The Liberal Thread #2 - No Debate Please

[DISUNC]

Ok, since my last prediction is proving prophetic with Barack's sweep this weekend, it's time for another:

Barack will sweep the Chesapeake primaries this week (Maryland where he has a 26 point lead, DC, and Virginia, where he leads by 18 points) by ever increasing margins. He will not lose another state between now and March 4th. Which means, for all intents and purposes, he'll have a large lead in delegates (including the ridiculous and undemocratic "super" delegates) as Texas, Ohio, and others head to the polls. What does that mean?

Hillary MUST win both Ohio and Texas, or she's done. Either would be a huge loss for her, as she once had 2-1 leads in the polls. If she wins both, then the race won't be decided until April 22nd when Pennsylvania heads to the polls, and the winner of that will be the party's nominee.

With the number of college students in Ohio, I have to say I'm fairly confident that Barack will do very well there. Plus, Hillary's biggest demographic advantage - hispanics - amount to a fairly miniscule percentage of Ohio voters. As for Texas...well, I don't like his chances there.

BUT...if Barack should happen to pull off the upset, you can look for a concession speech from Hillary shortly thereafter. Granted, it probably won't happen....

...but it won't keep me from the phone bank on March 4!!!

I agree with what ya said....but i am not sure about Ohio. She will get TEXAS!!!! I am sure of that.

However I dont think we will know for sure until PA votes (thats me & electics). She will take PA too! (lotsa $$$$$ donated to her campaign here in PA) I follow the $ not the polls!

As I posted the article about what Dean said the other day...."A deal will be made" between the two. There wont be a brokered convention!

 

[wvrevy]

I agree with what ya said....but i am not sure about Ohio. She will get TEXAS!!!! I am sure of that.

However I dont think we will know for sure until PA votes (thats me & electics). She will take PA too! (lotsa $$$$$ donated to her campaign here in PA) I follow the $ not the polls!

As I posted the article about what Dean said the other day...."A deal will be made" between the two. There wont be a brokered convention!

And I can tell you that if Dean "brokers" a deal that puts Hillary in the role as nominee, my support for the Democratic Party is done, and I'll be campaigning every way I can to remove him as chairman. It's not about Hillary, it's about the principle.

As for PA...there's a saying that Pennsylvania is Philadelphia on one end, Pittsburgh on the other, and Mississippi in between. So no, I'm not surprised that Hillary is currently leading there. Of course, "leading" isn't "winning", so we'll have to wait and see what happens.

(ETA...just looked it up, and Hillary has outraised Obama by about $500,000 in Pennsylvania. Not exactly a huge difference in contributions when you consider 1)the multiple millions that each have raised, and 2) the fact that a full quarter of Obama's contributions have come in at less than $200 while a full third of Hillary's have maxed out at $4600. "Following the money" only works if you look at a bigger picture than raw numbers.)

 

[eclectics]

I agree with what ya said....but i am not sure about Ohio. She will get TEXAS!!!! I am sure of that.

However I dont think we will know for sure until PA votes (thats me & electics). She will take PA too! (lotsa $$$$$ donated to her campaign here in PA) I follow the $ not the polls!

As I posted the article about what Dean said the other day...."A deal will be made" between the two. There wont be a brokered convention!

Ohio is not a done deal for Hillary. And sorry, Unc, neither is PA although her numbers look good. Texas, more than likey will be a yes. This could possibly go all the way to the convention.

 

[NewJersey]

Clean weekend sweep! And despite her huge lead in superdelegates, we've now for the first time, overtaken her in total delegates per real clear politics.

Thank you NE, LA, WA, Virgin Islands, and ME. I hope my state of VA and DC/MD can keep this streak going.

 

[DISUNC]

And I can tell you that if Dean "brokers" a deal that puts Hillary in the role as nominee, my support for the Democratic Party is done, and I'll be campaigning every way I can to remove him as chairman. It's not about Hillary, it's about the principle.

What if the deal is Obama, with less delagates gets the nominee?

 

[Honu]

And I can tell you that if Dean "brokers" a deal that puts Hillary in the role as nominee, my support for the Democratic Party is done, and I'll be campaigning every way I can to remove him as chairman. It's not about Hillary, it's about the principle.

Yeah, cutting deals for the nomination isn't going to sit well with people. Neither will Super Delegates overriding the popular vote.

Deep do do people and the DNC did it to themselves.

 

[DISUNC]

Ohio is not a done deal for Hillary. And sorry, Unc, neither is PA although her numbers look good. Texas, more than likey will be a yes. This could possibly go all the way to the convention.

Nutin is a DONE DEAL until people vote....I am just Predicting!

 

[JARNJ3]

Clean weekend sweep! And despite her huge lead in superdelegates, we've now for the first time, overtaken her in total delegates per real clear politics.

Thank you NE, LA, WA, Virgin Islands, and ME. I hope my state of VA and DC/MD can keep this streak going.

Well - if the polls are right - it sure will....

HRC has switched campaign managers - hopefully this will bring some hope to fellow Hillary supporters......

 

[wvrevy]

What if the deal is Obama, with less delagates gets the nominee?

I'd be happy that my candidate was the nominee...and still done with Dean. This whole situation is a mess that was created by the DNC, and while I firmly believe Obama would win the nomination on his own without a brokered deal, the fact that he felt he needed to "step in" and control the outcome simply wouldn't sit well with me at all. Speaking of which...

Yeah, cutting deals for the nomination isn't going to sit well with people. Neither will Super Delegates overriding the popular vote.

Deep do do people and the DNC did it to themselves.

Why in the holy name of the Flying Spaghetti Monster do we have 700+ people who are more important than the rest of us?!?!?!?!? Why is Ted Kennedy's vote more important than any single individual in his home state?

The super delegate idea is idiotic, and frankly, it's something I would expect out of the Republicans. In a close nomination process, they carry FAR too much weight, and could easily sway the vote one way or another. It's like they're there to keep a small number of people in charge of the party's nomination, and I think that reeks. This is the DEMOCRATIC party. You'd think the party leaders would act like they knew the meaning of the freaking word.

 

[NewJersey]

Yeah, cutting deals for the nomination isn't going to sit well with people. Neither will Super Delegates overriding the popular vote.

Deep do do people and the DNC did it to themselves.

Honestly, I think when the DNC stripped their delegates, they thought they'd seat them at the convention because Hillary would have walked away with the nomination (as polls and most Democrats had suggested and thought) and this decision to strip the states of delegates would not have mattered, but now they got a wake up call since this race is so close.

 

[NewJersey]

Yeah, why are there super delegates to begin with? I think I heard Pelosi talking about it but her answer made zero sense.

 

[Charade]

subscribing... (hate to be out of the loop...)

 

[NewJersey]

Well - if the polls are right - it sure will....

HRC has switched campaign managers - hopefully this will bring some hope to fellow Hillary supporters......

Apparently the old one wasn't calling back super delegates and was mis-managing campaign funds (allegedly the reason for Billary donating $5 million). Wasn't it Billary criticizing Barack after that debate in NV (or NH?) when he said his one flaw is that he loses papers - the next day she criticized his management style and said the President needs to be a great manager. Certainly seems ironic given today's events...

 

[DISUNC]

Yeah, why are there super delegates to begin with? I think I heard Pelosi talking about it but her answer made zero sense.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18277678/

It started after Jimmy Carter was made the Dem Nominee in the 1970's. The Dem Party Leadership didnt want him. Which as history proves, they were acurate.
But he was very popular with the people, and did get the votes in the primaries. So the Democrat Leadership at the time decided to come up with this system...."just in case the people dont know what they are talking about"!

 

[DISUNC]

Apparently the old one wasn't calling back super delegates and was mis-managing campaign funds (allegedly the reason for Billary donating $5 million). Wasn't it Billary criticizing Barack after that debate in NV (or NH?) when he said his one flaw is that he loses papers - the next day she criticized his management style and said the President needs to be a great manager. Certainly seems ironic given today's events...

...and you got this information from where?

 

[DISUNC]

subscribing... (hate to be out of the loop...)

Really...you just subscribing NOW?

 

[JARNJ3]

I'd be happy that my candidate was the nominee...and still done with Dean. This whole situation is a mess that was created by the DNC, and while I firmly believe Obama would win the nomination on his own without a brokered deal, the fact that he felt he needed to "step in" and control the outcome simply wouldn't sit well with me at all. Speaking of which...


Why in the holy name of the Flying Spaghetti Monster do we have 700+ people who are more important than the rest of us?!?!?!?!? Why is Ted Kennedy's vote more important than any single individual in his home state?

The super delegate idea is idiotic, and frankly, it's something I would expect out of the Republicans. In a close nomination process, they carry FAR too much weight, and could easily sway the vote one way or another. It's like they're there to keep a small number of people in charge of the party's nomination, and I think that reeks. This is the DEMOCRATIC party. You'd think the party leaders would act like they knew the meaning of the freaking word.

I think its because their role used to be ceremonial - also I heard some talking head say they were put in place to avoid another "George McGovern-like" nomination.......

They've been there for years at many conventions...... Just never singled out until now........

This race could end up being very close if Hillary "finds her voice again..." Should it end up being as close as predicted - and the supers need to come in - its starting to remind me of the whole FL debacle recount where GWB supporters loudly protested the recounting.

I could see Obama delagates going crazy..... even if Hillary is leading by 1 delegate!!

Of course, that depends on her success in OH, TX and PA. And whether she can find some support in MD & VA to keep her afloat......

 

[DISUNC]

starting to remind me of the whole FL debacle recount where GWB supporters loudly protested the recounting.
.....

OT

Did you know that IF the votes were counted the way Bushs people wanted...Gore would have won.
And IF the votes were counted the way Gores people wanted....Bush would have won....legit!!!

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

Clean weekend sweep! And despite her huge lead in superdelegates, we've now for the first time, overtaken her in total delegates per real clear politics.

Thank you NE, LA, WA, Virgin Islands, and ME. I hope my state of VA and DC/MD can keep this streak going.

That's great, but after yesterday, I had a feeling Obama would take the ME vote away from Clinton. You know, when both candidates' stand on the issues are so close, I think that the nomination process turns into something a popularity contest, with the entire electorate wanting to be on the winning team. Obama's getting all the small wins and the ink that goes with it, so he appearsto be the more attractive candidate and gets the votes. Two, seeing that the Republican primaries are essentially over and we know the candidate to beat on the Republican side, more Democrats will automatically vote for Obama because he's seen as a slam dunk against McCain. The fact that McCain took the nomination so quickly in the end helped Obama. Even if she wins in TX, I'll be surprised if Hillary can regain any real traction from here on in.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18277678/

It started after Jimmy Carter was made the Dem Nominee in the 1970's. The Dem Party Leadership didnt want him. Which as history proves, they were acurate.
But he was very popular with the people, and did get the votes in the primaries. So the Democrat Leadership at the time decided to come up with this system...."just in case the people dont know what they are talking about"!

Poor President Carter...

Man brokers the 1st Middle East peace treaty in the entire history of the bloody Arab/Israeli conflict and the brother still can't get any juice...

shhh...FTR...I still think Teddy Kennedy would have made a better president...