posted
Why puzzling? California still has its June primary. The legislature just shoved the presidential candidate selection portion forward to take part in TsunamiTuesday.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Where on Earth did you find a poll for Hawaii, Lyr?
The numbers there don't surprise me. They'll go out of their way to elect a "local" boy. More importantly, I think, his sister still lives there, and she knows exactly the right way to campaign for him: potlucks. Lots of potlucks.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lyrhawn flew to Hawaii last night and took that poll this morning all by himself. He is just that dedicated!
Of course, the poll was actually just of the people who happened to walk by the beach he's been laying on. Oh, and also three bartenders and a masseuse.
posted
My friend heard Hillary Clinton speak at a college in Wisconsin this weekend. Apparently, she was asked a question about public schooling. She took a quick jab at NCLB, then said that public schools were profoundly important because they were where the truth about democracy and diversity expresses itself. I can support that. I don't dislike Hillary Clinton. As chief executive, she would be good for the world. I'm just curious to see if Barack Obama wouldn't be a little bit better.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Washington State Democrats are also heading to the polls Tuesday to vote in that state's primary, but the results will have no impact on how the Washington state delegates will be distributed. The delegate allocation was determined February 9 when Washington state Democrats held caucuses. Obama won those handily over Clinton, 68 percent to 31 percent.
We caucus separately from the primary.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is this the best dirt they can dig up on Obama? This is getting pathetic. He even said in the speech where the line came from originally, the guy who said it before has told people that he and Obama share ideas with each other all the time, but somehow we're supposed to be outraged over this?
posted
Hawaiian poll. What I posted above is an average of the two Congressional districts. It's not from a polling place I've ever heard of before, but for the smaller states, the polls never are. Usually it's local polling because the national polls don't bother with it. I WISH I did the poll myself. It's like 90 degrees warmer in Hawaii right now than here. I don't understand how people can live there and get anything done, I'd be on a beach all day every day.
Polls close in about an hour and 10 minutes in Wisconsin.
As for the "scandal" over stolen language: seriously? That IS pathetic. At least McCain's wife's attack on Michelle Obama has a bit more substance to it, even though I give Michelle Obama credit for just misspeaking. She's generally a well spoken woman, but I think she didn't quite articulate herself well when she said something like 'for the first time in my adult life I'm proud of America.' I think what she meant was 'for the first time in my adult life I'm proud of the excitement and effort American citizens are making in this election.' But I'm not surprised that McCain or his wife took a swipe at her, even if they both immediately backed off the point when questioned about it directly.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know about that, Lyrhawn--Michelle Obama said: "For the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country." (She is 45.) She spoke quite deliberately, and may have said it more than once. She wrote it first. She really sounds like the kind of person who has bought into the schizoid political liberal view of the world where everything America does is bad, and all our enemies are just misunderstood. This is in fact an actual disconnect from reality, since such views are utterly untrue. I would like to know how sympathetic Barack may be with what Michelle said. He has been described by many as the most liberal senator in the senate (aparently he took over that title from Ted Kennedy). Does being politically liberal indeed mean he does view America as a country he cannot be proud of? Does he view America's decades-long policy of friendship with Israel to be mistaken? Would he have us throw in with Al Qaeda and the Taliban? These are not unfair questions any more--now he does need to answer them.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: I don't know about that, Lyrhawn--Michelle Obama said: "For the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country." (She is 45.) She spoke quite deliberately, and may have said it more than once. She wrote it first. She really sounds like the kind of person who has bought into the schizoid political liberal view of the world where everything America does is bad, and all our enemies are just misunderstood. This is in fact an actual disconnect from reality, since such views are utterly untrue. I would like to know how sympathetic Barack may be with what Michelle said. He has been described by many as the most liberal senator in the senate (aparently he took over that title from Ted Kennedy). Does being politically liberal indeed mean he does view America as a country he cannot be proud of? Does he view America's decades-long policy of friendship with Israel to be mistaken? Would he have us throw in with Al Qaeda and the Taliban? These are not unfair questions any more--now he does need to answer them.
So..... when did you finally stop beating your wife?
IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, what she said was "“For the first time in my adult life, I am really proud of my country, because it feels like hope is making a comeback… not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change."
For Ron and anyone else wanting to jump on this as "liberals hate america!" nonsense, I point you to the "really" before proud. Maybe for the rest of her adult life she's been somewhat proud, or even usually proud but occasionally less so, but now she's REALLY proud of it. And you know what? That sounds perfectly rational coming from someone who's probably had to face a lot of prejudice and discrimination in this country for the last 25 or so years.
The fact that Ron jumps from that statement to "everything America does is bad, and all our enemies are just misunderstood" pretty clearly shows who has a disconnect from reality.
posted
Ron, you should read Obama's positions, he's said many times that America will always be a friend of Israel.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Does being politically liberal indeed mean he does view America as a country he cannot be proud of? Does he view America's decades-long policy of friendship with Israel to be mistaken? Would he have us throw in with Al Qaeda and the Taliban? These are not unfair questions any more--now he does need to answer them.
The thing is, Ron, elements in our country are consistently doing things that we are not proud of. You yourself constantly rail against the things liberals do while acting in the name of our country. Everyone has priorities in what they consider to be the best things to do. Perhaps she doesn't care that much about Israel, that it would make her feel proud? It doesn't mean she doesn't support Israel, just that our actions with regard to Israel don't cause her to well up with pride. What would probably cause an African-American woman to well up with pride? Oh, I dunno, our country getting close to electing a black president? To some African Americans, things race-related are of primary concern to them, while most other things just don't matter as much, so it won't cause them to feel "truly proud".
As to allying with Al-Qaeda and the Taleban, we already have in both cases. In the 1980's in particular, we greatly supported the Taleban fighting the Soviets. As for Al-Qaeda, we greatly empowered them and do now by supporting Saudi Arabia as much as we do, through direct aid and buying their oil in order to have a base of operations to threaten Iran when Iraq's US-supported war against Iran failed.
From what I hear from the most liberal sources, liberals are hell bent on severing these ties...
Posts: 106 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally Posted by a Conservative Wacko: Does being politically liberal indeed mean he does view America as a country he cannot be proud of? Does he view America's decades-long policy of friendship with Israel to be mistaken? Would he have us throw in with Al Qaeda and the Taliban? These are not unfair questions any more--now he does need to answer them.
Oh come on. I mean seriously. I'm politically liberal, and I can love America while recognizing her mistakes. Does being Conservative mean you whitewash history and pretend everything we've done was always the right and best thing? He's said multiple times that he has a pretty unshakeable allegiance to alliance with Israel, and would protect them over anyone else in the region.
And yes, it IS an unfair, and I think patently stupid question to ask if Obama would "throw in" with Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Look at what Temposs astutely pointed out, we've tried that before, under Conservative leadership, and it has come back to blow up in our faces. I mean give me a break, are you even TRYING to understand the other side? It's like you're a posterchild for everything Obama is fighting against: An intentionaly willful desire to NOT understand people who disagree with you.
You don't think liberals are insane. You think your cartoon villain version of liberalism, which exists only in your mind and not in reality, is insane.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ron Lambert = Jay = Bean Counter = every other uber-conservative facist ann-coulter rush-limbaugh wannabe nut case we've had come through here. Pay them no heed.
(Mind you, I'm only talking about the above posters that I've seen -- I assume we've had others that I never saw. I do not mean to imply that any other intelligent, mature, thoughtful conservative posters are any of the above.)
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Alcon: Ron Lambert = Jay = Bean Counter = every other uber-conservative facist ann-coulter rush-limbaugh wannabe nut case we've had come through here. Pay them no heed.
(Mind you, I'm only talking about the above posters that I've seen -- I assume we've had others that I never saw. I do not mean to imply that any other intelligent, mature, thoughtful conservative posters are any of the above.)
Alcon, I will certainly pay them some heed, as they complete the political spectrum of open political debate and should be encouraged to voice their opinions the same as anyone else here, as long as they are not abusive of fellow posters.
To be truly exposed to the full spectrum of honest political opinion gives people here a perspective that is rarity in this country, and we should feel blessed and priveleged that we have this oppourtunity that makes us more informed and better citizens.
quote:Alcon, I will certainly pay them some heed, as they complete the political spectrum of open political debate and should be encouraged to voice their opinions the same as anyone else here, as long as they are not abusive of fellow posters.
Generally I feel that way, but Ron has already proved to be abusive of his fellow liberal posters and completely closed minded to their ideas. Therefor I am paying him no heed.
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Alcon: Generally I feel that way, but Ron has already proved to be abusive of his fellow liberal posters and completely closed minded to their ideas. Therefor I am paying him no heed.
If that is the case, he should be censored and censured by the Papa Janitor.
But you did not state your original criticism that way. You only criticized his political leaning, which is completely irrelevant and dangerous to the atmosphere that should be promoted in this forum.
Posts: 106 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:If that is the case, he should be censored and censured by the Papa Janitor.
But you did not state your original criticism that way. You only criticized his political leaning, which is completely irrelevant and dangerous to the atmosphere that should be promoted in this forum.
The political leading I criticized is described by: being very abusive of liberals and utterly close minded to their ideas. Even going so far as grossly misrepresenting said ideas to make them appear disgusting or absurd.
I accused him of being a Rush Limbaugh/Ann Coulter Conservative. That is a level no one should aspire to, their politics do not involve putting forward useful ideas -- or ideas at all other than the idea that liberalism is dumb. Their politics simply involve bashing liberals and attempting to horribly misrepresent their ideas. This is the sort of politics Ron Lambert, Jay and Bean Counter all engaged in. That is the sort of politics I advised people to pay no heed. As that is the exact sort of politics you just suggested is extremely damaging to the atmosphere on the forum. And also happens to be the sort of politics that I believe is amazingly destructive to our national culture and to democracy in general.
And I stuck the fascist in their just for the tasty irony. He was calling liberals fascists in another thread he started that is currently on the front page (take a wild guess which). When in reality he is much, much closer to fascism on the political ideology scale.
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by James Tiberius Kirk: Hillary amazes me. She's lost nine primaries in a row and she's still talking about "beating the Republicans!" in November.
--j_k
They weren't all primaries, but that's really neither here nor there (unless you talk to Clinton) and it'll be 10 by the time the night is over.
There's no spin for this one. She's had an excuse for EVERY loss in the last eight. "There was a large, devoted black community, it was a caucus which he always does well at, they were male voters, young voters, etc etc." Basically they kept saying that those eight contests were flooded with Obama friendly demographics, but Wisconsin is Clinton land. And from the looks of things she's going to lose by 10+ points. It's a no excuse loss. I think it's slipping away from her. They were doing a projection on CNN earlier saying that she'd have to win every state from now until the end by a 55/45 margin to win the pledged delegate count...and that isn't going to happen. That included tonight, btw. I think he's building a pledged delegate lead that is going to be hard to break, barring a blowout in Ohio and Texas (again, not going to happen) and Pennsylvania. The more I read interviews with superdelegates, the more they are saying that they will NOT overruled the democratic choice of the people. Most of them are going to flock to the pledged delegate winner, of which Obama is 120+ in the lead with.
Well as he's doing, he needs to really have a home run at the debate coming up in Texas. It's his chance to hammer home his policies and prove that they both have great ideas, and they both have leadership, but he's got just a little bit more, and I think that might push him over the top in Texas, where forty some THOUSAND people have signed up for a chance to win 100 tickets open to the public for the debate. Energy clearly isn't lacking there.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
D: With 26% reporting in Wisconsin Obama has 56% to Clinton's 43%. I think whatever the fluctuation there the end result will be at least a 10% lead. Not bad.
R: With 24% reporting McCain has 55% to Huckabee's 37%. Paul pulled in 4% and Romney 2%. I don't think this is enough to make it mathematically impossible for McCain to lose, so Huckabee will probably still be sticking around as a sideshow.
posted
Obama and Hilary combined currently have more than double the votes of all of the republicans.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Senator Obama needs to refute the charge that words are cheap with the statement that words are only cheap if you don't intend to live up to them.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Threads: Obama and Hilary combined currently have more than double the votes of all of the republicans.
If I was a republican, I wouldn't bother voting. Their candidate is pretty much chosen, so why bother?
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Democratic turnout far surpassed republican turnout even before there was a nominee. Even when the republican race was close.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Enigmatic: Is this the best dirt they can dig up on Obama? This is getting pathetic. He even said in the speech where the line came from originally, the guy who said it before has told people that he and Obama share ideas with each other all the time, but somehow we're supposed to be outraged over this?
--Enigmatic
It seems to me that this flailing at Obama feeds into the whole "willing to say anything" reputation that Clinton has developed, and is practically begging him to respond with a "at the risk of being accused of plagerism again, senator, there you go again" type response.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why puzzling? California still has its June primary. The legislature just shoved the presidential candidate selection portion forward to take part in TsunamiTuesday.
I wonder if any of them are feeling silly right now.
If California had kept theirs in June, with all those delegates at stake, Clinton and Obama would probably fight it out well into the summer.
I feel like these states up for grabs now are getting far more individual attention than the super-tuesday ones got.
Michigan and Florida look especially silly. They pushed their primaries up, and got their delegates stripped. Well, my caucus vote in Nebraska counted for something this year. Infinitely more than the discarded votes of the violating states. It was a gamble, and any other year it wouldn't have bit them quite this hard.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Washington State Democrats are also heading to the polls Tuesday to vote in that state's primary, but the results will have no impact on how the Washington state delegates will be distributed. The delegate allocation was determined February 9 when Washington state Democrats held caucuses. Obama won those handily over Clinton, 68 percent to 31 percent.
We caucus separately from the primary.
Sorry, but that clears things up for me not at all. Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Like someone else said, it's largely a vanity exercise, but I thin actually the primary does matter for some statewide offices for the party, not so much for anything involving the actual election. The biggest effect Washington will have on the election is a spin point for Obama. Clinton's excuse for losing Washington before was that it was a caucus, but she's losing the primary as well.
And she's getting spanked in Wisconsin. It looks like a 15+ point loss in a state that is full of her favorite demographics. It looks like maybe a 59/41 win for Obama. That's a dymanic victory, almost 20 points in a state that just a couple weeks ago Clinton was dominant in. If you look at a graph of the demographics that favored Clinton from New Hampshire until now, it's pretty stunning how much support she has lost over the last month and a half. Obama started off with only like 30% of the support of the eldery, white men, women in general, and the $30-$50K middle income voters. Now his support is in the 60's for some of those. That explains some of his wide margins of victory.
Edit to add: Apparently the Republican primary actually does apportion some 20 delegates based on tonight's election. It's the Democratic side that doesn't matter.
posted
i'm wondering why the Hawaii result aren't being displayed yet. What's the hold up? I need my fix.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Reports have indicated that Hawaii is having record-breaking turnout- beyond even what we've already seen in other states. And the first results are trickling in. Currently, with 8% of precincts reporting, Obama's crushing Hillary with 77% of the vote to her 23%.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know I just changed the thread title again, but I decided that two weeks of "March 4th...." wasn't much help, so I figured I'd put up announcements for the upcoming debates. On the 21st, Thursday, there will be a debate in Austin, Texas starting at 7pm CST. Obama and Clinton will be attending. Some 40,000 people have signed up for the chance to win 100 seats being given away to the public. The rest of the seats will go to media and party insiders. There's a lot of crying foul over that, but, not much being reported on it.
Five days later there will be a debate in Cleveland, Ohio between the two of them. A week after that is the election.
There was supposed to be some sort of debate in Houston (I guess Providence and Montpelier get the shaft), but it was reformatted because of the debate in Austin, and is now some sort of candidate symposium on energy. It looks like Clinton, Paul and Huckabee have signed on, but no word from McCain and Obama. I'd LOVE to see them all sign on to this. The candidates will give presentations, as will apparently major energy suppliers (the whole thing is largely funded by large energy providers like Shell and BP, and lest you think that's bad, remember they've both invested billions in renewables as well).
quote: Tough timing there for Hillary. She was barely into her speech in Ohio when Obama came on stage in Houston. Looks like all the networks cut away to Texas.
Snap! Burned by the MSM again. I voted for Obama but sometimes the MSM's bias against Clinton is too much, especially MSNBC.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Considering her speech had nothing to do with the election, in that she never even mentioned it, I don't see why it was unfair to cut away. Obama had said it was his intention to wait until the race was called and then he'd speak, and given how massively long his speech was (I only got through bits and pieces), I don't blame him for not waiting. People in Ohio were probably already headed to bed and her speech wasn't even a concession speech. And can you really blame Obama for cutting into her time? She spent half the speech hammering away at him. He's under no obligation to give her free air time, let alone free air time that she uses to bash him. McCain and Clinton, oddly enough, are ganging up on him, and he's not swiping back really, he's trying to stand above them both. The jury is still out on how well that's going, but I think it makes Clinton look utterly desperate.
Besides, she was probably depressed by this:
Ohio
February 13th - Hillary Clinton 51%, Barack Obama 37%, Undecided 12% February 18th - Hillary Clinton 52%, Barack Obama 43%, Other 4%, Undecided 1%
She's still barely winning with the margin of error, but Obama basically picked up all the undecideds. Two weeks ago he was being crushed by 20 points in Ohio and Texas. Now he's tied in Texas, and has Ohio narrowed to a 9 point race (as little as 3 with margin of error) with two weeks to go, the day after crushing Hillary by almost 20 points in a state he was losing by 20 points three weeks ago. That's an incredible turnaround.
With 26% reporting in Hawaii, Obama leads Clinton 74/26.
One of the pundits on CNN pointed out that, when you ask the Republicans if they'd be happy with Huckabee or McCain, and Democrats if they'd end up being happy with Clinton or Obama, McCain actually has a narrower margin than Clinton does, in that, maybe 75% of people are okay with McCain and 69% are okay with McCain, but 86% are okay with Obama, and only 75% are okay with Clinton. Meaning, for all the hype about how McCain is having trouble with his base, it might actually be Clinton who is having more trouble with hers that he is with his. I don't really think that translates the same way, since Conservatives are a much more distinct block than the Democratic party has, but I think it helps to underscore the leg up Clinton gets from the media. If Obama had lost ten contests in a row, would we even be having this discussion? She's being given a handicap for all intents and purposes.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Michigan and Florida look especially silly. They pushed their primaries up, and got their delegates stripped. Well, my caucus vote in Nebraska counted for something this year. Infinitely more than the discarded votes of the violating states. It was a gamble, and any other year it wouldn't have bit them quite this hard.
Given that Hillary will remain in the Senate, and the exclusion of these states deeply affected her election, I think the sacrifice of these delegates will lead to some election reform. When she does get around to conceding, which will be covered a lot in the daytime media as the bravest thing anyone has ever done, there will be a lot of discussion about "what if Florida and Michigan had counted".
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Considering her speech had nothing to do with the election, in that she never even mentioned it, I don't see why it was unfair to cut away. Obama had said it was his intention to wait until the race was called and then he'd speak, and given how massively long his speech was (I only got through bits and pieces), I don't blame him for not waiting.
More to the point, it was the Clinton campaign's own attempt to play with the timing that did them in- they actually delayed Hillary's speech in an attempt to pre-empt Obama's! Talk about backfire.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Clinton has made me more and more averse to voting for her, but each time I come close to justifying a vote for Obama, he does something like promise things that would increase the budget by over $1 trillion a year (try running the numbers on his Houston speech). That money is not available to the federal gov't, and promising it is disingenuous and deceptive.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Clinton has made me more and more averse to voting for her, but each time I come close to justifying a vote for Obama, he does something like promise things that would increase the budget by over $1 trillion a year (try running the numbers on his Houston speech). That money is not available to the federal gov't, and promising it is disingenuous and deceptive.
Of course it's available. All they need to do is print more money. Or borrow it from China.
Haven't you been paying attention to how things are done here?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
