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 *** (3 Viewers)

No one is saying the rules require a quick finish. No One. Referring to the rules is pointless.However, the supers should do what's best for the party, and considering the points I've laid out, it seems like the best choice for the party would be to back Obama, now, end this thing. That's well within the rules, and it'd be the intelligent thing to do.
Why is it that giving him the votes is best for the party. Here is a guy that was going against the most hated politician in America after George Bush. She has no upside, only negatives. There is a massive movement of people begging for her to leave, and there are media members the world over drooling over him.And with all that going for him, he can't close the deal. In fact, he can't close the deal without - here is the comedic irony - the help of those very same Washington insiders who he claims he will have no allegiance to at all. But, he couldn't do it on his own. Doesn't bode well for the general.
He's a new face, a new name that's foreign, half black, half white, running for the presidency, and you're asking why he's encountering resistance? His success so far, in earning all of what he did, against Bill and HIllary Clinton, arguable two of the most powerful politicians of our time, is silly.He came out of nowhere, essentially, to take on the juggernaut of team Clinton. The network, the political machine, the name recognition, the correlation to the 8 years of her husbands term...i mean, it is almost as if Bill was running again, only in a female's body with much less charisma or likability. For him to be where he is today speaks to his strengths, and republicans should watch out when he gets the full force of the dems behind him. Try to downplay him now, while you can ;) .
I really get it. You would be his Jenna Jamison if he wanted. Got it.Doesn't change the fact that with all that, he can't close the deal. New is good. But new the point of failure isn't. Ask New Coke.I'm not downplaying him. I am amazed at the democratic arguments here. Well, not really amazed..
Just because republicans wouldn't know what it was like this year to have a candidate that they passionately believed in doesn't mean I'm willing to pimp myself out to a candidate I believe in. Maybe one day soon the R's will put someone out who can capture the attention of the nation, and inspire people to the support you see for Obama, but that's certainly not happening this year.So continue with your cute little comments about porn stars, cults, messiah worship, rock star, and so on. It just smacks of jealousy to me.The democratic argument here are better than the ones that the republicans made when trying to shove Huckabee out of the race. Spread the shame jelly around on all the toast yankeefan.
 
No one is saying the rules require a quick finish. No One. Referring to the rules is pointless.However, the supers should do what's best for the party, and considering the points I've laid out, it seems like the best choice for the party would be to back Obama, now, end this thing. That's well within the rules, and it'd be the intelligent thing to do.
Why is it that giving him the votes is best for the party. Here is a guy that was going against the most hated politician in America after George Bush. She has no upside, only negatives. There is a massive movement of people begging for her to leave, and there are media members the world over drooling over him.And with all that going for him, he can't close the deal. In fact, he can't close the deal without - here is the comedic irony - the help of those very same Washington insiders who he claims he will have no allegiance to at all. But, he couldn't do it on his own. Doesn't bode well for the general.
He's a new face, a new name that's foreign, half black, half white, running for the presidency, and you're asking why he's encountering resistance? His success so far, in earning all of what he did, against Bill and HIllary Clinton, arguable two of the most powerful politicians of our time, is silly.He came out of nowhere, essentially, to take on the juggernaut of team Clinton. The network, the political machine, the name recognition, the correlation to the 8 years of her husbands term...i mean, it is almost as if Bill was running again, only in a female's body with much less charisma or likability. For him to be where he is today speaks to his strengths, and republicans should watch out when he gets the full force of the dems behind him. Try to downplay him now, while you can ;) .
I really get it. You would be his Jenna Jamison if he wanted. Got it.Doesn't change the fact that with all that, he can't close the deal. New is good. But new the point of failure isn't. Ask New Coke.I'm not downplaying him. I am amazed at the democratic arguments here. Well, not really amazed..
Just because republicans wouldn't know what it was like this year to have a candidate that they passionately believed in doesn't mean I'm willing to pimp myself out to a candidate I believe in. Maybe one day soon the R's will put someone out who can capture the attention of the nation, and inspire people to the support you see for Obama, but that's certainly not happening this year.So continue with your cute little comments about porn stars, cults, messiah worship, rock star, and so on. It just smacks of jealousy to me.The democratic argument here are better than the ones that the republicans made when trying to shove Huckabee out of the race. Spread the shame jelly around on all the toast yankeefan.
You do know I'm not a McCain supporter, right?
 
The main difference between Huckabee and Clinton is that Huckabee campaigned posivtively rather than trying to knee-cap McCain as a candidate. I don't think anyone would begrudge Clinton the right to stay in the campaign if she would be a little bit more careful in the way she frames her criticisms. Lately she has adopted slimy campaign tactics designed solely to increase Obama's negatives. Huckabee never did anything close to that to McCain.
And one was a Christian, the other, Satan.
Well, if nothing else that last one cost you your five-star rating.
 
No one is saying the rules require a quick finish. No One. Referring to the rules is pointless.However, the supers should do what's best for the party, and considering the points I've laid out, it seems like the best choice for the party would be to back Obama, now, end this thing. That's well within the rules, and it'd be the intelligent thing to do.
Why is it that giving him the votes is best for the party. Here is a guy that was going against the most hated politician in America after George Bush. She has no upside, only negatives. There is a massive movement of people begging for her to leave, and there are media members the world over drooling over him.And with all that going for him, he can't close the deal. In fact, he can't close the deal without - here is the comedic irony - the help of those very same Washington insiders who he claims he will have no allegiance to at all. But, he couldn't do it on his own. Doesn't bode well for the general.
He's a new face, a new name that's foreign, half black, half white, running for the presidency, and you're asking why he's encountering resistance? His success so far, in earning all of what he did, against Bill and HIllary Clinton, arguable two of the most powerful politicians of our time, is silly.He came out of nowhere, essentially, to take on the juggernaut of team Clinton. The network, the political machine, the name recognition, the correlation to the 8 years of her husbands term...i mean, it is almost as if Bill was running again, only in a female's body with much less charisma or likability. For him to be where he is today speaks to his strengths, and republicans should watch out when he gets the full force of the dems behind him. Try to downplay him now, while you can ;) .
I really get it. You would be his Jenna Jamison if he wanted. Got it.Doesn't change the fact that with all that, he can't close the deal. New is good. But new the point of failure isn't. Ask New Coke.I'm not downplaying him. I am amazed at the democratic arguments here. Well, not really amazed..
Just because republicans wouldn't know what it was like this year to have a candidate that they passionately believed in doesn't mean I'm willing to pimp myself out to a candidate I believe in. Maybe one day soon the R's will put someone out who can capture the attention of the nation, and inspire people to the support you see for Obama, but that's certainly not happening this year.So continue with your cute little comments about porn stars, cults, messiah worship, rock star, and so on. It just smacks of jealousy to me.The democratic argument here are better than the ones that the republicans made when trying to shove Huckabee out of the race. Spread the shame jelly around on all the toast yankeefan.
You do know I'm not a McCain supporter, right?
Doesn't matter to me really. Just saying that it's not a specific democrat argument you're making, it's applied to republicans too. And one day you might find a candidate you believe in like many have in Obama.
 
Just because republicans wouldn't know what it was like this year to have a candidate that they passionately believed in doesn't mean I'm willing to pimp myself out to a candidate I believe in. Maybe one day soon the R's will put someone out who can capture the attention of the nation, and inspire people to the support you see for Obama, but that's certainly not happening this year.So continue with your cute little comments about porn stars, cults, messiah worship, rock star, and so on. It just smacks of jealousy to me.The democratic argument here are better than the ones that the republicans made when trying to shove Huckabee out of the race. Spread the shame jelly around on all the toast yankeefan.
Wow
 
Just because republicans wouldn't know what it was like this year to have a candidate that they passionately believed in doesn't mean I'm willing to pimp myself out to a candidate I believe in. Maybe one day soon the R's will put someone out who can capture the attention of the nation, and inspire people to the support you see for Obama, but that's certainly not happening this year.So continue with your cute little comments about porn stars, cults, messiah worship, rock star, and so on. It just smacks of jealousy to me.The democratic argument here are better than the ones that the republicans made when trying to shove Huckabee out of the race. Spread the shame jelly around on all the toast yankeefan.
Wow
That was said slightly tongue in cheek.
 
No one is saying the rules require a quick finish. No One. Referring to the rules is pointless.However, the supers should do what's best for the party, and considering the points I've laid out, it seems like the best choice for the party would be to back Obama, now, end this thing. That's well within the rules, and it'd be the intelligent thing to do.
Why is it that giving him the votes is best for the party. Here is a guy that was going against the most hated politician in America after George Bush. She has no upside, only negatives. There is a massive movement of people begging for her to leave, and there are media members the world over drooling over him.And with all that going for him, he can't close the deal. In fact, he can't close the deal without - here is the comedic irony - the help of those very same Washington insiders who he claims he will have no allegiance to at all. But, he couldn't do it on his own. Doesn't bode well for the general.
:popcorn: See you in November, slick.
:shrug:
Yes, we know.
Oh, I'm sorry. You thought you were making some kind of a good point... Carry on.
Just being the echo chamber in here.
Oh, I'm sorry. You thought you were making some kind of a good point... Carry on.
Don't be bitter.
 
Just because republicans wouldn't know what it was like this year to have a candidate that they passionately believed in doesn't mean I'm willing to pimp myself out to a candidate I believe in. Maybe one day soon the R's will put someone out who can capture the attention of the nation, and inspire people to the support you see for Obama, but that's certainly not happening this year.So continue with your cute little comments about porn stars, cults, messiah worship, rock star, and so on. It just smacks of jealousy to me.The democratic argument here are better than the ones that the republicans made when trying to shove Huckabee out of the race. Spread the shame jelly around on all the toast yankeefan.
Wow
That was said slightly tongue in cheek.
No room for humor in here.
 
But neither candidate has the required delegates.. you are saying we should bend the rules because it is divisive? It's politics!!
The rules won't be bent if the supers decide to end it now. It's well within the rules for them to make their decision now, in the interest of the party. They're not required to wait.
perhaps they know better than us? Maybe the braintrust of the Dem party DOES worry about Obama? Maybe they are considering Hillary? Again, we don't know what they do, and I believe they haven't voted yet for a reason...
Anyone care to respond? :shrug:
 
The main difference between Huckabee and Clinton is that Huckabee campaigned posivtively rather than trying to knee-cap McCain as a candidate. I don't think anyone would begrudge Clinton the right to stay in the campaign if she would be a little bit more careful in the way she frames her criticisms. Lately she has adopted slimy campaign tactics designed solely to increase Obama's negatives. Huckabee never did anything close to that to McCain.
And one was a Christian, the other, Satan.
Well, if nothing else that last one cost you your five-star rating.
C'mon that was funny.Too soon?
 
Just because republicans wouldn't know what it was like this year to have a candidate that they passionately believed in doesn't mean I'm willing to pimp myself out to a candidate I believe in. Maybe one day soon the R's will put someone out who can capture the attention of the nation, and inspire people to the support you see for Obama, but that's certainly not happening this year.So continue with your cute little comments about porn stars, cults, messiah worship, rock star, and so on. It just smacks of jealousy to me.The democratic argument here are better than the ones that the republicans made when trying to shove Huckabee out of the race. Spread the shame jelly around on all the toast yankeefan.
Wow
That was said slightly tongue in cheek.
It had to be. We all know that hell will freeze over before the cult known as Libertarianism produces such a candidate. .... :shrug:
 
No one is saying the rules require a quick finish. No One. Referring to the rules is pointless.However, the supers should do what's best for the party, and considering the points I've laid out, it seems like the best choice for the party would be to back Obama, now, end this thing. That's well within the rules, and it'd be the intelligent thing to do.
Why is it that giving him the votes is best for the party. Here is a guy that was going against the most hated politician in America after George Bush. She has no upside, only negatives. There is a massive movement of people begging for her to leave, and there are media members the world over drooling over him.And with all that going for him, he can't close the deal. In fact, he can't close the deal without - here is the comedic irony - the help of those very same Washington insiders who he claims he will have no allegiance to at all. But, he couldn't do it on his own. Doesn't bode well for the general.
:popcorn: See you in November, slick.
:shrug:
Yes, we know.
Oh, I'm sorry. You thought you were making some kind of a good point... Carry on.
Just being the echo chamber in here.
Oh, I'm sorry. You thought you were making some kind of a good point... Carry on.
Don't be bitter.
Oh, I'm sorry. You thought you were making some kind of a good point... Carry on.
 
But neither candidate has the required delegates.. you are saying we should bend the rules because it is divisive? It's politics!!
The rules won't be bent if the supers decide to end it now. It's well within the rules for them to make their decision now, in the interest of the party. They're not required to wait.
perhaps they know better than us? Maybe the braintrust of the Dem party DOES worry about Obama? Maybe they are considering Hillary? Again, we don't know what they do, and I believe they haven't voted yet for a reason...
Anyone care to respond? :shrug:
To what? They're scared. They don't want to back the wrong horse here. They're not going to risk political capital to go out and pledge now, when things are still unsettled...they'd rather wait to see the silt settle and not take big risks. They're covering their butts, instead of making good decisions specifically about this race.If it was simply a call exclusive of all else involved, people would be going in droves for Obama, but they're scared of that slight chance hillary can pull something off, and they know how vindictive the Clintons can be...you're either with them, or you're against them. They want to avoid being against them at all costs.

 
Just because republicans wouldn't know what it was like this year to have a candidate that they passionately believed in doesn't mean I'm willing to pimp myself out to a candidate I believe in. Maybe one day soon the R's will put someone out who can capture the attention of the nation, and inspire people to the support you see for Obama, but that's certainly not happening this year.So continue with your cute little comments about porn stars, cults, messiah worship, rock star, and so on. It just smacks of jealousy to me.The democratic argument here are better than the ones that the republicans made when trying to shove Huckabee out of the race. Spread the shame jelly around on all the toast yankeefan.
Wow
That was said slightly tongue in cheek.
No room for humor in here.
Shouldn't you be toiling away in a lab someplace? I thought you had no time to spend on idle pursuits like posting in message board forums. The world of science needs you. Now.
 
And again, your argument is that you guys want it real bad and of course you are right and they are wrong so just give us what we want even though the rules and laws say otherwise.
Yankee23Fan: Your assignment, should you choose to accept it, is to read through the last 20 pages of this thread (other people's posts too, not just your own) until you find a reason given other than "you guys want it real bad" for Hillary to drop out of the race.Report back when you are ready to stop intentionally misrepresenting everyone's position.
How is it a misrepresentation? You want her out so you can focus on McCain. It's good for the party. It's better for the general. And so on. You want to win the end game. In fact, you want "it real bad."
I see.Yankee23Fan : Politics :: Golddigger : Evolution
 
Last edited by a moderator:
And again, your argument is that you guys want it real bad and of course you are right and they are wrong so just give us what we want even though the rules and laws say otherwise.
Yankee23Fan: Your assignment, should you choose to accept it, is to read through the last 20 pages of this thread (other people's posts too, not just your own) until you find a reason given other than "you guys want it real bad" for Hillary to drop out of the race.Report back when you are ready to stop intentionally misrepresenting everyone's position.
How is it a misrepresentation? You want her out so you can focus on McCain. It's good for the party. It's better for the general. And so on. You want to win the end game. In fact, you want "it real bad."
I see.Yankee23Fan : Politics :: Golddigger : Evolution
Oh yeah, I forgot. Obama and his supporters are smarter then everyone else as well. So it would be in our best interest.Sorry I forgot that one. But you know us non-Obama-ites. ;)
 
Listen guys, it is this simple:

slim delegate lead + slim popular vote lead + losing certain important swing states + Florida + possibly alieanating whites, Jews and Hispanics + Rev. Wright + neither candidate able to acquire enough pledged delegates to secure nomination = realistic chance the supers give the nomination to Hillary.

A month or so ago I would have considered this impossible that the supers would risk pissing off black voters like this. But some of the recent stuff that has come out may give them the excuse they are looking for (if they are looking for one) to hand the nomination to Hillary.

It ain't over.
Slim delegate lead? Methinks not with a >100 lead.Slim popular vote lead? Methinks not, with a >700,000 vote lead

Losing important swing states? Yeah, to another democrat, very similar to Obama. Would those who voted for Hillary really not vote for Obama and go further away from their platforms and vote for McCain? Methinks not.

Rev Wright issue has not negatively affected him, as tested and shown by numerous polls. If anything, he's gained support from how he handled it. An issue? Methinks not.

Me also thinks that alienating whites, Jews and Hispanics a bunch of bull.

These elections, barring unforeseen calamity, are simply a process of confirming what we already know:

Obama will end with significantly more delegates, states won, and popular votes than Hillary. It's over, Hillary just doesn't know it yet.
I'm on your side. I'm just saying there is a lot of mud in the waters these days, and enough that could give the supers an excuse to give it to Hillary. Maybe not a good one, but an excuse nonetheless.
I think so too. I'm acting more confident than I actually am about the outcome. Anything can happen, and likely will. Every time Hillary has been counted out, she comes back strong. Could happen today.Actually, I'm guessing an 8-12% win by her today, and I think that'll be enough for her to stay in it, unfortunately. She's thrown so much at Obama these past few weeks that it's surprising he's so close.

But yeah, she's muddying the waters every way she can, and odds are, it will remain murky for some time. I rely simply on the math, and that says she's out of this thing, but my gut tells me it'll be a long ways yet until we can relax.
But, that's the problem. The math isn't against her. Both of them need the supers.
Math relies on assumptions.
Correct.The assumption, including mine, to this point has been that there is no way the supers would take this nomination from Obama.

I believe the last month has no longer made that a safe assumption.

Bottom line is, Obama cannot get the nomination without supers. Until recently, I agree, there was nothing for the supers to think about. Now, I believe they have something to think about. Otherwise, what are they waiting for? Remember the 50 that were going to swing for Obama all at once? What happened to them? If they are re-thinking their decision. And that means the math still could work for Hillary.

 
The main difference between Huckabee and Clinton is that Huckabee campaigned posivtively rather than trying to knee-cap McCain as a candidate. I don't think anyone would begrudge Clinton the right to stay in the campaign if she would be a little bit more careful in the way she frames her criticisms. Lately she has adopted slimy campaign tactics designed solely to increase Obama's negatives. Huckabee never did anything close to that to McCain.
And one was a Christian, the other, Satan.
Well, if nothing else that last one cost you your five-star rating.
C'mon that was funny.Too soon?
Not sure I understand the hatin' in YankeeFan on here. Granted, I've only skimmed the last page, but he doesn't seem to be saying anything outrageous, he kinda digs Obama, and he thinks (as he has always thought) that Clinton is the devil incarnate. On the last point alone, we can share a little non-homosexual brotherly love.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Listen guys, it is this simple:

slim delegate lead + slim popular vote lead + losing certain important swing states + Florida + possibly alieanating whites, Jews and Hispanics + Rev. Wright + neither candidate able to acquire enough pledged delegates to secure nomination = realistic chance the supers give the nomination to Hillary.

A month or so ago I would have considered this impossible that the supers would risk pissing off black voters like this. But some of the recent stuff that has come out may give them the excuse they are looking for (if they are looking for one) to hand the nomination to Hillary.

It ain't over.
Slim delegate lead? Methinks not with a >100 lead.Slim popular vote lead? Methinks not, with a >700,000 vote lead

Losing important swing states? Yeah, to another democrat, very similar to Obama. Would those who voted for Hillary really not vote for Obama and go further away from their platforms and vote for McCain? Methinks not.

Rev Wright issue has not negatively affected him, as tested and shown by numerous polls. If anything, he's gained support from how he handled it. An issue? Methinks not.

Me also thinks that alienating whites, Jews and Hispanics a bunch of bull.

These elections, barring unforeseen calamity, are simply a process of confirming what we already know:

Obama will end with significantly more delegates, states won, and popular votes than Hillary. It's over, Hillary just doesn't know it yet.
I'm on your side. I'm just saying there is a lot of mud in the waters these days, and enough that could give the supers an excuse to give it to Hillary. Maybe not a good one, but an excuse nonetheless.
I think so too. I'm acting more confident than I actually am about the outcome. Anything can happen, and likely will. Every time Hillary has been counted out, she comes back strong. Could happen today.Actually, I'm guessing an 8-12% win by her today, and I think that'll be enough for her to stay in it, unfortunately. She's thrown so much at Obama these past few weeks that it's surprising he's so close.

But yeah, she's muddying the waters every way she can, and odds are, it will remain murky for some time. I rely simply on the math, and that says she's out of this thing, but my gut tells me it'll be a long ways yet until we can relax.
But, that's the problem. The math isn't against her. Both of them need the supers.
Care to summarize the number of Supers she has secured in the last month versus how many Obama has secured? I wonder what the trend has been in the last month; the last three months. :moneybag: I'll hang up and listen.
You're right, it's all over. So why arent' the other supers confirming what we already know?
 
Listen guys, it is this simple:

slim delegate lead + slim popular vote lead + losing certain important swing states + Florida + possibly alieanating whites, Jews and Hispanics + Rev. Wright + neither candidate able to acquire enough pledged delegates to secure nomination = realistic chance the supers give the nomination to Hillary.

A month or so ago I would have considered this impossible that the supers would risk pissing off black voters like this. But some of the recent stuff that has come out may give them the excuse they are looking for (if they are looking for one) to hand the nomination to Hillary.

It ain't over.
Slim delegate lead? Methinks not with a >100 lead.Slim popular vote lead? Methinks not, with a >700,000 vote lead

Losing important swing states? Yeah, to another democrat, very similar to Obama. Would those who voted for Hillary really not vote for Obama and go further away from their platforms and vote for McCain? Methinks not.

Rev Wright issue has not negatively affected him, as tested and shown by numerous polls. If anything, he's gained support from how he handled it. An issue? Methinks not.

Me also thinks that alienating whites, Jews and Hispanics a bunch of bull.

These elections, barring unforeseen calamity, are simply a process of confirming what we already know:

Obama will end with significantly more delegates, states won, and popular votes than Hillary. It's over, Hillary just doesn't know it yet.
I'm on your side. I'm just saying there is a lot of mud in the waters these days, and enough that could give the supers an excuse to give it to Hillary. Maybe not a good one, but an excuse nonetheless.
I think so too. I'm acting more confident than I actually am about the outcome. Anything can happen, and likely will. Every time Hillary has been counted out, she comes back strong. Could happen today.Actually, I'm guessing an 8-12% win by her today, and I think that'll be enough for her to stay in it, unfortunately. She's thrown so much at Obama these past few weeks that it's surprising he's so close.

But yeah, she's muddying the waters every way she can, and odds are, it will remain murky for some time. I rely simply on the math, and that says she's out of this thing, but my gut tells me it'll be a long ways yet until we can relax.
But, that's the problem. The math isn't against her. Both of them need the supers.
Care to summarize the number of Supers she has secured in the last month versus how many Obama has secured? I wonder what the trend has been in the last month; the last three months. :moneybag: I'll hang up and listen.
You're right, it's all over. So why arent' the other supers confirming what we already know?
They are. The others, it has been widely understood, want Hillary to drop out of the race before they do political damage to themselves and pick Obama over her. The Clintons are notorious at holding grudges, and Hillary will still hold significant political capital in the Senate. A lot of the supers don't want to deal with her (and Bill's) wrath. So, they'd like to just see her drop out so that they don't have to force the action against her.

 
Listen guys, it is this simple:

slim delegate lead + slim popular vote lead + losing certain important swing states + Florida + possibly alieanating whites, Jews and Hispanics + Rev. Wright + neither candidate able to acquire enough pledged delegates to secure nomination = realistic chance the supers give the nomination to Hillary.

A month or so ago I would have considered this impossible that the supers would risk pissing off black voters like this. But some of the recent stuff that has come out may give them the excuse they are looking for (if they are looking for one) to hand the nomination to Hillary.

It ain't over.
Slim delegate lead? Methinks not with a >100 lead.Slim popular vote lead? Methinks not, with a >700,000 vote lead

Losing important swing states? Yeah, to another democrat, very similar to Obama. Would those who voted for Hillary really not vote for Obama and go further away from their platforms and vote for McCain? Methinks not.

Rev Wright issue has not negatively affected him, as tested and shown by numerous polls. If anything, he's gained support from how he handled it. An issue? Methinks not.

Me also thinks that alienating whites, Jews and Hispanics a bunch of bull.

These elections, barring unforeseen calamity, are simply a process of confirming what we already know:

Obama will end with significantly more delegates, states won, and popular votes than Hillary. It's over, Hillary just doesn't know it yet.
I'm on your side. I'm just saying there is a lot of mud in the waters these days, and enough that could give the supers an excuse to give it to Hillary. Maybe not a good one, but an excuse nonetheless.
I think so too. I'm acting more confident than I actually am about the outcome. Anything can happen, and likely will. Every time Hillary has been counted out, she comes back strong. Could happen today.Actually, I'm guessing an 8-12% win by her today, and I think that'll be enough for her to stay in it, unfortunately. She's thrown so much at Obama these past few weeks that it's surprising he's so close.

But yeah, she's muddying the waters every way she can, and odds are, it will remain murky for some time. I rely simply on the math, and that says she's out of this thing, but my gut tells me it'll be a long ways yet until we can relax.
But, that's the problem. The math isn't against her. Both of them need the supers.
Care to summarize the number of Supers she has secured in the last month versus how many Obama has secured? I wonder what the trend has been in the last month; the last three months. :moneybag: I'll hang up and listen.
You're right, it's all over. So why arent' the other supers confirming what we already know?
They are. The others, it has been widely understood, want Hillary to drop out of the race before they do political damage to themselves and pick Obama over her. The Clintons are notorious at holding grudges, and Hillary will still hold significant political capital in the Senate. A lot of the supers don't want to deal with her (and Bill's) wrath. So, they'd like to just see her drop out so that they don't have to force the action against her.
Party of strength and leadership they are.
 
But neither candidate has the required delegates.. you are saying we should bend the rules because it is divisive? It's politics!!
The rules won't be bent if the supers decide to end it now. It's well within the rules for them to make their decision now, in the interest of the party. They're not required to wait.
Yep, and it would be well within the rules for them to end it right now in favor of Hillary.To play Devil's Advocate, one could argue that this would be fulfilling the very purpose of the supers. That is, the Supers were created so that if an up-start, non-establishment candidate managed to derail the establishment choice, the supers would have enough power and clout to overturn that result and hand the nomination to the establishment candidate. If enough of the supers have concerns about Obama's past and associations, and feel that this would make him un-electable in November, their very purpose for existing would be to step in and give the nomination to Hillary instead.Listen, I don't think any of the above SHOULD happen, I am just saying that the above is not at all an irrational or divisive or radical opinion. It is right out of the rules book. Obama's job is to take away any excuse for the supers to do this.
 
Yankee23Fan said:
adonis said:
No one is saying the rules require a quick finish. No One. Referring to the rules is pointless.However, the supers should do what's best for the party, and considering the points I've laid out, it seems like the best choice for the party would be to back Obama, now, end this thing. That's well within the rules, and it'd be the intelligent thing to do.
Why is it that giving him the votes is best for the party. Here is a guy that was going against the most hated politician in America after George Bush. She has no upside, only negatives. There is a massive movement of people begging for her to leave, and there are media members the world over drooling over him.And with all that going for him, he can't close the deal. In fact, he can't close the deal without - here is the comedic irony - the help of those very same Washington insiders who he claims he will have no allegiance to at all. But, he couldn't do it on his own. Doesn't bode well for the general.
I don't see it that way. As far as primary politics go, the Clintons are/were loved by Democrats. If anyone told me a year ago that Clinton would be trailing Obama heading into May I would of thought they were crazy. I didn't even think Obama had much of a chance to still be in this thing, let alone leading a year ago. I'd say 100% of Democratic voters knew who Hillary Clinton was at the start of this, with her favorables among Democrats being very high. How many knew who Obama was? Maybe 15%? The Clinton's are consummate machine politicians who do have support from others who control the levers of power like Rendell in PA and unions. Obama, who people have described as a naive, inexperienced politician has put together one of the better campaigns seen in modern politics and is taking it to political dynasty. Regardless what happens, it's been interesting to watch.
 
Yankee23Fan said:
cobalt_27 said:
flufhed said:
cobalt_27 said:
flufhed said:
Listen guys, it is this simple:

slim delegate lead + slim popular vote lead + losing certain important swing states + Florida + possibly alieanating whites, Jews and Hispanics + Rev. Wright + neither candidate able to acquire enough pledged delegates to secure nomination = realistic chance the supers give the nomination to Hillary.

A month or so ago I would have considered this impossible that the supers would risk pissing off black voters like this. But some of the recent stuff that has come out may give them the excuse they are looking for (if they are looking for one) to hand the nomination to Hillary.

It ain't over.
Slim delegate lead? Methinks not with a >100 lead.Slim popular vote lead? Methinks not, with a >700,000 vote lead

Losing important swing states? Yeah, to another democrat, very similar to Obama. Would those who voted for Hillary really not vote for Obama and go further away from their platforms and vote for McCain? Methinks not.

Rev Wright issue has not negatively affected him, as tested and shown by numerous polls. If anything, he's gained support from how he handled it. An issue? Methinks not.

Me also thinks that alienating whites, Jews and Hispanics a bunch of bull.

These elections, barring unforeseen calamity, are simply a process of confirming what we already know:

Obama will end with significantly more delegates, states won, and popular votes than Hillary. It's over, Hillary just doesn't know it yet.
I'm on your side. I'm just saying there is a lot of mud in the waters these days, and enough that could give the supers an excuse to give it to Hillary. Maybe not a good one, but an excuse nonetheless.
I think so too. I'm acting more confident than I actually am about the outcome. Anything can happen, and likely will. Every time Hillary has been counted out, she comes back strong. Could happen today.Actually, I'm guessing an 8-12% win by her today, and I think that'll be enough for her to stay in it, unfortunately. She's thrown so much at Obama these past few weeks that it's surprising he's so close.

But yeah, she's muddying the waters every way she can, and odds are, it will remain murky for some time. I rely simply on the math, and that says she's out of this thing, but my gut tells me it'll be a long ways yet until we can relax.
But, that's the problem. The math isn't against her. Both of them need the supers.
Care to summarize the number of Supers she has secured in the last month versus how many Obama has secured? I wonder what the trend has been in the last month; the last three months. :porked: I'll hang up and listen.
You're right, it's all over. So why arent' the other supers confirming what we already know?
They are. The others, it has been widely understood, want Hillary to drop out of the race before they do political damage to themselves and pick Obama over her. The Clintons are notorious at holding grudges, and Hillary will still hold significant political capital in the Senate. A lot of the supers don't want to deal with her (and Bill's) wrath. So, they'd like to just see her drop out so that they don't have to force the action against her.
Party of strength and leadership they are.
Look, the Republicans have their own problems with flimsiness. But, as one who has long-supported most GOP candidates, I am by no means a fan of the (D) party, as a whole. They are two-faced, clearly mismanaged, have no guts or soul or leadership on any level.Except, with Obama, I have a different take, altogether. I think he absolutely IS that leader who, despite the Dems best efforts to stumble all over themselves, may have a chance to rally the troops in a coherent direction again--the likes of which hasn't been established since JFK (or FDR, really).

But, no, you're right...the Democratic party are the Keystone Cops when it comes to organizing themselves philosophically/politically. No argument there. And, this whole thing with the Supers is just the latest and greatest example of the flimsiness they have been historically attributed to (not to mention Dean's handling of the MI/FL debacle).

 
IvanKaramazov said:
Tigran Petrosian said:
adonis said:
phthalatemagic said:
adonis said:
Just because republicans wouldn't know what it was like this year to have a candidate that they passionately believed in doesn't mean I'm willing to pimp myself out to a candidate I believe in. Maybe one day soon the R's will put someone out who can capture the attention of the nation, and inspire people to the support you see for Obama, but that's certainly not happening this year.So continue with your cute little comments about porn stars, cults, messiah worship, rock star, and so on. It just smacks of jealousy to me.The democratic argument here are better than the ones that the republicans made when trying to shove Huckabee out of the race. Spread the shame jelly around on all the toast yankeefan.
Wow
That was said slightly tongue in cheek.
No room for humor in here.
Shouldn't you be toiling away in a lab someplace? I thought you had no time to spend on idle pursuits like posting in message board forums. The world of science needs you. Now.
You're really reaching here.
 
Arsenal of Doom said:
Spiderman said:
phthalatemagic said:
adonis said:
Yankee23Fan said:
adonis said:
You guys sound like huckabee. Did y'all major in miracles and not math too?
This crap is always what gives me the giggles with democrats.There is a number of delegates that they have to hit to win the nomination. Can he get there without the supers? Can she?Basically, the Obama camp is of the collective opinion that no matter the rules, laws, policies or processes in place, when they want something really bad, they should just be allowed to do it, everyone should accept it and get out of the way, and the world would be a better place.Isn't that close to what you all say you hate about the current guy?
Umm, first, I'm an independent.Secondly, the republicans did it too with huckabee staying in despite the "math" saying he wouldn't win it. He replied that he majored in miracles in college, not math. He lost. Other republicans urged him to drop out.This isn't a republican/democrat issue. It's an issue of politicians not knowing when to call it a game. Huckabee wasn't dividing his party, or being nearly as critical of McCain as Hilary is being of Obama. If Huckabee was causing more trouble, the calls for him to leave would've been louder.
This is really an issue about a guy complaining on a message board that his favorite candidate is having a difficult path, despite the system being exactly what it is. If it's really as obvious as you say it is, then we wouldn't have even needed a primary in Pennsylvania. Stop throwing a fit about a close race.And I'd really like to know what sets you apart from a Democrat. You are an independent? How? You drink up everything Obama says, which is right from a "how to be a Democrat" rulebook.
I think Obama supporters like to give the impression that they are following his lead, being more interested in change and hope and being above the political fighting. That way, they can around having to discuss his political believes or his controversial preacher, etc. In reality, Obama is a left wing Democrat who has no history of being anything other than that, and people are fooling themselves by thinking he's going to get conservatives to buy into his left wing agenda.
This depends on what you mean by conservatives. The social conservatives won't vote for him and weren't going to vote for Clinton either. In fact if they vote for McCain it will be while holding their noses since they were primarily the ones flocking to Huckabee. There are plenty of self-described fiscal conservatives out there who are very much in play for Obama, and there are several examples on this board.
I would question if these people are conservatives then because there's nothing on Obama's policy that isn't liberal.
 
Arsenal of Doom said:
Spiderman said:
phthalatemagic said:
adonis said:
Yankee23Fan said:
adonis said:
You guys sound like huckabee. Did y'all major in miracles and not math too?
This crap is always what gives me the giggles with democrats.There is a number of delegates that they have to hit to win the nomination. Can he get there without the supers? Can she?Basically, the Obama camp is of the collective opinion that no matter the rules, laws, policies or processes in place, when they want something really bad, they should just be allowed to do it, everyone should accept it and get out of the way, and the world would be a better place.Isn't that close to what you all say you hate about the current guy?
Umm, first, I'm an independent.Secondly, the republicans did it too with huckabee staying in despite the "math" saying he wouldn't win it. He replied that he majored in miracles in college, not math. He lost. Other republicans urged him to drop out.This isn't a republican/democrat issue. It's an issue of politicians not knowing when to call it a game. Huckabee wasn't dividing his party, or being nearly as critical of McCain as Hilary is being of Obama. If Huckabee was causing more trouble, the calls for him to leave would've been louder.
This is really an issue about a guy complaining on a message board that his favorite candidate is having a difficult path, despite the system being exactly what it is. If it's really as obvious as you say it is, then we wouldn't have even needed a primary in Pennsylvania. Stop throwing a fit about a close race.And I'd really like to know what sets you apart from a Democrat. You are an independent? How? You drink up everything Obama says, which is right from a "how to be a Democrat" rulebook.
I think Obama supporters like to give the impression that they are following his lead, being more interested in change and hope and being above the political fighting. That way, they can around having to discuss his political believes or his controversial preacher, etc. In reality, Obama is a left wing Democrat who has no history of being anything other than that, and people are fooling themselves by thinking he's going to get conservatives to buy into his left wing agenda.
This depends on what you mean by conservatives. The social conservatives won't vote for him and weren't going to vote for Clinton either. In fact if they vote for McCain it will be while holding their noses since they were primarily the ones flocking to Huckabee. There are plenty of self-described fiscal conservatives out there who are very much in play for Obama, and there are several examples on this board.
I would question if these people are conservatives then because there's nothing on Obama's policy that isn't liberal.
There are things greater then just holding tightly on to a mantra of being liberal or conservative.Things like intelligent and capable go a very long way. McCain doesnt strike many as capable, regardless of policies, and thats hard to overcome.
 
Arsenal of Doom said:
Spiderman said:
phthalatemagic said:
adonis said:
Yankee23Fan said:
adonis said:
You guys sound like huckabee. Did y'all major in miracles and not math too?
This crap is always what gives me the giggles with democrats.There is a number of delegates that they have to hit to win the nomination. Can he get there without the supers? Can she?Basically, the Obama camp is of the collective opinion that no matter the rules, laws, policies or processes in place, when they want something really bad, they should just be allowed to do it, everyone should accept it and get out of the way, and the world would be a better place.Isn't that close to what you all say you hate about the current guy?
Umm, first, I'm an independent.Secondly, the republicans did it too with huckabee staying in despite the "math" saying he wouldn't win it. He replied that he majored in miracles in college, not math. He lost. Other republicans urged him to drop out.This isn't a republican/democrat issue. It's an issue of politicians not knowing when to call it a game. Huckabee wasn't dividing his party, or being nearly as critical of McCain as Hilary is being of Obama. If Huckabee was causing more trouble, the calls for him to leave would've been louder.
This is really an issue about a guy complaining on a message board that his favorite candidate is having a difficult path, despite the system being exactly what it is. If it's really as obvious as you say it is, then we wouldn't have even needed a primary in Pennsylvania. Stop throwing a fit about a close race.And I'd really like to know what sets you apart from a Democrat. You are an independent? How? You drink up everything Obama says, which is right from a "how to be a Democrat" rulebook.
I think Obama supporters like to give the impression that they are following his lead, being more interested in change and hope and being above the political fighting. That way, they can around having to discuss his political believes or his controversial preacher, etc. In reality, Obama is a left wing Democrat who has no history of being anything other than that, and people are fooling themselves by thinking he's going to get conservatives to buy into his left wing agenda.
This depends on what you mean by conservatives. The social conservatives won't vote for him and weren't going to vote for Clinton either. In fact if they vote for McCain it will be while holding their noses since they were primarily the ones flocking to Huckabee. There are plenty of self-described fiscal conservatives out there who are very much in play for Obama, and there are several examples on this board.
I would question if these people are conservatives then because there's nothing on Obama's policy that isn't liberal.
I'm a conservative and I like Obama. I would vote for him if I wasn't staunchly pro-third party. It's not always about the issues that you see. Some people, like me look for integrity and look to elect people they think won't take advantage of our government.
 
IvanKaramazov said:
Tigran Petrosian said:
adonis said:
phthalatemagic said:
adonis said:
Just because republicans wouldn't know what it was like this year to have a candidate that they passionately believed in doesn't mean I'm willing to pimp myself out to a candidate I believe in. Maybe one day soon the R's will put someone out who can capture the attention of the nation, and inspire people to the support you see for Obama, but that's certainly not happening this year.So continue with your cute little comments about porn stars, cults, messiah worship, rock star, and so on. It just smacks of jealousy to me.The democratic argument here are better than the ones that the republicans made when trying to shove Huckabee out of the race. Spread the shame jelly around on all the toast yankeefan.
Wow
That was said slightly tongue in cheek.
No room for humor in here.
Shouldn't you be toiling away in a lab someplace? I thought you had no time to spend on idle pursuits like posting in message board forums. The world of science needs you. Now.
You're really reaching here.
Not really
 
Arsenal of Doom said:
Spiderman said:
phthalatemagic said:
adonis said:
Yankee23Fan said:
adonis said:
You guys sound like huckabee. Did y'all major in miracles and not math too?
This crap is always what gives me the giggles with democrats.There is a number of delegates that they have to hit to win the nomination. Can he get there without the supers? Can she?Basically, the Obama camp is of the collective opinion that no matter the rules, laws, policies or processes in place, when they want something really bad, they should just be allowed to do it, everyone should accept it and get out of the way, and the world would be a better place.Isn't that close to what you all say you hate about the current guy?
Umm, first, I'm an independent.Secondly, the republicans did it too with huckabee staying in despite the "math" saying he wouldn't win it. He replied that he majored in miracles in college, not math. He lost. Other republicans urged him to drop out.This isn't a republican/democrat issue. It's an issue of politicians not knowing when to call it a game. Huckabee wasn't dividing his party, or being nearly as critical of McCain as Hilary is being of Obama. If Huckabee was causing more trouble, the calls for him to leave would've been louder.
This is really an issue about a guy complaining on a message board that his favorite candidate is having a difficult path, despite the system being exactly what it is. If it's really as obvious as you say it is, then we wouldn't have even needed a primary in Pennsylvania. Stop throwing a fit about a close race.And I'd really like to know what sets you apart from a Democrat. You are an independent? How? You drink up everything Obama says, which is right from a "how to be a Democrat" rulebook.
I think Obama supporters like to give the impression that they are following his lead, being more interested in change and hope and being above the political fighting. That way, they can around having to discuss his political believes or his controversial preacher, etc. In reality, Obama is a left wing Democrat who has no history of being anything other than that, and people are fooling themselves by thinking he's going to get conservatives to buy into his left wing agenda.
This depends on what you mean by conservatives. The social conservatives won't vote for him and weren't going to vote for Clinton either. In fact if they vote for McCain it will be while holding their noses since they were primarily the ones flocking to Huckabee. There are plenty of self-described fiscal conservatives out there who are very much in play for Obama, and there are several examples on this board.
I would question if these people are conservatives then because there's nothing on Obama's policy that isn't liberal.
I'm a conservative and I like Obama. I would vote for him if I wasn't staunchly pro-third party. It's not always about the issues that you see. Some people, like me look for integrity and look to elect people they think won't take advantage of our government.
EXACTLY how I feel. There is an integrity he could bring to the office that we haven't seen for at least the last 16 years. I disagree with him on particulars. Same with McCain, too, I suppose...and, he'd be an improvement over Bush. But, compared to Obama, he's nowhere near the kind of president I'd want in office. Hillary is incomprehensibly disgusting in every way.
 
I would question if these people are conservatives then because there's nothing on Obama's policy that isn't liberal.
First off, his entire mentality on how to deal with issues and with people is more fair-minded and pragmatic than either of the other candidates.But here are some things (after just a few minutes of looking) from his policy issues and positions that I think a fiscal conservative would support:

Restore Fiscal Discipline in Congress

Obama will reinstate pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) budget rules, so that new spending or tax cuts are paid for by spending cuts or new revenue elsewhere.

Cut Pork Barrel Spending

Obama will cut skyrocketing pork barrel spending projects by forcing more transparency about who is requesting projects and what the projects would accomplish before Congress votes to approve them

Provide a Tax Cut for Working Families:

Barack Obama will restore fairness to the tax code and provide 150 million workers the tax relief they deserve. Obama will create a new “Making Work Pay” tax credit of up to $500 per person, or $1,000 per working family.

Simplify Tax Filings for Middle Class Americans:

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) estimated in 2004 that it took more than 28 hours for an individual to complete his/her tax filing, and that half of the taxpayers filing the “easy” forms ended up paying a tax preparer to do it for them. Barack Obama will dramatically simplify tax filings so that millions of Americans will be able to do their taxes in less than 5 minutes.

Improve Transparency in the Market

Credit agencies are paid by the issuers of securities, not by the buyers of securities, which creates a potential conflict of interest in favor of issuing strong securities ratings. This problem was illustrated in the subprime market crisis in which credit rating agencies strongly rated subprime mortgage securities even as there were significant indications of large numbers of foreclosures and a weakening housing market. Barack Obama supports an immediate investigation into the ratings agencies and their relationships to securities’ issuers, similar to the investigation the EU has recently announced.

CRIME

Some heinous crimes justify the ultimate punishment

"While the evidence tells me that the death penalty does little to deter crime, I believe there are some crimes--mass murder, the rape and murder of a child--so heinous that the community is justified in expressing the full measure of its outrage by meting out the ultimate punishment."

Voted YES on reinstating $1.15 billion funding for the COPS Program.

"This Amendment would increase funding for the COPS Program to $1.15 billion for FY 2008 to provide state and local law enforcement with critical resources. The funding is offset by an unallocated reduction to non-defense discretionary spending. I remind everyone, when the COPS Program was functioning, violent crime in America reduced 8.5% a year for 7 years in a row."
 
Hillary is incomprehensibly disgusting in every way.
;) The choice between Hillary and Obama isn't a choice at all.A few months ago there was a thread that had people rank their candidates. Some people had Obama and Clinton both near the top. I was :popcorn: as hell about that, but I guess those people's priorities are different. I feel the same way about Guiliani, but luckily we dodged that bullet early.
 
Well, here's some news, at least to me:

Code:
EXPECTATIONSFinally, Team Obama and Team Clinton are out with competing memo explaining what the results might mean.	TO: Interested Parties	FR: Obama Campaign	RE: The Bar for Clinton in Pennsylvania and Beyond	DA: April 22, 2008	______________________________________________________________________________	The Bar for Clinton in Pennsylvania	With all eyes on today's contest, one thing is clear: Pennsylvania is considered a state tailor-made for Hillary Clinton, and by rights she should win big. She has family roots in the state, she has the support of the Democratic establishment — including Gov. Rendell's extensive network — and former President Clinton is fondly remembered.	Clinton has been leading by large margins in Pennsylvania. In the weeks leading up to the primary, she led by as much as 25 points. They were so confident that their own Pennsylvania spokesman said Clinton would be "unbeatable" in Pennsylvania —regardless of spending by her opponent. [Washington Post, 3/7/08]	But as he has done in every state, Obama campaigned hard and tapped into the hunger for change at grassroots, looking to pick up as many delegates as possible. Old-fashioned, shoe-leather campaigning, in the face of unrelenting negative attacks from Clinton, substantially closed a once-formidable gap.	There has been much speculation about what each campaign needs coming out of tonight. The facts, however, are simple.	Behind in delegates and sporting a 14-30 primary record (not good enough even to make the playoffs in the NBA Eastern Conference), the Clinton campaign needs a blowout victory in Pennsylvania to get any closer to winning the nomination. Even former President Clinton said that only a "big, big victory" will give her the boost she needs.	The Philadelphia Inquirer observed that there is "consensus" that Clinton has to "take the state big, perhaps by double digits, to be able to claim that she'd won it a way that matters in the overall nomination struggle — given her deficits in both the delegate race and the overall popular vote." [Philadelphia Inquirer, 4/3/08]	That's exactly right. And Clinton's own supporters have been predicting big wins. Gov. Ed Rendell and Congressman Jack Murtha — no strangers to Pennsylvania politics — have both predicted runaway wins for her. [MTP, 4/6/08, MSNBC, 4/1/08]	The Clinton campaign has been trying to spin away their earlier confidence and move the goal posts for victory in Pennsylvania. But the bottom line is that if Clinton is going to make meaningful inroads in this race for delegates, she will need a huge margin in Pennsylvania.	The Race Beyond Tonight	Tonight's outcome is unlikely to change the dynamic of this lengthy primary. Fully three-quarters of the remaining delegates will be selected in states other than Pennsylvania. While there are 158 delegates at stake in today's primary, there are 157 up for grabs in the Indiana and North Carolina primaries two weeks from today. We expect that by tomorrow morning, the overall structure of the race will remain unchanged — except for the fact that there will be 158 delegates off the table.	It wouldn't be surprising if the Clinton campaign once again tries to change the metrics by which the race is measured. They used to stress repeatedly that, in Howard Wolfson’s words "[t]his is a race for delegates." [Washington Post, 1/16/08] Recently, they have attempted to shift the focus to the popular vote, and the specious argument that primary wins in big states equate to electoral vote pickups in the general election. They do not.	Our strategy has always been to gain as many delegates as possible — an important point to remember going forward. If this race had focused on the popular vote, we would have campaigned non-stop in California, for example, and run up our numbers even higher in Obama's home state of Illinois. But we focused on delegates because, simply, delegates decide the Democratic nominee.	But even if we were to judge the primary on the popular vote, we anticipate having a comfortable lead when voting in the last nine contests wraps up in June. Obama will continue to gain strength with Democratic superdelegates. He will maintain his position as the best candidate to take on Sen. John McCain. And he will be ready to unite the American people and begin a new chapter in our history.	We are already organizing vigorously in the remaining contests, opening local offices, canvassing, and engaging voters in this unprecedented campaign. We will have the financial resources we need to be competitive. Our message will be the same one that Obama enunciated 14 months ago and has shared with voters every day since: that the size of the challenges we face has outgrown the smallness of our politics, and this election is our chance to change that.	To: Interested Parties	From: The Clinton Campaign	Date: April 22, 2008	MEMO: Watch What They Do Not What They Say	The Obama campaign is attempting to pre-spin the results from tonight's	Pennsylvania primary by suggesting that Clinton should — and will —	win.	But after the Obama campaign's "go-for-broke" Pennsylvania strategy,	after their avalanche of negative ads, negative mailers and negative	attacks against Clinton, after their record-breaking spending in	the state, a fundamental question must be asked: Why shouldn't	OBAMA win?	Obama's supporters — and many pundits — have argued that the	delegate "math" makes him the prohibitive frontrunner. They have argued	that Clinton's chances are slim to none. So if he's already the	frontrunner, if he's had six weeks of unlimited resources to get his	message out, shouldn't he be the one expected to win tonight? If not,	why not?	As the phrase goes, watch what they do not what they say.	There's a reason Obama and his campaign have ratcheted up their	year-long assault on Clinton's character and ended the Pennsylvania	campaign with a flurry of harsh negative attacks. It's because they know	that a loss in Pennsylvania will raise troubling questions about his	candidacy and his ability to take on McCain in the general	election. And it's because they know that the race is neck and neck and	tonight's contest is a measure of where the campaign stands.	The reality is this: both candidates need a combination of pledged and	super delegates to secure the nomination — and either candidate can	reach the required number. The press and the pundits have repeatedly	counted Clinton out and she has repeatedly proved them wrong. The	vote in the bellwether state of Pennsylvania is another head to head	measure of the two candidates and of the coalition they will put	together to compete and win in November.	No amount of spin from the Obama campaign will change that — nor will it	explain away anything less than a victory by Obama.
 
I would question if these people are conservatives then because there's nothing on Obama's policy that isn't liberal.
First off, his entire mentality on how to deal with issues and with people is more fair-minded and pragmatic than either of the other candidates.But here are some things (after just a few minutes of looking) from his policy issues and positions that I think a fiscal conservative would support:

Restore Fiscal Discipline in Congress

Obama will reinstate pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) budget rules, so that new spending or tax cuts are paid for by spending cuts or new revenue elsewhere.

If Obama is a leader, why has he not already changed the rules of the Senate to require this now? How will he change the law as an executive that he couldn't change as a Senator who commands bipartisan leadership?

Cut Pork Barrel Spending

Obama will cut skyrocketing pork barrel spending projects by forcing more transparency about who is requesting projects and what the projects would accomplish before Congress votes to approve them

Same as above. There are many Pubs who would have joined him in this movement.

Provide a Tax Cut for Working Families:

Barack Obama will restore fairness to the tax code and provide 150 million workers the tax relief they deserve. Obama will create a new “Making Work Pay” tax credit of up to $500 per person, or $1,000 per working family.

If taxes should be fair, then have everyone pay the same tax rate. How simple is that? Why penalize those who have more money? This is simple class warfare, leftist rhetoric; nothing conservative here.

Simplify Tax Filings for Middle Class Americans:

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) estimated in 2004 that it took more than 28 hours for an individual to complete his/her tax filing, and that half of the taxpayers filing the “easy” forms ended up paying a tax preparer to do it for them. Barack Obama will dramatically simplify tax filings so that millions of Americans will be able to do their taxes in less than 5 minutes.

If everyone payed the same tax rates, everyone would be able to file tax forms in 5 minutes. Why have different rules for the rich and poor? Conservatives see all Americans as equals. Why shouldn't the IRS?

Improve Transparency in the Market

Credit agencies are paid by the issuers of securities, not by the buyers of securities, which creates a potential conflict of interest in favor of issuing strong securities ratings. This problem was illustrated in the subprime market crisis in which credit rating agencies strongly rated subprime mortgage securities even as there were significant indications of large numbers of foreclosures and a weakening housing market. Barack Obama supports an immediate investigation into the ratings agencies and their relationships to securities’ issuers, similar to the investigation the EU has recently announced.

Conservatives do not advocate more governmental oversight and intrusion into free markets. One could easily argue it was the governments intrusion into the mortgage markets that allowed the abuse to occur.

CRIME

Some heinous crimes justify the ultimate punishment

"While the evidence tells me that the death penalty does little to deter crime, I believe there are some crimes--mass murder, the rape and murder of a child--so heinous that the community is justified in expressing the full measure of its outrage by meting out the ultimate punishment."

Conservatives do not advocate pandering to the mob.

Voted YES on reinstating $1.15 billion funding for the COPS Program.

"This Amendment would increase funding for the COPS Program to $1.15 billion for FY 2008 to provide state and local law enforcement with critical resources. The funding is offset by an unallocated reduction to non-defense discretionary spending. I remind everyone, when the COPS Program was functioning, violent crime in America reduced 8.5% a year for 7 years in a row."
As a voter who shares "conservative" views, I see federal intervention beyond those powers enumerated in the Constitution as "liberal" and undermining states rights. (Personally I prefer the label "orthodox" over conservative.) But even a less strict "conservative" view would find the above objectionable as highlighted. It seems the more the federal government "fixes", the more they have to fix.
 
Hillary just gave a speech saying the U.S. could "totally obliterate" Iran. She's right, but what up with the saber rattling? Also kind of flips her complaint of Obama's comments about Pakistan months ago; "people running for president should engage in hypotheticals" and called it a mistake "to telegraph" what U.S. strategy might be at a time of unrest inside Pakistan.

Is she flipping out? Seriously, she is a piece of work. She cries, then tells Obama to toughen up. Says he's naive to telegraph policy and threatens to "obliterate" a country. Wow.

 
As a voter who shares "conservative" views, I see federal intervention beyond those powers enumerated in the Constitution as "liberal" and undermining states rights. (Personally I prefer the label "orthodox" over conservative.) But even a less strict "conservative" view would find the above objectionable as highlighted. It seems the more the federal government "fixes", the more they have to fix.
The first criticism regarding Obama as a Senator ... well what the heck do you think McCain and Clinton are?!? And the words the President says carry a heck of a lot more weight than those of a Senator.

I'm not going to get into a debate over your other criticisms (not because I can't, but I just don't have the time), except for your criticism over increased transparency.

You seem to be arguing that fiscal conservatives want no regulations. I don't think that's accurate. I "thought" (perhaps I'm wrong) that conservatives want an efficient free market. In that sense, regulations that promote more information to be available to make decisions creates higher efficiencies. It shouldn't be a regulation=bad knee jerk response, but instead a pause to at least ask what kind of regulation and what are the actual results that will result.

 
Hillary just gave a speech saying the U.S. could "totally obliterate" Iran. She's right, but what up with the saber rattling? Also kind of flips her complaint of Obama's comments about Pakistan months ago; "people running for president should engage in hypotheticals" and called it a mistake "to telegraph" what U.S. strategy might be at a time of unrest inside Pakistan. Is she flipping out? Seriously, she is a piece of work. She cries, then tells Obama to toughen up. Says he's naive to telegraph policy and threatens to "obliterate" a country. Wow.
Wasn't that on good morning america, or some other show like that? That's what I heard at least.
 
Hillary just gave a speech saying the U.S. could "totally obliterate" Iran. She's right, but what up with the saber rattling? Also kind of flips her complaint of Obama's comments about Pakistan months ago; "people running for president should engage in hypotheticals" and called it a mistake "to telegraph" what U.S. strategy might be at a time of unrest inside Pakistan. Is she flipping out? Seriously, she is a piece of work. She cries, then tells Obama to toughen up. Says he's naive to telegraph policy and threatens to "obliterate" a country. Wow.
This is interesting since she dodged the Iran aggression question twice when asked point blank in a previous debate. She also now sides with McCain on a gas tax break, while Obama opposes it.
 
I keep reading quotes from Hillary asking "Why can't Obama close the deal?"

I keep thinking to myself, "It's because he's running against 8 years of your husbands presidency, your name recognition, and your husbands connections in the state, that's why."

Seriously, who would Hillary Rodham be if she didn't have the last name of clinton? She certainly wouldn't be running for president. She wouldn't be in contention for the nomination. It rubs me the wrong way to see her trumpeting her position as if it's something she's earned for herself. Really, the best she's done was to suffer through sticking with Bill as he consistently embarrassed her nationally. That took tenacity, and that same tenacity we're seeing now.

Just like she should've bailed on Bill Clinton long ago, but because of her lust for power she stuck around, she should've bailed on this race already, but her lust of power is keeping her in it.

Don't get caught up on that last sentence, because the main point of my post is that I really want to see someone call her on the fact that she's running largely on her husbands coattails. The political fallout of such a comment is too great, but it's the truth. She would not be where she is today if it weren't for Bill Clinton. Period. And she's running as if she's done it all herself. Very annoying.

 
Hillary just gave a speech saying the U.S. could "totally obliterate" Iran. She's right, but what up with the saber rattling? Also kind of flips her complaint of Obama's comments about Pakistan months ago; "people running for president should engage in hypotheticals" and called it a mistake "to telegraph" what U.S. strategy might be at a time of unrest inside Pakistan. Is she flipping out? Seriously, she is a piece of work. She cries, then tells Obama to toughen up. Says he's naive to telegraph policy and threatens to "obliterate" a country. Wow.
Wasn't that on good morning america, or some other show like that? That's what I heard at least.
Maybe, just saw the pull quotes online. Didn't notice where it was from.
 
IvanKaramazov said:
Tigran Petrosian said:
adonis said:
phthalatemagic said:
adonis said:
Just because republicans wouldn't know what it was like this year to have a candidate that they passionately believed in doesn't mean I'm willing to pimp myself out to a candidate I believe in. Maybe one day soon the R's will put someone out who can capture the attention of the nation, and inspire people to the support you see for Obama, but that's certainly not happening this year.So continue with your cute little comments about porn stars, cults, messiah worship, rock star, and so on. It just smacks of jealousy to me.The democratic argument here are better than the ones that the republicans made when trying to shove Huckabee out of the race. Spread the shame jelly around on all the toast yankeefan.
Wow
That was said slightly tongue in cheek.
No room for humor in here.
Shouldn't you be toiling away in a lab someplace? I thought you had no time to spend on idle pursuits like posting in message board forums. The world of science needs you. Now.
You're really reaching here.
Not really
The bitterness is palpable.
 
I keep reading quotes from Hillary asking "Why can't Obama close the deal?"I keep thinking to myself, "It's because he's running against 8 years of your husbands presidency, your name recognition, and your husbands connections in the state, that's why."Seriously, who would Hillary Rodham be if she didn't have the last name of clinton? She certainly wouldn't be running for president. She wouldn't be in contention for the nomination. It rubs me the wrong way to see her trumpeting her position as if it's something she's earned for herself. Really, the best she's done was to suffer through sticking with Bill as he consistently embarrassed her nationally. That took tenacity, and that same tenacity we're seeing now.Just like she should've bailed on Bill Clinton long ago, but because of her lust for power she stuck around, she should've bailed on this race already, but her lust of power is keeping her in it.Don't get caught up on that last sentence, because the main point of my post is that I really want to see someone call her on the fact that she's running largely on her husbands coattails. The political fallout of such a comment is too great, but it's the truth. She would not be where she is today if it weren't for Bill Clinton. Period. And she's running as if she's done it all herself. Very annoying.
I just want someone to put the screws to her for continuing the campaign as the well runs dry. Not that I think Larry King is a good interviewer, but I sat through her staple performance last night hoping he would point out her (campaign's) bankruptcy...no go. She generally avoided most of the pointed questions. The one I really wanted to see asked was why it took so long for her to agree to appear on the show (by satellite, no less) while all the other candidates have been on multiple times.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hillary just gave a speech saying the U.S. could "totally obliterate" Iran. She's right, but what up with the saber rattling? Also kind of flips her complaint of Obama's comments about Pakistan months ago; "people running for president should engage in hypotheticals" and called it a mistake "to telegraph" what U.S. strategy might be at a time of unrest inside Pakistan. Is she flipping out? Seriously, she is a piece of work. She cries, then tells Obama to toughen up. Says he's naive to telegraph policy and threatens to "obliterate" a country. Wow.
This is interesting since she dodged the Iran aggression question twice when asked point blank in a previous debate. She also now sides with McCain on a gas tax break, while Obama opposes it.
This is one thing I actually agree with Obama on. I'm a fiscal conservative, but also am realistic that there is some level of taxation that is necessary. While I disagree with Obama on his ideas for Social Security tax very strongly, I think he is right in this case. Cutting the gas tax only leaves a shortfall of revenue and masks the true energy problems we face as a country. Not only are we facing record oil prices, we face a huge shortage in refinery capacity. The only way alternative sources are focused on and developed is if they are economically feasible, or profitbale, for someone to invest in. The current prices for oil are making that more likely down the road. The government can no more fix the issues with energy costs by cutting the gas tax than they can fix the real estate bubble by intervening in that market. Any government "fix" would only serve as a short term prop.
 
Another mention, from way back in October. But this gets little press.

Why can Ferraro who said Obama owes what success he has to the fact that he's black have her comments broadcast far and wide, but the concept that Hillary owes her success to the fact that she was married to Bill has barely gotten any play?

Being black in america is very hard to see as a benefit, yet being Clinton's wife is obviously a huge boon to Hillary, yet few discuss it.

DAVIS: Well first of all, comparing anyone to Bill Clinton is difficult. But Hillary Clinton is a pretty tough act to follow, too. What she's done in New York state, her popularity rating. And most importantly, Tucker, I find Republicans in the United States Senate who I used to be debating during the Clinton years will come up to me and say what a great senator she's been, how she's reached across the aisle, how effective she's been, and how a lot of Republican senators have come to respect her.

So I don't think anybody compared to Bill Clinton is a fair comparison. But Hillary Clinton on her own has been a great candidate. She showed that in New York in the election and she will again.

TUCKER: On her own, I mean, what does that mean? I mean, if she hadn't been married to Bill Clinton, she wouldn't be senator. She wouldn't go from being a board member of the Children's Defense Fund to being, you know, the senator from New York. I just don't think -- that wouldn't have happened if she hadn't been first lady, obviously.

DAVIS: Actually, let me disagree with that as a personal historic statement. When I first met Hillary Rodham, then Rodham, I thought she was going be a United States senator after about five minutes. And I always thought she'd be the first woman president before I knew she was going out with Bill Clinton.

She's always been special. She's always been above her generation as a leader. And that's how I first came to know her when she gave the valedictorian speech at Wellesley way back in the '60s. That's how old I am, Tucker.

So I think this is an extraordinary political leader. And let's see if I'm right if she runs for --

CARLSON: Come on. Look, I think she's obviously above average. She's got a lot of talents. I mean, I'm not beating up on Hillary Clinton. I'm merely saying if you're looking for the first woman president, there are a lot of female senators who have a lot more experience and arguably more ability than Mrs. Clinton. I mean, why not Dianne Feinstein, Barbara Boxer? They've been there a lot longer than she has. They've done a lot more than she has. And no one's talking about them. Why? Because they weren't married to Bill Clinton.

DAVIS: Look, I admit my bias because I've known and admired her for about three decades. And I certainly admire the people you just mentioned. I think as a political leader, she's demonstrated electability in upstate New York. She's demonstrated leadership in ability to work with Republicans and get something done with the Senate.

And I think she's one of the best candidates as a public speaker and as someone who can articulate the issues that the Democratic Party has. But as I said, I'm pretty biased in favor of her.
 
Clinton: Fired Up--and Not Ready to Go Just Yet

Andrew Romano

PHILADELPHIA, Penn.--All signs pointed to Hillary.

There were navy blue "Hillary for President" and "Lettercarriers for Hillary" signs. Red, white and blue "Hillary: AFT" signs. Green and white "AFSCME for Hillary" signs. Black on yellow "Hillary: SMART Choice" signs. Yellow on black "IUPAT for Hillary" signs. Red and white "Women for Hillary" signs. Small white "Real Men Vote Hillary Signs." A giant, Pop Art poster of Clinton in profile, with beams of light emanating from her head. Last night, there was even a handmade sign somewhere in the University of Pennsylvania's Palestra basketball arena, where the New York senator held her final rally before the opening of the Pennsylvania polls, that said "Hillary"--in (appropriately enough) a rainbow of colors. The only thing missing: a "Signmakers for Hillary" sign. I imagine they're in her corner now, too.

If it weren't for the fact that the word "Hillary" was written on everything in sight, a casual observer might have mistaken last night's expertly orchestrated spectacle for a Barack Obama rally. On stage, Bill Clinton marveled at Hillary’s ability to bring people together. "Look around you," he drawled. "Here we are, united across all conceivable lines, without regard to race or ethnicity. You don't even know all the faiths represented in this room. Gay and straight, old and young and everything in between. She’s the most unconventional candidate in this race. All her life she’s been a changemaker." The crowd of 8,000 responded, as they did to everything either he, Chelsea or Hillary said, with a thunderous roar and a trembling mosaic of posters. It was about 10:30 p.m. at that point, and Hillary had yet to speak—an atypically late start time for a candidate whose supporters tend to cluster on the Evening News end of the spectrum. But the audience looked more like Obamaniacs than Clintonistas—that is, urban undergraduate. As if to note the irony, they erupted into an almost familiar chant when Hillary finally took the stage: “Yes, She Can.” The audacity of hope, indeed.

Of course, any confusion dissolved the second Clinton started speaking—and that was precisely her point. After perfunctorily noting the historic nature of November’s vote--"this is a turning-point election in the history of our country,” she said—Clinton quickly pivoted to a laundry list of policy specifics: fuel-efficiency standards of 40 miles per gallon by 2020, 50 mpg by 2030 and 100 mpg thereafter; five million new "green-collar jobs”; a choice of 250 health care plans for the uninsured; pre-kindergarten for all; low-interest student loans from the government; 60 days to start withdrawing from Iraq; a 21st century G.I. Bill of Rights. Sure, Clinton’s final pre-primary address was almost self-consciously low-flown. But for the thousands of supporters squeezed into the Palestra, that only reinforced their main reason for backing her over Obama—he makes “speeches,” she delivers “solutions.” They cheered each name or number as if it were worthy of Cicero.

And that’s the amazing thing about Clinton’s candidacy. She may be unable to catch Obama in the pledged-delegate count, and unlikely to match him in the popular vote. She may be running out of ready cash. She may not be able to win the Democratic nomination without tearing the party in two. But despite all that—and despite a steady stream Beltway sniping about her "pesky" persistence—49.7 percent of Democrats who've voted so far (and a likely majority in Pennsylvania) find her more presidential, more capable or simply more inspiring than Obama. It’s hard to get a sense of that from reading the papers. But last night at the Palestra, it was abundantly clear. In the end, it’s not just Clinton who won’t go. Here in Pennsylvania--as in New Hampshire, and Ohio, and Texas--it’s her voters who won’t let her.

 
CNN is starting to report on the exit poll results.

According to their numbers 1 in 7 voters (14%) were newly registered Democrats this year and they voted for Obama 60% to 40%. This is probably due to his draw with younger voters and Independents crossing over.

People deciding in the last week, however, went 58% to Cilnton.

Obama got 92% of the African American vote, Clinton 55% of the White male vote, and probably did better among White females but that isn't reported.

Clinton got 61% of the over 65 vote, as expected.

Nothing in the early numbers to suggest it will be anything but a 5-10 point Clinton win.

Edit to add that Drudge is reporting the total exit poll numbers as 52 to 48% in favor of Clinton.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
CNN is starting to report on the exit poll results.According to their numbers 1 in 7 voters (14%) were newly registered Democrats this year and they voted for Obama 60% to 40%. This is probably due to his draw with younger voters and Independents crossing over. People deciding in the last week, however, went 58% to Cilnton. Obama got 92% of the African American vote, Clinton 55% of the White male vote, and probably did better among White females but that isn't reported. Clinton got 61% of the over 65 vote, as expected.Nothing in the early numbers to suggest it will be anything but a 5-10 point Clinton win.
FWIW If he gets 92% of the AA vote, AA turnout would have to be below 15% for her to get anywhere close to a 10 point win. Historically its been 17-18%.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top