quote:The logic I'm expressing is that a "good guy," doesn't treat 6 million people like they're less then dirt...You think a non-scumbag can make a conscious decision to pursue a policy of treating his constituents like dirt in order to further his own personal ambitions... Someone being a "good guy," to me means someone who doesn't actively think up ways, and then use those ways, of treating people like dirt.
I get that you don't like Romney, Paul. But "treated 6 million people like less than dirt" is an absurd characterization of Romney's behavior. He made a few jokes at MA expense, he pointed out the absurd liberal bias of state politics. He certainly was never as personally insulting of any member of the state as you've been in this thread. I don't recall him wishing choking on anyone. Or calling anyone a "douchebag" or "scumbag." Those are the sort of personal insults that I would say merit the description "treating someone like less than dirt."
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Douchebag or scumbag may be harsh. But a phony jerk suits Romney. All along, Romney struck me as a complete phony. And millions shared that view.
quote: The quality of being genuine is hard to convey, and deciding who should be president based solely on that basis can lead to disaster; you need brains and an ability to go with the flow as well. But voters know a phony above all and Romney came off as one from the get-go. Over the last decade he had changed his views in a rightward direction on so many issues to suit what he thought he needed to win the GOP nomination that he ended up standing for nothing but his own ambition.
But his concession speech is what makes me think of him as a complete jerk. The casual causality casuistry is nauseating: from the pornography-caused out-of-wedlock children to the demographic bubble in Europe caused by lack of faith in God, these and other points are amateurish, pandering, and completely lacking in facts.
But of course, the show-stopper is his calling a Democratic victory an inevitable "surrender to terror."
What crap. For my money, too many Republicans have already surrendered to terror, and that's what's been driving our foreign policy since 9/11.
posted
Just got back from the Nebraska democratic caucus. Crazy turnout, had to stand in line for about 20 minutes in the blowing cold.
Senator Ben Nelson and Omaha Mayor Mike Fayhe were in attendance, which we thought was interesting considering that there were so many different districts caucusing today. Turns out they both live in our district.
They packed us all in a little gym. They tried to give Clinton supporters and Obama supports an equal amount of room, which was ridiculous considering how much we outnumbered them. They kept telling us to squeeze tighter, where we were already packed in like sardines. The Clinton supporters could have done jumping jacks they had so much room.
We stuck around for the final numbers. For our Caucus:
1195 total votes Clinton: 278 Obama: 917
That's 77% for Obama. Our district gives 10 delegates to the county convention. 8 were given to Obama, and 2 to Clinton.
posted
Your experience sounds typical, Xavier http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_page=2835&u_sid=10254218 and sounds too much like dirty*tricks pulled by political*machines to discourage voters who won't back the machine candidate.
* ala Michigan's "We can ignore national party mandates, but we hafta obey the candidates' requests."
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:With Romney gone, the chances of a brokered convention are nearly zero. But that does not affect my determination to fight on, in every caucus and primary remaining, and at the convention for our ideas, with just as many delegates as I can get. But with so many primaries and caucuses now over, we do not now need so big a national campaign staff, and so I am making it leaner and tighter. Of course, I am committed to fighting for our ideas within the Republican party, so there will be no third party run. I do not denigrate third parties — just the opposite, and I have long worked to remove the ballot-access restrictions on them. But I am a Republican, and I will remain a Republican.
So he's trimming his staff, and has forsworn a third-party run.
Where's the petition to encourage Nader to run? Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
OUCH! Hilary is losing 67-30 in washignton and nebraska.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: errrm...Wasn't it starLisa who wished worse upon eg Israeli PrimeMinister Sharon for failing to have a sufficiently genocidal attitude toward Palestinians?
I'm sorry, you mean for practicing ethnic cleansing on Jews?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've been meaning to ask you, Lisa, how does Paul's approach on pulling out of Israel strike you? Does American's involvement in Israel merely interfere with an effective policy? Do you feel American aid trickles down to the people directly attacking Israel? Just wondering.
I am not surprised that KS and LA went to Huckabee, but Washington? Huckabee can't hit the magic number without Romney's delegates, but McCain might wind up needing them.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: I've been meaning to ask you, Lisa, how does Paul's approach on pulling out of Israel strike you? Does American's involvement in Israel merely interfere with an effective policy? Do you feel American aid trickles down to the people directly attacking Israel? Just wondering.
It doesn't trickle down, it's a lot more direct than that. But yes, the US gives three times as much to the Arabs (which is less per capita, but that doesn't change what it'll buy in terms of arms), and that, by itself, makes Paul's idea a good one.
But look, I've been of the view for decades that the best thing the US could do for Israel is to cut all aid. Every penny. Even if they kept on giving money to the Arabs. Though the idea of cutting them off as well rocks.
Israel is like an addict. We think we need the US, so we kowtow to US demands and don't do what we need to.
I had a friend when I was living in Israel who was extremely generous. I mean, really and truly. She was always there financially if someone needed help. Emotionally as well, usually. But the help had implicit strings, and that really bothered me. To the point that once I realized what was going on, I preferred to do without the help. The thing with the US and Israel is that writ large, and I'd support Ron Paul for wanting to cut Israel off alone, even if I didn't agree with 95% of his other positions.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not at all surprised by the results today. Obama won a sweeping victory, but he didn't just sort of win them, like a lot of the split states in past elections, he crushed her in Nebraksa (won by 36 points), in Washington (won by 37 points), and in Louisiana (won by 21 points). He even won the Virgin Islands. He's poised to do the same thing again on Tuesday in the so called Potomac Primaries.
Speaking of which, the Potomac Primaries:
Maryland -
February 8th - Barack Obama 52%, Hillary Clinton 33%, Other 2%, Undecided 13% February 6th - Barack Obama 57%,Hillary Clinton 31%, Undecided 23%
Virginia -
February 7-8th - Barack Obama 59%, Hillary Clinton 39%, Other 1%, Undecided 1% Barack Obama 55%, Hillary Clinton 37%, Undecided 23% (apparently they polled 115% of Virginians? Must be a typo) Barack Obama 52%, Hillary Clinton 37%, Other 1%, Undecided 10% Barack Obama 59%, Hillary Clinton 37%, Other 2%, Undecided 3%
Regardless he has a commanding lead in every poll. I haven't seen a poll for Washington DC, but, pundits have been calling it an almost automatic win. The DC area is commandingly African American. I don't have any recent polling data on Maine. Obama was doen by almost 20 points back in April of last year, but that's a useless number now, he could easily be up by 20 now. The thing is though, Maine is a caucus, which Obama has overwhelmingly dominated thus far, so any advantage Clinton might have could be swept away by that. Her only real chance for a win in the month of February is Wisconsin, where she is ahead by 9 points, with 10 undecideds. I don't know though. After two weeks of wins, two weeks of campaigning with more money, and two weeks of speeches like the one he is giving right now, I think it'll be enough.
CNN has the delegate count at:
Clinton 1100 Obama 1039
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks for the coverage and experiences everyone, notably Lyrhawn. I'm so excited I might actually make a difference in the first presidential election I'm eligible to vote in Obama's campaign has wonderful momentum; I think he's got this.
Posts: 349 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Does anybody think that the superdelegates might switch their allegiance from Hillary to Obama given how well he is doing in the primaries/caucuses?
I am assuming the only reason she's ahead in delegates is because of the superdelegates who decided to go with her early on. (Why are so many of them supporting her, anyway?)
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jtk - The DEMOCRATIC ones are WTA? I'm not so sure about that. I'm pretty sure all the Democratic states are proportional.
Katarain -
Superdelegates are fickle in situations like this. Only a couple hundred of the thousand or so of them have pledges support so far (and they are the reason why, despite the higher delegate count, she is a tiny bit ahead of him), and for good reason. If you back the wrong horse out of the gate, and your guy loses, then you have to deal with the winner later on. None of them want to face political retribution. I'm more concerned with where the remaining 700 Superdelegates place their support than I am with the 180 or so that Clinton has, but, there IS a small chance that they might, but I don't see it happening until Obama is a foregone conclusion, which may not happen for weeks, if ever.
Superdelegates, much like a typical Republican primary season, like to pile onto the guy who has momentum. If Obama REALLY picks up steam, they'll flock to him. If it goes neck and neck like this, it's anyone's guess how they'll break.
As for why they went with her? Strider is right, it's party machinery. Clinton had and has a mass of the Democratic national party's machinery backing her bid. It's an incredible advantage, and the fact that Obama has done so well speaks volumes about the strength of his grass roots campaign efforts. The party machinery is a force to be reckoned with. They have dollars, they have in state established offices and organizers and people they work with. Obama has to do it all from scratch, which is why getting endorsed by someone like Ted Kennedy is a huge coup, because you get access to his statewide efforts, which have been in place for 30 years, and his national ones too. The Clintons, being so popular with the party, had the machinery behind them, mostly having to do with Bill's connections. They're the ultimate power couple.
But you can see that Obama stemmed the tide of the rush to support her. It's a fight now.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
He could gain some leverage now. I think it was Lyr who mentioned that many of the superdelegates are elected Democrats -- members of the House, senators, governors, et cetera. If Obama keeps winning, he can go to the superdelegates and say "Hey, I won your constituency. Why would you cast a ballot for Clinton?"
posted
Every Senator, governor and Rep gets a vote, so, something like 320 or so of them are elected officials. The others are mysterious shadowy party elite figures.
But, James, that might backfire in some places, for two reasons. 1. Actually look at where he's won his votes. A lot of the places are heavily Republican districts in red states. And B. Look at somewhere like Missouri, where he won the whole state by winning basically 4 or 5 out of like 70 counties. He won the cities, but lost vast swaths of territory, which means he probably only took like two or three Congressional districts, I'm not sure, I'd have to look at the map and see how the districts are drawn in comparison to the county lines.
Hillary's best areas are the heavily Democratic ones (or at least they were on SuperTuesday, not so much this weekend).
He might be able to use that argument in some select cases, but more than likely it'll be "Hey, I'm polling 8 points ahead of McCain right now for the national election, I'm ahead of her in money (and YOU want a piece of the pie too right?), in fundraising ability, in turnout and in momentum. Where do you really want to put your vote?"
I've read news stories that both candidates are on the phone with their superdelegates on an almost daily basis making sure they don't jump ship. It's a tenuous situation to be sure.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've read so many sites this morning, I'm not sure where I saw it, but Obama is definitely ahead on pledged delegates now. I mean, you'd have to know that just from the fact that there is less than 100 delegates difference between them total.
I'll be watching McCain very closely over the next two days. If he makes any commitment to reneg on immigration, I'll vote "uncommitted".
quote:With Romney gone, the chances of a brokered convention are nearly zero. But that does not affect my determination to fight on, in every caucus and primary remaining, and at the convention for our ideas, with just as many delegates as I can get. But with so many primaries and caucuses now over, we do not now need so big a national campaign staff, and so I am making it leaner and tighter. Of course, I am committed to fighting for our ideas within the Republican party, so there will be no third party run. I do not denigrate third parties — just the opposite, and I have long worked to remove the ballot-access restrictions on them. But I am a Republican, and I will remain a Republican.
So he's trimming his staff, and has forsworn a third-party run.
Where's the petition to encourage Nader to run?
Pretty sure Nader already formed a presidential exploratory committee.
posted
This is what the DNC needs to consider: We have unprecedented turnout at these primaries. Unprecendented numbers, especially, of young people and African American people. Do we want to disillusion these first time voters? Do we want this to be the only time they vote because their vote didn't "matter"?
Or do we want them to become regular voters? Can you imagine what it would mean for the Democratic party if young people and African Americans were to become habitual voters? Not just in November but in 2012? 2016?
We have an opportunity here.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Any more recent Texas polls? edit to add- The Democrats seem to self destruct when things go well for them. If Obama wins on pledged votes and the superdelegates go for Hilary, it will be very, very bad.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scholar: Any more recent Texas polls? edit to add- The Democrats seem to self destruct when things go well for them. If Obama wins on pledged votes and the superdelegates go for Hilary, it will be very, very bad.
It would make for some very delicious vintage year 2000 irony.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, I could almost hope to see Ron Paul win just for the effect on Lisa of what will happen to Israel without American aid. But then again, I don't think I really want a nuclear war and at least one genocide in the Middle East, so - tempting as it is to let tube annoyance overrule major geopolitical concerns - I guess I'll have to pass.
Not that it matters since I don't have a vote, sigh.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
I think israel would do fine, they make enough money selling radars and other american designed systems to China.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: You know, I could almost hope to see Ron Paul win just for the effect on Lisa of what will happen to Israel without American aid.
From your mouth to God's ears.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Not that it matters since I don't have a vote, sigh.
posted
I don't have any polls more recent than what I've already posted, but I can guarantee there will be newer polls before Ohio and Texas vote on March 4th. And I think I'll have new Wisconsin numbers by the weekend.
Oh, and Obama won a grammy today.
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: I think israel would do fine, they make enough money selling radars and other american designed systems to China.
Nice of them to use our time and money spent on research in order to make us less safe by selling technology that we won't sell to our biggest potential threat. Thanks allies!
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Its part of the reaosn why Israel wasnt invited to take part of the development of the JSF.
IP: Logged |
posted
Well that makes perfect sense. The JSF will be one of, if not the most advanced fighter in the world when it's rolled out of the factory.
Israel selling it to China would be disastrous. I'd support airstrikes to take out their ability to make the planes and to destroy any information they have on it if that hypothetical situation had ever come to pass.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Say what you will about Huckabee, but there is something downright virtuous about this sentiment:
quote: But even with Romney out, Huckabee faces a daunting challenge. McCain has a significant lead in the delegate count after Super Tuesday. If Huckabee wins every remaining state with 50 percent of the vote to McCain's 40 percent, McCain would still be the nominee, according to CNN calculations. A breakdown of the results »
"I know the pundits, and I know what they say: The math doesn't work out," Huckabee said Saturday morning at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington. "Well, I didn't major in math; I majored in miracles. And I still believe in those, too."
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Well that makes perfect sense. The JSF will be one of, if not the most advanced fighter in the world when it's rolled out of the factory.
Israel selling it to China would be disastrous. I'd support airstrikes to take out their ability to make the planes and to destroy any information they have on it if that hypothetical situation had ever come to pass.
Thats an impossible task, politically and militarily and you know it.
IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Hmm, after some digging it turns out Israel has been reinstated as part of the program and will be the first foreign nation to receive them in 2012.
IP: Logged |
posted
Last week I received a call asking if I would be voting in the Republican primary. I said no, conversation ended. I am kinda curious what would have happened if I said yes.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: I think israel would do fine, they make enough money selling radars and other american designed systems to China.
Nice of them to use our time and money spent on research in order to make us less safe by selling technology that we won't sell to our biggest potential threat. Thanks allies!
Yeah, that's an accurate take on what happened.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Think of it like this: If you throw out all of the wonks and electoral math, we have a process made up not of determined atoms, fixed in their direction, but people, masses of people, each with their own agency, and with people, all things are possible. That's the quality of political faith I find virtuous.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I prefer for my politicians to understand statistics and have a reasonable framework of the possible.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: I think israel would do fine, they make enough money selling radars and other american designed systems to China.
Nice of them to use our time and money spent on research in order to make us less safe by selling technology that we won't sell to our biggest potential threat. Thanks allies!
America has sold stuff to Arab countries that Israel was involved in designing. Don't be such a hypocrite. Israel isn't responsible for America's security over its own.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If all of Romney's supporters had gone to Huckabee, it wouldn't be so unlikely. But even those who are not Mormons seem to be in in despair over the remaining choices.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
OSC is going to have to be praying for either McCain or Huckabee. I mean, they're the two most pro-war candidates out there.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Obama's campaign has wonderful momentum; I think he's got this.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Yeah, that's an accurate take on what happened.
