posted
My internet MSNBC didn't quite work either. I thought it was because my husband was watching something else upstairs, but it sounds very similar to what Noemon describes.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It got pretty awful there for a while, though--pretty much unintelligible, really, due to the squeeks and stuttering of the sound.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I really don't like where the moderators are located. It makes them too much a part of the attraction. I'd be especially annoyed if I were in the live audience and my view of the candidates were obscured by these talking heads--regardless of the fact that there are almost certainly large screen monitors somewhere in the auditorium.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Haven't the views espoused by the green party become core issues in this election already? Green energy thinking has become ingrained in our heads--so the green party's been a success already, right?
I know that it sounds like the green party is really a one issue environmental party, but that really isn't the case. Here's the official Ten Key Values of the Green Party.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not impressed with MSNBC's analysis of the debate, but it's interesting to note that she certainly not endear herself to the press folks by criticizing her treatment in the debates.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
CNN's delegate counts were updated yesterday. Obama: 1184 pledged + 176 super = 1360 total Clinton: 1031 pledged + 238 super = 1269 total
Obama's lead is 153 pledged delegates or 91 total. I just want to look at pledged delegates for a moment because I think most of the remaining supers will probably decide to go with whoever winds up with the most pledged from primaries & caucuses. Based on these numbers there are 1012 pledged delegates left to be awarded. 370 of them are connected to the March 4th states.
For Clinton to pass Obama in pledged delegates she needs 583 of the remaining 1012, which is 58%. Even in the states that she's polling ahead in she's not ahead by that much. For Clinton to pass Obama in pledged delegates based on the March 4th races, she needs 262 of the 370, which is 71%.
I did that second one because I read one of Clinton's supporters saying something along the lines of "If she wins here in Ohio she won't need to win in Pennsylvania," which seemed downright silly.
posted
Maybe they are counting on her getting not only 55% of Michigan, but all the uncommitted delegates as well and also all the remaining Supers.
It reminds me of that part in Groundhog day when the truck lands in the bottom of the quarry and Larry says "He might be okay."
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Updated again for changes in superdelegates (which are nonbinding, and based on the supers' public statements of endorsement): Obama: 1184 pledged + 181 super = 1365 total Clinton: 1031 pledged + 237 super = 1268 total
Most notable there is that Clinton's estimate went down one delegate, with Georgia Representative John Lewis switching over to Obama. There are 377 superdelegates undecided in these estimates, and Clinton leads in supers by 56. For Obama to catch up in superdelegates he'd need 58% of the remaining supers (or to pull more of Clinton's to him, since they can change their minds anytime and many of hers declared their support very early in the race). That 58% is a weird coincidence, if you read my previous post about the pledged delegates.
More and more, I don't see a way for Clinton to win this without seating the MI and FL delegates, which the DNC has said they'd only do if each state does a new caucus (does it have to be a caucus instead of a primary? The report on that I saw just said caucus) so that both candidates get a chance to actually campaign there. I doubt that'll happen; most likely MI and FL will be sat after the nominee is already decided on one way or another.
posted
They said yes, it has to be a caucus, and I know Granholm, our governor here in Michigan, refuses to do that for a variety of reasons, and I support her.
If you want my guess on how this thing plays out...Michigan and Florida will be seated, AFTER the nominee is chosen, so they'll have a voice when they vote on the platform and such, but won't play a role in choosing a presidential nominee. Clinton might win Ohio or Texas, and she might lose Ohio or Texas, personally I think she has a halfway decent chance of winning Ohio, but I think she will lose Texas. Either way I think it'll be by 10 points, on both sides, but Obama will walk away with many more delegates in Texas because of the rules and his strength in the caucuses. I think he'll win the caucus by more than 10 points.
After that, Obama will get a lot of superdelegate support, and I think there will be some defections from her camp, at which point, the idea of another TWO MONTHS of this until Pennsylvania will worry enough party insiders to pressure her to drop out. If the status quo remains after the 4th, there'll be virtually no chance for her to win the PLEDGED delegates she needs, and the supers aren't going to go against the popular vote, that's more or less already been decided upon.
In other words, I think Obama has already won it. Unless there's a dramatic upset on the 4th and Clinton handily walks away with both of them, she'll face an avalanche of pressure, in the face of the math, the momentum, the stability of the party, the chances in the General, and a lot of people saying she's being selfish...all of which I think will force her out.
I think in two or three weeks this thread will come to a close and we'll be posting in the General Election Thread.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
February 26th - Hillary Clinton 43%, Barack Obama 22%, Undecided 35% (from Charleston Daily Mail)
After March 4th, 1/5th of the US will vote. They will be, and in this order:
March 8th - Wyoming (12) March 11th - Mississippi (33) April 22nd - Pennsylvania (151) May 3rd - Guam (3) May 6th - Indiana (66) & North Carolina (115) May 13th - West Virginia (26) May 20th - Kentucky (47) & Oregon (48) June 3rd - Montana (15) & South Dakota (14) June 7th - Puerto Rico (55)
I think it's a fair bet that Mississippi, if it's anything like it's neighbors, will be strong Obama territory. Indiana and North Carolina are Obama territory. Montana, Wyoming and South Dakota I think are Obama territory. I think Puerto Rico will be Obama territory too, if the foreign votes are any indication, so Guam too. So let's assume Clinton loses on March 4th. She might win Oregon, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania, though I think all three are a fight. So I wonder how she even has a chance in hell of winnning. She has to win both, she has to win them by good margins, and polls don't support her in Texas, and her lead is dropping in Ohio. I think these numbers, and what states are ahead, support my post above: This thing is already over.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe Clinton is just hanging on until Guam can turn it all around?
I wonder if the Dodd nod and Lewis lean will be significant, not as single votes of course, but for their personal influence and as potential bellwethers of the rest of the supers?
I agree, the only fair and balanced thing to do at this point is to seat the FL and MI delegates after the candidate is chosen, so they can vote on the platform.
Colbert summed up the McCain lobbyist scandal tonight: There once was a man named McCain Who had the whole White House to gain But he was quite a hobbyist Of boning his lobbyist So much for his oh-eight campaign
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Natural born citizen has been upheld in immigration-related cases as anyone born as a US citizen. McCain was born as a US citizen (and I'm pretty sure there are laws saying that kids born on US military bases of US parents are such), so he's a natural born citizen.
The 'issue' is going to stay at the level of innuendo, and if it ever reached the courts, they'd deliver a resounding condemnation of the idea that he wasn't.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have always understood that rule to include anyone born in the United States, regardless of their parentage, and anyone born to US citizens, regardless of where in the world they are born. So, as far as I'm concerned it's not an issue.
Ironically, the people he'd be most likely to have the problem with are the people most likely to vote for him.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not an issue because of Jus Soli, meaning by the land. Mccain was born on in a U.s. controlled zone which counts as American soil. BirthrightPosts: 106 | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
My daughter was born in Israel. Any children born to US citizens in Israel can get automatic US citizenship just by going to the consulate and asking for it.
Is she a born citizen or a naturalized one? Could she run for president?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So long as you were a US citizen when she was born, she's natural born. It's Jus Sanguinis, right of blood. She could run for president.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Exactly, Jus Sanguinis. Wikipedia details this man apparently Mitt Rimney's father running for President in 1968
George Romney, who ran in 1968, was born in Mexico to U.S. parents. George’s grandfather emigrated to Mexico in 1886 with his three wives and children after Utah outlawed polygamy. Romney's parents retained their U.S. citizenship and returned to the United States in 1912. Romney was 32 years old when he arrived in Michigan.
Posts: 106 | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
There have been precedents in the past where someone born in Puerto Rico and another in Guam, were deemed to have the status of U.S. citizens, qualified to hold elected office. And as cassv746 noted, George Romney (Mitt's father), who ran for president in 1968, was born in northern Mexico--of parents who were U.S. citizens. No one even raised the issue then, because none of the media at that time were as shamelessly biased as the New York Times has shown itself to be presently.
"Natural born" is usually understood to mean the person was not an immigrant who had to be "naturalized" by passing a test and having a swearing-in ceremony. The fact that anyone whose parents are both American citizens is automatically deemed a U.S. citizen no matter where on earth they are born, trumps everything else. McCain's father was a naval officer, stationed at the U.S. military base in the Panama Canal Zone, back during the time when it was still a U.S. territory.
You're funny Icarus. Yes, Lisa's daughter could become U.S. president. If both her parents are U.S. citizens, she has a natural right to U.S. citizenship.
[ February 28, 2008, 08:26 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, if only one of her parents is a citizen, she still has a natural right to US citizenship. Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good thing to point out ElJay. I didn't specify that earlier.
Adfectio -
Federal office is vague. Madeline Albright I believe had dual citizenship and she was Secretary of State. Plenty of federal office holders I think have been foreign born or held dual citizenship in the past. If you're specifically talking about the President and Vice President, then I'm not sure.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Typically, you have to give up your dual citizenship to hold federal office in order to avoid potential conflicts of interest. In fact I think you're even supposed to give up dual citizenship if you work for the federal government - but it doesn't always happen.
Posts: 959 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
As Lyrhawn and I said on the previous page, the reality of the delegate counts mean that any sort of even split favors Obama, since he's already got the lead. But seeing them attempt this type of spin reinforces my concern that she'll try to drag this out even further. If Obama takes TX and Clinton takes OH, his delegate lead will get even greater but she could spin it as breaking his momentum, stopping his streak, and making a big comeback.
posted
That's a nice spin they are trying to pull.
Bill Clinton said that Texas and Ohio were must-wins for Hillary, and I think every single article I've read about the March 4 primaries have referenced that quote.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
At least they didn't go with the "If Barack Obama doesn't personally cure cancer, he's just not going to be able to win the nomination." angle. Because that would have just been laughable.
I'll bet they're glad they didn't go with the earlier version of "If Barack Obama doesn't take the next 11 primaries/caucuses after Super Tuesday..."
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd post the most recent polling data but it's all the same. Obama is polling pretty much even in Ohio and has a slight edge in Texas. He's pulled more or less even in Pennsylvania as well.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
In light of both camps trying to set the goal for the other one, and the polls themselves being pretty close, let's suppose that through whatever combination of wins, loses, and close races Obama and Clinton evenly split the 370 pledged delegates up for grabs on March 4th.
Obama: 1184 current + 185 Tuesday = 1369 Clinton: 1031 current + 185 Tuesday = 1216 Remaining after Tuesday: 642 If it's an even split like that, Clinton would need 398 of the 642 remaining to get ahead of Obama in pledged delegates, which is 62%. There aren't many states that she's won by that kind of margin. (Arkansas is the only one I could find in a quick check.) And I think with Texas seeming to favor for Obama, even a 50/50 split of delegates seems pretty optimistic.
posted
It looks like the Obamacans are going to have a significant impact. Texas has an open DemocraticPrimary, and Republican cross-over voters may become as much as 1in11 of those choosing between Clinton and Obama. With a ~3to1 ratio favoring Obama (or voting against Clinton), Republicans could add over 4 percentage points to Obama's total. The follow-up Democratic caucuses to divvy up delegates could blunt some of the Republican impact, but I'm not familiar enough with Texas' caucus-voting rules to rule out the possibility of Republican support shifting the delegate split even further in Obama's favor.
And again, the race between Democrats is much tighter than suggested by the probable officially-qualified pledged-delegate count, or by the news media. I'll come back with some numbers, but... ...right now is NOT the time for Clinton supporters to slack off in despair, or for Obama supporters to "kick back and enjoy the ride." And won't become that time unless&until either Clinton or Obama picks up an overwhelming supermajority of the officially-qualified pledged-delegates selected from now through Pennsylvania.
posted
I mused on a similar matter back before Super Tuesday, of whether McCain was really getting a plurality in Republican strongholds. Too bad I don't really have time to analyze it this morning. But mostly I think Clinton's talk of bulkheads and her focus on big states is very reminiscent of Giuliani. I think what most people see is Clinton eroding and Obama gaining strength as the primary train rolls on.
Also, I had a dream about Obama last night. I was talking to him about some philosophical thoughts on fatherhood and spirituality, and Michelle was giving me the stinkeye.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
For the Texas caucus, if I were a republican, all I would have to do is vote in the democrat caucus is vote in the democrat primary and get my receipt. I also check a box saying that for this race, I am only voting in the democrat primary. So, republicans can show up for the caucus.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just for the record, I'm not in any way saying that Obama or his supporters can "kick back and enjoy the ride." - I am saying that Clinton needs some sort of fairly large upset at this point to win, because if both candidates continue at their current performance and pace of fundraising, gathering support, etc, Obama will have the nomination.
The only reason I ran the 50/50 split of March 4th is to show why I think Clinton's claim that Obama needs to sweep all 4 states or else he has a problem is BS. A loss in one or even two of those states in not going to end Obama's chances, though it may drag it out longer than if he did sweep all 4.
posted
Actually, I guess the issue of what it means to be "native born" was raised when George Romney ran for president, but it never came to a head because he dropped out during the primaries. (He dropped out because of derision that pretty much killed his candidacy over his remark about being "brainwashed" by the generals in Vietnam.)
I just hope that after McCain is elected, Democrats don't try to use the courts again to interfere in the electoral process, and dispute his right to assume the presidency. Since he is a genuine American war hero, born of parents who were both American citizens, whose father was a naval officer who later became Admiral-in-Chief of the Pacific Fleet, and was born at the U.S. military base in the Panama Canal Zone, which was a U.S. territory at that time, anyone who tries to suggest there is any question whether McCain is qualified constitutionally to be president is going to come in for universal scorn.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: There have been precedents in the past where someone born in Puerto Rico and another in Guam, were deemed to have the status of U.S. citizens . . .
um, Puerto Ricans are US citizens.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I just hope that after McCain is elected, Democrats don't try to use the courts again to interfere in the electoral process, and dispute his right to assume the presidency. Since he is a genuine American war hero, born of parents who were both American citizens, whose father was a naval officer who later became Admiral-in-Chief of the Pacific Fleet, and was born at the U.S. military base in the Panama Canal Zone, which was a U.S. territory at that time, anyone who tries to suggest there is any question whether McCain is qualified constitutionally to be president is going to come in for universal scorn.
If they were going to make an issue of it, they'd do it now, take him out of the running, and you'd prop up a much more easily defeatable candidate. It's a non issue. And wow, that's rich, you don't want democrats to interfere by use of the courts? I guess only Republicans get a turn with that eh?
I just hope that after Obama is elected, both parties can do some growing up and stop acting like toddlers. I have to wonder what his dad being an Admiral or his being a "war hero" has to do with his citizenship. You seem to be saying that as if non-citizens couldn't be like McCain in every single way except their legal status.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't get that he was saying that. I assumed he was piling on all the Proud American aspects of McCain's heritage.
This is a non-issue, and needs to stay a non-issue. I can't see Obama or Clinton ever bringing it up. I could see one of Clinton's people doing so and then apologizing, again, or MoveOn or somebody else. I can also see Obama publicly denouncing such a stupid act.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
My bad Chris, if that's what he was saying, I honestly apologize for the inference then. It came off that way to me, as I don't get what all that "Proud American" stuff in any way has to do with his citizenship.
quote:This is a non-issue, and needs to stay a non-issue. I can't see Obama or Clinton ever bringing it up. I could see one of Clinton's people doing so and then apologizing, again, or MoveOn or somebody else. I can also see Obama publicly denouncing such a stupid act.
I don't think it'll be an issue. Regardless of where he was born, his father at least, if not both his parents, are US citizens and I think jus sanguinus applies and he could've been born in the Arctic and he'd still be a natural born American citizen.
I'm starting to worry that this election is going to be some sort of Cold War, with both candidates being politically correct in their attacks, but with their minions fighting a brutal proxy war that McCain and whichever Democrat spends all their time disavowing. I think Obama and McCain have a chance to have one of the cleaner campaigns in presidential election history, though to be fair, elections have been "dirty" going back 200 years. Some of the potshots they are already taking at each other though don't give me warm fuzzies.
Still, I wonder if their surrogates will ruin it for everyone by not holding any punches when the candidates would clearly prefer to.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It was the New York Times that raised the issue, a couple of days ago. They are still smarting from the national backlash over their attempt to smear McCain with an 8-year old accusation about improper relations with a lobbyist (which everyone has denied), in an article that had no sources other than two anonymous staff members who "heard rumors," etc. A poll a few days ago showed that the NY Times national approval rating is at 24%, which is ten points lower than President Bush's approval rating. So their response is to try again with something even more groundless and silly. Great journalism, huh? If they are just reporting the news in bringing this up, why was it they who brought it up? You have to suspect their motives.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Meh. So far they've done nothing but rally people to McCain via botched and groundless accusations. You could say it's a coordinated effort to HELP McCain as much as hurt him.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was ALWAYS taught in school that military bases and consulates are both considered U.S. soil. So even if he was born to non-citizen parents it wouldn't be an issue.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was sometimes taught in school that military bases and consulates are both considered U.S. soil. Other times when I asked, my teacher punched me in the tooth.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Those living in the CanalZone (before the turn over to Panama) assumed they were on American soil, on-base or off. After all, the CanalZone was American territory in perpetuity. I thought there's already been a President born in a US territory before it became state.
The CanalZoneCompany didn't limit it's hiring to Americans-only. And there were plenty of nonAmerican tourists and workers for other companies (eg cruise ships passing throught the Canal). So there had to have been many babies born to Panamanian/etc parents in BalboaHospital, which I'm fairly certain was off-base in the civilian area of the Zone. And there has to be plenty of dual citizens, and/or precedent-setting US court rulings about dual citizenship for those born in the CanalZone.
I think that babies born to Americans in the CanalZone weren't given a (dual) Panamanian citizenship, but that may have been due to Panamanian laws concerning citizenship.
I can see them bringing up lobbyist issues. They should not have made even the slightest suggestion, however, of any romantic improprieties without clear proof and named sources.
The Washington Post's story the next day of the number of lobbyists helping run McCain's campaign was a much more effective story, I thought.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Which may have been the reason why the NYTimes editors decided to include such obvious rumormongering in their piece: to undermine the credibility of the WashingtonPost article to diminish its impact on McCain's campaign.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
