.

[CrystalTears]

One interesting part that Obama supporters seem to skiip is that many Clinton supporters will not vote for Obama. In states like Florida, Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania this could lead to a McCain win.

Gallop Poll: If McCain vs. Obama, 28% of Clinton Backers Go for McCain (http://www.gallup.com/poll/105691/McCain-vs-Obama-28-Clinton-Backers-McCain.aspx)
Aside from the fact that Clinton supporters are behaving the same way, I'm not believing for a moment that people who are spouting this are actually going to go through with it at the election. It's all guff to get their candidate of choice elected.

And even though McCain isn't as right as Republicans want him to be, I doubt all these hippies will up and vote for McCain who isn't planning on bringing back troops from Iraq anytime soon.

[Tsa`ah]

Uh, Hillary won the primary by 4%, which counted for 2/3rds, and Obama won the primary by about like, 11% (?), which counted for 1/3rd, and they somehow counted it as a win for Obama.

At the end of the second quarter in a hockey game ... the score is 65 to 61, the opposing team rallies in the third making the score 94 to 99.

Only in Clinton land is that a win.


and I find it surprising you now mention Republicans crossing over to vote for Hillary when it was generally denied by Obama that his wins come from Republicans/Independents as the margin of victory, and that he has no real basis of power in the Democratic party.

Are you intentionally overlooking the facts behind this, just playing dumb, or are you seriously oblivious to the reality of it all?

We'll take the sports angle again.

NFL ... two leagues. AFL and NFL.

Some are loyal to one league, some are loyal to the other. A smaller group, usually loyal to the NFL, doesn't like any of the teams in the play offs. So instead of cheering on teams and players they don't care for .... start rooting for an NFL team. They do everything an ordinary fan of said NFL team would do ... except buy the paraphernalia.

This would be republicans and independents supporting Obama.

Now let's say the AFC is wrapped up and it's down to the NFC championship. A few mouthpieces from the AFL decide to buy blocks of tickets to the NFC and hand them out to AFC loyalists to root for the team the AFC champs will have the least problems with ... the least competitive team.

This would be republican pundits campaigning for a democratic candidate. This would be Texas.

There hasn't been a republican driven campaign for Obama. The cross party votes he received were because those voters chose him above their own party and above any other candidate in the democratic race.

There was a campaign for Hillary after McCain became the presumptive for the GOP. Texas was an open primary with a GOP pundit driven HillRod campaign. Without that ... it would have been a tie or a pure Obama win.

Had that happened ... as I said. It's doubtful Pennsylvania would have been a big deal.

As it stands, even with Clintons win in PA, she is still behind by 156 pledged delegates, she still trails in the popular vote, and she trails in states. The ONLY lead she has is in superdelegates.

Indiana is also an open primary .... watch for it again.

All of that aside ... I can only tell you which candidate I will not vote for come November.

Clinton.

[Latrinsorm]

At the end of the second quarter in a hockey game ... the score is 65 to 61, the opposing team rallies in the third making the score 94 to 99.Dude.

[BigWorm]

At the end of the second quarter in a hockey game ... the score is 65 to 61, the opposing team rallies in the third making the score 94 to 99.

Only in Clinton land is that a win.



Are you intentionally overlooking the facts behind this, just playing dumb, or are you seriously oblivious to the reality of it all?

We'll take the sports angle again.

NFL ... two leagues. AFL and NFL.

Some are loyal to one league, some are loyal to the other. A smaller group, usually loyal to the NFL, doesn't like any of the teams in the play offs. So instead of cheering on teams and players they don't care for .... start rooting for an NFL team. They do everything an ordinary fan of said NFL team would do ... except buy the paraphernalia.

This would be republicans and independents supporting Obama.

Now let's say the AFC is wrapped up and it's down to the NFC championship. A few mouthpieces from the AFL decide to buy blocks of tickets to the NFC and hand them out to AFC loyalists to root for the team the AFC champs will have the least problems with ... the least competitive team.

This would be republican pundits campaigning for a democratic candidate. This would be Texas.

There hasn't been a republican driven campaign for Obama. The cross party votes he received were because those voters chose him above their own party and above any other candidate in the democratic race.

There was a campaign for Hillary after McCain became the presumptive for the GOP. Texas was an open primary with a GOP pundit driven HillRod campaign. Without that ... it would have been a tie or a pure Obama win.

Had that happened ... as I said. It's doubtful Pennsylvania would have been a big deal.

As it stands, even with Clintons win in PA, she is still behind by 156 pledged delegates, she still trails in the popular vote, and she trails in states. The ONLY lead she has is in superdelegates.

Indiana is also an open primary .... watch for it again.

All of that aside ... I can only tell you which candidate I will not vote for come November.

Clinton.

Wow, I think the only thing that could have made your analogy more confusing is a car.

It's more like Obama was down 60-40 and came back to make it 55-45 since, you know, that's what happened.

<---- Also not voting for Clinton

[Clove]

Wow, I think the only thing that could have made your analogy more confusing is a car.

It's more like Obama was down 60-40 and came back to make it 55-45 since, you know, that's what happened.

<---- Also not voting for ClintonI was just about to say he was really batting 1.000 with that WoT.

[Clove]

And can someone tell me why the poll votes are increasing since the end of the PA primary... but it's still goddam tied!.

[Gan]

Dude.

LOL


Word.

[TheEschaton]

Your sports analogy is awful, Tsa'ah.

And anyone who tells you Hillary supporters won't vote for Obama is idiotic. Hillary's base are old school, loyal Democrats. They'll vote for the Democrat. It's the first-time voters who have been 'inspired' to vote for Obama who you have to wonder if they'll vote Clinton or not vote at all.

-TheE-

[Tsa`ah]

Dude.

Does the unlikeliness of the score baffle you .... or does the use of quarter over period get your manties in a bunch?


Wow, I think the only thing that could have made your analogy more confusing is a car.

It's more like Obama was down 60-40 and came back to make it 55-45 since, you know, that's what happened.

<---- Also not voting for Clinton

Umm ... that was Texas. The analogy demonstrated how Clinton was able to swing the win with all of those R voters needing something to do and the GOP pundits campaigning for it.


I was just about to say he was really batting 1.000 with that WoT.

If more than one or two lines of text is beyond your reach ... go see your doc about your adhd.


Your sports analogy is awful, Tsa'ah.

And anyone who tells you Hillary supporters won't vote for Obama is idiotic. Hillary's base are old school, loyal Democrats. They'll vote for the Democrat. It's the first-time voters who have been 'inspired' to vote for Obama who you have to wonder if they'll vote Clinton or not vote at all.

-TheE-

Sorry to hear you don't approve ... none the less.

The idiotic thing that's escaping you is that not all Obama supporters are Dems. I'm certainly not.

It's the independent and cross party vote that Clinton and her supporters have to worry about.

If Obama is pulling wins because of said vote coupled with first time voters and Clinton does not appeal to those groups ... who exactly do you think they're going to vote for? Part of that answer is not Clinton, the other part of that is McCain (since he does have cross party and independent appeal and always has), a third part of that answer is third party or not at all.

So when you read an article or see a poll about Obama voters not voting for Clinton .... you can't assume they're all registered Dems and you have to take that sort of number to heart. You can dismiss those claims from Clinton supporters since they are by and large registered voting Dems ... she doesn't have independent or cross party appeal ... and she scares college kids.

[Clove]

If more than one or two lines of text is beyond your reach ... go see your doc about your adhd.I'm fine with more than one or two lines. It's the 20ish lines of your convoluted nonsense that bores me. Thanks for upgrading me to ADHD, after BigWorm, Latrin and the -E- commented on your post I was beginning to think you were getting more wood than a supermodel. Creepy.

[Tsa`ah]

I'm fine with more than one or two lines. It's the 20ish lines of your convoluted nonsense that bores me.

Well we know this is a lie.

You took the time to read it, along with everything else .... you follow me like a puppy and expect me or anyone else to buy that load?

[CrystalTears]

Except he wasn't the only one to not agree with your analogy, and not everyone was vocal about it.

[Tsa`ah]

Aww ... does she need attention to?

[CrystalTears]

Oh for fuck's sakes, Tsa`ah. Get the fuck over yourself. It was bad analogy. Move on.

Bring back Jesuit. You weren't as much of a dick when you posted as him.

[Tsa`ah]

Maybe you should offer said advice to your own click.

I wasn't commenting on the analogy. If it was bad, it was bad. It flew over BW's head and the rest ... oh well.

I referred to his comment of my posts boring him. If this were true he wouldn't respond to them at nearly every opportunity.

Take off the blinders toots.

[Nieninque]

Maybe you should offer said advice to your own click.

I wasn't commenting on the analogy. If it was bad, it was bad. It flew over BW's head and the rest ... oh well.

I referred to his comment of my posts boring him. If this were true he wouldn't respond to them at nearly every opportunity.

Take off the blinders toots.

Here's your analogy.......Here's a bad analogy................Here's a retarded analogy........................................... ...........and here's yours.


Some are loyal to one league, some are loyal to the other. A smaller group, usually loyal to the NFL, doesn't like any of the teams in the play offs. So instead of cheering on teams and players they don't care for .... start rooting for an NFL team. They do everything an ordinary fan of said NFL team would do ... except buy the paraphernalia.


Fucking idiot.

[Tsa`ah]

Here's your analogy.......Here's a bad analogy................Here's a retarded analogy........................................... ...........and here's yours.



Fucking idiot.

Two analogies?


I wasn't commenting on the analogy. If it was bad, it was bad. It flew over BW's head and the rest ... oh well.

I referred to his comment of my posts boring him. If this were true he wouldn't respond to them at nearly every opportunity.

Fucking idiot.

[Parkbandit]

Are you really trying to defend you pathetic analogy?

Let it go man. It was horrible in so many ways, for so many reasons. Instead of posting "Yea, it wasn't very good.. but my point was:", you decided to defend it.

It wasn't worth defending. You should have buried it.

And the only reason I read it was because people said how bad it was. I usually skip over your gigantic WoT since they are usually artificially intelligent and could have said the same thing in a sentence or two.

[Crazy Bard]

Here's your analogy.......Here's a bad analogy................Here's a retarded analogy........................................... ...........and here's yours.



Fucking idiot.

Lol, nice try.

[BigWorm]

Umm ... that was Texas. The analogy demonstrated how Clinton was able to swing the win with all of those R voters needing something to do and the GOP pundits campaigning for it.

If you're going to talk shit, you should know your shit. Yes, that did happen in Texas and Ohio, but it also happened in Penn. Look at these polls (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/pa/pennsylvania_democratic_primary-240.html#polls). As recently as 3/15, Clinton had a 26 point lead in the Penn. primary. That Obama made it as close as he did says a lot about how much his political machine has improved, but the way it the race was portrayed in the media shows that his spin doctors need to step their game up.

[Nieninque]

Two analogies?


Damn alcohol.

HOWEVER...


Some are loyal to one league, some are loyal to the other. A smaller group, usually loyal to the NFL, doesn't like any of the teams in the play offs. So instead of cheering on teams and players they don't care for .... start rooting for an NFL team. They do everything an ordinary fan of said NFL team would do ... except buy the paraphernalia.

So yeah...fucking idiot.

[Warriorbird]

A bunch of loyal Rush Limbaugh followers are gaming the Democratic primary system to assist Hillary.

[Tsa`ah]

Are you really trying to defend you pathetic analogy?
Let it go man. It was horrible in so many ways, for so many reasons. Instead of posting "Yea, it wasn't very good.. but my point was:", you decided to defend it.

It wasn't worth defending. You should have buried it.

And the only reason I read it was because people said how bad it was. I usually skip over your gigantic WoT since they are usually artificially intelligent and could have said the same thing in a sentence or two.

You're inability to keep up and veer away from subjects beyond your grasp are not surprising ... to anyone.


[/b]If you're going to talk shit, you should know your shit.[/b] Yes, that did happen in Texas and Ohio, but it also happened in Penn. Look at these polls (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/pa/pennsylvania_democratic_primary-240.html#polls). As recently as 3/15, Clinton had a 26 point lead in the Penn. primary. That Obama made it as close as he did says a lot about how much his political machine has improved, but the way it the race was portrayed in the media shows that his spin doctors need to step their game up.

We need a facepalm emote .... :banghead:

It did not happen in PA. PA is a closed primary. Clinton won Texas largely due to the republican vote.

McCain attaining the nomination was a foregone conclusion. Open primaries do not restrict political affiliation. Any resident can vote for any candidate in either party. So roll in Texas (an open primary for the democrats) and instead of voting for McCain, many republicans voted for Clinton.

Nearly the same happened in OH, except that OH is semi-open ... which is why Rush is potentially facing legal issues along with many republican voters that voted a democratic ticket.

The same DID NOT HAPPEN in PA .... it's a closed primary. Only registered democrats are allowed to vote in the democratic primary. Obama closed the gap by getting people (who have not voted before or independents) to register democrat.



Damn alcohol.

HOWEVER...



So yeah...fucking idiot.

So you knew NFC was the intent ... whatever.

Don't use alcohol as an excuse for your own stupidity.