Tuesday Primary Predictions

[Parkbandit]

Put your predictions down before 8pm :)

[BigWorm]

I think today will be the day McCain wraps up the nomination.

You heard it here first, bitches.

[Gan]

Obama NC
Clinton IN

[Tsa`ah]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say Obama 52, Clinton 47 in IN ... taking both contests.

Clinton is going to stay in it no matter what, but she'll make the case of a close race in IN as her reason.

[BigWorm]

Obama NC
Clinton IN

Same, though Obama has a better chance to win in IN than Clinton does in NC from the looks of things.

[Parkbandit]

Obama by 5 in NC and Clinton by 7 in IN.

[Keller]

Obama in both.

52% in IN
55% in NC

[Keller]

As anecdotal evidence that the long democratic primary is GOOD for democrats: My sister, my brother, my step-sister, and my mother -- none of whom voted in the 2004 presidential election, ALL voted in today's PRIMARY. I can't imagine they wont be voting in this year's general election.

[TheEschaton]

She's been edging up in NC lately, I'm gonna pick her to sweep.

[Mabus]

She's been edging up in NC lately, I'm gonna pick her to sweep.
I agree, though anything can happen.

[Crazy Bard]

I think/hope he's going to pull through and win Indiana even though is looks impossible right now.

[Gan]

The Obamanator is not taking IN.

And LOL at those projecting Hillrod taking SC. A real big LOL.

[Mabus]

And LOL at those projecting Hillrod taking SC. A real big LOL.
She lost SC a while ago.

You must mean NC.

So a gigantic "LOL" to you!
;)

[TheEschaton]

LOL, I guess those polls showing her within 4-6 points of Obama were way off.

[Tsa`ah]

Lol @ Clinton having a snowball's chance in NC.

Obama is going to walk away from NC with 15-20 point lead ... and that's what separates the two. Clinton can go into a state with a 10-20+ polling lead and leave that state with a loss, tie, or that lead cut down by half or more. Clinton can not return that favor.

Indiana is going to come down to the wire at this point. 35k votes and four points separate the two right now with two of the largest counties (favored for Obama) to turn in .... and one of those is home to Gary with a population of 5-6 million.

You also have to take into account that the Rush campaign was at work for Clinton in the IN portion today.

[TheEschaton]

Funny Clinton was down by 15-20 in Indiana 2 weeks ago. Right now she's winning it by about 4-5. Where's the press coverage on that one?

-TheE-

[TheEschaton]

Oh yes, I forgot, THERE"S A SECRET GOP OPERATION TO STOP OBAMA!

[Gan]

She lost SC a while ago.

You must mean NC.

So a gigantic "LOL" to you!
;)

LOL in that I was correct that she lost SC?

NS/SC/NC/SC - so I typo'd it.

:shrug:

[Gan]

NC 56% to 42% with 77% reporting...Obama

IN 52% to 48% with 84% reporting... Clinton

[Tsa`ah]

Funny Clinton was down by 15-20 in Indiana 2 weeks ago. Right now she's winning it by about 4-5. Where's the press coverage on that one?

-TheE-

Care to point out where she had that large of a deficit two weeks ago? I can't seem to find the support for that claim.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/in/indiana_democratic_primary-639.html


Oh yes, I forgot, THERE"S A SECRET GOP OPERATION TO STOP OBAMA!

Ahem ...

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

[Parkbandit]

Care to point out where she had that large of a deficit two weeks ago? I can't seem to find the support for that claim.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/in/indiana_democratic_primary-639.html



Ahem ...

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/


Yea, I don't remember Clinton ever having a huge polling lead in Indiana. I think TheE's thinking of Obama's 20 point lead in NC.

Yea.. I think the Republicans playing games in Indiana got Clinton the close win there. Mathmatically, she's out... I'm just glad she's a stubborn ol' girl and refuses to leave.

FIGHT THE POWER HILLARY!

[Tsa`ah]

Could be a heart breaker for Clinton.

Lake county just dropped it's first return of 21% ... Obama 75%, Clinton 25% (Lake county has a population of over 6 mil)

[Kranar]

Funny Clinton was down by 15-20 in Indiana 2 weeks ago. Right now she's winning it by about 4-5. Where's the press coverage on that one?


You can see the history of the polling data here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statewide_opinion_polling_for_the_April%2C_May%2C_ and_June_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries%2 C_2008#Indiana

Two weeks ago Clinton was ahead according to the polls by approximately 5-8%.

And as I type this, Clinton is leading by 2 percent. The key thing to remember, however, is that this is about delegates, not about percentages. A win of 2 percent is absolutely meaningless as the delegates will get split 50/50. In order for Clinton or Obama to gain a delegate, a win of 54% to 46% is needed. As it stands this is highly unlikely for either candidate.

[Tsa`ah]

And as I type this, Clinton is leading by 2 percent. The key thing to remember, however, is that this is about delegates, not about percentages. A win of 2 percent is absolutely meaningless as the delegates will get split 50/50. In order for Clinton or Obama to gain a delegate, a win of 54% to 46% is needed. As it stands this is highly unlikely for either candidate.

If you're Clinton, it means everything.

Don't forget that she's doing everything, making every argument, to seat FL and MI .... and to top that, popular vote is becoming an argument.

If she keeps losing the popular vote and not cutting into Obama's pledged delegate lead, well her argument gets thinner and thinner. Also there's her argument of winning swing and "democratic" states. If she loses Indiana by a half point ... she loses more ground in her arguments at a brokered convention.

[Kranar]

If you're Clinton, it means everything.


Maybe it means something morally, and she has been doing much better now campaigning than she used to when she played the intouchable heiress to the throne, but realistically, Senator Clinton is not going to win this primary.

I do think, despite what many have said in particular Republicans, that this primary is helping Senator Obama. Had Senator Clinton withdrawn from the race, then the issue with Rev. Wright would have been entirely in the hands of Republicans and it would have been unlikely that Senator Obama would have been able to gracefully handle that issue. Senator Obama does a great job campaining a message of hope and prosperity, but in my opinion he has not been very effective at dealing with criticism and so it's a lot better for him to have Senator Clinton bring these issues out ahead of the national campaign than the Republicans.

[Tsa`ah]

Maybe it means something morally, and she has been doing much better now campaigning than she used to when she played the intouchable heiress to the throne, but realistically, Senator Clinton is not going to win this primary.

Clinton began ignoring the statistical probability since super tuesday. Since it's not likely Obama will gain the magical delegate count through pledged delegates, and it's all but impossible with any combination of delegate types for Clinton ... she's banking on a brokered convention.

We already know she's going to go after pledged delegates in an effort to convince them to jump the fence ... it's only safe to assume that Clinton is still gunning for the nomination and it's not beyond the realm of reality that it could happen.

[radamanthys]

I can't imagine how this race would be turning out if Operation Chaos wasn't a salient standing factor. The current 51-49 split, being so close, says that Obama probably would have won it.

[Tsa`ah]

And how.

1 in 10 voters (estimated from polls) were republicans. 2/3 of those voted for Clinton.

Clinton didn't have a Republican following of any significance until Texas and Rush.

[Back]

ELECTION RESULTS NEWS:

12:30 AM - Russert: Obama Is The Nominee: "We now know who the Democratic nominee is going to be," NBC's Tim Russert just declared on MSNBC.


The Meet the Press host was referring to Barack Obama, who won a decisive victory over Hillary Rodham Clinton in today's North Carolina primary and is within just a few percentage points of her in the Indiana vote count.

The network's Chuck Todd just ran through the math and calculated that Obama now leads Clinton in the "popular vote" by about 710,000 -- and by 200,000 if the disputed primaries in Florida and Michigan are counted. He also leads by about 160 Democratic convention delegates, Todd said.

Time to get back to unifying the party, Hillary.

[Tsa`ah]

And she squeaks it out.

[Mabus]

Time to get back to unifying the party, Hillary.
Yep. Then McCain can beat Obama, and Clinton can run in 4 years. Good job, Hillary!

[Tsa`ah]

More proof that Clinton can't gain ground.

NC was for Clinton until 11/05/07, after that it swung for Obama in the polls. The polling average showed Obama walking away from NC with an eight point lead ... he closed it with 14 points.

IN has been swinging back and forth, but mostly in Clinton's favor. She walked into IN with a 5 point polling lead (and operation Chaos working in her favor) only to have Obama chew off 3.6 points of that.

Obama walks away adding 12 pledged delegates and 223,039 votes to the lead. He didn't pick up another state in the lead count .... but you can't always pull off a trifecta.


Yep. Then McCain can beat Obama, and Clinton can run in 4 years. Good job, Hillary!

Heh .... I wouldn't talk out of your ass so soon. You're looking at polls that give you a snapshot of an election happening at that minute. November is six months away and the whole Wright/Ayers/Rezco thing could be considered premature ejaculation on the part of the GOP ... what's left to throw at him?

[Keller]

Heh .... I wouldn't talk out of your ass so soon. . . . . . what's left to throw at him?

That's the point -- we don't know.

[Mabus]

Heh .... I wouldn't talk out of your ass so soon.
I type with my fingers, not through talking or orifices. How you place information into a forum is of course up to you.

[Tsa`ah]

I type with my fingers, not through talking or orifices. How you place information into a forum is of course up to you.

So no real defense from you.

[Mabus]

So no real defense from you.
What defense is needed?

1) If Clinton is not the nominee of the Democratic Party then it is very likely Obama will be.
2) Obama will not win in the general election in the majority of "red states".
3) Obama's main base of support is from those already devoted to the Democratic Party.
4)States that are in contention are usually so because of the independent voters.
5) McCain polls high with independents, and a portion of Clinton supporters will either not vote, or will vote for McCain.
6) It is unlikely conservative republicans will vote for Obama in the same number that former Clinton supporters will vote for McCain.

It is not rocket science.

[Gan]

Not to mention that most Republicans will vote Republican in November, unlike their participation in the restricted primary states, during this primary season. ;)

[Parkbandit]

What defense is needed?

1) If Clinton is not the nominee of the Democratic Party then it is very likely Obama will be.
2) Obama will not win in the general election in the majority of "red states".
3) Obama's main base of support is from those already devoted to the Democratic Party.
4)States that are in contention are usually so because of the independent voters.
5) McCain polls high with independents, and a portion of Clinton supporters will either not vote, or will vote for McCain.
6) It is unlikely conservative republicans will vote for Obama in the same number that former Clinton supporters will vote for McCain.

It is not rocket science.

But what about CHANGE AND HOPE!?

[Keller]

Mabus, care to put some money up on whether McCain will beat Obama?

Even odds, I take Obama. You name the wager.

[Mabus]

Mabus, care to put some money up on whether McCain will beat Obama?

Even odds, I take Obama. You name the wager.
So I am asked to defend a statement, and provide a defense, yet someone that disagrees has a defense based on a wager...

Do the general election delegate math.

Look at the previous history of states in presidential elections. By all means, bring up changes in congressional districts, that George W. Bush is at an all time popularity low and several other factors that you believe will change the outcome of a presidential race when the country is still about 45%/45% divided between two totally similar parties.

Provide a factual or opinion-oriented reason why you feel the way you do about the outcome.

Then seek professional help for your gambling urges.

[TheEschaton]

he makes a valid point. I don't think Obama is strong in places like MI, FL, OH, PA, so on, so forth. He lost all those states, and many more centrist strongholds. Yeah, he won the OK primary, but OK was never going to go blue.

-TheE-

[Clove]

he makes a valid point. I don't think Obama is strong in places like MI, FL, OH, PA, so on, so forth. He lost all those states, and many more centrist strongholds. Yeah, he won the OK primary, but OK was never going to go blue.

-TheE-Gear up for 4 years of McCain and pick me up some coffee while you're over in France, would you?

[TheEschaton]

I'm looking at reqs for the civil service exam as we speak. ;)

[Lucas]

If Obama wins the nomination he will win the presidency guaranteed. Obama just looks 100x better speaking wise, McCain fumbles words and makes odd statements. Sometimes a candidate can getaway with being a bit imperfect in public speaking but compared to Dr martin luther obama this is going to be difficult.

Plus Obama has got the novelty factor down. Americans love new "novel" things to try out. An old white guy for president is just a beaten and dead horse, Obama's race will actually be a huge asset in the race.

[Clove]

Okayy.:yeahthat:

[Keller]

So I am asked to defend a statement, and provide a defense, yet someone that disagrees has a defense based on a wager...

Do the general election delegate math.

Look at the previous history of states in presidential elections. By all means, bring up changes in congressional districts, that George W. Bush is at an all time popularity low and several other factors that you believe will change the outcome of a presidential race when the country is still about 45%/45% divided between two totally similar parties.

Provide a factual or opinion-oriented reason why you feel the way you do about the outcome.

Then seek professional help for your gambling urges.

You spelled, "I'm not THAT sure McCain will win" wrong.

[Kranar]

4)States that are in contention are usually so because of the independent voters.
5) McCain polls high with independents, and a portion of Clinton supporters will either not vote, or will vote for McCain.
6) It is unlikely conservative republicans will vote for Obama in the same number that former Clinton supporters will vote for McCain.


I think the key deciding factor in the national election will be voter turnout. Both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama are likely to be able to run a much more energetic and stronger campaign than Senator McCain; in fact, had Senator Clinton kept herself on her toes fighting as hard as she is now instead of pretending to be the entitled Democratic bigshot, she would have likely been the nominee a long time ago.

Democratic turnout for this primary season is at record highs across each state and if I'm correct, new registrations have also reached new records as well. As much as I dislike Senator Clinton, this prolonged primary is keeping a lot of people interested and involved in this race and I don't think that involvement is going to die when it's time for the national election.

Senator Obama has proven that he is able to run a phenomenal campaign and reach out to new voters who would have never bothered participating in an election previously. While I'd be a fool to predict one way or another who is going to win the national election half a year from now, I don't think you can underestimate a candidate who managed to come out of nowhere and defeat a freaking Clinton of all people.

[Celephais]

Yeah, I feel Obama and Clinton battling is actually kind of a good thing for the democrats, if they can keep the voters actively caring and not really hurt each other too much it's just good for the nominee. I really don't see them as all THAT different.

I can't find a picture of Jack Johnson and John Jackson from futurama, so this will have to do:
http://www.wonderlandblog.com/photos/uncategorized/marioinfuturama.jpg
John Jackson: "It's time someone had the courage to stand up and say: I'm against those things that everybody hates."
Jack Johnson: "Now, I respect my opponent. I think he's a good man. But quite frankly, I agree with everything he just said."
John Jackson: "I say your three cent titanium tax goes too far."
Jack Johnson: "And I say your three cent titanium tax doesn't go too far enough."

Found it!
http://www.gotfuturama.com/Multimedia/FrameGrabs/2ACV03/Grabs/pic00055.jpghttp://www.gotfuturama.com/Multimedia/FrameGrabs/2ACV03/Grabs/pic00060.jpg

[Mabus]

You spelled, "I'm not THAT sure McCain will win" wrong.
Oooo! Spiffy comeback!

Are you going to attempt to compare me to other posters you feel negatively about now (again), or is that only after you fail to post anything resembling an intelligent argument for a couple more pages?

I haven't quite grasped your lame-ass forum "tactics" fully yet.

[Mabus]

Obama just looks 100x better speaking wise, McCain fumbles words and makes odd statements.
I agree that McCain is not "Mister Charisma", but to not notice that Obama is not that great at public speaking or interviews when he is without a pre-written speech or teleprompter shows a lack of clarity on the observer's part.

The first interview I saw with Obama I told my friend, "He should have a speech coach teach him not to say 'um' and 'uh' before each sentence. Just pause, if in thought. Skip those noises.". He continues to fall back on those same noises, even as recently as an interview he did this week.

That was not to be mean, or to disparage Obama. It was just pointing out "basic public speaking 101".

[Mabus]

I think the key deciding factor in the national election will be voter turnout.
That usually is the key factor.

Historically, the youth vote does not show up in the general election. This may change this election, but there have been previous elections where everyone was sure they were going to turn up.

By the time the 527's get done there will be a large voter suppression. Between the Weather Underground, Wright, "first time I have been proud of my country" and Cling-gate they will have a feast. Do not doubt an "October Surprise" either. I have been hearing that some members of Obama's church say Obama was there during a couple of those "sermons". Nothing like proving him a liar (or at least accusing it) to dampen enthusiasm. Hell, Wright may even show up and say Obama was in the church during his rants by November. Who knows?

I have said that 527's should be held accountable for false accusations, but they seem to be able to say anything and not be legally responsible. I found the whole "swift boating" of Kerry to be horrible and untrue, but it did prove politically effective.

Look for a few more states (especially GOP controlled) to enact voter ID requirements as well. Other voter suppression activities are also likely by the GOP. The Rove playbook will be in full force.

And before anyone just chants "Not this time!" remember that was what people said in 2004.

[BigWorm]

That usually is the key factor.

Historically, the youth vote does not show up in the general election. This may change this election, but there have been previous elections where everyone was sure they were going to turn up.

By the time the 527's get done there will be a large voter suppression. Between the Weather Underground, Wright, "first time I have been proud of my country" and Cling-gate they will have a feast. Do not doubt an "October Surprise" either. I have been hearing that some members of Obama's church say Obama was there during a couple of those "sermons". Nothing like proving him a liar (or at least accusing it) to dampen enthusiasm. Hell, Wright may even show up and say Obama was in the church during his rants by November. Who knows?

I have said that 527's should be held accountable for false accusations, but they seem to be able to say anything and not be legally responsible. I found the whole "swift boating" of Kerry to be horrible and untrue, but it did prove politically effective.

Look for a few more states (especially GOP controlled) to enact voter ID requirements as well. Other voter suppression activities are also likely by the GOP. The Rove playbook will be in full force.

And before anyone just chants "Not this time!" remember that was what people said in 2004.

God forbid the election actually be about the real issues that affect people.

[Mabus]

God forbid the election actually be about the real issues that affect people.
Why should it change now?

I agree that it should be about issues, but what have our current politics come down to? Character bashing, lies, voter suppression and other various nefarious uses of the voters against themselves.

Who is making it about real issues? Obama? McCain? Hillary? They are all using the "old politics", no matter what slogans or lies they spew.

While they may try to distance themselves from looking as if they are using them, just look to their press releases, staff comments, "inadvertant statements" during speeches and their advertising and you can see the truth of the matter.

[Clove]

Party at Ilvanes!

[Gan]

LOL

I cant wait for her to come out and declare her support for McCain once we observe Hillary bow out.

[Keller]

Oooo! Spiffy comeback!

Are you going to attempt to compare me to other posters you feel negatively about now (again), or is that only after you fail to post anything resembling an intelligent argument for a couple more pages?

I haven't quite grasped your lame-ass forum "tactics" fully yet.

Come on in from left field and join the rest of us.

You said McCain would beat Obama for a list of rational reasons. Notwithstanding those reasons, I don't think McCain has a chance. I asked if you wanted to actually take a position, backed up by more than an anonymous internet post, that McCain would win. I did it in a playful manner. You accused me of having an addition to gambling (wtf?). I playfully recomposed your post to it's ultimate message and then you attempt to (1) say I was arguing (which I wasn't) and that (2) my argument wasn't intelligent?.

You have some sort of a bug up your ass dude. I'd have it checked out.

Edited to add: Did we have some sort of a squabble in another thread? I'm sincerely confused by your abrasive reaction.

[Clove]

LOL

I cant wait for her to come out and declare her support for McCain once we observe Hillary bow out.Hillary's or Ilvane's support?

[Clove]

I asked if you wanted to actually take a position, backed up by more than an anonymous internet post, that McCain would win. I did it in a playful manner.I'll bite. What about 1/2 million silver?

[Keller]

I'll bite. What about 1/2 million silver?

Seek help for your compulsive gambling urge

You're on!

[Mabus]

Come on in from left field and join the rest of us.
You live to the left of left field. Why the hell anyone would "join" you is beyond reason.



You said McCain would beat Obama for a list of rational reasons.
None of which you have refuted.


Notwithstanding those reasons, I don't think McCain has a chance.
So...
..in spite of the listed reasons, and countless others, you "feel" McCain has no chance. Great argument.

How about doing the delegate math? I suppose that does not matter because of "hope and change!", right?


I asked if you wanted to actually take a position, backed up by more than an anonymous internet post, that McCain would win.
You asked a stranger on the internet to wager with you when you have not presented a position, other then "No! I don't want to believe that!". The position I had already has been posted, backed by why I felt the position was valid.

I do not gamble, as I find it wasteful and ignorant to do so. Others can disagree, and even find gambling "fun" in some manner, and that is their choice.

I believe gambling can be addictive. If you do have a problem with it then seeking help would be a good thing for you. First you need to admit you have a problem.


I playfully recomposed your post to it's ultimate message and then you attempt to (1) say I was arguing (which I wasn't) and that (2) my argument wasn't intelligent?.
First, you are not able to "recompose" my posts with anything but a desire for a cheap forum thrill. You want to post what I actually say and debate it, question it or whatever then I am open to discussing my post.

If you want to misquote me in an attempt to "score" in some type of imaginary forum point system then leave me out of your foolishness.

This is a category dealing with politics, in case you missed that.


You have some sort of a bug up your ass dude. I'd have it checked out.
You have a male orifice fixation, obviously. To each their own.


Edited to add: Did we have some sort of a squabble in another thread? I'm sincerely confused by your abrasive reaction.
I was merely pointing out your childish tactics.

When you are unable to prove your point, or are proven to be wrong, you seem prone to attempting to negatively compare the poster that spanked you to other posters you feel the "group" already views negatively.
Example:

Mabus = ClydeR?

Anyone else see the striking resemblence in posting sytle?

I have addressed this issue with you before. As an example from that same thread:


Keller="Idiot that needs to compare and classify posters becuase he cannot debate"

Anyone else see his need to do so over several threads?
(mispelling in my post maintained)

So I figured you would hold out, lose face, be pawned, or just post nonsense. Then in a page or two you would post another "defense" of why you are inadequate to holding an intelligent conversation through the same tactic.

I am sure if I search the forums I could find you doing this again and again.

[Clove]

Sheesh. It's just easy silver Mabus, relax.

[Arkans]

I think we can all agree...

Mabus masturbates to Jesus.

- Arkans

[Mabus]

Sheesh. It's just easy silver Mabus, relax.
You have to handle forum idiots like Keller quickly or they tend to spread like cockroaches.

I am still waiting for why he feels McCain will lose. A point by point summary or general election delegate mapping would be nice. Hell, anything other then the nonsense he has been posting.

[Mabus]

I think we can all agree...

Mabus masturbates to Jesus.

- Arkans

See?

I waited a few seconds to long. Another cockroach spawns.

[Clove]

I am still waiting for why he feels McCain will lose. A point by point summary or general election delegate mapping would be nice. Hell, anything other then the nonsense he has been posting.Just take the money. Srsly.
http://punditkitchen.wordpress.com/files/2008/05/political-pictures-barack-obama-bust-move.jpg

[Keller]

Did you miss the part where I said I wasn't arguing?

Calm down.

[Mabus]

Did you miss the part where I said I wasn't arguing?
So now you believe McCain will win, correct? Doubtful.

How about posting your reasons why Obama will win in the general election.

[Clove]

How about posting your reasons why Obama will win in the general election.How 'bout just taking his money?

[Clove]

Actually E now that I think of it, since you're going to France next year, could you swing up to Normandy and get me a bottle or three of Calvados?

[Keller]

So now you believe McCain will win, correct? Doubtful.

How about posting your reasons why Obama will win in the general election.

John McCain will not energize the radical christians like Dubya has in the last 2 elections. McCain will get swift-boated for his: hawkishness, being the neo-cons hand-picked successor, being too socially liberal -- just to name a few. He will lose every debate to Obama. Not because Obama is a more sincere (whether genuine sincerity or not) speaker, but because Obama is the clear media favorite. If Obama was the media favorite against Clinton, do you think there is any question who will get the more favorable treatment between Obama and McCain? Further, the extended primary has undercut the republican's ability to pull an October surprise. I'm not saying there aren't skeletons left in Obama's closet, I'm suggesting that had Wright been pulled out in October instead of February -- Obama would have been hurt a hell of a lot more. I think by the time November rolls around, Wright will be minor distraction compared to the catastrophe he would have been had he been introduced in October. Plus, I think Obama has forced many of the more apathetic voters (but candidly, still Obamaniacs) to actually register to vote in the primaries.

[Clove]

McCain will defend his hawkishness by pointing out the genuine threat of a power vaccuum so near to Iran. However, Iraq will be eclipsed by the economy; people stop worrying about a few thousand dead when they start worrying about jobs and $4/gallon gas.

[Keller]

McCain will defend his hawkishness by pointing out the genuine threat of a power vaccuum so near to Iran. However, Iraq will be eclipsed by the economy; people stop worrying about a few thousand dead when they start worrying about jobs and $4/gallon gas.

That plays perfectly into the "can we afford four more years of George Bush" rhetoric.

[Arkans]

See?

I waited a few seconds to long. Another cockroach spawns.

After a nuclear war, I'll be enjoying your land.

Not only that, but goddamn, living under your fridge is fun.

So, what have we learned? I AM HARDIER THAN YOU, MEAT PUPPET!

- Arkans

[Clove]

That plays perfectly into the "can we afford four more years of George Bush" rhetoric.Yeah good luck with that. I'll tell you where to deliver my silver :D

[Keller]

Yeah good luck with that. I'll tell you where to deliver my silver :D

I don't have an active account -- so you'll be selling your silvers to GSAuctions and giving them my paypal acct.

edit: Or just depositing it directly into my bookies paypal acct to cover my extraordinary gambling debt from my addiction.

[Clove]

You better get working on it then. You still have plenty of time to make an account and cash hunt.

[Keller]

You better get working on it then. You still have plenty of time to make an account and cash hunt.

Meh, I have an account with a few million silvers liquid -- but it'd be cheaper to just buy half a million than to pay the 1-month subscription fee.

Plus I don't want to add another addiction!

[Clove]

Meh, I have an account with a few million silvers liquid -- but it'd be cheaper to just buy half a million than to pay the 1-month subscription fee.

Plus I don't want to add another addiction!You've got nothing better to do and you can't afford to drive anywhere :D

[Tsa`ah]

1) If Clinton is not the nominee of the Democratic Party then it is very likely Obama will be.

That's stating the obvious


2) Obama will not win in the general election in the majority of "red states".

How exactly are you able to predict this? Kerry, much like Clinton, ran a red/blue/battle ground campaign. Outside of Kerry being a "meh" candidate, he didn't have the funds or the time to invest in traditionally red states.

Obama, to Clinton's detriment, has been running a national campaign. He spends the time and money in the states not favored toward dems ... and has been pulling record registration and activism in those states.


3) Obama's main base of support is from those already devoted to the Democratic Party.

Do you read/watch/listen to the news? Clinton has been hammered by Obama supporters that are not traditionally Republicans. He has appeal to the educated, the wealthy, the young, and the independant.


4)States that are in contention are usually so because of the independent voters.
5) McCain polls high with independents, and a portion of Clinton supporters will either not vote, or will vote for McCain.

These two deserved to be placed together simply because the statement is so far out into lala land that it's not even funny.

If you look at the exit polls of the 12 open and semi-open primaries for both parties prior to TX/OH you'll see that McCain has a shit ton of ground to make up in regard to the independent vote ... not to mention record turn out for democrats.

NH 284104 44% / 41% 125006 / 51252 ------ 233381 37% / 40% 86351 / 34540
SC 530322 23% / 42% 121974 / 51229 ------426864 18% / 42% 76836 / 32271
NJ 1109369 19% / 49% 210780 / 103282 ------ 556855 25% / 47% 139214 / 65431
MA 1244133 33% / 42% 410564 / 172437 ------ 496171 44% / 47% 218315 / 102608
AR 307318 18% / 32% 55317 / 17701 ------ 224581 22% / 22% 49408 / 10870
MO 820453 22% / 67% 180500/ 120935 ------ 584618 23% / 35% 134462 / 47061
VA 970393 22% / 69% 213487 / 147306 ------ 481980 21% / 38% 101216 / 38462
WI 1099661 28%/ 64% 307905 / 197059 ------ 403568 23% / 47% 92821 / 43626
AL 539925 13%/ 48% 70190 / 33691 ------ 564016 18% / 32% 101523 / 32487
GA 1046485 19% / 63% 198832 / 125264 ------ 954462 18% / 28% 171803 / 48105
TN 614096 20% / 47% 122819 / 57725 ------ 547614 22% / 31% 120475 / 37347
IL 2003800 16% / 72% 320608 / 230838 ------ 885009 20% / 54% 177002 / 95581

The format is crap on the transfer, but it's simple to read. Each state, democrats to the left, republicans to the right. The first number you see is total votes for the party. The first percentage you see is percentage of independent votes. The second percentage would be our comparison, Obama's and McCain's take independent votes. Moving over you have total independent votes per party and the total independent vote taken by candidate.

In an apple to apple comparison, Obama has taken many more independent votes than McCain.

These numbers were pulled from CNN's exit polls which appear to be in step with most exit polls.


6) It is unlikely conservative republicans will vote for Obama in the same number that former Clinton supporters will vote for McCain.

Obama doesn't appeal to conservative republicans and it's highly unlikely that Clinton supporters will jump ship and vote Republican .... they're mostly dems to begin with. They're not Reagan Democrats or Dixiecrats. Obama supporters are far more likely to jump ship.


It is not rocket science.

Maybe it would be better if it were considering your statements.

[Clove]

Obama supporters are far more likely to jump ship.



Maybe it would be better if it were considering your statements.All the media outlets disagree with you.

[Clove]

And no I didn't go to every cab and read the signs. But all the statistics for the past two months have a higher percentage of Clinton supporters claiming they would either not vote or vote for McCain if Obama won the candidacy, than Obama supporters if Hillary won the candidacy.

[Tsa`ah]

he makes a valid point. I don't think Obama is strong in places like MI, FL, OH, PA, so on, so forth. He lost all those states, and many more centrist strongholds. Yeah, he won the OK primary, but OK was never going to go blue.

-TheE-

Obama didn't win MI and FL because he didn't campaign. If my state's primary isn't going to count, I'm not going to go out of my way to waste my time with a vote.

You can't say Obama isn't strong in states that not only didn't count, but he didn't campaign in ... where as we know Clinton did campaign in FL.

Saying OK isn't going to go blue is giving in to this divisionist view of our government. OK isn't going to go blue if no one bothers with it ... which no one has.

[Latrinsorm]

Clinton's base is the extremely old and women. Old people won't be able to remember that Clinton was running come November and it's not like we actually count women's votes.

[Tsa`ah]

All the media outlets disagree with you.

Really? Which outlets?

Similar polls have stated as much in past elections and it didn't happen to the extent the polls have shown.

Current polls have not taken into consideration the independent factor ... which swings to Obama's favor in great measures.

[Gan]

Hillary's or Ilvane's support?
Ilvanes. Although, I would laugh out loud if Hillary jumped ship once she was kicked to the curb.


I'll bite. What about 1/2 million silver?
PUT ME DOWN FOR A MILL BRO! Even odds on McCain.


Seek help for your compulsive gambling urge

You're on!
I WANT IN!! BITCHEZ!


Actually E now that I think of it, since you're going to France next year, could you swing up to Normandy and get me a bottle or three of Calvados?
hahaha, I forgot about TheE's declaration that he would move to France if McCain wins. :lol:


McCain will defend his hawkishness by pointing out the genuine threat of a power vaccuum so near to Iran. However, Iraq will be eclipsed by the economy; people stop worrying about a few thousand dead when they start worrying about jobs and $4/gallon gas.
The economy will eclipse all other issues by late this summer. Period. Unless something nuclear kickd off somewhere.


Yeah good luck with that. I'll tell you where to deliver my silver :D
I accept paypal.

[Mabus]

John McCain will not energize the radical christians like Dubya has in the last 2 elections.
That depends on his VP choice, and his promises on appointing judges. The christian-right feels they are close to a judicial victory on a few fronts, and will easily harken to that call.



McCain will get swift-boated for his:
Hard to "swift boat" a former prisoner of war, that even Obama has called a "war hero".

hawkishness,
We are at war in two arenas and against the (overly general, in my opinion) "terrorists".

While Iraq is highly unpopular a full 57% of citizens still want us to either "win" or "finish the job" there. Considering that most of the people in that group are not likely to be Obama supporters is not a leap.

McCain not only has military experience, but years of foreign policy experience. Obama has neither.


being the neo-cons hand-picked successor,
Source or opinion? McCain was never a member of PNAC, as far as I know. He has even stood against some of the neo-conservatives in hearings and votes in the Senate.

being too socially liberal -- just to name a few.
He has worked on both sides of the aisle, granted. Something he has much more experience at then Obama may ever be able to gain.

His immigration stance is definately against him with conservatives, and even some moderates.

His election reform stance, stand against torture and disagreeing with the neo-conservatives and GW on how Iraq should be handled has also ruffled a few conservative feathers.

His moderate position on these, and other matters, is a valid area of concern for him in the general election as he tries to lure in the far right. I agree on that.


He will lose every debate to Obama. Not because Obama is a more sincere (whether genuine sincerity or not) speaker, but because Obama is the clear media favorite. If Obama was the media favorite against Clinton, do you think there is any question who will get the more favorable treatment between Obama and McCain?
I disagree that McCain will "lose every debate to Obama". he is highly intelligent, likely knows more facts about government programs then Obama, and can make people smile and laugh. Do not confuse looks with charisma, or slogans with genuine in-depth knowledge of the issues.

If, and this is "if", a clear media bias is exposed during debates it will only energize the right. It may even garner support from many independents that would see unfairness against McCain as an attack on a veteran, or even as a form of age bias.

I would submit that the SNL piece on Clinton and Obama at the debates actually helped Clinton, and that americans come out against media bias when it somehow touches who they identify with.

Further, the extended primary has undercut the republican's ability to pull an October surprise. I'm not saying there aren't skeletons left in Obama's closet, I'm suggesting that had Wright been pulled out in October instead of February -- Obama would have been hurt a hell of a lot more. I think by the time November rolls around, Wright will be minor distraction compared to the catastrophe he would have been had he been introduced in October.

Mark this; McCain will not make commercials or start attacks dealing with Wright, nor the Weather Underground. He will answer questions about how he views them, and will do so carefully.

He will let the 527's handle the negativity. He will even come out and ask them to stop, dissavow them and call them as terrible, dirty politics.

He will bring up the "clinging to guns and religion", liberalism, elitism, inexperience, Obama's partisanship (lack of working with both sides of the aisle) and questions about judgement, as well as Obama's planned policies. Those are all valid areas of concern and debate for a presidential election.

This will allow him to appear more "presidential" and actually above Obama, as Obama has already attacked him directly and by inference.


Plus, I think Obama has forced many of the more apathetic voters (but candidly, still Obamaniacs) to actually register to vote in the primaries.
I think the media has been a little off on new registrations. I know many, many women that registered for the first time because they could vote for a woman for president.

Not all new registered voters are Obama supporters, no matter how much Chris Matthews wants you to believe.

I do thank you for posting your actual thoughts on the matter.

It is my hope that we can all have an honest discussion on the election. To me, politics is highly interesting, and the presidential election is my "Super Bowl".

[Warriorbird]

Looking to you for unbiased opinions on Obama is hilarious.

[ClydeR]

Further, the extended primary has undercut the republican's ability to pull an October surprise. I'm not saying there aren't skeletons left in Obama's closet, I'm suggesting that had Wright been pulled out in October instead of February -- Obama would have been hurt a hell of a lot more. I think by the time November rolls around, Wright will be minor distraction compared to the catastrophe he would have been had he been introduced in October.

Wright is writing a book, which will be released this fall before the election. If he wants to sell a lot of copies and get attention, then he will have a strong incentive to make explosive revelations about Obama. Write might say in his book that he remembers Obama attending one of Wright's especially unpatriotic sermons and complimenting Wright on the sermon. Or Wright might give his recollection of private conversations with Obama about matters that will hurt Obama. Wright is not interested in seeing Obama elected.

When the book is released, it will be the subject of days of media commentary, during which the Wright videos will play at least once an hour on the cable news networks.

[Warriorbird]

You also told us that Huckabee was a fiscal conservative.

[Tsa`ah]

...

But what about the independents that McCain polls so well with?

[Mabus]

That's stating the obvious
You cannot count out a brokered convention. Slim, but possible.

How exactly are you able to predict this? Kerry, much like Clinton, ran a red/blue/battle ground campaign. Outside of Kerry being a "meh" candidate, he didn't have the funds or the time to invest in traditionally red states.
Let's use your buddies at CNN, since you site them in your post.

Presidential Election 2004 (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/president/)
Then look at the amount of votes, the amount voted in this year's primary, and decide for yourself which states are in play.


Obama, to Clinton's detriment, has been running a national campaign. He spends the time and money in the states not favored toward dems ... and has been pulling record registration and activism in those states.
That is still not going to make him win in Wyoming, Texas, Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania or several other states. Money does not equal votes, reguardless of how it is portrayed.


Do you read/watch/listen to the news?
Yes. I also cross-reference and study it. Do you only "read/watch/listen" to the news?


Clinton has been hammered by Obama supporters that are not traditionally Republicans. He has appeal to the educated, the wealthy, the young, and the independant.
Educated, wealthy and young I agree. Independants are at play. Under $50K working class are also in play.


These two deserved to be placed together simply because the statement is so far out into lala land that it's not even funny.
Way to discuss the issue, mister primitive root.


If you look at the exit polls of the 12 open and semi-open primaries for both parties prior to TX/OH you'll see that McCain has a shit ton of ground to make up in regard to the independent vote ... not to mention record turn out for democrats.
Ohio will go for McCain, unless Obama were to choose Stickland, in which case it might make a difference. The fact that the democratic AG is currently involved in a sex scandal in Ohio may help the GOP this November.

We can skip exit polls, as they are flawed. You do know that many GOP people purposely give false answers in exit polls, no? The secret's out!


In an apple to apple comparison, Obama has taken many more independent votes than McCain.

These numbers were pulled from CNN's exit polls which appear to be in step with most exit polls.
You are talking about open primaries where independants vote erratically.

General elections and primaries are quite different in turn out and habits.

Obama doesn't appeal to conservative republicans
How would you say it, "That's stating the obvious".


and it's highly unlikely that Clinton supporters will jump ship and vote Republican .... they're mostly dems to begin with.
It is not only likely, it has been well documented, that many Clinton supporters plan on either staying home or voting for McCain if Clinton looses.


They're not Reagan Democrats or Dixiecrats.
Really? I would say PA and OH are full of Reagan Democrats.


Obama supporters are far more likely to jump ship.
Last Gallop I saw on the issue said 28% of Clinton supporters would vote for McCain, compared to 19% of Obama supporters if Clinton was the nominee.

The more telling figure was that only 59% of Clinton supporters say they will vote for Obama if he is the nominee.

I think that disproves your assertion.


Maybe it would be better if it were considering your statements.
Rocket science it is not. I will skip the taunting barbs for now, for I am merciful.
;)

[Mabus]

You can't say Obama isn't strong in states that not only didn't count, but he didn't campaign in ... where as we know Clinton did campaign in FL.
Source? On both please, Obama not and Clinton doing so.

[ClydeR]

While Iraq is highly unpopular a full 57% of citizens still want us to either "win" or "finish the job" there. Considering that most of the people in that group are not likely to be Obama supporters is not a leap.


Exactly. When voters have to pay $4 a gallon for gas, they won't be in such a rush to leave Iraq and abandon its oil fields that we already paid for with American blood. If we don't keep control of Iraq's oil, then Osama Bin Laden will get it.


McCain was never a member of PNAC, as far as I know.

Right again. But that won't stop the liberal media from trying to insinuate that McCain favors PNAC just because a handful or two of McCain's senior advisers were founding members of PNAC. The Democrats will fully exploit the dirty politics of guilt by association.


I disagree that McCain will "lose every debate to Obama". he is highly intelligent, likely knows more facts about government programs then Obama, and can make people smile and laugh. Do not confuse looks with charisma, or slogans with genuine in-depth knowledge of the issues.

I agree once again. Thinking back about the presidential debates I've seen, it seems like the perceived winner is usually the one who was thought to be the underdog.

You are wise beyond your years, Mabus.

[Latrinsorm]

Unless something nuclear kickd off somewhere.We didn't sell Hezbollah anything, did we?

[Mabus]

But what about the independents that McCain polls so well with?
Dems Lead Over McCain Narrows (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/19/opinion/polls/main3951729.shtml)

"In a turnaround from last month, McCain now leads both Obama and Clinton among independent voters. Obama led McCain by 10 points among this group last month, but he now trails by 8 points. Clinton trails McCain by 11 points among independents."

Still smirking?

[BigWorm]

Right again. But that won't stop the liberal media from trying to insinuate that McCain favors PNAC just because a handful or two of McCain's senior advisers were founding members of PNAC. The Democrats will fully exploit the dirty politics of guilt by association.

Wow, just wow.

So, McCain hiring a "handful or two" of the founding members of PNAC as senior advisers does NOT mean that he supports PNAC.

I guess since the GOP doesn't "exploit the dirty politics of guilt my association", we won't be hearing about Rev. Wright's comments and that Obama sat on the same board as Bill Ayers. I'll hold my breathe on that one.

[Miss Ismurii]

I wish Obama and Clinton would both lose. It's really all about Ron Paul.

[Mabus]

Right again. But that won't stop the liberal media from trying to insinuate that McCain favors PNAC just because a handful or two of McCain's senior advisers were founding members of PNAC.

Could you name them, please. I have been following PNAC since about 1999.


You are wise beyond your years, Mabus.
I am pretty damn old. Considering the alternative I am happy.

"Get off my lawn you stinking brats!"

[Latrinsorm]

I wish you had to be older than 19 to vote. :(

[Miss Ismurii]

I actually am not registered yet. But I'm going to get registered and Ron Paul sooo has my vote.

[Keller]

I actually am not registered yet. But I'm going to get registered and Ron Paul sooo has my vote.

Okayyy

[Miss Ismurii]

You're lame.

[Keller]

You're lame.

WhAt-EvAr!

[Miss Ismurii]

hahaha yeah alrighty then.

whatever yourself.

[Clove]

Really? Which outlets?Do you know what "all" means?


Similar polls have stated as much in past elections and it didn't happen to the extent the polls have shown.I get it. Even though it's contrary to the statistical information available, once again your expert opinion FTW.


Current polls have not taken into consideration the independent factor ... which swings to Obama's favor in great measures.You mean like this one?


Independents

Obama's ability to attract and motivate independent voters has been evident throughout the primary season. Indiana was no exception. In the state's open primary, 23 percent of those voting in the Democratic primary were self-identified independents, and 25 percent were voting in a presidential primary for the first time. Obama won the overall independent vote 53 percent to 47 percent.

In North Carolina the story was different in terms of the vote choice. Clinton won independent voters in North Carolina by four points - 50 percent to 45 percent. These independents, who made up 19 percent of the primary electorate, were more conservative than those turning out in Indiana, 26 percent conservative to 18 percent respectively, potentially accounting for the difference in the results.

The good news for Obama among North Carolina's independent voters, however, is that he may be better able to hold their votes in the general election than is Clinton. Only eight percent of Obama supporters in North Carolina said they plan to vote for Sen. John McCain if Obama wins the nomination. In contrast, 26 percent of Clinton's independents voters would defect to McCain even if she were the nominee. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/06/politics/main4076696.shtml

I reiterate. Every poll has Clinton supporters more likely to defect than Obama supporters. Your statement has no support. Sorry.

[BigWorm]

I wish you had to be older than 19 to vote. :(

Apparently it won't matter, since:


I actually am not registered yet. But I'm going to get registered and Ron Paul sooo has my vote.

Care to enlighten us about which of Dr. Paul's positions convinced you to vote for him?

[Miss Ismurii]

Care to enlighten us about which of Dr. Paul's positions convinced you to vote for him?

I do care. And it's Mister Ron Paul, thanx!

[Clove]

You're lame...
Okayy.

[Miss Ismurii]

whyy am i always quoted on that?

[Sean]

Can we all just agree that she's trying too hard to be contradictory and get attention now and just stop replying to her?

[Keller]

Can we all just agree that she's trying too hard to be contradictory and get attention now and just stop replying to her?

Finee

[Miss Ismurii]

LMAO

[Clove]

Can we all just agree that she's trying too hard to be contradictory and get attention now and just stop replying to her?...
Okayy.

[Tsa`ah]

Let's use your buddies at CNN, since you site them in your post.

Presidential Election 2004 (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/president/)
Then look at the amount of votes, the amount voted in this year's primary, and decide for yourself which states are in play.

Do you really want to use that map? Do you think McCain is going to win every state in red from 2004 ... or that Obama will win every state in blue from the same election?

It's a really foolish medium to base your arguments off of.


That is still not going to make him win in Wyoming, Texas, Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania or several other states. Money does not equal votes, reguardless of how it is portrayed.

Money and time translate into campaigns. You can't predict the outcome of an election based on traditional voting when a very different type of campaign comes into play.

Look at the most recent special election of Bill Foster. Hastert's seat was won by a dem .... a seat that has been held by a republican for decades. The most interesting thing is that a democratic campaign isn't responsible for the win, it was a back firing of a Republican campaign that aligned Foster with Obama and Pelosi .... and people ran to the polls to vote FOR this.


Educated, wealthy and young I agree. Independants are at play. Under $50K working class are also in play.

Independe will always be at play as will the blue collar vote .... I see both struggling for the blue collar vote, I don't see Obama losing sleep over independents.


Ohio will go for McCain, unless Obama were to choose Stickland, in which case it might make a difference. The fact that the democratic AG is currently involved in a sex scandal in Ohio may help the GOP this November.

Ohio is always a battle ground state ... claiming either will take it at this point is a clear case of living in lala land.


We can skip exit polls, as they are flawed. You do know that many GOP people purposely give false answers in exit polls, no? The secret's out!

Polls in general are flawed, exit polls tend to be less flawed simply because of the sampling being so much larger.


You are talking about open primaries where independants vote erratically.

Talking about any other type of primary would be pointless since independents can only vote in open and semi-open primaries.


General elections and primaries are quite different in turn out and habits.

Exactly .... and why is that? Because the infrastructure sits and rusts until the General campaigns kick off.

Guess what McCain's infrastructure is doing right now ... sitting and rusting. What is Obama's infrastructure doing right now .... working.

Who's infrastructure will be on the ground running when the gates open? Who's will require more time and money to get going again?


It is not only likely, it has been well documented, that many Clinton supporters plan on either staying home or voting for McCain if Clinton looses.

You really are the gullible sort aren't you.


Really? I would say PA and OH are full of Reagan Democrats.

Full of? No. There are plenty there, but not to the extent of twenty years ago.



Last Gallop I saw on the issue said 28% of Clinton supporters would vote for McCain, compared to 19% of Obama supporters if Clinton was the nominee.

The more telling figure was that only 59% of Clinton supporters say they will vote for Obama if he is the nominee.

I think that disproves your assertion.

No it doesn't ... not in the slightest. We're talking about independents, such polls have a mixed, and small, sampling.

Do everyone a favor, go research into similar polls of the past and compare those to the GE turnouts ... it doesn't happen on the scales the polls suggest.


Rocket science it is not. I will skip the taunting barbs for now, for I am merciful.
;)

I was actually thinking more along the lines of an idiot who can't discern fact from spin.


Source? On both please, Obama not and Clinton doing so.

Have to love the "src plz" lazy bastards pull out when they can't get out of the wet paper bag they stumbled into.

Look into the Florida and MI fundraising Bill and Hill did after the DNC penalized either state. Read up on the Klein-Mahoney Homeowners insurance bill and Clinton's actions in reference to it.

In short ... use your fucking head ... and then show me where Obama campaigned in either state.


Dems Lead Over McCain Narrows (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/19/opinion/polls/main3951729.shtml)

"In a turnaround from last month, McCain now leads both Obama and Clinton among independent voters. Obama led McCain by 10 points among this group last month, but he now trails by 8 points. Clinton trails McCain by 11 points among independents."

Still smirking?

Laughing my ass off actually.

This poll was conducted among a random sample of 1,067 adults nationwide, interviewed by telephone March 15-18, 2008. The error due to sampling for results based on the entire sample could be plus or minus three percentage points. The error for subgroups is higher. An oversample of African Americans was also conducted for this poll, for a total of 122 interviews among this group and 106 African American registered voters. The results were then weighted in proportion to the racial composition of the adult population in the U.S. Census. The margin of error for African Americans (overall and registered voters) is plus or minus nine percentage points.

And then ...

Unweighted Weighted
Total Respondents 1,067
Total Republicans 324 286 (27%)
Total Democrats 414 419 (39%)
Total Independents 329 362 (34%)

Nice sampling there.

[ClydeR]

Could you name them, please. I have been following PNAC since about 1999.

The big names are John Bolton, Robert Kagan, Bill Kristol, Randy Scheunemann, Gary Schmitt and James Woolsey. Not all of those were founders (signatories) of PNAC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century).

That's not to imply that all of McCain's advisers were members of PNAC, and there's nothing sinister about it. It's only natural that people who previously formulated the Iraq strategy to strengthen our national security would now support the candidate who will not abandon our hard won emerging victory in Iraq.

[Misun]

I wish Obama and Clinton would both lose. It's really all about Ron Paul.

You know...up until now I just sort of took you with a grain of salt but given the fact that you said this and the things after makes me really wish we would need to take a test before being able to vote because it's idiots like you who would vote for Ron Paul just because you think it would be cool and funny completely disregarding the right you have as an american cit........wait...you said you weren't from this country....uh, nevermind.

[Back]

There really is no point in getting all worked up over political threads any more. Look where we were 8 years ago and look where we are now. Things can only get better.

[Mabus]

Do you really want to use that map? Do you think McCain is going to win every state in red from 2004 ... or that Obama will win every state in blue from the same election?
Which map would you prefer to use, the one from your imagination? If anyone lives in some "lala land" it is a person that refuses a factual map of voter totals from a previous presidential election.

Tell you what, find and pick a map of the 2004 election showing voter totals by party from a reputable source and we can go state by state and debate each.

That's right, don't like my chosen map, we will use yours!


It's a really foolish medium to base your arguments off of.
I tried to use a map linked from a source you had used in your post (CNN). Since you trust them for sourcing for other matters that would also make you foolish, no?

The "argument" is a break down of which states are likely to voter which ways.

You could include the new registered democrats, hell even say they all vote in the general, add them to the previous democrat totals in those states and then get an idea of which ones may be in play.

If you really, really want to prove Obama has a chance in the general just prove he will win Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania. He didn't in the primaries, and the voters there are of the type that he does not poll well with.

Independe
You are just so smart! Gosh, thank you for pointing out a misspelling or typo! Whatever will McCain do now that I messed a letter up?

Idiot.


will always be at play as will the blue collar vote .... I see both struggling for the blue collar vote, I don't see Obama losing sleep over independents.
Obama does not poll well with either group. He may not be "losing sleep" over them, but without them he will lose the general. That is plain from election data.


Ohio is always a battle ground state ... claiming either will take it at this point is a clear case of living in lala land..
Are you out of real world terms, or do you sit around singing "lala land" to yourself? Is "lala land" where you are from, o' primitive root?

Ohio will go for McCain. Believe that or not.


Polls in general are flawed, exit polls tend to be less flawed simply because of the sampling being so much larger.
Eh?

You never got the memo. No, of course not. GOP voters have been encouraged to mislead exit poll takers for about the last 9 years. That is correct. They actually have been told to lie to people taking exit polls. Figure that into your sample size.


Talking about any other type of primary would be pointless since independents can only vote in open and semi-open primaries.
I can agree with that.


Exactly .... and why is that? Because the infrastructure sits and rusts until the General campaigns kick off.
Campaigns are not made of iron. They do not rust. If this was a metaphor, it was a really poor one in a descriptive sense.

McCain is planning, visiting general election cities, doing fund raising, meeting with potential VP's and doing what it takes to prepare.

Obama is still going negative on Clinton.


Guess what McCain's infrastructure is doing right now ... sitting and rusting. What is Obama's infrastructure doing right now .... working.
Neil Young said it, "Rust never sleeps.".


Who's infrastructure will be on the ground running when the gates open? Who's will require more time and money to get going again?
Both campaigns will be active. If you believe otherwise you should get back to your "lala"-homeland.


You really are the gullible sort aren't you.
No. I haven't been taken in by any of your bullshit.

Gullible is believing that Obama is some sort of "new politician" that is "tired of the old politics", and that he merely "mispoke" when he said people in small towns are "clinging to guns and religion". Gullible is believing that Obama will "unify the country".

That means, my friend, that you are gullible.


Full of? No. There are plenty there, but not to the extent of twenty years ago.
I live in Ohio. I have been active here in politics for decades. You may know the voters in "lala land", but I know Ohio politics.

The majority of people in Ohio, south of Akron, that are democrats are Reagan democrats. Ohio is a rust-belt, working-class state.

Ohio is not San Francisco.


Do everyone a favor, go research into similar polls of the past and compare those to the GE turnouts ... it doesn't happen on the scales the polls suggest.
Just because you have no proof to your assertions does not mean other people need to research, it means you need to research.

You have provided not a shred of current evidence that Obama will win a majority of independent voters in the general election. Not one bit.

You have incorrectly stated that more Obama supporters would not vote for Clinton then Clinton supporters that would not support Obama, even with clear evidence against your opinion.

Yet you believe I need to research. Wow. Amazing logic!


I was actually thinking more along the lines of an idiot who can't discern fact from spin.
I think people around here post this for that sort of statement:
Pot/kettle.

I may not have done that right, but you get it. "The pot calling the kettle black.".


Have to love the "src plz" lazy bastards pull out when they can't get out of the wet paper bag they stumbled into.
Pardon? Did you not also ask me for sourcing and to backup my post on indepnedents (uh-oh, I spelled that wrong, which means my whole post is mute to you!), which I did?

That makes you one of those "lazy bastards pull out when they can't get out of the wet paper bag they stumbled into" by your own words.

Lets look at actual campaigning in Florida:
Clinton:
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
8 p.m., Appearance in Davie, FL.

Tuesday, December 25, 2007
Time N/A, Debate in Orlando, FL.

Sunday, October 21, 2007
6 p.m., Fundraiser in Miami, FL.

Monday, September 10, 2007
4 p.m., Meeting in Boca Raton, FL.

Sunday, September 9, 2007
Time N/A, Debate in Coral Gables, FL.

Monday, August 27, 2007
3:30 p.m., Forum in Orlando, FL.

Sunday, July 22, 2007
Noon, Appearance in Miami Beach, FL.

Saturday, June 30, 2007
9 a.m., Fundraiser in Miami, FL.
1:15 p.m., Appearance in Lake Buena Vista, FL.
3 p.m., Forum in Lake Buena Vista, FL.

Friday, June 29, 2007
Time N/A, Fundraiser in Jacksonville, FL.
Time N/A, Fundraiser in Miami, FL.

Monday, May 21, 2007
9 a.m., Meeting in Miami, FL.
10 a.m., Speech in Miami Beach, FL.

Saturday, March 31, 2007
Time N/A, Fundraiser in Palm Beach, FL.
Time N/A, Fundraiser in Pinecrest, FL.

Obama:
Tuesday, December 25, 2007
Time N/A, Debate in Orlando, FL.

Monday, November 5, 2007
6 p.m., Fundraiser in Sarasota, FL.
6 p.m., House Party in Sarasota, FL.

Sunday, September 9, 2007
Time N/A, Debate in Coral Gables, FL.

Saturday, August 25, 2007
3 p.m., Party Event in Miami, FL.
6 p.m., Fundraiser in Miami Beach, FL.

Friday, August 24, 2007
Noon, Rally in Tallahassee, FL.
7:10 p.m., Party Event in Tallahassee, FL.

Sunday, July 22, 2007
Time N/A, Speech in Miami Beach, FL.

Saturday, June 30, 2007
3 p.m., Forum in Lake Buena Vista, FL.

Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Time N/A, Fundraiser in Miami, FL.
Time N/A, Fundraiser in Jacksonville, FL.

Sunday, April 15, 2007
Time N/A, Fundraiser in Tampa, FL.

Sunday, March 25, 2007
Time N/A, Fundraiser in West Palm Beach, FL.

Saturday, March 24, 2007
Time N/A, Fundraiser in Miami, FL.
Time N/A, Fundraiser in Hallandale Beach, FL.

That's right, both did 16 events in Florida. Obama was on the ballot in Florida. Obama was known nationally. Obama lost in Florida. Lost.


In short ... use your fucking head ... and then show me where Obama campaigned in either state.
I am would use my head more, if it was not shaking at the gullibility and ignorance of an "obama-maniac". You are exactly like the rabid GW supporters, in that you are unable to see and think without being clouded by some misplaced sense of loyalty.

I think what I posted above shows that both did some fundraising and such before the non-binding pledge.

You know, the pledge that Obama broke when he ran the Feb. 5th ads that were broadcast into Florida. Oh, forgot about those? I imagine to you that breaking rules, pledges and a person's word only count if that person is not Obama.

Amazingly gullible you are.

Laughing my ass off actually.
Right, because after asking for and receiving information that backs my claims (which makes you a hypocrite with the "Have to love the "src plz" lazy bastards pull out when they can't get out of the wet paper bag they stumbled into" comment) in more then one post I give you current (published May 8th, though the polling was earlier) information and since it disproves your assertions you laugh at your own idiocy.

I can understand that from you, a citizen of "lala-land".

Now go send Obama a donation and drink a latte. You will feel better. Leave the truth in politics to the big boys.

[Back]

:aneurism:

[Gan]

holy wall o text.

:(

[Parkbandit]

Sweet Jesus Mabus.. just because you are responding to Tsa'ah, doesn't mean you have to use his tactics.

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e6/belike53/20021223_05_mistake.gif

[Mabus]

Sweet Jesus Mabus.. just because you are responding to Tsa'ah, doesn't mean you have to use his tactics.
Sometimes you have to address the Obama-maniacs on their own terms.

He posted several incorrect items, turned himself into a hypocrite and tried a few basic forum-defensive tactics.

He lost.

That said, it was a huge WoT (wall of text) to drop on the WoT dropper!
:)

[Gan]

It did give me a chuckle.


:chuckle:

[Kefka]

http://cagle.com/working/080508/sack.jpg

[Tsa`ah]

Which map would you prefer to use, the one from your imagination? If anyone lives in some "lala land" it is a person that refuses a factual map of voter totals from a previous presidential election.

You have crossed over the border from lala land to retard hills.

Using any previous election map when an incumbent candidate isn't a factor is not only unrealistic, but just plain dimwitted.


Tell you what, find and pick a map of the 2004 election showing voter totals by party from a reputable source and we can go state by state and debate each.

I guess the word "irrelevant" is beyond your grasp to comprehend.


I tried to use a map linked from a source you had used in your post (CNN). Since you trust them for sourcing for other matters that would also make you foolish, no?

Read above and buy yourself a dictionary.


The "argument" is a break down of which states are likely to voter which ways.

If that's your argument, you had best dig up every election map since the advent of televised political coverage .... your entire argument gets flushed down the shitter at that point.


If you really, really want to prove Obama has a chance in the general just prove he will win Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania. He didn't in the primaries, and the voters there are of the type that he does not poll well with.

In this election year, using FL or MI in your argument is futile. You're also using the assumption that because he didn't win the primary in OH (operation chaos) or PA that he can't win them in the general election .... which is also futile. Look back into both democratic and republican primaries of the past and just take a look at the candidates that won and lost said states and who won the general. You're using a thermometer designed test the temperature of waters for the norm in specific years, not historically.


Obama does not poll well with either group. He may not be "losing sleep" over them, but without them he will lose the general. That is plain from election data.

Again, you're using polls of the non-exit variaty that have retarded samplings to begin with ... sheep much?


Ohio will go for McCain. Believe that or not.

Well you're certainly not the first to take a look at the polls and come to retarded conclusions ... you won't be the last.


You never got the memo. No, of course not. GOP voters have been encouraged to mislead exit poll takers for about the last 9 years. That is correct. They actually have been told to lie to people taking exit polls. Figure that into your sample size.

Oy vey ... while it doesn't surprise me that there are enough religious right nut jobs out that that will lie on queue, I doubt your memo recipients could influence that many exit polls to that degree. Got anything else chuckles or should I find you an open mic night?


Campaigns are not made of iron. They do not rust. If this was a metaphor, it was a really poor one in a descriptive sense.

I didn't think anyone could sink below Clyde/PB level ... thanks for proving me wrong in this.


Obama is still going negative on Clinton.

Really? Where? Are these Fox News articles you keep digging up or is the Republican ostrich underground newsletter?


You have provided not a shred of current evidence that Obama will win a majority of independent voters in the general election. Not one bit.

And you have? You provided a national poll with a sampling of under 400 independents ... I pointed out an apples to apples comparison ... the only realistic comparison that can be made until the election short of an actual national poll of purely independents that has a sampling larger than the amount of people standing in a security line at O'hare.


You have incorrectly stated that more Obama supporters would not vote for Clinton then Clinton supporters that would not support Obama, even with clear evidence against your opinion.

What evidence? Your poll again? Clinton’s support is by far more democratic than Obamas ... you haven't disproved that. You haven’t disproved that these "Clinton" democrats will only vote for Clinton. Similar polls were out between Kerry and Dean, Mondale/Hart, Bush/Dole, Dukakis/Gore/Jackson .... those polls didn't fly come the GE ... and none of them had an independent following of any significance. That's what you're missing ... or refuse to comprehend.



Pardon? Did you not also ask me for sourcing and to backup my post on indepnedents (uh-oh, I spelled that wrong, which means my whole post is mute to you!), which I did?

Not even close … and it’s independents … way to fuck it up …. again.


That makes you one of those "lazy bastards pull out when they can't get out of the wet paper bag they stumbled into" by your own words.

......

That's right, both did 16 events in Florida. Obama was on the ballot in Florida. Obama was known nationally. Obama lost in Florida. Lost.

You are aware that fundraising wasn't prohibited don't you? On 12/1/07 the DNC ruled against MI and FL for their primary moves, stripped them of delegates and restricted any candidate from campaigning. They didn't rule out fundraising since such events had already been scheduled.

The big thing you’re missing is that Obama stuck to traditional fund raising. There aren’t any eyebrow raising tactics on his part or the part of those holding the events. Obama steered clear of FL outside of scheduled fundraisers.

Clinton on the other hand (outside of the insurance legislation that was purely a campaign effort) fell back on the Clintonism of “that depends on what your definition of “is” is. Holding a “telephone” fundraiser in 800 homes across FL where the issue of campaigning could be skirted (the day before the primary) encouraging people to bring as little as a buck to hear her campaign message over the phone lines … well that’s not campaigning.

I think you need to do a little research into the facts.



I am would use my head more, if it was not shaking at the gullibility and ignorance of an "obama-maniac". You are exactly like the rabid GW supporters, in that you are unable to see and think without being clouded by some misplaced sense of loyalty.

When all of the candidates threw their hats into the ring I had but one absolute … and that was Clinton getting my vote had less than a snowball’s chance. McCain had my vote purely based on his character that I remembered from the 2k primaries and pretty much everything prior to it. McCain has lost my vote because he lost his character. McCain took my vote and handed it to Obama. I have never followed any candidate blindly until this point and have no plans on doing so after this point. It’s not so much that I’m some kind of Obama freak. I have contributed to his campaign three times now … but I also contributed to McCains at the start. I certainly don’t agree with everything that comes out of Obama’s mouth, nor do I believe he’s capable of achieving half of what he promises … but I believe him to be the best choice out of everyone on the field …. Enough to have spent 5 days in OH prior to the TX/OH primaries.


You know, the pledge that Obama broke when he ran the Feb. 5th ads that were broadcast into Florida. Oh, forgot about those? I imagine to you that breaking rules, pledges and a person's word only count if that person is not Obama.

Obama didn’t break any pledge. Maybe if you would actually investigate your claims you would know that he purchased a national add and specifically requested FL and MI exclusion … both CNN and MSNBC said it would be impossible to exclude specific markets on a national network.

Maybe you should stop being a retard and read an article …http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0108/8019.html …. And please take not of …
Rep. Robert Wexler (D-Fla.) said on the call that the Clinton complaint was “both silly and a bit of an exaggeration” given that both candidates will appear on a two-hour debate on CNN, available to cable viewers in Florida.


Now go send Obama a donation and drink a latte. You will feel better. Leave the truth in politics to the big boys.

Well … I’ve sent the campaign three checks totaling under three hundred. I could probably just max the donation, but then it wouldn’t be a people’s campaign now would it? It’s not like he’s hurting for more as it is.

No thanks on the latté … I’ve been cutting down on the caffeine. Having that much of an edge on a mental midget masquerading as a political “big boy” would be similar to challenging a bunch of downs kids to a spelling bee. At least this way you’re not as disadvantaged …. You move up to “kid in a padded helmet”.


Sometimes you have to address the Obama-maniacs on their own terms.

He posted several incorrect items, turned himself into a hypocrite and tried a few basic forum-defensive tactics.

He lost.

That said, it was a huge WoT (wall of text) to drop on the WoT dropper!

I take it back, even without the caffeine, it’s like challenging a downs kid to a spelling bee. Keep telling yourself that … eventually you will believe it.

[Parkbandit]

Jesus fucking Christ. If you need 1600+ words to communicate on a message board.. you are trying too hard. Hopefully Mabus will read it and give us the Crib notes.

[Tsa`ah]

If the big words hurt your head .... do as you usually do ... googledouchebag, big fucking gif and repeat until you get off. No one really expects any more from you.

[Parkbandit]

Holy shit.. I googled "Googledouchebag" and your name came up!

Googledouchebag is defined as being a Tsa'ah!

[Tsa`ah]

Holy shit.. I googled "Googledouchebag" and your name came up!

Googledouchebag is defined as being a Tsa'ah!

Case in point.

[Clove]

http://punditkitchen.wordpress.com/files/2008/05/political-pictures-hillary-clinton-accepting-defeat.jpg

[Gan]

http://cagle.com/working/080508/sack.jpg

Outstanding :lol:

[Latrinsorm]

What I don't get about that cartoon is why someone thought it was necessary to write "Hillary" on the car. Who else would it be?

[Tsa`ah]

Delusional stalker?

[Daniel]

What I don't get about that cartoon is why someone thought it was necessary to write "Hillary" on the car. Who else would it be?

I don't know; ask PB who Bush might have been talking about in Israel.

[CrystalTears]

I don't know; ask PB who Bush might have been talking about in Israel.
:lol:

I'm sorry PB, but that was fucking funny.

[Mabus]

Jesus fucking Christ. If you need 1600+ words to communicate on a message board.. you are trying too hard. Hopefully Mabus will read it and give us the Crib notes.
Cliff Notes:
Tsa`ah is an idiot that cannot suport his claims and never admits when he is wrong.

Happy to oblige!
;)

[Parkbandit]

:lol:

I'm sorry PB, but that was fucking funny.

It was... no need to apologize. I'm so used to laughing AT Daniel.. that this was a nice change of pace to laugh WITH him.

[Keller]

I'll bite. What about 1/2 million silver?

I'm here to collect, Mr. Clove.

[Keller]

John McCain will not energize the radical christians like Dubya has in the last 2 elections. McCain will get swift-boated for his: hawkishness, being the neo-cons hand-picked successor, being too socially liberal -- just to name a few. He will lose every debate to Obama. Not because Obama is a more sincere (whether genuine sincerity or not) speaker, but because Obama is the clear media favorite. If Obama was the media favorite against Clinton, do you think there is any question who will get the more favorable treatment between Obama and McCain? Further, the extended primary has undercut the republican's ability to pull an October surprise. I'm not saying there aren't skeletons left in Obama's closet, I'm suggesting that had Wright been pulled out in October instead of February -- Obama would have been hurt a hell of a lot more. I think by the time November rolls around, Wright will be minor distraction compared to the catastrophe he would have been had he been introduced in October. Plus, I think Obama has forced many of the more apathetic voters (but candidly, still Obamaniacs) to actually register to vote in the primaries.

Mabus, can I get an apology yet?

[Daniel]

I'm here to collect, Mr. Clove.

If I didn't want to enjoy my day off I'd find all the posts from Clove saying that A) Obama was getting to get swept out of the election because of the primary season and B) That he wasn't in the bag for McCain early.

I love all how the R-team comes off as circle jerking in this thread "OMG you're so right! McCain r going to kick azz!!! U so stupid if you think otherwise!!!11".

Of course, now they want to move on and not discuss the election anymore.

Oh! and it was impossible to predict that Obama would win because we were all obvious slobbing on his balls the entire time

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

Mabus, can I get an apology yet?

Get help for your gambling problem!!1

[Keller]

enjoy my day off

One of the only things I hate about DC is that I am constantly reminded of all of the stupid holidays federal employees get off.

FUCK SHIT DECURSE!

[Daniel]

Lol. Having a tuesday off is retarded.

[Keller]

Lol. Having a tuesday off is retarded.

Didn't you bitches have yesterday off, too?

[Daniel]

No. This is the government.

[Keller]

No. This is the government.

I have a buddy in DHS who had yesterday off, too. Maybe he just took a personal day for a 4-day weekend.

[Daniel]

That's possible too.

It's also DHS.

[Tsa`ah]

I love a good coconut custard pie. The only thing I love more, outside of the obvious, is being right.

Mabus isn't likely to respond in any event. He went sandy mangina and put anyone that frequently pointed out how he was wrong on ignore.

[CrystalTears]

Mabus isn't likely to respond in any event. He went sandy mangina and put anyone that frequently pointed out how he was wrong on ignore.So basically everyone on the PC...

[Keller]

I'll bite. What about 1/2 million silver?

bumpity for mah silvers