posted
I viewed the statement as one against Hilary and the way she is treating her daughter, not against Chelsea. The accusation is that Hilary is using her daughter unfairly. But in one of the articles, it talked about a generational divide on whether or not the reporter's word choice was that inappropriate.
Regarding Texas, it seems like the weird division of delegates will hurt Hilary. Also, there is a lot of Hilary hate on the Red side and the Republicans I talk to figure their election is over, so they are going to take the opportunity to vote against Hilary. I think by delegates, it'll be 50/50. But, I would love a recent poll. Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
Well, to play devil's advocate, they serve another function too. They have a duty to the people to elect their chosen candidate, but they also have a duty to the party to choose the best candidate for the General, and to get their warrior out front and fighting instead of losing months and a lot of ground to the opposition.
Besides, the convention still does a lot. They still have to decide on a platform, and vote on mundane rules that no one cares about or knows about. Conventions are sort of an anarchronism if you ask me. They by and large don't actually serve the purpose now that they used to. Now they are just a giant GOP or Democratic orgy of backslapping and balloon dropping. It's a wonder they even need the helium with all the hot air they generate.
If they for a minute thought that this might happen, they'd have moved up the convention two months in order to settle the situation sooner.
This is turning into the seventh season of West Wing. Obama is Santos, and Clinton is Bingo Bob. He won more states, but she won the big states. I think Santos even won Illinois but lost California and New York. Sorkin got the details of the voting wrong, but the possibility of being deadlocked is starting to feel eeriely similar.
Regardless, I don't necessarily have a problem with superdelgates stepping in to say "okay, enough, we need to unite now." But I'll be perfectly honest that my lack of a problem stops if they pick Clinton, where I WILL have a problem, because it'll spoil a lot of people on the General. I think they need to wait and see how Texas and Ohio go. If they split the difference, or she wins teeny tiny narrow margins, then it's time to step in and crown Obama. She keeps saying "oh he won all these little states but I won the big states, the states that matter like CA and NY!" Well whoopie. NY and CA are going Democratic anyway, so what's your point? She's trying to make his cross state appeal sound like a BAD thing, and it boggles the mind. Anyway, I won't be surprised to see them step in and settle this thing, and I think a lot of people will be grateful that one of them can start campaigning in May or June instead of August.
Scholar -
I'm working on it, but I haven't seen any recent Texas polls be released. But soon. Before the end of the month anyway. Maybe even by this weekend we'll see new polls. I'm surprised we got a new one for Rhode Island and not Ohio and Texas.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I also think it should go on as long as it has to. Unless it reaches a point where mathematically Hilary CAN'T win, then it's only fair to keep going.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, it is true that "pimped out" could mean something positive, but it's pretty clear from the context that it was the more traditional meaning.
If Chelsea had gotten a makeover, she could be described as pimped out.
I don't doubt that the anchor got his wires crossed, but what came out of his mouth was very insulting.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think whoever loses the pledged certified delegate (so, no michigan or Florida) should gracefully bow out.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lyrhawn, I don't disagree. I just think it's weird how it's become like that. Actually, what I'm seeing as odd may be mostly another case of media sensationalism over the issue. Like democrats are saying "It'd be nice if we got this settled before the convention" and it gets reported on as "Democrats panic over convention battle! They're at each others' throats! The sky is falling!" It's kind of like how pundits wanted to crown somebody after the first 2 or 3 primaries/caucuses. *shrug*
quote:Well, it is true that "pimped out" could mean something positive, but it's pretty clear from the context that it was the more traditional meaning.
If Chelsea had gotten a makeover, she could be described as pimped out.
I don't doubt that the anchor got his wires crossed, but what came out of his mouth was very insulting.
See, maybe it's my familiarity with that phrase in multiple contexts, but I don't find saying something like that offensive. just seems like an alternative way to say, "Hilary is taking advantage of Chelsea and the fact that she's young by sending her out to help garner support for the Clinton campaign". That phrase has become common lingo in what I'm assuming is just my particular age group and doesn't hold the negative connotation of actually prostituting out a person.
it may have been an unwise thing to say. But I didn't find it as horrible as it's been made out out to be
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Enigmatic: Lyrhawn, I don't disagree. I just think it's weird how it's become like that. Actually, what I'm seeing as odd may be mostly another case of media sensationalism over the issue. Like democrats are saying "It'd be nice if we got this settled before the convention" and it gets reported on as "Democrats panic over convention battle! They're at each others' throats! The sky is falling!" It's kind of like how pundits wanted to crown somebody after the first 2 or 3 primaries/caucuses. *shrug*
--Enigmatic
Oh I'm with you 100% on the media sensationalism. Just today I think I heard five references to "Democrats will tear themselves to pieces" and what not. Clinton and Obama have run a, by and large, very civilized campaign thus far. They have pointed out what they consider to be each others' weaknesses, and have largely not resorted to personal attacks. And I think that the neck and neck status doesn't mean we're in for "democrats eating their young" as I also tend to hear about the Democratic nominating process. I think this whole affair is getting a ton of people excited about the process. How many of these people might never have gotten off their butts to vote if it wasn't this closely contested? This has energized the party beyond anything I personally could have guessed at, and all of it is POSITIVE energy.
The pundits are there for the sake of punditry, not to, you know, actually serve a useful function. I'd prefer sometimes if CNN would just mute itself and present the data to me as easily and accessibly as possible, which is why 90% of the time I just look it up on their website. The endless overanalyzing isn't just useless, I think it's actually harmful to the process.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Pimping out" as a transitive verb is neutral or positive. "Pimping out to" as a ditransitive verb still cannotes prostitution.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: She keeps saying "oh he won all these little states but I won the big states, the states that matter like CA and NY!" Well whoopie. NY and CA are going Democratic anyway, so what's your point? She's trying to make his cross state appeal sound like a BAD thing, and it boggles the mind.
Also wanted to add onto this bit. This kind of spin coming out of Clinton's campaign just adds to my dislike of her. The most spin I see from Obama when he loses a state is along the lines of "it was a pretty close second so we still got a decent amount of delegates" or "We did better there than we were polling there a few weeks ago, so that's a good improvement." But Clinton pulls this NY and CA are more important thing, or the Caucus states don't reflect voters like primary states do thing, or not talking about MI and FL until it sounds like she might need those delegates after all. It's that kind of thing that adds to seeing her as divisive and more of a "typical politician," I think.
posted
To be fair, she did start talking about giving Florida their delegates as soon as she'd won.
Well, fair for Clinton. If they use the delegates, it won't be fair for anyone else. I'm just saying fair in terms of evaluating her sincerity in this particular matter.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well she has to say SOMETHING. She can't just come out and say "Whew, half the country just doesn't like me, what can I say!?"
I don't know what positive, relevant spin from her might look like, but pissing on caucus states, and trying to make big blue states seem more important, to me, is a horrible approach, and I think it burns a lot of bridges for anyone who is paying attention.
Pooka -
Fair shmair. She dissed Michigan and Florida in the earlier states, and shunned us, and only kept her name on the ballot because she could afford the slap on the wrist from the DNC. She used us as cannon fodder, and I lost a lot of respect for the way she played that, and then trying to make it look like she's being magnanimous by trying to "honor" the democratic process by having our delegates sat is hypocratic and cheap. It's just one more thing that pushes me squarely into Obama's camp.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:"Pimping out" as a transitive verb is neutral or positive. "Pimping out to" as a ditransitive verb still cannotes prostitution.
I know which use of the word he was engaging. and I know that it originates from prostitution. My point is that i'm familiar with people using that phrase in something along this context:
me:i'm going away this weekend someone else: oh, do you need me to watch your ferrets?(this person usually watches them) me: thanks,but someone else is already watching them. they really wanted to take care of them. someone else: what are you pimping out your ferrets now to the highest bidder?
this connotation doesn't imply the "pimp out your ride" connotation at all. it obviously implies prostitution. but it's become relatively common to hear an exchange like that.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Strider, now replace "ferrets" with "daughters". I see your point, but when the subject of the phrase is a young woman or women it's offensive to most people.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: She keeps saying "oh he won all these little states but I won the big states, the states that matter like CA and NY!" Well whoopie. NY and CA are going Democratic anyway, so what's your point? She's trying to make his cross state appeal sound like a BAD thing, and it boggles the mind.
Yeah Lyrhawn, I believe I read a quote by Clinton recently saying something to the effect of:
"We've been winning the blue states, which are more important come November. It's not like Nebraska is going to go for us in the general."
I couldn't disagree more with this sentiment. It's exactly Obama's appeal in the "red states" that makes me believe that he's the best choice for the Democrats. Clinton can win every single state that Gore won in 2000, but unless she can take one or more of those red states from McCain, she's just going to lose.
I personally see several of those "red states" going blue in 2008 under Obama. I think if he can get enough of them, the term itself will fall out of vogue. Wouldn't that be a great thing?
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Heck, I think Obama can win a landslide victory.
IP: Logged |
posted
I think the fight for independents and moderates between McCain and Obama would be really interesting.
I voted, by the way.
I got really confused by the delegate part and had to go back a couple times to get it straightened out before clicking on "cast ballot". They had a tally of results posted on the outside of the precinct room, which I thought about taking a picture of but then thought I might get in trouble.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
CNN has updated their delegate counts again as more of the Super Tuesday districts are actually getting sorted out. These numbers will change as soon as returns start coming in from today's races, but I thought it'd be nice to post a pre-potomac-primary set:
Clinton: 923 pledged + 234 super = 1157 Obama: 989 pledged + 156 super = 1145
That makes Hillary's lead with the superdelegates even more narrow. I'm betting that today's primaries finally wipe out that "lead." Scare quotes because superdelegates' support is non-binding. I've also seen some commentary that some of the supers who threw in with Clinton early on have said they'll probably "go with the flow" if one candidate shows a substantial lead in pledged delegates.
posted
From what I've read recently, there were some 65 delegates undelegated from previous contests as they sorted things out, and 60 of them were from states that Obama won, so, that looks good. Some of them appear to have been apportioned, I'm not sure where it stands.
I've also read a couple articles that this past weekend has made a lot of Clinton's superdelegates extremely nervous about going agianst what they see as the flow. You might see some defections if the Potomac primaries are Obama blowouts, especially with Wisconsin flipping to Obama, and Hawaii a likely victory as well.
I'd say it's official: Obama's got the Big Mo.
rivka -
You don't like ferret bling? Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Women went for Obama 60/40, men 60/40, whites split 50/50, blacks went for Obama 90/10. In a scary number for Clinton, people who were worried about the economy, Obama got 60/40, and 65/35 on Iraq.
Her two biggest supporters were women and people worried more about the economy. I think this is a stunning defeat across the board. Now they'll spin it as "well we KNEW we were going to lose everything in February, it's all about Ohio and Texas." And that's just crap, they campaigned hard in VA, and still are campaigning hard in WI.
posted
Well, the've got to be sitting on those exit polls (which were pretty one sided) all day, waiting for the polls to close so they can post it.
All the talk of ferret bling makes me think of an old xkcd strip I don't feel like looking for at the moment. It was a ferret with a little biplane style wing-backpack.
posted
The early returns for Huckabee over McCain (55% to 38%) are all in southern-central or south-west Virginia - closer to both Liberty and Regents and strong evangelical strongholds.
Exit polls have them essentially tied.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Copied from the ABCNews Virgina Election webpage cuz the vote count will continuously be updated, and I haven't a clue as to how share my screenshot. Election booths closed at 7:00
posted
Yeah, Maryland has apparently extended voting until 9:30. I'm guessing because of weather and traffic - since several major highways got shut down because of accidents.
Posts: 959 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I personally see several of those "red states" going blue in 2008 under Obama. I think if he can get enough of them, the term itself will fall out of vogue. Wouldn't that be a great thing?
Agreed. Look at some of the voting totals in those 'red' states, and you'll notice some interesting numbers. For example, almost twice as many voters participated in the Kansas Democratic caucus as the Republican caucus. That's significant, though it doesn't necessarily mean Kansas will swing to the blue. I think there's a chance, but I'm not going to pick the odds. Posts: 1813 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Even though Obama was expected to win Virginia, I think winning it is still a big deal because it's likely to be a swing state and it has an open primary. And if he can win swing states, I think that bodes well for his chances in the general election, if he wins the nomination.
Of course, that could also be my Obama-colored glasses speaking.
Posts: 959 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Obama has a fantastic chance of winning Virginia, and I think downticket races means that an Obama win will likely usher Mark Warner into the second senate seat there, which will mean in two years VA will have gone from 2 GOP senators to two Democrats, with a Democratic governor. It's all about NOVA.
I don't see Kansas going Blue, but you never know. Nebraska has at least one Democratic senator, Kathleen Sebelius I believe is from Kansas, and she's a Democrat. I think Missouri has a good chance of going blue with Obama. But consider that Nebraska and Kansas are states that Bush won in 2004 by comfortable margins. That might not mean much now, but that's Republican stronghold territory. Winning there will be a fight.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Me? I'm just ticked off at ABCNews calling a winner based on less than 120 votes. That's not even vaguely close to being a big enough sample to even vaguely test whether an exit poll is even vaguely within the bounds of being useful.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Since they waited until the polls closed, what does it matter. If they're wrong, that's egg on their faces, so they must have thought they knew what they were doing.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:But his[Obama's] statements on foreign affairs make it clear that he has absolutely no idea how such matters are conducted and what the repercussions of the policies he has announced would actually be.
You know what doesn't get old, fifty-something white guys telling me how the world really works.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm impressed by the fact that they actually waited for the polls to close. That's a responsible choice to make. I'm betting they had a pretty good idea of what was going to happen just from the exit polls, and if they could have would've called it for him before the polls even closed, but as soon as they were able to they called it.
Scholar -
It will be a refreshing change. It's the first time in something like 20 years where both candidates from the parties will be able to have a realistic shot of reaching into each other's territory to try and win votes. He'll be going for the heartland and the south, and the west, and McCain will be trying to nail down moderate swing states. And they both have a pretty good chance, though I think Obama has a unique opportunity for an electoral landslide.
And frankly I hope Obama wins by massive margins, not because I just want him to win, though I do, but because I want this country as a whole to feel like he is EVERYONE's president. We've had eight years of "he's not my president" and really the eight years before from the other side did the same thing. I think Obama is a guy who a new majority in the country can really feel is their president, even if he isn't from their party. And that's why you'll see him campaigning in Lincoln, Nebraska, and Mobile, Alabama and Dallas, Texas, places that usually Democrats don't bother to waste their time in because they feel it IS a waste of time. He might not adopt a 50 state strategy, but this won't be a knife fight in the swing states like elections have devolved into in the last few elections. I think it'll be wide open.
I wish there wasn't an electoral college. This election would be explosive beyond our wildest dreams if there wasn't.
Irami -
That statement is just as true if you take "white guys" out of there. The irony is 50 year old people of whatever race and gender telling younger people how the world works when they've spent the last 30 years royally screwing the world up.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Without the state structure the electoral college represents, the west would just be a massive dumping ground for nuclear waste from the big cities. At least, that's what they tell me.
If McCain has any brains, he won't take Romney or Huckabee as a VP unless he has to, which I don't think he will. I think he'll get the majority of delegates without either one of them. There was just a poll about that question when I was on MSN. If he chooses either one, he alienates the followers of the other.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't see the connection at all. Yucca is in a single state, and any contender can win without a single state. Besides, saying yes to Yucca loses a single state and every other state with a nuclear power plant that candidate can say he just solved the waste disposal issue and pick up votes. I've yet to hear any convincing arguments that the electoral college is a benefit to anyone at all, except for the incredibly small number of states who swing back and forth. Between that and front loaded primaries, we might as well just take a couple dozen stars off the flag for all the importance they have.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not just nuclear waste, Utah got stuck with the Chemical Weapons disposal deal. Most of Colorado's water gets channelled down to California.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: It will be a refreshing change. It's the first time in something like 20 years where both candidates from the parties will be able to have a realistic shot of reaching into each other's territory to try and win votes.
How can that be true? If that were true, wouldn't the same party have won all the elections of the last twenty years?
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
No, because some states aren't a specific party's territory.
Off the top of my head, I'd say there are 25 solidly Republican states that have gone Republican a majority of the time in the past 20-30 years. There's probably 15 in that same category for the Democrats, and then 10 states that keep swinging back and forth with no firm footing in either party. I'd have to really look at the data from each of the last four elections to really give you the states and where I think they lie, but the point is that there are solidly Republican states, solidly Democratic states, and states that go every which way depending on what's going on that year.
When I say reach into each other's territory, I mean touching those states that have been static for 20 years. It won't be a fight JUST for the swing states, they'll go after the base of each other's party too.
I was going to try and fit an all your base are belong to us joke in there, but I couldn't smoothly work it in. Hm.
posted
Copied from the ABCNews Maryland Election webpage cuz the vote count will be updated, and I haven't a clue as to how share my screenshot. Election booths closed at 9:30.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
