Hillary Supporters unite....no bashing please! only smiles

[Chuck S]

I didn't see anything wrong with the commercial, either.

 

[wvrevy]

You mean this ad?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qed2Rtr_rz8&feature=related

Or maybe this one?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08hNCjNdGHw



Sorry...just trying to lighten the mood a little.

 

[Hound 109]

Uhh...we don't register Democrat or Republican, at least not in our Texas county. We simply show up and vote in whichever we choose. Unlike California and other states where you actually list your party choice when you register and are only allowed to vote in the respective primary.

In CA, you show up at the polls, they check your registration, and give you the ballot for your registered party.

This is correct. When i voted there were 2 Republicans in line (talking openly) & at the front of the line, the lady asked "Dem or Rep?"....they ASKED if they could vote in Dem even if they were Rep.....& she said yes you can. & also gave them the cards so they could attend the Dem Caucus.

 

[punkin]

I wasn't trying to insult anyone. I'm sorry.

I'm sorry I overreacted. It is my sensitive spot and I was just feeling put upon (not on this thread or by you, but IRL) and I was snarky in my reply.


Oh, and Robin, I am hoping not to have to put Barack in my dictionary because he will not be elected and we will not hear from him after the primary season.

 

[punkin]

I didn't see anything wrong with the commercial, either.

me three

 

[JARNJ3]

Marie Cocco is my new best friend.......

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/tough_math_on_the_democratic_s.html

March 06, 2008
Tough Math on the Democratic Side
By Marie Cocco

WASHINGTON -- Hillary Clinton is not the only Democrat with a math problem. But the arithmetical difficulty that Barack Obama faces is fundamentally different from Clinton's: She doesn't have the numbers that plot a clear path to the nomination. He doesn't have the numbers that plot a clear path to a Democratic victory in the fall.

The spin-of-the-day from the Obama campaign on the morning after Clinton's victories in three of the four states holding primaries on Tuesday is that the New York senator cannot possibly overtake her rival's lead in "pledged" delegates -- that is, those won in primaries and caucuses -- and therefore has no chance of winning the Democratic nomination.

The arithmetic conveniently leaves out an essential part of the equation: Neither Obama nor Clinton can secure through the primaries and caucuses the 2,025 delegates necessary to win at the Denver convention without the votes of the superdelegates. And Clinton's stunning performance on Tuesday, particularly in Ohio, makes Obama's argument that superdelegates should automatically back the will of the voters -- and not use independent political judgment about who can best compete against Republican John McCain in November -- look like an awfully simplistic calculus.

Add up all the states he has won in his historic drive to become the nominee, including all of those small and deeply "red" Republican states where the Obama supporters boast of their candidate's transcendental appeal, and so far Obama has won in places representing 193 of the 270 electoral votes needed to win the presidency. Add up Clinton's victories thus far and she has triumphed in states representing 263 electoral votes.

Of course, some states in Clinton's column -- Texas comes most readily to mind -- that have a large trove of Electoral College votes are highly unlikely to wind up Democratic in the fall. But the same holds true for Obama, whose strength in southern Democratic primaries has rested on the huge margins he has run up among African-American voters. African-Americans are a crucial constituency for Democrats, but their votes in recent contests haven't been enough to win such states as Alabama, South Carolina or Georgia.

In a new memo, Clinton strategists Mark Penn and Harold Ickes point out that the 2004 Democratic nominee, John Kerry, lost these states and several others in which Obama has won primaries by 15 points or more. In Utah, Idaho, Nebraska, North Dakota, Kansas and Alaska -- all states the Obama forces point to with pride as evidence of an emerging "50-state strategy" -- no Democrat has won the general election since 1964.

So how has Obama fared in those states that are the crucial building blocks of a Democratic general election strategy? He's won his home state of Illinois, plus Wisconsin, Washington and Minnesota. Together, these states account for 51 electoral votes. Clinton has won her home state of New York, as well as California, New Jersey and Michigan, representing a total of 118 electoral votes. This sum deliberately leaves out Ohio and Florida, which will be hotly contested in the fall.

There is a reason some states are called general election "battlegrounds." It is because partisan identification is roughly even, or because certain groups in the electorate, such as Catholics, Hispanics or blue-collar whites, switch their allegiances -- or split their votes. That's why Clinton made so much in her victory speech about the "bellwether" nature of Ohio: "It's a battleground state. It's a state that knows how to pick a president. And no candidate in recent history, Democrat or Republican, has won the White House without winning the Ohio primary," she said.

There is no papering over the depth of the problem Obama faced there. He won only five of the state's 88 counties, an inauspicious foundation for a general election campaign. Clinton trounced him among Catholic voters, 63 percent-36 percent, according to exit polls. She beat him among voters in every income category and bested him by 14 points among those making less than $50,000 annually.

This is why Pennsylvania, which is demographically similar to Ohio -- and a must-win state for Democrats in November -- is considered such fertile ground for Clinton on April 22.

The Democratic Party is indeed developing a general election problem, and it's only partly because Obama and Clinton will be sniping at one another for the next seven weeks. Obama, the leading candidate, still hasn't shown he has appeal in a large battleground state that will be pivotal in the fall. In this sense, Pennsylvania is where Obama's back, and not Clinton's, is up against the wall.

 

[punkin]

Marie Cocco is my new best friend.......

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/tough_math_on_the_democratic_s.html

and the supers can count that way too...

 

["Got Disney"]

I was watching Olberman last night and he kept talking about the "dirty 3am" commercial. Am I the only one that doesn't consider that ad dirty politics?

I don't either...they keep saying she was atrocious(sp) the last 3 days with the adds and such but I cant see that. she was telling it like it is. He has some important questions to answer. Did she throw the kitchen sink at him...you betcha...but if he is not ready to have the sick thrown at him what is he going to do when McCain throws the whole kitchen at him????

He is going to have it tough because he has been talking about running a clean campaign ....Hillary is going to be playing her Aces and not dirty but making people think....I can not get why he wants to play so nice in the sand box...some sand needs to be thrown around top see what he is made of. As I mentioned before I am getting suspicious of that that...

Is three more to him wanting to play nice because of a new kind of pres. or is he hiding something he does not wast to come out? He will have to throw sand back or he will be buried yet he will have to go against what he has been saying all along....that he will never ever play that game.

So it is his turn to feel he is dam ed if he does and dam ed if he doesn't!

I received another SPAM on Obama being a Muslim and it went on and on and even stated that he plans if sworn in to place his hand on the Quran and not the Bible....what is wrong with these people ...I sent it back to the person and set them straight. It was from my Dh's Aunt in Florida....
Could not find it on Snopes.com to hook her up but I get insulted when I get them...even though I am not an Obama girl!!!

 

[Duckfan-in-Chicago]

Dean is urging a do-over in Fla and Mich now. Do you think the candidate pushing for the redo might get a bit of a bump over the candidate saying don't count their votes regardless of how they got to this point? Michigan and Florida are both in the 'big state' category so I'm guessing one of the candidates would have an edge anyway.

 

["Got Disney"]

Dean is urging a do-over in Fla and Mich now. Do you think the candidate pushing for the redo might get a bit of a bump over the candidate saying don't count their votes regardless of how they got to this point? Michigan and Florida are both in the 'big state' category so I'm guessing one of the candidates would have an edge anyway.

I sure hope they do a redo in the form of a primary and not a caucus...I think that if they had a caucus Hillary would take it to court.
you lost me on the question....can you explain so I can understand it...

Looks like a pink Mickey.... or hidden mickey

 

[wvrevy]

Just somethin' to think about, and not trying to start a debate....but California and New York aren't going "red" in November if the Democrats change their minds and nominate Donald Duck.

As for Ohio...Hillary won there largely because of the NAFTA stuff (not going to argue that). But regardless of who the nominee is, he or she is going to be up against John McCain...a devout "free trader." My point in saying that is that either of the two Democratic candidates are going to have a distinct advantage over McCain in that economically depressed state.

As for the revote...I'm all for it. I want everyone's vote to count. Just want it to be fair at the same time.

 

[Duckfan-in-Chicago]

Obama is saying there shouldn't be a recount. HC is saying everyone in every state should count. Of course she's saying this mostly because she wants/expects to win those states, but still I don't think human nature allows people in the state to punish her for a change in opinion on the issue for giving them the right to vote. I'd think she'd get some positive press from those locations. If I were in his camp, since it almost looks inevitable at this point, he should change his position asap.

Even though not everyone was on the ballot in Mich, there were other races going on that counted, and she won big in the exit polls vs. Obama if he had been on. And she won pretty big in Fla. with everyone there. I know he always wins when people get a chance to know him enough according to his campaign, except as it turns out in big states. Or did he need more time in Ohio? It seemed like the numbers were trending away from him there. Maybe it was a little too much time? There may be a curve where he has to find the exact amount of time?

I wonder if the two states can legally set up a fund to pay for the redos. Then it wouldn't have to come out of the DNC's pocket or the state's or state parties pockets. Anyone in the country who wanted to see the redo could donate to the funds.

 

[MerryPoppins]

I was watching Olberman last night and he kept talking about the "dirty 3am" commercial. Am I the only one that doesn't consider that ad dirty politics?

Nope. To me, it was drawing attention to her experience. To me, mudslinging is when you say bad things about the other candidate. She just asked who would you want answering the phone. Yes, in a backhanded way it was saying he's not as experienced...but it didn't come right out and say anything bad about Obama. Sort of a gray area, but that's the way the game is played. He's been making comments about how he was against the war from the beginning. Same difference if you ask me.

 

[punkin]

The Obama thread is having a regular Hillary Bash-a-thon.

 

[wvjules]

I think BO has lost Mr. Mo(mentum) and his campaign might be afraid of a do-over in MI/FL. I think the longer this goes on, the better it is for Clinton. People will start seeing him as another politician and not the anoited one.

 

[wvrevy]

Obama is saying there shouldn't be a recount. HC is saying everyone in every state should count. Of course she's saying this mostly because she wants/expects to win those states, but still I don't think human nature allows people in the state to punish her for a change in opinion on the issue for giving them the right to vote. I'd think she'd get some positive press from those locations. If I were in his camp, since it almost looks inevitable at this point, he should change his position asap.

Even though not everyone was on the ballot in Mich, there were other races going on that counted, and she won big in the exit polls vs. Obama if he had been on. And she won pretty big in Fla. with everyone there. I know he always wins when people get a chance to know him enough according to his campaign, except as it turns out in big states. Or did he need more time in Ohio? It seemed like the numbers were trending away from him there. Maybe it was a little too much time? There may be a curve where he has to find the exact amount of time?

I wonder if the two states can legally set up a fund to pay for the redos. Then it wouldn't have to come out of the DNC's pocket or the state's or state parties pockets. Anyone in the country who wanted to see the redo could donate to the funds.

1) Well...I think you're spinning it a little to favor Hill (her camp doesn't want a revote, they want the first vote to count), but I'll agree that Barack's camp is wrong on this if they try to fight a "re-vote" in Florida or Michigan.

2) There is such a thing in politics as "incumbent advantage". It's something that the most well-known candidates always enjoy, and Hillary is possibly the best known female Democrat of the last 50 years. With no campaigning allowed, NOBODY is going to beat someone with that kind of name recognition. It's just the way it works. As for Ohio...he cut a 20+ point lead in the polls down to a virtual tie before....you know, I better not get into that or we'll just end up fighting again.

3) I actually wouldn't have a problem with the DNC donating at least part of the funds, and would even donate a bit myself to assist with that (although what they could do with my hundred bucks is an open question ). Ultimately, it was the fault of the state parties for screwing things up, but the DNC needs to do some damage control, and helping to fund it would go a long way towards winning back anybody turned off by the seeming lack of concern about their votes within the party.

 

[punkin]

1) Well...I think you're spinning it a little to favor Hill (her camp doesn't want a revote, they want the first vote to count), but I'll agree that Barack's camp is wrong on this if they try to fight a "re-vote" in Florida or Michigan.

Of course it would be nice if Hillary did not have to re-win the states, but I think her campaign people would agree to a revote

2) There is such a thing in politics as "incumbent advantage". It's something that the most well-known candidates always enjoy, and Hillary is possibly the best known female Democrat of the last 50 years. With no campaigning allowed, NOBODY is going to beat someone with that kind of name recognition. It's just the way it works. As for Ohio...he cut a 20+ point lead in the polls down to a virtual tie before....you know, I better not get into that or we'll just end up fighting again.

No comment

3) I actually wouldn't have a problem with the DNC donating at least part of the funds, and would even donate a bit myself to assist with that (although what they could do with my hundred bucks is an open question ). Ultimately, it was the fault of the state parties for screwing things up, but the DNC needs to do some damage control, and helping to fund it would go a long way towards winning back anybody turned off by the seeming lack of concern about their votes within the party.

I blame FLA republicans as much as the next guy, but the DNC has to shoulder much of the blame for this fiasco

 

[wvrevy]

1 - You can't "rewin" something that hasn't been contested fairly.

2 - No comment on the "incumbent advantage"?

I blame FLA republicans as much as the next guy, but the DNC has to shoulder much of the blame for this fiasco

3 - Florida DEMOCRATS in the legislature supported the bill. It may have been pushed by Republicans, but it had considerable bipartisan support.

 

[punkin]

1 - You can't "rewin" something that hasn't been contested fairly.

2 - No comment on the "incumbent advantage"?



3 - Florida DEMOCRATS in the legislature supported the bill. It may have been pushed by Republicans, but it had considerable bipartisan support.

I refuse to have a fight with you today, but just one comment: Obama was the one running ads in FLA in contravention of DNC rules. Clinton won anyway.

 

["Got Disney"]

The Obama thread is having a regular Hillary Bash-a-thon.

That is why I don't even read that thread. But that is there home to do so. As long as they keep it in there and don't bring it here. This is our home and we state our points on Obama. I do find some that some Obama supporters find it okay for them to trash Hillary because they say "Well it's true so that does not make it trashing" but when we state bashing on Obama as being true there is an all out war.

That is also why I do not post on the liberal thread. I do read it but keep my opinions out of it there. I will defend Obama if I receive an e-mail that is blatenly not true and I let the person that sent it to me know.

I don't hate Obama but am glad to see his feathers getting ruffled because it will show us how he can handle that and if he does get the Nod I want to see how he can handle coming up against McCain without going into a debate with him handing him flowers .

We know how Hillary will fight back...not dirty but with a backbone and one thing we know about the Clinton's when there backed against the wall they come out fighting.

WVrevy....agree the DNC should be funding the re-vote or how ever they decide to do it. I think that they should re vote and be able to campaign there and do it as all the others primaries were done. Win or loose for Hillary or Obama it needs to be re done correct. I do not think they should do a caucus I think a primary because yes...Hillary does not do well at them but the main reason is because it was a primary state to begin with.