Obama won 72% to Hilary's 26% in Maryland according to CNN.
2008 Presidential Primaries
- Thread starter Griffith
- Start date
Vampire_Hunter_Bob
Cats are great
Peregrine_Falcon said:
That chick I work with is gonna be PISSED.
Listening to McCain's speech. It's pretty good. He's definitely shifting focus a bit. A LOT of the speech so far has been on what he says the democrats will do should they be elected (big government), and he's really attacking the hope and change message (zing to Obama). Huckabee's a non-issue and he's not leaning the speech towards the conservative base but seems to be phrasing the conversation in the form of "well you gotta join with me 'cause the alternative is fuckin' terrible".
..Interesting.
In other news these wins definitely puts Obama over the top in terms of delegates
..Interesting.
In other news these wins definitely puts Obama over the top in terms of delegates
yea that's the current buzz around town, the roll of the superdelegates in these primaries. Some stalwart Clinton supporters are saying that if she doesn't win by good margins Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania she's done - and should quit. However people inside the Clinton campaign say they're willing to wait until the convention (and rely on the superdelegates and try to get Fl. and Wisconsin back in).
Griffith
With the streak of a tear, Like morning dew
I'm not too worried about the superdelegates, but Hillary might be. For one thing, most superdelegates can change their votes, and before we even get to that point, a lot of what were supposed to be big Clinton supporters have already pledged to Obama. I'm talking like people Hillary campaigned for and helped get elected. That means they think Obama just has the better chance to win, and if it's close near the end, and it could even be a case where Hillary has more delegates but Obama has the momentum, the party and the superdelegates could basically swing it for Obama without giving the Clintons much choice but to concede.
Griffith No More! said:
I agree in that I think the outcomes of the next big three (Ohio, Texas, Penn.) are more important than wondering what the superdelegates might do. If Hillary can't stop Obama's momentum in _all_ of those states it's a problem. However I think there's going to be a bigger problem should the superdelegates swing the election against the popular vote (no matter how narrow the margin).
I'm not totally sure what the polls are saying about Wisconsin but I believe Obama's slated to win there (or at least get really close). Ohio and Texas are Clinton territory at the moment (around 60% in favor).
The Popular vote means nothing. God bless American Democracy!
Griffith
With the streak of a tear, Like morning dew
Peregrine_Falcon said:
Copied the World over.
More seriously on that subject, there's good reason for the electoral college, namely empowering individual states, particularly smaller ones, so that it doesn't just become a few select large populations that run everything. So it does actually help to decentralize power, rather than giving it all to the secret privileged overlords of the shadow government as some might think.
Ironically, it's the purists, that don't understand how the system works, that end up electing people like Bush. That's right, Bush wasn't elected by a bunch of conservative red staters, he was elected by blue state bimbo liberals that fancy ego masturbation at their local polling place. For example, forget Florida, it wouldn't have even been an issue if not for all dumb ass college age idealists in New Hampshire that swung the state to Bush by voting for Ralph "I helped ruin the country too" Nadir. If that alone hadn't of happened, Florida would have just been an interesting footnote in that election, and we'd be saying farewell to President Gore. I tried explaining it to an idealist voter in Santa Cruz once, and they didn't get what's the most important thing about any candidate: 270. Can they win the electoral college votes needed? But they wanted to vote for their perfect candidate, "I want to vote for exactly who I want." Nice idea, but you actually helped who you didn't want even more.
So, your vote does count whether you use it or not, and more than most people think, because not only can it help who you vote for, but it can hurt everyone you don't. If the Republican or Democrat candidate doesn't appeal to you, well, too bad, it's a two party system, always has been, so vote for the one you think is best, and don't forsake the best in pursuit of unattainable perfection. Change comes slowly, by moving the needle, from the Republican to the Democrat side and vice vera, if one side wins enough, then even the other side becomes more like the other. That's real change, not guys like Ron Paul and Ralph Nadir.
Thought this was interesting:
AP said:
Damn Mike, what is this this supposed to make us think of you as a prospective President, has me pondering questions like, what if another country offered to pay you more than we do? =)
Also, Obama and Clinton are getting nasty again, I like Hilary's plagiarism charge against Obama, for using the same or similar slogans and speech as a friend of his, the best (it's also funny since she plagiarized his entire campaign after Iowa). When did they start running for high school student body President?
UPDATE: And Obama wins Wisconsin.
Yea the plagiarism thing doesn't really work for Hill-dog. Especially with the guy he supposedly stole from going on and saying it's totally cool that he used the snippit from the "just words" speech.
But then you've got Hillary trying to start a chant of "Yes we will":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhCikLeXb7c
...it doesn't really work and then someone in the front row has some kind of medical crisis, so the energy is completely sucked out of the room.
But then you've got Hillary trying to start a chant of "Yes we will":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhCikLeXb7c
...it doesn't really work and then someone in the front row has some kind of medical crisis, so the energy is completely sucked out of the room.
Griffith
With the streak of a tear, Like morning dew
Uriel said:
I've been excited for a while now, Obama's not just the frontrunner for the democratic nomination, but the White House. I had a gen-U-ine political expert (to the point that every year he researches and predicts who will win down to the state, and the last few Presidential elections he's gotten all 50 right) handicap it for me a couple of weeks ago with Obama first, McCain second, and Hillary third in odds to be President (which was a nice surprise to me at the time). Furthermore, he explained to me how Hillary could be seen as more a liability by the party than an insider with the inside track to the nomination (so if you fear they'll just give it to her because she's Hillary or she'll steal it in the end somehow like I did, it may actually be the opposite). As a matter of fact, here's an article he wrote about the election a few weeks ago:
http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2008/feb/03/californians-need-to-think-ohio/
Anyway, hope away, Obama's the frontrunner, and these latest results show he's not only winning, but chipping away at Hillary's base while taking further command of his own, just don't throw dirt on her yet either (or she'll rise from her grave out of spite =).
Anyone know what kind of margins Hill-dog would have to win in Texas and Ohio by to gain the lead? Not saying she would but I'm curious as to what the math is.
Also her campaign is now concentrating efforts to not only get Florida and Michigan delegates to count but also to try and sway committed delegates. Now that in itself doesn't really bother me but it does seem to indicate that Hillary's campaign is stubborn enough to drag this on and on way longer than it needs to go.
CNN's got yet another debate coming up. These ratings grabs guised as political events are really getting annoying and we still have many, many months to go.
Also her campaign is now concentrating efforts to not only get Florida and Michigan delegates to count but also to try and sway committed delegates. Now that in itself doesn't really bother me but it does seem to indicate that Hillary's campaign is stubborn enough to drag this on and on way longer than it needs to go.
CNN's got yet another debate coming up. These ratings grabs guised as political events are really getting annoying and we still have many, many months to go.
I don't even bother watching the debates anymore. All candidates do is restate their heavily edited political ideology, kiss a lot of ass, and give such vague descriptions of their proposed solutions that you can't take them seriously. They are likely to say something like "I will fight to withdraw our troops from Iraq" or "I will promote racial harmony for our children". You can't take anything they say as fact either. Sometimes they explain things without proper context, exaggerate something, or completely lie about it.
The news should have more experts come on to debate the issues as opposed to charisma analysis. We could learn a lot more by watching authentic debates between experts on foreign and economic policy than we could from 5 second sound bytes trying to appeal to our emotions.
I could do without observations like:
"This is a historic election because a black man and a woman are front-runners."
"Bill Clinton does a lot of campaigning for his wife"
"Obama knows how to light up a room"
The news should have more experts come on to debate the issues as opposed to charisma analysis. We could learn a lot more by watching authentic debates between experts on foreign and economic policy than we could from 5 second sound bytes trying to appeal to our emotions.
I could do without observations like:
"This is a historic election because a black man and a woman are front-runners."
"Bill Clinton does a lot of campaigning for his wife"
"Obama knows how to light up a room"
Aazealh said:
Honestly, given the incredible number of things a Politician would have to be an expert in, I'm not sure it is even possible to have that much knowledge.
I mentioned getting 'experts' on news shows such as politicians who have worked in a certain field, professors, authors. They could debate each candidate's approach with other experts and debate the candidates themselves (even though candidates may not be the greatest experts, I certainly would be interested in seeing how they defend their positions, just how much they truly know, and how they desperately cling on to their views in the midst of losing an argument.)
"it wouldn't have even been an issue if not for all dumb ass college age idealists in New Hampshire that swung the state to Bush by voting for Ralph "I helped ruin the country too" Nadir."
Griff, I take offense to this. Not only because I'm from New Hampshire(voted for Gore), but because your assessment is what is wrong with the system. It seems (and I may be wrong, and forgive me if I missed the point of your post) that you believe that this is some sort of popularity contest, and I'm supposed to vote for whom ever my friends vote for. Pick one of the two bastards and say "good enough."
You should vote your conscience, and leave the two party hoopla behind. The fact that it is a two party system is a perversion of the original intent. In it's inception, this was a multi-party system. The "good enough" attitude, along with the American desire to say you voted for the winner turned us into two party/one coin system(two sides, one coin).
That, and the state didn't swing towards Republican. Up until the 'o4 election, New Hampshire usually voted republican.
Griff, I take offense to this. Not only because I'm from New Hampshire(voted for Gore), but because your assessment is what is wrong with the system. It seems (and I may be wrong, and forgive me if I missed the point of your post) that you believe that this is some sort of popularity contest, and I'm supposed to vote for whom ever my friends vote for. Pick one of the two bastards and say "good enough."
You should vote your conscience, and leave the two party hoopla behind. The fact that it is a two party system is a perversion of the original intent. In it's inception, this was a multi-party system. The "good enough" attitude, along with the American desire to say you voted for the winner turned us into two party/one coin system(two sides, one coin).
That, and the state didn't swing towards Republican. Up until the 'o4 election, New Hampshire usually voted republican.
Griffith No More! said:
I thought he was being funny when he said that. If you were being serious, then I think it's wrong to vote for a candidate simply because he has the best chance of winning. Third parties don't get elected but they do make certain issues important. The republicans have to actually pay attention to people who want isolationist foreign policies and small government if they don't want to lose the libertarian vote, for example. They are some of the few people who keep this two-party system from turning into a dictatorship.
People always beleive that it has to be the lesser of two evils, but I am not going to vote for a candidate that's a complete shitbag. If Joe Lieberman and Tom Metzger were the front-runners in this election, for example, I would rather kill myself than vote for either of them.
Griffith
With the streak of a tear, Like morning dew
Look, you guys are kinda cherrypicking lines from my post you don't like, but that don't really change my main point about effective change and how it DOES work, as opposed to how you want it to. Anyway, I'll just throw out a few words in response that touch on some of these issues you raise, but I don't want to get into a quote war over it. I don't think I'm going to change any minds that don't want to be changed.
Voting with your conscience doesn't just mean voting for whoever you feel like in spite of the two party system, that isn't conscientious voting, it's delusional and irresponsible. It's like pushing on a door that says "PULL TO OPEN" and complaining because it won't open your way. What sense does that make? We're not just electing a person, we're electing a party and giving it a mandate, we're sending a message to that party and all the others: BE MORE LIKE THIS. Change comes from slowly moving the needle left or right that way, not from voting for your personal favorite flavor of the month. The reality is that things are the way they are because not enough people are dissatisfied enough to want to change them. That's Democracy. Voting based on a single entity (one person), now that's the popularity contest mentality, and it's also why young voters have had virtually no positive impact on the election process since 18 year olds got the vote. This is about the big picture, supreme court justices, not just hot button issues. I understand what you guys are saying and how it's pure and ideal, but we've never had a pure democracy, what we've got is a working one (count your blessings). I'm not saying it's ideal, but it is what it is, and what is going to continue, unless there's a true, broad dissatisfaction and mandate nationwide to change it, not just a disillusioned youth movement (and what happens to those movements? They grow up). Until that happens, you're just pushing on the PULL door. Anyway, I think everyone should ask themselves, am I going to vote in the way that sounds smart in theory, or in the way that IS smart in reality?
Voting with your conscience doesn't just mean voting for whoever you feel like in spite of the two party system, that isn't conscientious voting, it's delusional and irresponsible. It's like pushing on a door that says "PULL TO OPEN" and complaining because it won't open your way. What sense does that make? We're not just electing a person, we're electing a party and giving it a mandate, we're sending a message to that party and all the others: BE MORE LIKE THIS. Change comes from slowly moving the needle left or right that way, not from voting for your personal favorite flavor of the month. The reality is that things are the way they are because not enough people are dissatisfied enough to want to change them. That's Democracy. Voting based on a single entity (one person), now that's the popularity contest mentality, and it's also why young voters have had virtually no positive impact on the election process since 18 year olds got the vote. This is about the big picture, supreme court justices, not just hot button issues. I understand what you guys are saying and how it's pure and ideal, but we've never had a pure democracy, what we've got is a working one (count your blessings). I'm not saying it's ideal, but it is what it is, and what is going to continue, unless there's a true, broad dissatisfaction and mandate nationwide to change it, not just a disillusioned youth movement (and what happens to those movements? They grow up). Until that happens, you're just pushing on the PULL door. Anyway, I think everyone should ask themselves, am I going to vote in the way that sounds smart in theory, or in the way that IS smart in reality?