posted
So far, I have had three phone calls asking if I knew about the primary/caucus system and reminding me to vote on Tuesday- Move-On, Obama voice recording and Obama volunteer. I also was invited to the Obama rally tomorrow night. I feel special. Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Obama's voice recording is called a "robo-call."
Congress is considering legislation that will limit robocalls, which in some key states can mean 12-15 calls A DAY to individual households. People are getting pissed. The argument for the limit is that it's an intrusion of their privacy, and they are considering making the telemarketer "do not call" list apply to robocalls as well.
The argument against is that it interferes with free speech. Personally I find that a thin argument. I think most people's free speech ends at my front door, free speech doesn't mean people have the right to pester and bother me in my own home. If I want to learn about a candidate, I have a myriad of options available to me to find that info, otherwise, bah humbug, go away kid you bother me.
I think the legislation will pass.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
12-15 calls a day, well, now I don't feel special. Of course, that would also annoy me greatly, so I guess it is good that I don't get that many. I am fine with eliminating robo-calls. It is telemarketing, just a different product.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Somehow I missed the part in the Constitution about robots having the right of free speech. More surprisingly, I also missed the story about robots being given free will. It ain't as if a robot could give voice to free speech without having free will.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I never read that corporations had free will either. Nor were corporations granted the right of free speech in the Constitution.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe the robot's freedom of speech is an extension of the corporation that owns it and that corporation is an extension of the people who own it, and THOSE people have free speech.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: I never read that corporations had free will either. Nor were corporations granted the right of free speech in the Constitution.
I complained about this once, possibly when McCain-Feingold was originally being discussed.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
As long as I can charge "THOSE people" for using my equipment and using my time, I don't have a problem. To be fair, say $200 per minute for the phone (which is what the telecoms allowed 800-number scammers to charge). And more for my time; how much more dependent on what was being interrupted. And of course the right to sue should I miss an important call because they were tying up my line.
posted
Lyrhawn, that's a hell of a spoiler for those of us who have been waiting to watch season 3 until it comes out on DVD.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Damn, sorry Noemon. Honest mistake. I didn't even think about it when I posted it (obviously).
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, I knew it wasn't intentional (and if they'd just release the freaking season it wouldn't be an issue). And actually, I accidentally spoiled it for myself a few months back. I appreciate your deleting it, though.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I feel the same way about awaiting the release (you DO know that they've set a release date and it's just a couple weeks away don't you?) date. I don't know why they keep waiting so long for all this stuff. They've already priced me out by charging so friggin much for most of them (way more than I think is fair personally). I keep waiting for an Amazon sale, but I've yet to see one. What I really want is to rent it on Netflix so I can refresh my memory on what the heck happened.
Sorry again, I'm glad I didn't ruin anything for you, and thanks for bringing it to my attention so I wouldn't ruin it for anyone else! Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, my analysis of whether Obama deserves to win, based on the "color" of the states they have "won":
Clinton Blue: CA, NY, NH, MA [MI] Red: AZ, [FL] Misc: NM, OK, AR, TN, DE
Obama: Blue: WA, MN, WI, MD, DC, CT, ME Red: ID, MT, CO, UT, WY, ND, SD, NE, KS, AL, SC, NC, VA Misc: IA, NV, MO, LA
Huh. I guess this is the first I realized Clinton had squeaked out NM in the end. She got 14 over Obama's 12 of the delegates.
So, yeah. I'd say Obama would deserve to be the nominee in terms of his performance in states likely to go blue. Clinton could also deserve to be the nominee, since the vote has been close in many states.
She seems to be holding Ohio, but Obama is pulling away in Texas according to the latest polls. Granted, last week we were saying the popular winner in Texas won't necessarily be the delegate winner, but I don't think anyone believes that is toing to shift in Clinton's favor. Obama has the organization, so they say.
posted
Obama is winning heaviest in the ways that the Texas system favor. After much thought, I like the Texas system. If you care a little, you vote, if you care a lot you vote and caucus. If we just had a caucus, people who only cared a little wouldn't get a vote. Also, the delegates are apportioned by likely voters, not population, which makes sense if you are looking at picking who will do best in the general election. Totally unfair system if it was for something other then the opportunity to run as the party's choice, but for what the election is, an interesting system.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
What you have to ask is, given McCain as an opponent, how likely are those Blue states to go Red, how likely are those Red states to go blue, and what will happen with the swing states.
CA, NY, AZ, WA, MN, WI, DC, CT, ID, UT, WY, ND, SN, KS, AL, SC, NC are locked, I think, regardless of nominee. So that leaves:
C: NH, MI, FL, NM, OK, AR, TN, DE O: MT, CO, VA, IA, NV, MO, LA
Of that list, Clinton has won the most and the biggest "in play" states (depending on your definition of "win" in MI and FL).
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wisconsin was a very close swing state in 2004. I don't think it is a locked state at all.
You also have to consider states where McCain is likely to win, but will have to spend some time and resources to do it. Thus, leaving him less to spend elsewhere.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kansas is almost always a lock for the Republicans in presidential elections, but there is a faint chance that the "native grandson" angle could help Obama to carry the state. It isn't terribly likely, but there's more chance of the Democrats carrying Kansas than there ever has been in my lifetime.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, I posted something and then hit quote instead of edit and wound up deleting both. Anyway, my tally was in response to the idea that "Obamacans" should not be regarded as real assets for the democratic race.
quote: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 was looking at representational integrity, not winnability. However, as you mention, MI and FL are not quite the wins they seem. NM was 50/50 popular votes, while New Hampshire was 50/50 delegates awarded. AR is also atypical.
What Obama has done, as much as a 50 state strategy, is brought the focus strategy to a substate level with much more sophistication than Clinton can apparently fathom.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, there is the "momentum" thing. How many of those states would break the same way now as they did a month ago. When Obama has more time, he does better. Super Tuesday, he had very little time. Senator Clinton hasn't won a state since then.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wait, Kate, haven't you heard? The momentum has shifted!
quote: TOLEDO, Ohio (AP) - Hillary Rodham Clinton suggested she will press on following crucial primaries Tuesday, arguing that momentum was on her side despite 11 straight losses to rival Barack Obama...etc.
How she can claim she has momentum with a straight face I'll never know.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, democrats like the underdog. Therefore, the worse she does, the better we will like her.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmm, according to Talking Points Memo that Zogby tracking poll is the only major Ohio poll with Obama in the lead. I wonder if it's an outlier that's just a fluke or an early trend indicator?
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Looks like the Clinton Camp has gotten the goods on Obama this time. This may actually get some traction with voters in Ohio. Maybe in Texas, too. One of the things voters are most unforgiving about, is when they learn a politician has lied to them. Sure, we laughingly say they do it all the time. But when they are caught, there is H*ll to pay. This could be enough to penetrate Obama's Teflon coating.
For those not up to speed on this, it was learned by someone in the Clinton camp that a top Obama staffer told some Canadian government officials not to worry about the tough language Obama would be using about NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement), it would just be posturing. At first the Obama camp tried to hit back at the Clinton people for trying to "smear" Obama, and Obama intoned righteously that he would always be consistent and mean what he says. Then the actual memo that was written by the Canadian official about the meeting was obtained by AP.
MSNBC, known for its open pro-Obama bias, nonetheless reported on its website:
quote:"Barack Obama's senior economic policy adviser privately told Canadian officials to view the debate in Ohio over trade as "political positioning," according to a memo obtained by The Associated Press that was rejected by the adviser and held up Monday as evidence of doublespeak by rival Hillary Rodham Clinton.
The memo is the first documentation to emerge publicly out of the meeting between the adviser, Austan Goolsbee, and officials with the Canadian consulate in Chicago, but Goolsbee said it misinterprets what he told them. The memo was written by Joseph DeMora, who works for the consulate and attended the meeting.
"Noting anxiety among many U.S. domestic audiences about the U.S. economic outlook, Goolsbee candidly acknowledged the protectionist sentiment that has emerged, particularly in the Midwest, during the primary campaign," the memo said. "He cautioned that this messaging should not be taken out of context and should be viewed as more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans."
The Obama people have been trying like crazy to spin this out of sight, but it sure sounds to anyone objective like Obama's senior economic policy advisor was implying to Canadians that Obama would be speaking out of both sides of his mouth--saying what Ohioans would want to hear, but assuring Canadians they needn't be concerned about it, he did not actually plan to change anything.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You have to understand that when Obama and Clinton speak against NAFTA, they are speaking against sending jobs to Mexico. I don't think the average American* knows or cares what NAFTA means between us and Canada, and I don't expect this would have that big an impact. If Obama were caught going behind the back with Mexico, I think folks would care more.
Is it Obama's spin that he didn't mean to engage in a diplomatic impropriety of contacting a foreign government as nothing more than a candidate?
*granted, I may not know the average American as well as I think I do.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Exactly. When both candidates were talking about the problems of inequal competition in places where there are no labor or environmental standards, I doubt they were referencing Canada.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
wait I thought this was a complete fabrication by the Clinton camp. That was my understanding Friday night, was that it had already been debunked as utterly false. How does it still have traction?
quote:"It didn't happen," said Roy Norton, who heads up the congressional, public and intergovernmental affairs portfolio for the Canadian embassy.
Norton said none of the three campaigns for Sen. Barack Obama, Sen. Hillary Clinton, or Sen. John McCain have contacted the embassy.
"Neither before the Ohio debate nor since has any of the U.S. presidential campaigns called Ambassador Wilson or the Canadian embassy to raise NAFTA," he said.
Rush is telling his listeners to vote Hillary in open primaries because the Obama/Clinton conflict is good for republicans and the republicans want to run against Clinton
Posts: 128 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
An employee of a Canadian consulate in Chicago is hardly an unimpeachable source. And Goolsbee (purported to have made the comment) isn't Obama. Anybody who espouses otherwise is being willfully ignorant. The Obama people don't hafta spin nothin': Obama has been on record as being in favor of forcing a renegotiation since well before the Illinois primary in which he became the official Democratic candidate for Senator.
The reality is, NAFTA doesn't affect Mexico-US-Canada trade much, except for the negative. It was put together by three well known crooks -- Salinas, Bush, and Mulroney - for the benefit of crooks who would gain advantage from lowering the environmental, labor, and trade standards of all three nations down to the lowest common denominator. BillClinton pushed ratification of what-should-have-been-a-fatally flawed treaty through the Senate with the help of an overwhelming supermajority of Republicans over opposition from the large majority of Democrats.
Republicans then used NAFTA as a hammer against Democratic incumbents to exploit the feeling of betrayal felt by those who would have normally voted Democrat during their takeover of Congress in the '94, '96, and '98 elections.
HillaryClinton (wife of the Bill) jumped on NAFTA-reform bandwagon only after noticing the popularity of Obama's position.
posted
Adam_S: It is not a complete fabrication, perhaps an exaggeration but that article you link to is wrong.
The date is instructive, that article was from Feb 28th. The other two links are more recent from today, as more information came out.
That said, I don't think there will necessarily be much fallout from this. I strongly suspect that *both* candidates are in fact posturing over the NAFTA issue.
The only reason that it *may* be more damaging to Obama is that he is building on a platform of change and a new form of politics while we kinda expect Clinton to posture Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Obama isn't posturing. NAFTA sucks, and has always been extremely unpopular amongst well-informed people. If Clinton has had a change of heart about NAFTA to match the feelings of its critics, good for her. But it's still a late change.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I consider myself fairly well informed, and while I think NAFTA could be improved, I'm pretty certain we'd disagree about what it means to improve it.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
make sure that they don't steal our water thats an improvement.
IP: Logged |
posted
Somehow, phrasing it that way made me think of the old miniseries V. Except instead of Aliens and Earthlings, it's Americans and Canadians, respectively. Still with the rubber masks, though.
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: Kansas is almost always a lock for the Republicans in presidential elections, but there is a faint chance that the "native grandson" angle could help Obama to carry the state. It isn't terribly likely, but there's more chance of the Democrats carrying Kansas than there ever has been in my lifetime.
Also don't forget that they have an extremely popular Democratic governor that will open up a lot of resources for them. If Obama takes on Sebelius as his VP, I think Kansas will have a better than average chance of going Democrat. I agree that Kansas is a tough state for any Democrat to win, but that this is the first year in a long time, certainly in my lifetime, that a Democrat, assuming it's Obama, has a seriously good chance to take it.
quote:Originally posted by pooka: Does the acceleration of gravity count as momentum?
lol. Lovely.
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: make sure that they don't steal our water thats an improvement.
I'm sorry, your water? Pretty sure it's ours too. I've said before that I agree wholeheartedly that the Great Lakes need to be managed responsibly, which is why there are dozens of laws in Wisconsin, Michigan, and other GLS to make sure that water is not taken out of watershed areas and makes it back into the lakes, especially with reduced rainfall in the last couple years. It's a shared resource, but we I think are in agreement that there's an argument with the federal US government over how it is managed, and we're just as worried as you are, if not more, about southern states trying to take the water.
We'd love it, by the way, if you'd stop sending us all your trash.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not just the Great Lakes, though. The US has taken water in violation of treaties from other lakes in North Dakota and Minnesota, that I know of. Obviously, those are the ones that show up in my local news.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: Kansas is almost always a lock for the Republicans in presidential elections, but there is a faint chance that the "native grandson" angle could help Obama to carry the state. It isn't terribly likely, but there's more chance of the Democrats carrying Kansas than there ever has been in my lifetime.
Also don't forget that they have an extremely popular Democratic governor that will open up a lot of resources for them. If Obama takes on Sebelius as his VP, I think Kansas will have a better than average chance of going Democrat. I agree that Kansas is a tough state for any Democrat to win, but that this is the first year in a long time, certainly in my lifetime, that a Democrat, assuming it's Obama, has a seriously good chance to take it.
Is there serious talk of his taking Sebelius as his VP? I hadn't heard that! I've definitely got mixed feelings about his doing so; I like her quite a bit, and if something were to happen to Obama I'd feel comfortable with her sitting in the Oval Office. On the other hand, I like her as Kansas' governor; I don't really want to see her leave that position yet.
I agree with you that that would significantly increase his chances of taking the state.
Apologies, I wasn't aware of that. My local news generally just covers what's going on in the Great Lakes, and the national news never seems to talk about ANY of it. If it makes you feel any better, locals on the US side aren't always happy about what's done either. I know here in Michigan our federal senators and reps are screaming bloody murder in Congress about water issues. If NAFTA were to be reopened, I hope water rights is a big part of it.
Noemon -
Yes, she is being talked about. A lot of people feel that there needs to be some strong executive experience to back him up, which precludes Dodd or Biden from doing it. That means finding a strong Democratic governor with some downticket appeal, meaning someone outside of the northeast, or really, someone either from the south or the other side of the Mississippi. There are a couple strong female Democratic governors who would be great, like Kathleen Sebelius or Janet Nepolitano from I think Nevada. Should they choose to go with a senator, I think it'll be Dodd or Biden, but if they go with a Democratic governor, I think Sebelius is a leading contender. I'm surprised Elliot Spitzer isn't being talked about as a possibility, though a quick check shows that he's not well liked at all as NY's governor.
I'll take another look at this when the nomination is actually settled, but obviously the ideas for VP vary quite a bit between Obama and Clinton. There's no chance for Sebelius to get the VP slot with Clinton. With Obama? She's certainly on the short list, and short lists are generally only half a dozen names long.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Recent polling shows that Clinton has a solid lead in Ohio, maybe 5 points. Her lead in Rhode Island has evaporated to be almost meaningless, as recent polls show a huge number of undecideds. Obama may win or nearly tie there. Texas has Obama with a razor thin margin, but it could go either way. I think the rules for apportionment will give Obama a bump, but, it could go either way.
I'm less sure now that this will all be over in a couple days, but I'm starting to hope it is. Two more months of campaigning before Pennsylvania will be brutal for the party.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Of course, that would also annoy me greatly, so I guess it is good that I don't get that many. I am fine with eliminating robo-calls. It is telemarketing, just a different product.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
How she can claim she has momentum with a straight face I'll never know.
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
