quote: More than 20,000 U.S. citizens living abroad voted in the primary, which ran Feb. 5 to Feb. 12. Obama won about 65 per cent of the total vote, according to the results released yesterday.
In Canada, Obama won 62.4 per cent of the 2,236 votes cast, while Clinton won 36.1 per cent.
Voters living in 164 countries cast votes online, while expatriates voted in person in more than 30 countries, at hotels in Australia and Costa Rica, a pub in Ireland and a Starbucks in Thailand.
IIRC, thats one of the larger margins between Clinton and Obama. I have my theories why but I'll let actual US citizens abroad comment on this one Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:and I could not understand why you won't stand for Rakeesh maligning either Obama or McCain, but you seem to be okay with McCain maligning Obama.
I'm not actually okay with Cindy McCain maligning Michelle Obama in the way she did, although I don't really hold it against her.
I still have a problem with someone regarding
quote:I cannot imagine America and Americans turning into something I would not be proud of, because I have faith in the decency of Americans and the effectiveness of our system of government.
as a load of crap, especially from someone who has the background of a Cindy McCain.
---
I had a (very small) problem with Michelle Obama's comment as it was originally delivered. It seemed a poorly chosen statement that I was pretty sure would be clarified to mitigate it's literal interpretation.
Which was fine. I feel like the often isn't enough leeway given to political candidates and especially their family members. It's a terribly demanding endeavour such that occasional mistakes and even poor judgement should be expected. At an early stage, the reaction should be "You know, what you said could be taken to mean this, which is probably not what you meant. Could you clarify this for us?"
Heck, even the stuff that they do (especially, as I said, the less experienced candidates' families) that is pretty much just a play for votes gets a little bit of a pass from me as long as it is a stupid and minor.
The bare statement that someone didn't feel pride in America, if that was what was actually intended, would bother me. While America has a lot to answer for and more than a little to be ashamed of, there is also a lot of good things that we do that are worthy of feeling pride. I'll take exception to people focusing on only one side of this to the exclusion of the other.
In a similar manner, while there are a lot of people out there who have a simplistic rah-rah attitude who would say something like what Mrs. McCain said (and I think that's who she was trying to play to), I have a real problem assigning the emptiness behind their pride and USA, USA, USA! attitude to someone who has a record of promoting many of the things that Americans can legitmately feel pride about and expressing her faith that these things will continue in the future.
---
At one point, a friend of mine pulled out a credit card that had the American flag emblazoned on it and I had an immediate negative viseral reaction. I find a large number of groups in our country that have tried to identify their agenda with the American flag pretty repugnant and that had carried over to the symbolic use of the flag in general. And that got me to thinking, if their use of the flag is tainting it so that other people who would be doing worthy things underneath it that are going to feel uncomfortable with it, this cedes the symbol to the bad folk and will lead to a greater degradation of the flag. I didn't want the American flag to become akin to the Confederate flag, as mostly synonamous with the worst of what it represents.
I think a similar thing is at work here. Faith that America will continue to do the many things that people can be proud of should not be conflated with the empty-headed rah-rah BS that underlies many people's support of the country. That is exatly what I saw Rakeesh doing when he dismissed it as a load of crap.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Rakeesh can tell me if I'm wrong, but I think that for him and for others who found McCain's statement objectionable, the context tainted the message. Speaking for myself, anyway, I don't have a problem with the statement you quoted, if it was delivered absent this context. But since we all knew she was trying to contrast herself with Obama, the implicit message, that she loves America and Obama hates it, drowns out the explicit message. And maybe you're right, maybe there is more nuance to McCain's statement than just that implicit condemnation of Obama, and maybe it should be evaluated on the basis of all of that. But I can understand having a visceral reaction to just the implicit (but clearly present) criticism of Obama.
(My confusion stemmed from the fact that you seemed to not have a problem with either statement. I could understand having a problem with one and not the other, and I could understand having a slight problem with both, as your clarification indicates. I could not understand thinking both were hunky dory.)
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
In it's literal meaning, I think Michelle Obama's statement deserved criticism, as I said.
I have a problem, again slight, with the jumping on her as pretending that she must have meant something that it's pretty likely that she did not, which is a likely implied aspect of Mrs. McCain's statement, but doesn't extend to the content of the statement itself, which I found admirable. Rakeesh attacked the content of the statement.
If he had attacked the indirect attack on Mrs. Obama, I wouldn't have had a problem with it.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Faith that America will continue to do the many things that people can be proud of should not be conflated with the empty-headed rah-rah BS that underlies many people's support of the country. That is exatly what I saw Rakeesh doing when he dismissed it as a load of crap.
Not that this is what you have said, but it is clear from Rakeesh's post in the "Proud to be an American" thread that he does not view all statements of pride as "empty-headed rah-rah BS":
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I am, however, proud to be an American because I am a participating, contributing American. I vote regularly in local, state, and federal elections (although that's not entirely noble, because honestly, at the state and local level, us regular voters can exert a surprising amount of influence on our politicians). I am also proud to be an American because I try to get more people I live and work with involved in politics, thus making our society more fully democratic.
And I am proud of my country in much the same way I expect a parent might still be able to have pride in their child when that child brings home a crappy grade from school, or lies to them about something, or even seriously deviates from their moral code.
I don't expect perfection.
So I think he thought McCain's statement was this sort of empty patriotism because of the opportunism behind the statement.
I get that you don't think that's the whole picture. For myself, I'm willing withhold judgment, and grant that there was more to it than the attack on Obama.
I don't know enough about Mrs. McCain to judge the sincerity or nuance behind her patriotism. It sounds like you know more about her than I do. If you'd like to go into more detail about the good things that she has done, as you said, to make America a place more worthy of pride, I'll certainly listen. If you don't feel like it, that's fine . . . I can do my own homework when I get around to it.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Now, Ms. McCain when she made that statement, I don't think that she meant, "No matter what happens, even if we slip into a Twilight Zone episode and are all Nazis, I will be proud of my country." I rather think that she meant, "I cannot imagine America and Americans turning into something I would not be proud of, because I have faith in the decency of Americans and the effectiveness of our system of government."
But I have heard people say that they are always proud of America, and frequently it means, "I gloss over bad stuff."
which indicated to me that he didn't think that Mrs. McCain's statement was one of empty patriotism (which I thought he might have initially been suggesting) but that he was doing what I covered was my problem with it above, equating her statement of faith in the country with empty-headed jingoism and dismissing this package by calling it a bunch of crap.
Cindy McCain is a dedicated philanthropist and, in my limited experience with her, a firm believer in the ability and obligation of America to do good in the world. Her wikipedia entry gives an overview of her charitable work.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I liked this thread better when it was about nitpicking the candidates rather than fellow posters.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ack. You edited, didn't you, making it less about rah-rah BS patriotism? Okay, does my reply still make sense?
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
(Sorry if my posts seem off-time or out of sequence. I write in minutes between classes, and I don't always refresh before posting.)
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Icarus, Rakeesh clarified with this:
. . .
which indicated to me that he didn't think that Mrs. McCain's statement was one of empty patriotism (which I thought he might have initially been suggesting) but that he was doing what I covered was my problem with it above, equating her statement of faith in the country with empty-headed jingoism and dismissing this package by calling it a bunch of crap.
*nod* I think it's the context that made Rakeesh conclude it was less than totally sincere. I get that you disagree with that assessment of McCain, and I respect that people can come to view McCain's statement as more or less genuine in that light.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think you are getting what I'm saying. I don't believe that Cindy McCain's statement was totally sincere in intent either. It was pretty clearly intended as a dig at Michelle Obama's statement.
My problem was with Rakeesh's equation of (using his own words explaining his interpretation of it):
quote:"I cannot imagine America and Americans turning into something I would not be proud of, because I have faith in the decency of Americans and the effectiveness of our system of government."
with the empty-headed rah-rahing as something to be dismissed as a bunch of crap.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I'm not aware of having edited. Which post are you talking about?
My apologies. I lost track of where you had said what I quoted.
-o-
I believe I do get what you are saying. Tell me if I'm wrong. You don't think McCain's statement was totally sincere in intent, but, aside from that impure intent, you believe it reflects her real feelings, which are largely admirable.
I'm saying, and now I'm putting words into Rakeesh's mouth, so he'll need to tell me if I've got him wrong, that Rakeesh felt that the insincerity of intent invalidated the actual content, or something along those lines.
And I get how you can disagree with him on that, and how he can disagree with you on that.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Apparently I forgot to post this: thanks for the wikilink, btw. I'll look at it when I'm at home.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:that Rakeesh felt that the insincerity of intent invalidated the actual content, or something along those lines.
This isn't the nature of my disagreement. Honestly, I can't see where you are drawing this from. If this really is what Rakeesh meant, I'd appreciate someone showing me where he established this. I just went through what was written and I can't find anything that indicates that this was what he was trying to say.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Woo hoo Obama! I'm so excited that my vote will actually count this primary. As a Texan, we're usually relegated to the useless end of the voting spectrum, both in primary and general, as we're too late in the primaries and a one party state in the generals. So this is great!
(If this seems out of the blue, I just got a job after four months and haven't been able to participate in the thread yet.)
Yay primaries! Yay elections! Yay democracy or something like it anyhow!
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: Woo hoo Obama! I'm so excited that my vote will actually count this primary. As a Texan, we're usually relegated to the useless end of the voting spectrum, both in primary and general, as we're too late in the primaries and a one party state in the generals. So this is great!
Very cool, vonk. But it's even better than that. As I understand it, you get to vote twice - legally. Provided you show up at the caucus, that is.
This is dissimilar to Chicago, where they have gotten very strict about the "everyone gets to vote only once" rule. And voter turnout from the cemeteries is at an all-time low. Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
MrSquicky, maybe the only reason I see it is because I'm sympathetic to that view, and so either I am projecting my own tendency onto Rakeesh, or I recognize it more easily because it is a view I am sympathetic to.
I'll give you an example, and hope I'm not opening myself up to anything unpleasant here. Whenever my daughter Mango is in trouble, her sister Banana immediately sucks up. She likes looking like the good kid by comparison. So she'll come give me a hug and say, "I love you Daddy." Or she'll tell me something she did that was good. "I got a hundred on my spelling test!" "Mommy, can I read to you now?" And while it's great for her to express her love, and while doing well in school is a good thing, and liking to read (which she genuinely does) is a good thing, I have come to recognize this particular maneuver for exactly what it is, and it's not one I care for. And so I reject it at those moments. I'll come right out and say, "Don't come around trying to kiss up when you're sister is in trouble. That's not very nice." Now, someone else might view that absent the context and think that's unbelievably harsh. (Or they might think it's harsh even knowing the context. *shrug* They can raise their own kids however they want.) But I respond to the motive I see, of belittling her sister, or of scoring points for herself off of the misadventures of her sister, and so at those moments, I don't give her credit for the positive content of her message, but instead call her on the negative subtext/context behind it. The context invalidates the rest of the message. If she wants to share these messages at other moments, though, they are of course welcomed.
My knee-jerk reaction to Ms. McCain's comments is to see them in this light. Obama's in hot water? "Well I'm proud because . . . " And so my knee-jerk reaction is to also discount the actual validity of her message. It's like someone acting righteously PC right after someone else causes a scandal with anti-semitic comments. They're easy points to score, sending out an obviously popular message.
I can see, though, that you feel that the message has merits apart from the context, and I'm willing to grant that you may be right and my initial instinct may be wrong. Or perhaps not. I think it's something reasonable people may disagree on. But Rakeesh's posts resonate with me because they seem rooted in the same reaction I have. And so maybe he hasn't come right out and said it. Maybe I'm reading it into his posts. Maybe I'm doing so inaccurately, or maybe I'm doing so accurately.
I don't mean the following to be in any way critical: I think I understand you, now. I didn't before. Specifically, I couldn't understand why you objected to Rakeesh's post but not, as far as I could tell, to McCain's statement. That's why your exchange with Rakeesh was my initial grounds for questioning . . . to try and understand how your views of both Rakeesh's post and McCain's comments differed from my views of both. I believe that I get that now. (For one thing, you had not made it clear before, I don't think, that you did find cause for minor objection/annoyance in both statements.) (That doesn't mean I've changed my mind. For one thing, I believe I am correctly interpreting Rakeesh's posts, while you don't see evidence for my interpretation in them.) Now, as for the actual issue, you're welcome to try to change or challenge my reading of it, if you think that would be fruitful. But why don't we drop the subject of Rakeesh and what he believes about McCain or Obama, since I believe we've already covered the source of my confusion.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: The rising popularity of U.S. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, is putting a Dayton-area merchandise-maker into growth mode.
Greenville-based Tigereye Design, a designer and maker of buttons, T-shirts, bumper stickers and other products for the Obama campaign, has hired an additional 50 employees since the start of the year to handle the increased workload at its "Obama Store." Tigereye previously hired an additional 30 people to pack and ship Obama orders in 2007.
*Imagines David Axelrod using this on a conference call to the press and asking just how many jobs McCain or Clinton have helped create in the past year*
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I liked this thread better when it was about nitpicking the candidates rather than fellow posters.
Surely we have room enough here for both?
quote:Originally posted by sndrake:
quote: Woo hoo Obama! I'm so excited that my vote will actually count this primary. As a Texan, we're usually relegated to the useless end of the voting spectrum, both in primary and general, as we're too late in the primaries and a one party state in the generals. So this is great!
Very cool, vonk. But it's even better than that. As I understand it, you get to vote twice - legally. Provided you show up at the caucus, that is.
This is dissimilar to Chicago, where they have gotten very strict about the "everyone gets to vote only once" rule. And voter turnout from the cemeteries is at an all-time low.
Who gets the zombie vote anyway? I'd think given the similarities, they probably went for Kerry in 04, but with Clinton and Obama so keen on making everyone so healthy, I think they're more likely to vote Republican this time around.
Anywho -
Texas
February 21st - Barack Obama 57%, Hillary Clinton 43%
I know, that's an incredibly dramatic turnaround. Given the huge differential from previous polls, I'll give you some more info on the source for this poll. It comes from Decision Analyst. They polled about 700 registered Democratic voters from across the state who were planning to vote. The +/- is considered to be 3%. Take it as you will, it might just be an aberration.
Vermont
February 21st - Barack Obama 60%, Hillary Clinton 34%, Other 6%
Only one more debate to go until the big day.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Who gets the zombie vote anyway? I'd think given the similarities, they probably went for Kerry in 04, but with Clinton and Obama so keen on making everyone so healthy, I think they're more likely to vote Republican this time around.
Well, back in the 1960 election, Chicago went heavily democratic. That allegedly included a lot of votes from people whose current residence was a plot in a cemetery.
Old or not, Chicago is a solidly ("pure" is not a word to apply to Chicago politics) democratic stronghold.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sndrake: *Imagines David Axelrod using this on a conference call to the press and asking just how many jobs McCain or Clinton have helped create in the past year*
Well, there is infamous GOP dirty tricks operative Roger Stone's bogus anti-Clinton 527 advocacy group. It's supposed raison d'être is to make T-shirts with a caconymic acronym mocking Senator Clinton. No hotlink from me; if you must know google: "Roger Stone" clinton 527
quote:Very cool, vonk. But it's even better than that. As I understand it, you get to vote twice - legally. Provided you show up at the caucus, that is.
Yeah, I was unaware of this until today, and am a little confused about it. I'll have to look into it to make sure I ge tthe most bang out of my vote(s).
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Icarus, I'll have to check and see if my children do that. Though my children are pretty far apart and girl-boy-girl. Generally, if one of our kids is in trouble, everyone else keeps their distance. At least, that is the logic I would apply to the situation.
But I don't see a correlate to this situation, since I don't think it would have occured to me to be offended by Michelle Obama's statement in the first place. I objected to McCain's response because it was impolite and not because I think patriotism is crapful.
P.S. I've thought about it more, and I guess there are times I try to be a peacemaker if someone appears to me to be having a rough time. I am often met with rebuff. Maybe this is the world working the way it appears to you with your daughters, Icarus.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Vote in the primary, then go to your caucus site at I think 8pm local and vote in your caucus. 30% I believe of the delegates will be allocated based on the caucus, 70% from the primary.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh's post in the "Proud to be an American" thread, which I quoted, indicates that he doesn't think patriotism is crapful either. My interpretation is that he objects, like you, because it was impolite, and that he believes her patriotism is crapful because she only commented on it when the timing was convenient.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:This is dissimilar to Chicago, where they have gotten very strict about the "everyone gets to vote only once" rule. And voter turnout from the cemeteries is at an all-time low.
I'm contracted at one of the major election system companies, and the product I'm currently working on is the bridge between their county-level registration system and the state-level system that stores vitals and MVD (motor vehicle department) records. The purpose of this is to check registrants for whether they are felons, dead, or duplicates.
So if one of the states my company sells it's product to ends up with lots of zombie voters, you can blame me!
(Though I don't think Illinois is one of those states.)
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sndrake: Well, back in the 1960 election, Chicago went heavily democratic. That allegedly included a lot of votes from people whose current residence was a plot in a cemetery.
I find it very comforting to know that long after I've passed on, my vote will count for something in the great city of Chicago.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Actually, I find the response to Michelle Obama's remarks more interesting, as a discussion outside of this particular political issue, anyway.
The one where she said something like, "I always have been and always will be proud of my country," something along those lines.
Boy, what a load of crap that is! It's my home, and I can't see myself ever not loving it as my home, but I won't say I will always be proud of it. I certainly wouldn't have been proud of it had I lived in the Jim Crow era, for example.
This is the original post I objected to in its entirety. I read this that it's a load of crap to always be proud of your country. I'd like to point out that the Jim Crow era did not encompass the whole country.
My parents had to drive from Utah to California to get married, and while there have been times in my life that that really bugged me, I know that this situation is no longer the case because of what America stands for. Incidentally, Utah only had such a law to begin with because of California, just California had repealed theirs or stopped enforcing it or something.
I'll have to ask my mom how she found out about the law, or if it's just something her mom told her to try and delay the wedding.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:This is the original post I objected to in its entirety. I read this that it's a load of crap to always be proud of your country. I'd like to point out that the Jim Crow era did not encompass the whole country.
To say, "I will always be proud of my country," and have that be your exact literal meaning (which would include the meaning, "No matter what changes or doesn't change in the future, I will continue to be proud of my country") is a load of crap, in my opinion.
Now, granted, I do not think this is what Ms. McCain meant when she made her statement. I just think that-by itself-it's a bad belief to have. I don't like absolutes, particularly in areas where there really are people who do believe in absolutes, such as loving one's country.
As for the Jim Crow issue...well, Malcolm X didn't get his best work done in the South, now did he? If you know what I mean. Anyway, even if we accepted for the sake of argument that systematic racism against minorities was only a problem in the South, it would still have been disgraceful for the whole country, from Miami to Anchorage.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Vote in the primary, then go to your caucus site at I think 8pm local and vote in your caucus. 30% I believe of the delegates will be allocated based on the caucus, 70% from the primary.
Yep, I am a Precinct Captain here in Texas, and I know three things:
1) You must have proof that you voted in the primary to vote in the caucus (Either the people at the polling place will stamp your card, give you a receipt, or you can ask for something that states that you voted in the primary). If you do not have this, you cannot be involved in the Caucus.
2) 2/3'rds of the delegates proportioned will be proportioned in the primary, and 1/3 will be proportioned at the caucus.
3)The Caucus's themselves start at 7:15, right after the primary ballots close, but depending on where you vote there may be only one or two places to cast that vote. More than likely, the Caucus's will be held at the same place you voted in the primary! To find out where, you should visit texas.barackobama.com or the equivalent for Hilary Clinton or the Texas Democratic Party. I even think you can go to Votetexas.org for any other questions you may have.
ETA: Note--Early voting in the primaries is going on right now, so if you want to skip the lines head out to a polling place in your area that holds early voting and cast your vote. And make sure to get proof that you did so, so that March 4, you can participate in the Caucus.
Posts: 457 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That is the Rasmussen poll for Ohio. The ABC News poll (Feb. 20) has Clinton 50%, Obama 43%. SurveyUSA is the best for Hillary in Ohio: Clinton 52%, Obama 43%. But that last poll is also the oldest, taken Feb. 18.
Rasmussen poll for Texas, as of Feb. 21, has Clinton 47%, Obama 44%. ABC News has it Clinton 48%, Obama 47%
As of Feb. 23, a Rasmussen poll says that of all likely voters, 55% see Obama as liberal, and 53% see Clinton as liberal. 30% think Clinton is moderate, while only 26% think Obama is moderate. The poll also found that 51% of likely voters view McCain as moderate, and only 28% view him as conservative. 11% Think he is liberal.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Would someone like to help me out with the numbers here then?
Considering that Clinton's lead does not excede the margin of error in the polls, it is unlikely that she will enjoy a significant win in any of these primaries. Given that fact, her one percent lead at face value doesn't afford her even close to enough delegates to close the gap with Obama.
If they split the remaining delegates, how many superdelegates does hillary need to win? IS this even possible anymore, or is it a remote statistical possibility?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Would someone like to help me out with the numbers here then?
I think it depends, and Lyrhawn may be able to give actual numbers to support or reject this, but as of this moment, Obama has about a 150 delegate lead and Clinton has about a 75 super-delegate lead. If we say that if Ohio and Texas are close and Clinton wins and Obama takes Vermont and Rhode Island (though the numbers for RI are a surprise), then basically that delegate lead for Obama would stay the same. If Clinton wins by big margins in Ohio and Texas and takes Rhode Island as well, then I think the delegate lead might shrink, but I think the worst case scenario for Obama and best case for Clinton is that Obama will come out of March 4 with at least a 50 delegate lead and anywhere from an 80 to 90 deficit in Super-delegates.
Honestly, what I think is going to happen is something similar to that, Obama will have a lead in delegates going into the convention, and he will be a few super-delegates behind Clinton. Clinton will insist on seating the delegates from Florida and Michigan, and unless the DNC orders a new Caucus or Primary in those states, the DNC will have to seat those delegates because they know that if they don't that will hurt the Dems in Florida and Michigan. Of course, Clinton will then argue that she should get the majority of the delegates, which will allow her to close the gap between her and Obama on Delegates and the super-delegates will put her over the top. I have a feeling that something like that will happen because the DNC seems to be unwilling to order a new Caucus (which Clinton would fight anyway because Obama is better in a Caucus) or a primary in either state (they are expensive), and because of that Hilary Clinton will be the Dem nominee.
When that happens, two things will happen:
1) A back-room deal will be struck where Clinton is President and Obama is VP, but I honestly think Obama would turn that down.
2) The Democratic Party will explode, leaving nobody but Ralph Nadar to run against McCain. And Ralph Nadar will win...
ETA: I forgot to mention this aspect, it seems to me that Edwards is also very important, and it wouldn't surprise me if, in return for a position in the cabinet, Edwards gives his delegates to Clinton at the convention. More and more, we hear Clinton talking about Edwards, she even...uh...used one of his lines at the end of the debate in Texas, and I have a feeling that Clinton will promise Edwards a position in the cabinet if he will give her his delegates the convention. It would be interesting if that happens...
Posts: 457 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I honestly cannot understand how Clinton remains blind to what forcibly seating the Florida and Michigan delegates would do to the party and to the election. Does she really want to win so badly that she'll put us through another election based on shady number-crunching in Florida?
If she wins the nomination, she will not win the election without Obama's supporters falling behind her and if she doesn't win fairly (or with the perception of "fairly") she will not get enough of that support. Frankly, if McCain hadn't voted against the torture bill I'd think a sizeable chunk of Obama voters would migrate to him over Clinton.
Obama voters aren't voting for the issues, there aren't that many differences between the two Democratic candidates. They're voting for something different than what we've had in office for the last 20 years. When Clinton attempts to work the system to win it just points out why I don't want her in office.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
You don't really even need the specific numbers Orincoro and Humean. You've got the gist of it. There are still about 930 pledged delegates yet to be awarded, and a couple hundred superdelegates to be choose a side as well. It is theoretically possible for either of them to reach the goal really with just pledged delegates, but realistically? No. Not gonna happen. Of those almost 930 delegates yet to be awared, 370 of them will be awared on March 4th, that's 40% of the remaining delegates, and though Clinton has a slim lead in Ohio and more so in Rhode Island, I honestly don't think she can hope for better than 55/45 split in Ohio and Texas. Even if they went 55/45 from now until the end of the races in June, she'd only gain 90 pledged delegates, which still puts her 60 or so behind the roughly 150 pledged delegate vote lead that Obama has.
I really, really don't think that Florida or Michigan will be sat, unless they agree to hold a caucus, until after the nominee is already chosen. I don't think they'll be a factor, despite Clinton's wishes. No one thinks the elections in those two states (well maybe Florida) was a clean race between two contenders, it was obviously messed up, but even WITH those states, I still don't think she'd have enough delegates, not without a blowout in Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania, and assuming she holds her own EVERYWHERE else, which again, ain't gonna happen.
The general understanding I'm getting from the Superdelegates is that they will support whoever wins the most pledged delegates. And I think with the rhetoric we're hearing at the national level, from party leaders like Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean, and some vocal superdelegates, that's the way this is going to go. If she gets smoked or can't pull out any headway on the 4th, her superdelegates will leak even more than they are, and a lot of people are going to glom onto Obama, and her fundraising won't make it to Pennsylvania anyway.
Regardless, this ISN'T going to the convention, I still firmly believe that.
With the polling data showing them so close in the upcoming contests, and there not being anything big afterwords other than PA, which is almost two months later (and a LOT of Democrats who don't want to see this thing go on another two grueling months), I think she's already done. Barring a MAJOR upset of some sort, a clear gaffe from the Obama campaign or an act of God, I don't see how she wins this, comeback kid or not. I think she's destined to be Majority Leader in the Senate, where she will wield a fair amount of power for a much longer time than she would have in the White House.
The other general notion I get from the Democratic upper echelons (from articles and interviews I read) is that this race between them is creating more energy in the party than anyone could have hoped for...but it reaches a tipping point after awhile. If Clinton doesn't do something fancy on the 4th, then there will be serious worries that the continued fighting (and it has gotten nasty this weekend with Clinton's extreme rhetoric and Obama hesitant rebuttal) will take all that good energy and explode. McCain will hammer away, Obama will be fighting on two fronts, and Clinton won't let go. That worries people, a lot of people, who'd like to keep the party riding high. And thus if Obama wins or breaks even on the 4th, Clinton will face overwhelming pressure from the party to drop out and endorse him, and hightail her butt back to the Senate. Even BILL said as much.
Anywho, Ron got the sources for my polls right. I've said before that if you guys want to know where they come from I'll tell you. I only have a somewhat vague idea of which polling agencies are better than others, and I tend to leave out the Zogby polls when I come across them, but, I'm not trying to pull a fast one on anyone, I just post the numbers.
Ohio
February 21st - Barack Obama 54%, Hillary Clinton 46%
That one, like the other screwy one from Texas, is from Decision Analyst. Take it with a grain of salt, because it is so wildly different than the general feel of the rest of the polls (when all the polls come up with numbers only a point or two off, you get the feeling they're close to right). I'm waiting for a poll NOT by Decision Analyst to come out so I can see just how varied the difference really is.
North Carolina
February 21st - Barack Obama 45%, Hillary Clinton 31%, Undecided 22%
quote: Clinton will insist on seating the delegates from Florida and Michigan, and unless the DNC orders a new Caucus or Primary in those states, the DNC will have to seat those delegates because they know that if they don't that will hurt the Dems in Florida and Michigan.
Clinton can "insist" all she wants. Won't happen. She'd lose more superdelegates by making a stink than she'd gain from getting ALL of the MI/FL delegates.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Agreed on that. Xavier, I am of the opinion that the party will certainly not allow the uncontested results to be counted, since the states were officially disqualified. Its clearly and unquestionably wrong to do so. To reverse that decision would be a train wreck for the national campaign, it will not happen.
My conclusion from what I've gleaned is that this contest is over. Hilary cannot, in my opinion, win this race with fairness, and certainly cannot win it in any kind of style. I think the dems' awareness of this fact will push the nomination toward Obama, who has been able to hold a steady rise in support throughout.
At this point I am so distrustful of HRD. It's really just a gut thing- I don't trust her- she's robotic, she inspires no confidence in me. I don't think she'd make a good leader at that level.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So Yahoo has Ralph Nader joining the race. If Obama gets the nomination, I'm not sure he'll take votes away from him. If Hillary gets it, I can see where this could cost her.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
Really? Where? Maybe he's saying it to people in Texas and Ohio to try and motivate them, telling them how Hillary has to win or it's over.
The aggregated polls on Pollster.com were very predictive, overall, of Super Tuesday.
I think there is a good possibility Florida's delegates will get seated, since everyone was on the ballot, at least. They may seat half of them, like what the republicans did. But if Michigan is seated without some kind of Caucus or re-poll, that would be a scandal. Besides, as I've pointed out earlier, it isn't as though Hillary crushed Obama in those states.
P.S. Nader-- Oy. I always forget that I actually voted for him in 2000.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: I am of the opinion that the party will certainly not allow the uncontested results to be counted, since the states were officially disqualified.
Florida's results, as Pooka noted, were not uncontested. However, I bet Dem turnout in Florida was far lower than it would have been if people had expected it to count.
-o-
I also voted third party in 2000. Given the choice we had, it's not so shameful--except in hindsight.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I view third party as a "no confidence" vote. I wish sometimes that we had that option- if 50% of the people vote no one, then no one wins.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think there is a good possibility Florida's delegates will get seated, since everyone was on the ballot, at least.
Just because both were on the ballot, doesn't mean it was fair. Without campaigning, Obama had very little name recognition, while Clinton has the most recognizable name in politics. It's a no-brainer that Clinton was going to win there.
Even if they seat half the delegates from Florida, and Clinton wins, I'll be very pissed at the Democratic Party.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree. And I don't think it's quite so clear that Floridian democrats want their delegates seated under these circumstances, contrary to Humean's assertion.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
