I misread that as "I doubt Christ would be chosen..."Quote:
Originally Posted by BallHawk
Printable View
I misread that as "I doubt Christ would be chosen..."Quote:
Originally Posted by BallHawk
Believe me, there are a ton of people down here who think our governor's name is Christ. :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by MJZiggy
Bush won Florida pretty handedly in 2004. I think that stays Republican anyway. The danger zone for the Republicans are states like Iowa and Ohio which went Republican in 2004, but not by much. The Republican party in Ohio is in shambles largely due to corruption.Quote:
Originally Posted by Harlan Huckleby
It's starting. The most likely scenario looks like a close election, with Obama perhaps having more pledged delegates, and Clinton, so far at least, looking stronger with the super delegates.
Yesterday, Obama made a statement that if the super delegates voted contrary to the pledged delegates, "it would be problematic for the political insiders to overturn the judgment of the voters."
Translation: Obama and his followers will consider it corruption if Clinton wins because of her edge with super delegates!
BUT IF THE SUPER DELEGATES CAN ONLY LEGITIMATELY FOLLOW THE WISHES OF THE ELECTED DELEGATES, THAN WHY WERE THEY CREATED!!??
The truth is the Super Delegates are an undemocratic mechanism by which party elites retain more power than the voters. Just like the caucuses. But Obama is fine with caucuses, because they are working dramatically in his favor.
Donna Brazile, a black (translation:Obama supporter) pundit on ABC TV stated today that she will quit the Democratic Party if the super delegates don't favor the same candidate as the pledged delegates. Ridiculous. She herself is a Super Delegate because she managed Al Gore's 2000 campaign.
Brazile said she wants Super Delegates to hold-off on announcing their support. Well, so far the announcements have gone Clinton's way, and Brazile wants them to wait until they are pressured by the likely Obama edge in pledge delegates.
The Obama blogs are talking like the Clinton Machine is at it again: "Super delegates choosing the nominee would be a complete perversion of this process." http://donklephant.com/2008/02/09/wh...tes-decide-it/
Add to all this the mess of the undecided delegates from Michigan & Florida. This is stomach churning. The Democratic Party is going to implode. This is not interesting or healthy, it's a horrible system much like the Florida 2000 voting infrastructure. A crappy system only works when the winner is far ahead.
Florida looks in play this year. The Democrats had more people turn out for their primary, and that was for an election that didn't count! The Republican primary was hotly contested.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joemailman
If the number of people voting in the primaries is a precursor of what will happen in the general election, then the Democrats will win in a landslide. They've had more people showing up everywhere. In some states it's been as much as 3-1. I still think it will be a very close election though.
They were created to actually keep unity within the party. The idea was that if a candidate had the highest amount of pledged delegates among all of the other candidates but not enough pledged delegates to obtain the nomination (in this case 2,025) Super Delegates were supposed to wait until after all the votes were cast and then throw their support behind the leading candidate, thus avoiding a brokered convention.Quote:
Originally Posted by Harlan Huckleby
It makes sense on the surface, I guess, but somewhere along the line it went horribly wrong.
The lady folk says she has met very few if any democrats down there. She is pretty convinced the republicans have it on lock down.Quote:
Originally Posted by Harlan Huckleby
Well, if that isn't a convincing statistic than I don't know what is. :roll:Quote:
Originally Posted by Partial
You can say its not but I would bet you 1,000 USD that the republican candidate takes the state. Pony up.
You also said that Obama had no chance of being elected because he was black.Quote:
Originally Posted by Partial
So you've already been wrong on one and if Obama gets the nomination you very well could be wrong again.
Obama hasn't been elected yet. And I still don't think he has a chance in hell. Don't go countin' your chickens just yet. Hillary is still winning after all.
He's neck-and-neck with Hillary. If that doesn't qualify as a chance then what does? You didn't say he wouldn't get elected, you said he didn't stand a chance at being elected. He's proven he's got a chance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Partial
He will win the Potomac Primaries on Tuesday and that will bring him, super delegates and all, right there with Hillary. Then he will win Wisconsin and the other states and he will take the lead. Then it will all come down to states like OH, PA, and TX.
I am voting for Huckabee. I have liked him more than any of the other candidates. That being said, there don't appear to be any JFK's or Reagan's in this bunch.
I know Huck's chances are virtually nonexistent for the nomination, but I am casting my choice as if the score was 0-0.
If Obama sweeps the Potomac primaries (Md, VA and DC) plus gets OH or TX, he's going to win the nomination.
WI's Republican contest is winner take all for delegates. Democratic delegates are rationed out on a percentage basis of the vote.
I do not want Hillary in the White House. This country has to get beyond the Bush-Clinton dynastical period we've been in.
If Obama wins in Nov., I may not be thrilled with it, but I could rally behind him more than I could another Pres. Clinton.
The election is 9 months away. You have no idea if he has any chance to win anything yet. Not only is he in 2nd place for the nomination now, but there is ZERO evidence that even the front runner will beat the republicans. McCain is a powerhouse of a candidate because he'll still get the republican votes yet steal some of the democrats.Quote:
Originally Posted by BallHawk
Really, Partial?Quote:
Originally Posted by Partial
Well, he's going to have to steal a helluva lot of Democrats to make up for the number of conservatives that are going to be sitting at home on election day.
Obama leads in delegates from primaries and caucuses 981-910. Any lead Hillary has, and it is very small, is due to verbal commitments from super delegates. If Obama continues to win most of the primaries and caucuses, they will be under a lot of pressure to support the choice of the voters.Quote:
Originally Posted by Partial
If the candidate that won the pledged delegates did not win the nomination the party would fall and the Republicans would take the WH in '08. If you snub Obama you turn away Blacks, blue-collar males, and the young vote. If you snub Hillary you turn away the older vote and the female vote.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joemailman
The Dems cannot win in '08 with any one of these core demographics sitting out. While I think Howard Dean is foolish for thinking Obama and Hillary will come to an "agreement" to have the election come down to the "smoke-filled rooms" as they were called, would be pure chaos.
Most of the super delegates have not committed to either candidate. What Dean needs to do is get these uncommitted delegates not to commit to anyone now. Then once the primaries are over, these delegates should back the candidate that won the most delegates in the primaries and caucuses.
Something tells me they will be changing this system once the election is over. :roll:
Huh? Why? The Super Delegates were created to act independently, not to rubber stamp the pledge delegates. They can decide whenever they want and for whoever they want. The idea is that they are extra wise people and can look out better for the party, act as a counterweight to popular passions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joemailman
If you are worried about democracy, throw out the caucus results and hold primaries to find out what the voters think.
You would think that would be a solid number, but different news organizations have different totals. I saw two with Hillary ahead.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joemailman
I think this is blarney. Show me a source.Quote:
Originally Posted by BallHawk
I think another factor going on in Florida is that it is no longer Jeb Bush's state. He was a popular governor, I expect he helped GW considerably in 2000, 2004.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joemailman
I think Florida is a purple state, it could go either way. McCain would do well to pick up the Governor as VP, that Jesus Crist guy.
What could be more undemocratic than the super delegates reversing the wishes of the voters? It sounds like maybe you want the super delegates to hand Hillary a victory she can't win with the voters.
By the way, Obama is the projected winner in Maine.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23098411/
Chuck Todd, NBC's senior political director, was talking about it today on Meet the Press.Quote:
Originally Posted by Harlan Huckleby
What could be more undemocratic than the super delegates reversing the wishes of the voters? It sounds like maybe you want the super delegates to hand Hillary a victory she can't win with the voters.Quote:
Originally Posted by Harlan Huckleby
By the way, Obama is the projected winner in Maine.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23098411/
Okay, maybe my explanation was a little off, here is an explanation from newsday.com
So the super delegates had more uses than just one specific one.Quote:
Super delegates were created as part of the Democratic Party reforms after the debacle of 1972, when a too-liberal candidate, Sen. George McGovern, made it to the head of the ticket. The reforms emphasized the proportional allocation of delegates in primaries and the selection of super delegates who could provide the ballast needed in close contests or could guide the party away from a disastrous choice. They were to be "a safety valve," as one super delegate put it recently.
You're crazy. You think the 30-70 people are not going to show up to vote?? They may not be crazy about McCain but they'll still pledge their republican vote proudly that day and make their voice heard. This is the age group that gets out in full-force every year. That was a really dumb comment to make man.Quote:
Originally Posted by BallHawk
Well, first all, the "wishes of the voters" are not well indicated by all the caucus states that he won. I suspect Hillary would win the popular vote handily if full primary elections were held in all states.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joemailman
I agree that superdelegates are undemocratic. Excluding the Florida voters was also undemocratic. Caucuses are undemocratic. All the chicanery is stupid.
The Super Delegates ARE voters. They should be able to vote any way they want, whenever they want, and by the rules they count as much as the pledge delegates.
Hillary wins if she gets the most delegates, super + pledge combined, and I certainly would expect Barak supporters to respect that result.
You don't think the rules should be changed midstream, do you?
Jesus Chirst, Partial......Quote:
Originally Posted by Partial
Yes, I do! Why do you think McCain is going around trying to shmooze the conservative base? Do you think it is a coincidence that we are seeing all of these conservative talk-show hosts speak out against McCain? Partial, the republican establishment does not want McCain. While he's not the liberal some paint him to be he still leans to the left on issues and has muddled across party lines.
Listen to a C-Span call in show. You will hear people, real people that don't have their heads in the cloud, show their skepticism about McCain.
Maybe in your little bubble you can skew the information to come out with logical statements, but the truth is that some conservatives will stay home on election day.
The Super delegates are a crazy idea. "ballast" means they are there to be a counterweight to the popular will.Quote:
Originally Posted by BallHawk
I understand that Obama supporters are gonna be upset, but those are the rules of the game.
Mmmmmm.......the electoral college voting in opposition to the popular vote?Quote:
Originally Posted by Joemailman
I'm not going to bother responding to that. There is a lot more to voting than a presidential selection. That, and if you think they're going to give up their voice when they're at an age where plenty of their friends, coworkers, and family members fought for freedom and died, you're off your rocker.
Stats show everything you need to know. If you don't think the older voters are going to be out in full-force that day, then I don't even know what to say.
McCain is not the maverick he once was. He is now the establishment Republican candidate, and doesn't have the appeal among moderate Democrats he once had. Bush is now calling McCain a true Conservative. That should be enough to deter Democrats from voting for McCain.
No, that is not quite the analogy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iron Mike
The Pledge Delegates are similar to the electoral college, they are SUPPOSED to follow the popular vote. (Actually I don't think they are bound either.)
The Super Delegates are BY DESIGN supposed to be independent of the vote. They are independent voters themselves who are free to choose who they think will be best for the party.
Really, Partial? You think that voters are going to look at McCain and ignore the fact that he's weak on immigration and that he has not taken a stand on same-sex marriage?Quote:
Originally Posted by Partial
That isn't even mentioning the fact that he's managed to piss of the evangelicals of the party! He's destroyed the votes that he needs to win, Partial. He's burned bridges, cut ties, whatever you want to call it he has pulled away from the people that put Republicans in the White House.
He will get independents, Partial, but he will not be able to make up the conservatives that he will lose. That is almost as good as fact.
Studies show that voters 25-64 come out in 91.1%
65+ is 98%.
You really don't think an older crowd is going to come out to vote?!?
I don't know whether they will or not, but these people hold voting as a far more important than your typical 18 year old and WILL be at the polls regardless of if they vote for Ron Paul, Obama or McCain.
The biggest problem with our country is too many people think in democrat or republican. What ever happened to looking at a track record and voting for someone who has actually accomplished things and displayed their ability to be a leader?
Our two party system sucks. I'm not a big Romney supporter since I don't agree with the way he views some social situatinos, but the cat has had success whereever he is gone. He and Richardson were the only two serious candidates with any experience in a leadership role. Governors come in with more experience typically than Senators.
Sure, they come in with more experience, but that doesn't make them better suited for the job. GW Bush came in as a governor and that turned out great didn't it? On the other hand, JFK was a Senator.Quote:
Originally Posted by Partial
What the person has done in the past matters little, nowadays. It's what they can do and what they will do.
I don't believe this at all. I think George Bush has created a distortion in our thinking. I think he is a once in a millenium disaster and should just be ignored, rather than using him to lower bars.Quote:
Originally Posted by BallHawk
JFK was in Congress several terms before he became a Senator. He also was a war hero, and a commander of a naval vessel.
Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton ran as outside insurgents. But they had significant executive experience as Governors, Bill Clinton for 12 years?
Experience is good.