The Comeback Clintons - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Ustwo · 01-09-2008, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

You're a radical too, just of a different flavor.

Yea thats why I want nothing to do with Huckabee, Romney, or Paul (though a Ron Paul presidency would be hysterical) and think of the current crop McCain is the best choice, (I didn't give Rudy a second look from the get go) and would also support someone like Liberman.

host · 01-09-2008, 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Yea thats why I want nothing to do with Huckabee, Romney, or Paul (though a Ron Paul presidency would be hysterical) and think of the current crop McCain is the best choice, (I didn't give Rudy a second look from the get go) and would also support someone like Liberman.

Yeah, a proposed $200 billion cut in annual military spending, from $630 billion, plus supplemental appropriations for Afghanistan and Iraq wars, would be a hoot, if Ron Paul got elected, wouldn't it?

.....and you would support Lieberman, why?:

You certainly can't be supportive of Lieberman's liberal voting record on social issues:
http://www.issues2000.org/Joseph_Lieberman.htm

So your support for him must be influenced by his unwavering support for "staying the course" in Iraq, right?

"I support Joe Lieberman, because he has consistantly been, "stay the course".:

YouTube - Joe Lieberman and "Stay the Course"

Quote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/25/ny.../25senate.html
By JENNIFER MEDINA
Published: October 25, 2006

HARTFORD, Oct 25 — Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut has used the phrase “stay the course” several times in discussing the war in Iraq in recent years, echoing a key phrase of the White House, contrary to an <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/25/nyregion/25senate.html">article published Tuesday in The New York Times.</a>

The article used a database to analyze hundreds of Mr. Lieberman’s war-related comments since 2001. It pointed out that Ned Lamont, the Democratic nominee for United States Senate, frequently criticized Mr. Lieberman for being a strong supporter of the Bush administration’s “stay the course” policy on Iraq, and said that in the statements reviewed, Mr. Lieberman had never actually uttered that phrase.

In fact, Mr. Lieberman has used the phrase more than a half-dozen times over the last two years, during a presidential debate and in television interviews — including several instances that were in the Times database. As recently as November 2005, upon returning from a trip to Iraq, for instance, he said on CNN’s “American Morning” that he agreed with the administration’s view that it was necessary to “stay the course.”

“I agree to the extent that we have to stay the course of the policy we chose in overthrowing Saddam and helping the Iraqi people become free, which will really make us a lot more secure and set the terrorists back,” Mr. Lieberman said, adding that some war tactics should change.

The original article noted that the database, which included more than 300 Iraq-related comments since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, could not be comprehensive. But five of Mr. Lieberman’s “stay the course” references were, in fact, included in the database, and should have been mentioned in the article.

It is unclear why, when the database was checked for the phrase before publication, three times, it did not come up. A similar search on Tuesday, after readers complained, yielded the correct results.

Mr. Lieberman used the phrase several times in January 2004 during a presidential primary debate in Iowa. “We have to stay the course in Iraq now,” he said, “and continue to build a stable, modernizing, democratizing country there.”

After losing his party’s primary, in April 2004, Mr. Lieberman said in a televised news conference that he blamed his support for the war in Iraq and his praise of the Bush administration’s policy for his loss.

“I thought the president gave the strongest case that I can remember him giving about why we went in and why we have to stay the course,” he said then. “We’ve got to adopt a strategy of success. A defeat will create chaos in Iraq, chaos in the Middle East, and will embolden the terrorists in a way that will endanger our future and our children’s future.”

Mr. Lieberman also made his support for the president clear in an interview on CNN’s “Larry King Live” in May 2004, saying, “The president’s right.”

“It’s been a lot harder to achieve it than we hoped it would be,” he said of America’s mission in Iraq. “But we’ve got to stay the course and finish the job.”

In July 2004, Mr. Lieberman used the phrase again on Fox News’s “Hannity & Colmes,” saying of the president: “What I’m most happy about is that he said that he will stay the course in Iraq until we finish the job and the Iraqis are in control of their own destiny.”

In recent weeks, Mr. Lieberman has called for different tactics in Iraq.

The White House said Monday that President Bush was no longer using the phrase “stay the course” when speaking about the war.

Quote:

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/10/24/...ay-the-course/
Snow Falsely Claims Bush Said ‘Stay The Course’ Only 8 Times (Actually, It’s At Least 30)

Quote:

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/10/24/...d-stay-course/
But in a radio interview today with Sean Hannity, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld confirmed that the Bush administration isn’t planning to shift its strategy. Rumsfeld called media reports about Bush’s reversal “nonsense,” and said “of course” Bush is “not backing away from staying the course.”

What do you like best about Bush, McCain, and Lieberman, is it the "straight talk"?

loquitur · 01-09-2008, 03:06 PM

Actually, I kinda know where Ustwo is coming from on this. Part of it has to do with setting priorities: which aspects of the person who is running are most important? So I was running hypothetical matchups in my head: I'd vote for Hillary over Giuliani, Obama over Huckabee, McCain over Hillary, etc etc etc.....

I suspect from his post that Ustwo's priority is national security ahead of social issues, so he would vote for Lieberman despite disagreements on certain issues. So would I. See, Lieberman has no discernible authoritarian tendencies, so far as I can tell, whereas Hillary and Giuliani both do. So if you like national security and you want it without sacrificing your liberty, Lieberman is a good choice and so is McCain. If you want national security and dont' care about civil liberties so long as you're safe, choose Giuliani or Romney. If you don't think national security is all that big a deal, but you like redistribution, you have plenty of choices.

No candidate is perfect. We're stuck with what we have.

Lasereth · 01-09-2008, 03:40 PM

Apparently there's a huge rumor going around the Internet about the diebold machines borking the results and Obama really had 38% with Clinton at 34%. Has anyone else read this? The hand-counted votes are supposedly the aforementioned with the diebold machines putting Clinton winning. The page that had this information is currently DOSed. Can anyone else find anything, or is this just Internet rumors circulating with no basis as usual?

Willravel · 01-09-2008, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Yea thats why I want nothing to do with Huckabee, Romney, or Paul (though a Ron Paul presidency would be hysterical) and think of the current crop McCain is the best choice, (I didn't give Rudy a second look from the get go) and would also support someone like Liberman.

I didn't say you were a religious radical. Neither of us would fit in that category.

dc_dux · 01-09-2008, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

.... See, Lieberman has no discernible authoritarian tendencies, so far as I can tell, whereas Hillary and Giuliani both do.

Hillary supported Dodd's filibuster of the FISA bill because of the provision to provide immunity to tellcoms that assisted in illegally wiretapping citizens without a warrant....Lieberman did not

Hillary voted against provisions in the Patriot Act to extend the power of FBI to use "national security letters" to monitor citizens.....Lieberman supported the provision.

Hillary supported bills that require the US treatment of prisoners to abide by Geneva Conventions....Lieberman did not.

Who is more authoritarian?

samcol · 01-09-2008, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lasereth

Apparently there's a huge rumor going around the Internet about the diebold machines borking the results and Obama really had 38% with Clinton at 34%. Has anyone else read this? The hand-counted votes are supposedly the aforementioned with the diebold machines putting Clinton winning. The page that had this information is currently DOSed. Can anyone else find anything, or is this just Internet rumors circulating with no basis as usual?

Yes I posted it earlier in the thread. It doesn't prove anything but looks pretty weird. Clinton was down by like 7-10 points in polls against obama then wins by 3. The difference in machines between her and obama was +8% to Clinton.

Plus on the otherside Romney magically gets 7% better on machines.

http://ronrox.com/paulstats.php?party=DEMOCRATS

dc_dux · 01-09-2008, 04:26 PM

IMO, the most plausible reason for the disconnect with the polls is the fact that an extraordinary number of voters (15-20% according to exit polls - normally its more in the range of 5-10%) made up their mind within the last 24 hours before the election.

But its more fun to talk conspiracy theory.

Charlatan · 01-09-2008, 04:45 PM

I think too much weight was given to polls that had a smallish sample group and had, from one report I read, an 8 point margin of error.

Add to this, journalists smelling a big story in Obama's Iowa win combined with the poll results.

Besides, we all know that it's the republican machine that controls the Diebold machines...

dc_dux · 01-09-2008, 04:55 PM

Republicans are still better at voter suppression in NH, like they did in the 2002 senate election.

How to rig an election

Quote:

What does it take to win the New Hampshire primary — dirty tricks or retail politics?

Stick to good old-fashioned politicking, says disgraced former GOP consultant Allen Raymond. "Retail politics and authenticity," he tells ABCNEWS.com. "Up in New Hampshire, they have great expectations of what you need to do as a candidate and you have to do it."

Raymond should know. After all, he's the one who ran an illegal scheme to make hundreds of calls to jam the phone lines of the state's Democrats on Election Day in 2002. The former consultant, who served three months in jail last year, tells his story and reveals secrets of the trade in his new book, "How to Rig an Election: Confessions of a Republican Operative."

Raymond blames the Republican Party for making him the fall guy and claims that his scheme was approved by a top state GOP official and the Republican National Committee's northeast regional director.

And we still need Congress to enact the Ballot Integrity Act to require a verifiable paper trail for electronic voting.

Ustwo · 01-09-2008, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lasereth

Apparently there's a huge rumor going around the Internet about the diebold machines borking the results and Obama really had 38% with Clinton at 34%. Has anyone else read this? The hand-counted votes are supposedly the aforementioned with the diebold machines putting Clinton winning. The page that had this information is currently DOSed. Can anyone else find anything, or is this just Internet rumors circulating with no basis as usual?

I have to wonder why the diebold machines didn't 'work' right in 2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Republicans are still better at voter suppression in NH, like they did in the 2002 senate election.

How to rig an election

And we still need Congress to enact the Ballot Integrity Act to require a verifiable paper trail for electronic voting.

Those lousy Republicans!!!!

http://www.politicalgateway.com/main...d.html?col=434

Quote:

Part one of a two-part series.

All reasonable people know it -- it was well documented by various media sources throughout the 2004 election and now we have the concrete proof: Democrats and their operatives were far and away more involved in voter intimidation, fraud, suppression and, yes, disenfranchisement, than Republicans. It's not even close. But don't take our word for it liberals, read the 368-page report by the non-partisan American Center for Voting Rights yourself.

Quote:

Remember the incident involving allegations of Democratic operatives slashing the tires of Republican get-out-the-vote vans in Milwaukee? Here are the actual indictments in the case:

The following is a list of the individuals charged with slashing tires on the morning of November 2, 2004, and their connections to the Democrat campaign in 2004:

Michael J. Pratt

* Paid $7,965.53 by the Democratic Party of Wisconsin in 2004
* Pratt’s father is former Acting Mayor Marvin Pratt, who chaired the Kerry-Edwards campaign in Milwaukee

Sowande Ajumoke Omodunde (a.k.a “Supreme Solar Allah”)

* Paid $6,059.83 by Gwen Moore for Congress and the Democratic Party of Wisconsin in 2004
* Son of U.S. Rep. Gwen Moore (D-WI)

Lewis Gibson Caldwell, III

* Paid $4,639.09 by Gwen Moore for Congress and the Democratic Party of Wisconsin in 2004

Lavelle Mohammad

* Paid $8,858.50 by the Democratic Party of Wisconsin and America Coming Together ($966 for canvassing work in June and July) in 2004

Justin J. Howell

* Paid $2,550.29 in 2004 by the Democratic Party of Wisconsin (62)

I'm not sure you want to go this route there dc, not sure at all.

SecretMethod70 · 01-09-2008, 05:53 PM

Columbia Journalism Review had an interview today with the director of ABC's polling unit:

Quote:

The Polls: What the #$!% Happened? click to show

Willravel · 01-09-2008, 06:02 PM

So it's most likely late deciders despite exit polls? Even after what happened in 2004?

Sorry, but I'm still skeptical about this being legitimate.

Ustwo · 01-09-2008, 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

So it's most likely late deciders despite exit polls? Even after what happened in 2004?

Sorry, but I'm still skeptical about this being legitimate.

You mean the 2004 exit polls which were mostly in urban centers and surprisingly went to Kerry?

Willravel · 01-09-2008, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

You mean the 2004 exit polls which were mostly in urban centers and surprisingly went to Kerry?

No, I'm referring to a massive shift between exit polls and counted results being a starting point for investigations that led to discoveries like:
- 6,000,000 voters abroad didn't receive ballots or received them far too late to vote after the Pentagon inexplicably shut down their website meant to manage overseas ballots
- Sproul & Associates shredded Democratic registrations
- 'malfunctioning' voting machines in New Mexico failed to register votes on over 20,000 ballots
- as many as 1,000,000 ballots were spoiled by faulty voting equipment (that's about 1 out of ever 100 ballots)
In Ohio:
- Republican counties like Miami County recorded turnouts as high as 98% (literally impossible) and Democratic areas like inner city Cleveland had only 7% (despite people waiting in 2 hour lines all day in those locations)
- In Warren county, Republican election officials manufactured a terrorist threat to stop the media from monitoring the official vote count
- Over 357,00 voters, overwhelmingly Dems, were prevented from casting ballots and didn't have their vote counted. BTW, that shift was more than double the margin that Bush won by.
- 1/4 of all registered Ohio voters were not listed on the rolls
- upwards of 80,000 votes for Kerry were counted instead for Bush

All this required was you pay attention when there's an election. Each of these facts is verifiable.

SecretMethod70 · 01-09-2008, 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

So it's most likely late deciders despite exit polls?

No, the interview said the exact opposite.

Quote:

GL: Another blog I saw today suggested it was the late deciders. That’s a common answer of faulty final pre-election polls, and it’s one I don’t buy, and it’s one I certainly don’t buy in this case. Because if we look at the exit poll results, indeed if we take out everyone who decided on Election Day, we get a result of Clinton plus four, which is of course, exactly what her margin was. If we look at who did decide on Election Day, it’s Clinton plus three, which is within polling tolerances.

The polling director is much more inclined to believe that the polls did not accurately predict who would be voting in the primary. As he said, Obama supporters may have been psyched up to vote for him, but perhaps that enthusiasm didn't translate into going out and actually voting. Not unreasonable when the weekend was spent talking about how badly Obama was inevitably going to beat Clinton. Likewise, independents who favored Obama on the Democratic side may have decided to vote for the candidate in the Republican primary they prefer instead, figuring Obama had it sealed.

loquitur · 01-09-2008, 06:59 PM

Willravel, did you research both sides? Because there are plenty of shenanigans everywhere, depending on which party happens to be in charge in a particular location. It's not like either party is a babe in the woods or any kind of innocent who doesn't know how to fight dirty when they think they can get away with it.

Willravel · 01-09-2008, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

They cancelled the O.C.? This is a quagmire...

dc_dux · 01-09-2008, 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

I have to wonder why the diebold machines didn't 'work' right in 2006

Those lousy Republicans!!!!

http://www.politicalgateway.com/main...d.html?col=434

I'm not sure you want to go this route there dc, not sure at all.

Ustwo.....do you really know the facts about the non-partisan American Center for Voting Rights.....the source of your examples of alleged voter suppression by the Democratic party.

Quote:

Chalk this one up as one for the good guys. The Internet real estate once owned by a group of deceptive White House-connected Republican operatives has now come under the control of one of the non-profit groups which had taken the brunt of the GOP outfits relentless anti-democratic political tactics.

The ironic turn of events comes on the heels of new revelations connecting the Republican operatives to high-level DoJ and White House officials, and underscores the need for an immediate Congressional investigation into the conspiracy behind the supposedly "non-partisan" GOP operation....

As we reported some weeks ago, revelations of the GOP's "voter fraud" scam at the heart of the U.S. Attorney Purge scandal, has sent the longtime "non-partisan" GOP front group calling themselves American Center for Voting Rights (ACVR) scurrying for cover. The home base for the still-mysteriously-funded organization --- created and run by former Bush/Cheney '04 general counsel, and good friend of Karl Rove, Mark F. "Thor" Hearne --- was the alarmist propaganda filled website once featured at the domains AC4VR.com and AmericanCenterForVotingRights.com.

Filled with unsubstantiated claims and anecdotal reports of widespread Democratic "voter fraud", the GOP site for the tax-exempt Republican front served as a clearinghouse for their lengthy reports, slick spin and cherry-picked media headlines (often spurred by ACVR's own disinformation campaign) portending to support their charges.

But the ACVR failed to renew the domain names when they expired on March 17th, just as AttorneyGate stories on the Internet began to reveal the full breadth of the Republican scheme to forward the breathless claims of "voter fraud" and to file unprecedented, high profile criminal cases in order to advance their agenda. That agenda: to call for more restrictive Voter ID requirements at the polls in key swing states. Such requirements, found unconstitutional time and again, are known to disproportionately affect minority, low income, elderly and disabled (read: Democratic-leaning) voters.

When the ACVR's domains suddenly went down, a number of interested parties --- including The BRAD BLOG who has been exposing the ACVR scammers since just days after their appearance, and subsequent disingenuous testimony before Congress in March of 2005 --- placed bids for the Internet namespace.

source: American Center for Voting Rights domain (no longer owned by the Rove cronies

)

I'm not sure you want to go this route there Ustwo, not sure at all.

Willravel · 01-09-2008, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

Willravel, did you research both sides?

I researched the information available. From what I found it seems that it's kinda one sided in most cases, at least for the 2000 and 2004 elections. I can't speak to this election yet as the facts aren't there, so all I have is recent precedence.

reconmike · 01-09-2008, 07:16 PM

The Greatest voter fraud in US history = JFK nuff said

Willravel · 01-09-2008, 08:27 PM

Recon, he was running against Nixon. You know, the guy who quit in disgrace because he was going to be impeached.

The greatest fraud was denying people the opportunity to vote for RFK. I suspect he would have been among our greatest presidents.

Ustwo · 01-09-2008, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Ustwo.....do you really know the facts about the non-partisan American Center for Voting Rights.....the source of your examples of alleged voter suppression by the Democratic party.

I'm not sure you want to go this route there Ustwo, not sure at all.

Funny I was thinking just prior, how will my source be questioned instead of the incident.

So are you saying that tire slashing didn't happen?

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Recon, he was running against Nixon. You know, the guy who quit in disgrace because he was going to be impeached.

.

What does that have to do with old man Daley stealing the election for JFK again?

Willravel · 01-09-2008, 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

What does that have to do with old man Daley stealing the election for JFK again?

1960, right? My parents were 5 years old. To be honest, my familiarity with that election is somewhat lacking outside of history classes.

dc_dux · 01-09-2008, 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Funny I was thinking just prior, how will my source be questioned instead of the incident.

So are you saying that tire slashing didn't happen?

I am saying there was no evidence that it was a premeditated act with the knowledge of, or planning by, the Democratic party as alleged or implied by the "non-partisan" (give me a break!) ACVR and its director, Thor Hearne, a Republican party operative and former General Counsel for Bush/Cheney 04....rather than an independent and unsanctioned act of vandalism by Democratic campaign workers whose fathers were prominent Democrats. I cant say I am surprised by the way Hearne (and you) would like to portray it.

Quote:

According to the criminal complaint filed in the case, the five men conspired, without the knowledge of top Democratic Party officials, to plaster Republican Party headquarters on W. Capitol Drive with Democratic signs and stickers, something they dubbed Operation Elephant Takeover.

But they dropped that plan when they learned that the targeted GOP headquarters were patrolled by a security guard, according to the criminal complaint, which does not describe how the tire-slashing plot came up.

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=295825

We obviously see the two cases differently.... the unsubstantiated ACVR allegation regarding the role of the Democratic Party in the tire slashing and the admission in court of NH phone jamming by a Republican party operative and his sworn testimony citing the involvement of the Republican Party of NH (and the advance knowledge and acquiescence of the national party)

Ustwo · 01-09-2008, 09:48 PM

So in your world if a bunch of republicans on the republican payroll planned attacks on democrat assets such as the tire slashing then it would just be some guys doing it?

Homey doesn't think you would present it that way......

dc_dux · 01-09-2008, 09:51 PM

Its not how I present it...it is the evidence and testimony presented in the two courts of law.

In the one case, there is testimony pointing to Republican party complicity (including plea bargains by high level Republican party officials) and in the other case, there is nothing to indicate the Democratic party's involvement.

Quote:

The fourth man indicted in a New Hampshire phone-jamming scheme -- in which Republican operatives jammed the phone lines of Democratic get-out-the-vote efforts in a 2002 Senate race -- will argue at trial that the Bush Administration and the national Republican Party gave their approval to the plan, according to a motion filed by his attorney Thursday.
....

Phone records show hundreds of phone calls from the New Hampshire Republican Party and convicted phone jammer James Tobin to the White House Office of Political Affairs during the time the scheme was being planned and carried out.

The Republican National Committee, which shelled out millions to defend Tobin, has said it is "preposterous" to suggest the calls involved phone jamming.

According to AP, "The phone records show that most calls to the White House were from Tobin, who became President Bush's presidential campaign chairman for the New England region in 2004. Other calls from New Hampshire senatorial campaign offices to the White House could have been made by a number of people."

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Ma...hone_0707.html

Chuck McGee, former executive director of the New Hampshire Republican Party and Republican consultant Allen Raymond (GOP Marketplace's former president) both pled guilty to conspiracy and James Tobin, (regional director of the National Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee at the time) was sentenced to 10 months in prison for his role in the NH phone jamming.

Dont you think that McGee, Raymond and Tobin, all with direct ties to the RNC, are a bit higher political operatives than the low level "bunch of guys" who slashed the tires?

loquitur · 01-10-2008, 03:05 PM

I'm just glad Ron Paul's past got exposed. He's a crank, and not even much of a libertarian.

samcol · 01-10-2008, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

I'm just glad Ron Paul's past got exposed. He's a crank, and not even much of a libertarian.

umm ok?

MuadDib · 01-19-2008, 03:13 PM

Yet another state for Hillary. At this point does Obama need to win South Carolina to stay viable or can he hold out for Super Tuesday?

Rekna · 01-19-2008, 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MuadDib

Yet another state for Hillary. At this point does Obama need to win South Carolina to stay viable or can he hold out for Super Tuesday?

Hillary won the popular vote but Obama won the delegate count and will get 13 delegates to Hillary's 12. For committed delegates Obama leads by 2. I hardly think he is worryng about being knocked out. Also he is likely to win South Carolina.

pr0f3n · 01-20-2008, 07:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MuadDib

Yet another state for Hillary. At this point does Obama need to win South Carolina to stay viable or can he hold out for Super Tuesday?

He has to win SC to stay viable. The question is how effective will Bill Clinton and his smear machine be able to sling enough mud to hurt Obama's public image. They've been trying really hard the last 10 days to paint him into "the black candidate" corner, but Obama's been as resistant as his rhetoric implied he would be. The real surprise for me yesterday was Edward's evaporated support. He was gunning for to play kingmaker after 2/5 and now it's unlikely he'll have enough delegates to matter.

If Obama wins SC, the race tightens up so much that we probably won't have a nominee until late March. If he loses SC, it will take a epic event to derail Clinton and her marching band of DLC hacks.

MuadDib · 01-20-2008, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

Hillary won the popular vote but Obama won the delegate count and will get 13 delegates to Hillary's 12. For committed delegates Obama leads by 2. I hardly think he is worryng about being knocked out. Also he is likely to win South Carolina.

And Hillary is winning the total delegate count by 87. This was discussed earlier, but if you disagree I'd like to hear why. The number of super-delegates going to Hillary means that Obama picking up one or two more delegates every other primary is not going to cut it. Moreover, the 'surprising' wins and general momentum from primary and caucus victories will play a much larger roll in the eventual winner of the democratic primary than any one or two delegates.

On a general note, I have to say that caucuses are screwed up! This isn't just because I'm a Hillary supporter and don't think its right for someone who wins by 6% of the vote in a statewide primary to get less delegates. The same thing happened to Obama in Iowa where he beat Hillary by 9% and only got one more committed delegate than her. Caucuses just don't adequately represent the voters of their respective states nor do they serve as effective indicators for the national election. Probably worst of all is that they are rife with potential corruption and usually just gloss over the smoky back room politics going on that state to boot.

SecretMethod70 · 01-20-2008, 02:26 PM

It's true, there are lots of issues with caucuses, but there are also benefits to them. The fact that voters have the opportunity to support a second choice is a huge deal, and something that is sorely missing in American elections. There are certainly better ways to accomplish it, but at this very moment I'm just thankful that sometimes, somewhere, voters have the opportunity.

It's true that SC is a must-win for Obama, but I don't think he needs to worry about that too much. What puts him in much greater jeopardy are the major Feb 5 states like California, where he trails by a sizable margin (the RealClearPolitics average puts Clinton ahead by 12 points).

At least one good thing came out of Nevada though: I wasn't sure who I was going to vote for on Feb 5, but now I know.

MuadDib · 01-20-2008, 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SecretMethod70

It's true, there are lots of issues with caucuses, but there are also benefits to them. The fact that voters have the opportunity to support a second choice is a huge deal, and something that is sorely missing in American elections. There are certainly better ways to accomplish it, but at this very moment I'm just thankful that sometimes, somewhere, voters have the opportunity.

It can certainly be argued that the second choice option has democratic benefits. Whether or not someone feels that way is one thing, but since that isn't how elections are won in America at large, I think it is a poor way to run party elections even if they excepting all the problems in the actual use of them here. It's all good and well that people get a second choice candidate, but when the entire point of the process is to select a party candidate to run against another party candidate in a one on one election (effectively if not actually always one on one).

SecretMethod70 · 01-20-2008, 09:21 PM

There's no reason the candidate needs to be selected in the same way as the president is. For one thing, allowing voters to express their second choices makes the outcome more likely to be one that more people are willing to accept. Regardless of whether or not the president is elected that way, if the nominee is selected that way (or, at least, partially that way), that makes it more likely that a larger portion of the base will be enthusiastic about supporting that nominee come the general election.

Of course, even that point is irrelevent since only a few states caucus. Really, IMO, there's not much reason to care one way or the other since the number of caucuses are so few.

Rekna · 01-20-2008, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MuadDib

And Hillary is winning the total delegate count by 87. This was discussed earlier, but if you disagree I'd like to hear why.

Hillary is only winning when you look at super delegates that have pledged to support her. However, they can change their pledge whenever they want and some of started to waiver in their support already.

MuadDib · 01-20-2008, 10:42 PM

Yeah it does include superdelegates, but they do make up a little more than 1/5 of the total delegates in this race. Moreover, Hillary's margin in superdelegates has increased as time has passed, not decreased. While I can't speak to individual delegates changing their position, the difference between Clinton and Obama has widened as more superdelegates have pledged to her. The point is that Hillary is a lock for the great majority of superdelegates and its just a political reality. For Obama to win he has to overcome that difference in the primaries which he is not doing as of yet. If the Obama camp can't admit that political truth and work to deal around it then they are in worse trouble than the recent state losses alone would indicate.

pr0f3n · 01-21-2008, 12:55 AM

There have been 3 contests in small states, absolutely nothing's a lock yet. Clinton's been basically static in her superdelegate count since November and Obama's made slight gains.
Here's the current count.

The political reality is a freshman Senator has closed enormous deficits nationally against the most powerful and ruthless faction in the DNC lead by the most popular and famous Democrat alive, Bill Clinton.

Poll numbers over time in Nevada:
http://img211.imageshack.us/my.php?image=image2mb0.png

He's done so without going negative, without responding in kind to distortions and smears, while inspiring a generation alienated by the partisan hackery the Clintons and the DLC employ and embody. This primary's got a long way to go, and Obama's got an uphill battle, but anyone who's thought differently was fooling themselves. It's far from done.

MuadDib · 01-21-2008, 01:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pr0f3n

There have been 3 contests in small states, absolutely nothing's a lock yet. Clinton's been basically static in her superdelegate count since November and Obama's made slight gains.
Here's the current count.

The political reality is a freshman Senator has closed enormous deficits nationally against the most powerful and ruthless faction in the DNC lead by the most popular and famous Democrat alive, Bill Clinton.

He's done so without going negative, without responding in kind to distortions and smears, while inspiring a generation alienated by the partisan hackery the Clintons and the DLC employ and embody. This primary's got a long way to go, and Obama's got an uphill battle, but anyone who's thought differently was fooling themselves. It's far from done.

Now don't get me wrong. Obama is one hell of a democrat, a politician, and a seemingly decent human being. He's done a great deal in this race and has thus far ran a commendable campaign. But let's also not get too glossy eyed. He has had his fair share of digs and is just as guilty of the sniping that led democratic leaders to call for a truce as Hillary was. I'm very excited about Obama's ability to galvanize democratic youth and get them involved in the process, but it also worries me that he is creating one hell of a lot ideologues that aren't really politically informed beyond a blind call for change. They see Obama through rose colored glasses and, to them, he can essentially do no wrong. Now granted, I'll take a politically active student in my party over not any day of the week, but I'm not going to get excited until they are as savvy/objective as they are active.

Now, you are 100% right that there is a lot of primary to go, but keep in mind the crucial importance of momentum, perception, and wins (pyrrhic or otherwise). The build up to Super Tuesday is extremely important in the process; it always has been and that's not changing at this point. Certainly Obama is not out of this race, but you have to admit he hasn't been able to monopolize off of his early win in Iowa like he was expected to. Hillary has been winning in races that were supposed to be much tighter (if not losses). If this doesn't mean something and have implications for the future of Obama's campaign you're going to have to tell me why, more than there simply being a lot of race left. I would contend he's doing something wrong and needs to change it fast. I don't think anyone seriously believes things can keep going as they are and have an Obama victory. What do you think he is going to need to do to turn things around? If you do think nothing, then why should the trend of events since Iowa be discounted as meaningless?

01-09-2008, 04:26 PM	#48 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	IMO, the most plausible reason for the disconnect with the polls is the fact that an extraordinary number of voters (15-20% according to exit polls - normally its more in the range of 5-10%) made up their mind within the last 24 hours before the election. But its more fun to talk conspiracy theory. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

01-09-2008, 04:45 PM	#49 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	I think too much weight was given to polls that had a smallish sample group and had, from one report I read, an 8 point margin of error. Add to this, journalists smelling a big story in Obama's Iowa win combined with the poll results. Besides, we all know that it's the republican machine that controls the Diebold machines... __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

01-09-2008, 07:16 PM	#61 (permalink)
reconmike Thank You Jesus Location: Twilight Zone	The Greatest voter fraud in US history = JFK nuff said __________________ Where is Darwin when ya need him?

01-09-2008, 09:48 PM	#66 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	So in your world if a bunch of republicans on the republican payroll planned attacks on democrat assets such as the tire slashing then it would just be some guys doing it? Homey doesn't think you would present it that way...... __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

01-19-2008, 03:13 PM	#70 (permalink)
MuadDib Psycho	Yet another state for Hillary. At this point does Obama need to win South Carolina to stay viable or can he hold out for Super Tuesday? __________________ "The courts that first rode the warhorse of virtual representation into battle on the res judicata front invested their steed with near-magical properties." ~27 F.3d 751

01-09-2008, 03:06 PM	#43 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	Actually, I kinda know where Ustwo is coming from on this. Part of it has to do with setting priorities: which aspects of the person who is running are most important? So I was running hypothetical matchups in my head: I'd vote for Hillary over Giuliani, Obama over Huckabee, McCain over Hillary, etc etc etc..... I suspect from his post that Ustwo's priority is national security ahead of social issues, so he would vote for Lieberman despite disagreements on certain issues. So would I. See, Lieberman has no discernible authoritarian tendencies, so far as I can tell, whereas Hillary and Giuliani both do. So if you like national security and you want it without sacrificing your liberty, Lieberman is a good choice and so is McCain. If you want national security and dont' care about civil liberties so long as you're safe, choose Giuliani or Romney. If you don't think national security is all that big a deal, but you like redistribution, you have plenty of choices. No candidate is perfect. We're stuck with what we have.

01-09-2008, 03:40 PM	#44 (permalink)
Lasereth Knight of the Old Republic Location: Winston-Salem, NC	Apparently there's a huge rumor going around the Internet about the diebold machines borking the results and Obama really had 38% with Clinton at 34%. Has anyone else read this? The hand-counted votes are supposedly the aforementioned with the diebold machines putting Clinton winning. The page that had this information is currently DOSed. Can anyone else find anything, or is this just Internet rumors circulating with no basis as usual?

01-09-2008, 06:02 PM	#53 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	So it's most likely late deciders despite exit polls? Even after what happened in 2004? Sorry, but I'm still skeptical about this being legitimate.

01-09-2008, 06:59 PM	#57 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	Willravel, did you research both sides? Because there are plenty of shenanigans everywhere, depending on which party happens to be in charge in a particular location. It's not like either party is a babe in the woods or any kind of innocent who doesn't know how to fight dirty when they think they can get away with it.

01-09-2008, 08:27 PM	#62 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Recon, he was running against Nixon. You know, the guy who quit in disgrace because he was going to be impeached. The greatest fraud was denying people the opportunity to vote for RFK. I suspect he would have been among our greatest presidents.

01-10-2008, 03:05 PM	#68 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	I'm just glad Ron Paul's past got exposed. He's a crank, and not even much of a libertarian.

01-20-2008, 02:26 PM	#74 (permalink)
SecretMethod70 Human Administrator Location: Chicago	It's true, there are lots of issues with caucuses, but there are also benefits to them. The fact that voters have the opportunity to support a second choice is a huge deal, and something that is sorely missing in American elections. There are certainly better ways to accomplish it, but at this very moment I'm just thankful that sometimes, somewhere, voters have the opportunity. It's true that SC is a must-win for Obama, but I don't think he needs to worry about that too much. What puts him in much greater jeopardy are the major Feb 5 states like California, where he trails by a sizable margin (the RealClearPolitics average puts Clinton ahead by 12 points). At least one good thing came out of Nevada though: I wasn't sure who I was going to vote for on Feb 5, but now I know. __________________ Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

01-20-2008, 09:21 PM	#76 (permalink)
SecretMethod70 Human Administrator Location: Chicago	There's no reason the candidate needs to be selected in the same way as the president is. For one thing, allowing voters to express their second choices makes the outcome more likely to be one that more people are willing to accept. Regardless of whether or not the president is elected that way, if the nominee is selected that way (or, at least, partially that way), that makes it more likely that a larger portion of the base will be enthusiastic about supporting that nominee come the general election. Of course, even that point is irrelevent since only a few states caucus. Really, IMO, there's not much reason to care one way or the other since the number of caucuses are so few. __________________ Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

01-20-2008, 10:42 PM	#78 (permalink)
MuadDib Psycho	Yeah it does include superdelegates, but they do make up a little more than 1/5 of the total delegates in this race. Moreover, Hillary's margin in superdelegates has increased as time has passed, not decreased. While I can't speak to individual delegates changing their position, the difference between Clinton and Obama has widened as more superdelegates have pledged to her. The point is that Hillary is a lock for the great majority of superdelegates and its just a political reality. For Obama to win he has to overcome that difference in the primaries which he is not doing as of yet. If the Obama camp can't admit that political truth and work to deal around it then they are in worse trouble than the recent state losses alone would indicate. __________________ "The courts that first rode the warhorse of virtual representation into battle on the res judicata front invested their steed with near-magical properties." ~27 F.3d 751

01-21-2008, 12:55 AM	#79 (permalink)
pr0f3n Crazy Location: a little to the right	There have been 3 contests in small states, absolutely nothing's a lock yet. Clinton's been basically static in her superdelegate count since November and Obama's made slight gains. Here's the current count. The political reality is a freshman Senator has closed enormous deficits nationally against the most powerful and ruthless faction in the DNC lead by the most popular and famous Democrat alive, Bill Clinton. Poll numbers over time in Nevada: http://img211.imageshack.us/my.php?image=image2mb0.png He's done so without going negative, without responding in kind to distortions and smears, while inspiring a generation alienated by the partisan hackery the Clintons and the DLC employ and embody. This primary's got a long way to go, and Obama's got an uphill battle, but anyone who's thought differently was fooling themselves. It's far from done. __________________ In heaven all the interesting people are missing. Friedrich Nietzsche Last edited by pr0f3n; 01-21-2008 at 01:32 AM..