What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

*** Official Barack Obama FBG campaign headquarters *** (2 Viewers)

I see your point, but in this scenario, you'd essentially be voting twice. I realize that's not technically what would happen, but with the McCain situation, you already have a guy in the primary who you support, who would've had your vote, but as that's locked up, you are free to cast a negative vote for another person.It's essentially having your cake, and negating the voice of someone in a party with whom you disagree. It's kinda like taking away the vote of one of your political opponents from another party by voting for the other person. In some small way, your vote disenfranchises someone else who actually believes in the person they're voting for (and I use disenfranchise very loosely here).
First of all, it's far from sure that the guy in the Democratic primary is "my guy." I might prefer Chris Dodd or someone. Chris Dodd just isn't going to win.Second, nobody is having their cake and eating it too. Everybody is exercising the exact same power. One vote to influence the election in the most effective way possible.
If all states had elections on the same day, and one vote was used to be cast against an opponent, I'd be there with you. If you sacrificed voting for your guy, to vote against the guy in the other party with whom you have a huge beef, more power to you.The problem enters in the current primary setup where states vote over time, and by the time some states get around to voting, their candidate that they support has already been chosen, so a vote for him is essentially meaningless. If they had to vote, they would've voted for him, but now there's no point. So they sit with a vote that they don't need to cast, and decide that they will use the vote to cause trouble in the other party. I have a problem with that.If no one was selected from either party, and one person on any side decided to vote against someone in the other party rather than "for" their guy, I doubt I'd object.
 
If all states had elections on the same day, and one vote was used to be cast against an opponent, I'd be there with you. If you sacrificed voting for your guy, to vote against the guy in the other party with whom you have a huge beef, more power to you.The problem enters in the current primary setup where states vote over time, and by the time some states get around to voting, their candidate that they support has already been chosen, so a vote for him is essentially meaningless. If they had to vote, they would've voted for him, but now there's no point. So they sit with a vote that they don't need to cast, and decide that they will use the vote to cause trouble in the other party. I have a problem with that.If no one was selected from either party, and one person on any side decided to vote against someone in the other party rather than "for" their guy, I doubt I'd object.
Sounds like an argument to reform the primary voting schedule. It might not even be a ######ed argument. The point is that any of these choices, open versus closed primaries, compressed versus drawn out primary schedules, caucuses versus primaries, etc. come with substantial tradeoffs. It's annoying when people pick on the negative part of the tradeoff without even acknowledging the positive aspects of the tradeoff. A Hillary supporter could come in this thread and make a very compelling case that Hil would be the Democratic nominee by now if Barack Obama had not had the benefit of open primaries and caucuses. On caucuses alone, that Clinton supporter could argue that caucuses place a high barrier on political participation that "disenfranchises" (in the "loose" way that you use it, which is to say in the way that has no legal meaning) older voters and those with demanding jobs.
 
If all states had elections on the same day, and one vote was used to be cast against an opponent, I'd be there with you. If you sacrificed voting for your guy, to vote against the guy in the other party with whom you have a huge beef, more power to you.The problem enters in the current primary setup where states vote over time, and by the time some states get around to voting, their candidate that they support has already been chosen, so a vote for him is essentially meaningless. If they had to vote, they would've voted for him, but now there's no point. So they sit with a vote that they don't need to cast, and decide that they will use the vote to cause trouble in the other party. I have a problem with that.If no one was selected from either party, and one person on any side decided to vote against someone in the other party rather than "for" their guy, I doubt I'd object.
Sounds like an argument to reform the primary voting schedule. It might not even be a ######ed argument.
:goodposting:
The point is that any of these choices, open versus closed primaries, compressed versus drawn out primary schedules, caucuses versus primaries, etc. come with substantial tradeoffs. It's annoying when people pick on the negative part of the tradeoff without even acknowledging the positive aspects of the tradeoff. A Hillary supporter could come in this thread and make a very compelling case that Hil would be the Democratic nominee by now if Barack Obama had not had the benefit of open primaries and caucuses. On caucuses alone, that Clinton supporter could argue that caucuses place a high barrier on political participation that "disenfranchises" (in the "loose" way that you use it, which is to say in the way that has no legal meaning) older voters and those with demanding jobs.
I see what you're saying but don't make the mistake that just because I haven't written more about the pro's and con's of the current system, that I don't understand them or see how some things work in favor of "my guy" and some against him.All I see myself saying is that people should not use their votes as a weapon in the primaries just because they happen to have the luxury of voting later in the process after their party's nominee has already been decided. I'm a man of ideals. Follow the ideal of everyone voting for whomever they think most likely to be the best president, follow that to its extreme, and I feel you have a very good democracy and a very good election/nomination process.However, if you follow the ideal of people using their votes in the current framework as a weapon, or to sabotage the other party, you have ALL of the republican crossing over to vote for the person they find least likely to win in november, thereby fully sabotaging the democratic primary. I find that to be very bad for democracy, and a very poor election/nomination process.I realize that you'd like to point to rules, and say that you shouldn't allow open primaries then...but i'd argue that if people were voting truly according to who they thought would be best, open primaries would not be a problem. It's when people vote, imo, unethically, that there is a problem.I would encourage people to vote their conscience, for whomever they believe is the best person to run the country, period. I don't think this is a bad stance to take.
 
A deal is in the works within the DNC?

According to a recent Q&A with Harry Reid:

Question: Do you still think the Democratic race can be resolved before the convention?

Reid: Easy.

Q: How is that?

Reid: It will be done.

Q: It just will?

Reid: Yep.

Q: Magically?

Reid: No, it will be done. I had a conversation with Governor Dean (Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean) today. Things are being done.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Would Clinton accept a cabinet position?What would she need in order to drop out at this point?
Well, without devolving this topic into the countless other debates on why she should or should not drop out now, I dont think anything will happen before all the primaries are completed. PR just moved theirs up, which makes June 3 the last of the primaries (MT & SD). I believe that whatever is going down will happen after June 3. As far what she would need :shrug: maybe if we gave her a business card that reads "most important person in the world", she would walk away
 
Last edited by a moderator:
BuddyKnuckles said:
A deal is in the works within the DNC?

According to a recent Q&A with Harry Reid:

Question: Do you still think the Democratic race can be resolved before the convention?

Reid: Easy.

Q: How is that?

Reid: It will be done.

Q: It just will?

Reid: Yep.

Q: Magically?

Reid: No, it will be done. I had a conversation with Governor Dean (Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean) today. Things are being done.
At least it won't be done magically. Whew.
 
BuddyKnuckles said:
the moops said:
Would Clinton accept a cabinet position?What would she need in order to drop out at this point?
Well, without devolving this topic into the countless other debates on why she should or should not drop out now, I dont think anything will happen before all the primaries are completed. PR just moved theirs up, which makes June 3 the last of the primaries (MT & SD). I believe that whatever is going down will happen after June 3. As far what she would need :goodposting: maybe if we gave her a business card that reads "most important person in the world", she would walk away
I am a HUGE proponent of giving her a Supreme Court nomination: Plays to her strength, keeps her out of trouble for the rest of her life, she would rule in ways that I would probably agree with, AND she would drive Scalia insane. The only downside is a likely 900 acres of NJ that would be burned to the ground once YankeeFan23 heard about it.
 
BuddyKnuckles said:
the moops said:
Would Clinton accept a cabinet position?

What would she need in order to drop out at this point?
Well, without devolving this topic into the countless other debates on why she should or should not drop out now, I dont think anything will happen before all the primaries are completed. PR just moved theirs up, which makes June 3 the last of the primaries (MT & SD). I believe that whatever is going down will happen after June 3. As far what she would need :( maybe if we gave her a business card that reads "most important person in the world", she would walk away
I am a HUGE proponent of giving her a Supreme Court nomination: Plays to her strength, keeps her out of trouble for the rest of her life, she would rule in ways that I would probably agree with, AND she would drive Scalia insane. The only downside is a likely 900 acres of NJ that would be burned to the ground once YankeeFan23 heard about it.
And since it would be indistinguishable from the rest of New Jersey, I can't see a downside.
 
BuddyKnuckles said:
the moops said:
Would Clinton accept a cabinet position?

What would she need in order to drop out at this point?
Well, without devolving this topic into the countless other debates on why she should or should not drop out now, I dont think anything will happen before all the primaries are completed. PR just moved theirs up, which makes June 3 the last of the primaries (MT & SD). I believe that whatever is going down will happen after June 3. As far what she would need :thumbup: maybe if we gave her a business card that reads "most important person in the world", she would walk away
I am a HUGE proponent of giving her a Supreme Court nomination: Plays to her strength, keeps her out of trouble for the rest of her life, she would rule in ways that I would probably agree with, AND she would drive Scalia insane. The only downside is a likely 900 acres of NJ that would be burned to the ground once YankeeFan23 heard about it.
And since it would be indistinguishable from the rest of New Jersey, I can't see a downside.
it could be an improvement actually
 
BuddyKnuckles said:
the moops said:
Would Clinton accept a cabinet position?

What would she need in order to drop out at this point?
Well, without devolving this topic into the countless other debates on why she should or should not drop out now, I dont think anything will happen before all the primaries are completed. PR just moved theirs up, which makes June 3 the last of the primaries (MT & SD). I believe that whatever is going down will happen after June 3. As far what she would need :thumbup: maybe if we gave her a business card that reads "most important person in the world", she would walk away
I am a HUGE proponent of giving her a Supreme Court nomination: Plays to her strength, keeps her out of trouble for the rest of her life, she would rule in ways that I would probably agree with, AND she would drive Scalia insane. The only downside is a likely 900 acres of NJ that would be burned to the ground once YankeeFan23 heard about it.
And since it would be indistinguishable from the rest of New Jersey, I can't see a downside.
it could be an improvement actually
I think YF23 may even agree with that
 
Clearly, Hillary's just hoping for an Obama "Monkey Business" moment, and she has every right to stay in it. Personally, I blame the superdelegates in her corner for keeping her in the race. They're enabling her and giving her hope, and giving hope is Barack's job. If they all defected to Obama, it might send the message that it's time to apply for a UN Goodwill Ambassadorship.

 
Clearly, Hillary's just hoping for an Obama "Monkey Business" moment, and she has every right to stay in it. Personally, I blame the superdelegates in her corner for keeping her in the race. They're enabling her and giving her hope, and giving hope is Barack's job. If they all defected to Obama, it might send the message that it's time to apply for a UN Goodwill Ambassadorship.
Dear god, no.
 
Clinton takes hit in new poll

LINK

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's positive rating has dropped to a new low of 37 percent in an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll released on Wednesday.

According to the poll, the New York senator's positive rating slid 8 percentage points in two weeks and she had a negative rating of 48 percent in a week where she admitted making a mistake in claiming she had come under sniper fire during a 1996 trip to Bosnia.

Clinton's Democratic rival, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, also saw a slight dip in his positive rating, to 49 percent from 51 percent, the poll found.

 
Myth-Buster: A new poll says the controversy over Sen. Barack Obama's former pastor hasn't hurt his prospects.

LINK

WASHINGTON -- The racially charged debate over Barack Obama's relationship with his longtime pastor hasn't much changed his close contest against Hillary Clinton, or hurt him against Republican nominee-in-waiting John McCain, according to a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll.

The latest survey has the Democratic rivals in a dead heat, each with 45% support from registered Democratic voters.

 
In today's Rasmussen Poll, John McCain has moved to yet another largest-ever lead over Barack Obama. McCain has cracked open a double-digit lead and moved over 50% with a 51%-41% lead over the Illinois senator. So the fall of Obama in the polls continues. How far will his racist comments and alignment with a racist church sink him? We still don't know.

 
Myth-Buster: A new poll says the controversy over Sen. Barack Obama's former pastor hasn't hurt his prospects.

LINK

WASHINGTON -- The racially charged debate over Barack Obama's relationship with his longtime pastor hasn't much changed his close contest against Hillary Clinton, or hurt him against Republican nominee-in-waiting John McCain, according to a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll.

The latest survey has the Democratic rivals in a dead heat, each with 45% support from registered Democratic voters.
He's getting hurt in the general.
 
Myth-Buster: A new poll says the controversy over Sen. Barack Obama's former pastor hasn't hurt his prospects.

LINK

WASHINGTON -- The racially charged debate over Barack Obama's relationship with his longtime pastor hasn't much changed his close contest against Hillary Clinton, or hurt him against Republican nominee-in-waiting John McCain, according to a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll.

The latest survey has the Democratic rivals in a dead heat, each with 45% support from registered Democratic voters.
He's getting hurt in the general.
Agreed. While he and Hillary are fighting over the nomination - these are McCains golden weeks. I hope he enjoys them while they last.
 
BuddyKnuckles said:
A deal is in the works within the DNC?

According to a recent Q&A with Harry Reid:

Question: Do you still think the Democratic race can be resolved before the convention?

Reid: Easy.

Q: How is that?

Reid: It will be done.

Q: It just will?

Reid: Yep.

Q: Magically?

Reid: No, it will be done. I had a conversation with Governor Dean (Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean) today. Things are being done.
At least it won't be done magically. Whew.
No word yet on who Harry Potter has endorsed since his graduation from Hogwarts. Sources say Hillary is heavily courting his endorsement upon finding out he was as of yet uncommitted.
 
In today's Rasmussen Poll, John McCain has moved to yet another largest-ever lead over Barack Obama. McCain has cracked open a double-digit lead and moved over 50% with a 51%-41% lead over the Illinois senator. So the fall of Obama in the polls continues. How far will his racist comments and alignment with a racist church sink him? We still don't know.
McCain hasn't been examined even in the slightest yet. Not sure what all of this bluster is about. You prominently predicted a Rudy presidency using the same early polling logic. See you in November, Mr. Goldfinger.

 
He's getting hurt in the general.
It is March.
The damage being done to Obama is beyond political damage. He's getting branded as a fringe loon racist. He'll never recover.
You know, it doesn't make it true even if you keep saying it over and over. Trust me, I tried this technique to get a gigantic wang and it didn't do a bit of good. :shock:
You just didn't try hard enough.
 
In today's Rasmussen Poll, John McCain has moved to yet another largest-ever lead over Barack Obama. McCain has cracked open a double-digit lead and moved over 50% with a 51%-41% lead over the Illinois senator. So the fall of Obama in the polls continues. How far will his racist comments and alignment with a racist church sink him? We still don't know.
McCain hasn't been examined even in the slightest yet. Not sure what all of this bluster is about. You prominently predicted a Rudy presidency using the same early polling logic. See you in November, Mr. Goldfinger.
:potkettle:
 
Myth-Buster: A new poll says the controversy over Sen. Barack Obama's former pastor hasn't hurt his prospects.

LINK

WASHINGTON -- The racially charged debate over Barack Obama's relationship with his longtime pastor hasn't much changed his close contest against Hillary Clinton, or hurt him against Republican nominee-in-waiting John McCain, according to a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll.

The latest survey has the Democratic rivals in a dead heat, each with 45% support from registered Democratic voters.
He's getting hurt in the general.
Agreed. While he and Hillary are fighting over the nomination - these are McCains golden weeks. I hope he enjoys them while they last.
Maybe Joe Lieberman will whisper some more sweet nothings in his ear to help him with his campaign strategery.
 
Some more poll results for Pai Mei who still seems to think polls matter in March...

Thursday, March 27

Race Poll Results Spread

Democratic Presidential Nomination NBC/WSJ Obama 45, Clinton 45 Tie

General Election: McCain vs. Clinton NBC/WSJ Clinton 44, McCain 46, Und 5 McCain +2

General Election: McCain vs. Obama NBC/WSJ Obama 44, McCain 42, Und 7 Obama +2

 
Man, we haven't even had a chance to make the McCain = Dole argument yet. Or to remind American voters of that zany Keating Five scandal. Or to point out that McCain has been a Bush echo chamber since the Iraq invasion.

There's a lot of fun down the road. :goodposting:

 
You got be crazy if you think Clinton's older/white voter's are not going to lean towards McCain come election time.

Hillary would have won this if they had gotten the Rev. Wright material out from the get go. How they didn't is amazing to me.

Obama is not the golden boy anymore nor should he. McCain is the war hero who can work with both sides. It's over.

 
You're right Obama has plenty of time to write a speech another "brilliant" speech. If he couldn't hit his last speech out of the park he's done. He had an opportunity and he blew it.
And yet, its still March.
And he peaked in February. I wanted to vote for the guy but can't see a reason too. I think it's lame to just vote for him because it's a good PR move in relation to the rest of the world. That will wane.
 
You're right Obama has plenty of time to write a speech another "brilliant" speech. If he couldn't hit his last speech out of the park he's done. He had an opportunity and he blew it.
And yet, its still March.
And he peaked in February. I wanted to vote for the guy but can't see a reason too. I think it's lame to just vote for him because it's a good PR move in relation to the rest of the world. That will wane.
ITS MARCH. You have no idea just how bad a mistake is coming down the chute for any of the three candidates. And if a even higher peak awaits any of the three. None.
 
Fat-Cat Clinton donors threaten House Speaker Pelosi

WASHINGTON — Twenty top Democratic donors who are supporting Hillary Rodham Clinton criticized House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for saying superdelegates should support the presidential candidate with the most pledged delegates.

No matter what the outcome of the 10 remaining contests, it will be nearly impossible for Clinton to overcome Barack Obama's lead in pledged delegates because they are awarded proportionally based on the outcome.

So it will be up to the nearly 800 superdelegates _ party activists and elected officials who aren't bound by any vote _ to put one of them over the mark of 2,024 delegates needed to win the nomination. Obama has 1,406 pledged delegates to Clinton's 1,249, according to The Associated Press count.

Pelosi, who has not endorsed either candidate as chair of the Democratic National Convention, said during a March 16 appearance on ABC's "This Week" that it would be harmful to the party if superdelegates don't support the pledged delegate winner.

In their letter, Clinton's supporters said superdelegates "must look to not one criterion but to the full panoply of factors that will help them assess who will be the party's strongest nominee in the general election."

The letter also noted the donors "have been strong supporters" of the House Democrats' fundraising apparatus.

"We therefore urge you to clarify your position on superdelegates and reflect in your comments a more open view to the optional independent actions of each of the delegates at the national convention in August," they said.

Pelosi stands by her comment, said her spokesman, Brendan Daly.

"The speaker believes it would do great harm to the Democratic Party if superdelegates are perceived to overturn the will of the voters," he said. "This has been her position throughout this primary season, regardless of who was ahead at any particular point in delegates or votes."

Obama spokesman Bill Burton called the letter "inappropriate."

"We hope the Clinton campaign will reject the insinuation contained in it," he said. "Regardless of the outcome of the nomination fight, Senator Obama will continue to urge his supporters to assist Speaker Pelosi in her efforts to maintain and build a working majority in the House of Representatives."

In response, Clinton spokesman Phil Singer said: "Few have done more to build the Democratic Party than Bill and Hillary Clinton. The last thing they need is a lecture from the Obama campaign."

The letter was first reported by The Washington Post and the political blog Talking Points Memo.
 
In some small way, your vote disenfranchises someone else who actually believes in the person they're voting for (and I use disenfranchise very loosely here).
Then try picking another word next time. Your vote in no way disenfranchises me, and it's obscene to suggest that it does.
 
BuddyKnuckles said:
the moops said:
Would Clinton accept a cabinet position?What would she need in order to drop out at this point?
Well, without devolving this topic into the countless other debates on why she should or should not drop out now, I dont think anything will happen before all the primaries are completed. PR just moved theirs up, which makes June 3 the last of the primaries (MT & SD). I believe that whatever is going down will happen after June 3. As far what she would need :thumbdown: maybe if we gave her a business card that reads "most important person in the world", she would walk away
I am a HUGE proponent of giving her a Supreme Court nomination: Plays to her strength, keeps her out of trouble for the rest of her life, she would rule in ways that I would probably agree with, AND she would drive Scalia insane. The only downside is a likely 900 acres of NJ that would be burned to the ground once YankeeFan23 heard about it.
Hillary has very little chance of being confirmed to the supreme court, and I doubt Obama would want to spend the political capital necessary to fight that fight.
 
BuddyKnuckles said:
the moops said:
Would Clinton accept a cabinet position?

What would she need in order to drop out at this point?
Well, without devolving this topic into the countless other debates on why she should or should not drop out now, I dont think anything will happen before all the primaries are completed. PR just moved theirs up, which makes June 3 the last of the primaries (MT & SD). I believe that whatever is going down will happen after June 3. As far what she would need :wolf: maybe if we gave her a business card that reads "most important person in the world", she would walk away
I am a HUGE proponent of giving her a Supreme Court nomination: Plays to her strength, keeps her out of trouble for the rest of her life, she would rule in ways that I would probably agree with, AND she would drive Scalia insane. The only downside is a likely 900 acres of NJ that would be burned to the ground once YankeeFan23 heard about it.
Hillary has very little chance of being confirmed to the supreme court, and I doubt Obama would want to spend the political capital necessary to fight that fight.
FWIW, that's probably not true especially with 55 or so Dem senators. Historically the Senate has let other Senators slip through fairly easily. I forgot where I saw it, but one of the Supreme Court watchers went through possible Dem appointees and there's a very shallow bench of appellete judges. You're basically left looking at academics and politicians which would place Clinton fairly far up the line of good conferrable people that a Dem President could select.
 
BuddyKnuckles said:
the moops said:
Would Clinton accept a cabinet position?

What would she need in order to drop out at this point?
Well, without devolving this topic into the countless other debates on why she should or should not drop out now, I dont think anything will happen before all the primaries are completed. PR just moved theirs up, which makes June 3 the last of the primaries (MT & SD). I believe that whatever is going down will happen after June 3. As far what she would need :shrug: maybe if we gave her a business card that reads "most important person in the world", she would walk away
I am a HUGE proponent of giving her a Supreme Court nomination: Plays to her strength, keeps her out of trouble for the rest of her life, she would rule in ways that I would probably agree with, AND she would drive Scalia insane. The only downside is a likely 900 acres of NJ that would be burned to the ground once YankeeFan23 heard about it.
Hillary has very little chance of being confirmed to the supreme court, and I doubt Obama would want to spend the political capital necessary to fight that fight.
FWIW, that's probably not true especially with 55 or so Dem senators. Historically the Senate has let other Senators slip through fairly easily. I forgot where I saw it, but one of the Supreme Court watchers went through possible Dem appointees and there's a very shallow bench of appellete judges. You're basically left looking at academics and politicians which would place Clinton fairly far up the line of good conferrable people that a Dem President could select.
True, but I think this particular Senator would be an exception to that. Hillary Clinton is the single most polarizing person in American politics, with quite a bit of general sleaze in her background. This doesn't fit the profile of the sort of person who gets a Supreme Court nomination, and I have little doubt that she'd face a fillibuster if it came to that.
 
BuddyKnuckles said:
A deal is in the works within the DNC?

According to a recent Q&A with Harry Reid:

Question: Do you still think the Democratic race can be resolved before the convention?

Reid: Easy.

Q: How is that?

Reid: It will be done.

Q: It just will?

Reid: Yep.

Q: Magically?

Reid: No, it will be done. I had a conversation with Governor Dean (Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean) today. Things are being done.
At least it won't be done magically. Whew.
No word yet on who Harry Potter has endorsed since his graduation from Hogwarts. Sources say Hillary is heavily courting his endorsement upon finding out he was as of yet uncommitted.
You had potential here, but I believe a reference to her being an actual witch was appropriate.
 
BuddyKnuckles said:
A deal is in the works within the DNC?

According to a recent Q&A with Harry Reid:

Question: Do you still think the Democratic race can be resolved before the convention?

Reid: Easy.

Q: How is that?

Reid: It will be done.

Q: It just will?

Reid: Yep.

Q: Magically?

Reid: No, it will be done. I had a conversation with Governor Dean (Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean) today. Things are being done.
At least it won't be done magically. Whew.
No word yet on who Harry Potter has endorsed since his graduation from Hogwarts. Sources say Hillary is heavily courting his endorsement upon finding out he was as of yet uncommitted.
You had potential here, but I believe a reference to her being an actual witch was appropriate.
McCain has the Azkaban (aka "Hogwarts Hilton") vote locked up
 
BuddyKnuckles said:
A deal is in the works within the DNC?

According to a recent Q&A with Harry Reid:

Question: Do you still think the Democratic race can be resolved before the convention?

Reid: Easy.

Q: How is that?

Reid: It will be done.

Q: It just will?

Reid: Yep.

Q: Magically?

Reid: No, it will be done. I had a conversation with Governor Dean (Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean) today. Things are being done.
At least it won't be done magically. Whew.
No word yet on who Harry Potter has endorsed since his graduation from Hogwarts. Sources say Hillary is heavily courting his endorsement upon finding out he was as of yet uncommitted.
You had potential here, but I believe a reference to her being an actual witch was appropriate.
Yeah, i give myself a 4/10 but with the right humor talent on that joke, it could've been funny. :goodposting:
 
In some small way, your vote disenfranchises someone else who actually believes in the person they're voting for (and I use disenfranchise very loosely here).
Then try picking another word next time. Your vote in no way disenfranchises me, and it's obscene to suggest that it does.
Obscene? Really?It's as if you have your vote counted already, and you're just going out of your way to invalidate the vote of someone you disagree with. While they still literally have the right to vote, thereby not being literally disenfranchised, you'd be in essence just using your vote to null the vote of an opponent, and in some way that takes away the meaning and value of their vote. That's where the "very loosely" comes in.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yeah, I don't. I think it's perfectly permissible to vote against someone, particularly if you think that candidate is dangerous in some way. Let's say that the Republican party has a significant fracture. It's 2012 and the Rebublicans have two candidates in an even election. The incumbent Democratic president is in a safe primary. One of the Republican candidates is a staunch libertarian. The other, a strong social conservative. Now, I wouldn't vote for either in a general election, but I think the social conservative is more than wrong. I think he's DANGEROUSLY wrong. In my mind, the most moral and useful use of my vote would be to try to ensure that the libertarian won the Republican primary. Now, I fully support the Republican Party's right to keep me from voting in the primary. Their party, their rules. But I don't believe there's any moral imperative to vote "my guy", particularly when a vote for "my guy" won't do the same amount of good.
The difference here is that you're still voting for the candidate, of those available, that you believe would govern best. If you had an "Operation Chaos" mindset, you would vote FOR the social conservative in hopes that his dangerously wrong views would make him unelectable in the general.
 
BuddyKnuckles said:
the moops said:
Would Clinton accept a cabinet position?

What would she need in order to drop out at this point?
Well, without devolving this topic into the countless other debates on why she should or should not drop out now, I dont think anything will happen before all the primaries are completed. PR just moved theirs up, which makes June 3 the last of the primaries (MT & SD). I believe that whatever is going down will happen after June 3. As far what she would need :ptts: maybe if we gave her a business card that reads "most important person in the world", she would walk away
I am a HUGE proponent of giving her a Supreme Court nomination: Plays to her strength, keeps her out of trouble for the rest of her life, she would rule in ways that I would probably agree with, AND she would drive Scalia insane. The only downside is a likely 900 acres of NJ that would be burned to the ground once YankeeFan23 heard about it.
Hillary has very little chance of being confirmed to the supreme court, and I doubt Obama would want to spend the political capital necessary to fight that fight.
FWIW, that's probably not true especially with 55 or so Dem senators. Historically the Senate has let other Senators slip through fairly easily. I forgot where I saw it, but one of the Supreme Court watchers went through possible Dem appointees and there's a very shallow bench of appellete judges. You're basically left looking at academics and politicians which would place Clinton fairly far up the line of good conferrable people that a Dem President could select.
True, but I think this particular Senator would be an exception to that. Hillary Clinton is the single most polarizing person in American politics, with quite a bit of general sleaze in her background. This doesn't fit the profile of the sort of person who gets a Supreme Court nomination, and I have little doubt that she'd face a fillibuster if it came to that.
I get the sense that she is not quite so polarizing in the senate. (with her fellow senators) Public opinion certainly paints her as polarizing though..I agree a confirmation to the supreme court would be unlikely.
 
You're right Obama has plenty of time to write a speech another "brilliant" speech. If he couldn't hit his last speech out of the park he's done. He had an opportunity and he blew it.
And yet, its still March.
And he peaked in February. I wanted to vote for the guy but can't see a reason too. I think it's lame to just vote for him because it's a good PR move in relation to the rest of the world. That will wane.
The reasons to vote for him haven't changed over the past few months. Seems to me that either a) you were never going to vote for him the first place (most likely) OR b) you are putting way too much stock in this Wright thing.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top