2008 U.S. Presidential Election - Primaries

[mr_pikachu]

With Super Tuesday (February 5th) fast approaching, I figured it was time we had a topic to discuss this all-important nomination process.

Both the Republican and Democratic sides are engaging in heated battles for the top spot in their parties. Now that Fred Thompson has officially thrown in the towel, the main Republican hopefuls appear to be John McCain, Mitt Romney, and Mike Huckabee. According to the delegate scorecard on CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/scorecard/), the former two candidates split wins in Nevada and South Carolina on the 19th, and both will be looking to carry the momentum into the critical Florida primary on the 29th. Following a fast start in Iowa, Huckabee has fallen back with no more than five delegates won from any state since.

While he led the national polls for awhile, declining to campaign in many of the first several states appears to have been a critical blunder for Rudy Giuliani. RealClearPolitics (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/) (which, in my opinion, is one of the very few sites that actually tries to be somewhat impartial) now shows McCain leading the party nationally by anywhere from 4% to 14%. While Ron Paul has campaigned more, his message has not resonated with voters and he has accumulated only six delegates. Unless Huckabee (29 delegates) or Giuliani (2 delegates) can pick up the pace quickly, this could become a two-man race between McCain (38 delegates) and Romney (73 delegates).

The Democratic race is already much clearer, which only three candidates appearing to have any semblance of a chance. The two leaders, Hillary Clinton (218 delegates) and Barack Obama (127 delegates) currently hold an advantage over John Edwards (53 delegates). Following Obama's nine-point win in Iowa, Clinton has garnered more votes in New Hampshire and Nevada (but has earned fewer delegates in each state). With Michigan and Florida penalized for holding their primaries early, South Carolina's 45 delegates are the last at risk before Super Tuesday.

Despite currently holding the lead in estimated delegates, the shaky Clinton campaign may need help regaining its footing. A solid win on Saturday could help her do just that. A big win for Obama, however, could swing the national polls in his favor. Edwards is also looking for a score tomorrow; too many further losses could force him out of the race early.

So what do you think? What do you think about my analysis and that of other, slightly more famous political commentators? Who has the best chance to move on and make the big November contest? And who will you be voting for in the coming rounds (or, if you can't vote, who would you support)? This is your chance to speak up, so let your voice be heard!

[Roy Karrde]

I have to say, and with all Political opinion aside, the Democrats are looking like a blood bath right now. While it sure is entertaining to watch the debates in which Hillary and Obama really tear eachother apart. The Republicans are kind of going slow and civilized while Obama pretty much calls Hillary a whore for Wal Mart, and Hillary calls Obama a slimy bastard.

What I do find interesting is that I cannot really remember a blood bath like this ever in American Politics. And when you add Race and Sex to it, I have to wonder if one or the other will go third party and believe they can win the White House that way if they lose the nomination.

Either way, it is shaping up that both parties will have their first showdown in August at the Convention. Something that hasn't happened since like the 60s.

[Heald]

As a non-American, my opinion means little, but I'll offer some points to consider.

First of all, it is now less than a year until the worst president in the history of America (at least according to the international community and not white right-wing Christian nutjobs) makes his exit, so I guess that is one good thing that will happen this time next year.

Out of the Democrats, I'd really like to see Edwards as president, even though at the moment it seems extremely unlikely. The Democrats are desperate to make history by either having the first black or female president. It seems that the Democrat voters are voting more on race and sex than issues, as Roy Karrde says. That's why I like Edwards: he takes the bullshit out of it.

The Republicans are a different bag altogether. The only real serious candidates are Giuliani, Huckabee, McCain and Romney. From what I have seen from Huckabee and Romney, in my opinion they are both completely nuts and absolutely unelectable. They're both right-wing religious overzealous nutjobs. They're both hypocrites, and, most importantly, they're both more intelligent yet crazier than Bush. If at the end of 2008, either Huckabee or Romney were elected as President, I'd start building a bomb shelter, because having someone as crazy as either as those two in charge of the world's most powerful armed forces will lead to disaster.

McCain is the most level-headed out of the hardcore Republican candidates, but at 71, he is really too old to be President. The role of President takes its toll, and it really will be a trial.

I guess Giuliani would be my favourite out of the Republicans: at least, unlike Romney or Huckabee, he is motivated more by common sense than the religious right and he recognises the changing perspectives of the world. For example, Romney and Huckabee believe 'God hates fags' and believe in the outrageous and ludicrious theory of creationism, whereas Giuliani recognises that the LGBT demographic is important and is willing to accommodate their beliefs, instead of shunning them as freaks and outsiders.

[Clark]

Switzerland - Swiss Cheese.
I see nothing out of any of these candidates, I'll probably be more inclined to vote Republican. I will never vote for a black or a woman. Especially Hussein or Clinton.
Rudy is complete trash.
My vote would go to McCain or Paul. Though if Edwards manages to pull it off, he'll nab my vote, since the majority of the Republicans are completely idiotic.

[Roy Karrde]

Heald you mind telling me where you believe that Romney is part of the Religous Right. I mean you do know he is a Morman, which means the Christian Right does not want anything to do with him. As for being a right-wing religious overzealous nutjobs. He has done his best to make sure to take his religon out of the debate, since that was a major issue originally.

While he doesn't support Gay Marriage ( Something I disagree with him with ). His previous actions certainly show that he doesn't believe Gays are evil or anything like that.

And I do have to disagree with you in that McCain is the most level headed one. I mean especially when he was caught singing "Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-zoPgv_nYg

One thing I would like to bring up, and I am not sure if you know about this Heald. Is that the two major defining issues in the US right now are Illegal Immigration, and the Economy. All the Republicans except McCain has come out in support of stopping Illegal Immigration, and Rudy and Romney have proven to have past experience working with turning around economies. The three Democrat front runners, Edwards, Clinton, and Obama. Neither have the economic experience, and have supported some form of Amnesty.

So how do you, or anyone else that wants to respond, believe that the Democrat Nominee will combat Romney or Guiliani's years of experience with the economy?

[mr_pikachu]

Okay, I've given my technical analysis; now for my personal opinions.

This is an odd year, because while I lean a little to the right (more on economic than social policy), I'm actually very hesitant about many of the Republican candidates. Huckabee's done everything he can to avoid talking about the issues during the debates - the "I did this" evasion gets old after the first eight times. Ron Paul seems outright nuts to me in more ways than one, and it's irrelevant since he's not getting the nomination anyway. Giuliani might be a good choice if he actually had a snowball's chance of winning. McCain's a strange choice, because while I agree with most of his calls on the war, in everything else he's basically a Democrat. That leaves Romney as the only decent choice for me.

The other side is simpler. Hillary outright scares me, and Edwards seems way too conniving somehow. I don't agree with many of Obama's positions, but at least he seems like he has some semblance of honor. That's more than I can say for many of the Republicans, really.

This leaves an interesting series of potential choices come November. Should Hillary or Edwards get the Democratic nod, I'll vote for anyone who opposes them (except maybe Paul). But if Obama wins it, my final vote depends on who he's facing. If it's Romney, I'll stick with him. Paul would probably prompt a Democratic vote, and even Huckabee might do the same. I'm unsure about McCain and Giuliani at this point, too.

Gotta love scenario politics. It's like watching a baseball playoff race.


EDIT: Roy, let me remind you that Hillary's claiming to have 35 years of experience in politics. Enough said.

[Roy Karrde]

EDIT: Roy, let me remind you that Hillary's claiming to have 35 years of experience in politics. Enough said.

You do bring up a good point, she does rely on saying she has 35 years of experience. Although really I am shocked that Obama hasn't called her out on it, saying that 8 of her years were focused around decorating the white house, attending rubber chicken dinners, and visiting heads of state. And the next 6 years she was a unremarkable Senator who really has done nothing special.

[mr_pikachu]

I think he's hesitant to call her on it because he doesn't have an expanse of experience either. Besides, she's doing a good enough job of damaging herself right now. Changing the subject like that would distract voters from her self-destruction. She was supposed to be virtually unchallenged at this point, after all... the biggest reason she's in a fight is herself. Why give her a way out?

As it stands right now, both of them know that calling the other one out will result in a damaging counterattack. That leaves them with a natural stalemate. But we might see ads on the experience subject around the 3rd or so, for obvious reasons.

[DarkTemplarZero]

Although Hillary visited my high school recently and that softened up my opinion of her, I still think that she's become the Democratic Bush and really, the last thing the country needs is another divisive president, even if IMO Hillary's on the right side of the divide. Edwards is more liberal and closer to my own views, and plus Edwards isn't the kind of candidate who you either vehemently support or emphatically oppose. Plus, his ideas for health care and education are really what the Democratic Party should be all about, but unfortunately that doesn't draw the press as well. Add to that the fact that Edwards boycotts Fox News and you have the perfect candidate for me to vote for. Obama's a good guy, I can't deny that he's charismatic, but his short stint in the Senate is not nearly enough experience in national politics for him to be a viable option. And as for the Republicans, well, everybody knows my opinion of conservatives. Huckabee's a joke who's opinions are laughable and his only press comes from Chuck Norris and Colbert, Thompson should've just stuck to Law and Order where I only thought of him as a minor douchebag, Paul is just a retard who advocates returning the US to cerca 1912, because nothing important has happened since then. If I had to vote for a Republican, I'd go with Romney, as disturbing as that seems, because Giuliani's foreign policy stances scare the shit out of me.

[Katie]

This is the first presidential election I've ever paid any "real" attention to (cuz I can actually vote in it :cool: ) and I'm kind of stumped on who I support.


I liked Bill, but I'm not sure if I like Hillary. I keep seeing all this "oh god, Hillary will be the death of us all" but I have yet to see anyone back this up with anything, really. Then again the place where I keep seeing that is mostly Facebook so whatever.

I like Obama, I agree with him on most every hot-button issue, but I've got no clue how his "lack of experience" will affect things. I think it's terrible that this guy will probably lose a lot of support due to so many people being naive and judgmental based on his goddamn name, of all things. My boyfriend swore up and down Obama was Muslim before I showed him like 10 sources that said otherwise.

Edwards is alright. I agree with less stuff with him than the other two Dems, but it's still a hell of a lot more than with any Republican. He doesn't have as great a chance as the others either, so I haven't given him much thought. I should though.


Out of the Republicans I keep flipping between Romney, McCain, and Giuliani but everytime I do I get so frustrated because I hate them all equally. Huckabee is a chump, Paul is just weird and stupid, and if Thompson magically gets it I'm packing up and leaving.


So... long story short I like Obama, but if Clinton or Edwards get the nom I'll still vote for them.


Also, here're some links that are fun to see who you most agree with. They shouldn't be taken as your only research before voting by any means, but they're still kind of neat:
http://www.electoralcompass.com/
http://www.wqad.com/Global/link.asp?L=259460

[Blademaster]

My vote goes to the cheese. It's very qualified.

[Dark-San]

I am an official outsider, hence a no- say to whichever the choice the Americans made to be their next president. However from the way I looked at it, it is pretty cool to have your next president, making history as in being the first African American or woman to be swore in. After all, either way whether it swings towards Obama or Clinton, it still lives up America policy on freedom.

A point to note that you do not choose your next leader based on his experience or charisma. It is more based on how he/she tackles the increasing number of problems in which the strongest nation is now facing. First what they have to do is to deal with the sub- mortgage crisis. Your country's state of economy affects the performance of other foreign markets. And when US does goes into recession, the whole world's economic situation really flops over.

For now, Singapore's stock market took a slight dip. We are kind of fortunate since we are cushioned by China's boom. If happens, preferably choose your next president that has the power to push for economic reforms that could propels much boost not just the US market but also Asia's.

[Roy Karrde]

Well Obama has won South Carolina, or atleast that is what Fox News is reporting. Hillary and Edwards is still up in the air though.

[Houndoom_Lover]

Super Tuesday is the day before my birthday! I know I'm not yet legal to vote, but if I was, I just wouldn't know who to vote for...there are SO many!

Obama kinda...bothers me. He's a flip flopper with not much to say, John is basic, and Hilary is a woman. I kinda like Huckabee, with his running mate as Colbert, right? ^-^ Roooar, maybe Mike will get to sick to rule after he gets elected. XD What an unfortunet last name...hucking a bee!

-gives a sigh-

Hmm, hmmm....

Oh! Yes, Obama seems to be dominating. John Titor will strike out again?

[mr_pikachu]

Obama wins in SC, regaining momentum (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080127/ap_on_el_pr/south_carolina_primary)

With an extraordinarily huge victory, Barack Obama has taken back a measure of control over the Democratic race and now looks like a daunting foe for Clinton on Super Tuesday.

I think one particular statistic is important for both parties:


The exit polls showed the economy was the most important issue in the race. About one quarter picked health care. And only one in five said it was the war in Iraq, underscoring the extent to which the once-dominant issue has faded in the face of financial concerns.

If the war in Iraq is no longer an important issue on the left side of the aisle, that could spell trouble for the Democrats. That has been a sort of rallying point for the party over the past few years; if they no longer have that driving force to motivate voters, the general election could be quite difficult.

[Roy Karrde]

If the war in Iraq is no longer an important issue on the left side of the aisle, that could spell trouble for the Democrats. That has been a sort of rallying point for the party over the past few years; if they no longer have that driving force to motivate voters, the general election could be quite difficult.

The war in Iraq has stopped being a issue ever since around October, when good news started drifting out of Iraq and news stories could no longer deny that the surge was working and Iraq was stabalizing, people stopped caring about it.

One thing I am surprised about that poll is that usually Illegal Immigration takes a first or second place vote as the most important issue, up there with the economy. I guess South Carolina is far enough away from the border not to be truely effected by it.

[mr_pikachu]

One thing I am surprised about that poll is that usually Illegal Immigration takes a first or second place vote as the most important issue, up there with the economy. I guess South Carolina is far enough away from the border not to be truely effected by it.

You make a good point, but keep in mind that illegal immigration is more of a Republican issue than a Democratic one. On the left side, it isn't viewed as nearly as much of a problem as it is on the right.

[firepokemon]

Being a New Zealander I've been watching Fox News. While we have CNN and BBC they're just so boring to listen to so I prefer Fox News. Our national broadcaster has their correspondent in the United States while their competitor is having ABC and CBS news items on the election. Thus my news gathering is limited and am too busy to read newspapers.

But I like Clinton, I think she would be good for the international community and I just see Obama as representing one of those figures in Frank Capra films of the 1940s such as "Meet John Doe", who rally the crowds but ultimately ends up just like any of them. John Edwards is a fool.

On the republican side, I don't get Huckabee, in NZ he wouldn't stand a chance, like any other religious person. We don't like religion in politics. I couldn't even tell you what this guy stands for it isn't very clear. Romney could win the republican party nominee, but I don't like him. Hes taken the ultimate u-turn and I don't think he is electable. Guliani was so arrogant when he first announced hes going for the Presidency, his failure to even get third placements in the early primaries is really pathetic and I love John McCain.

Which, is funny because McCain is in favour of the war but I think hes principled far beyond any other republican candidate.

So we have a Clinton V McCain President race, I want Clinton to win, I think she is winnable even though she has so many negatives against her.

I don't get why Obama continues to be treated so well in the media, he is getting a free ride, I see him continuing to get a free ride, and like I said earlier, hes like those 40s era films where they feared facism, where a normal person rallys the people but then has facist tendencies, hes a good talker, but is he trustworthy? I just don't think so.

Watching Fox News is funny because they say their fair and balanced, but everything from Fox and Friends to the Big Story, Bill O'reily, Hannity and Colmes has negative things about Clinton and Hannity may pretend to like McCain but his real venom does show. They also tend to be way too simplistic in some of their analogy but its watchable, I can't stand the thing yet I watch it constantly.

I look to McCain picking up the major primary votes Feb 5th and the same for Clinton. But to be honest I don't totally get America's primary contests.

In the democratic primaries how are they distributed, and are some primaries both democratic and republic distributed by certain areas in america's state. I suppose I could look it up but whatever.

Karrde is illegal immigration even a republican issue anymore? It seems to be republican issues are the economy and Hilary Clinton. It won't even be a national issue I don't think.

[Roy Karrde]

Karrde is illegal immigration even a republican issue anymore? It seems to be republican issues are the economy and Hilary Clinton. It won't even be a national issue I don't think.

Illegal Immigration ranks as Number 2 on the Republican issues. I guess I forgot that there would be two reasons why it would be a Democrat Issue. A: Most Democrats live in the North where Illegal Immigrants is just starting to reach them. B: Democrats are hoping to legalize a majority of the Illegal Immigrants in hopes that they will vote Democrat. Which is why things like a Boarder Fence, and Voter ID cards which would curb Illegal voting, are met with stiff opposition by the Democrats.

Also I think you underestimate the hatred for Hillary Clinton. She gets over 50% in the negatives and that is before the Republicans remind the nation of what it was really like during the Clinton Administration.

In other words, if Hillary were nominated, for every Democrat that comes to vote for her ( And dont count on the Black Vote, the biggest vote for Democrats ). You will get atleast 2 Republicans to vote for her.

[Blademaster]

I find it amusing that the cheese is winning the poll so far. Go, cheese. :patriot:

[firepokemon]

I've been watching Fox News for a few weeks now and they are not mentioning immigration. Romney prior to the Michagan primary was talking up immigration since then it hasn't been an issue. Immigration is not a big topic anymore.

The blacks will go back to the Clintons I'm quite sure of that and I think Clinton is quite capable of winning the whitehouse particularly if Romney is the nominee. Since if we go by the polls Guliani is out.

[Roy Karrde]

I've been watching Fox News for a few weeks now and they are not mentioning immigration. Romney prior to the Michagan primary was talking up immigration since then it hasn't been an issue. Immigration is not a big topic anymore.

I take it you havn't watched the Republican Debates then? It was brought up quite a few times during the Florida Debates.


The blacks will go back to the Clintons I'm quite sure of that and I think Clinton is quite capable of winning the whitehouse particularly if Romney is the nominee. Since if we go by the polls Guliani is out.

Why do you think Romney would lose against Clinton? He speaks the right talk about Illegal Immigrants, and he has the experience on the Economy. Two things that Clinton is lacking right now. As for the blacks, remember that if she wins, she will have taken away the chance of the first Black Cannidate to really have a chance to win the White House. Not to mention the way Clinton acts to Obama is making Blacks see what Republicans have seen for years. That she is a sleezy, evil, manipulative bitch!

[Jeff]

So Super Tuesday is Feb. 5th? Maryland's primary isn't until the 12th, it's like we're showing up late to the party. So I'll be voting after "America has decided", I might as well write in Swiss Cheese, especially now that Giulilani doesn't seem to stand a chance anymore. As for the democrats, all I have to say is that I'm glad I'm registered as a republican, that way I don't have to pick any of them, they all scare me. If I was a registered democrat, I'd either stay home or vote for Swiss Cheese.

There is another reason for me to be voting in the primary though. The whole state's been keeping its eyes on our District 1 Republican primary race for Congress, which happens to be my district. The basic overview of the race is that incumbent Wayne Gilchrest has been accused of being "too liberal" and has been challenged by State Senator Andy Harris, who's mostly a social conservative, and State Senator E.J. Pipkin, who's mostly a fiscal conservative. My take on the race is that given our governor's recent tax hikes including an increase in the sales tax from 5% to 6% (being a cashier, I get to hear about that one alot :P), Pipkin's fiscal conservatism and the fact that he viciously opposed said tax hikes will help him in the race. At least that's what I hope since that's who I'm supporting. :yes:

[Dark Scizor]

If only I had the Apocalypse '08 picture I believe Heald had back in 2004.

I'd be more inclined to make a serious post if I actually knew much about American politics and knew each of the candidates and their policies. Alas, I don't know much about american politics, this years candidates or what they're on about. I really couldn't give a gyp at the moment.

[Heald]

I actually made this image in '04. Haha.

http://content.ytmnd.com/content/7/3/f/73fdc9b19bd0e61cef166199d0208592.jpg

To be honest, all the Republicans but Giuliani are unelectable. Huckabee and Romney are completely out-of-touch (Romney greets Black people by singing Who Let The Dogs Out (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0H8Nq7BglIg)). Hell, I like McCain. I like the fact he isn't afraid to take a stand against some of the grassroots Conservative issues, but he is really, really old. I liked him in his various appearances on the Daily Show, but you can't rule over the world's biggest superpower when you're 71 (or 72 if he actually took office).

On the other hand, I don't mind any of the Democrat candidates. Barack is slightly young and inexperienced, but people thought that of JFK when he was running for presidency. There is also a parallel that some Americans are wary for Obama because he's black, whereas people were wary of JFK because he was Catholic, yet in the end, JFK's unexpectedly short presidency is looked upon favourably in retrospect.

I'm not Clinton's biggest fan, but I don't by the Republican propaganda, mainly because it is unsubstantiated and just childish (ranging from Hillary = Communism to Hillary = France). She may not be that experienced, but she does have the benefit of witnessing one of the best Presidents of the latter-half of the 20th century in action. Bill Clinton's expertise that Hillary can and will draw from is something that could benefit America and the international community again, and to be honest, I would have preferred 16 years of Bill rather than 8 of Bill and 8 of Dubya. Despite the Republican propaganda, Bill did a good job, and no matter what the idiotic claims I've seen in this thread and other threads regarding politics, the most die-hard of conservative nutjobs cannot deny that his presidency was a good thing, whereas the current president will go down in the history books as one of the worst presidents America has ever had.

I would really like to see Obama win it too. He may be young, but he is bringing young voters and black people who would otherwise not vote back to the table.

[Roy Karrde]

To be honest, all the Republicans but Giuliani are unelectable. Huckabee and Romney are completely out-of-touch

You know what is funny? That that is exactly what Republicans are saying about Democrats. That Hillary and Obama are completely unelectable and that both are out of touch on issues like the Economy and Illegal Immigration.



I'm not Clinton's biggest fan, but I don't by the Republican propaganda, mainly because it is unsubstantiated and just childish

I heard about this article on the radio coming in this morning, its a pretty good read from a very liberal editor.

Is the right right on the Clintons (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-chait26jan26,0,7890763.column)

[Heald]

You know what is funny? That that is exactly what Republicans are saying about Democrats. That Hillary and Obama are completely unelectable and that both are out of touch on issues like the Economy and Illegal Immigration.I'm not sure about illegal immigration, but having liberal views on the economy does not make them out of touch. It is pledging stupid publicity stunt promises to idiots such as the Americans for Tax Reform group that makes people out of touch on the economy.

I heard about this article on the radio coming in this morning, its a pretty good read from a very liberal editor.

Is the right right on the Clintons (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-chait26jan26,0,7890763.column)It's a good read, but it doesn't really change much. Here in Britain, all politicians do is lie and insult each other. We're nearly as corrupt as the Italians. A little name-calling and fibbing is more of a character issue rather than whether someone makes a good president.

[Roy Karrde]

I'm not sure about illegal immigration, but having liberal views on the economy does not make them out of touch. It is pledging stupid publicity stunt promises to idiots such as the Americans for Tax Reform group that makes people out of touch on the economy.

Sorry I misphrased that. Basically I mean that the Democrats do not have any experience when it comes to the economy. Obama, Clinton, and Edwards have never run a company or city or even a state. They just do not have the experience when it comes to how to manage a economy unlike say Rudy or Romney.


It's a good read, but it doesn't really change much. Here in Britain, all politicians do is lie and insult each other. We're nearly as corrupt as the Italians. A little name-calling and fibbing is more of a character issue rather than whether someone makes a good president.

We're used to lying here, but not insulting eachother. The Clintons have perfected the method of being sleezy scum bags when it comes to elections. Republicans have known it for years becuase we have been on the recieving end of their underhanded tactics. Many Democrats like to dismiss it or forget about it, but now that the Clintons have turned their ways onto other Democrats. Democrats are starting to wake up and go "Hey, maybe the Republicans were right when it comes to the Clintons."

[Heald]

Sorry I misphrased that. Basically I mean that the Democrats do not have any experience when it comes to the economy. Obama, Clinton, and Edwards have never run a company or city or even a state. They just do not have the experience when it comes to how to manage a economy unlike say Rudy or Romney.I'd agree with you there. That's why I like Rudy.

We're used to lying here, but not insulting eachother. The Clintons have perfected the method of being sleezy scum bags when it comes to elections. Republicans have known it for years becuase we have been on the recieving end of their underhanded tactics. Many Democrats like to dismiss it or forget about it, but now that the Clintons have turned their ways onto other Democrats. Democrats are starting to wake up and go "Hey, maybe the Republicans were right when it comes to the Clintons."
True, the Clintons are sleazy, but people buy into that. They get free publicity for doing jack-all. Look at Bill; he got a blowjob and got loads of free publicity!

[Roy Karrde]

True, the Clintons are sleazy, but people buy into that. They get free publicity for doing jack-all. Look at Bill; he got a blowjob and got loads of free publicity!

I think people buy into it when it is being done to people that are of the different idiological spectrum. Yet when they start doing it to their own then people start to see it as underhanded tactics. Which is why I seriously do not see the Black vote coming out for Hillary in this election. If her sleezy tactics take the election away from possibly the first Black President, people will just not turn out in mass to vote for some one who has instructed her groups to leak questions about Obama being a drug dealer.

[Toxicity]

As a Floridian, I'll admit that I'm still unsure of my political stance in this race.

My issue with this race is that I want somebody who can prove that he can get the job done with the current state of Congress, yet at the same time is likable in the eyes of a good majority of Americans; I saw the potential in Fred Thompson (not to be confused with the evil Jack Thompson), but sadly he's officially dropping the candidacy. After hearing that, I held onto the next candidate I'd choose - Obama.

He may not be well-seasoned as Hillary has stated her entire candidacy, but I see that he voices his opinions well enough to motivate people to get out to the polls; the opinions seem to reflect the ideal interests of many voters, first time or voting for years. Of course, these opinions may stand as weak in comparison to candidates of a different nature, but I'd see him as open minded enough to change for the better. That, in my opinion, would help him if he ran in 2012 or 2016 for that matter.

But then I have to remember; I'm in Florida - any votes towards the Democratic Party will not count for the Primary. So were I to vote for a candidate, I'll be forced to think ahead. And from the consideration of Florida receiving the early vote, it may be too soon to vote for the Republican candidate who would easily be elected over Hillary or Edwards; or, rather, who'd give Obama an easy chance.

I'll just vote Obama irregardless and have it not count. There's always November.

[Roy Karrde]

You know Toxicity, even though it isnt counting toward the primary, your vote for Obama could still do alot of damage. Hillary is the only one campeigning in Florida so she is expected to win easily, if the anti Hillary vote continues and she loses Florida. Even though it wouldnt give Obama any primary votes, it would still be big news, and put a major dent in Hillary's campeign. So yeah your vote still matters.

[mr_pikachu]

You know Toxicity, even though it isnt counting toward the primary, your vote for Obama could still do alot of damage. Hillary is the only one campeigning in Florida so she is expected to win easily, if the anti Hillary vote continues and she loses Florida. Even though it wouldnt give Obama any primary votes, it would still be big news, and put a major dent in Hillary's campeign. So yeah your vote still matters.

That's a strong argument in theory; unfortunately, I doubt very many people will be looking that far ahead. The only way I can see Hillary losing Florida is if she stirs up enough fuss with her "give them back their delegates" argument. If it starts to look like Florida will indeed be counted, then Obama voters may head to the polls and she may end up with a loss. Otherwise, I think the minimal turnout we see will be the diehard pro-Hillary, anti-everyone else people.

Still, it would be funny and crippling. Can't deny that.

[Toxicity]

Now that you mention it, the results could still be a screamer to the Super Tuesday states to vote for a certain candidate.

Although if what mr_pikachu says about all for Hillary is true, I must be missing something in what I've seen in my drives throughout the state. I've only seen Obama.

[mr_pikachu]

Really? I might be getting faulty information, then. From what I've read and heard, the three main Democratic candidates (Hillary, Obama, and Edwards) all agreed not to campaign in states whose delegates had been disqualified; however, Hillary did so anyway and starting pushing for those delegates to be restored. Is that second part inaccurate? Because if it is, that changes a lot of my analysis.

[Roy Karrde]

I havn't heard anything about the Deligates being restored. Yet I know she has campeigned in *Michigan?* and Florida. Although im Michigan she did really poorly when alot of people voted for anything but her.

[mr_pikachu]

I havn't heard anything about the Deligates being restored. Yet I know she has campeigned in *Michigan?* and Florida. Although im Michigan she did really poorly when alot of people voted for anything but her.

Well, I doubt anyone thinks it'll actually happen. The protest is mostly a show of desperation on her part - ironic, because she's still technically winning the race. (Really gives you some insight into the panic within her campaign, huh? But I digress.) The delegates were DQ'd because of party rules, and I don't think even a Clinton could change that.

On a side note, I like the use of "anything" in your last sentence. They probably wished Swiss cheese was on the ballot.

[RedStarWarrior]

Obama and Huckabee...win-win in my eyes.

[firepokemon]

Roy - You are so out of touch its pathetic, I'm half way round the world from the US and even I know that immigration is no longer the issue that was. Its a republican issue and will not be a national issue, it may be an issue in southern states but those typically go to the Republicans anyway and not democrats. Romney is a fool and like Obama they're going to crash and crash fast. Both could potentially get the nominee but I guarantee you one thing, one or the other will crash and burn. Immigration may well be an issue where you live, but its not a national issue.

As for nobody in the democratic race having economic skills, thats bullshit. Stop believing the crap you're hearing. Thats why you have advisors and good advisors at that. If Clinton gets in, I would not have a worry at all, because she'll have the best team in terms of experience, Obama and Edwards on the other hand. We just don't know who'll they'll bring in. More importantly I would have thought though it isn't an issue either is that Romney doesn't have any foreign policy experience. You going to trust this man with foreign policy? Scary.

-----

Right I want to bring up Clinton. I don't agree with anything the democratic party really says, my thoughts particularly on economic issues are more in line with the republicans. But of course republicans are so conservative and hardly could be called progressive. But I want a Clinton win. Obama has enjoyed nothing but praise and good press, where are the people taking a look at what issues he wants to bring to the table, who are going to be his people in the white house and exactly what does this guy have that is so great? He is bound to burn at some stage. If its not in the democratic primary race, then its the national election, if its not that, it will be as President. Do you really want someone like him in the white house? I would think its scary.

The Clintons are a machine but they've also been manufac tured as some dirty team that enjoys nothing more than dirty politics. Obama is playing the race card and the black community is playing the race car. Clinton was right about his win in South Carolina. 53% of all blacks voted Obama.

And what is with the youth vote in the US? You people are pathetic. Obama will fail, at some stage and you lot will be responsible for that.

As for Rudy Guliani - If Rudy can't analyse the primary process in america, how the fuck is going to run as President? I mean what a fool, if he got third placements in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina and then Michigan and Nevada, he'd be on the news and his poll numbers would be up and he would have won the Florida primary and he would have won Super Tuesday and he'd prolly make it to the whitehouse. But no he couldn't even run a Primary caucus.

And what the fuck is up with Mitt Romney. Hes an abolsute slimeball. If he wins there will be plenty of dirt on him, you can be sure of that. He copies the other republicans and what they say such as his famous Michigan win where I swear he watched Huckabee closely. As for being so rude and arrogant like when he basically pushed McCain aside just so he could celebrate his Michigan win. I mean what a fucking joke. He's a bullshitter a businessman and he would ruin the republican party, I am quite sure of that.

Mike Huckabee is a christian running a godlike campaign, its disgusting and this guy doesn't seem to have any good skills whatsoever. Hes a loser.

John Edwards is another loser and I can't believe some people like Heald likes this guy.

McCain - Now theres someone with conviction, I can't agree with ever going to Iraq it was a stupid mistake that Fox News and all media really liked to propogate until it all went wrong so they decided to go down the other extreme route. If you go into Iraq you really have to stay there, because the last thing anbyone needs is Chaos. And who had the conviction and the know-how even though some republicans were going down the path pulling out troops. McCain. And don't bring up that he wanted an amnesty bill or that he didn't vote for taxes. Thats just bullshit spin from the pathetic far-right, the conservative right. The right side of politics that no other country in the world likes.

So how will the rest of the campaign go.

Whoever wins the republican Florida race will win. If McCain wins, Romney will do well but hes a moron and most americans will find that out. If Romney wins Florida, he will become even more a phoney on his pathetic economic issues (he basically said bullshit to the Michigan people) and with his money theres a good chance he wins but I don't think you can count out McCain.

As for the democratic side. Well I don't get the Clinton hate, I think its bullshit from the extremes of the democratic party. Obama will burn at some stage, you'll regret letting Clinton not wi. But to be honest I think Clinton takes Super Tuesday though with how the delegates work, it'll be a long process but that could be good for Clinton. Because Obama will one day crash.

Oh American politics how absolutely phoney, no wonder the rest of the world can't understand Americans you're so stuck on issues the rest of the world has forgotten.

[Roy Karrde]

Roy - You are so out of touch its pathetic, I'm half way round the world from the US and even I know that immigration is no longer the issue that was.

Is that why it constantly polls in the top 3 - 5 issues for this country? How about getting you stop speaking out of your ass?


it may be an issue in southern states but those typically go to the Republicans anyway and not democrats.

Illegal Immigrants have found their way all the way up to New York, which is why you are seeing so much talk about it, it is a national issue.

Besides if it was just a Republican issue, the Democrats would not have gone on Spansh Television to debate it.


Romney is a fool and like Obama they're going to crash and crash fast. Both could potentially get the nominee but I guarantee you one thing, one or the other will crash and burn.

We will see tonight for Obama.


Immigration may well be an issue where you live, but its not a national issue.

Its also a issue in places like Iowa, Kansas, Florida, New Hampshire...


As for nobody in the democratic race having economic skills, thats bullshit. Stop believing the crap you're hearing. Thats why you have advisors and good advisors at that.

We elect a President, not their advisors. With the way the Economy is right now, we do not want some one who is learning as they go when it comes to the top issue in the US.


If Clinton gets in, I would not have a worry at all, because she'll have the best team in terms of experience, Obama and Edwards on the other hand.

And what experience would she have? Being First Lady is more than a full time job.


More importantly I would have thought though it isn't an issue either is that Romney doesn't have any foreign policy experience. You going to trust this man with foreign policy? Scary.

Seeing how the issue right now is the economy, in which Romney has the most experience next to Guiliani, I think America is a bit more concerned about that.


The Clintons are a machine but they've also been manufac tured as some dirty team that enjoys nothing more than dirty politics. Obama is playing the race card and the black community is playing the race car. Clinton was right about his win in South Carolina. 53% of all blacks voted Obama.

If Clinton is bringing up Blacks then I believe she is playing the race card as a scapegoat. Also I find it halarious you accuse Obama of playing the race card today, while Hillary is going after the Hispanic vote, trying to get them to turn on the Blacks and balance it out.


And what the fuck is up with Mitt Romney. Hes an abolsute slimeball.

I am surprised he isn't your guy then. I mean you know the saying, it takes one to know one. ~.^


If he wins there will be plenty of dirt on him, you can be sure of that.

Compared to the dirt that Hillary has, Romney can run rings around her.


He copies the other republicans and what they say such as his famous Michigan win where I swear he watched Huckabee closely.

Uh huh...


As for being so rude and arrogant like when he basically pushed McCain aside just so he could celebrate his Michigan win.

If you believe that, you should hear some of the phone calls McCain is sending out about Romney. As for his speach coming the same time as McCain's, I seriously doubt there were a bunch of staffers back there going "Hee, lets get McCain and go on now". Everyone was partying and concerned about their win, and the times just sinked up.


He's a bullshitter a businessman

And yet has done amazing jobs as a buisnessman.


and he would ruin the republican party, I am quite sure of that.

Sorry you must be talking about McCain and accidently put it in the Romney stuff.


And don't bring up that he wanted an amnesty bill or that he didn't vote for taxes.

And yet it is the truth, he did bring about a amnesty bill and tried to railroad it through the Congress. The American people then spoke up and said they did not want it.

[mr_pikachu]

I honestly disagree with the majority of your post, but I do see where you're coming from in some areas. I'd like to bring up a few specific things...


immigration is no longer the issue that was. Its a republican issue and will not be a national issue, it may be an issue in southern states but those typically go to the Republicans anyway and not democrats. [...] Immigration may well be an issue where you live, but its not a national issue.

I get Roy's point of view here, as we both do live in what would be considered the southern half of the country (fairly near Mexico). It does seem like you're right that it's no longer a Democratic issue, but I think that's largely because they've pushed the issue aside in order to quell the attention. If people aren't thinking about border security, they're not going to do change the current system, and that was the typical left side of the debate anyway. If a Republican gets into office and, more importantly, if that Republican can sway Congress a bit, this issue may be brought back up on the national level. That's the concern here, I think; will it be a future issue, or will it continue to be a non-priority?


I don't agree with anything the democratic party really says, my thoughts particularly on economic issues are more in line with the republicans. But of course republicans are so conservative and hardly could be called progressive.

This is precisely why some analysts describe fiscal conservatives/liberals and social conservatives/liberals. Fiscally, I personally lean way to the right. Socially... not really. For all I know, I may be a little to the left in that category. Anyway, I definitely get what you mean there.


But I want a Clinton win. Obama has enjoyed nothing but praise and good press, where are the people taking a look at what issues he wants to bring to the table, who are going to be his people in the white house and exactly what does this guy have that is so great? He is bound to burn at some stage. If its not in the democratic primary race, then its the national election, if its not that, it will be as President. Do you really want someone like him in the white house? I would think its scary.

It seems to me that his charisma is what's attracted people to Obama thus far rather than policies in and of themselves. That's part of the problem with the Clinton strategy; she's gotten so embroiled in fighting with Obama that she's not making him prove his "change" message. It's all an abstraction thus far, with few explicit plans. And by this point it's too late... anything Hillary does or says to challenge him now probably won't affect the polls until after Super Tuesday. I'm not sure the idea of him in office is quite as scary as you say, especially since Hillary in that seat is terrifying to me. But to each his own.


The Clintons are a machine but they've also been manufac tured as some dirty team that enjoys nothing more than dirty politics. Obama is playing the race card and the black community is playing the race car. Clinton was right about his win in South Carolina. 53% of all blacks voted Obama.

Only 53%? I assumed it was a lot more. How does this prove Hillary's point, then? I mean, she's been riding the female vote thus far (particularly in New Hampshire, where she was supposed to take a double-digit loss). How is that any different than Obama leading his demographic, or for that matter, than any politician having an advantage in his own race, gender, state, etc.?

Also, I think the "dirty tactics" are largely referring to the spread of rumors, such as Obama being a drug dealer. Now, let's be fair. I assume Obama's probably engaging in some underhanded moves as well; it seems like most politicians have to use some treachery at some point, for better or worse. But I think it says something that we haven't heard about anything like that from the Obama campaign but we get it all the time from his rival. There's something to be said for tact, and that's something the Clinton campaign has seriously lacked.


As for Rudy Guliani - If Rudy can't analyse the primary process in america, how the fuck is going to run as President? I mean what a fool, if he got third placements in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina and then Michigan and Nevada, he'd be on the news and his poll numbers would be up and he would have won the Florida primary and he would have won Super Tuesday and he'd prolly make it to the whitehouse. But no he couldn't even run a Primary caucus.

Agreed. His strategy was more than insane, it was stupid. Even though he's probably the best candidate, Giuliani doesn't deserve to win the nomination.


Mike Huckabee is a christian running a godlike campaign, its disgusting and this guy doesn't seem to have any good skills whatsoever. Hes a loser.

I honestly don't have a problem with running a "godlike campaign." What worries me is, as I said before, he seems to be doing everything he can to avoid talking about the current and future issues. I don't want the president to be a guy who can't address anything without referencing the past. It's the "what have you done for me lately?" rule.


McCain - Now theres someone with conviction, I can't agree with ever going to Iraq it was a stupid mistake that Fox News and all media really liked to propogate until it all went wrong so they decided to go down the other extreme route. If you go into Iraq you really have to stay there, because the last thing anbyone needs is Chaos. And who had the conviction and the know-how even though some republicans were going down the path pulling out troops. McCain. And don't bring up that he wanted an amnesty bill or that he didn't vote for taxes. Thats just bullshit spin from the pathetic far-right, the conservative right. The right side of politics that no other country in the world likes.

McCain's views on the war are right on in my book. You're correct when you say that a sudden pull-out (like what has been proposed by some on the left) would blow up in our faces as well as everyone else's. Even a scaled withdraw would have to be done very cautiously and with great forethought. But fiscally, I disagree wholeheartedly with McCain. Like it or not, I do think he's screwed up quite a bit of stuff there; I just wish another Republican candidate looked as good as he did in terms of foreign policy.


it'll be a long process but that could be good for Clinton. Because Obama will one day crash.

I'm unsure about your situational analysis, but you're definitely right about this. The longer this goes on, the worse Obama's chances are. There's a reason they call it the Clinton machine.


Oh American politics how absolutely phoney, no wonder the rest of the world can't understand Americans you're so stuck on issues the rest of the world has forgotten.

Sorry, but this just demands a counter-comment. If it's so phony and irrelevant, why do you bother talking about it?

[Roy Karrde]

Just to set aside the Illegal Immigration debate as not a top issue. Here is a list of the Top 5 ranking issues in America by CNN as of last month.

1: The Economy
2: The War in Iraq
3: Health Care
4: Illegal Immigration
5: Terrorism

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/11/economy.poll.schneider/index.html

[firepokemon]

Is that why it constantly polls in the top 3 - 10 issues for this country? How about getting you stop speaking out of your ass?

I never said it wasn't an issue, what I said is it wasn't the issue you tought it would be. Political pundits have been saying that it is a republican issue and will not be such an issue at the national elections. That was well before the economy came to the fore, so therefore I was right, you were wrong.


Besides if it was just a Republican issue, the Democrats would not have gone on Spansh Television to debate it.

Of course its an issue but you're making out everybody in the United States has immigration at the top of their mind, thats just fucking stupid.


And what experience would she have? Being First Lady is more than a full time job.

Shes just like literally all politicians. A fucking lawyer. And I was saying she would bring in a team with experience. The Clinton years were good economic years, its going to be the same.


Seeing how the issue right now is the economy, in which Romney has the most experience next to Guiliani, I think America is a bit more concerned about that.

Foreign policy will always be the issue, its ties right into any issues on economics, so you may well want to shut your mouth and sit down and listen. The economy is facing higher oil prices, oil is an economic issue but because the majority of oil is from international countries. Foreign policy matters. You want to have trade agreements and trade alliances you need to talk to other countries thats a foreign policy. Foreign policy matters most importantly and Romney doesn't have it. But yes he could well bring in a team of experts on foreign issues but do not think for one second it isn't an issue. Foreign policy runs America.



If Clinton is bringing up Blacks then I believe she is playing the race card as a scapegoat. Also I find it halarious you accuse Obama of playing the race card today, while Hillary is going after the Hispanic vote, trying to get them to turn on the Blacks and balance it out.

I never said she wasn't playing the race card, but I find it unfair that shes accused of so much and Obama nothing. And hispanics don't like blacks I would have thought you'd know that.


Compared to the dirt that Hillary has, Romney can run rings around her.

Romney isn't smart like she is.

-----

When immigration is listed as fourth I hardly call it a top issue.

[firepokemon]

I like your post Mr. Pikachu its a very good post. I mean't 53% of the democratic voters at the South Carolina primary were black. Which is a huge, huge number. Thats what Clinton was trying to say (Bill that is), unfortunately everyone took it out of context as somehow he was racist and everything. I like Clinton Hilary because she'll be pragmatic not so ideologically driven like some people.

[DarkTemplarZero]

XD sudden pull-out will blow up in your face. Sounds like last saturday night to me

But anyway, I'm going to jump on fp's post too. So first of all, I can see where you come from supporting Hillary, but right now she's just too divisive, and the last thing the US needs is another president who half the country will despise. Obama's appealing because he seems to be really good at unifying people here, so even if I don't agree with all his policies and even with the fact that he's barely been in the Senate for 3 years, I wouldn't be unhappy with him in office.

Your attack on Edwards, I don't even know what I can say to that. Edwards has a lot of good solid ideas for education and healthcare, and he seems to be the only candidate on either side with solid workable plans to back up his opinions. Plus, Edwards seems to be focused more on running his own race rather than shoveling shit in the other candidate's faces, which seems to be the campaign standby nowadays.

However, Roy, I don't see illegal immigration being a big issue in Iowa or New Hampshire. Outside of New York City, illegal immigration is not a big issue anywhere in the northeast, and I can't see it being an issue in the midwest. Face it, illegal immigration is primarily an issue in Texas. Not to say that it's not an important issue, just that it's not an issue that affects everyone.

[Roy Karrde]

I never said it wasn't an issue, what I said is it wasn't the issue you tought it would be.

Top 3 to 5 in issues pretty much ranks it as one of the major things Americans want to know about.


Political pundits have been saying that it is a republican issue and will not be such an issue at the national elections. That was well before the economy came to the fore, so therefore I was right, you were wrong.

And yet it still ranks up there in the top 5, which would be some of the top issues for America. So therefore I was right, you are wrong.


Of course its an issue but you're making out everybody in the United States has immigration at the top of their mind, thats just fucking stupid.

Not top of mind, but when it comes from choosing between say Clinton or Romney, one who has been very soft on Immigration and the other that takes a tough stance. It is enough to swing voters. And when it is between Romney and McCain in the primaries, it is enough to cause McCain to lose.


Shes just like literally all politicians. A fucking lawyer.

What has she run? What first hand experience has she had making decisions? Being in the Senate just means you play follow the leader.


And I was saying she would bring in a team with experience.

Yet in the end, it is her decision, not her team when it comes down to the big decisions. Not to mention Hillary isnt some one that listens to her team. She is very hot headed and emotional and when she wants to do something she will do it her way.


The Clinton years were good economic years, its going to be the same.

The Clinton years were only good becuase we cut back the Military spending and had a .Com Bubble. Unless we have another .Com Bubble, and Clinton decides to be a royal fuck up and cut our military during a time of war. Then it will not be the same.


Foreign policy will always be the issue, its ties right into any issues on economics, so you may well want to shut your mouth and sit down and listen.

And yet right now, no one is breaking it up. Even Iraq has become a silent issue on the campeign so how about getting your head out of your ass?


The economy is facing higher oil prices, oil is an economic issue but because the majority of oil is from international countries.

Which is nothing we can control right now, becuase OPEC refuses to raise production and the Democrats will not drill.


Foreign policy matters. You want to have trade agreements and trade alliances you need to talk to other countries thats a foreign policy. Foreign policy matters most importantly and Romney doesn't have it.

Neither does Obama, or any one else. Clinton's foreign policy consists of Rubber Chicken dinners with heads of state.


But yes he could well bring in a team of experts on foreign issues but do not think for one second it isn't an issue. Foreign policy runs America.

Right now the Economy runs America, who ever can step up and bring ideas to the table and experience to the table with the economy, is going to come out ahead.


I never said she wasn't playing the race card, but I find it unfair that shes accused of so much and Obama nothing.

Hillary brings the fire down upon herself, from having her people go out and try to accuse Obama of dealing drugs, to her automated calls targeting Obama, she just cannot run a clean enough campeign, then again that IS the Clintons.


And hispanics don't like blacks I would have thought you'd know that.

Which is why Hillary is running to them.

http://moot.typepad.com/what_if/images/baby_crying.jpg


Romney isn't evil like she is.

Fixed for the truth.


Its confirmed you like morons.

I like people who bring ideas and experience to help this country. You on the other hand seem to like people who bring no experience, and no ideas that could help this country right now.


You are just dumb and pathetic Karrde you watch too much talk back radio and just suck at life. Sorry.

I love you too firepokemon, even though I kick your ass in debates.

[firepokemon]

I am not going to play a game of quote and post, quote and post.

You Karrde are spouting the whole entire bullshit every fucking media outlet has been spouting. Oh she has no experience. Oh she's emotional because she cried once. Shes a woman and woman are weak. To say that rather lacks credibility since you just quote and post more than likely off Fox News. I've heard all the arguments against Clinton and they're so typical and so what I would have expected. Do you think Tony Blair Prime Minister of Great Britain a rather great leader that rode an economic high and for a good number of years did very well had that much experience? Do you actually realise how much power a Prime Minister in a westminister system holds? Its much more than a President. The idea that someone needs experience to govern is quite rightly bullshit. Clinton had good years on economics, it didn't have to do with military cutbacks or the bubble boom it was good policies. Although I am of the opinion that government can only do so much for economics. They can influence fiscal policy but you have to rely on more than that to do well economically. The fact Romney had the balls to even say Michigan could have an automotive industry again just speaks of how much of a bullshitter he is. That shows right there how much credibility he lacks.

Oh and I could hardly call you or myself great debaters. Perhaps when The Rusted One was here or other such notable people (even though to me TRO just believed everything he had to say so you couldn't debate him, he was like some religious nutter that just believes he what they believe) then you could say they were good. But really I don't want to be great. I have my beliefs which are clearly Clinton is great and McCain is likeable. You have your opinions which are fine really though I completely disagree with them and your anologies don't make sense. But thats okay. Its good to believe in yourself, just realise one thing. At the end of the day, this is a pokemon forum. A pokemon forum where anybody can say many things, many things which are bullshit. I would hardly call it an achievement to be great at anything on what is a pokemon forum that barely has 50 active posters.

[Roy Karrde]

You Karrde are spouting the whole entire bullshit every fucking media outlet has been spouting.

I have? I don't have any time for the news with school and all.


Oh she's emotional because she cried once.

And if it was Bush people would be jumping over him for it. If a person cannot handle the stress of a primary. How the hell are they going to handle the stress of a Presidency?


Shes a woman and woman are weak.

Who the fuck says that?


To say that rather lacks credibility since you just quote and post more than likely off Fox News.

Please post where my writing appears on Fox News, I would love to see it on a International News Website!


Clinton had good years on economics, it didn't have to do with military cutbacks or the bubble boom it was good policies.

Any economist will tell you the only reason why we had a good economy in the 90s was becuase of the .net bubble. Besides, I should remind you that the Congress determines most of the Economic Policies and passes the budget. So really you are saying the Republican Congress is what created the Economy of the 90s?


The fact Romney had the balls to even say Michigan could have an automotive industry again just speaks of how much of a bullshitter he is. That shows right there how much credibility he lacks.

Michigan right now is starving for jobs, they are watching more and more go overseas and their entire state is falling into a Depression. Romney didn't say "Well I am going to bring back Automotive jobs." and then didn't explain why. He stood up and told how he was going to bring those jobs back, how he was going to pump money into creating Alternative Fuel cars, cars that would help the automotive industry in Michigan alot.

[firepokemon]

Some good points Karrde.
----


Ok well 5 mins to end of voting.

So my predictions for Florida primary

McCain by 5 over Romney. Guliani well back but will beat Huckabee.

Clinton over Obama by 10 probably 15 but Obama get black and youth votes. Edward does well with white males.

And good night leaving uni to watch primary.

[Roy Karrde]

Some good points Karrde.

So can you and I come to some sort of truse?

[homeofmew]

Ron Paul.

Why - Anti Abortion, Keep out illegals, end to war.

[Roy Karrde]

4% of the vote in, so far McCain and Romney are flip flopping back and forth. One moment one will have a 1,000 vote lead. The next the other will have a 4,000 vote lead, Clinton looks to be running away with it with already double the Obama votes.

Also Fox News is reporting that there is a voting machine problem happening in one of the counties in Florida.

[Toxicity]

But you have to note that the other odd 70-something percent remaining for Democratic ballots could change Clinton's lead. In fact, I was waiting in line to get my ballot today and overheard people complaining that they couldn't choose Obama because they were non-partisan or "misplaced as Republican," so it goes to show how much support he's really reeling in spite of the beauty pageant nature of the Primary.

But in terms of votes, I think my best friend voted for Huckabee out of faith; of course, I'd probably have to call him and ask him to see whether or not I'm surprised. My mom voted for Romney if I remember correctly, and I'm still dead sure that my dad selected Ron Paul. I didn't end up voting for a candidate only because my registration card read non-partisan.

I have no idea what to say after seeing these results so far. I don't like Clinton, and I don't think many of the Republicans are well-qualified for the job.

The cheese is superior. Only because the cake is a lie.

[Roy Karrde]

If it makes you feel better Toxicity, apparently many of the Clinton votes came from before this week, those voters that voted today and this week went overwhelmingly for Obama. So it should be interesting to see the final outcome.

As for right now, last time I checked, Romney and McCain are duking it out with McCain only having 9,000 more votes.

[Toxicity]

The absentee ballots were a joke, in my opinion.

In fact, my grandmother ended up having hers not count because she chose Thompson.

[mr_pikachu]

Giuliani to exit presidential race today (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080130/ap_on_el_pr/giuliani)

John Edwards to quit presidential race (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080130/ap_on_el_pr/edwards)

The primary campaign has suddenly become very interesting. With Edwards throwing in the towel, the left now has a head-to-head matchup between Clinton and Obama that could easily go either way. And now that Giuliani's folding as well, the tangle on the right is down to McCain, Romney, Huckabee, and Paul.

While Giuliani spoke out in support of McCain - a move that may deal a critical blow to Romney and the other challengers - Edwards did not voice immediate support for either Democratic candidate. One can only wonder what tactics we'll see in the coming days from each side as the remaining candidates vie for these disenfranchised voter bases.

[Roy Karrde]

Guiliani and Edwards was all they were talking about on the Mark Davis show as I was driving into school. So with Guiliani and Edwards making the smart decision to get out. It's now time for Huckabee to realize that he has absolutely no chance of winning, just like Guiliani and Edwards did, and make the smart choice to get out.

If Huckabee does then Romney wins, becuase 90% of Huckabee's voters will go immediatly to Romney. If Huckabee doesn't then McCain wins, thanks to many of the Guiliani voters going to him.

So Huckabee and Edwards are pretty much the king makers in the race now. Who ever they throw their support behind wins. So the question becomes, which nominee is going to offer the most insentives * Cough * The Vice Presidency * Cough *

[Toxicity]

Rumor now is Charlie Crist (Florida's governor) is going to attempt becoming McCain's running mate, given that McCain emerges as victor on Super Tuesday.

I still think that if Edwards does endorse a candidate within the week it will play a major role for the rest of campaign season. On the Republican side, we still have three candidates holding on, two teetering on dropping out.

My call for if the two I have in mind drop out, Paul goes to McCain and Huckabee goes to Romney.

Also, did anybody else listen to Hannity on the radio today?

[firepokemon]

Roy - A truce is fine.

Anyway heh was right about McCain over Romney and at 5% at that. Can't say I'm unhappy. Also right about Guliani over Huckabee though was very close.

Clinton 17% over Obama better than what I predicted I did though take note of voters who in the past week or so voted Obama and Clinton even even.

As for super tuesday. I think McCain has it unless he royally stuffs up somewhere, he's going to get the states with big delegate numbers and its mostly a winner take-all which is good for McCain.

I don't totally get the democratic primary, I guess they're all proportional delegates, so Obama just has to stay close. I do think Clinton will get there if the they don't go too negative. I do however not understand what happens if it goes to this caucus thing and how that works so I'll just wait and see.

[Houndoom_Lover]

Son of a gun! Since when did the election get so popular! It takes a single crap-tastic preident (sp?) to make us all pay attention ^_^!

I love it! Go everyone!

(But, heck, if cheese was running I'd vote for it!)

[firepokemon]

I just hope Nader doesn't run because computer geeks and internet geeks and people that thing they're cool but so are not are like vote for Nader. I like Nader.

[Toxicity]

Nader's Raiders. I might be one of those this year...

As right as you are, fp, it seems like this time, most of the Internet-addicted population seems to back Ron Paul. Certain sites have word filters that come up as "RON PAUL."

[Clark]

Well regardless of who wins, they all suck. The last person who I'd vote for Democratic(Edwards) dropped. The Republicans...well are not showing much promise. Hopefully someone fills the Independent slot thats worth voting for. If you thought Bush sucked, these next 4 years(maybe 8) are going to be even worse. None of these candidates have the experience to pull US out of any holes Bush dug.
Why are so many argue the economy sucks AND support candidates that will force us towards more unneeded war? You can't have both. This isn't ancient times where if you had tons of force you could rule everything(even then nothing ran perfect) so I don't see the point of much towards foreign policy in this election.
I personally would have loved to see a decent position on health care and education, but everyones too worried about "terrorists" and "war"
Why are we pushing to help everyone but ourselves. The education in this country is horrible. And "horrible" doesn't really even get close to how bad it is.
How many more idiots do we need in this country before people realize that this country is shit and always will be until they start caring. Yes, I do believe, my country, USA, is complete garbage. And we deserve anything enemies toss at us, because there is no limit to all the greed in the world.

[Blademaster]

How many more idiots do we need in this country before people realize that this country is shit and always will be until they start caring. Yes, I do believe, my country, USA, is complete garbage. And we deserve anything enemies toss at us, because there is no limit to all the greed in the world.

As my pals on GameFAQs would say...

(hands you a flame shield and then runs like Hell)

[Heald]

At least he realises it. Most people will blindly fly the stars and stripes and recite the national anthem like a bunch of fools, not realising they're being conditioned to blindly follow their country into oblivion.

[Blademaster]

Oh, no, I agree with THAT, but I'm just saying I know at least one or two people here are gonna dive on the guy for that 'This country deserves everything it gets.' line.

[Clark]

I wear flame-resistant clothes since 2000. Bring it on. :D

[Heald]

Well if he's gonna get flames, he's not gonna get them from me.

The US and the UK made their own bed by pissing off the entire Muslim world. I'm not surprised the UK counter-terrorism unit uncovers some new Muslim plot every month to either blow something up or behead some schlub. It's our fault for blindly following you simians across the Atlantic into a pointless war that will go down in the history books as one of the worst military exercises of the 21st century.

If countries were people, the Middle-East would be a petulant child, always kicking and screaming and yelling about some nonsense and throwing all its toys out of the pram. It never gets on with other children and hates being told off. It will bite and scratch and kick at you until you leave it alone or let it get its own way. Out of all the people we had to piss off, we just had to go upset those children in the Middle-East.

[Roy Karrde]

Well dont worry about me, I wont flame him, no matter how wrong his views are.

I do want to point out that this election isnt focusing on terrorism like say 2004 did. Instead we have people talking about Health Care Reform, Immigration Reform, The economy, Global Warming

Hell even Iraq has been taken off the table now that things are going amazing over there. So expect to see the next President tackle more Domestic issues than working on dismantling Al Qaeda seeing how they are now a reminant now of what they once were.

Truely I would rather have the next President that tackles those issues than work on Afghanistan and Iraq. Both of them are winding down and are only a wimper now, and I would love to see a Republican President take office and deal with the domestic issues our country is facing, than just hearing liberals whine about them * Glares at Boston Legal *

[Toxicity]

It's off the debate field now because every candidate promises to return all troops home towards the start of their term. (although some *cough*McCain*cough* are total liars)

Besides, a great majority of statements coming from Bush this term were about foreign policy. What we need for a president is somebody who can and will maintain a balance in concern, so because voters want to hear about domestic issues in public first, it will be domestic issues debated.

[Roy Karrde]

It's off the debate field now because every candidate promises to return all troops home towards the start of their term. (although some *cough*McCain*cough* are total liars)

They wont though, unless Iraq does a complete 180 from where it is now, then they will keep them there. Neither Hillary nor Obama wants to be known as the President that lost a winning war.


Besides, a great majority of statements coming from Bush this term were about foreign policy. What we need for a president is somebody who can and will maintain a balance in concern, so because voters want to hear about domestic issues in public first, it will be domestic issues debated.

Well mind you until the Economy went South, alot of focus was on the Foreign Issues. We had growth, we had jobs, we had a roaring stock marking. Things were feeling like the 90s again in a lot of ways. So no one cared about Domestic Issues, now with alot of the Foreign Policy nullified becuase nothing is happening, everyone is turning their eyes back to the problems at home now that the economy is in turmoil.

[DarkTemplarZero]

Anybody else find it hilarious that Bush said we needed an international treaty to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the State of the Union address? I always knew he was senile.

Anyway, with Edwards out, my support's behind Obama. Hillary's far too divisive and she's too neo-conservative in her foreign policy for me to be able to support her.

And Roy, no offense, but 90% of the reason that the United States has issues, both foreign and domestic, is because of Bush and his diabolical lackies in Congress. Deficit? Bush. Health care problems? Bush has been chopping up medicare and medicaid to feed his war machine. Education? The No Child Left Behind act is the biggest crock of shit that Congress has ever managed to spawn and has done what many have thought to be impossible: make the public school system even more impotent. When Bush ran for president in 2000, he promised to raise government aid to college students, yet during his first four years he fought like all hell to both shoot down bills that would raise aid and instead pushed through a bill that cut it. If this is how Republicans deal with domestic issues, America cannot afford another Republican president, lest we become a western version of the middle east: waste all our money on torturing people and blowing shit up rather than using it to help the general population.

[Roy Karrde]

Anybody else find it hilarious that Bush said we needed an international treaty to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the State of the Union address? I always knew he was senile.

I believe he was refering to the Kyoto Accords, a treaty that was unfair developed countries while helpful to undeveloped countries.

Anyway, with Edwards out, my support's behind Obama. Hillary's far too divisive and she's too neo-conservative in her foreign policy for me to be able to support her.


Deficit? Bush.

More like bloated spending by both Republicans and Democrats in Congress.



Education? The No Child Left Behind act is the biggest crock of shit that Congress has ever managed to spawn and has done what many have thought to be impossible: make the public school system even more impotent.

You know atleast it was something he tried, something that both sides thought would work, and in many ways it has, and in many ways it hasn't. Bitching about it wont get the job fixed.


When Bush ran for president in 2000, he promised to raise government aid to college students, yet during his first four years he fought like all hell to both shoot down bills that would raise aid and instead pushed through a bill that cut it.

Mind putting up issues on both bills. I would rather see facts to get the full picture.


If this is how Republicans deal with domestic issues, America cannot afford another Republican president, lest we become a western version of the middle east: waste all our money on torturing people and blowing shit up rather than using it to help the general population.

I would rather have a Republican in the White House dealing with issues than another Clinton. Look at what Bill said today on how we should combat Global Warming. Slowing down our Economy! Isn't that exactly the opposite of what we want to do right now?

[Toxicity]

Education needs a fix; that's for sure. I see the failure every day all because I live in the state that started the whole idea of NCLB. The schools that cannot show at least a good portion of success get their funds taken away, meaning students will literally go to school every day just to be coached to excel. In a lot of the cases, the schools will do even worse all because the students were tired for preparing for testing. Personally I don't see why you should just take away the government support because the students don't feel like testing; give them a reason to do well.

And while I agree with the rest of DTZ's post, I still don't see how it was entirely Bush's lackeys for the recent ruin we've seen; I blame 2006's Congress elections just because nothing has been going anywhere when majority of Senate and House disagree entirely with anything Bush proposes. A lot of bills drop dead and nobody's happy.

All I can say in regards to this are that if we don't see a change of pace in domestic policy soon, the present will seem like the "good ol' days."

[DarkTemplarZero]

Personally, I don't see how giving less money to struggling schools is a good idea. It seems to me like a richer get richer, poorer get poorer sort of thing, where the schools that need the money the most are exactly the ones that get their funding cut. It seems rather illogical to try to apply principles from free market capitalism to public education, no?

Roy, the deficit isn't due to bloated domestic spending; Bush's administration chopped down government spending on everything humanly imaginable, except for military spending of course.

Toxicity, I have to concede that point. The democratic congress hasn't done what I had hoped, which is unfortunate. There's a pretty bitter partisanship in congress right now, but hopefully, either McCain or Obama get elected and we get a president who's actually a unifier instead of someone who claims to be a unifier but really rips the country to pieces like Dubya. Maybe then the congress will be more effective.

[Roy Karrde]

Personally, I don't see how giving less money to struggling schools is a good idea.

It gives a insentive for the schools to perform well, if they do not perform well they will need to learn how to fix it or risk losing more money. Giving schools a free ride for underperforming doesn't seem right.


where the schools that need the money the most are exactly the ones that get their funding cut.

Then find ways to work on improving performance.


It seems rather illogical to try to apply principles from free market capitalism to public education, no?

Actually it seems very logical, it gives the schools something to push for, and punishes them when they don't. American Schools were on a down ward path in the 90s, something, anything had to be done.


Roy, the deficit isn't due to bloated domestic spending;

Bridge to no where?


Bush's administration chopped down government spending on everything humanly imaginable, except for military spending of course.

Well that kind of happens during a time of war, and when we were coming off a period in which bloated government projects filled the Government. But you fail to realize the massive amount of ear marks that were put in bills by Republicans which drove the deficit up.


The schools that cannot show at least a good portion of success get their funds taken away, meaning students will literally go to school every day just to be coached to excel. In a lot of the cases, the schools will do even worse all because the students were tired for preparing for testing. Personally I don't see why you should just take away the government support because the students don't feel like testing; give them a reason to do well.

Why shouldn't we push teachers and push students to excel? If there is a threat of punishment behind it, they will only work faster. Students in the United States are falling behind the rest in the world. We need to push them harder becuase no one will hold their hand and go "Oh Poor Baby" when they reach the real world. If we cannot make our students competative in the real world, then we as a nation are screwed.

[Clark]

If the schools are in a well populated city, chances are the education is horrible. Its a well known fact inner-city families are poor and usually unemployed. They need the extra funding to boost education so we can fight unemployment and more uneducated people roaming the streets.

[Roy Karrde]

If the schools are in a well populated city, chances are the education is horrible. Its a well known fact inner-city families are poor and usually unemployed. They need the extra funding to boost education so we can fight unemployment and more uneducated people roaming the streets.

Not to mention the well funded football team that they have.

And again I ask, why give them a pass, why go "Meh, they are poor give them the money". Where is the insentive for a better education? You are putting these people at a disadvantage at College, in the work place, and the over all world.

[Clark]

Its not the schools fault completely that the kids don't learn. Its their upbringing and parents. They should try to implement better ways to set better examples for the children, so they possibly could do more with their lives than sell drugs or whatever else poor people do other than cause global warming.

[Toxicity]

Why shouldn't we push teachers and push students to excel? If there is a threat of punishment behind it, they will only work faster. Students in the United States are falling behind the rest in the world. We need to push them harder becuase no one will hold their hand and go "Oh Poor Baby" when they reach the real world. If we cannot make our students competative in the real world, then we as a nation are screwed.

Then tell me why these schools that actually try to pick up still fall back.

It's because the students who are pushed don't care after being pushed long enough. Not trying to be prejudiced in any form, but the good majority of these trying schools are in areas where there is no sight to this "real world"; all the students know of is that any of them could turn up imprisoned or even dead at any point. It's the psychology behind it that leads them to that point of oblivion.

I see nothing wrong with trying to help those that are making clear attempts to improve their lives; if you're expecting handouts, enjoy waiting. At least, that's how I'd run both education and the welfare system.

[Roy Karrde]

Its not the schools fault completely that the kids don't learn. Its their upbringing and parents. They should try to implement better ways to set better examples for the children, so they possibly could do more with their lives than sell drugs or whatever else poor people do other than cause global warming.

You're right in the fact that it is the parents fault to make them study after school. Yet during school, and during study periods, it is the school's fault. Yet the school's continue to fail them by teaching to the lowest common denominator. If we want them to improve their lives and not sell drugs, then we need to force the schools to work on these students. If not they will never do well on the SAT Test or any other college placement test and remain where they are.


Then tell me why these schools that actually try to pick up still fall back.

Examples? Proof? Becuase I am sure I can bring in just as many schools that have pushed themselves to succeed.


It's because the students who are pushed don't care after being pushed long enough.

Much of that is their teacher's fault for not inspiring their students. If the teachers cannot get the kids to work and bring themselves up, the students will remain in a rut.


Not trying to be prejudiced in any form, but the good majority of these trying schools are in areas where there is no sight to this "real world"; all the students know of is that any of them could turn up imprisoned or even dead at any point. It's the psychology behind it that leads them to that point of oblivion.

I would suggest for you to go to any elementary school, even in the inner city and ask them. "What do you want to be when you grow up?" How many will say drug dealer? How many will say gang banger? How many will say hooker? These children do have dreams, they do have aspirtions, yet some where along the way, the place where they spend a good chunk of their day fails them.

America has always been about reaching for your dream, working hard enough and you can be anything you want to be. Should we not award the schools that provide our children with those tools, and punish the ones that stagnate?

Or have we become so lazy, so careless, that failure seems to be the only option for these schools?

[PNT510]

You can't expect teachers to inspire gifted students while still being able to help the other 20+ children in the class.

[Roy Karrde]

You can't expect teachers to inspire gifted students while still being able to help the other 20+ children in the class.

I don't think anyone here is saying that. We do, or atleast I do, expect a teacher that works to improve their students in areas like math, english, and reading. Instead of going "Meh, I have X number of students, I can't be bothered to help those that fail"

* Mind you I actually had a College Professor who's exact words were that *

[Andrew]

Honestly, I want Hillary to win. She's a strong smart, calculating woman. She has policies I think are great, IE - Withdrawing from Iraq. National Health Care.

Not to mention Bill is fucking awesome with o/s policies. He's got a degree in them. So he'd jetset around the world, keeping them under control while Hillary makes America awesome again and not a shithole everyone despises. (Apart from some Tv Shows. Thanks, Heroes!)

Obama, he's a nice guy with a lot of charisma, but I don't know if he has any policies. But I don't think he'd be willing to make tough decisions. I think Hillary would, and she would deal with it.

Chelsea for Prez 2030

[firepokemon]

Honestly, I want Hillary to win. She's a strong smart, calculating woman. She has policies I think are great, IE - Withdrawing from Iraq. National Health Care.

Not to mention Bill is fucking awesome with o/s policies. He's got a degree in them. So he'd jetset around the world, keeping them under control while Hillary makes America awesome again and not a shithole everyone despises. (Apart from some Tv Shows. Thanks, Heroes!)

Obama, he's a nice guy with a lot of charisma, but I don't know if he has any policies. But I don't think he'd be willing to make tough decisions. I think Hillary would, and she would deal with it.

Chelsea for Prez 2030

Oh I love you Andrew.

[mr_pikachu]

Well, it's Super Tuesday. Predictions, anyone?

[Blademaster]

Obama-Cheese '08.

[mr_pikachu]

As projections for the first Super Tuesday states continue to come in, Huckabee is gaining a surprising amount of ground on Romney - Fox News has him winning West Virginia and Alabama, and he looks to be leading both Georgia and Oklahoma. But McCain is working to pull away with wins in Connecticut, Illinois, and New Jersey, leaving Massachusetts for Romney and the other states still in question.

On the Democratic side, Obama has scored delegates in Georgia and Illinois, but Clinton appears poised to strike back with a win in Oklahoma and early leads in Alabama and New Jersey. (Fox News has called Tennessee for Clinton as well; CNN.com has it too close to call, with Obama retaining a 2% advantage.)

The battle for control is heating up...

[Heald]

Fox News has called Tennessee for Clinton as well; CNN.com has it too close to call, with Obama retaining a 2% advantage.

Bear in mind, last time Fox News got the projections wrong, an idiot got put in the White House.

[Roy Karrde]

Bear in mind, last time The Regular Stations got the projections wrong, we almost got a idiot put in the White House.

Fixed for the Truth.

It isn't Fox News' fault that many stations forgot that Florida was in two time zones and the most Republican areas of it closed one hour later.

[Heald]

It isn't Fox News' fault that many stations forgot that Florida was in two time zones and the most Republican areas of it closed one hour later.

Meh. I just believe the facts, such as the Republicans were too scared to have a legally-binding recount.

[Roy Karrde]

Well it would be nice if he recounted all the Ballots, and not just the Democrat district ones. It would also be nice if he didn't try to change election law to help him win, or throw out all the overseas ballots so that the heavily Republican favored Military didn't get to vote.

Then again it would also have been nice if the Media was actually able to see a map so that they wouldn't call a state before all polls had closed in the state, that way voters heading to vote in the Central Time Zone portion wouldn't believe their vote would be useless.

[.hacker]

At this late hour for Super Tuesday, I see McCain going to win the Republican nomination and it seems Obama will get the Democratic nomination (unless I'm missing something).

This means I'll vote for McCain.

[mr_pikachu]

According to CNN.com, this is how Super Tuesday stands thus far:


Democratic Party

Hillary Clinton: AR, AZ, CA*, MA, NJ, NY, OK, TN
Tuesday Delegates: 71
Total Delegates: 371

Barack Obama: AL*, CO*, CT, DE*, GA, ID* IL, KS, MN*, ND*, UT*
Tuesday Delegates: 80
Total Delegates: 306

No Projection: MO, NM, AL*, AZ*, CA*, CO*, DE*, ID*, MN*, ND*, UT*


Republican Party

John McCain: AZ, CA*, CT, DE, IL*, MO, NJ, NY, OK
Tuesday Delegates: 329
Total Delegates: 475

Mike Huckabee: AL*, AR, GA, TN*, WV
Tuesday Delegates: 58
Total Delegates: 105

Ron Paul:
Tuesday Delegates: 0
Total Delegates: 6

Mitt Romney: CO*, MA, MN*, MT*, ND*, UT
Tuesday Delegates: 41
Total Delegates: 151

No Projection: AL*, CA*, CO*, IL*, MN*, MT*, ND*, TN*


*State winners projected, but delegates not yet assigned



EDIT: I'm changing the tracking format a bit.



DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES

HC: Hillary Clinton
BO: Barack Obama
OT: Still Pledged to Other Candidate


HC BO OT
ALABAMA 10 11 --
ALASKA 1 1 --
AMERICAN SAMOA --
ARIZONA 3 2 --
ARKANSAS 12 0 --
CALIFORNIA 22 12 --
COLORADO 4 2 --
CONNECTICUT 22 27 --
DELAWARE 8 9 --
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 9 3 --
FLORIDA 0 0 --
GEORGIA 17 27 --
GUAM --
HAWAII --
IDAHO 0 2 --
ILLINOIS 25 67 --
INDIANA --
IOWA 18 18 14
KANSAS 6 17 --
KENTUCKY --
LOUISIANA 1 0 --
MAINE --
MARYLAND 8 3 --
MASSACHUSETTS 53 35 --
MICHIGAN 0 0 --
MINNESOTA 3 3 --
MISSISSIPPI --
MISSOURI 17 10 --
MONTANA --
NEBRASKA 0 1 --
NEVADA 14 14 --
NEW HAMPSHIRE 11 12 4
NEW JERSEY 60 38 --
NEW MEXICO 4 1 --
NEW YORK 144 75 --
NORTH CAROLINA --
NORTH DAKOTA 5 12 --
OHIO --
OKLAHOMA 18 10 --
OREGON --
PALAU --
PENNSYLVANIA --
PUERTO RICO --
RHODE ISLAND --
SOUTH CAROLINA 14 26 8
SOUTH DAKOTA --
TENNESSEE 27 14 --
TEXAS --
UTAH 2 0 --
VERMONT --
VIRGIN ISLANDS --
VIRGINIA 6 3 --
WASHINGTON 4 2 --
WEST VIRGINIA --
WISCONSIN 1 2 --
WYOMING --

TOTAL DELEGATES 591 476 26



REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES

MH: Mike Huckabee
JM: John McCain
RP: Ron Paul
MR: Mitt Romney


MH JM RP MR
ALABAMA 0 0 0 0
ALASKA
AMERICAN SAMOA
ARIZONA 0 53 0 0
ARKANSAS 22 0 0 0
CALIFORNIA 0 11 0 0
COLORADO 0 0 0 0
CONNECTICUT 0 27 0 0
DELAWARE 0 18 0 0
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
FLORIDA 0 57 0 0
GEORGIA 33 0 0 0
GUAM
HAWAII
IDAHO
ILLINOIS 0 1 0 1
INDIANA
IOWA 17 3 2 12
KANSAS 0 2 0 1
KENTUCKY
LOUISIANA 0 3 0 0
MAINE 0 1 0 19
MARYLAND
MASSACHUSETTS 0 17 0 22
MICHIGAN 1 5 0 24
MINNESOTA 0 0 0 2
MISSISSIPPI
MISSOURI 0 58 0 0
MONTANA 0 0 0 0
NEBRASKA
NEVADA 2 4 4 18
NEW HAMPSHIRE 1 7 0 4
NEW JERSEY 0 52 0 0
NEW MEXICO
NEW YORK 0 101 0 0
NORTH CAROLINA
NORTH DAKOTA 0 1 0 0
OHIO
OKLAHOMA 6 29 0 0
OREGON
PALAU
PENNSYLVANIA
PUERTO RICO
RHODE ISLAND
SOUTH CAROLINA 5 19 0 0
SOUTH DAKOTA
TENNESSEE 0 1 0 0
TEXAS
UTAH 0 0 0 36
VERMONT
VIRGIN ISLANDS
VIRGINIA
WASHINGTON
WEST VIRGINIA 18 0 0 1
WISCONSIN
WYOMING 0 0 0 9

TOTAL DELEGATES 105 475 6 151

[firepokemon]

A very confusing Super Tuesday. No one expected Huckabee to do as well, nor do I think people expected Romney to do not so well and McCain got the big states which meant he got the big delegates. So I'm happy because I like McCain.

On the democratic side well Obama won caucases and Connecticut and Missouri and a few others but Clinton won the majors and california. Which by going by the news the talk was whoever won California was the winner on the day but its seems to be the news just like to ignore what they had been saying for the past week because they love Obama.

I don't get americans I just hope he crashes soon and Clinton wins.

[Roy Karrde]

I don't get americans I just hope he crashes soon and Clinton wins.

I just think too many Democrats either hate Hillary ( Many Democrat Women ) or just think she is unelectable, and they would rather go with Obama who stands a outside chance of getting the White House for Democrats. Then losing the White House for a third straight time.

[firepokemon]

I just think too many Democrats either hate Hillary ( Many Democrat Women ) or just think she is unelectable, and they would rather go with Obama who stands a outside chance of getting the White House for Democrats. Then losing the White House for a third straight time.

Hmm maybe. I just wish I could understand what people see in Obama so he represents change? Hasn't everybody whos campaigned wanted change? The same with Romney we're meant to respect him and vote for him because hes not an inside washington guy. You become President and you cant change fuck all. Theres a reason a message of change is pathetic. Sure Obama could change the war but eventually the republicans make it back in and I guarantee you he will be at a loss.

[Roy Karrde]

Yeah the whole Change Stupidity was brought up on the Mark Davis show today and how every politician is going to say "I represent change"

As for the war, I think all those Democrats that want the troops out are setting themselves up for a huge disapointment.

Lets say its '09, Obama or Clinton has just won the White House. The war has continued the course it is on, in that Al Qaeda is a non entity, terrorism is down, but US forces are still needed to keep law and order.

When Clinton/Obama look at the situation, and where the war is at then, I guarantee you that they will look at it from a new angle. Suddenly it isn't Bush's war to lose, it is their war. Pulling out the troops with the situation even close to winnable starts out their Presidentcy as being "The Loser President" or "The President that lost Iraq"

As much as they want to tout how much "Anti Iraq" they are, no one wants to be labeled with actually losing the Iraq war.

[mr_pikachu]

Romney Quits Race (http://thepage.time.com/2008/02/07/sources-romney-to-quit-race/)

As if McCain didn't have enough of a free ride to the Republican nomination, his closest challenger, Mitt Romney, has now withdrawn. This leaves only McCain, Mike Huckabee, and Ron Paul in the hunt. McCain currently leads with approximately 714 of the 1,191 delegates necessary for victory. Huckabee trails with 181, and Paul sits in last having cobbled together only 16 delegates.

[Roy Karrde]

Well no matter what now, McCain is pretty much going to be our next President, barring a Meteor or something falling on his head. So really while he is totally wrong on Global Warming. He can fix two of the four things that I was looking for: Repair America's Image by shutting down Guitmo and reaching out to Democrats, And persuing the reminants of Al Qaeda into Pakistan.

The other two being: Repairing the Economy, and Repairing the Dollar.

I can only hope he will hire Romney as a VP or a Secretary position for the Economy and thus work on trying to fix the other two.

[Magi of all]

Its unfortunate. I really liked Ron Paul and his policies. At the same time though, a lot of the things he wanted done were so against what Congress wants that he would have spent most of his presidency fighting battles to pass legislation.

[Heald]

Well no matter what now, McCain is pretty much going to be our next President, barring a Meteor or something falling on his head. So really while he is totally wrong on Global Warming.

Surely you don't give the democrats enough credit? I reckon they'll give McCain a good run for his money.

Also, what is McCain's actual position on global warming? I can't find anything that concrete.

But yeah, McCain is my second-favourite Republican candidate after Rudy, so I guess that now that idiot Romney has dropped out, we might actually stand a chance of having two truly electable candidates at the next election.

[Roy Karrde]

Surely you don't give the democrats enough credit? I reckon they'll give McCain a good run for his money.

Not if it is Clinton, which is what it is turning out to be. Clinton is utterly and completely unelectable, and would not get close to the White House on election day. And not only that, but many Democrats that are narrowly hanging onto their position would have to worry about losing it by millions of Republicans who will walk over broken glass just to vote straight line Republican to stop Hillary.

[midnightangel]

I voted for Hilary Clinton in Florida--and I'm glad she did well in Super Tuesday

I dunno.. I don't like Obama--there's something weird about the guy and I cannot put my finger on it--yet.
But alot of the blacks I work with support Obama. Go figure :P

[mr_pikachu]

Here's my opinion on the whole "can Clinton win?" debate.

If Obama gets the nomination, I'm going to have to seriously consider whether I should cross party lines to vote for him. I really don't like McCain as the Republican nominee - he's more like a Democrat than a Republican in a lot of ways. Frankly, I have a feeling that he might screw up things just as badly as Obama. If, after closer examination of the two candidates, I still believe that, I'll vote for Barack. You see, if things are going to be equally bad no matter who wins, I'd rather have it on the record of a Democrat so that we'll have a strong case for getting an actual Republican in office next time.

If Clinton gets the nomination... I would take a dump in a paper bag, set it on fire, and vote for that flaming sack of shit over Hillary.

You've gotta love brutally honest opinions.

[Roy Karrde]

I'll vote for Barack. You see, if things are going to be equally bad no matter who wins, I'd rather have it on the record of a Democrat so that we'll have a strong case for getting an actual Republican in office next time.


That is what alot of Republicans seem to be saying, but still there are two strong points that McCain has.

One: He would keep the Supreme Court leaning right, instead of left, meaning we would see less of the Supreme Court trying to legislate from the bench.

Second: While I doubt that Obama would pull the troops out of Iraq, and lose it. There is still a slight, very slight chance he would do so. Or he would try to run it his way instead of relying on General Petraus. Either way Obama in the White House could clusterfuck all of Iraq, as well as the rest of the region. Which is the last thing we need.

[mr_pikachu]

I haven't updated the standings since Super Tuesday concluded and Romney withdrew.


DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES

HC: Hillary Clinton
BO: Barack Obama
OT: Still Pledged to Other Candidate


HC BO OT
ALABAMA 23 21 --
ALASKA 5 10 --
AMERICAN SAMOA 2 1 --
ARIZONA 33 27 --
ARKANSAS 35 8 --
CALIFORNIA 217 164 --
COLORADO 10 15 --
CONNECTICUT 23 29 --
DELAWARE 8 9 --
DEMOCRATS ABROAD --
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 9 3 --
FLORIDA 0 0 --
GEORGIA 23 42 --
GUAM --
HAWAII --
IDAHO 3 17 --
ILLINOIS 45 111 --
INDIANA --
IOWA 18 18 14
KANSAS 10 24 --
KENTUCKY --
LOUISIANA 1 0 --
MAINE --
MARYLAND 8 3 --
MASSACHUSETTS 61 44 --
MICHIGAN 0 0 --
MINNESOTA 27 51 --
MISSISSIPPI --
MISSOURI 38 40 --
MONTANA --
NEBRASKA 0 1 --
NEVADA 14 14 --
NEW HAMPSHIRE 11 12 4
NEW JERSEY 69 49 --
NEW MEXICO 17 13 --
NEW YORK 177 94 --
NORTH CAROLINA --
NORTH DAKOTA 5 12 --
OHIO --
OKLAHOMA 24 14 --
OREGON --
PENNSYLVANIA --
PUERTO RICO --
RHODE ISLAND --
SOUTH CAROLINA 14 26 8
SOUTH DAKOTA --
TENNESSEE 39 27 --
TEXAS --
UTAH 11 14 --
VERMONT --
VIRGIN ISLANDS --
VIRGINIA 6 3 --
WASHINGTON 4 2 --
WEST VIRGINIA --
WISCONSIN 1 2 --
WYOMING --

TOTAL DELEGATES 1033 937 26


Needed to win: 2025

Remaining Democratic Primaries and Caucuses:
February 5 – February 12: Democrats Abroad (7)
February 9: Louisiana (56)
February 9: Nebraska (24)
February 9: Virgin Islands (3)
February 9: Washington (78)
February 10: Maine (24)
February 12: District of Columbia (15)
February 12: Maryland (70)
February 12: Virginia (83)
February 19: Hawaii (20)
February 19: Wisconsin (74)
March 4: Ohio (141)
March 4: Rhode Island (21)
March 4: Texas (193)
March 4: Vermont (15)
March 8: Wyoming (7)
March 11: Mississippi (33)
April 22: Pennsylvania (158)
May 3: Guam (3)
May 6: Indiana (72)
May 6: North Carolina (155)
May 13: West Virginia (28)
May 17: Kansas (11)
May 20: Kentucky (51)
May 20: Oregon (52)
May 24: Wyoming (5)
June 3: Montana (16)
June 3: South Dakota (15)
June 7: Puerto Rico (55)






REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES

MH: Mike Huckabee
JM: John McCain
RP: Ron Paul
MR: Mitt Romney


MH JM RP OT
ALABAMA 20 16 0 --
ALASKA 6 3 5 12
AMERICAN SAMOA --
ARIZONA 0 53 0 --
ARKANSAS 32 1 0 1
CALIFORNIA 0 149 0 6
COLORADO 0 0 0 43
CONNECTICUT 0 27 0 --
DELAWARE 0 18 0 --
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA --
FLORIDA 0 57 0 --
GEORGIA 45 3 0 --
GUAM --
HAWAII --
IDAHO --
ILLINOIS 0 55 0 2
INDIANA --
IOWA 17 3 2 12
KANSAS 0 2 0 --
KENTUCKY --
LOUISIANA 0 3 0 --
MAINE 0 1 0 18
MARYLAND --
MASSACHUSETTS 0 18 0 22
MICHIGAN 1 5 0 24
MINNESOTA 0 0 0 38
MISSISSIPPI --
MISSOURI 0 58 0 --
MONTANA 0 0 0 25
NEBRASKA --
NEVADA 2 4 4 18
NEW HAMPSHIRE 1 7 0 4
NEW JERSEY 30 52 0 13
NEW MEXICO --
NEW YORK 0 101 0 --
NORTH CAROLINA --
NORTH DAKOTA 5 6 5 8
N. MARIANA ISLANDS --
OHIO --
OKLAHOMA 6 32 0 --
OREGON --
PENNSYLVANIA --
PUERTO RICO --
RHODE ISLAND --
SOUTH CAROLINA 5 19 0 --
SOUTH DAKOTA --
TENNESSEE 23 16 0 8
TEXAS --
UTAH 0 0 0 36
VERMONT --
VIRGIN ISLANDS --
VIRGINIA --
WASHINGTON --
WEST VIRGINIA 18 0 0 --
WISCONSIN --
WYOMING 0 0 0 9

TOTAL DELEGATES 211 714 16 299


Needed to win: 1191

Remaining Republican Primaries and Caucuses:
January 25 – February 5: Hawaii (20)
February 9: Kansas (26)
February 9: Louisiana (20)
February 9: Washington (18)
February 12: District of Columbia (16)
February 12: Maryland (37)
February 12: Virginia (63)
February 16: Guam (6)
February 16: Louisiana (24)
February 19: Washington (19)
February 19: Wisconsin (37)
February 23: Northern Mariana Islands (6)
February 23: Virgin Islands (6)
February 24: Puerto Rico (20)
March 1: American Samoa (6)
March 4: Ohio (85)
March 4: Rhode Island (17)
March 4: Texas (137)
March 4: Vermont (17)
March 11: Mississippi (36)
April 5: Tennessee (12)
April 22: Pennsylvania (62)
May 3 – May 24: Minnesota (24)
May 6: Indiana (27)
May 6: North Carolina (69)
May 13: Nebraska (31)
May 13: West Virginia (9)
May 20: Kentucky (45)
May 20: Oregon (30)
May 20 – 21: New York (11)
May 22: Kansas (10)
May 24 – June 7: Colorado (21)
May 27: Idaho (26)
May 31: Wyoming (2)
June 3: South Dakota (24)
June 3: New Mexico (29)
June 6 – June 7: Pennsylvania (9)
June 7: Illinois (10)
June 7: Minnesota (14)
June 9 – June 10: Indiana (27)

[Clark]

selling my tpm account to fund my moving from america to anywhere else. any biders?!
seriously.

i won't die for these idiots. this country sucks. hussein is a closet muslim. theres no proof that he isn't. all politicians lie. why believe anything they say. they just want to take over and kill us all while raising our taxes.

[Roy Karrde]

i won't die for these idiots. this country sucks.

Not that I want to sound like a asshole but...

http://moot.typepad.com/what_if/images/baby_crying.jpg

[Clark]

Maybe so, but what exactly are our boys dying for? Can't be peace or unity or even suppression.

[Toxicity]

Huckabee takes Kansas by storm it appears. (60% total votes)

Is it me or will Mitt dropping out help him somewhat?

[Roy Karrde]

Maybe so, but what exactly are our boys dying for? Can't be peace or unity or even suppression.

Well for one to stabalize and bring peace to Iraq that with out them would be a haven and breeding ground for terrorism, aka Afghanistan in the 90s. In both Afghanistan and Iraq they are building roads, they are building schools, homes, churches, helping to provide safety in the market place. There are countless things they are doing, good things, that you do not hear about in the news.

[darktyranitar]

@Ace:

So, what if Hussein was really a closet Muslim, Ace? Unless... if I recalled correctly, Muslim, Mormons and Atheist are not eligible to run for presidency... is that true?

Iraq is one big mess. The WMD was one big lie. The way I see it, the US have already lost in Iraq. So just pull off the soldiers already - what is there left to fight for?

(Unless, if you're afraid that Iran will call you a 'paper tiger' :P)

Ah well. You wanna know what the US soldiers are dying for, Ace? One word: PNAC (The Project for the New American Century). Yeap.

On a slightly related note, what's this story I heard of Ron Paul and his supporters being labelled as a domestic terrorist, hm?

[Roy Karrde]

Iraq is one big mess. The WMD was one big lie.

You have to know something for certain to lie about it. The only one that knew if there were WMDs or not was Saddam Hussain.


The way I see it, the US have already lost in Iraq.

Security Force deaths down, Civilian deaths down, Iraqi Troop Deaths down, Bombing deaths down, Al Qaeda has been forced into one town. Yeah it sounds like we lost....


So just pull off the soldiers already - what is there left to fight for?

Keep Al Qaeda from having Afghanistan 2.0


(Unless, if you're afraid that Iran will call you a 'paper tiger' :P)

More like Osama Bin Laden.


Ah well. You wanna know what the US soldiers are dying for, Ace? One word: PNAC (The Project for the New American Century). Yeap.

Mind explaning that?

[Blademaster]

WAIT A MINUTE!


What's the title of this thread?

"2008 U.S. Presidential Election - Primaries"

Do you see "Iraq War" ANYWHERE in that line?

I don't.

Take the war talk to another thread. Or don't. Either is acceptable.

Honestly, can't we have a discussion about ANYTHING going on in the modern world without it degrading to the war? SHUT UP!

[Toxicity]

While it does play a part in the candidacy for everybody, I do have to agree with Blade on this one. It really does seem like every thread turns into a bash of extremities in regards to opinions - especially the war.

So let's try to take all religion, all radical legions, and ever other variation of the faggot tree out of this thread, shall we?

Also, I highly doubt being born to two atheists (one of which was raised as a Muslim, yes), raised without religion, and later converting to Christianity gives a true reason to be accused of "closet Islam."

Also also, for relevance, Obama has just claimed delegates in Nebraska, Louisiana, and D.C.

[mr_pikachu]

Yes, let's get things back on track. Although I have to correct you, Laura; Obama's gained an advantage from Washington state, not D.C. (The District of Columbia primary isn't until the 12th.)

Update? Why not.

As of 10 p.m. CST, Obama leads Clinton in pledged delegates, 892-866. Clinton has the advantage in superdelegates, 223-131.

RNC members aren't as important in the Republican primary as the Democratic superdelegates, but McCain leads them 17-3 over Huckabee.



DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES

HC: Hillary Clinton
BO: Barack Obama
OT: Still Pledged to Other Candidate


HC BO OT
ALABAMA 23 21 --
ALASKA 5 10 --
AMERICAN SAMOA 2 1 --
ARIZONA 34 27 --
ARKANSAS 36 8 --
CALIFORNIA 224 164 --
COLORADO 10 16 --
CONNECTICUT 23 30 --
DELAWARE 9 9 --
DEMOCRATS ABROAD --
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 9 3 --
FLORIDA 0 0 --
GEORGIA 25 42 --
GUAM --
HAWAII --
IDAHO 3 18 --
ILLINOIS 45 111 --
INDIANA --
IOWA 18 19 14
KANSAS 10 26 --
KENTUCKY --
LOUISIANA 16 23 --
MAINE 2 0 --
MARYLAND 9 4 --
MASSACHUSETTS 62 47 --
MICHIGAN 0 0 --
MINNESOTA 27 53 --
MISSISSIPPI --
MISSOURI 40 40 --
MONTANA --
NEBRASKA 8 18 --
NEVADA 14 14 --
NEW HAMPSHIRE 11 12 4
NEW JERSEY 70 49 --
NEW MEXICO 18 13 --
NEW YORK 179 94 --
NORTH CAROLINA --
NORTH DAKOTA 5 12 --
OHIO --
OKLAHOMA 25 15 --
OREGON --
PENNSYLVANIA --
PUERTO RICO --
RHODE ISLAND --
SOUTH CAROLINA 14 26 8
SOUTH DAKOTA --
TENNESSEE 40 28 --
TEXAS --
UTAH 11 15 --
VERMONT --
VIRGIN ISLANDS --
VIRGINIA 6 3 --
WASHINGTON 19 38 --
WEST VIRGINIA --
WISCONSIN 2 3 --
WYOMING --

TOTAL DELEGATES 1100 1039 26


Needed to win: 2025

Remaining Democratic Primaries and Caucuses:
February 5 – February 12: Democrats Abroad (7)
February 10: Maine (24)
February 12: District of Columbia (15)
February 12: Maryland (70)
February 12: Virginia (83)
February 19: Hawaii (20)
February 19: Wisconsin (74)
March 4: Ohio (141)
March 4: Rhode Island (21)
March 4: Texas (193)
March 4: Vermont (15)
March 8: Wyoming (7)
March 11: Mississippi (33)
April 22: Pennsylvania (158)
May 3: Guam (3)
May 6: Indiana (72)
May 6: North Carolina (155)
May 13: West Virginia (28)
May 17: Kansas (11)
May 20: Kentucky (51)
May 20: Oregon (52)
May 24: Wyoming (5)
June 3: Montana (16)
June 3: South Dakota (15)
June 7: Puerto Rico (55)






REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES

MH: Mike Huckabee
JM: John McCain
RP: Ron Paul
MR: Mitt Romney


MH JM RP OT
ALABAMA 20 16 0 --
ALASKA 6 3 5 12
AMERICAN SAMOA --
ARIZONA 0 53 0 --
ARKANSAS 32 1 0 1
CALIFORNIA 0 149 0 6
COLORADO 0 0 0 43
CONNECTICUT 0 27 0 --
DELAWARE 0 18 0 --
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA --
FLORIDA 0 57 0 --
GEORGIA 45 3 0 --
GUAM --
HAWAII --
IDAHO --
ILLINOIS 0 55 0 2
INDIANA --
IOWA 17 3 2 12
KANSAS 36 2 0 --
KENTUCKY --
LOUISIANA 0 3 0 --
MAINE 0 1 0 18
MARYLAND --
MASSACHUSETTS 0 18 0 22
MICHIGAN 1 5 0 24
MINNESOTA 0 0 0 38
MISSISSIPPI --
MISSOURI 0 58 0 --
MONTANA 0 0 0 25
NEBRASKA --
NEVADA 2 4 4 18
NEW HAMPSHIRE 1 7 0 4
NEW JERSEY 0 52 0 --
NEW MEXICO --
NEW YORK 0 101 0 --
NORTH CAROLINA --
NORTH DAKOTA 5 6 5 8
N. MARIANA ISLANDS --
OHIO --
OKLAHOMA 6 32 0 --
OREGON --
PENNSYLVANIA --
PUERTO RICO --
RHODE ISLAND --
SOUTH CAROLINA 5 19 0 --
SOUTH DAKOTA --
TENNESSEE 23 16 0 8
TEXAS --
UTAH 0 0 0 36
VERMONT --
VIRGIN ISLANDS --
VIRGINIA --
WASHINGTON --
WEST VIRGINIA 18 0 0 --
WISCONSIN --
WYOMING 0 0 0 9

TOTAL DELEGATES 217 714 16 286


Needed to win: 1191

Remaining Republican Primaries and Caucuses:
January 25 – February 5: Hawaii (20)
February 12: District of Columbia (16)
February 12: Maryland (37)
February 12: Virginia (63)
February 16: Guam (6)
February 16: Louisiana (24)
February 19: Washington (19)
February 19: Wisconsin (37)
February 23: Northern Mariana Islands (6)
February 23: Virgin Islands (6)
February 24: Puerto Rico (20)
March 1: American Samoa (6)
March 4: Ohio (85)
March 4: Rhode Island (17)
March 4: Texas (137)
March 4: Vermont (17)
March 11: Mississippi (36)
April 5: Tennessee (12)
April 22: Pennsylvania (62)
May 3 – May 24: Minnesota (24)
May 6: Indiana (27)
May 6: North Carolina (69)
May 13: Nebraska (31)
May 13: West Virginia (9)
May 20: Kentucky (45)
May 20: Oregon (30)
May 20 – 21: New York (11)
May 22: Kansas (10)
May 24 – June 7: Colorado (21)
May 27: Idaho (26)
May 31: Wyoming (2)
June 3: South Dakota (24)
June 3: New Mexico (29)
June 6 – June 7: Pennsylvania (9)
June 7: Illinois (10)
June 7: Minnesota (14)
June 9 – June 10: Indiana (27)


It appears that Huckabee won't get any credit for winning the Louisiana primary...

[firepokemon]

Obama will prolly take the Protomac Primary and Obama is tending to win 3-1 while Clinton's best shots start March 4th but the problem is Clinton isn't winning 3-1 shes winning 2-1. Obama looks to have the advantage at this stage which I just can't stand. If hes the nominee I want McCain to win.

I say we'll find out whos the nominee prolly March 4th with Pennsylvania the clincher. I think the democrats really need to sort out Michigan and Florida, because if those were ran prolly I say Clinton would have the nominee by now but no DNC took not only some but all their delegates away. If they had just cut them by half like the republicans did.

McCain I'm guessing should do well at the Protomac Primary so while Huckabee got a few wins over the weekend McCain should clinch it very soon.

[Toxicity]

Well, the D.C. rather than state was my bad basing from the reports I saw.

I still think that the states that aren't allowed to have delegates count towards candidacy is a little unfair; it really does seem to turn away well-informed voters in any party. In fact, from what I heard, the family I have in Louisiana didn't even go out to cast their ballots; very conservative Republicans, too. It's an Obamanation. (pun fully intended, of course)

I still wonder if Huckabee does fully intend to hold on the whole time irregardless of delegates. He even stated himself that he won't settle for Vice President (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23096182/).

[Roy Karrde]

Since we are waiting for the next set of Primaries, I figured I would make a list of things the Canidates should not do and obviously need to stop doing. Feel free to add on to the list if you want

1: Stupid Slogans: One thing that seems to pop up during every single race is slogans that sound good, and build up hype, but mean absolutely nothing. The most recent example is Obama's "Yes We Can" slogan. Yes we can what? What can we do? What are we saying Yes to? The same goes with the "Change" slogan. Change what? What will be the result of this change? The Stupid Slogans that mean nothing MUST GO.

2: Attacking the Previous President: In no other job do you recieve the job by bitching about the guy who's position you want to take. We know about the falts of the previous guy, yet the canidates act as if they are telling it to us for the first time. The problem is that we know what he has done, tell us what you are going to do.

3: I have a Plan!: This is one of the most annoying things, and was part of John Kerry's downfall. If you have a plan, tell it to us, lay it out so we know what the plan is and how you are going to impliment it. Just saying that you have a plan and then continuing on does nothing but tell us that you believe we are too stupid to understand your plan.

4: Read My Lips: And the thing that brought down George Bush Sr. No matter if you are Democrat or Republican, do not make stupid promises in which you know you probably will not be able to keep. The biggest offender of this is saying you will lower taxes, the problem is that you have no idea what will happen once you get into office and what will happen 4 years down the line. So do not lie to us!

5: It is his fault: Playing the blame game really really gets annoying. If you were part of the problem, then come out and say so, appologise for it and tell us how you are going to fix it. Pointing fingers only makes you look petty and small.

6: Painting Broad Strokes: Everything these days seems to have to be condensed to twenty second sound bites. We live in the age of You Tube where you can make a video as long as you want and tell the people your ideas. Do not just say "Well I am going to lower taxes for the middle class." That only outlines the idea, tell us atleast how you are going to do it so we can atleast hold you to it. Tell us which of the Middle Class are getting their taxes lowered, tell us how you plan to do it, tell us when you will be able to start working toward it. Telling us just the heading and then moving on does absolutely nothing!

Alright, anyone else want to add in?

[Katie]

Obama is ahead of Hillary? holy crap, yaaaay. Anxiously waiting for the TX primary, though I don't even know which democrat is stronger here... All I know is everyone around me hates all candidates except for Ron Paul, wtf.

Also, I want to vent my frustration so TPM will have to do:
A girl next door to me in the dorms doesn't like Obama because, and I quote, "I don't know where his loyalties lie, I don't trust a guy who was Muslim and then mysteriously converted to Christianity right before he runs for president"
*headdesk* I'm not asking for the average clueless college kid to come up with a detailed political analysis of each candidate, but at least take 2 minutes to read a wikipedia page about them to get the fucking basics. Obama was never Muslim, his father was but became atheist before he ever met Barack's mother. He converted to Christianity when he was ~20, I'm pretty sure he wasn't running for the presidency then. Even if you were to doubt it, the instant he made a claim about going to a church he never went to, there would be SO many people saying he was never there that it would run him out of the race. My god, people, logic.

[Jeff]

I almost wonder if some people think that Obama = Osama.

Anyway, I voted in yesterday's Potomac Primary/Chesapeake Primary/Crab Cake Primary/whatever you want to call it. I ended up going with McCain. I supported Guiliani right up until he dropped out, but McCain was my second option. I haven't seen the results yet, but I don't think anything's going to surprise me except for the local Congressional race (which is really anyone's game). My mom even voted for Huckabee knowing that he's not going to win, she just felt sorry for him.:P

[Roy Karrde]

Democrat Superdelegates recieve Cash from Campeigns (http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/02/superdelegates.html)

I saw this up on Drudge and was wondering what you guys would think of it. I mean with Superdelegates possibly deciding the election. It just seems sleezy that both campeigns are trying to bribe their way into the Democrat Nomination.

[Clark]

wikipedia isn't a reliable source of information.
treat wikipedia as a basic encyclopedia on "known facts", like "what is a bike" or the planet names. Anyone can edit it, and if you actually check his page, its been locked, probably after someone in his campaign decided to tell them the info was "wrong" and pay them off to put other random facts in it.
Now I'm not saying he magically turned Christian, but theres no facts anywhere proving he wasn't Muslim.

I won't run this into a debate about wiki, but they do run on money. Whos to say someone didn't pay them to take off true facts. All companies wanting to stay intact, especially such a widely known informational site, would take money to keep going.

Anyways...I'm still pulling for Ron Paul on the (R) side. As for the (D), lost cause...if it comes down to Clinton and McCain, I'd go Clinton. Bill rules. :D

[Katie]

wikipedia isn't a reliable source of information.
treat wikipedia as a basic encyclopedia on "known facts", like "what is a bike" or the planet names. Anyone can edit it, and if you actually check his page, its been locked, probably after someone in his campaign decided to tell them the info was "wrong" and pay them off to put other random facts in it.
Now I'm not saying he magically turned Christian, but theres no facts anywhere proving he wasn't Muslim.

I won't run this into a debate about wiki, but they do run on money. Whos to say someone didn't pay them to take off true facts. All companies wanting to stay intact, especially such a widely known informational site, would take money to keep going.

Anyways...I'm still pulling for Ron Paul on the (R) side. As for the (D), lost cause...if it comes down to Clinton and McCain, I'd go Clinton. Bill rules. :D

I didn't say that should be your only research, in fact it's probably a bad place to start your research other than for sources, but it's at least a start compared to "well my mom said that fox news said..." which she probably got it from. Besides, people are really quick to correct Wiki lies/vandalism in really popular articles.

There's no facts anywhere proving I'm not Muslim either. Take off your tinfoil hat. :rolleyes:

[Clark]

I'm not saying Muslims are bad. A lot of my friends at university are Muslims, or have converted to Muslim. Its just the way media portrays them. And I would take anyones word over Fox. lol

[Roy Karrde]

Guys we are going a bit off topic again, although if you want to start a list of unrelyable sites, you could go: Fox News, Wikipedia, Democrat Underground, Media Matters, etc etc

[mr_pikachu]

Reliability: Wikipedia > Opinion blogs. Besides, we all know when a site is less trustworthy than we'd like; it doesn't need to be a subject for debate.

Back on topic!

Wisconsin Primary: Obama Leads Polls by 4.3% (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/wi/wisconsin_democratic_primary-270.html)

Obama's roots give him an edge in Hawaii caucuses (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/nation/5547358.html)

With 94 delegates at stake on Tuesday, neither candidate can afford to give up the lion's share of 74 available in Wisconsin. Unless, of course, they plan on winning the 334 offered by Texas and Ohio on the 4th.

[Roy Karrde]

Ughhh Texas is being baragged by Clinton and Obama comercials. Many times running back to back. MAKE IT STOP!

[firepokemon]

Yay finally have a computer at home and am happy even though its old and i told my partner not to buy one cause I will be on too long.

Onto the presidential campaign and Im going with Clinton by one I realise the polls are with Obama and maybe I'm dreaming but I say Clinton will win.

Edit: Well Fox News projects Obama the winner after less than 1% of the vote. Which is a bit wierd they must be in a race to declare the winner. But looks like Obama takes it.

Edit number two: Could Barack Obama not talk less or something? His speeches go on for fucking ever about mostly shit and he is one rude bastard just ignoring Clinton's speech so he can spout off bullshit.

Edit number three: And Obama wins big so even if Clinton wins Ohio and Texas (which is looking less and less likely) the gap isn't likely to be big so Obama has prolly won. I am sad. So go McCain.

[firepokemon]

I just can't believe how pathetic the american people can be and yes you people are stupid. First the republican party in the year 2000 gave Bush the nominee by allowing him to win Iowa and South Carolina. And while Bush was a better option than Al Gore in the presidential race, really they both sucked. Now Bush didn't start his president run well, not only did he not win the most amount of votes at the election but he quickly made a bad name for himself internationally by not voting in the Kyoto Protocol. A protocol that had set goals to cut greenhouse emissions back to 1990 levels. But you americans had the September 11 attacks and allowed yourself to become so angry and patriotic that you ignored the warnings by France, you ignored the warnings by Germany and you allowed yourselves to believe so pathetically tthat there were weapons of mass destruction and that somehow the September 11 attacks were linked to Iraq. This was not only stupendously ignorant it lacked validity. You got swept up in your patriotic way and so overwhelmingly supported this stupid war. You allowed Bush to get such a strangehold on the american people that he could do just about anything. But the war went wrong and as stupid people do they quickly ignore the war and believe it was a mistake and that it was stupid so you oppose it. Ignoring what would happen if you pull out of this war. You allowed america to adopt a foreign policy that said you're either with me or against you.

And now at the 2008 presidential primary season, you have allowed yourself to be swept by the patheticness that is Barack Obama. A person that offers nice words and compliments. Hope we believe inm change we believe in and yes we can. Those words america will come to bite you if indeed Obama is the nominee. It is the talk of pathetic people leading pathetic ignorant lives so swept up by words and representations that you ignore sound policies and sound candidates for the people that only offer bullshit. Now Barack Obama is not guaranteed the presidency but even the more ardent clinton supporters can't ignore that where he wins he wins by margins and he could well win in both Ohio and Texas. I would ask those people to not be swept by patheticness but we are talking Bush country. The land of ignorance and stupidity. So Obama probably takes the democrat nominee and the presidency and you America will believe that he offers so much hope but you will like the promise of greater security after September 11 be thrown back to the stupidity that you the american people possess for believing in lies and promises that can't be taken. You won't get democrats and republicans closer with Obama. He won;t achieve what he promises and once again america will be taken to task but you'll be ignorant once again. In your beliefs over abortion, religion, creationism vs evolution, foreign intervention and whatever stupid things the american people believe. I said that when I wrote the topic "America the land of crud" I was right there and I'll be right again.

[Blademaster]

I just can't believe how pathetic the american people can be and yes you people are stupid.

Was it your intent to make me stop reading after that line, or was that just an accident? Either way, the rest of that post got ignored. Maybe next time you could try discussing and debating instead of flame-baiting half the thread.

[Roy Karrde]

Now Bush didn't start his president run well, not only did he not win the most amount of votes at the election but he quickly made a bad name for himself internationally by not voting in the Kyoto Protocol.

The Senate ratifies treaties, not the President, and even then the Kyoto Protocol was hated on both sides of the isle, if you need proof look at Clinton, he didn't support it either.


A protocol that had set goals to cut greenhouse emissions back to 1990 levels.

It doesn't do anything to stop China or India, the two biggest polluters in the world. It was a failed treaty that punishes Industialized nations while helping China and India.


But you americans had the September 11 attacks and allowed yourself to become so angry and patriotic that you ignored the warnings by France, you ignored the warnings by Germany

Could that be becuase France was bribed into their support of Iraq?

http://txfx.net/2004/10/07/saddam-bribed-france/


and you allowed yourselves to believe so pathetically tthat there were weapons of mass destruction and that somehow the September 11 attacks were linked to Iraq. This was not only stupendously ignorant it lacked validity.

Every agency in the world believed Iraq had WMDs, hell even Saddam's own generals believed he had WMDs. As for being linked to September 11th, Bush never linked Iraq to September 11th. That is a lie made up by many anti war activists to try and support their claims that September 11th was caused by our Government to invade Iraq.


You allowed america to adopt a foreign policy that said you're either with me or against you.

On the war against Al Qaeda we have a policy of you are either with us or against us. Against Al Qaeda, not against Iraq, but Al Qaeda. That was who Bush was talking about when he made that speech. And really I cannot see any nation, no matter how Anti War, would oppose going after Al Qaeda.


I would ask those people to not be swept by patheticness but we are talking Bush country. The land of ignorance and stupidity.

I have no idea how to respond to such a completely stupid statement. The stupidity of laying a blanket statement like that down is just amazing.

[The Blue Avenger]

And really I cannot see any nation, no matter how Anti War, would oppose going after Al Qaeda.

Pakistan probably would oppose it - the Taliban supports al Qaeda, and Pakistan wants to stay on the Taliban's good side. P:

This isn't terribly relevant, but we learned that today in my political science class, and I'm proud that I remembered it. :P

[Roy Karrde]

Pakistan probably would oppose it - the Taliban supports al Qaeda, and Pakistan wants to stay on the Taliban's good side. P:

This isn't terribly relevant, but we learned that today in my political science class, and I'm proud that I remembered it. :P

Good point, maybe I should restructure my point to say "All Nations except the few insane middle eastern ones."

Then again, Al Qaeda did kill a major Pakistan figure didn't they? You would think that would piss off the Pakistanis.

[Andrew]

Roy - You're the reason I HATE misc nowadays.

Honestly.

[Clark]

Roy - You're the reason I HATE misc nowadays.

Honestly.

+1

[Roy Karrde]

Roy - You're the reason I HATE misc nowadays.

Honestly.

You know what? I only respond to very very stupid and incorrect things. There are many things to hate Bush and America for, and there are many things to like America and Bush for. But for the love of God do not use far left talking points that are utterly wrong.

You dislike him for not signing the Kyoto Treaty? That is fine, but Clinton also refused to sign it too, the treaty was a utter failure. So why not dislike him instead for not doing enough to go to the world and try to put together a treaty that was fair to all nations.

You hate him for Iraq, that is fine but hate him for not realizing that we needed more troops in there around 2005 and that his indecision to change course in Iraq cost thousands of lives.

How about for his view on the border, his inaction on the border has cost the American people thousands of jobs and cost them billions of dollars.

How about for wearing his religion on his sleeve and thus alienating alot of the country?

How about for not persuing a national vote on abortion and gay marriage that way we can get how the country feels one way or the other and stop having the courts legislate?

You want to hate him? Feel free, but by God do it for correct reasons and not for lies like "Bush said Iraq caused 9/11"

[mr_pikachu]

It makes me sad that I have to say BACK ON TOPIC.

Where Hillary Went Wrong: A Pre Postmortem (http://real-us.news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20080219/cm_huffpost/087353_200802191056)

Okay, I'd like to bring this article up for two main points of discussion.

1. Are the reasons given in the article the cause for Clinton losing what was once a decisive advantage?

2. Is it time to start making proclamations about the death of Clinton's campaign, or is it still too early?

Personally, I disagree with the part about "old politics," simply because that's how the Clinton machine works. Grinding away with attacks and backroom tactics appeared to be Hillary's best move; the problem for her is that she hasn't been able to capitalize on any major slip-ups by Obama. As a result, her attacks have appeared and proven desperate. The one way in which I might fault her here is for not changing strategies earlier, but she had to at least try to take advantage of superior resources to score an early KO.

Also, the article discusses a "missing shake-up." While I agree that the changes should have been far faster and that they should have swept across the board, her campaign staff has changed multiple times over the last few months. Every time, she was right to make changes. The real problem is that it's drawn such public attention that it makes her previously "infallible" campaign look weak - which clashes starkly with her "I believe I will win because I am the best candidate" facade of confidence.

Oh, and I'm not sure it's time to write off Clinton. Of course, should she lose Texas and Ohio, she's pretty much toast. But I can still see the potential for a comeback.

[firepokemon]

Roy I really dislike post and quote its so irritating. I like the points you make but I'm not doing a merry go around.

Mr. Pikachu I agree with your points but I also think people like Obama pure and simple. Even if you're like me and can't stand the guy. Hes a good candidate who seemingly gives good speeches (I gthink its preaching personally). There isn't much you can do against a candidate that is that good. Clinton has made mistakes, the Bill Clinton attacks for starters and a messed up campaign in regards to caucases. The media are in love with Obama and it just doesn't seem like its going to stop. Potentially Clinton has a chance but just winning Ohio and Texas isn't enough. What Clinton needs is to win big. Because even if she wins Ohio, Texas and then Pennsylvania, theres also North Carolina a very good state for Obama and where Obama is winning hes winning big.

[Andrew]

I think your entire response to my post simply proved my point more. :(

Please stop being as obnoxious.

[Leon-IH]

For once I find myself thinking "geez, the Republican party has a chance if the democrats manage to divide each other much further" this is under the assumption McCain is the republican candidate.

[firepokemon]

If Obama is the nominee the republicans are going to struggle. Its easy to attack Clinton but you attack Obama and eventually the race card will be used to deflect attacks and he is attracting independents and I would say republicans as well through his speeches and words even though hes far more liberal than Clinton will ever be. His messages of hope and change while disturbingly shallow are nonetheless captivating people and if Obama can get the young people to actually vote come election time, republicans will struggle. He also has the media so on his side and he can seemingly attack people and be rude and yet noone seems to take any notice. Obama is a scary prospect not only because he offers falsities but also because he has for now been untouchable and that is why Clinton is the better nominee not only for the US because shes less liberal but also because for the republicans shes beatable. I don't know if the same can be said for Obama.

If its Obama vs McCain. McCain it is for me, pity I can't vote. Obama I think would be a disaster on national security and on foreign relations he will be insular and he will not with his current liberal stances be able to branch out to republicans. America be afraid be very afriad. I think he could be worse than Bush.

[Magmar]

Whoever supports Huckabee should be dragged out to a street and shot. <3

[Roy Karrde]

I think it is actually the opposite firepokemon, that Hillary is actually the stronger cannidate out of the two.

To actually contribute some information to the topic right now, there seems to be a movement going on with Texas Republicans right now. Alot of them are considering which is the weaker cannidate ( The common held belief being Obama ) and then going and voting for that person, thus causing Hillary to lose.

So if that continues you may actually see Hillary lose Texas and thus lose the nomination. But there is also one thing that I want to bring up, lets say that Hillary wins the Democrat nomination, either through getting the votes, or getting the Superdeligates.

If she wins, I promise you, that will be the end of the modern democrat party as we all know it. Expect to see the black representatives get up and walk out of the convention center if Hillary wins.

Anyway since a Hillary/Obama ticket will probably never happen. Who do you think is going to be the VP for either one? It will probably be a "Safe White Male" as to not stur up even more controversy, but that doesn't limit it down too much.

[firepokemon]

Republicans don't think Clinton is stronger they just can't stand her. But what they will get with Obama is someone far more left of Clinton. If Clinton wins the nomination via superdelegates then yes I think there will be a problem with the democrat party. But the black voters really have no choice, they either vote democrat or they don't vote. And yes that would hurt Clinton if she is the nominee but if Clinton wins fairly then they should vote.

If republicans want a chance in the white house. Vote Clinton in Texas. Its your best chance. Republicans will struggle with Obama.

Edit: And for all the bravado over super delegates. Two New Jersey superdelegates are going with Obama, yet Clinton won that state. So the Obama are just as guilty as far as I'm concerned.

[Heald]

I reckon John Edwards will be a shoe-in for the VP nomination. He probably pulled out early just so he could work on earning that lucrative position.

[Roy Karrde]

I think the reason why Republicans think Clinton is stronger, is becuase they have gone through eight years of Clinton era politics. And they just know how freaking dangerous the Clintons are when they turn all their weapons on you.

Also I think they are hoping and praying that the Obama juggernaut fizzles out. I mean in politics there is a term that discribes someone that relies on the Youth Vote to win: Loser.

I don't know about you guys, but I am kind of hoping that it comes down to the convention, meaning I do want to have Clinton win Texas and Ohio. I mean wouldn't it be exciting to see a actual convention where people are fighting for the nominee?

Edit: Also you have nothing really to worry about firePokemon, Clinton has a very big lead here in Texas.

[Clark]

landslides > close fights.
don't want another florida ballot trash.

As much as I think women are good just for sex, I hope Clinton wins. Black people need to stay on the field so I don't have to. And he's not even African-American, hes white. Kenyan isn't American.

White Power.

[firepokemon]

Acey is pasty

[Roy Karrde]

Okay both of you can stop it now. We don't need any spamming to happen or any fights to break out due to sexist and racist remarks. So keep it on subject and ignore ACE's post.

[Heald]

Ace is officially my hero.

[DarkTemplarZero]

Women are only good for sex bitch. Have you ever seen chick logic? It's crazy shit. Them bitches are insane. So I was once hooking up with this chick in HS. I told her that we should go back to my car to do the nasty, as the phrase goes. She refused, because she was "not the kind of girl who hooks up with a guy in the back seat of his car before going on a date". So I tapped that shit in the parking lot on the trunk of my car, and that was perfectly alright with her XD. That's chick logic for her. 85% of the reason why I won't vote for Hillary, I'm a sexist bastard. An exceedingly drunk sexist bastard who has had over 20 shots of vodka tonight, woo.

And yeah, I got lazy with the alternating royal blue and magenta, sue me. I don't know AWK well enough to do that yet, even though I've hacked the language's source code to do some mighty crazy shit.

[firepokemon]

Nobody's talking politics? How sad. So the polls aren't looking the best for Clinton. While she indeed has a lead at this time over Obama in both Texas and Ohio. Obama still has a good chance to win both and the margins are so close in Texas. Although I would wager that these polls that have been coming out don't mean much anyway. I don't think the polls have much representation among the young people or take into account how many will turn up at the polls. And nobody knows how many latinos will vote in texas and whether these latinos will be younger and older. Younger latinos could well go to Obama. And also Texas is a hybrid primary/caucus. Polls don't work for caucases in the first place and Obama has done well in most Caucases even if the polls has Clinton in the lead.

I still think Clinton can win both states which means she can stay in. But lets suppose she takes both states and squeaks in a win in Rhode Island, while Obama takes Vermont. So then eyes are on Pennsylvania, where I think Clinton can win too. But then there is North Carolina. North Carolina has a good number of blacks that will vote in the primary and a poll today has Obama by 14. This could well be the end for Clinton even if she wins Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania. But if Clinton does ok in North Carolina and the margins are tight elsewhere, though Oregon should be good for Obama. That will leave Puerto Rico last. Puerto Rico has 54 delegates at stake and they are a win-all primary. That should be good for Clinton. And then we'll have a convention fight at hands. Chances are even if Clinton wins the three big states and takes Puerto Rico, Obama may well still lead in pledged delegates and overall vote. Thout. Thus Obama at this stage should have the nominee. But I wouldn't count Clinton out. By winning the two big states of Ohio and Texas she could well propel herself back at the frontwinner, thus giving her Pennsylvania and the margins falling elsewhere in states such as Oregon and North Carolina.

My heart is with Clinton, but increasingly her chances are getting smaller and Obama could well take out both Ohio and Texas.

[mr_pikachu]

Thanks for getting us back on topic, fp.

I think we can both agree that Clinton must take Ohio or Texas. An Obama sweep would basically be a mortal wound; she's got to at least split to have a chance. Likewise, an unlikely Clinton sweep would swing things back in her favor.

However, I think Clinton may have a fairly good shot in Texas. While there's been a fairly large divide in how voters of different ages are going, the Latino vote has been just as consistent (if not moreso). I'm not sure that the age factor can overcome that, particularly considering the culture of Texas. (Frankly, I was stunned when Clinton took Oklahoma, but it's a little more understandable considering the geographic locale.)

[firepokemon]

I would say Clinton must win both Ohio and Texas. If lets say she won Ohio by 10% but lost to Obama by 1% in Texas. That lead just isn't enough. And how this caucus thing relates to the primary in Texas will also be interesting. I say she will need to win both unless she loses one just and wins huge in the other.

[mr_pikachu]

Well, perhaps. She certainly is trailing by quite a fair margin right now, so a double win would be preferable for her. But part of what makes this race so difficult to predict is the superdelegate issue. Clinton has a large projected lead in them thus far.

Right now I think she needs to quell Obama's momentum in order to restore the confidence of those superdelegates, but the question is whether a split would be enough to do that. I think it might be, but it's hard to know for sure.

(The other issue, as others have said, is whether the superdelegates make much of a difference. Personally, I think they do, considering that Hillary would be in a huge hole without them. But that's just my opinion of the situation.)

[Roy Karrde]

Ugh I cannot stand these Obama comercials, they are brilliantly designed, but full of fluff. The two main points of the comercials has him going "We can end this war" and then followed by words on the screen saying "We can end a War". And then him talking about Global Warming and saying "We can Save a Planet."

The problem is that it doesn't also have Obama saying that "preventing genocide is not a good enough reason to stay in Iraq". Which would seem to be more fitting, since that would be what happens if we pulled out.

It also doesn't mention that signing the Kyoto Treaty will not stop Global Warming, and that we as a world must work together, to stop Global Warming.

UGHH * Bangs head on Desk *

[firepokemon]

So is Obama having more ads than Clinton??? Because In Wincousin ads were 5-1 or something to Obama.

[Roy Karrde]

So is Obama having more ads than Clinton??? Because In Wincousin ads were 5-1 or something to Obama.

The Ads seem to be going 1 to 1, or possibly 2 to 1 in favor of Clinton here. The problem is that Clinton is using old style Political advertisement of the slow pan, and her meeting with the elderly or the children, and her monologuing over it. Obama's ads on the other hand are very energetic, very fast moving, lots of quick shots, each shot lasting no more than 2 seconds in a "Blink and you missed it" type of way. Basically it looks more like a rockstar advertisement than a political message.

[mr_pikachu]

Hmm, that doesn't bode well for Clinton. Part of the key in mass advertising is to get the public's attention, take a death grip on it, and never let go. It sounds as though Clinton's slower advertisements are falling into the classic trap of lacking energy, while Obama's emphasize the charisma of his campaign. The speed, like you said, doesn't give the viewer the chance to look away; Clinton's slower ads sound as if they induce yawning.

Also, a 2-to-1 advantage in quantity isn't always a good thing when the quality is poorer. Just as you would notice the one red brick in the middle of a gray wall, Clinton's advertisements run the risk of blurring together while Obama's stand out.

Very intriguing. Clinton just can't take advantage of her resources...

[Roy Karrde]

Here is a example of the two main ads that are running in the DFW Area.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3JnwkY2L74c <- Obama

Anyway I figured I would put together a series of clips from old Campeigns. See how much has changed in the message ( Or hasn't changed... )

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwXtJvm1Zws <- Bill Clinton 1992 Economy ( It will restore our economy )

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-LzNi--bgw <- George Bush 1980 ( Bring Excellence back to America/Washington )

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgS_qPsTfmQ&feature=related <- George W Bush 2004 Defend America ( I will defend America, what ever it takes )

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ujaix6ya54 <- Jimmy Carter 1976 Leader for Change ( Walls built around Washington )

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PE7JDIkiEZg <- John F Kennedy 1960 ( Health care for seniors )

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EU-IBF8nwSY <- Ronald Reagan 1984 Peace ( Working together for Peace for our children )

[firepokemon]

CNN Poll has Obama over Clinton by 4% in Texas.

Though these polls are all over the place and this is just one poll. But the polls in Texas were lowering already, one would need to see CNN's demographics of the people they polled. What ages, were they latino, were they black, were they independents, or were they even republicans crossing over.

Edit: Well actually ARG American Research Group has a texas poll with Obama up by 8%.

Thus RealClear Politics has Clinton up by just one. RCP of course takes a look at all polls and that will change.

I still think the polls are wrong. Obama could well win in Texas with a 10% spread and if that happens, it will be independents and young people.

Likewise Clinton could win by 10% in Texas depending on how the Latino vote goes and who turns out to the polls.

[mr_pikachu]

Clinton, Obama clash over NAFTA, Iraq (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080227/ap_on_el_pr/democrats_debate)

The gritty battle's getting all the harsher. They're shooting back and forth while complaining about the already negative campaign... this makes me wonder why Clinton expects that the general election would be so much harder for Obama than the primary. This clash has been nothing but one assault after another, on every topic from tax returns to Saturday Night Live.

If you need more proof that this is an exceptionally intense fight, you should know about the man who stabbed his brother over the nomination (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080227/ap_on_fe_st/odd_primary_stabbing;_ylt=AiBW73WWOIJS.OEDHouMGyus 0NUE).

Clinton Lead Slipping in Ohio (http://news.yahoo.com/s/rasmussen/20080226/pl_rasmussen/ohiodemrace20080226)

The Rasmussen poll has Clinton's lead down to 5%, while the RCP Average (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/oh/ohio_democratic_primary-263.html) has it at 6.8%. Obama currently leads the RCP Texas polls (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/tx/texas_democratic_primary-312.html) by an average of 1.2%. He has been gaining ground fairly steadily in both polls for the last 8-9 days.

[Magmar]

I met Clinton on Sunday!

Click! (http://www.anchorweb.org)
That's my article about the event. And picture. <3

[firepokemon]

Magmar is she likely to win Rhode Island or is it up in the air as to who is likely to take out your state.

[Clark]

who cares, she runs NY. and Chelsea has been getting better looking. i def want some of that.

[firepokemon]

Acey stop being so pastey.

[mr_pikachu]

Bloomberg not running for president (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080228/ap_on_el_pr/bloomberg)

Let's be realistic. Super Tuesday was over three weeks ago. Did anyone not see this coming?

[Katie]

I sent in my absentee ballot today! Gogogo Obama! Also: my old math teacher, an awesome dude, is running for rep, if anyone happens to be in TX district 3 vote Minkow :yes:

Huckabee and Chuck Norris visited my campus today. Why is he still running again? Oh well, rednecks here loved him and his gimmick supporter.

[mr_pikachu]

Clinton ad stirs waters (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080229/ap_on_el_pr/democrats_next_commander)

The advertising is getting more intense heading into the big Tuesday primary. Obama holds a 2% lead in Texas according to RealClearPolitics, while Hillary has a five-point edge in Ohio. Clinton has a solid lead in Rhode Island as well, while Obama has a massive advantage in Vermont.

One way or another, Obama's double-digit winning streak is about to end. But it doesn't exactly look like Clinton is positioned to recover much ground.

[firepokemon]

I think you're right about Clinton. Texas has her down and even if she wins the primary. 1/3 or 1/4 of the delegates are decided in a caucus where Obama has tended to do well. I would say though that Clinton can win Texas depending on who votes and Obama could well win by 10%. It just really depends on what demographics and ethnic groups turn out.

In Ohio, Clinton's lead is definately getting smaller, and Obama could well by Tuesday grab the lead, but Clinton thus far is holding Ohio.

Rhode Island is funny, because Obama is advertising more yet Clinton is leading, though RCP doesn't exactly have that many polls on Rhode Island. So Obama could potentially take it.

In Vermont. Obama is looking good, but I don't think one should look at the polls slowly.

Finally, I think Clinton must win Texas and Ohio otherwise I just can't see her gaining enough delegates. But I also think that all four primaries regardless of what the polls are saying are up in the air. Potentially they'll all be close, or all four will go to one candidate. Or someone could win big in one or more states. Its that open.

[mr_pikachu]

Obama spends heavily to seek knockout blow (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23427093)

Both candidates are spending like crazy in Texas and Ohio. This was to be expected, as Tuesday is the biggest set of primaries remaining for the Democrats.

But there's one quote here that's worth special mention.


Mrs. Clinton’s advisers have suggested that she will bow out of the race if she falters in either state, after 11 straight losses.

Let us therefore turn to the RCP averages in both states.

Ohio (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/oh/ohio_democratic_primary-263.html): Clinton +4.0%
Texas (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/tx/texas_democratic_primary-312.html): Obama +0.8%

Obama's Texas numbers declined on February 29th, as his lead in the Zogby poll plunged from 6% to 2%. He also lost 5 points in the InsiderAdvantage survey on the 27th, which negated his gains in Rasmussen.

This showdown could be all or nothing...

[firepokemon]

Its so close in these polls. Oh I wish I didn't have 3 classes on that day. I'll prolly be home and half the results will be over. :(

Edit:

My predictions.

Clinton beats Obama in Texas Primary via women and latinos.

Clinton just beats Obama in the Texas caucus.

Clinton wins in Ohio by 5% thanks to low income voters.

Clinton wins in Rhode Island by 10%.

Obama wins in Vermont by 15% thanks to Clinton basically ignoring the state.

Edit No. 2.

And bleh either my browser went crazy or tpm I had to type this thing out so many times. And I ended up changing it from Obama and Clinton basically tied in caucus to Clinton winning it. I thought I'd predict now before I got too influenced by what polls and articles would say.

[mr_pikachu]

The big primary is today. Does anyone else have any predictions for Ohio, Texas, Rhode Island, and Vermont?

My thoughts: Rhode Island and Vermont are blowouts. My assessment is basically identical to fp's here.

I agree that Hillary will win in Ohio, but it probably won't be by as much as the polls suggest. It may be splitting hairs, but I'm guessing she squeaks it by 2-3%.

As for Texas, I predict a similar slight shift toward Obama; I have him winning by 1, maybe 2 percent there. It's hard to place complete faith in the standard polls, as many of them haven't completely figured out how to deal with the "Obama factor," which I perceive simply as so-called "unlikely" voters going to the polls.

The bigger question for me is whether Clinton will live up to the previous suggest that she will drop out in the event of a split. Personally, I think it was just a ploy to get her supporters to vote: "If she doesn't win here, it's over! I'd better do my part!" Almost as good as crying and whining.

[firepokemon]

The real funny thing is that these primaries all have completely different rules with how they are distributed. Some of them are proportional some of them are to do with the district and reaching certain percentages grant you more. Its so bizarre that I found so many different explanations just for Ohio alone that to show how the delegates are done and how they are awarded is just too difficult.

[mr_pikachu]

Looking at the RealClearPolitics data for Texas, I've noticed something odd. There are currently eight major polls being tracked for the RCP Average, which Clinton leads by 0.3%. One of these, the WFAA is tied. Of the remaining seven, Obama leads in five: three by 1% and two by 3%. Clinton leads in only two - but by 5% and 6%, respectively.

At first I was willing to consider them balancing polls that might counterbalance the skewing of the others, but now I wonder if they're statistical outliers. The two polls to which I'm referring are InsiderAdvantage and PPP. Looking at the past data for the Texas primary, they have consistently leaned more toward the Clinton side than the other polls throughout this campaign.

As an example, the Feb. 25 InsiderAdvantage poll had Obama leading by 1% while SurveyUSA and ARG had him up by 4% and 8%, respectively. PPP presented a tie on Feb 23-24, right in between those two aforementioned polls. So are they counterweights or does their manner of collection and interpretation somehow incorrectly skew them toward Clinton?

[firepokemon]

Polls are all over the place. Look at the ones you consider to be fairly accurate ie. reuters, CNN, NYT, Fox, AP those kinda ones and ignore the rest. But these polls have not been very accurate whatsoever.

Makeup of Ohio delegates:

161 delegates
Of those 20 are superdelegates
Remaining 141 delegates split into two parts.
92 are split amongOhio's 18 Congressional Districts and are awarded proportionally,
Remaining 49 delegates awarded proportional to the state-wide result.

Makeup of Texas delegates
228 delegates
35 superdelegates
Remaining 193 divided into 126 district delegates and 67 state-wide delegates
1/3 of delegates awarded in caucus.

Makeup of Rhode Island delegates
32 delegates
11 super delegates
Remaining 21 delegates
Of those 21 delegates there are 13 district delegates and 8 state-wide delegates.
The 13 delegates are divided among two congressional districts.

Makeup of Vermont delegates
23 delegates
8 superdelegates
15 delegates awarded. 10 via congressional districts and 5 via state-wide results.
And here is where it gets even more complicated.


The Vermont Democratic Party uses the results of the state's presidential preference primary on March 4 to determine the allocation of delegates to each presidential candidate. Though the primary is used for allocation of delegates, the delegates themselves are selected in a caucus process. On March 22, the Party holds a series of town-level caucuses to select its first tier of delegates. On May 24, the Party holds its state convention in which the town-level delegates select the 10 district-level delegates that will attend the 2008 Democratic National Convention. The remaining 5 pledged delegates plus an unpledged delegate are selected at the Vermont Democratic Party's National Convention Delegate Meeting on June 7.[1]

Information gathered via news articles and wikipedia and a few blogs.

Bleh so as you can see these primaries are fucking complicated. Because blacks tend to vote in elections the districts where blacks live get more delegates and cities also get higher delegates. Thus Clinton could win the popular vote but still not win the delegate count. And Texas is so complicated with its rules that I'm sure half of it is wrong.

[mr_pikachu]

This process would be so much simpler if we just switched to a national poll. For both parts. All this nonsense with delegates and electoral votes is irritating. I keep score of baseball games and this is getting to be too much.

It's not that the rules for individual states are complicated, but why do we need to bother with having so many rules? It clutters up the whole process and keeps it from being transparent.


EDIT: Maybe someday we'll have massive groups of people (perhaps pollsters!) betting on long-shots in elections and then conspiring to throw those elections with their own votes. The Black Sox meet the White House.

Nader 2080!

[Clark]

kaboom
wheres the love for women. hillary better win. :p

[Roy Karrde]

I figured I would add in something interesting for the Texas Primaries. Last night we had a bit of a Snow/Ice storm that moved through. While it wasn't enough to snow anyone in, it did ice some of the freeways a bit, as well as ice people's cars. The freeways are incredibly backed up right now and many schools are starting late.

Becuase of that many in North Texas where the Black Population is heavy ( Dallas being the biggest black populated area ) may decide not to go vote before work due to the increased traffic. As well as the incredibly windy and cold conditions outside today.

[Clark]

good. they should just stick to being lazy bums like usual.

[firepokemon]

Obama and McCain projected to win Vermont. No surprise here, the constituents just were not in Huckabee or Clinton's favour. Must be big margins if they can project already.

Edit:

McCain projected to win Ohio.

[Roy Karrde]

WBAP: "You are really starting to see Hillary's base coming out. That being women who are starting to say that they do care about the safety of their family, that they care about their job. And it is starting to swing momentum away from Obama and back toward Hillary in Texas and Ohio."

"People are having buyer's remorse now, taking a hard look at Obama and saying "Is this who we really want as the Democrat Nominee"

Also Texas may not be decided for another two hours becuase of El Paso and it's large hispanic population voting in the Mountain Time Zone. Also today's voting in Texas has been huge and packed, but there are rumors coming out of the Clinton camp of voter intimidation at precincts.

Hillary is about to take over in Texas, won Ohio, and won Roade Island. So I found a Post Card to pretty much sum up the night.

http://hoopee.fi/images/ULB_Bitch_is_back_lippu2.jpg

[firepokemon]

McCain has won enough delegates to offically be named the republican nominee for the 2008 Presidential campaign.

Hillary wins big in Rhode Island. Clinton with a sizeable lead (at this stage in Ohio). Clinton currently in Lead in Texas.

I feel the Clinton train coming.

[Roy Karrde]

I feel the Clinton train coming.

Lol Mark Davis is having a orgasm on the radio with Clinton winning, also rumor has it that in Harris county * Houston Texas * The Obama Caucusers are shutting the door on the Clinton Cacusers. And becuase of the Texas system, the Caucus vote could be the biggest vote of the night.

Figured I would break this down by spin, feel free to change it for what you believe.

Obama Supporter: We are still ahead in deligates, and we have a large majority of the populous backing us, Clinton won her firewall states like she was planning to, no real big surprises.

Clinton Supporter: Obama is beatable, we are coming back and we are going to win. Obama has won alot of states that the Democrats will lose in the election anyway. Hillary will win Democrat States and help keep California in play.

Republicans: Grab a beer and relax, the Democrats have to spend another 4 weeks fighting eachother and spending more and more money attacking eachother. If it comes to the Convention with Obama having more supporters, but Clinton having more deligates. The Democrat party will tear itself apart.

[firepokemon]

Clinton projected to win Texas Primary. The percentage is small and the way texas delegates are awarded could benefit Obama.

So far 5% of Texas caucus in with Obama by 10%.

Edit: Not watching tv but CNN has at 9pm NZT (so 3am EST) Obama by 10 with 35% of the caucus precincts reporting in.

How slow are these caucus numbers. And more importantly how credible are these caucus results. The way they're taking is so up for corruption.

[The Blue Avenger]

Republicans: Grab a beer and relax, the Democrats have to spend another 4 weeks fighting eachother and spending more and more money attacking eachother. If it comes to the Convention with Obama having more supporters, but Clinton having more deligates. The Democrat party will tear itself apart.

Yeah, I definitely think the Republicans are in the best spot they could be right now.

Dammit, Democrats, pull it together.

[mr_pikachu]

Clinton hints at shared ticket (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/campaign_rdp)

Yeah, like that's gonna happen. Obama's totally going to just drop his whole campaign right here so that he can claim the #2 role on the Clinton ticket. The fact is, this campaign may very well go down to the wire (maybe even to convention), and the longer it drags on the less likely these two are to form a team.

It seems more like a strategic jab to me. Although she was far more overt in certain other post-primary comments, this was one instance where she basically implied that Obama was suddenly the underdog (a possible argument, since she now has momentum) and let the voters draw their own conclusions. Seems like a rare tactful attack from her - it's a damaging thought to which Obama can't directly respond because she didn't actually say anything about his chances.

...Except for the other 99.7% of her commentary, of course. Oh well.

[firepokemon]

Well this Texas Caucus is a shamble. Not only for its controversy but the fact results are so fucking slow coming out for it. Frankly these caucuses are essentially a grassroots institution that fronts as a democratic and safe way of doing politics. But is in its entirely frankly undemocratic.

And what the hell is with america and voting? Is it that fucking hard to have a proper ballot where people just make a tick to the nominee that they want?

Anyway delegates from primaries:

Ohio:

Clinton 71
Obama 59

Rhode Island:

Clinton 13
Obama 8

Texas:

Clinton 65
Obama 61

Vermont:

Obama 9
Clinton 6

Vermont and Rhode Island. You can pretty much say those are the numbers. Ohio close but Texas needs sorting and the caucus results need to be done.

[mr_pikachu]

Slightly changing the subject for a moment...

Dean urges do-over voting in Fla., Mich. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080306/ap_on_el_pr/primary_scramble)

As much as I hate to say it, this is looking more and more likely by the day. It doesn't seem like Florida and Michigan should be rewarded for breaking party rules - if this goes through, the nation will focus on their primary twice - and while I don't particularly mind, it would drain the budget of... well, someone. They're still bickering over who has to foot the bill. It also benefits the candidate who broke the boycott initially: namely, Clinton. While I can't be objective here since I'm firmly anti-Hillary, that doesn't seem entirely fair.

Also, Texas in second day of counting caucus results (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/05/texas.caucus.count/?iref=mpstoryview). They hope to finish sometime today, but it could extend into tomorrow.

[firepokemon]

I hope they do a do-over. They're just too important states to be ignored. As for the Texas Caucus - these things are shambles and should be replaced by primaries. Democratically they sound nice, but they most definately do not sound democratic to me.

[Roy Karrde]

I hope they do a do-over. They're just too important states to be ignored.

The problem that arises is that Clinton already has a major advantage already in both of them. She spent tons of money in both Michigan and Florida, even though the votes did not count. So she already has a base to build upon.


As for the Texas Caucus - these things are shambles and should be replaced by primaries. Democratically they sound nice, but they most definately do not sound democratic to me.

You have no idea what a Cluster F the Texas Caucus is, the thing is that Texas is so far in the back when it comes to Caucuses that it is just a formality 99.9999% of the time. So everyone goes with the idea of "Why fix something that usually recieves local caucus votes of 6 people". Which is why many locations were utterly overwhelmed Tuesday night, places that at best saw 6 people in 04, saw nearly 200 to 1,000 on last Tuesday.

[firepokemon]

Obama wins Wyoming 59% to 40. No real surprise. A natural republican state going for the bluest of the blue democratic candidates who just happens to have an excellent grassroots campaign. There were several places that Clinton could have won ie. Maine and others but she chose to essentially ignore them. To her peril I might add.

Mississippi also looks good for Obama. The problem Clinton is having is shes not winning places as big as Obama is doing which is really hurting her. And where she doesn't think she can win she tends to ignore them thus Obama produces big wins. Thus he continues gaining delegates because she realises he will win but then doesn't think about how many delegates he can get.

I see in Texas Clinton only gained one more delegate than Obama according to AP. Rather pitiful really. So Clinton wins by 100, 000 and all its worth is one delegate? Big states lose to small states its that simple.

[Toxicity]

Slightly changing the subject for a moment...

Dean urges do-over voting in Fla., Mich. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080306/ap_on_el_pr/primary_scramble)

As much as I hate to say it, this is looking more and more likely by the day. It doesn't seem like Florida and Michigan should be rewarded for breaking party rules - if this goes through, the nation will focus on their primary twice - and while I don't particularly mind, it would drain the budget of... well, someone. They're still bickering over who has to foot the bill. It also benefits the candidate who broke the boycott initially: namely, Clinton. While I can't be objective here since I'm firmly anti-Hillary, that doesn't seem entirely fair.

If you want to know the truth, here's the vocalized mind of Gov. Crist this past week:

"Stay here, baseball! You're important to Florida's economy...oh well, let's spend money and make the legislature session start in splendor...nono, I really don't want to do another primary. Wait, what was I talking about agai--oh! Money!"

It seems like he doesn't want to waste time and make Democrats vote a second time - as late as June supposedly - although his mind is clearly elsewhere. While I do agree with you as to the likelihood of Michigan and Florida both having another primary, I don't think it should happen unless the nomination is too close to call. Of course, this is assuming neither candidate slips up within the next few weeks and/or drops.

Democrats aside, I still wonder where self-proclaimed "true red Republicans" plan to go given how many have announced strong disagreement with McCain's views. Could this mean Nader's Raiders will be stronger than ever?

[firepokemon]

Well the final results are in for Wyoming with Obama winning 61& to 38% pikcing up seven delegates to Clinton's five.

What really gets me though and I realise these caucus and primary rules are different state to state is that Obama won about 1500 more votes thus gaining two extra delegates while in the big states someone would need to win a far bigger number of votes to gain an extra delegate.

[firepokemon]

Well the Mississippi primary is over and done with and once again Obama wins big. I really think Clinton made a big mistake to not at least court some more votes. But clearly Obama is a black candidate and clearly they see him as winnable so they vote for him. No doubt Bill Clinton played a part. But I do think the blacks would have went with Obama anyway. So Obama wins 61% to Clintons 37% and picks up 19 delegates to 14 which I find simply astounding.

No change in the Texas caucus I guess we just wait and see. And now there is like six weeks till Pennsylvania. So I prolly won't think much about the primary season till we get near the Pennsylvania primary.

[Roy Karrde]

Well Obama is imploding, and it is great! The numbers came out today that 1 in 5 Democrats will vote for McCain if their nominee isn't elected.

Yet that isn't the big thing, that isn't the big news of today. Obama yesterday was on a interview and talked about his Grandmother. Saying she is a "Typical White Person in that if they are walking down the street and see some one they do not know, there is a reaction that comes out" that is the exact quote, Typical. White. Person.

The true Obama is really starting to show through.

[firepokemon]

Is anyone surprised? I can't say I am. Anyone that offers such an optimistic message needs to be carefully vetted because they always have surprises.

[Toxicity]

Not so shocked following the obvious - Reverend Wright's remarks.

Even then, this makes no sense that he'd renounce part of his multiracial heritage; the part that he was raised by. Unless the preachings did change his view entirely.

[Roy Karrde]

Dont wanna go off topic, but Chaney had a great line today.

"Alot of Americans do not like the fighting ( In Iraq )" - Reporter
"* Shrugs * So?" - Chaney

As much as people think he is evil, you gotta love a Vice President that doesn't give a flying fuck about what people think about him. You know when you ask him a question, you are going to get a straight forward answer.

[Clark]

i think chaney should take obama out for a little peptalk while hunting.

[Heald]

Dont wanna go off topic, but Chaney had a great line today.

"Alot of Americans do not like the fighting ( In Iraq )" - Reporter
"* Shrugs * So?" - Chaney

As much as people think he is evil, you gotta love a Vice President that doesn't give a flying fuck about what people think about him. You know when you ask him a question, you are going to get a straight forward answer.
Yeah, I'm sure all the Yanks, Brits, Ozzies, Polish and whoever else is in Iraq who have lost friends or relatives in the conflict will love him for his flippant attitude to needlessly throwing away thousands of young lives.

And 62,040,610 of you morons voted for this prick to be your VP. Jeez.

[Roy Karrde]

Yeah, I'm sure all the Yanks, Brits, Ozzies, Polish and whoever else is in Iraq who have lost friends or relatives in the conflict will love him for his flippant attitude to needlessly throwing away thousands of young lives.

The attitude isnt about throwing away lives, the question was about the war protestors and his responce was pretty much about how he feels about them


And 62,040,610 of you morons voted for this prick to be your VP. Jeez.

Considering the alternative. I would rather have a politician that gives a straight forward answer that does not care about how people feel about him or getting re elected. Than John Edwards.

[Katie]

It's so wonderful to live in a country where you elect people to represent the public opinion and then get a "So?" in response to the public disagreeing with what you're doing. If Obama did the same thing you'd be all over him for it.


vvvv you know what I mean

[firepokemon]

People don't vote for Vice Presidents they never have and they never will. VPs don't have much power nor have they ever had much power. Now Cheney would be an exception to that, but thats what happens.

[Roy Karrde]

It's so wonderful to live in a country where you elect people to represent the public opinion and then get a "So?" in response to the public disagreeing with what you're doing. If Obama did the same thing you'd be all over him for it.

Well for one Chaney wasn't elected, Bush was elected, Chaney was chosen. Which is why you get those kinds of reactions out of him, becuase he doesn't give a damn. He doesn't want to be a politician, his ass isnt on the line. So you are going to get honest opinions out of him, he is going to tell you how he really feels. Would you rather have a leader tell you outright how he feels, or one that does a song and dance? Second, a leader is supposed to lead, not bow to Public Opinion. Those that disagree with him can disagree all they want. But at the end of the day we elect a President to lead the nation, which is why they get daily national security reports, and not the public.

Also Obama and his wife has said things a hell of a lot worse than "So".

[Katie]

It's a buy one get one deal, but whatever.
I'd rather have someone to explain or defend what the public hates (or, god forbid, listen to them). He sounds like a child with that response, and when he doesn't give a flying fuck about people dying it's quite worrying.
Leaders who lose followers because they don't care about them don't stay leaders long. Oh well, he'll be out soon and it'll be tough for whoever wins the election to beat his pricktastic ways, so I guess that's a bright side.

[Roy Karrde]

I'd rather have someone to explain or defend what the public hates (or, god forbid, listen to them).

The public already knows the reasons for staying in Iraq. Marching around the street isnt going to change his mind. So why should he explain or defend something that has already been explained and defended for a long time.


He sounds like a child with that response, and when he doesn't give a flying fuck about people dying it's quite worrying.

Woah he never said he didn't care about people dying, you are putting words in his mouth. He said he didn't care about the protestors. Some times leaders have to stand on what they know is right and stick to it.


Leaders who lose followers because they don't care about them don't stay leaders long.

And you know what Leaders who govern by polls are called? Bill Clinton Officials ( Thank God Hillary has shown some personal judgement ). The Office of the President was designed to have a man in it that could make decisions for the country based on his own judgement. Not what his followers or any one else says. If we have a President that governs by the polls, that governs by his followers, then nothing gets done, becuase the President puts his poll numbers over the wellfare of the country.

[Katie]

I'm not playing the piece by piece quote game with you, but I still stand by what I said. I guess we have different ideas about who the president should listen to and that's where this conversation would eventually stop so I'll save us the trouble. :)

[Roy Karrde]

That sounds fair enough! But to keep the topic going, does anyone believe Obama has a chance in Pennsylvania after his racist remark and racist pastor? Pennsylvania seems to be a pretty white state that wouldn't really seem to enjoy voting for some one like that.

[Leon-IH]

That sounds fair enough! But to keep the topic going, does anyone believe Obama has a chance in Pennsylvania after his racist remark and racist pastor? Pennsylvania seems to be a pretty white state that wouldn't really seem to enjoy voting for some one like that.

Well even over here that'd kill any chance he'd have, and I'd like to think we're in general a bit less inclined to pass judgment over one airy remark.

[mr_pikachu]

Aw man, how is it that when the election finally explodes with controversy, I manage to not have a net connection? :P

Okay. By now we've all heard Wright's remarks; anyone who hasn't can pull a simple net search. And Obama's losing voters left and right as a result. But the big issue for Democrats is that he still pretty much has the nomination locked up. If I remember correctly, Hillary could win every remaining state by a 60-40 margin and she still couldn't catch Obama.

...There's a catch, of course. That would leave the nomination in the hands of the superdelegates, who could swing it to Clinton if they so chose. Should the primary go to convention with Obama still leading in popular vote delegates, it would present a no-win situation for the DNC. Give Obama the nod and, as Roy said, you've already lost 1 in 5 Democrats. Forget about moderate support. But hand the race to Clinton and there may well be riots. This has probably been the most intense primary in history; to tear it away from the voters and from the first seriously contending black candidate in years could make the party turn on itself.

This is the sort of race that will be studied by political scholars for decades to come. Crazy stuff.

[Kirby]

fuck clinton go obama

[mr_pikachu]

Obama wins most Texas delegates (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080331/ap_on_el_pr/texas_delegates)

Obama's lead grows ever larger, it seems. With a swing of nine delegates, Obama has won five more Texas delegates than Clinton and currently leads her 1,631 to 1,501. With 2,024 necessary for victory, Obama is now within 400 of the nomination.

Can Clinton turn the tide? Or will Obama square off against McCain for the presidency?

[firepokemon]

Bah won't write anything big. But Clinton must win Pennsylvania and it must be huge like 15% ahead and I would think 20% is better. Because the next one after Philadelphia is North Carolina which suits Obama much better and some polls have him with a huge lead. Kentucky is good for Clinton but I don't think it awards many delegates. Even with a huge win, its hard not to bet on Obama. The question is even if Obama does get the nomination, how much damage has he received going into the Presidental campaign. And is Clinton now looking at 2012, hoping Obama loses the race for President.

Now current head to heads show McCain typically leading both Clinton and Obama but I don't think you can count on those type of polls simply because McCain is confirmed and the others aren't. The real question is, can Obama win one of the big states such as Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida and Michigan or will he try the other way and grab a few south states that don't reward much electoral points (I am confused slightly on this point)but where he could pickup enough? On the other hand can Clinton do classic Democratic strategy and look at picking up Ohio and Texas? Anyway to be honest I haven't really though about how they should strategise for the Presidential campaign. But the President thread at BMG reminded me of it.

[mr_pikachu]

See, this is why I don't like the primaries happening over a long period of time. It's hard to say that Obama looks like the stronger candidate right now, as a massive hole has been punched in his image, and yet he's still all but guaranteed the nomination. It makes the whole process look stupid, and the weaker candidate reaches the next stage.

...The obvious response is that if the primaries had all been conducted earlier the same thing may have happened. But at least we wouldn't be asking these questions. Ignorance is bliss!

[Toxicity]

Ron Paul is pulling a 'Still Alive' starting in Pennsylvania (http://www.slate.com/id/2175817/)

I don't know if this is expecting to run alongside McCain, or if enough people could pull together and vote to get him much more notice.

[mr_pikachu]

Penn out as Clinton senior strategist (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080406/ap_on_el_pr/clinton_penn)

If this keeps up much longer, the interns are going to be running the Clinton campaign.

[Roy Karrde]

If this keeps up much longer, the interns are going to be running the Clinton campaign.

How will they be able to with them already busy with Bill?

Okay I just had to make a intern joke, anyone got any others?

[Roy Karrde]

Not trying to double post but... Obama opened his big fat mouth again, this time targeting Small Town America.

And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0408/Obama_on_smalltown_PA_Clinging_religion_guns_xenop hobia.html

So apparently he thinks whites are racists, and people that live in small towns as anti immigrant, anti trade, gun toting, bible thumping hethans!

I believe this is going to be the first time a Presidential Cannidate has effectively alianated a entire portion of America! Good luck Democrats if you choose this guy, the Republicans really need another 49 state victory like they one they got with Reagan.

[Leon-IH]

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Obama/Maps/Apr11.html

And despite that, he is *this* close right now.

That said, slightly old polling.

[Blademaster]

And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

Oh, no he di-in't...! Redneck America got BURNED!!!!!!!!! :rotfl:

[Heald]

God I can imagine it now...

"Derp derp that negro say what?! Maw! Git my shawt-gun! Wir gunna has oursells a good-ol' fashunned lynching, jist like that Emmett Till kid we killed back in 55! Yeehaw!"

Except imagine it multiplied by about 62,040,610 times, and you pretty much have the white redneck American vote right there.

[Roy Karrde]

God I can imagine it now...

"Derp derp that negro say what?! Maw! Git my shawt-gan! Wir gunna has oursells a good-ol' fashunned lynching, jist like that Emmett Till kid we killed back in 55! Yeehaw!"

Except imagine it multiplied by about 62,040,610 times, and you pretty much have the white redneck American vote right there.

Well for one, Obama does like to compare himself to JFK, even to driving the same route JFK did when he visited Dallas.

two... isn't the goal of a Presidential Cannidate to...well... try to gain votes? XD

[Heald]

True, which is a damned shame because you have a candidate who is telling the voters what they need to hear instead of what they want to hear, and he will probably get crucified for it by some right-wing pundit who will take it completely out of context.

[Roy Karrde]

True, which is a damned shame because you have a candidate who is telling the voters what they need to hear instead of what they want to hear, and he will probably get crucified for it by some right-wing pundit who will take it completely out of context.

I think it is pretty hard for anyone to take it out of context. He has done a pretty good job to paint himself as a racist. But hey since Obama is telling voters what they need to hear, I guess I will just sit back and wait till he starts talking about Inner City Blacks and how they all comit crime, beat their wives, and run in gangs!

[Heald]

I think it is pretty hard for anyone to take it out of context. He has done a pretty good job to paint himself as a racist. But hey since Obama is telling voters what they need to hear, I guess I will just sit back and wait till he starts talking about Inner City Blacks and how they all comit crime, beat their wives, and run in gangs!
True, except criminals can't vote, so there'd be no point telling them anyway :P

Also, I've checked his quote over and over again but I can't see any mention of white people.

[Roy Karrde]

True, except criminals can't vote, so there'd be no point telling them anyway :P

Holy shit, in my entire debating career I have never gotten my ass kicked that easily ;.;

Oh and also the spin has begun!

Hillary: "Pennsylvania doesn't need a president who looks down on them, they need a president who stands up for them, who fights for them, who works hard for your futures, your jobs, your families."

McCain: "It shows an elitism and condescension toward hard-working Americans that is nothing short of breathtaking, it is hard to imagine someone running for president who is more out of touch with average Americans."

Obama's Response to McCain: "Out of touch? Out of touch? I mean, John McCain -- it took him three tries to finally figure out that the home foreclosure crisis was a problem and to come up with a plan for it."

Clinton's Response to Obama: "Instead of apologizing for offending small town America, Senator Obama chose to repeat and embrace the comments he made earlier this week"

McCain's Response to Obama: "He, arrogantly tried to spin his way out of his outrageous San Francisco remarks."

[Katie]

people that live in small towns as anti immigrant, anti trade, gun toting, bible thumping hethans!
Lol, are you saying he's wrong? Come visit me in College Station, home of many many many many kids coming from tiny towns. Stereotypes suck and all, but this one is true. At least in Texas small towns. I'd imagine it's the same elsewhere.

Here's a facebook "bumper sticker" thing on the profile of my friend from tiny Helotes TX
http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k80/katie9492804/right.jpg
Not the same "list", but it's implied.

[Roy Karrde]

Lol, are you saying he's wrong? Come visit me in College Station, home of many many many many kids coming from tiny towns. Stereotypes suck and all, but this one is true. At least in Texas small towns. I'd imagine it's the same elsewhere.

Well see the thing is, even if it is true, you tend not to go around insulting people while running for President. It just seems kind of counter productive...

[Katie]

Well see the thing is, even if it is true, you tend not to go around insulting people while running for President. It just seems kind of counter productive...
Oh god now the gun toting bible thumping rednecks won't vote for Obama, he's lost all of his support! Oh wait.

[Roy Karrde]

Oh god now the gun toting bible thumping rednecks won't vote for Obama, he's lost all of his support! Oh wait.

Well see the thing is those gun toting bible thumping rednecks are going to be voting in the Democrat Primary in Pennsylvania in just a few weeks. Where he will need alot of small town support if he plans to win the state, where he has been gaining these last few weeks. Same with Indiana, North Carolina, West Virginia, Kentucky, hell looking at the list almost every single state left in the Democrat Primary is one with large amounts of small town populations.

[firepokemon]

Hmm Obama does seem to have a problem with working class people that are not young or black. Part of it is clearly racist but there does seem to be something about almost like he looks down on these type of people. That can't be a good thing considering many of them are bread and butter democrats. On the other hand he gets huge liberal votes and higher income votes. Which, I think always says something about that candidate. Liberal people are extremely selfish even though they pretend to be otherwise and rich lefties are strange beings and practically pathetic.

But clearly I'm bias against Obama.

[Roy Karrde]

Did everyone watch the debate on ABC last night? It pretty much was a hammering of Obama, who did a really sucky job on defensive. The media has really given this guy softballs for a hard time that he looked really unprepared. And FINALLY his connection with a actual terrorist comes out in the media.

[Master Rudy]

Well on the other side of things I think the Hilderbeast has shown she's got some issues:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24246275

Don't get me wrong....I and many others feel that Iran is going to be the world's nexy big problem. However flat out saying you'll nuke them if they nuke Israel is kinda like saying "Nuke us first so we can't fight back!"

I've said it before and I'll say it again....I fear for this country if that psycho bitch gets in the White House.

[Roy Karrde]

Well on the other side of things I think the Hilderbeast has shown she's got some issues:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24246275

Don't get me wrong....I and many others feel that Iran is going to be the world's nexy big problem. However flat out saying you'll nuke them if they nuke Israel is kinda like saying "Nuke us first so we can't fight back!"

I've said it before and I'll say it again....I fear for this country if that psycho bitch gets in the White House.

Well to be fair I think any Presidential Cannidate would attack Iran if they were to destroy Isreal. Especially since Isreal is one of our closest allies in the world. We may not nuke Iran, but when we're done with it, you wont really be able to tell the difference.

[Master Rudy]

Well to be fair I think any Presidential Cannidate would attack Iran if they were to destroy Isreal. Especially since Isreal is one of our closest allies in the world. We may not nuke Iran, but when we're done with it, you wont really be able to tell the difference.

Not saying I disagree with that comment Roy. I don't think it's any secret that we'd rush to Isreal's aid. What I do disagree with however is her choice to flat out say "Yeah I'ma nuke you!" I feel that admiting you'd be willing to use the US's nuclear weapons is like painting an even bigger target on yourself.

[firepokemon]

Leave poor Hilary alone :(

In all seriousness she can't win the nominee, it will throw up too much madness that will destroy the democrat party for years. The only problem with Obama has been his inability to win big states. Pennsylvania should go to Clinton albeit by a much smaller margin. Obama does do excellent in smaller states and North Carolina looks like it could be huge for him. But his inability to win any big state outside Illinois should be a worry.

I also wouldn't be that concerned with Clinton and Iran, yeah maybe shes saying crap. But you know shes going to have an experience foreign relations/security team with her. And personally I'd trust her with such matters over Obama any day.

[Master Rudy]

Yeah experience matters and quite frankly I'm not cool with letting Obama get his feet wet with our highest elected office. On the other hand Hill's got the "experience" but we all know she's a psycho who only stuck with Bill for the sole purpose of eventually getting a crack at the White House. In all honesty if the two of them are the best the Dems can offer then perhaps they should start planning for 2012..... :P

[firepokemon]

In all honesty if the two of them are the best the Dems can offer then perhaps they should start planning for 2012.....

- I think they are planning for 2012. The way I see it, they know shes lost and she can't get the nominee. But they've also made Obama human. Actually they've done more than that, they've been able to take Obama down in a variety of ways and have made the media look at this guy again. Basically hes been damaged. They have done what they can but it hasn't been enough to stop him literally grabbing the nominee. But they have damaged him to the extent that McCain has an excellent chance. So 2012 looks like a great possibility.

[Roy Karrde]

You know, the sad thing is that the Democrats were saying that 2008 was going to be a great year. They are poised to grab more seats in Congress, Bush's ratings are in the tank, the Iraq war was dragging on. They could finally have the Presidency and Congress! It was their oppertunity to lose. And really if we could go back a year ago and say the Democrats were most likely going to lose to the Republicans. Everyone would have laughed!

But that being aside, even though I am a Republican and thus am born to hate the Clintons... I have gained so much respect for her these last few months. Just a few months ago I believe I was saying on this board that I wouldn't mind a Obama Presidency... Oh have times changed. My respect level for Obama has fallen by so much, and has risen to amazing heights for Clinton.

[firepokemon]

Hmm well Clinton wins Pennsylvania and with 93 precincts reporting has a 10% lead. That lead would have been impressive just post super tuesday or on Super Tuesday. And it does leave a problem for Obama because he has not been able to win the big states except for Illinois. The problem is, a 10% gap in this one primary, achieves nothing. Sorry but Obama is the nominee.

Plus he'll win North Carolina and chances are looking good in Indiana.

[Roy Karrde]

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/house-gop-challenges-pelosi-for-gas-price-plan-2008-04-22.html

Finally the Democrats are being called on this. Gas Prices have skyrocketed while they have been in office and they are partly to blame. They said they would lower Gas Prices, while now I would do anything to get Gas back down to where it was in the Republican days.

As some one that has to spend over $30 bucks a week just to drive to school, I am REALLY getting sick at Washington taking a hands off approach. If McCain is making Gas Prices a central part of his campeign, then damn, more power to him!

[mr_pikachu]

Okay, I don't want to turn this into a debate on the gas situation, but I have to comment on this (despite not having had time lately to view the details of each politician's plan... or sleep). If they don't have "OPEC" in every other sentence of whatever they propose, their proposals are meaningless. OPEC has a massive amount of control over petroleum drilling and distribution; therefore, they basically own the market.

[Roy Karrde]

Okay, I don't want to turn this into a debate on the gas situation, but I have to comment on this (despite not having had time lately to view the details of each politician's plan... or sleep). If they don't have "OPEC" in every other sentence of whatever they propose, their proposals are meaningless. OPEC has a massive amount of control over petroleum drilling and distribution; therefore, they basically own the market.

Yeah but mind you we are also running at full campacity on our refineries, meaning we cannot pump any more gas into the market no matter what OPEC does. Now we could build more refineries to help pump more gas into the market, hey, maybe we could build them on top of abandoned army bases! Wait the Democrats turned that idea down...

Maybe we could stop the Gas Taxes for a little bit, that takes atleast 50 cents off of every Gallon such as what McCain is proposing.

Or hey we could dig in some of the American owned Oil fields off of our coast, in Alaska, and else where. That provides even more American jobs, and takes us off foreign oil and OPEC tomorrow. There by we do not have to worry about OPEC's control of the market.

The thing is the Democrats in Congress that proposed that they would bring down oil prices, back when Gas prices were around $2.50. Have alot they can do right now, if they can take down taxes for this summer, and to stop deepthroating the radical environmental left.

[Heald]

It really isn't that simple. At the moment, OPEC, which frankly, should be illegal anyway because they are artificially keeping prices high, control prices with an iron grip. Petrol taxes are not just to counter-balance the environmental cost of cars, but also go towards building new roads and maintaining current ones. If the government were to simply cut taxes just like that, they'd lose millions and have no other avenues to get that money in. Simply put, no new roads would get build, roads would fall into disrepair and congestion would get worse.

[Roy Karrde]

It really isn't that simple. At the moment, OPEC, which frankly, should be illegal anyway because they are artificially keeping prices high, control prices with an iron grip. Petrol taxes are not just to counter-balance the environmental cost of cars, but also go towards building new roads and maintaining current ones. If the government were to simply cut taxes just like that, they'd lose millions and have no other avenues to get that money in. Simply put, no new roads would get build, roads would fall into disrepair and congestion would get worse.

Well for one our state taxes easily can and have gone to roads. Second I am not advocating keeping gas taxes off forever, but just long enough till the oil situation balances out. And while OPEC keeps a iron grip on how much oil is released, we need more refineries if we are to ever produce more gas on to the market. Also America has sources with in our own country that can produce oil, we could easily use those tomorrow and cut ourself off from the Middle East, and just get our oil from Mexico, Canada, and our own sources.

[firepokemon]

New Zealand is facing the same problem, half of what we pay in petrol are axes. And since we've agreed to sign up to Kyoto Treaty we're going to be taxed more. And some areas are going to get even more taxes so they can build roads and stuff. But I am not in favour of cutting taxes, nor in freezing them Cutting taxes just because the price of oil is high, is ridiculous. Putting more taxes on is even more stupid. I say leave taxes alone but don't cut them. Because lets face it, many scientists agree that we've reached peak oil, that means oil has reached the stage where we're using more and no longer finding as much oil to replace the oil we are using. Thus oil prices are going to remain high for years to come, what needs to happen therefore, is for people to learn to conserve oil consuption wherever possible. And high oil prices should in the long term, make more demand for automotive technology that lowers actual consumption and new technologies that decreases the use of oil or ultimately where we can go in a car and not pay any petrol.

The fact is, oil is going up, up, up and up and there isn't a lot that governments can do about it.

[Heald]

New Zealand is facing the same problem, half of what we pay in petrol are axes.
Uh-oh, time to crack an obvious axe/New Zealand-related pun!

http://www.merlins-cave.nl/cavestore/images/BAR-UC1397.jpg

AND MY AXE!