Democratic Convention Watch: Open Thread

Tuesday, April 01, 2008

Open Thread

WE'VE MOVED! Democratic Convention Watch is now at http://www.DemocraticConventionWatch.com

Who's going to win, who has a better chance against McCain, or whatever else is on your mind.

Update: We have decided to stop allowing anonymous comments. Not because we don't like reading what people have to say but because Blogger has introduced a new "feature" that makes you go to a second page when the number of comments go over 200.

It's very easy to set up a Google account so that you can continue commenting.

Thanks!

Previous Open Thread here

1552 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 601 – 800 of 1552 Newer› Newest»

GatorsChampions4Ever said...: vwis. Greta Van Susteren works for FOX News Channel.

countjellybean. I never said you used my information. I wanted your reaction because you asked for state-by-state polling and I took almost an hour of my time to provide it after I saw your comment.

peter. Are these scandals recent? Do they have to do with President Clinton? I think everybody (in the political sense) deserves a second chance.; April 24, 2008 10:19 PM
vwis said...: cbsmith42,
There are other states that are weird or have both primaries and caucus. WA for one, and delegate allocation in LA and PA is about the same. It seems that someone, somewhere at sometime had way too much time on their hands to devise the system. However, this should have been to the Clintons advantage, because it was this way when Bill ran.; April 24, 2008 10:26 PM
vwis said...: gatorschamp,
I know she works for Foxnews. I was question when or if she was still on. I watch all the channels and try to read 3 newspapers a day.; April 24, 2008 10:30 PM
Yamaka said...: Dear Democrats, Good Evening:

Here is another

Conversation with Sen BHO Jr:

- Hello Senator, How are you, Sir?

- Very well, Yamaka, What's up, Man?

- Nothing much, Sir; I heard your pastor talking to Bill Moyers. He accuses you of as being another "Politician" etc. What' the deal between you, any bad blood?

-Oh, no Yamaka. Well, he didn't like some of the things I said in Philly. Listen, I am a Politician - as your son correctly said, I am a politician from Chicago, period. Well, I cannot show my usual friendship with pastor Wright - my handlers and the BigMoneyBags will not allow me to have our regular relationships with him. I got to do what I got to do. I am not the same guy who attended his Church for 20 years. Now, I have 230 million dollars with me - how could I behave the same way? I am a National Hero, don't you see this?

- Well, Senator. What happened to the reverence, loyalty and the old friendship? Because you raised 230 million dollars and spent nearly 200 million dollars in 4 months does NOT mean you are a nice guy!!

- Well, Yama, I get angry now. I feel Money is King, and I am the King. Oh, no sorry I should not think like that. Money can be a real pain too. You know, now we have a disease in our campaign: complacency because of the excess money. We don't have the fire in our belly; we all yap yap and yap about our big moneybags. Really, the money we collect is mostly anti-Bill Clinton money, a small amount is FOR OBAMA money. Why so much animosity against Bill Clinton? Because he cut the toes and knees of so many FAR LEFT Liberals and bureaucrats when he governed from the middle by his "Triangulation" philosophy. Now these low lives are showing the anger by sending money to ME!! Very weird.

- Senator tell me about this scandal about Michelle and her pay raise!

- Well Yama. Another bone-headed thing I did: As soon as I got elected as US Senator, UC Hospitals raised her salary from $121K a year to $321 K a year for no good reason! Then, this stupid Michelle bugged me to go and get money ($1 million or so) for a pavilion for her employer (UC Hospitals - the Rockafellar Institution). Foolishly, I asked as Ear Mark this money. I did not think right.

- Senator, is this not quid-pro-quo? At least an appearance of it at all?

- Yes, I believe now it is a quid-pro-quo. Not just appearance!! I realize this could erupt in the MSM at anytime. I am shivering that in the next Debate this may be the main question! That's why I hate this Debates, and all that nonsense!!!!

- Well, Senator, It's getting late. Thanks for the clarification. You are a nice man, but your sidekicks are evil people around you. Your "Children" are ecstatic you have BigMoneyBags surrounding you! They believe MONEY can get you the Nomination and the Presidency.
Insha Allah, we meet again.

- Good. Just ignore my stupid "Children" - they don't know the problems money brings. Insha Allah, we will see again.

________________________________

Oh well, another day another Conversation!

SDs. Please make a note of this.; April 24, 2008 10:32 PM
dwit said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; April 24, 2008 10:33 PM
GatorsChampions4Ever said...: vwis. Yes she is. You didn't ask that specifically. You just said You watch EVERY news channel on? That is amazing. Where do you get all that time?; April 24, 2008 10:34 PM
dwit said...: Richard,

Totally agree about Gator's inflated 16 pt. spread. Got to hand it to Suffolk. They called Pennsylvania and Ohio nearly perfectly.

Indiana has always been close. The demographics are slightly different, education level is even lower than Pennsylvania. Also, it has always been a very conservative state. That bodes well for Hillary. Frankly they never vote democratic in General elections, so how much does it matter?; April 24, 2008 10:34 PM
GatorsChampions4Ever said...: dwit. I merely commented about what I saw. I never knew about which polls were unreputable or not, nor did I know about ''outlier polls''. I do agree with you that the Indiana dempgraphics favor Senator Clinton.

yamaka. How do you think of these things to say? More importantly, how long does it take you to think of these things?; April 24, 2008 10:39 PM
vwis said...: Yama,
At least he didn't get his money from delivering the devil's brew and then hiding behind the Christian's conservatives. They then say all DNC don't believe in God. Which is worse. Their all in the same cup.; April 24, 2008 10:42 PM
ed iglehart said...: Vwis,

Glad you liked the poem. Berry is very high in my "Hall of Heroes" - It's a big hall. My efforts at poetic expression are
simple and impromptu and (fortunately) rather rare.

Here's another hero, Garrett Hardin, who formulated The Tragedy of the Commons, seen here in comic form....

Off-topic? I wonder....

Good night and God bless
ed; April 24, 2008 10:44 PM
vwis said...: vwis,
ed iglehart,
Good night, and God bless you.; April 24, 2008 10:49 PM
Aunt Jean said...: Peter the only people that took their names off the Michigan is Edwards and obama don't where you get 4 people [la la land] vwis Clintonwon NJ by 10 % and NV by 6% NJ Clinton 54% obama 44% NV Clinton51% obama 45% where do you get that she only won them by 1% [la la land] oh yea Ipeter I can't stand Imus he's a pompus ass man. RobH Hillary won Pa. by 10 % Clinton 1260444 obama 1046220 = to Clinton 54.644% obama 45.356. Now you round those out it equals to 10% to think otherwise [la la land] If you obama supporters want to say something you should at least give credit where credit is due and quit Hillary bashing and stretching the truth. Oh by the way on Pa. that is 100% reporting. Go Hillary you are the one and ONLY!!!!!!!! JEAN; April 24, 2008 11:02 PM
Somerled said...: One and only? God I HOPE there's not two of THAT running around...; April 24, 2008 11:05 PM
cbsmith42 said...: vwis, (re: Texas, Washington, 'too much time on their hands')

This was on NPR today and I think Rep Cleaver agrees with you:

"We have a process that appears to be about as stupid as human beings could put in place," Cleaver said.
(http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89905018)

:); April 24, 2008 11:08 PM
GatorsChampions4Ever said...: looks like everyone is out in full force. Good evening to all.; April 24, 2008 11:09 PM
ed iglehart said...: Jean,

Clinton 54.644% minus obama 45.356 equals 9.288, which doesn't round to 10.

Back to school.; April 24, 2008 11:11 PM
GatorsChampions4Ever said...: I agree with that. What is the point of having a caucus AND a primary in these states? It's either one or the other. It makes absolutely no sense.

Aunt Jean. I think it is wonderful that you are so enthusiastic about Senator Clinton. We need more of you. However, I have seen some and read some of your comments and they can be........inflammatory. Those types of things are why some fellow bloggers attack Senator Clinton. Perhaps you are using the blog version of the ''kitchen sink''?; April 24, 2008 11:13 PM
GatorsChampions4Ever said...: ed. Is your poetry famous?; April 24, 2008 11:14 PM
ed iglehart said...: Gator,
No, but I was a Gator from 1959-65.
Salaam, etc.
ed; April 24, 2008 11:18 PM
Aunt Jean said...: someone was talking that Pa. was a lot less educated than Nc well I hate to bust your bubble.People with a bachelor degree or better. Pa.24.2 NC 24.3 In.21%. They were comparing that there were a lot less people 65 or older and people with a lot more education in NC than Pa there isn't there is very little difference between the two states. I guess he was upset that Clinton won by 10% in an educated state. Jean; April 24, 2008 11:20 PM
MSMWatch2008 said...: RobH said...
Being human means doing the right thing. Repudiating something only when the time is right for you is the wrong thing, and less than civil.
~~~~~
Nice sentiment. Does it apply to Obama?

Didn’t he reject AND denounce Farrahkan, and his anti-Semitism, only when he was pressed to do so at a debate, in order to avoid a campaign problem?

Wasn’t it he who repudiated his pastor ONLY after the airing of his politically incorrect rants had become a campaign problem?

Do we think he may eventually repudiate Ayers, whose terrorist persona has been resurrected, because his support might become a campaign problem?

Repudiating something only when the time is right . . .
yes, very nice sentiment. But do you ALWAYS believe it?

And how about the converse (inverse? it’s been a while):
Is it ever the ‘right thing’ to – for political expediency - repudiate something that you actually believe is good? Or is that just being human?; April 24, 2008 11:22 PM
vwis said...: Jean,
I stand corrected. I read the map on MSNBC incorrectly. I told you I have had very little sleep in the past 48 hours. I also am not a HRC or BHO supporter. I have no horse in this race. I call them as I see them. If I believed HRC had a FAIR chance I would support her, but the #s don't add up. She is grasping at straws. I understanding her staying in the race in case BHO blows up, yet I wait. They both have their attributes and faults. I really don't look forward to another 4 yrs. of RNC attacking the Clintons. The media wants him to win too, because both of them know they have to be much more careful with BHO he will tell them right out, and has, that he won't answer disrespectful questions. They take liberty with Clintons because they allow it. Also, they don't want to painted as racist and walk a fine line. Its the job of the media to represent the underdog. Not always so any more with Entertainment/News channels.; April 24, 2008 11:25 PM
GatorsChampions4Ever said...: msmwatch 2008. Wow. I think I agree with you........except for the last part. I know what the words means, yet the construction of the sentence has me confused.; April 24, 2008 11:26 PM
Aunt Jean said...: gatorschamptions4ever You are right I do have a tendacy to throw the kitchen sink but I'm trying to do better.When I feel strongly about something. I guess I just get so tired of the trash that is slung at Hillary and I get carried away sometimes.Glad that you are a hillary supporter she is a good woman [not perfect by no means] but a good woman. Jean; April 24, 2008 11:26 PM
ed iglehart said...: MSM,

"Didn’t he reject AND denounce Farrahkan, and his anti-Semitism, only when he was pressed to do so at a debate, in order to avoid a campaign problem?"

Governor Rendell
heaped praise on Farrakan

;-)
ed; April 24, 2008 11:31 PM
Aunt Jean said...: vwis that's fine and I accept your apology. I do understand about not having enough sleep or nosleep for the last 5 days I've had maybe 12 hours. It's been rough. Jean; April 24, 2008 11:31 PM
vwis said...: Jean,
I just want the Democrats to behave democratically the RNC doesn't. I would like to believe that we are working towards that.; April 24, 2008 11:33 PM
Aunt Jean said...: vwis you're right Jean; April 24, 2008 11:37 PM
GatorsChampions4Ever said...: Aunt Jean. You are right. A lot of trash is slung at Senator Clinton. I think a lot of it has to do with President Clinton. What people do not understand is:

The country was in great shape when President Clinton was in office.

A lot of this stuff that President Clinton did(except for that certain intern.) was not involving Senator Clinton and if it was, we'd have to go back and review the circumstances(although that is not what this blog or these campaigns should be about.)

A lot of this negativity towards Senator Clinton comes from the media, who are frustrated Republicans with a candidate that wants to continue the failed policies of President Bush. Throw in guys like Dick Morris and Karl Rove in the print media and it's no wonder the mostly negative press is towards Senator Clinton.

I understand why you throw the ''kitchen sink.'' I just wonder if some of Senator Obama's supporters can see that Senator Clinton is not this evil fiend that she is portrayed to be. It does make for some interesting blogging though, and my favorite blogger on here(i guess you can call her a friend?) is a Obama supporter.; April 24, 2008 11:40 PM
Aunt Jean said...: there is one more thing that I want to say about the caucases you cannot count Texas that would be counting the votes twice. They had the primary and you had to vote in that to do the caucas.Now for the states that had caucases and not a primary fine by all means count them! Jean Go hillary!!!; April 24, 2008 11:42 PM
MSMWatch2008 said...: I know I've been away, but isn't there just a bit of hysteria about 9.288 versus 10 percent, especially since we've all been around long enough to know there will be adjustments. Is a PRECISELY “double digit” win so unbearable/ indispensable?; April 24, 2008 11:44 PM
GatorsChampions4Ever said...: msmwatch2008. It depends. It is decisive in your opinion?; April 24, 2008 11:46 PM
ed iglehart said...: MSM,

9.3 still ain't 10; April 24, 2008 11:47 PM
GatorsChampions4Ever said...: Hmmm. never heard of a glass artist before.; April 24, 2008 11:53 PM
Aunt Jean said...: gatorschamptions4ever, You have a long name it takes 5 minutes for me to type lol [not really just kidding].Yes Presdident was a good president and I think people have forgotten that it makes me sad because I remmember it well. Maybe obama isn't the mean bigot that I think he is but I still don't really like him he has to many things that is coming out about him that needs looking father into. Plus I really don't think that he is ready to take on the job of President. Not until he is known more and in office longer.I'm really not a racist person and I really do have 2 nephews that are black and I don't have a problem with that and they are taught to be proud of who they are.I just have a problem with people voting for obama because he's black and the people know that is true on this site but they try and act like Hillary is this terrible bitch woman and not worth a vote and it's wrong.It's not that she deserves the votes because she is a woman but because she has worked for it.Obama hasn't the media gave him a totally free ride up until after the feb. 12 voting thats why he won all those states.I'm not saying that he wouldn't have won some but I don't believe that he would have won as many plus he wouldn't have won the states as much. His wins by % I mean Jean GO HILLARY!!!; April 24, 2008 11:57 PM
MSMWatch2008 said...: BUT . . .

if you know how to round - to whole numbers - (or if you set your excel to 0 decimal points), then . .
Clinton 54.644% obama 45.356
becomes
Clinton 55% Obama 45%

There is no argument.; April 25, 2008 12:00 AM
MSMWatch2008 said...: GatorsChampions4Ever said...
msmwatch2008. It depends. It is decisive in your opinion?
~~~~

YOU BET!! :-); April 25, 2008 12:03 AM
Aunt Jean said...: Ed iglehart let me explain this one more time you don't do it the way you are doing it thats not the way it works. You take the number of votes and you round it out to the nearest number like this 9.499 = 9 9.51 =10 So Clinton got 54.644% and obama got 45.356% of the votes. So you round the out that make Clinton 55% and obama 45%. you do't do it like you do it and you know you just want to try and spin that Hillary only won less %.The count is at 100% Jean GO HILLARY; April 25, 2008 12:08 AM
GatorsChampions4Ever said...: msmwatch2008. Yes it is decisive to me. More importantly, is it decisive enough to the superdelegates?; April 25, 2008 12:10 AM
Aunt Jean said...: excuse my typos in last two post bad Jean lol. Jean; April 25, 2008 12:11 AM
ed iglehart said...: MSM,

"if you know how to round - to whole numbers - (or if you set your excel to 0 decimal points), then . .
Clinton 54.644% obama 45.356
becomes
Clinton 55% Obama 45%"

A prime example of the dangers of calculators in dysnumerate hands.

;-)
ed

I was taught to use the most significant digits available for all calculations and ONLY ROUND THE FINAL RESULT. I think you'll find that in most mathematics textbooks, but perhaps that's an elite position.; April 25, 2008 12:13 AM
GatorsChampions4Ever said...: I believe it goes like this:

Senator Clinton: 54.644=54.64=54.6=55.

Senator Obama: 45.356=45.36=45.4=45.

That's how you get 55%-45% for Senator Clinton.; April 25, 2008 12:17 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Video MI and FL –
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C08W-jgyLlA&feature=related

Hillary in her own words:
http://tammybruce.com/2007/02/hillary_in_her_own.php

Current lawsuit Paul v. Clinton regarding campaign fraud:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7007109937779036019&q=Hillary+scandal&total=213&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=5

The Clinton Chronicles:
www.video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6470450895164255089
_______________________

PETER PAUL vs. CLINTON

To see COURT FILINGS go to www.lasuperiorcourt.org (Los Angeles Superior Court) and look in the CIVIL Column, then Click on CASE SUMMARIES then enter these numbers in the box BC304174

Future Hearings

04/25/2008 at 08:31 am in department 47 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Further Status Conference

05/13/2008 at 08:37 am in department 47 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
OSC RE: CONTEMPT

_______________________

WOW I wonder who is in contempt???
_______________________

How do the Hillary the supporters explain all of this?; April 25, 2008 12:24 AM
GatorsChampions4Ever said...: leah. How come it was never on the news?; April 25, 2008 12:29 AM
ed iglehart said...: Jean,

"Ed iglehart let me explain this one more time you don't do it the way you are doing it thats not the way it works."

Please don't try and teach me how to suck eggs. I am educated as a scientist, which involves considerable use of numbers. The way you do it is the way which inserts the greatest uncertainty and inaccuracy (error).
http://chemistry.about.com/library/weekly/aa082701a.htm

I know it suits your purpose in wanting to exaggerate HRC's disappointing result, but 9.3 still doesn't make 10, unless you're a very mean tipper.

xx
ed; April 25, 2008 12:33 AM
Aunt Jean said...: Leah why do you keep bring up this carbage Clinton isn't going to get in trouble with this but you keep insisting in bringing up this trash. People keep saying that you are fair well I don't really see this you are sly in what you do and very slick in how you present things. Always spinning the truth get real.You have the nerve to say all the trash that has been coming out about obama and then have the nerve to say it's all lies get real.It's people like you that hurt this country because you know how to play the game! Jean GO HILLARY Jean; April 25, 2008 12:35 AM
Aunt Jean said...: ed iglehart I don't care what you are you are doing it WRONG!!!!!Jean; April 25, 2008 12:37 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: I think that REAL court cases are fair game.

The first time this went to trial the Clintons knew the judge and the case was dismissed. It won't be dismissed this time and when the media grows some balls they will start reporting on it and if not then the republicans will.

Peter Paul actually was on 60 minutes or 20/20 or something like that not too long ago. And the story is getting some airtime on radio. Since the Clintons have friends in high places that control most of the news shows it is pretty clear why FoxNews etc. is keeping it quiet.

Obama doesn't have the same pull with the media that is why the public is bombarded every day with even non issues like 'flag pins'.; April 25, 2008 12:41 AM
Aunt Jean said...: Hey leah you got that from youtube a real good site lol lol Jean; April 25, 2008 12:42 AM
ed iglehart said...: And black is white
and two equals one

xx
ed; April 25, 2008 12:43 AM
Aunt Jean said...: Leah your horns are showing plus your nails.CNN isn't for Hillary they are for obama it's so clear why haven't they said anything [ because it's NO NEWS]Jean; April 25, 2008 12:45 AM
Aunt Jean said...: ed iglehart you must have a very boring life Jean; April 25, 2008 12:46 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Oh my that is funny since everywhere on the internet CNN is constantly being referred to as Clinton News Network - I would be surprised if there was anyone out there that didn't know that.

____________________

People that dish it out post after post and then can't take the heat - should get out of the kitchen ;); April 25, 2008 12:49 AM
Aunt Jean said...: look ed iglehart I'm not trying to insult you I'm just letting you know how they do it. So drop it you think 9.3% or whatever I think and most people do I believe think 10% just leave it at that. Jean; April 25, 2008 12:51 AM
Aunt Jean said...: Leah you don't know me at all it's you that can't take it.I've already proved that.But thanks again for the good laugh lol lol lol. Jean; April 25, 2008 12:53 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: ed-

You are correct.

In the real world 9.3 doesn't equal 10 and it never will :); April 25, 2008 12:53 AM
ed iglehart said...: Jean,

"I think and most people do I believe think 10% "

And nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of "most people"

Yours in elitism
ed; April 25, 2008 12:56 AM
Aunt Jean said...: I could sit here all night long and argue with you about the 10% pa. win but you are not worth my time. Jean; April 25, 2008 12:57 AM
GatorsChampions4Ever said...: Peter Paul sounds like Peter Pan. Anyhow, MSNBC is definitely for Senator Obama, and yet they never mention what leah is talking about.; April 25, 2008 12:57 AM
Aunt Jean said...: no one has every accused me of being elite that is FUNNY lol lol lol lol lol I guess it takes one to know one.r Jean; April 25, 2008 12:59 AM
GatorsChampions4Ever said...: Wow. Ed and leah vs Aunt Jean. I should probably step in to even it out since I am Senator Clinton's 2nd most active blogger(we all know who's 1st.), but I have fellow blogging friends on both sides of the argument, so i'll stay on the sidelines for this one.; April 25, 2008 1:00 AM
Aunt Jean said...: gatorschampions4ever I don't think leah and ed iglehart like me to much I guess I challenge them to much or they are afraid of me. Jean; April 25, 2008 1:03 AM
ed iglehart said...: "I guess I challenge them to much or they are afraid of me. "

None of the above.
;-); April 25, 2008 1:05 AM
Aunt Jean said...: gatorchampions4ever don't worry about it I can hadle these two light weights.Thanks anyway. Jean; April 25, 2008 1:06 AM
GatorsChampions4Ever said...: Aunt Jean. Afraid of you? I highly doubt, unless we all meet in Denver. Maybe it's your ''kitchen sink'' mentality you explained before that gets them riled up. Nevertheless, it's fun to have healthy blog debates amongst newly found blogging friends.; April 25, 2008 1:07 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: It is amazing that the media is harping on Obama's 9.3% loss and they never hardly said much about percentages when Hillary had HUGE margin losses.

Just a few of many:

Georgia
Obama 67%
Clinton 31%

Idaho
Obama 79%
Clinton 17%

Kansas
Obama 74%
Clinton 26%

Louisiana
Obama 57%
Clinton 36%

Illinois
Obama 65%
Clinton 33%

Mississippi
Obama 61%
Clinton 37%

9.3% is tiny compared to Clinton's margin loses.; April 25, 2008 1:10 AM
Aunt Jean said...: Hey gatorchampions4ever do you think I've rubbed leah and ed the wrong way. I really didn't mean to but she shouldn't have brought out that trash on Hillary when she knows that it no news.As for as ed I think he's just pissed off Hillary won by as much as she did.I even told him that I wasn't trying to insult him but I guess you can't talk to some people sometimes I can be like that but I'm willing to say that about myself I doubt that they will.Jean Jean; April 25, 2008 1:13 AM
GatorsChampions4Ever said...: leah. Illinois was Senator Obama's home state. Did anyone actually think that Senator Clinton would come close? Mississippi was Senator Obama's Pennsylvania. Demographically perfect.

As was explained to me, the reason the media made a '' big deal'' about Senator Obama's 9 or 10 point loss in Pennsylvania is because:

It gives the superdelegates pause about his electability.

He had a chance to close the deal.

I found these theories interesting.; April 25, 2008 1:15 AM
Aunt Jean said...: leah yes obama won those states by that margin but take a look at them. Georgia, Louisiana,Illinios,and Mississippi have a BIG black pop. now for Idaho have you ever been there very strange people very I have don't want to go back. Kansas I don't know nothing about so I can't say why they voted for obama there.So whats the point it didn't surprise me. Jean; April 25, 2008 1:19 AM
GatorsChampions4Ever said...: Aunt Jean. You'd have to ask them, but my thoery is this:

The way you post can be portrayed as excitable. What I mean is that when I read the comments on here, I think to myself: ''what would it sound like if it was said to me?'' and as I said, that can be portrayed as excitable. However, while your thoeries aren't wrong, I say a lot of the same stuff to them and never get disparaging remarks. Maybe I sound calmer. Either my theory is forward-thinking or i'm nuts. I'll let you be the judge of that. That's the long version of my answer. In short, yes.; April 25, 2008 1:20 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: But Pennsylvania was never his to win. He was over 26 points behind just a couple of weeks ago and Hillary all of sudden started saying that PA was her family's home state. Obama did just great by narrowing the margin on her and preventing her from getting only 10-11 net delegates.

This race would be over if the media did not keep helping her to delude the the public in thinking that she still has a chance.

What is going to be the next state that she is going to call her home state? She has already declared Arkansas, Chicago (born there), New York, Pennsylvania.....; April 25, 2008 1:23 AM
Aunt Jean said...: leah and I agree with you that he did good to bring down the numbers. I never said he didn't.I am proud that she did win by whatever number ok.Just give her a break. All those states mean something to her and you insult her for it.gatorchampions4ever you are right! Jean; April 25, 2008 1:28 AM
ed iglehart said...: Let's do it another way:
Clinton got 9.288% more than Obama, so (9.288x100)/45.356=20.4779963%

and then we can round that as suggested:

20.4779963=20.477996=20.47700=20.48=20.5=21%

So Clinton got 21% more votes than Obama did in Pennsylvania!

WOW!

But that means Obama's pledged delegate lead of 155 divided by 1336 (HRC's pledged delegates) means Obama leads Clinton by 11.6018%, which, of course is 12% - pretty insurmountable!

Ain't numbers wonderful!

xx
ed; April 25, 2008 1:28 AM
countjellybean said...: if you know how to round - to whole numbers - (or if you set your excel to 0 decimal points), then . .
Clinton 54.644% obama 45.356
becomes
Clinton 55% Obama 45%

Well, that is how the IRS recommends that tax forms be filled out--round all decimals to the nearest dollar, then add and subtract.; April 25, 2008 1:30 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Iowa - she came in THIRD.

Obama 38%
Edwards 30%
Clinton 29%

There aren't a lot of blacks or strange people there.; April 25, 2008 1:31 AM
Aunt Jean said...: yes you are right ed and funny to boot great for obama but I still think Hillary is going to get it done. Jean; April 25, 2008 1:31 AM
GatorsChampions4Ever said...: leah. I don't know much about Pennsylvania elections, but I heard Gov. Rendell say that NO ONE ever wins a Pennsylvania election by 26 points.

It depends what channel you watch. FOX News Channel is definitely for Senator Clinton(except for Sean Hannity, who in my opinion is the worst commentator in the business.), CNN is relatively neutral, but MSNBC is definitely for Senator Obama. It is the media that plays the expectation game with the margin of victory. I think maybe 5% of it is what you said because the media probably thinks Senator McCain is boring.

I thought I heard somewhere that Hawaii was being claimed as a home state for Senator Obama when they voted.; April 25, 2008 1:32 AM
Aunt Jean said...: leah never been to iowa either so don't know. jean; April 25, 2008 1:33 AM
MSMWatch2008 said...: dwit said...

Frankly they never vote democratic in General elections, so how much does it matter?
~~~~~
Yeah, like these in the past 30 years . . .

Alabama
Alaska
Colorado (’92)
Georgia (’92)
Idaho
Kansas
Louisiana (’92 & ’96)
Mississippi
Missouri (’92 & ’96)
Nebraska
North Dakota
South Carolina
Utah
Virginia
Wyoming

He won 26 states, plus DC, no votes, and 15 of them haven’t voted Democrat in at least 30 years (except to vote for Clinton!!)

Oh, Leah . . . your big spread wins (except Illinois) are all there!!

I think you're all weird about the 10% - the supers aren't going to nitpick about rounding, idiotic; they are paying close attention to his loss of steam, the ugly Republican ads in NC, and the "secrets" that just keep coming.

Leah, I know you were having a good time on 6th Street, and you must have missed a lot, but your big Clinton scandals are almost entirely old news, Rove and Gingrich fodder, persecuted by Ken Starr to the ends of the earth, and there was nothing there. You sound just like the Hussein-fear mongerers out there bashing BO.

Maybe you need a little more time with a newspaper, or the New Yorker.; April 25, 2008 1:34 AM
GatorsChampions4Ever said...: msmwatch2008. I take it you are backing Senator Clinton? I agree with everything you said, except the last part. No need to insult leah. Yes, this is an open thread, but we start sounding like the campaigns when we do that. Let's keep it civil.; April 25, 2008 1:37 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Wisconsin
Obama 58%
Clinton 41%

North Dakota
Obama 61%
Clinton 37%

Colorado
Obama 67%
Clinton 32%

My point was - Clinton has lost by huge margins in the past and the media didn't harp on the percentages - I think mainly because there were many elections at the same time and this time there was only a single state to dissect and analyze.; April 25, 2008 1:38 AM
Aunt Jean said...: gatorchampions4ever obama went to high school in hawaii.His grandparents lived there I think I've got the story straight. I know for a fact that he went to school there for sure.Jean; April 25, 2008 1:39 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Gator-

Senator Obama was born in Hawaii.

MSNBC was very pro-Clinton earlier today and this evening.

So now we have CNN (Clinton), FoxNews (McCain/Clinton), and MSNBC split between Clinton and Obama.; April 25, 2008 1:42 AM
ed iglehart said...: CJB, Your Grace,

Aye, but the IRS wantb to tax your income, not your intellect....
xx
ed

$9.29 still doesn't pay off a ten dollar bet.; April 25, 2008 1:42 AM
GatorsChampions4Ever said...: leah. Wisconsin was on the same night as Hawaii. They were the only two states being contested that night. However, it is still your strongest argument of the three you posted.

Senator Obama was expected to do exceptionally well in Colorado and North Dakota. If I remember correctly, wasn't Colorado a primary and North Dakota a caucus?; April 25, 2008 1:43 AM
GatorsChampions4Ever said...: leah. Then Senator Obama has 2 home states now. I rest my case.

Yes, you are right. However, MSNBC is what I watch and throughout most of this process, they have mostly guests for Senator Obama. I think i've seen Claire McCaskill more than anyone else. Notice how MSNBC normally has guests for Senator Obama in the run-up to their coverage on each primary night, whereas Senator Clinton's guests only come on during or after their coverage on primary night ends.; April 25, 2008 1:48 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: MSMWatch2008-

Ken Starr has nothing to do with the PETER PAUL vs. Clinton that is in the California court system currently - next hearing is TOMORROW. I provided the links above for those on the board here that would like to educate themselves :)

And one of those links has Hillary in her own words saying that 'she knows' that Michigan and Florida will not count and should not count. In my opinion that is not that old of news.; April 25, 2008 1:49 AM
Aunt Jean said...: gator this is the list for caucas state. Hawaii, Wyoming, Washington, Nebraska, Minnesota, Alaska, Idaho, Kansas, North Dakota, Colorado, Maine, Nevada and Iowa.Now do you think that something is wrong with caucases. Hillary only won 1 that was nev. Jean; April 25, 2008 1:53 AM
Yamaka said...: "So, if you count caucus participants in addition to the vote in the primary, it's double counting the same individuals.... I know, Texas is weird ;)
BUT, popular vote doesn't count anywhere, for anything, except for delegate allocation."--cbs

Yes, it is double counting. As a Texan I agree the 2-Stip is weird, unnecessary.

IMHO, the popular vote becomes useful, only when the candidates don't reach 2208 pledged delegates by June 3rd. At that time, the SDs need to ask lots of questions like

1. Popular Vote Counts
2. Electability
3. How many major Scandals will have legs during the Fall
4. Who has better name recongition
5. Who has more experience and skill in dealing with Bureaucratic Agencies etc.

And remember, there are about 38 million Left-leaning voters have not participated in the Primary, who will surely come and vote in the GE. This is the majority, since only about 29 millions have voted so far.

In my reading of the polls majority of this 38 million are women and older voters, the group passionately supporting Hillary.

-----------------------------
gator:

Just I am trying to get across my points of view in a satirical format!!

My only hope is some of the SDs who could visit this site DCW might read my posts!!!lol

Thanks for standing up for Hillary.

I am spending lots of time in mobilizing support for our Denver Assault, in case FL and MI votes are not counted.

In my mind, it is atrocious even to think that 3 million voters can be disenfranchised because of the stupid job the DNC/State Officials did.

Cheers.; April 25, 2008 1:55 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Well I posted ten states and he has won 30 contests - and it is a pain in the butt to get the info because you have to click on each state - so that is enough :)

Point is he has had many more states that he won by huge margins than she has.

People can discount some of them for being small states, or red states, or black states, or states with strange people but the fact is they are all part of the United States.; April 25, 2008 1:56 AM
GatorsChampions4Ever said...: Why is it that in the 8 years since this allegedly happened, no one ever brought it out.

To whoever told leah to read the New Yorker(i assume you meant to perhaps learn about Senator Clinton.), I think she'd have to come here to see what Senator Clinton has done for the state.; April 25, 2008 1:57 AM
MSMWatch2008 said...: gators

I apologize that I tend to sound - ummm - maybe a bit of an elitist?? But Leah has been posting the litany of Clinton-bashing nonsense for many weeks, and seems to think it is news.

I would prefer that we not sink to that level, but it persists. I do not respond by posting the litany of Obama-bashing sites and videos; I merely suggest that perhaps too much blog and not enough enlightenment can lead to no good.

Yes, I do support Hillary, would have liked Edwards, am not a racist (hell, I'd vote for Charlie Rangel in a heartbeat); but BO leaves me cold. I do not believe he is the one who can get us out of this quagmire, and he has done nothing to convince me.

On the other hand, Hillary has won me over, and the Hillary-bashing has deepened my resolve - just like her!; April 25, 2008 1:58 AM
Aunt Jean said...: yakama good luck hope they do too. Go Hillary all the way. Jean; April 25, 2008 1:58 AM
Aunt Jean said...: sorry yamaka didn't mean to get your name wrong. jean; April 25, 2008 2:00 AM
Mike in Maryland said...: GatorsChampions4Ever,

Real Clear Politics has just posted a new poll for Indiana. The latest poll from Research 2000 shows that Obama now has a lead of 48-47 in the Hoosier state.

Since you stated that you only look at the one, latest poll, do you now think that Obama's lead in Indiana has shrunk?

The Real Clear Politics average of the latest polls now shows that Clinton has a 45.5% to 44.3% lead in the state. However that is down from the 46% to 43.8% lead she held by the poll average at the beginning of the week.

Another reason you have to look at more than just the latest poll is to see where poll trends are going, among the different polling companies, but also those polls taken by the same company. For instance, in a poll taken 03/31 - 04/02, Research 2000 had Clinton leading 49 to 46. The latest poll by Research 2000 shows support for Clinton down, and Obama's support increasing from their last poll.

As for the final results in Indiana, if any candidate gets out of the state with more than a 6 delegate advantage will take an earthquake event to move the polls to that extent. The final delegate count could easily end up exactly even at 36-36.; April 25, 2008 2:01 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Yamaka -

It looks like you left off of your list the most important factor:

How many pledged-delegates have each candidate won.

Pledged-delegates represent the voice of the people in the Democratic Party.

Candidates strategies are based on going after the delegates - this is what Obama did - this is why he organized in EVERY state in order to rack up the most pledged-delegates. You can not change the rules at the end of the game!; April 25, 2008 2:02 AM
Aunt Jean said...: leah all you have to do to get the info is go to cnn.com then it politics then Obama and Clinton come up your there ok. Jean; April 25, 2008 2:03 AM
GatorsChampions4Ever said...: yamaka. Your welcome. I think I used satirical last night.

www.democratsfordemocracy.org

Go there and you can actually write to the uncommitted superdelegates.

leah. You are right. They all count. However, you are a caucus-goer and I know you'd agree that for various reasons the caucus system does not allow certain voting groups to vote.; April 25, 2008 2:04 AM
Somerled said...: PA was a good win, but I don' think you get that excited about a single win unless it's rare. Hillary had quite a drought, so I can see why this is such a big deal. Obama will win NC by a wider margin than Hillary did PA, but that won't count will it? Obama is gonna add up all those states that don't count into a win. What am I SAYING? Going to? He already HAS. I would concede that suddenly Indiana is a LOT more important now, but here's the clincher. Unfortunately for Hillary the supers aren't morons. They KNOW that the 'repugnantcans' are going after Obama because they WANT Hillary to get the nomination. hey have been planning to beat her for more than eight years and they KNOW they can. They have paid for the best ammunition money can buy and if she were to somehow get nominated, the next day they will start using it. The supers are affording her the respect she DESERVES and letting this thing die a natural death as they SHOULD.; April 25, 2008 2:04 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: MSMWatch2008 -

I am sorry if you have taken offense to my posting of links relevant to current events i.e. the current court case in California that has a hearing set for tomorrow morning - and the link to the video of Clinton explaining MI and FL. I for one do not consider that bashing anyone.

And I unlike others on here have not been constantly bashing, calling people names, or saying bigoted things.

I have been posting about things that I believe to be the truth and everyone has the right to research the facts and try to prove me wrong.; April 25, 2008 2:10 AM
Aunt Jean said...: Leah it's not so much that Hillary thinks that the delegate should but the voters to be counted.She never signed anything for the votes not counting. Jean; April 25, 2008 2:14 AM
Somerled said...: Agreed. But Paul v. Clinton is a parking ticket compared to what has been floating just beneath the surface of the political water for YEARS. The repugnantcans have enough money to build a pretty good net and wait until you see what they've caught.; April 25, 2008 2:15 AM
GatorsChampions4Ever said...: msmwatch2008. I agree with you. I think Leah has the right to her opinion, though. You didn't sound elitist. Frustrated is more like it. Peter asked me for Senator Obama's ''scandals'' in accordance to what I said to him Thursday. I really do not want to post it because it will make me sound like i don't like Senator Obama, but he asked me to, so I will. I heard Elizabeth Edwards will be campaigning for Senator Clinton leading up to the North Carolina primary.

mike in maryland. Do I believe the average which has Senator Clinton winning or the individual poll, which has Senator Obama winning? In any event, the poll proves it was not a good day for Senator Obama.; April 25, 2008 2:15 AM
MSMWatch2008 said...: Leah,
It was a pain in the butt, but I got the info. And I don't remember that he has Texas in his tally, as I don't!!

So that would be 29 contests, but that includes DC and USVI and I do not think they get to vote in the general.

Leah, you are being manipulated with false information. I suggest the New Yorker because they have good in-depth honest journalism (and they seem to prefer BO!!) Paul v. Clinton is bogus; many repected journals have reported it as bogus. Go to factcheck.org and you will find out the truth.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/crooked_claims_about_clinton.html

It's just a shame to have to spend so much time on the crap, it's a common, vulgar word, but it's appropriate.

Doesn't anybody here work???
Good night.; April 25, 2008 2:16 AM
Aunt Jean said...: Leah one more thing yes you and some other one have been bashing also I'm not saying that I haven't but I don't believe that I have tonight. You are the one that got snippy 1st. Jean; April 25, 2008 2:16 AM
dwit said...: I predict a Clinton win in Indi. I've never thought Obama stood much of a chance with those demographics and it is a very conservative state. State hasn't been carried by a dem since LBJ???

Think the map will look very much like this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Indiana,_2004

Just a layman's perspective.; April 25, 2008 2:18 AM
Aunt Jean said...: you cannot count Texas for obama there was a primary and the votes counted you cannot count them twice!!! Jean; April 25, 2008 2:19 AM
Somerled said...: Gator-

Gotta agree. The SurveyUsa number is WAY skewed, but I still think Indiana is a toss-up right now.; April 25, 2008 2:19 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Aunt Jean-

The fact is that she is running to be the DEMOCRATIC nominee and she must play by the party rules.

The only thing that votes count for is proportionating the delegates of each state.

This is a delegate race not a race to rack up popular votes.

We already have a president (BUSH) that does not play by the rules (the U.S. Constitution) and we don't need another person that wants to make up their own rules in the White House!; April 25, 2008 2:20 AM
Somerled said...: Leah-

Well. That's a REAL valid point there.; April 25, 2008 2:23 AM
Aunt Jean said...: Leah that is where I disagree with you. I have heard SD say that the pop. vote was also important. That all I'm saying. Jean; April 25, 2008 2:23 AM
GatorsChampions4Ever said...: leah. I think it's the system that is the problem. It should be winner-take-all in each state. After all, we don't proportionately hand out Electoral College votes, do we?; April 25, 2008 2:25 AM
Aunt Jean said...: leah that is what I'm talking about you saying [ We don't need someone else in the white house making up their own rules] that is rude and bashing Hillary. Jean; April 25, 2008 2:26 AM
Aunt Jean said...: Gater I agree with you totally. Jean; April 25, 2008 2:27 AM
dwit said...: Gator,
I think its the national system that should be changed along with it. 1 person = 1 vote!

Remember the old fellas who started this country were oligarchs. No women voted and slavery was A-okay.; April 25, 2008 2:29 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Aunt Jean - Anything I say you will take the wrong way so just don't read my posts.

Gator - But we have DNC rule now in this race so that is what we have to live with.
Do you have a link to where Elizabeth Edwards said she was going to campaign for Clinton --- because in her last interview she said she was not endorsing anyone yet and she was only going to talk about the things that she liked in Clinton's health-care plan more than in Obama's and she made it clear she was not NOT endorsing.

MSMWatch2008-

On Obama's site he is counting Texas as a win:

Primary
Obama 61
Clinton 65
Caucus
Obama 38
Clinton 29

Total Obama 99 Clinton 94; April 25, 2008 2:33 AM
GatorsChampions4Ever said...: Those ol' oligarchs definitely got it wrong with your last two points.; April 25, 2008 2:34 AM
GatorsChampions4Ever said...: leah. I heard it on MSNBC, but i'll see if I can find a link.

You are right. It is the system we have to live with. It doesn't mean it's correct. Howard Dean hasn't exactly distinugished himself as the DNC chairman.; April 25, 2008 2:38 AM
Somerled said...: Okay... if we hold it up to the light and turn it to the right angle, (like the JFK single-bullet theory) and count Florida- Yep, she's still losing.

The SD's do think popular vote is important and, there again, not being morons, they add weight for the caucuses. The Clinton campaign is in the trees, out of runway before takeoff. They will wait until about June 10th or so for her to concede. After that, they'll just come out for Obama. The math wasn't realistic BEFORE PA. Do you honestly think a 10%, yes 10 :-) made it any better with another contest over and still a LOT of ground to make up?; April 25, 2008 2:40 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Here's what I heard about Edwards on April 9th

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/09/elizabeth-edwards-backs-clintons-health-care-plan-over-obamas/

I would think that if she actually was going to go on the campaign trail for Clinton then it would be headline news and I haven't seen anything about it.

I really don't think that the Edwards' are going on the Clinton train - imo they will either endorse Obama or not endorse at all.

Time will tell....; April 25, 2008 2:45 AM
GatorsChampions4Ever said...: somerled. You may be on point with that theory, but if this goes to the convention, besides my ''who do you think would win a convention fight?'' i have 2 words about the superdelegates:

Gary Hart.; April 25, 2008 2:50 AM
Somerled said...: Two possibilities:

1. Edwards wants to be SURE he bets on the winning horse.

2. He is waiting until JUST before the N.C. elction for maximum 'pop'.

I would think Obama, but one never knows...; April 25, 2008 2:51 AM
Somerled said...: Gator-

The SD's will NOT let this go to the convention. That's bad for everybody.

Gary Hart? You never know, but I think any Donna Rice wannabes would do well to steer clear of Michelle Obama. I don't think that if Barack got a b.j. at his desk she'd be itching to go to work there! Being a WIDOW and all... lol; April 25, 2008 2:55 AM
GatorsChampions4Ever said...: somerled. These superdelegates are unpredictable, so we'll see.

Um..........what?; April 25, 2008 2:58 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Somerled -

Ha ha ha.... and with that I am off to the Super-Delegate Tracker page here on DCW to do some searching. There is a new updated list of leaners posted - so I am off to go look for some quotes.

Nite all.; April 25, 2008 2:59 AM
Somerled said...: Gator-

I thought you were talking about Gary Hart's campaign that was SAILING until the Donna Rice scandal sunk it. Did I miss something?; April 25, 2008 3:00 AM
GatorsChampions4Ever said...: leah. Good night.

somerled. I meant that Gary Hart had the nomination taken away from him by the superdelegates.; April 25, 2008 3:05 AM
Somerled said...: Gator- Okay, read up on it. Affair in '88, SD's voted him down in '84. Didn't know that happened. Sounds like a MUCH tighter race though. (?); April 25, 2008 3:12 AM
GatorsChampions4Ever said...: Well i'm off to get some rest. Happy blogging, everyone!; April 25, 2008 3:14 AM
Aunt Jean said...: Leah they haven't even finished counting the caucas in texas so I don't get the number it doesn't prove anything. Right now all you can count is the primary which Hillary won.They said that they wouldn't be finished with them [the caucas counting]until June.So don't count your chickens before they hatch. Jean; April 25, 2008 3:18 AM
dwit said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; April 25, 2008 3:56 AM
Amot said...: You all know I like numbers! i used Auntie's formula to for calculation of results and I just proved Hillary lost PA by 4%. Auntie, thank you!!!
Let me explain - I took the vote county-by-county, I calculated what percentage of the vote statewide the votes in that county equals to, I rounded it and finally I make the sum of all. Funny or not, it turned out That Hillary won 48% of the vote statewide. Now we calculate Obama 100%-48%=52%. And finaly we calculate the margin of victory 52%-48%=4% victory for Obama. Sure I like the rule that you first round and then apply addition and substraction!

You can see it on my Google sheet:
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pOdSxjxkdgUnR-aQzKmklYw&gid=2; April 25, 2008 4:22 AM
Mike in Maryland said...: GatorsChampions4Ever said:
"Do I believe the average which has Senator Clinton winning or the individual poll, which has Senator Obama winning? In any event, the poll proves it was not a good day for Senator Obama."

?????

Not a good day for Obama? He's apparently gaining on Clinton in Indiana, so the poll does not make it a bad day.

My post was entirely about the polls in Indiana, and asking if you still go with your "I only look at the most recent poll" comment.

The current Research 2000 poll (taken 04/23 - 04/24) shows a 4% switch from Clinton to Obama since their last poll in the state (taken 03/31 - 04/02). The poll you looked at, and commented on, showing a 5% lead for Obama is still up at Real Clear Politics - that was the Downs Center of 04/14 - 04/16. And that Downs Center poll was actually conducted by SurveyUSA. The previous SurveyUSA poll showed Clinton up by 16, 55/39. So the Downs Center poll shows Clinton going from a 16 point lead to a 5 point deficit.

Whatever way you cut it, Clinton's lead is disappearing WHEN you consider the current polling, past polls and the average of the various polls taken over similar periods of time.

One poll does not tell the story, not even a part of the story. Multiple polls, taken over time, and by different organizations (thus different methods), can start to give a good idea of what is happening.

Try to educate yourself of how polls are taken, the meaning of outlier polls, and poll averaging (the how and why they should be averaged). Also educate yourself on why the use of cell phone technology is presenting challenges to polling (hint - polling companies are not allowed to call cell phones, and guess which candidate's supporters are more likely to use a cell phone exclusively?). Maybe during that education process you can discover the most likely reason Gallop thought that Dewey would defeat Truman in 1948, and how that election and experience changed how political polls are conducted.

Mike; April 25, 2008 5:30 AM
dwit said...: Jazzey

Likewise for Obama supporters. You can kiss them goodbye for many generations. To rebuff them could destroy the party along the lines of the Whig dissolution of the 19th century.

I am very familiar with the racially intolerant variety of blue collar liberal of whom you speak. I grew up in a working class neighborhood full of them.

But, I think you are not taking into account the millions of African American voters as well as other people of color who have newly joined the process out of enthusiasm for Mr. Obama.

Also, don't forget the youth who have jumped in. Add a few old schoolers who grew up during the civil rights era and some fiscally conservative independents like myself and you have the White House delivered to the dems.

Obama's rise against all odds has given me new faith that this country is indeed ready. Have faith!; April 25, 2008 6:19 AM
ed iglehart said...: Amot,

Love the numbers!
;-)
ed; April 25, 2008 6:22 AM
ed iglehart said...: Joy for the Clintonistas?

A fickle lot, those Scribblers, little better than vermin, but we all knew that.

xx
ed; April 25, 2008 6:54 AM
Ariane said...: re "the media jump ship from Obama"
The media in this whole election season reminds me of the officials in some sports championship series where I have felt strongly convinced that the referees were making calls for the purpose of prolonging the series and creating more revenue. The media can do this much more easily than sports officials since there are no rules (if there ever were they've been thrown out as news has become infotainment and/or Faux-style propaganda.) It's to their financial advantage to make it look like an exciting close race - therefore bash HRC when she was the presumed nominee because how stale flat and unprofitable for them if she had simply succeeded with her strategy to be done by Super Tuesday -- then bash BHO because how unfortunate for them if it ended just when they were hoping for a battle through the summer.
Of course I believe that battle through the summer= McCain victory, no matter who the Dem nominee should be. And really the media owners would prefer a McCain presidency, not only for the reason that big corporate owners are usually GOP supporters - -but new wars are good for ratings - -

hmmm so actually maybe Hillary's nuclear shield and nuke 'em to smithereens talk are part of the reason for their recent enthusiasm for her.; April 25, 2008 8:56 AM
jpsedona said...: All,

SD's will use their own strategy for choosing who to support, those are the rules. They can choose any rationale (flip of a coin, dart board, you name it).

But since Hillary is using the popular vote argument, and wants all votes counted, then it's fair to incorporate the TX caucus votes.

Since we have some math lovers...

If we are looking at the popular vote in Texas, it would be fair to count the popular vote totals if everyone who voted in the primary participated in the caucuses & the results were the same.

Since Texas allocated 2/3 of the delegates to the primary and 1/3 to caucus, and turnout for those was different, you should normalize the popular vote totals.

In the primary and with respect to the delegates allocated, each vote in the primary was towards 2/3 of the delegates. Similarly, a vote in caucus was toward 1/3 of the delegates.

If you apply this, 2/3 & 1/3 against the popular vote, then the popular vote margin in the primary (101,000) should be reduced by 1/3 yielding Clinton a margin of approx 68,000.

In the caucuses, there were approximately 1,000,000 votes cast with Obama winning 56&-44% for roughly a 120,000 vote margin. This total would need to be reduced by 2/3 to yield 40,000 advantage in the caucus.

Combining the normalized popular vote totals, then Clinton's popular vote margin for both Texas primary & caucus would be about 28,000 instead of the 101,000 from just the primary.

Obviously, the media, the campaigns and pretty much everyone else don't want to have to explain all of this because it's too complicated, only raw estimates from TX caucuses are available, and if it gets down to Hillary leading by popular vote by an extra 70,000 votes, it's still a dead heat in popular vote.; April 25, 2008 10:42 AM
jpsedona said...: Gator,

"It depends what channel you watch. FOX News Channel is definitely for Senator Clinton(except for Sean Hannity, who in my opinion is the worst commentator in the business.)"

Hannity has been the biggest Obama basher on Fox (far more so than Chris Wallace). Hannity jumped on Rev. Wright before the mainstream and also was at the forefront of the ties with Ayers.

If you think he's not for having Clinton as the Dem nominee, you haven't been watching.; April 25, 2008 10:47 AM
jpsedona said...: Aunt Jean,

"Leah it's not so much that Hillary thinks that the delegate should but the voters to be counted.She never signed anything for the votes not counting. Jean"

Hillary did sign a pledge that indicates she would not participate. Counting the results IS participating. It states:

WHEREAS, over a year ago, the Democratic National Committee established a 2008 nominating calendar;
WHEREAS, this calendar honors the racial, ethnic, economic and geographic
diversity of our party and our country;

WHEREAS, the DNC also honored the traditional role of retail politics early in the
nominating process, to ensure that money alone will not determine our
presidential nominee;

WHEREAS, it is the desire of Presidential campaigns, the DNC, the states and
the American people to bring finality, predictability and common sense to the
nominating calendar.

THEREFORE, I _______________, Democratic Candidate for President, pledge
I shall not campaign or participate in any state which schedules a presidential
election primary or caucus before Feb. 5, 2008, except for the states of Iowa,
Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina, as “campaigning” is defined by the
rules and regulations of the DNC. It does not include activities specifically
related to raising campaign resources such as fundraising events or the hiring of
fundraising staff.

Pledge published on The Atlantic; April 25, 2008 10:59 AM
RobH said...: Ed and Amot:

You're mathematical(dis)proofs of Aunt Jean's posture towards 10% vs 9.2% are exquisite.

They are subtle, yet irrefutable.

I have no doubt that Aunt Jean neither a)took the time to review them, or, b)if she did so attempt, I further have now doubt that she, hate to say it, didn't grasp them. Proof: If she did a), or has b) she wouldn't have come back with "I don't care for what math says, I'm just telling you 'what's right.'"

The core here, and a partial flaw in this whole blogging thing, is the imbalance between talking and listening. Generally (IMO), people use this media to state positions, but not so much to listen to those with alternate views.

Again, if we all have the same opinion, then I can't learn anything in my discourse with you. If we all have different opinions, and I listen well, then I learn something in my discourse with you.

In that context, I am offended - but only mildly - by Aunt Jean's position that "My truth is the only truth, I have no use for listening to your reasoned alternate view, my version is the only one that can right." "And my fingers are in my ears."; April 25, 2008 10:59 AM
GatorsChampions4Ever said...: mike in maryland. I don't need an education in polling. I also did not like your tone, young man(haha). Look, all i'm saying is that it's inconsequential to look at polls from almost two weeks ago when the dynamic of the race is different. Pre-Pennsylvania polls are not the same as post-Pennsylvania polls. To say they are is a factual error. Senator Clinton gets a ''bump''(hopefully you know what that means) in the latest poll after Pennsylvania. The same thing happened for Senator Obama after his wins. It's not that I don't know what all this stuff means, it's that after you have a significant primary, polls are sure to change. THAT was my point.; April 25, 2008 10:59 AM
GatorsChampions4Ever said...: jpsedona. I've seen some of Hannity, and although I am not a watcher of his show regularly, whenever I turn it on, he was disparaging to Senator Clinton. I am not a regular FOX News Channel watcher, but I do not see much of Chris Wallace when I do put it on.; April 25, 2008 11:08 AM
RobH said...: Ariane,

"The media in this whole election season reminds me of the officials in some sports championship series where I have felt strongly convinced that the referees were making calls for the purpose of prolonging the series."

I couldn't agree with you more, nor said it better myself. I have had this same, very unsettling feeling, very strongly lately. I used to be a devotee of Chris Matthews, but lately I'm questioning his motives. Everyone has a right to adjust their opinions, and I don't begrudge him his, but his change in posture seems to lack genuineness (IMO). He looks like he's doin' it to keep the horserace going. I think that underlies the basic MSM posture that "measurements be damned, it's closer than you think it is." And "oh those silly Clinton's, they just don't know how to lose."

And to be fair, I wondered about their motivations back in Jan/Feb, when she was the annointed one. Did they "go in the tank" for him for genuine reasons, or because it would create a "show"?; April 25, 2008 11:08 AM
jpsedona said...: Gator,

As I indicated to you in a post on Weds, the Research 2000 polls as well as ARG, PPP, Survey USA, & Cook polls all tend to be outliers.

Given the perceived closeness in IN, some reliable polling should be coming soon. I think that it's roughly even in IN. If there's a favorite, it's one way or the other, it's all within the margin of error.; April 25, 2008 11:09 AM
ed iglehart said...: JP,

Bump!

xx
ed

RobH, Was that a picture of you on Obama's flikr site?; April 25, 2008 11:14 AM
jpsedona said...: Gator,

Chris Wallace does a program on Fox on Sunday Mornings. He's received some acclaim for having a standing request to Obama to come one the program for the last 2+ years. Obama's refused to do that, any Wallace keeps a counter with the number of days since he first made the request.

Hannity has been Obama bashing with vigor since the Tx & OH primaries. His exchange with Clinton campaign manager Terry Mcauliffe the other night was very firendly. Obviously, Hannity is no fan of Hillary's. But Hannity has been beating the Wright, Ayers & SF speech to death every program.; April 25, 2008 11:18 AM
jpsedona said...: Jean,

Yes, I am sure you're a bitter, vulgar Clinton supporter. Soon to be more bitter and more disappointed.

As far as "you say that you get on this blog for decent conversation". Did I ever say anything like that? I don't think so. Why are you here? The sheets at the laundry for tonights cross burning?; April 25, 2008 11:28 AM
jpsedona said...: Ed,

yup, pretty much a dead heat.

"Officials in both camps agree: The race is a toss-up that will remain hotly competitive"

Indy Star Poll Story; April 25, 2008 11:32 AM
countjellybean said...: Obama will be a guest on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace this weekend.

As you all can tell from my posts, I listen to Rush Limbaugh on a semi-regular basis. I find him to be the only conservative pundit who holds my attention for any length of time. All the others are derivative and shallow, and Hannity is the worst of them all. Wallace, as the son of Mike Wallace, is a pretty good guy. He always has a smile on his face, said smile being the "smirk" that send Bill Clinton over the edge a couple years ago.

On the scandal issue, I agree that all of the Hillary Clinton scandals are old news, and there have been no new ones since she became a senator. So there's that in her favor.

jean said:
jpsedona and ed iglehart both of you are sick in your fu-king minds. you say that you get on this blog for decent conversation. That is suck BS. You jp want to count the caucases that voted in a primary you cannot count the votes twice dumbass. You ed you have the never to say that Clinton isn't much better than vermin. Well let me tell you something you low class asshole better for Clinton than some damn black SOB that could care less for this country that we live in. You people are the lowest form of trash that I've ever seen in my life.the word moron doesn't even come close to the word to describe you. You insult the black people with your racist remark yes you heard me right because there are plenty of people that have black skin that are just that good human being. then there is trash like obama and people like you.most people are uneducated black people, want to be's, and then you have people like you two that are more than complete morons.There is nothing wrong with supporting your choise it's the trash that comes out of your mouth. All obama supporters know how to do is to try and tear down some and destroy.That is why obama will never be president maybe Clinton won't but if not her McCain.Young people very seldom make wise decisions most [not all] are to busy partying they have no idea what it's like to go out there and raise a family and to get the basic needs and pay for themselves. Most still get money from mom and dad. So stop with all the BS and get a frigging life.The worst part about is they[obama supporters] are so use to cutting people up and spitting them out that they don't even realize thar they do it. NOW THAT IS SAD!! Jean

No comment. I just wanted to make sure this doesn't get deleted.; April 25, 2008 11:33 AM
GatorsChampions4Ever said...: Aunt Jean. Calm down. What you are saying does no one any good.

jpsedona. As far as the polls you mentioned, ok then, but SurveyUSA showed a 10.1 point lead for Senator Clinton in the Ohio primary and she won by.......10 points.

Did Chris Wallace have any problems with Senator Obama before his refusal to come on his show? I have never his show, though. I find that counter you mention humorous, but maybe it's not so bad if he got acclaim for a standing request to Senator Obama.

We all know the Republicans' motives(even I know Hannity is a Republican.), although I think it will backfire if Senator Clinton is the nominee. Maybe Alan Colmes(who seems muchv fairer to me.) should put Hannity in his place.; April 25, 2008 11:33 AM
Aunt Jean said...: gator I'm sorry but when they said that clinton supporter are not much better than vermins and they keep saying that all the media is backing Clinton when you know yourself isn't true. Also that all caucas even Texas should count it just totally pisses me off.I don't know how old you are but you know what I said about young people is true I'm not saying that all of them are like that just most I have too many and know to many in my family that is exactly like what I said. Jean; April 25, 2008 11:39 AM
jpsedona said...: Gator,

With respect to Wallace & Obama, I think it came down to someone running for President who refused to show-up on Fox's equivalent to CNN, CBS, NBC & ABC.

As far as Colmes is concerned, he does seem like a decent guy. Unfortunatley, his more reserved nature does not balance Hannity's boisterous approach. There's no doubt he's a second fiddle.; April 25, 2008 11:54 AM
GatorsChampions4Ever said...: Aunt Jean. I understand how you feel, but sometimes some things are best left unsaid.

I won't give my age out, but I will say this. Those young people you talk about.........i'm one of them.; April 25, 2008 11:54 AM
countjellybean said...: Btw, I agree with jpsedona's formula for adding the Texas vote to the national vote total, inasmuch as it matches the way the delegates were chosen.

Now if they can find the lost vote totals from those four states.; April 25, 2008 11:55 AM
Aunt Jean said...: jpsedona you are one sick human being. You are wrong about me being bitter I have no reason to be.I just don't like morons like you that think and thats a big work think they know everything. I've never claimed to know everything but right is right.You on the other side think once again think that they are so right but all you are is a self righteous. Someone can't say who said that I was an elite well you had better look in a mirror because obama supporter fit the bill a whole lot better. Jean; April 25, 2008 11:57 AM
GatorsChampions4Ever said...: jpsedona. The polar opposites that are Hannity & Colmes is why they are probably on the same show. Would people watch if two guys were yelling at them, or if two guys were laid-back and reserved? Probably not. That expalins it. I wonder if they are friends though. Hmmm.; April 25, 2008 11:58 AM
Yamaka said...: Good Morning Dear Democrats.

Another cloudy day in Houston.

Some more Conversations with Sen BHO Jr.:

--Hello, Senator, Good Morning, Sir.

- Hi Yamaka, What's up, my man?

- Nothing much, Sir. Except what's going to happen in NC, the State you MUST carry big next month. Your pastor is talking, and he seems to be bit mad at you!

- Oh,, well, don't worry about it. I will win NC just because I am spending tons, tons and tons of money on Ads and on Street Money, etc. You see, I am the King, I have all the money in the world, all anti-Bill Clinton money, not that I earned that much money! My "Children" stupid, naive and ignorant Children believe all the money I receive is FOR Obama!!

--Senator, don't you see the danger brewing in the Bermuda Triangle? What if pastor Wright repudiates you and tears open your facade: that you are NOT a man of Black American Heritage, but a Carpetbagger - a person of Kenyan Heritage, implying to the Blacks in NC and elsewhere not to vote for you!! All the holy waters of Ganges, Nile and MS cannot wash away your sins of Double Talk! Did you think about it?

- Well, Yama, you are now going on to some pretty dangerous things! Yes, I agree pastor Wright can derail my Nomination! I am pathetically in a no-win situation. If I say I am an enemy of Wright, I am screwed, and I don't say anything then again I am hit in my soft under belly!!! Oh, God..Have some mercy on me!

Yama, there is another thing in NC; John McCain is supporting me by repudiating the NC RNC! Walla..Walla what a strange bed-fellows in politics! Why does McCain support me there indirectly? I don't have any clue! Do you know the inside story on this, Yama, the God of Death?

--Well, Senator. I think McCain is very dangerous. By repudiating the RNC he wants to be a Good Guy, but that infuriates the surrogates immensely in NC and in the country as a whole, so much so the Wright issue is given much more attention than otherwise. Don't take McCain lightly! He keeps the racial issues in the front-burner! Beware of this. Again, coming back to your experience and administrative skills. You told us in one of the Debates, you hate to deal with Bureaucracies and Agencies in DC. I f, so Sir, then why do you want to become the CEO of US Govt?

--Well, Yama. I want to be a policy wonk like the Clintons are. The difference is they are good in BOTH policy AND in reigning in on the Bureaucracies, the 800 lb gorillas in the DC. I don't want to do that. It is a new paradigm!

Just do half the job, and then hope for the best. The careerists in DC will take care of the real work! You see, I peddle HOPE in a positive way!!! Ha...HaHa...Hiii. If I reign in on the Bureaucracies, then I will become a bad guy. You see what happens to Bill Clinton? In order to provide 22 million jobs and 3.75% growth in economy and a strong dollar, he has to kick butts and get into the wrath of millions of people - FAR LEFT-, who are NOW my campaign supporters, and the BigMoneyBags! Yama, this I don't want to do. I want to be kind to these good folks.

In the cruel event of my being Nominated/Elected, the American people will be royally screwed because I will take care of my BigMoneyBags, and leave America in the path of Africa!!!! Ha... Ha. That is my new HOPE and Paradigm.

I will talk about problems accrued over several generations. But then, I don't have any skill or experience on what to do about it!!! That is the irony and the pathos. Just talk the talk. Don't worry about walk the talk!!! I am a fuzzy talker with a messy character, judgment and credibility. In my short 46 years, I have done incredibly stupid things! But still I am leading in the pledged delegates by 12 and I am losing 122,000 popular votes, if FL and MI are included, and they should be included. Well, Yama, I got to run to some yapping with David Axelrod, the most unscrupulous fellow in all the known human and under worlds! Bye....Insha Allah,, we will meet again.

-Very well, Senator! Bye Bye. Good day, Sir.
--------------------------------

Oh well, another day another Conversation with the Skinny Guy with the Funny Name, BHO Jr.

Cheers. :-); April 25, 2008 11:58 AM
RobH said...: Ed,

No that was not a picture of me.
Wendell Berry would be proud of your digital expertise.

That gentleman is signficantly (by looks anyway) older than me.

I know nothing of flikr. I guess I'll have to check it out and see how it works.; April 25, 2008 11:59 AM
RobH said...: Ed:

PS, I almost thought that was a picture of Berry, and that you were jazzing me. That pic looks sorta like his pic on wikipedia.; April 25, 2008 11:59 AM
Aunt Jean said...: gator if you read my post I said most not all.You fit the other part. you should be proud. Jean; April 25, 2008 12:00 PM
Aunt Jean said...: gator if you read my post I said most not all.You fit the other part. you should be proud. Jean; April 25, 2008 12:01 PM
jpsedona said...: Jean,

"gator I'm sorry but when they said that clinton supporter are not much better than vermins and they keep saying that all the media is backing Clinton when you know yourself isn't true."

Two points...

1) For the record, I believe that Fox is in the bag for Hillary. MSNBC is in the bag for Obama. ABC's debate last week seemed pro-Hillary, but the majority of the other debates seemed pro-Obama.

2) With respect to relating Clinton supporters to vermin, the only person that has received any personal criticism is Yamaka. He has proven to be dishonest in many of his "fact" related postings.; April 25, 2008 12:03 PM
jpsedona said...: Jean,

"jpsedona you are one sick human being. You are wrong about me being bitter I have no reason to be.I just don't like morons like you that think and thats a big work think they know everything. I've never claimed to know everything but right is right.You on the other side think once again think that they are so right but all you are is a self righteous. Someone can't say who said that I was an elite well you had better look in a mirror because obama supporter fit the bill a whole lot better. Jean "

1) Why do you think I'm an Obama supporter? I just like the horse race and prefer facts and speculation.
2) I do not like Hillary. She reminds me of Richard Nixon.
3) I've never claimed anyone of being elite.; April 25, 2008 12:11 PM
Aunt Jean said...: jpsedona I never said that you called me elite. I said that an obama supporter called me an elite.I was referring to the fact that people or some people want to count Texas votes twice. Jean; April 25, 2008 12:21 PM
GatorsChampions4Ever said...: Aunt Jean. Thank you.

jpsedona. Senator Clinton is like Richard Nixon? A little harsh, perhaps?; April 25, 2008 12:32 PM
Amot said...: jpsedona - I like your TX math, I was actually thinking of the same formula. But... that would be true for two independent contests! TX caucus voters are subgroup of TX primary voters, you can think of them as tier II voters. Unfortunately that makes your formula unacceptable! More the point primaries are better representation of the democratic process so I believe we should only count TX primary toward the total popular vote. If there was no requirement to vote in the primary before caucusing I would support you 100%.

I am glad you all liked my PA math :)))
By 'all' I mean Auntie too - she didn't protest it and in her case that means a lot!; April 25, 2008 12:35 PM
Yamaka said...: Why some people hate Hillary's guts?

IMHO

1. They are largely anti-Women Crowd. They cannot stand a woman coming up the ladder. This insecure mostly men believe in their hearts that women are their competition trying to snatch their jobs and their lunches! Women are more disciplined and hard working. Women want to break open the Glass Ceiling erected on them by these insecure men for the past 50,000 years!

BHO wants to erect a concrete block over the Glass Ceiling in the event they break the Glass! He does NOT care about the dreams and hopes of his Malia and Sasha!!

2. They are FAR LEFT Liberals. Clintons are ideologically moderates and centrists. The FAR LEFT have been left in the cold for the past 30 years, since Carter. Now by joining hands with Blacks and the anti-Women Crowd these losers want to get back to the WH.

It is NOT going to happen. Because most of the American electorate is in the middle, and most women and older White men are passionately supporting Hillary. Many of these people have NOT spoken in the Primary/Caucus. But they will in the GE.
_______________________________-
Some of our elitists here have the audacity to call others dishonest because they have a different point of view, and don't belong to the Echo Chamber or Choir!!

Grow up, Kids.

The world should have 100 different points of view to succeed!

:)- :)-; April 25, 2008 12:35 PM
jpsedona said...: Jean,

Ok, TX votes shouldn't count twice.

Would you agree that the popular vote is a reflection of the delegates that are selected in a state?

Would you agree that votes in caucus only states should be included into popular vote totals used by either campaign?

Would you agree that primary only states, the popular vote reflects 100% of the pledged delegates selected?

Would you agree that in a caucus only state, the popular vote reflects 100% of the pledged delegates that will be selected?

In TX, if only 2/3 of the delegates are awarded by the primary, how can this be the complete popular vote when another 1/3 of the delegates are also selected by some of these same voters?

Using only the popular votes from the primary for 2/3 of the delegates leaves 1/3 of the delegates not represented by the popular vote toals in Texas.; April 25, 2008 12:37 PM
ed iglehart said...: Rob,

"Wendell Berry would be proud of your digital expertise."

Would he?

The picture is of one BobH, so I couldn't ignore the possibility. It came from here.

Your Grace, CJB,

I agree. It's a classic.

Jean,

Never look down on anybody unless you are helping him up.
- Jesse Jackson; April 25, 2008 12:38 PM
Aunt Jean said...: gator what people don't understand is I don't care who they support. It's just that most people get so ugly even myself because I get so tired of it. Fine if you want [and I'm not saying you] to support obama that is your right just don't bash my choise. I don't keep bashing obama bringing up wright renzko [I think that how you spell it] or axelrod. Even though I believe it.All they do is bring up crap that happened years ago [that is no news] and about the sniper fire and grind it in the dirt. IT GETS OLD. Jean; April 25, 2008 12:44 PM
jpsedona said...: Gator,

I'm sorry if you're offended, but Hillary does remind me of Nixon. has demonstrated her suspicious nature, secretive, lack of affinity for the truth and inclination to cover up politically damaging information.

Try some Hillary google searches using Hillary and: secretive; enemy lists; private investigator; secret police.

If you want an interesting book, try "Hillary's Secret War: The Clinton Conspiracy to Muzzle Internet Journalists". You can probably find it on Amazon.

If you ever saw the movie Primary Colors, it was fictional, but there are some threads of truth in the storyline.; April 25, 2008 12:52 PM
Aunt Jean said...: this is for Ed Iglehart I try my best not to judge and look down on people but I am only human and can take only so much. Now for jpsedona Yes & no if they have a primary and voted which they have to in order to vote in the caucas no they should not be counted. Yes in caucas only states. Yes Yes In Texas once again they have already voted. Jean; April 25, 2008 12:55 PM
GatorsChampions4Ever said...: Aunt Jean. It is old news with Senator Clinton. I think it is brought up because of President Clinton. I have always gotten the sense people are worried if President(Bill) Clinton is back in the White House. Overall, I don't have a problem with Obama supporters(my friend, yes friend leah is an Obama supporter.) They are passionate because it reflects the personality of their candidate. The only point I wish Senator Obama's supporters would admit is that the country was in great shape with President Clinton at the helm.

yamaka. Your posts are brilliant, but I wonder, with a mind as creative as yours, why waste it on blogging?

I think the whole Texas process is confusing. What was the point of having a caucus on top a primary? They are the only state that does this. It makes no sense.; April 25, 2008 1:00 PM
ed iglehart said...: McGovern speaks, and we should take heed:

""After I had the nomination won and everything except the crowning at the convention, the other candidates that I had defeated in the primaries and the caucuses ganged up on me and spent the next month just bad mouthing me around the country," he said. "And, of course the Nixon people used some of the quotes and threw them back at me in the general election."

It is in this regard -- not necessarily his general election defeat -- that McGovern worries history could end up repeating itself. Noting that Obama seems poised to be the eventually nominee, though believing Sen. Hillary Clinton should stay in the race, he called for a more civil discourse between the two candidates.

"That is the one minus," he said. "I think there has been a little too much negative backbiting. And that is the one negative that concerns me because it is what happened to me in '72... I had to go into that convention exhausted, instead of spending the last few months carefully and systematically picking a running mate and getting my convention organized. We can't have that again."

This, however, is not the only similarity McGovern draws between his run for the White House and the current process. In '72, after he won the California primary and clinched the nomination, McGovern's Democratic opponents argued that the delegation should have been rewarded on a proportional basis, rather than winner-take-all. It was, McGovern says, a changing of the rules in mid-game that resulted both in the weakening of his campaign and his limping into the convention. Thirty-six years later, he sees parallels with the Clinton campaign's push to count the results of the non-DNC-sanctioned Florida and Michigan primaries.

"We can't overturn those rules now that the counting is over," he said. "I think Barack didn't even enter one contest [Michigan]. Those states knew what the rules were, all the candidates knew what the rules were, and to change it now I think is wrong."

Well said, that man! I'll second that!

xx
ed; April 25, 2008 1:01 PM
GatorsChampions4Ever said...: jpsedona. I have never seen Primary Colors. I don't pretend to think Senator Clinton has not had her share of major issues, but can't we let the past go? I forgot who posted it, but someone earlier today said Senator Clinton has not had any new scandals since she came into the Senate. Shouldn't that be good enough? It's about her policies and achieving results. In her 8 years as Senator, New York is far better off than it was before she took office there. I've seen it firsthand.; April 25, 2008 1:06 PM
RobH said...: Ed:

I didn't even bother to click on the "Would he?" link in you post.

Ee gads, man, I wuz bein' sarcahstic. (That was delivered w/ a Scottish brogue. My first wife was a native Loch Gelly, near Dunfermline outside of Edinbrough. My abilities w/ imitating the accent are legendary.)

Do I ahf ta put a lol after e'ery bi' o sarcahsm??; April 25, 2008 1:06 PM
Aunt Jean said...: ed once againI understand where you are coming from but I still diagree with you. Cinton is not wanting so much to count the deletes she is wanting to count the votes and you cannot go to the convention and not include the votes in Florida and Michigan that would be unamerican to me. There is 50 states and everybody has the american right to have their vote counted. Jean; April 25, 2008 1:13 PM
GatorsChampions4Ever said...: Ed. Just curious. Why do you put xx before your name? And how is the Scottish media covering this?; April 25, 2008 1:13 PM
Aunt Jean said...: You know you guys I've seen first hand what injustice does first hand. Believe me it is very hurtful and can have lasting ramifications in peoples lives. I guess when they themselves have been though some terrible things they look at thing differently.Yes they may have bitterness that influences their way of thinking but they know first havd what it can do to someone. But they also want to be proven wrong that somehow that they are wrong about someone or something that there is hope and love is still a major factor in the things people do in this world. They just don't take it for granted like they do when you are younger. Jean; April 25, 2008 1:26 PM
ed iglehart said...: Gator,

xx is an affectation, usually meaning "kiss kiss" (without sarcasm), and a whole lot shorter than:

Salaam/Shalom/Shanthi/Dorood/Peace
Namaste -ed

Scotland has it's own political interests, and truthfully has little interest in the USA shenanigans. Many folk complain that there's far too much coverage of American politics on the BBC.

We have at the moment one of my ideal situations, a "minority" government, where the largest party (Scottish Nationalists) hasn't got a majority, and thus must get at least two other parties' cooperation to pass any legislation. Folk argued that this would mean less legislation getting through, and my response is "That's no bad thing, after decades of ill-considered stuff passed by majorities!"

Of course, here (and in the larger UK) the executive ("government") is made up from the elected legislators from the "majority" party, which may well have gotten a minority of the popular vote, and in fact usually has - the present Labour UK government got slightly more than one third of the popular vote. That hasn't stopped them from passing some outlandishly partisan rubbish.

Some thoughts on the nature of Political parties and their shortcomings.

I am of no party, but support the idea of Scottish independence and have considerable cordial contact with the Nationalist Party. My local member of the Scottish Parliament is a unionist conservative, but he has cast off party affiliation due to being chosen as Presiding Officer. He is an excellent man for the job and a personal friend....

I look forward to the times when such a thing as a single-party "majority" will be inconceivable, and no 'government' can pass anything without assembling a temporary coalition.

It reminds me of the Eisenhower years, when nothing could be done by the executive without the consent/connivance of the Senate Majority Leader, one LBJ

Eisenhower was a Very wise man

xx
ed; April 25, 2008 1:44 PM
Yamaka said...: "I think Barack didn't even enter one contest [Michigan]. Those states knew what the rules were, all the candidates knew what the rules were, and to change it now I think is wrong."

My opinion on this is BAR'ack removed his name voluntarily from MI, (but left it in FL, again voluntarily). He did NOT want the MI votes early on, as a way of pandering to the "Early States". This was his right, too. Then, why whine now?

States have the right to run their Primary/Caucus. People have the right to obey the State law and go to the polls. When the rights of various factions collide, a superior doctrine in Democracy trumps every thing else, that is "Count ALL Votes, and Seat ALL delegates", if you believe in Full Inclusive Democracy.

Of course, a Party can ignore this doctrine. Actions have full consequences, though. The Democratic Party will lose both WH and the Congress, if the basic doctrine of Democracy is willfully violated. Ask Howie Dean. He is shaking, shivering and sweating on his shoes!

Will he stand up and solve the mess he created?

Dozens of Rules are discarded every day when they don't make sense any longer in a relevant environment. "Date Rule" of DNC fits the bill. Plus it was implemented very poorly: Officials botched it, and the peoples of FL and MI are asked to pay the price! This is injustice to the core.

That's why we are organizing the Denver Assault. The Democratic Party Convention will be destroyed, if the Party clings to its mantra of disenfranchising 3 million votes. Shame on Howi Dean and the Members of Rules and Credential Committee.

The Magic Number is 2208 delegates, not the partial 2025!

________________________________

gator:

Thanks for the kind words.

Well, as you know blogging is a useful venue to communicate with a faction of the Society however small it is. It is also the new pastime in our technological world!

And, it is also the grass-root tool to information even before the MSM hooks on to any event/scandal/episode etc.

Keep blogging!

Cheers. :-) :-); April 25, 2008 2:18 PM
jpsedona said...: Economy,

This is actually a good idea, especially if the participation is limited to only undecided SD's to avoid the softball questions.

I wonder whether the majority of the questions they would offer would be associated with:

1) politics (why a SD should give them there vote, pop vote vs. pledged delegates, MI/FL, VP selection, cabinet makeup, the GE, etc.)
2) The most important policy questions to the Dem electorate; April 25, 2008 2:25 PM
jpsedona said...: Yamaka,

If I were betting at this point, I would say that the final resolution will be 1/2 vote for each pledged delegate & SD in FL & MI. I think the FL results will stand. I think that the MI results will split the pledged delegates for Clinton 55%-45%.

All the votes will count, but their representation at the convention will vary. As I've said before, I think this agreement won't come into place until one concedes.; April 25, 2008 2:32 PM
jpsedona said...: Here's an interesting piece of news just out:

MAJOR CLINTON FUNDRAISER DEFECTS TO OBAMA

The gist of this article is that Guerra-Mondragon, a major Hispanic supporter of Clinton, was upset about the impact of Clinton's campaign on the GE.

Guerra-Mondragon was an ambasador appointed by Bill Clinton. He has strong political ties to Puerto Rico. His switch will help Obama in PR primary; I doubt that he can deliver it for Obama, but it's the type of support that helps.

Additionally, this could impact some of the remaining Hispanic SD's that haven't committed.; April 25, 2008 2:45 PM
RobH said...: jp,

I know what I'm gonna say here is nutty, but I wish they'd just re-vote MI at this point, to resolve the "unfairness" of his name on the ballot.

Also, it's self serving because he'd win outright and we could just end all this nonsense.

Check out http://www.electoral-vote.com/ and hover over MI. They have Obama beats McCain 43:41, McCain beats Clinton 46:37 (an 11 pt swing.)

Check out http://www.pollster.com/08-MI-Pres-GE-MvO.php and http://www.pollster.com/08-MI-Pres-GE-MvO.php (Pollster.com) They've got Obama beats McCain 42.5:41.2and McCain beats Clinton 45.7:40.5.
(a 6.5 pt spread.)

Never happen, but at least I can dream.....; April 25, 2008 2:49 PM
jpsedona said...: Rob,

Obama played his hand when he didn't agree to a revote last month. Based on GE polling in MI, I think that at worse, it would have been no worse than 15%, but more realistically closer to a toss-up.

The DNC at this point would not support a re-do. If it takes 90 days to set-up as previously reported, then we'd be looking at a Aug 1 date. Additionally, the rules would have to be modified to allow a contest after the June date. The DNC wants a nominee in June, so although I agree that it would resolve the issue, unfortunately it's not going to happen.; April 25, 2008 2:59 PM
Unknown said...: yamaka:

"It's clear this election they're having is not going to count for anything."

--Hillary Clinton, when asked about the Michigan primary, NHPR, 10/11/2007; April 25, 2008 2:59 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: What a few people on this thread are forgetting is that DNC rules are the only rules that count in this nomination process - this is not the General Election.

1) Every 'democrat' in every state will have the opportunity to cast a vote. That does not mean that the DNC is obligated to recognize each and every vote if the vote does not meet the requirements of the DNC rules.

2) Florida and Michigan broke the rules and under the rules the DNC has the power to enforce the predetermined penalty.

3) I do not hear anyone coming to the defense of the people in Texas that voted but because of the total number of votes in a particular precinct for their candidate of choice did not reach the 15% minimum required they were not applied to the proportionality of the delegate. Those votes were dismissed and excluded under the DNC rules.

The DNC nomination process is not based on 'votes' it is based on DELEGATES. You might not like the DNC process but those are the rules that we are playing by and those are the rules that the candidates knew about and agreed to before this process began. Also, those rules are the rules that the candidates based their STRATEGIES. If the strategies had been based on 'total popular votes' then their strategies would have been different.

In any game there are winners and losers - and it is a much prettier sight when people lose gracefully.

The world is watching!; April 25, 2008 3:09 PM
jpsedona said...: All,

Here's a really good article from Politico this morning on how superdelegates 'may' be thinking:

Dems suspense may be unnecessary; April 25, 2008 3:19 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Yamaka said: My opinion on this is BAR'ack removed his name voluntarily from MI, (but left it in FL, again voluntarily). ..."
__________

No that is incorrect.
Obama DID NOT leave his name on the ballot in Florida 'voluntarily'. Florida has a law what says that a presidential candidate cannot remove their name from a ballot unless the candidate is withdrawing from the entire race 'nationally'. Obama and Edwards would have removed their names if it had been allowed under the law.
____

Video MI and FL –
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C08W-jgyLlA&feature=related

Anyone that watches that video and hears what Hillary says in her own words should admit that she agreed and now she is flip-flopping.; April 25, 2008 3:22 PM
Amot said...: Jps, you made my day! With Mondragon I think he can lose PR single digit and hopefully even win there! One thing I realised in latest polls - she doesn't have commanding lead with Hispanic any more!!! The big joke will be if she needs to count PR toward the popular vote in order to claim win - she insist only important states matter, and PR has ZERO importance; April 25, 2008 3:35 PM
GatorsChampions4Ever said...: good afternoon leah. Here is a link I found on the Elizabeth Edwards story. It's not much, but it's what I could find.

http://bigheaddc.com/2008/04/22/rumor-elizabeth-edwards-may-endorse-hillary-clinton/; April 25, 2008 3:41 PM
GatorsChampions4Ever said...: ed. Thank you for clarifying that. Good stuff going on in Scotland.; April 25, 2008 3:47 PM
jpsedona said...: Amot,

Good observations about PR. Mondragon in combination with Vila might change the balance there. What would seal the deal is if McClintock were to jump ship. His support for Hillary is based greatly on her support for self determination / status. He comes to DCW frequently. There was an article / interview with him on DCW earlier this month.; April 25, 2008 3:51 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: jpsedona - do you have a link for the fundraiser defection article?

Gator - thanks for the Edwards link. Since it says 'rumor' and 'may' and it looks like it came from a campaign strategist, then I think we'll just have to wait and see. I think if/when Elizabeth endorses anyone it will be headline news all over the net :); April 25, 2008 3:54 PM
jpsedona said...: Leah,

The link is to a story on MSNBC FirstRead:

BIG HRC FUNDRAISER DEFECTS TO OBAMA; April 25, 2008 4:03 PM
GatorsChampions4Ever said...: The latest Gallup National Tracking Poll has Senator Obama leading Senator Clinton 48%-47%. Interesting.

I find it offensive that Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Howard Dean are thinking of sending the superdelegates to endorse a candidate now. We always talk about not changing the rules.....well, the rules state that these superdelegates can endorse whoever they want, WHENEVER they want, but yet these three think because they are high-profile leaders, they can change the rules of the game. I won't comment on Harry Reid because I don't know a lot about him. Howard Dean is the most inept DNC Chairman ever. I always thought it was cool to have a female be the first ever Speaker of the House, and I still do. However, name me one significant law/bill/motion that she has passed that SHE created. She should not hide behind neutrality and just state that she is for Senator Obama.

jpsedona. Why won't this prominent Democratic leader reveal his/her identity? Something didn't feel right when I read that.; April 25, 2008 4:07 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: New article on the PA results - double digits or not...

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/25/final-returns-in-pennsylvania-did-clinton-nab-a-double-digit-win/; April 25, 2008 4:10 PM
GatorsChampions4Ever said...: That fundraiser may not be a big deal considering he maxed out.; April 25, 2008 4:10 PM

«Oldest ‹Older 601 – 800 of 1552 Newer› Newest»

Welcome to Democratic Convention Watch

Blog Archive

Democratic Convention 2008

Democratic National Convention History

Denver & Colorado Democrats

DCW in the News

Friends of DCW

2008 Republican National Convention

Tuesday, April 01, 2008

Open Thread

1552 comments:

Tags