homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools
Thread closed  Thread closed


Post new thread  
Thread closed  Thread closed
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Ship's Locker   » Limbo   » Purgatory: The political junkie POTUS prediction thread (Page 37)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  ...  109  110  111 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Purgatory: The political junkie POTUS prediction thread
Mad Geo

Ship's navel gazer
# 2939

 - Posted      Profile for Mad Geo   Email Mad Geo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Hah! I Likie!

--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"

Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
basso

Ship’s Crypt Keeper
# 4228

 - Posted      Profile for basso   Email basso   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
I read something today (on Slate? Huffington Post? not sure ...) saying that she's hammering Obama now because she would rather see the GOP win in '08 than Obama because then she could run in '12, whereas if Obama is prez he'll be the nominee in '12, and by '16 she'll be too old to run. I don't know if at 68 she will be too old, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if she's willing to the Democrats' chances under a bus just so she could have another shot in four years.

I'm no fan of Hillary, and I do believe that the only thing that she really believes in is that she should be President.

But I don't believe even for a moment that she'd want a Republican to win this year to preserve her chances. I don't think her cynicism extends that far.

Posts: 4358 | From: Bay Area, Calif | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
moron
Shipmate
# 206

 - Posted      Profile for moron   Email moron   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Richard Baehr has his biases but he's done his homework and seems to be even-handed overall:

quote:

Despite all this, John McCain is in very good shape for the general election run. The Republicans have landed on the one candidate in their party ideally suited for the race this year, with broad appeal among Democrats and independents, a veteran and war hero during a time of war, a candidate with a reputation for being a straight talker (and not talking down to voters, or outright lying to them), and with real strength in larger swing states. McCain is also benefiting from the fact that the Democrats continue to snipe at each other rather than at him, and each candidate has exposed weaknesses in the other, which become ammunition for McCain in the fall campaign.

snip

At the start of this seemingly interminable Presidential campaign, Democrats saw a very favorable Electoral College map. With Hillary Clinton as the likely nominee, Democrats believed they could turn many states from red to blue, including Ohio (20), Florida (27), Iowa (7), New Mexico (5), Nevada (5), Colorado (9), and possibly Arizona (11), Virginia (13), West Virginia (5), Arkansas (6) and Missouri (11). But Clinton is unlikely to get the nomination.

Barack Obama is a far weaker candidate in many of these targeted states, but in particular in Ohio, Florida., Missouri, Arkansas, and West Virginia. McCain takes Arizona off the table against either nominee. Obama is polling better than Clinton in the competitive southwestern states and Iowa, as well as in Oregon, but trails badly in Virginia, which has elected a string of Democrats in recent years to statewide office. Some Democratic Party officials have written off Florida if Obama is the nominee (in some surveys he trails in the state by 10% or more, though he only trails by 4% in the Rasmussen survey). The Rasmussen survey shows McCain with a 7% lead over Obama in Ohio. Obama lost badly in that state's Democratic primary (by 10% to Clinton) winning only 5 of 88 counties. Now having insulted rural voters for their attachment to guns and God, the state has become even less friendly turf for him.

The Electoral math looks this way: if Florida and Ohio are safe for McCain, and Virginia and Missouri are too, as they now all appear to be, then McCain has a base of 260 Electoral College votes of the 270 he needs to win. He would need to only win10 from among the states Bush won last time that are in play this year: Colorado (currently tied), New Mexico (3 point Obama lead), Iowa (4 point Obama lead) and Nevada (4 point Obama lead), and several tempting blue states in which McCain is currently competitive: Michigan (18), Pennsylvania (21), New Jersey (15) Wisconsin (10), Minnesota (10), Oregon (7), and New Hampshire (4), among them.

If Baerh's correct, Hillary may be doing the Democrats a favor by fighting for the nomination. [Two face]
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mad Geo

Ship's navel gazer
# 2939

 - Posted      Profile for Mad Geo   Email Mad Geo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by basso:
I'm no fan of Hillary, and I do believe that the only thing that she really believes in is that she should be President.

But I don't believe even for a moment that she'd want a Republican to win this year to preserve her chances. I don't think her cynicism extends that far.

I argued with myself over that one. I'd say the odds are 50-50 that she would. They (her and Bill) are amazingly political creatures. It's apparently their entire life and all they talk about or care about (which is a lot). It would bot surprise me if that went into the equation.

--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"

Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mad Geo

Ship's navel gazer
# 2939

 - Posted      Profile for Mad Geo   Email Mad Geo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
If ABC ran the Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858.

--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"

Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
SeraphimSarov
Shipmate
# 4335

 - Posted      Profile for SeraphimSarov   Email SeraphimSarov   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by mjg:
Richard Baehr has his biases but he's done his homework and seems to be even-handed overall:

quote:

Despite all this, John McCain is in very good shape for the general election run. The Republicans have landed on the one candidate in their party ideally suited for the race this year, with broad appeal among Democrats and independents, a veteran and war hero during a time of war, a candidate with a reputation for being a straight talker (and not talking down to voters, or outright lying to them), and with real strength in larger swing states. McCain is also benefiting from the fact that the Democrats continue to snipe at each other rather than at him, and each candidate has exposed weaknesses in the other, which become ammunition for McCain in the fall campaign.

snip

At the start of this seemingly interminable Presidential campaign, Democrats saw a very favorable Electoral College map. With Hillary Clinton as the likely nominee, Democrats believed they could turn many states from red to blue, including Ohio (20), Florida (27), Iowa (7), New Mexico (5), Nevada (5), Colorado (9), and possibly Arizona (11), Virginia (13), West Virginia (5), Arkansas (6) and Missouri (11). But Clinton is unlikely to get the nomination.

Barack Obama is a far weaker candidate in many of these targeted states, but in particular in Ohio, Florida., Missouri, Arkansas, and West Virginia. McCain takes Arizona off the table against either nominee. Obama is polling better than Clinton in the competitive southwestern states and Iowa, as well as in Oregon, but trails badly in Virginia, which has elected a string of Democrats in recent years to statewide office. Some Democratic Party officials have written off Florida if Obama is the nominee (in some surveys he trails in the state by 10% or more, though he only trails by 4% in the Rasmussen survey). The Rasmussen survey shows McCain with a 7% lead over Obama in Ohio. Obama lost badly in that state's Democratic primary (by 10% to Clinton) winning only 5 of 88 counties. Now having insulted rural voters for their attachment to guns and God, the state has become even less friendly turf for him.

The Electoral math looks this way: if Florida and Ohio are safe for McCain, and Virginia and Missouri are too, as they now all appear to be, then McCain has a base of 260 Electoral College votes of the 270 he needs to win. He would need to only win10 from among the states Bush won last time that are in play this year: Colorado (currently tied), New Mexico (3 point Obama lead), Iowa (4 point Obama lead) and Nevada (4 point Obama lead), and several tempting blue states in which McCain is currently competitive: Michigan (18), Pennsylvania (21), New Jersey (15) Wisconsin (10), Minnesota (10), Oregon (7), and New Hampshire (4), among them.

If Baerh's correct, Hillary may be doing the Democrats a favor by fighting for the nomination. [Two face]
to paraphrase Harold Wilson, 6 months is a long time in politics and I suspect the poll numbers will change quite a lot from now until Nov as the "sheen" on McCain wear off and HIS negatives come to the fore and my God, he has many over his long career. He has no vision for the failing economy and he is tied to Iraq in an incredible way, These are HUGE negatives and they are based on issues not who wears a lapel pin or not.

--------------------
"For those who like that sort of thing, that is the sort of thing they like"

Posts: 2247 | From: Sacramento, California | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
moron
Shipmate
# 206

 - Posted      Profile for moron   Email moron   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
I hadn't seen this: Obama understands subtlety. And I bet he picked up some votes with that little gesture. [Angel]

Too funny.

Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mad Geo

Ship's navel gazer
# 2939

 - Posted      Profile for Mad Geo   Email Mad Geo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
[Killing me]

Oh......my......gods.

That was genius and well done. Okay maybe it wasn't genius but it was done so well.

--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"

Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Living in Gin

Liturgical Pyromaniac
# 2572

 - Posted      Profile for Living in Gin   Email Living in Gin   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
I'm not convinced the gesture was deliberate, but if it was, more power to him. She had it coming.

--------------------
It's all fun and games until somebody gets burned at the stake.

Posts: 1893 | From: Cincinnati, USA | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Swish
Shipmate
# 8566

 - Posted      Profile for Swish   Email Swish   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
That was fantastic! Not as good as this youtube comment though.

"I can not understand how stupid and gullible all you Obama supporters are. Anyone ever heard of the bool "Left Behind"? This is just what the book was about, some unknown coming along fooling so many supposedly smart people. I just do not understand how you all overlook all the connections he has, come on, this is for the most powerful seat in the world. Our president should not have such dubious connections surrounding him. You are all fools!!!! Wake UP!!!!!!"

I hope that is serious - been waiting a while before Obama gets called the Antichrist, and done so with a reference to the Left Behind books as well!

--------------------
Sorry Ted. I was concentrating too hard on looking holy.

Posts: 114 | From: Sheffield | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Choirboy
Shipmate
# 9659

 - Posted      Profile for Choirboy   Email Choirboy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by mjg:
If Baerh's correct, Hillary may be doing the Democrats a favor by fighting for the nomination. [Two face]

He's wrong on most counts. It is true that McCain was the best candidate their party could put forward, but he is completely tied to the war in Iraq and is also prone to his own overly-honest verbal gaffs. Nor is he the darling of the conservative wing of the party.

There is no reason to infer from the fact that Clinton beat Obama in the Ohio primary to suggest the voters of Ohio would prefer McCain to Obama (or to Clinton). Nor do other polls comparing Obama to Clinton among Democratic voters have much if any relevance to the general election.

Florida wasn't even safe for Bush. I sincerely doubt that 260 electoral votes are anywhere close to tied up for either candidate.

And as the economy (and possibly Iraq) head south, McCain's chances grow ever bleaker.

If Obama is the Democratic nominee, it will be far more likely that independents and even some Republicans vote for the Democratic candidate than for Democrats to go the other way.

Posts: 2994 | From: Minneapolis, Minnesota USA | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Swish
Shipmate
# 8566

 - Posted      Profile for Swish   Email Swish   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Just been watching 24 (Season 2) and was intrigued to notice that, while President David Palmer doesn't wear a flag pin, Vice President Prescott (who tried to seize control from the President via the 25th) does. Also pretty sure that President Bartlett in The West Wing doesn't wear a flag pin, and I am certain that Washington, Lincoln or FDR didn't wear one. What does that say about their patriotism?

I'm glad to hear that most Americans couldn't care less about flag pins, and I'm unnerved that a few actually do.

--------------------
Sorry Ted. I was concentrating too hard on looking holy.

Posts: 114 | From: Sheffield | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
jlg

What is this place?
Why am I here?
# 98

 - Posted      Profile for jlg   Email jlg   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
*bump*

C'mon, people, I use this thread to help me stayed informed. What's it doing on page 2?

Any last minute revising of previous predictions about Pennsylvania's primary?

Posts: 17391 | From: Just a Town, New Hampshire, USA | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Yeah, Clinton by more than I thought before.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Father Michael Pflege (apparently)
talking to a Fox reporter about Rev. Jeremiah Wright

Apologies for the rather crappy website its on - floods of cookies and acres of chrome and it shoves my CPU use up to about 35%
More about the bloke linked from here, maybe a better link to the video as well.


Trust me, you want to watch this. It starts out good and gets better: "I'm not running for office, I'm running for Jesus"

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Alfred E. Neuman

What? Me worry?
# 6855

 - Posted      Profile for Alfred E. Neuman     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by jlg:
C'mon, people, I use this thread to help me stayed informed. What's it doing on page 2?

Hillary gives up Socks.
Posts: 12954 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mamacita

Lakefront liberal
# 3659

 - Posted      Profile for Mamacita   Email Mamacita   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Father Michael Pflege (apparently)
talking to a Fox reporter about Rev. Jeremiah Wright

Apologies for the rather crappy website its on - floods of cookies and acres of chrome and it shoves my CPU use up to about 35%
More about the bloke linked from here, maybe a better link to the video as well.


Trust me, you want to watch this. It starts out good and gets better: "I'm not running for office, I'm running for Jesus"

Father Pfleger is pastor of St Sabina's church on Chicago's south side. He has a great track record on social justice issues. Thanks for posting those links, ken.

--------------------
Do not be daunted by the enormity of the world’s grief. Do justly, now. Love mercy, now. Walk humbly, now. You are not obligated to complete the work, but neither are you free to abandon it.

Posts: 20761 | From: where the purple line ends | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Alfred E. Neuman

What? Me worry?
# 6855

 - Posted      Profile for Alfred E. Neuman     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
A small time boxer gets a once in a lifetime chance to fight the heavyweight champ in a bout in which he strives to go the distance for his self-respect.

Baracky: The Movie

Posts: 12954 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
moron
Shipmate
# 206

 - Posted      Profile for moron   Email moron   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
As someone who doesn't believe any particular candidate is going to significantly change the country I've tried to be an Equal Opportunity Abuser on this thread, but she's making it difficult:

quote:

Both candidates rallied their supporters in the state, with Clinton telling a crowd that "As your president, I'll have your back."

Assuming she didn't mean to say ass I'll still pass on having her behind me, thankyouverymuch, as she apparently really truly believes she can protect us and enrich our lives.

Unnerving when you think about it.

Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357

 - Posted      Profile for Justinian   Email Justinian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Swish:
"I can not understand how stupid and gullible all you Obama supporters are. Anyone ever heard of the bool "Left Behind"? This is just what the book was about, some unknown coming along fooling so many supposedly smart people. I just do not understand how you all overlook all the connections he has, come on, this is for the most powerful seat in the world. Our president should not have such dubious connections surrounding him. You are all fools!!!! Wake UP!!!!!!"

Quite frankly, if Obama is the Antichrist Left Behind, I'd still prefer him to either the "heroes" of Left Behind or to John McCain.

--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.

Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.

Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Og: Thread Killer
Ship's token CN Mennonite
# 3200

 - Posted      Profile for Og: Thread Killer     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
As a person who works with a lot of people from Iran, I have to say Clinton is a fool if she thinks what she is saying will not be remembered in the Middle Eastif she ever won an election.

Yup....win votes by threatening one of the largest, best educated and one of the more liberal (when you get past the people in charge who nobody but the clerics really want anyways) societies in the Middle East with "obliteration".

So wrong its crazy.

Man, she's pathetic.

--------------------
I wish I was seeking justice loving mercy and walking humbly but... "Cease to lament for that thou canst not help, And study help for that which thou lament'st."

Posts: 5025 | From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Alfred E. Neuman

What? Me worry?
# 6855

 - Posted      Profile for Alfred E. Neuman     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Educated they may be, but the fact is Iran is ruled by religious fundamentalists and until the "liberal" people there remove the clerics from power, the foreign policy of that country will be dictated by militant Shiite Muslims with all that implies.
Posts: 12954 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Og: Thread Killer
Ship's token CN Mennonite
# 3200

 - Posted      Profile for Og: Thread Killer     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Yeah, well too bad you can't just pinpoint the idiots and get rid of them with those bombs. [Roll Eyes]

Overthrowing despotic governments isn't as easy as people in Western democracies seem to think. It tough and takes decades and talk like Clinton's doesn't help.

And that's because threatening obliteration means threatening everybody.

All of Iran.

All the kids.


All the babies.


All the Grandmas.


All the lovers.


All the sons.

All the women.

All the men.

Everybody.


Talk like this gets normal people angry at you. Its the equivalent in some ways of the wacko Iranian President talking about wiping Israel off the map and will be seen that way in many quarters.

But, of course, because its about those crazy Iranians, and in the heat of a primary season, its OK. [Mad]

Yet, Obama can talk about people being bitter and that's bad. [Confused]

In the Christian model of there being no slave, or Jew or Greek, this idea that its OK to threaten whole groups of others in the world but don't you dare talk about voters feelings about losing work just seems soooo wrong.

--------------------
I wish I was seeking justice loving mercy and walking humbly but... "Cease to lament for that thou canst not help, And study help for that which thou lament'st."

Posts: 5025 | From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Alfred E. Neuman

What? Me worry?
# 6855

 - Posted      Profile for Alfred E. Neuman     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
Talk like this gets normal people angry at you. Its the equivalent in some ways of the wacko Iranian President talking about wiping Israel off the map and will be seen that way in many quarters.

Well, maybe those quarters will get off their liberal arses and do something about that wacko Iranian President before he acts on his threat. What position would you suggest an American President take upon an attack on Israel from Iran? ...Hold a friendly Christian dialogue with educated Iranian liberals?
Posts: 12954 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
RuthW

liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13

 - Posted      Profile for RuthW     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Okay, folks, just under a week till the PA primary. Time for some new predictions! I'm going to say Clinton will win by 10%.

According to CNN, I was right.

*sigh*

Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468

 - Posted      Profile for Golden Key   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Re Hillary and Iran:

Would someone please point me to a link about whatever she said? Thanks!

--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")

Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
RuthW

liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13

 - Posted      Profile for RuthW     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Punch Clinton and Iran into Google News and it'll turn up.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468

 - Posted      Profile for Golden Key   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Ok, I found this quote from Hillary re Iran:

quote:
QUESTION: …Does massive retaliation mean you would go into Iran, you would bomb Iran? Is that what that’s supposed to suggest?

CLINTON: Well, the question was, if Iran were to launch a nuclear attack on Israel, what would our response be. And I want the Iranians to know that if I’m the president, we will attack Iran. And I want them to understand that, because it does mean that they have to look very carefully at their society, because at whatever stage of development they might be in their nuclear weapons program, in the next 10 years during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel we would be able to totally obliterate them. That’s a terrible thing to say, but those people who run Iran need to understand that, because that perhaps will deter them from doing something that would be reckless, foolish and tragic.

(Emphasis mine.)


Ok, I'm not in favor of bombing anyone, and I'm not in favor of war.

That having been said, what I get from her comments is that if Iran [b]nukes[/ Israel (our ally), the US will retaliate. No ifs, ands, or buts. ISTM it's the same kind of warning that the US gov't usually gives. (I'm thinking of previous administrations, not this current, insane one.)

Now, if she said that just to get votes and/or continue the current tension with Iran, I think that would be bad. But she was responding to a question about what she'd do if she were commander-in-chief. ISTM it's Cold War rhetoric about non-Communist situation. Same kind of thing I've heard many, many times before.

She did not say, "Wow, I'm dying to nuke Iran, and I'll head for The Red Button the moment I hit the Oval Office; the event will be properly catered, of course". She basically said, "you break it, you buy it".

If her personal life is any indication, I don't think she's likely to wantonly attack a country, seeing that she didn't kill her husband after he humiliated her in front of the entire world. FWIW, IMHO.

Am I missing something???

--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")

Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468

 - Posted      Profile for Golden Key   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Apologies for the screwed-up code! And I even used preview post! [Hot and Hormonal]

--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")

Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Living in Gin

Liturgical Pyromaniac
# 2572

 - Posted      Profile for Living in Gin   Email Living in Gin   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Okay, folks, just under a week till the PA primary. Time for some new predictions! I'm going to say Clinton will win by 10%.

According to CNN, I was right.

*sigh*

9.4%, actually, but of course the Clinton News Network will spin that into a "double-digit" margin while ignoring the fact the Clinton was favored to win PA by 25% six weeks ago.

It's the bottom of the 8th inning, and Clinton just scored a run and her crowd is cheering. But Obama is still ahead by 11.

--------------------
It's all fun and games until somebody gets burned at the stake.

Posts: 1893 | From: Cincinnati, USA | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Choirboy
Shipmate
# 9659

 - Posted      Profile for Choirboy   Email Choirboy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Indeed. RealClearPolitics.com estimates that the Pennsylvania win will end up awarding Clinton about 15 more delegates than Obama. Conservatively, you might even award her as much as a 25 delegate advantage. Obama currently leads in the "pledged" delegates by 150. This is Clinton's high water mark. After the Indiana and North Carolina primaries on May 6, the pressure will grow significantly on Clinton to withdraw prior to convention. The party brass who are in the position to make the final decision (i.e. super delegates) will want to use the convention to rebuild unity, not to decide the outcome of the primary. They will settle things before then.
Posts: 2994 | From: Minneapolis, Minnesota USA | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Comper's Child
Shipmate
# 10580

 - Posted      Profile for Comper's Child     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
What makes you think Indiana will be more Obama territory? North Carolina, maybe, but Indiana would seem to be more like Ohio and Pennsylvania.

CC is feeling a bit depressed that Hillary beat my guy so effectively in PA. I just don't trust her and her party style politics. Being an Independent, I would distrust parties and had hoped his broader appeal would win out, but my fear is that Americans feel more comfortable with the Red State/Blue State divide.

Posts: 2509 | From: Penn's Greene Countrie Towne | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Living in Gin

Liturgical Pyromaniac
# 2572

 - Posted      Profile for Living in Gin   Email Living in Gin   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Choirboy:
This is Clinton's high water mark. After the Indiana and North Carolina primaries on May 6, the pressure will grow significantly on Clinton to withdraw prior to convention.

Assuming she can even afford to stay in the game for that long... Her campaign is broke and her high-roller contributors are maxed out. Many of the small businesses that provide catering, audio-video support, etc. to her campaign events are being stiffed on their outstanding bills. So much for Hillary's supposed empathy for blue-collar Americans. [Roll Eyes]

It's particularly pathetic given how much of a funding advantage she managed to squander by lavish spending before Super Tuesday – which she was convinced would settle this race. The story of the tortoise and the hare comes to mind here, and IMO, the staggering arrogance and incompetence with which she’s run her campaign demonstrates how unfit she’d be as President. She seems to have learned all her executive management lessons from Dubya, including his Rovian tactics of using bigotry, fear, and ignorance to scare up votes.

Meanwhile, Obama has re-written the book on fundraising by mobilizing 1.4M (and counting) ordinary contributors who will never max out at the $2300 limit, but who can afford to chip in $20 or $50 again and again over the course of the campaign. He has spent his money wisely and is relatively debt-free. Example: Hillary’s events were usually lavishly catered, while Obama’s people urged volunteers to bring potluck meals to share. As a result, Obama is now sitting on a huge mountain of cash. Watch for it to be put into an all-out assault for North Carolina, Oregon, and especially Indiana. He's heavily favored in NC and OR, and IN is within reach.

If Hillary had a shred of class, she’d concede and endorse Obama today, and gracefully exit the campaign on a high note. Instead, she seems hell-bent on throwing the entire Democratic Party under a bus in order to gratify her own Texas-sized ego. Assuming she loses this nomination battle, look for her to get some payback in 2012 when the New York Dems run a strong candidate in the primary to oust her from her Senate seat… And I’ll do everything I can to help them in that effort.

--------------------
It's all fun and games until somebody gets burned at the stake.

Posts: 1893 | From: Cincinnati, USA | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Comper's Child
Shipmate
# 10580

 - Posted      Profile for Comper's Child     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Living in Gin:
If Hillary had a shred of class,

Oh, please...
Posts: 2509 | From: Penn's Greene Countrie Towne | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
They were saying on NPR last night that Hillary totally dismissed the caucus states, to the result that Obama, by pitching heavily to the same states, walked away with something in the 90%s of the delegates in those states (I may be misremembering). The commentator (not an NPR talking head but a guest) put this down to Ms Clinton's arrogance. But I wonder if it's just that caucuses are attended primarily from real gung-ho political types, and primaries draw out a great deal more of the Dem faithful who are not keen to find a babysitter and sit around a room with a bunch of überkeen overachievers? And that if those states had held primaries instead of caucuses, Obama's lead would be substantially less, if not a deficit.

The pundits were also opining that Obama's guns-and-religion quip is hurting him dearly among -- well -- the guns-and-religion group, which is stronger (particularly in Penna, they said) than he realized.

What are the constituencies at this point? According to what I've heard it's as follows:

Clinton with the working class, gender-identity women, older folks (who vote in droves), Hispanics, racists and a chunk of other folk who perhaps don't fit into any easily-identifiable demographic.

Obama with race-identity blacks, fresh faces (who are coming out in surprising numbers), white-guilties, sexists, and a chunk of other folk who perhaps don't fit into any easily-identifiable demographic.

How will this affect the remaining primaries or the superdelegates, if at all?

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
moron
Shipmate
# 206

 - Posted      Profile for moron   Email moron   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Choirboy:
The party brass who are in the position to make the final decision (i.e. super delegates) will want to use the convention to rebuild unity, not to decide the outcome of the primary. They will settle things before then.

You may be correct but haven't the Clintons always been considered 'outsiders' willing to challenge the Democratic powers that be? That's my vague perception from way back when during Bill's first presidential campaign.

Hillary has spent her entire life preparing for this race and it's very difficult for me to believe she's going to back down. I still think some case could be made she's the more electable candidate (baggage and all) primarily because Obama is comparably much farther left than she is in a country which is evenly split along liberal/conservative lines.

And I keep wondering if all the smoked filled room superdelegate types might not feel the same way.

What a fascinating study in politics this race has turned out to be.

Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959

 - Posted      Profile for tclune   Email tclune   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
How will this affect the remaining primaries or the superdelegates, if at all?

In my completely uninformed and highly opinionated view, the rest of the primaries are pretty much irrelevant. Unless one or the other candidate implodes, they will limp across the finish line still needing the superdelegates to decide.

ISTM that the main differentiating pitches will be: HRC will claim that she can appeal to the Reagan Democrats, which the party would sorely love to have back; BHO will claim that he can appeal to the youth, who I've been told are our future (Heaven forefend!). The party wants them, too.

Personally, I can't abide the Clintons. Nonetheless, I am surprised that they have done so poorly in wooing the superdelegates. If Obama can continue to get them to break his way in the numbers that he has so far, the election will be over as soon as the SDs choose sides. But my gut instinct is that the SDs will start splitting pretty evenly, too. How many delegates does Edwards have promised to him? He may end up being the [king/queen]maker! Alternatively, if it comes down to an old-fashioned fall-of-the-Roman-Empire let-me-buy-your-vote bidding war, my money would be on the Clintons.

--Tom Clune

--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.

Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Littlelady
Shipmate
# 9616

 - Posted      Profile for Littlelady     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
What are the constituencies at this point? According to what I've heard it's as follows:

Clinton with the working class, gender-identity women, older folks (who vote in droves), Hispanics, racists and a chunk of other folk who perhaps don't fit into any easily-identifiable demographic.

Obama with race-identity blacks, fresh faces (who are coming out in surprising numbers), white-guilties, sexists, and a chunk of other folk who perhaps don't fit into any easily-identifiable demographic.

Gosh. Pretty cynical stuff. Can only white guilties vote for Obama? And what is a 'gender-identity' woman per chance? And why is voting for a man sexist but voting for a woman is not? (Presumably that's gender identification or something)

I can actually quite easily imagine Hillary Clinton appealing to tough talking working class blokes: she comes across as the kind of woman who'd take no shit. Obama is a real contrast to that, though of course he could be just as tough but in a less abrasive way.

I think it's a real shame that Clinton pulled a lead of 10 (it's a shame she won the primary, period), even though I couldn't imagine how she could lose PA. Especially once Obama had made his little gun-and-religion gaffe.

--------------------
'When ideas fail, words come in very handy' ~ Goethe

Posts: 3737 | From: home of the best Rugby League team in the universe | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:
Gosh. Pretty cynical stuff. Can only white guilties vote for Obama?

Perhaps you missed the bit where I said, "and a chunk of other folk who perhaps don't fit into any easily-identifiable demographic." Up to you to figure out why that slipped by you.

By "gender-identity women" I just meant people who would vote for a woman because they're a woman and for no other reason. And don't tell me they're not out there.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Re sexism: Did I say it wasn't? Sorry if the terms weren't exactly parallel. I expected people could still pick up the point. My bad.

{eta:

It seems to me the sexist males wouldn't so much be voting for a man as voting against a woman. )

[ 23. April 2008, 16:55: Message edited by: mousethief ]

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mad Geo

Ship's navel gazer
# 2939

 - Posted      Profile for Mad Geo   Email Mad Geo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
I dunno. I can't help wondering if this isn’t actually going to be good for the party having a great convention where it simply makes for riveting TV. We got people turning out to vote in droves. There is no such thing as bad publicity, right? I think the pundits got it wrong. I think the democrats might actually win out due to all the attention this battle is garnering for them. Whoever wins will have one killer bully pulpit with a BIG chunk of America glued to their TVs waiting to see who wins. It’s like watching Survivor-The Political Edition! They will watch as one wins and then listen as that person accepts the nomination and hopefully blasts them with the Speech of their Lives.

Call me Pollyanna.

--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"

Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Living in Gin

Liturgical Pyromaniac
# 2572

 - Posted      Profile for Living in Gin   Email Living in Gin   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by mjg:
You may be correct but haven't the Clintons always been considered 'outsiders' willing to challenge the Democratic powers that be? That's my vague perception from way back when during Bill's first presidential campaign.

That may have been the case in 1992, but the Clintons (and the rest of their DLC ilk) have had ample time to consolidate their power within the party. They are now the establishment insiders.

quote:
I still think some case could be made she's the more electable candidate (baggage and all) primarily because Obama is comparably much farther left than she is in a country which is evenly split along liberal/conservative lines.
I don't think Obama is particularly left-wing, but when Hillary goes down the road of Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman by voting for the right-wing agenda in the Senate and parroting right-wing talking points in her campaign, Obama can't help but look more liberal by comparison. If anything, Obama is a center-left figure who happens to get along well with some Republicans and independents.

Interestingly, the vast majority of crossover Republicans have voted for Obama. Unlike Rush Limbaugh's "Operation Chaos" Republicans who illegally threw the election to Hillary in the open-primary states of Texas and Ohio, the Pennsylvania crossovers actually changed their voter registration to Dem in order to vote for Obama, and it's reasonable to surmise the vast majority of them intend to vote for Obama in the general election as well. IMO, this bodes well for Obama in November, and the superdelegates would be wise to take notice of Obama's broad appeal among independents and moderate Republicans.

quote:
And I keep wondering if all the smoked filled room superdelegate types might not feel the same way.
Hopefully they'll have the brains to realize the consequences of overriding the voters and awarding the nomination to Hillary:

1. 2008 Democratic primaries seen in the same light as the sham Florida election and recount in 2000.
2. John McCain wins the general election.
3. Democrats lose down-ticket races throughout the country where candidates are riding on Obama's coattails, not Hillary's.
4. An entire generation of African-Americans permanently disenfranchised from the Democratic Party.
5. An entire generation of young voters (who eventually grow up to become older voters and candidates for office themselves) permanently disenfranchised from the Democratic Party.

In short, we're now at a point where the only way for Hillary to win the nomination is to destroy the Democratic Party, and she'd lose the general election anyway.

Given her recent associations with shadowy neocon figures and right-wing voting record and talking points, maybe that's been her plan all along. [Paranoid]

--------------------
It's all fun and games until somebody gets burned at the stake.

Posts: 1893 | From: Cincinnati, USA | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
iGeek

Number of the Feast
# 777

 - Posted      Profile for iGeek   Author's homepage   Email iGeek   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Wow. The mythic "vast right-wing conspiracy" comes home to roost.
Posts: 2150 | From: West End, Gulfopolis | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Og: Thread Killer
Ship's token CN Mennonite
# 3200

 - Posted      Profile for Og: Thread Killer     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Gort:
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
Talk like this gets normal people angry at you. Its the equivalent in some ways of the wacko Iranian President talking about wiping Israel off the map and will be seen that way in many quarters.

Well, maybe those quarters will get off their liberal arses and do something about that wacko Iranian President before he acts on his threat. What position would you suggest an American President take upon an attack on Israel from Iran? ...Hold a friendly Christian dialogue with educated Iranian liberals?
As I indicated before, democracy is not easy to create.


Anyways, I'd suggest an candidate talk about dialogue of some sort rather then 1950's like posturing threatening a whole country of people.

The idiots running Iran won't drop the bomb on Israel...they aren't that stupid. Israel is the perfect foil for them, as it provides an easy enemy to talk about. If Clinton doesn't know that, she's a fool. If she does, and still threatens people, she's a bigger fool.

--------------------
I wish I was seeking justice loving mercy and walking humbly but... "Cease to lament for that thou canst not help, And study help for that which thou lament'st."

Posts: 5025 | From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Choirboy
Shipmate
# 9659

 - Posted      Profile for Choirboy   Email Choirboy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Comper's Child:
What makes you think Indiana will be more Obama territory? North Carolina, maybe, but Indiana would seem to be more like Ohio and Pennsylvania.

It may not; but I'd say it has more in common with more conservative states where Obama has done well rather than more solidly union labor states like Michigan or Pennsylvania where he has not done as well. Even then, I'm just expecting something of a small Clinton margin of victory in Indiana with another double-digit drubbing by Obama in North Carolina. Enough to show that the gap ain't going to get any closer by convention. Obama will win the popular vote (even including Florida but probably not if you include Michigan) and the pledged delegates.
Posts: 2994 | From: Minneapolis, Minnesota USA | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Choirboy
Shipmate
# 9659

 - Posted      Profile for Choirboy   Email Choirboy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by mjg:
quote:
Originally posted by Choirboy:
The party brass who are in the position to make the final decision (i.e. super delegates) will want to use the convention to rebuild unity, not to decide the outcome of the primary. They will settle things before then.

You may be correct but haven't the Clintons always been considered 'outsiders' willing to challenge the Democratic powers that be? That's my vague perception from way back when during Bill's first presidential campaign.
That kind of populist move actually requires you to have voters to appeal to, in order to put pressure on party bosses. But the decision process is backwards here - Clinton will be mathematically eliminated from coming out on top in terms of pledged delegates, and behind in the popular vote, and be trying to convince the party powers-that-be that she is somehow the winner. Obama is likely to stay even or even pull farther ahead on both counts in the coming contests.

I expect Clinton will do o.k. in Indiana and possibly Kentucky, and will do very well in West Virgina, but will probably lose the remaining contests, and some (especially North Carolina) by very large margins. North Carolina alone will probably more than erase any standing that Clinton has managed to acquire with a win in Pennsylvania.

News reports quote anonymous members of her staff as saying Pennsylvania and Indiana are 'must wins'. But Indiana polls are still currently pretty close with some going each way. It could be a squeaker there. For a 'must win' this is not impressive.

Paradoxically, it is Clinton who has failed to 'put it away' since Super Tuesday. The longer this goes on, the more strongly she is ossified into second place in the standings.

Posts: 2994 | From: Minneapolis, Minnesota USA | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
CorgiGreta
Shipmate
# 443

 - Posted      Profile for CorgiGreta         Edit/delete post 
I agree with Geo that having the campaign go right down to the convention may well be a good thing. I think it is far better to be tested, attacked, and held under a microscope than it is to be ignored.

Since his de facto nomination, McCain has all but vanished from the national attention. Is that a good thing? Just ask the man who held a massive lead at the beginning of the Republican primaries.

As for the negaives that have thus far surfaced regarding Mr. Obama, they seem trivial compared to the outlandish verbal blunders and truckloads of dirt that emerged during the campaigns of our current President, to say nothing of Mr. Clinton, Mr. Bush I, and Mr. Reagan.

Greta

Posts: 3677 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Choirboy
Shipmate
# 9659

 - Posted      Profile for Choirboy   Email Choirboy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
There is too much of a time gap between the last primary on June 3rd and the convention at the end of August for the super delegates to leave things undecided till convention. All the back room politics that ken wrote so vividly about some time ago will take place, but earlier. But I guess they will wait until after June 3rd

The prospect of nearly two months without any decision being made would be a colossal waste of time, and a squandering of an opportunity to build party unity and to raise funds for the general election. Also, what is the Democratic news coverage going to be like without the prospect of any primaries to conduct - an endless barrage of flag pins and other non-issues! It would be deadly. The brass will want to use the party convention itself to further the cause (with the Republican convention a week later, which will take over the media coverage for a bit at that point).

Posts: 2994 | From: Minneapolis, Minnesota USA | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Alfred E. Neuman

What? Me worry?
# 6855

 - Posted      Profile for Alfred E. Neuman     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Choirboy:
... All the back room politics that ken wrote so vividly about some time ago will take place, but earlier.

Exactly. It's all over but the fat lady singing. The numbers just aren't there for Clinton to overtake Obama in the delegate count and everyone has known this for 6 weeks. Two more super-delegates committed to Obama today and one for Clinton. She only gained 10 more pledged delegates than Obama in Pennsylvania yesterday and still trails him by 131 (NY Times).

She must think there's hope of forcing some fatal political gaffe by Obama with her "kitchen sink" strategy but my feeling is people are getting tired of this intra-party wrestling match. Obama would do well to ignore her baiting from here on out, focus on real issues and keep up the inspirational tone of his speeches.

I'd love to be a fly on the wall in June when Howard Dean, Ted Kennedy and other party heavy-weights drag her, kicking and screaming into that smoke-filled room. Maybe they'll have to water-board her into submission. Maybe they'll offer to pay off her mounting campaign debts. Whatever it takes, I have no doubt Dem leaders will have their candidate in June. It won't be Clinton.

--------------------
--Formerly: Gort--

Posts: 12954 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
SeraphimSarov
Shipmate
# 4335

 - Posted      Profile for SeraphimSarov   Email SeraphimSarov   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Choirboy:
quote:
Originally posted by mjg:
quote:
Originally posted by Choirboy:
The party brass who are in the position to make the final decision (i.e. super delegates) will want to use the convention to rebuild unity, not to decide the outcome of the primary. They will settle things before then.

You may be correct but haven't the Clintons always been considered 'outsiders' willing to challenge the Democratic powers that be? That's my vague perception from way back when during Bill's first presidential campaign.
I expect Clinton will do o.k. in Indiana and possibly Kentucky, and will do very well in West Virgina, but will probably lose the remaining contests, and some (especially North Carolina) by very large margins. North Carolina alone will probably more than erase any standing that Clinton has managed to acquire with a win in Pennsylvania.


But I can hear her saying that PA is a state that Democrats need to win and it can be a crucial marginal whereas NC is NEVER going to be won by a Democrat so is less important.

--------------------
"For those who like that sort of thing, that is the sort of thing they like"

Posts: 2247 | From: Sacramento, California | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  ...  109  110  111 
 
Post new thread  
Thread closed  Thread closed
Open thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools