[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
100meters wrote:
Mildly criticizing the war effort’s tactics, isn’t really a major difference of course.
It was hardly mild, your poor memories notwithstanding:
The Times & The Sunday Times [/quote]
McCain criticized the mishandling of the war, not the war of aggression itself. And judging by public opinion polls, Americans have issues with the decision to attack Iraq, not the strategy (or lack thereof) managing the war.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Heh: the ultimate, self-refuting statement.
I can remember a day when political analysis was something other than making yourself feel better about who you would like to vote for. Oh well.
Darn “uneducated rednecks” - if only someone would Enlighten them and get them to thinking right so they can enter a world of “progressive” politics and leave the world of superstition behind and start getting the Champions of Humanity elected.
Good for a laugh, anyway.
[quote]100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
…
And if the Dem primary keeps going strong, it just makes it better - there’s the very real possibility Hillary could win the popular vote. http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MjQ4NjU0OGYyMmZkYWNlMTgyYzQxZmRjOGJiNDg2ZDc=
…
[i]
But Clinton has made a huge comeback in the fourth quarter. Beginning with her victories in Texas and Ohio and going through last night�??s win in Kentucky, she has won 6,505,231 votes to Obama�??s 5,983,422 �?? a margin of 521,809 votes.
That number will likely grow after the remaining contests in Puerto Rico (where she has a significant lead), South Dakota, and Montana. At the moment, counting all four quarters, Obama has a popular-vote lead of 123,033 votes. By the end of the day on June 3, Clinton might well be ahead.
If that happens, she will be the Al Gore of the Democratic primaries: the winner of the popular vote who lost the election. But unlike Gore, who lost the 2000 presidential race because of the constitutional requirements of the Electoral College, Clinton will lose because of the Democratic party�??s arcane �?? and changeable �?? rules of delegate allocation.
For example, Clinton won Texas in the sense that most of us understand winning an election, but Obama ultimately walked away with more delegates, because of the party�??s idiosyncratic allocation process.
[/i]
This is my favorite part. I hope to hell she wins the popular vote. How could the Dem’s possibly nominate Obama is she does? Talk about hypocrisy!
Popular vote including states he didn’t run in and she said shouldn’t count, and factually don’t count, and not counting states he won.
In the states that count and in all measures that could possibly count:
1.popular votes
2.states
3.delegates
4.superdelegates
5.fundraising
6.coat tails
He is winning. Soundly. And has been.
In short, the primary is still over.
Can we please stop pretending in here that there is some kind of chance that Hillary is going to win?
[/quote]
The Democrats are disenfranchising their own. Glad you support it.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Heh: the ultimate, self-refuting statement.
I can remember a day when political analysis was something other than making yourself feel better about who you would like to vote for. Oh well.
Darn “uneducated rednecks” - if only someone would Enlighten them and get them to thinking right so they can enter a world of “progressive” politics and leave the world of superstition behind and start getting the Champions of Humanity elected.
Good for a laugh, anyway.
[/quote]
I know you enjoy taking potshots at me, but perhaps you missed the news coverage?
There were a substantial number of people, who during exit polling, suggested that race was a factor in their vote. Guess who they did not vote for?
Anyhow, it has nothing to do with enlightening them, but it sure would be nice if they would vote on the issues instead of on what race the candidates are.
So, as usual, good try, but your aim is perennially off…
Edit:
And lest I forget, these folks do tend to be those that have less education. Seriously, it’s not my fault that those are the facts as reported.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
…
And if the Dem primary keeps going strong, it just makes it better - there’s the very real possibility Hillary could win the popular vote. http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MjQ4NjU0OGYyMmZkYWNlMTgyYzQxZmRjOGJiNDg2ZDc=
…
[i]
But Clinton has made a huge comeback in the fourth quarter. Beginning with her victories in Texas and Ohio and going through last night�??s win in Kentucky, she has won 6,505,231 votes to Obama�??s 5,983,422 �?? a margin of 521,809 votes.
That number will likely grow after the remaining contests in Puerto Rico (where she has a significant lead), South Dakota, and Montana. At the moment, counting all four quarters, Obama has a popular-vote lead of 123,033 votes. By the end of the day on June 3, Clinton might well be ahead.
If that happens, she will be the Al Gore of the Democratic primaries: the winner of the popular vote who lost the election. But unlike Gore, who lost the 2000 presidential race because of the constitutional requirements of the Electoral College, Clinton will lose because of the Democratic party�??s arcane �?? and changeable �?? rules of delegate allocation.
For example, Clinton won Texas in the sense that most of us understand winning an election, but Obama ultimately walked away with more delegates, because of the party�??s idiosyncratic allocation process.
[/i]
This is my favorite part. I hope to hell she wins the popular vote. How could the Dem’s possibly nominate Obama is she does? Talk about hypocrisy!
Popular vote including states he didn’t run in and she said shouldn’t count, and factually don’t count, and not counting states he won.
In the states that count and in all measures that could possibly count:
1.popular votes
2.states
3.delegates
4.superdelegates
5.fundraising
6.coat tails
He is winning. Soundly. And has been.
In short, the primary is still over.
Can we please stop pretending in here that there is some kind of chance that Hillary is going to win?
The Democrats are disenfranchising their own. Glad you support it.[/quote]
I don’t see why the DNC needs to let Florida legislature dictate the primary schedule. Most of us support supporting the rules, as Hillary said she would. Some of us have stuck to that, others haven’t. Since their delegates will be seated in some fashion, and their votes don’t change the outcome regardless, not much to worry about.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
100meters wrote:
Mildly criticizing the war effort’s tactics, isn’t really a major difference of course.
It was hardly mild, your poor memories notwithstanding:
And of course, it helps that McCain was right:
http://www.redstate.com/stories/war/about_that_surge_strategy[/quote]
He supported Rummy till 2004, when he still wouldn’t call for his resignation. Yes he called for more troops, but only when it was obviously going very, very, very badly (U.N. bombing I believe) and not before shots were fired like others with even more experience I presume.
I guess the point is he still was an advocate of a failed strategy, tactics aside, and of course his predictions (based on his tremendous foreign policy experience to be sure) were horribly wrong.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Translation:
Republicans feel they can manufacture various swift-boat style campaigns to mischaracterize Obama’s statements in their traditional divisive and negative campaigning style.
[/quote]
[quote]vroom wrote:
I see a lot of hopeful thinking in here from the right, but not much reality.
Obama is wildly ahead under the rules of the game.
Only staunch republicans are going to possibly think of McCain as anything but a Bush clone.
Frankly, Obama is doing poorly in states full of uneducated rednecks… there is no mystery as to why that is occurring and it has nothing to do with elitism.
However, I’ll conceded that there are certainly potential game changers – but without them, it might be prudent not to get too excited because the local right wing all agree with each other.[/quote]
You’ve become a caricature of everything you claimed to hate about politics.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Means the race between Obama and McCain is going to be closer than a lot of you seem to think.
EXCERPT:
If Obama wins the 255 votes in the states where he’s favored, then to get to 270 he needs to choose from the following menu: 1) Win Ohio, which takes him to 275; 2) win in the West – Nevada, New Mexico and Colorado, for 274; 3) win the three N’s (Nevada, New Mexico, New Hampshire) for 269, plus one other state; or 4) win two of the three N’s and either Colorado or Virginia.
This obviously doesn’t mean McCain has it locked up, but just that you folks counting your chickens before they’ve hatched should re-think your certainty…
Also, see these Rovian EC maps…
[/quote]
I think you’re reaching here BB. I’m not 100% sure about the methodologies used in those Rovian EC maps, but didn’t he simply take the average of some cherry-picked polls? That kind of analysis really means nothing.
The most recent polling seems to show Obama doing very well in New Mexico, Colorado, Virginia, New Hampshire, Michigan, Ohio and Penn. And he hasn’t even gotten his nomination bump yet.
You’ve got to recognize that the Republican brand is badly damaged and you’re dealing with an incredibly charismatic candidate whose financial assets are simply staggering.
McCain is going to be outspent and be at a manpower disadvantage in nearly every state. McCain is just about the only candidate the GOP could have nominated to stand a chance this November, and I do think he has a legitimate chance of winning, but this could quickly turn into an ugly, electoral landslide if McCain’s campaign doesn’t get its shit together.
[quote]Moriarty wrote:
I think you’re reaching here BB. I’m not 100% sure about the methodologies used in those Rovian EC maps, but didn’t he simply take the average of some cherry-picked polls? That kind of analysis really means nothing.
The most recent polling seems to show Obama doing very well in New Mexico, Colorado, Virginia, New Hampshire, Michigan, Ohio and Penn. And he hasn’t even gotten his nomination bump yet.
You’ve got to recognize that the Republican brand is badly damaged and you’re dealing with an incredibly charismatic candidate whose financial assets are simply staggering.
McCain is going to be outspent and be at a manpower disadvantage in nearly every state. McCain is just about the only candidate the GOP could have nominated to stand a chance this November, and I do think he has a legitimate chance of winning, but this could quickly turn into an ugly, electoral landslide if McCain’s campaign doesn’t get its shit together.[/quote]
Oh, I think it’s definitely going to be a fight - but I like McCain’s chances to make Pennsylvania and Ohio ultra competitive, and to take Florida. If he can just do that, he should have a realistic shot to win.
I’m more worried about the Congress - they don’t seem to have their act together at all, and aren’t out selling any new ideas, or even pointing out how little the last Congress has done other than to try to torpedo Bush’s judicial nominees. Of course, it would help if they weren’t addicted to the trough - they really should have pushed hard on earmark reform (more symbol than substance, but it would have been a very good symbol).
[quote]
100meters wrote:
Mildly criticizing the war effort’s tactics, isn’t really a major difference of course.
BostonBarrister wrote:
It was hardly mild, your poor memories notwithstanding:
And of course, it helps that McCain was right:
http://www.redstate.com/stories/war/about_that_surge_strategy
100meters wrote:
He supported Rummy till 2004, when he still wouldn’t call for his resignation. Yes he called for more troops, but only when it was obviously going very, very, very badly (U.N. bombing I believe) and not before shots were fired like others with even more experience I presume.
I guess the point is he still was an advocate of a failed strategy, tactics aside, and of course his predictions (based on his tremendous foreign policy experience to be sure) were horribly wrong.[/quote]
Yes, he supported Rummy for the first year - and then was essentially the first major figure in the GOP to question the “stay the course” strategy, and also began leveling scathing criticism at Rumsfeld. He didn’t call for his resignation because as a structural concern he thought it was important not to undermine the position that a President has the power to choose and fire his cabinet (a fairly relevant concern for someone who plans to run for President, even if you don’t think he would otherwise care about separation-of-powers issues - which I think he would).
A lot of people’s - a lot of voters’- main concern with Iraq is the bungling of the tactics, not a problem with the overall strategy - so if McCain separates from the bad tactical execution, he effectively separates from the problem in the eyes of many independents (and for the purpose of this discussion who cares about what people who are already going to vote for Obama think?).
ADDENDUM: And it would seem that the Democrats agree implicitly that it’s working, given their lack of focus and attention on Iraq - if it were an Albatross on McCain’s neck, one would think they would play it up more. As it is, McCain is the one focused on it Rubinstein the Great Entertainer - Samuel Lipman, Commentary Magazine
[quote]100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
…
The Democrats are disenfranchising their own. Glad you support it.
I don’t see why the DNC needs to let Florida legislature dictate the primary schedule. Most of us support supporting the rules, as Hillary said she would. Some of us have stuck to that, others haven’t. Since their delegates will be seated in some fashion, and their votes don’t change the outcome regardless, not much to worry about.
[/quote]
Dictate the primary schedule? Who the hell cares? They stripped the state of Florida of their votes, quite ironic considering 2000.
This is a fairly good description of the situation overall, even if you can nitpick some of the particulars (e.g., the assumption of racism as THE cause for rejection of Obama by anyone without a college education…):
[i]Thursday, May 22, 2008
SO WHO WILL WIN? This election season has had so many false predictions. About a year ago, the argument was how much Hillary would beat Romney or Guliani by.
I had a pet-theory about the resilience of the American political establishment, which seemed to explain why a Gore could pummel a Bill Bradley, a Bush Jr. hammer a McCain, or a Hillary whack an Obama.
Too bad about the last case. On the other hand, Hillary has shown great resilience, and a willingness to say or do just about anything, posing as the earthed woman of the common folk while lending herself millions, portraying Obama who grew up on foodstamps as an aloof elitist.
Obama succeeded in mobilising not only a vast amount of money and active supporters, but attracted support from the elite and establishment echelons of the Democratic Party, in a way making himself part of the establishment.
So where from here? Consider some countervailing trends:
First, the Republicans seem tired. As Dan Schnur notes ( The Politics of Hunger - The New York Times ):
[quote] It’s hard to remember what an unknown quantity George W. Bush was to Republican true believers in 1999, what with his lineage, his history of working with Democrats in Texas and his fondness for talking about compassionate conservatism.
But after years of watching congressional Republicans play Wile E. Coyote to Bill Clinton's Road Runner, the G.O.P. faithful were hungry again. So they took a flyer on the scion of the Bush they had turned away from less than a decade earlier.
As for the Democrats, eight years of power took the edge off their hunger to a point where just enough of them decided that Al Gore wasn't sufficiently liberal and that the luxury of a vote for Ralph Nader was an indulgence they could afford.[/quote]
(hat-tip, Mark Meredith!)
The Republicans have been smart enough to pick the one candidate with the ability to stand as a critically independent man who is most certainly not George Bush Junior in new clothes.
But this may not be enough. There seems to be a broad, continual revolt underway against Republican misrule. Even McCain may not be able to distance himself from Bush and Bush’s legacy sufficiently to counter this angry force. He also has the hard task of balancing his ‘reach across the aisle’ moderation with his tendency to coddle elements of the hard-core Christian right at times.
On the other hand, Obama’s coalition may be more fragile than we realise. He needs a constituency of blue collar older voters, and he needs the Democrats to mobilise and unite behind him to secure middle America.
There is the obvious problem of some voters just refusing to vote for a black man, as well as the damage that was done when it turned out that the man standing for a post-racial American society had spent too much time with a cleric who spouted toxic bigotry and lies. Obama has repudiated this now, and McCain claims he won’t use it, but the subject is going to come up.
This election is difficult to predict, not only because of the particular combination of candidates, but because it’s hard to generalise about American society from a distance.
But at least we might be spared the prospect, as Mitt Romney called it, of Bill Clinton in the White House with nothing to do.[/i]
What is this talk of racism against Obama? Obama gets ~ 90% of the black votes. Doesn’t Hillary have a better case at being the victim of racism?
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
What is this talk of racism against Obama? Obama gets ~ 90% of the black votes. Doesn’t Hillary have a better case at being the victim of racism?[/quote]
They both benefit from racial identity politics, but him much more so than her.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
What is this talk of racism against Obama? Obama gets ~ 90% of the black votes. Doesn’t Hillary have a better case at being the victim of racism?[/quote]
No.
Remember? They used to all support Hillary over Obama. Things changed.
But,
yes there is racism against Obama.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
…
The Democrats are disenfranchising their own. Glad you support it.
I don’t see why the DNC needs to let Florida legislature dictate the primary schedule. Most of us support supporting the rules, as Hillary said she would. Some of us have stuck to that, others haven’t. Since their delegates will be seated in some fashion, and their votes don’t change the outcome regardless, not much to worry about.
Dictate the primary schedule? Who the hell cares? They stripped the state of Florida of their votes, quite ironic considering 2000.[/quote]
Ironic that Florida would do it to themselves you mean.
[quote]100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
…
The Democrats are disenfranchising their own. Glad you support it.
I don’t see why the DNC needs to let Florida legislature dictate the primary schedule. Most of us support supporting the rules, as Hillary said she would. Some of us have stuck to that, others haven’t. Since their delegates will be seated in some fashion, and their votes don’t change the outcome regardless, not much to worry about.
Dictate the primary schedule? Who the hell cares? They stripped the state of Florida of their votes, quite ironic considering 2000.
Ironic that Florida would do it to themselves you mean.[/quote]
Yeah, excellent point.
You realize democrats want to win Florida in the real elections?
[quote]100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
What is this talk of racism against Obama? Obama gets ~ 90% of the black votes. Doesn’t Hillary have a better case at being the victim of racism?
No.
Remember? They used to all support Hillary over Obama. Things changed.
But,
yes there is racism against Obama.[/quote]
When did black voters support Hillary over Obama? Before they ever heard of Obama?
[quote]100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
…
The Democrats are disenfranchising their own. Glad you support it.
I don’t see why the DNC needs to let Florida legislature dictate the primary schedule. Most of us support supporting the rules, as Hillary said she would. Some of us have stuck to that, others haven’t. Since their delegates will be seated in some fashion, and their votes don’t change the outcome regardless, not much to worry about.
Dictate the primary schedule? Who the hell cares? They stripped the state of Florida of their votes, quite ironic considering 2000.
Ironic that Florida would do it to themselves you mean.[/quote]
You mean vote? Nice blaming the victim here.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
What is this talk of racism against Obama? Obama gets ~ 90% of the black votes. Doesn’t Hillary have a better case at being the victim of racism?
No.
Remember? They used to all support Hillary over Obama. Things changed.
But,
yes there is racism against Obama.
When did black voters support Hillary over Obama? Before they ever heard of Obama?[/quote]
McWhorter and Loury parse the various reasons whites might vote against Obama - seems like there may actually be some non-racist bases for making such a radical decision…