2008 U.S. Presidential Election - Primaries

[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.

[Roy Karrde]

Democrat Superdelegates recieve Cash from Campeigns

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.

[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.

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.

[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%

Obama's roots give him an edge in Hawaii caucuses

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.

[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.

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

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.