DC Area Voters

Originally posted by vansmack:

Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
It's absolutely unconscionable to withhold millions of people's right to have a say in who the Democratic nominee is simply to punish their state. George W. Bush thinks that's messed up.

I missed this while I was in transit. Did you site GWB to back your argument? And he has absolutely no outside interests. You're becoming laughable.

I think you misunderstood. I was not citing GWB or anything he said. I was exaggerating and using sarcasm to illustrate that the idea of stripping two states of their right to vote because of a minor infraction by state party leaders is so offensive an idea that even GWB, who "won" in 2000 despite getting less overall votes and less votes in Florida, would find it objectionable.

Interesting result from a recent survey conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press: If their favored candidate is not the Democratic nominee, a quarter of Hillary Clinton's primary supporters would defect and vote for John McCain in November, while only 10 percent of Barack Obama's supporters would do the same.
from salon

now that doesn't take into account those who would vote for nader or not vote at all, but i thought it was interesting.

Hillary is counting on the famously short American attention span. She has more than two months between the time the superdelegates coronate her and the time the voting public goes to the polls. By that time, most people will be like, "Obama who?"

The thing that keeps getting left out when the "who is more electable" discussion comes up is the fact that Democrats are outvoting Republicans by 2 to 1 margins in the primaries. If that holds true, then both Clinton and Obama are more electable than McCain.

That's also what annoys me about Clinton's "I've won the battleground states" argument. It is a distortion of reality - she's won the battleground states among Democrats. But if twice as many Democrats turn out than Republicans in the general election in the battleground states, then it doesn't matter which of them gets the nomination - even if the Salon poll (which is interesting) is accurate.

The question to ask would be is if a Democratic candidate can pull a traditionally Republican state away - and Obama has done much, much better in those states. Who is more apt to make Virginia go blue, for example? If the primaries indicate anything, it is that Obama has a greater potential to win both the battleground states (due to overwhelming Democratic turnout) and some of the blue-leaning red states.

But doesn't that simply reflect that independents who can vote in either primary are voting in the Democrat primary because that's the one their vote can make a difference in?

Also, many Republicans probably haven't been going to the polls simply because the outcome has been decided for awhile now.

Originally posted by callat703:
The thing that keeps getting left out when the "who is more electable" discussion comes up is the fact that Democrats are outvoting Republicans by 2 to 1 margins in the primaries. If that holds true, then both Clinton and Obama are more electable than McCain.

Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
But doesn't that simply reflect that independents who can vote in either primary are voting in the Democrat primary because that's the one their vote can make a difference in?

Also, many Republicans probably haven't been going to the polls simply because the outcome has been decided for awhile now.

This is true. If we had a sitting Democratic president and two Republican upstarts battling it out, you'd have much higher Republican turnout (although it'd be slightly lower since I don't believe Republicans allow independents to vote in most states' primaries).

Originally posted by callat703:
The question to ask would be is if a Democratic candidate can pull a traditionally Republican state away - and Obama has done much, much better in those states. Who is more apt to make Virginia go blue, for example? If the primaries indicate anything, it is that Obama has a greater potential to win both the battleground states (due to overwhelming Democratic turnout) and some of the blue-leaning red states.

but, hasn't mccain done the same thing on the republican side? why is obama winning "red" states proof that he can get republicans, yet mccain winning "blue" states means nothing? dems talk like they can somehow win midwest and mountain west republican states that obama won in caucuses as proof that he can do well in those states, yet mccain winning new england democrat states (in primaries) is shrugged off.

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:

Originally posted by callat703:
The question to ask would be is if a Democratic candidate can pull a traditionally Republican state away - and Obama has done much, much better in those states. Who is more apt to make Virginia go blue, for example? If the primaries indicate anything, it is that Obama has a greater potential to win both the battleground states (due to overwhelming Democratic turnout) and some of the blue-leaning red states.

but, hasn't mccain done the same thing on the republican side? why is obama winning "red" states proof that he can get republicans, yet mccain winning "blue" states means nothing? dems talk like they can somehow win midwest and mountain west republican states that obama won in caucuses as proof that he can do well in those states, yet mccain winning new england democrat states (in primaries) is shrugged off.

What blue states has McCain won with overwhelming majorities in which he had serious competition from a single candidate? This isn't a viable comparison for a lot of reasons - but perhaps most importantly, the Obama camp has proven that they can mobilize members of the electorate that don't typically vote. McCain simply proved that he could appeal to more moderate Republicans and some of the base.

Not only that, name a blue state that McCain is going to put in play that wasn't in play in 2004.

Red states that Obama can put in play that Hillary likely cannot: Virginia, South Carolina, Georgia, Louisiana, etc…

Originally posted by callat703:
What blue states has McCain won with overwhelming majorities in which he had serious competition from a single candidate? This isn't a viable comparison for a lot of reasons - but perhaps most importantly, the Obama camp has proven that they can mobilize members of the electorate that don't typically vote. McCain simply proved that he could appeal to more moderate Republicans and some of the base.

oh please. . .here are the states in the midwest and mountain west:

iowa- caucus (obama)
nevada- caucus (clinton)
alaska- caucus (obama)
idaho- caucus (obama)
kansas- caucus (obama)
colorado- caucus (obama)
minnesota- caucus (obama)
new mexico- caucus (basically a tie)
north dakota- caucus (obama)
utah- primary (obama)
nebraska- caucus (obama)
washington- caucus (obama)
arizona- primary (clinton)
wyoming- caucus (tbd- presumably obama)
south dakota- primary (tbd- presumably obama)

how does a caucus reveal anything about the state. great, he got people out to a caucus that does not have secret ballots. . .i think julian has already made comments on the usefulness of caucuses, plus, could not the caucus results also show how poor the clinton campaign is at grass roots and on-the-ground organization? the only primary he won was utah, and there's no way he will win utah in the general election. just to help you out, obama also won wisconsin (primary)- by the same amount as utah (17%).

i'm not saying that mccain will carry new england (other than new hampshire), i'm just wondering why the supposed ability to cross-over is treated differently when both have potentially the same ability (see pew report on obama and clinton supporters willing to support mccain in the general).

Its time for Obama to fight. Which makes last night's result a potential positive if he eventually goes against McCain b/c he will become a much more seasoned fighter and have a stronger sense of what needs to be done. Ditto for Hilary, although I'm just not a fan.

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
i think julian has already made comments on the usefulness of caucuses,

But Julian's proven to be an idiot, also. He quoted George W. Bush to prove a Democratic point for Christ's sake - that's one step below SNL.

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
plus, could not the caucus results also show how poor the clinton campaign is at grass roots and on-the-ground organization? ,

Oh sure, Julian gets credit for making a point, but I don't? Bollocks.

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:

i'm not saying that mccain will carry new england (other than new hampshire), i'm just wondering why the supposed ability to cross-over is treated differently when both have potentially the same ability

Well, if the Republican's aren't worried about Obama taking red states from the 2000 election away in the 2008 election, than why are the blow hards on the radio so concerned about making sure Hillary's gets the nomination?

You know as well as I do that the Ethanol comment in Iowa and the auto jobs comment in Michigan that McCain made, while factually correct, makes keeping those two states very tough in November. Same for NAFTA - the only debate in Ohio and the rest of the upper mid-west is about one party wanting the status quo and the other wanting to change it. What's McCain going to accuse Obama of, not really wanting to change NAFTA? The first question a reporter will ask him, well, what's wrong with that - isn't that your stance? That's not going to help him there (and you know I support most of NAFTA, but I don't live in a State that percieves NAFTA as a problem).

Originally posted by vansmack:
What's McCain going to accuse Obama of, not really wanting to change NAFTA?

Most of this crap has been disproven by now, looks like a politically motivated leak by conservatives in Canada that distorted the original memo. I am sure Hillary will set the record straight as soon as she can. She wouldnt want Republican help would she.

Originally posted by vansmack:
Well, if the Republican's aren't worried about Obama taking red states from the 2000 election away in the 2008 election, than why are the blow hards on the radio so concerned about making sure Hillary's gets the nomination?

You know as well as I do that the Ethanol comment in Iowa and the auto jobs comment in Michigan that McCain made, while factually correct, makes keeping those two states very tough in November. Same for NAFTA - the only debate in Ohio and the rest of the upper mid-west is about one party wanting the status quo and the other wanting to change it. What's McCain going to accuse Obama of, not really wanting to change NAFTA? The first question a reporter will ask him, well, what's wrong with that - isn't that your stance? That's not going to help him there (and you know I support most of NAFTA, but I don't live in a State that percieves NAFTA as a problem).

i think the republican blowhards want hillary because she would be easier to beat (if there's one thing republicans can all agree on, it's that they don't want hillary in the white house).

btw, gore won michigan and iowa in 2000, so if you're looking at that map, then it doesn't really matter if mccain wins them or not. if mccain wins the same states as 2000, he gets 278 electoral votes. from the 2004 map, if mccain loses ohio, but wins new hampshire, keeping the rest of the 04 states, he wins with 270.

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
btw, gore won michigan and iowa in 2000, so if you're looking at that map, then it doesn't really matter if mccain wins them or not.

I know - I was making two separate point in different paragraphs, one about the red state/blue state comment and one about the midwest argument, but decided not go back and quote your other (earlier) post. Sorry for the confusion.

EDIT: I also just saw that I used "keeping" instead of "winning" - I'm just too lazy today to go back and fix it. My bad.

<img src="http://images.dailykos.com/images/user/3/Clinton_Plan.jpg" alt=" - " />

Originally posted by xneverwherex:
Personally, Ill throw a vote to Nader (or not vote) before supporting her. Im really disgusted with how we are attacking our own nominees in our party. Shouldnt we be saving this vitriol for McCain??

I would never, ever vote for Nader. I'd almost vote for McCain over Hillary, but I don't think I can bring myself to do that. I do think he will win, though, if she wins.

I can't wait to hear what the Clinton campaign has to say about Oregon's all votes by mail system, I am sure it isn't fair for some reason. I guess the only positive out of this mess is that my Oregon vote may have some tiny bit of significance.

Originally posted by callat703:
If she gets the nomination, it'll mean the superdelegates upended the pledged delegates and (most likely) the popular vote. If the Democratic Party allows that to happen, as I've said before on here, I'll not support the party again.

according to abc news, this is the current vote total:

obama- 13,567,226
clinton- 13,571,404

i can only assume that these vote totals include michigan and florida, since fox has obama up by 3,355 votes including michigan and florida. i will note that abc's numbers are as of 6:15 PM eastern, whereas fox's numbers are as of 12:15 PM eastern. fox also breaks out the numbers including only florida (obama up by 330,000) and without florida and michigan (obama up 626,000).

Originally posted by vansmack:
But Julian's proven to be an idiot, also. He quoted George W. Bush to prove a Democratic point for Christ's sake - that's one step below SNL.

No, I didn't. It's not my fault your reading comprehension is on par with a fourth grader and even when I explain your error to you, you still don't get it.

For the second time, saying, "…even GWB would find that messed up," is not quoting or citing GWB on an issue, only using him as a facetious example to show how ridiculous the issue at question was.

It's like talking about a professional athlete's rape charge and saying, "even Mike Tyson thinks that's messed up." Mike Tyson didn't ever comment on the other athlete's rape charge, nor does he probably think it's "messed up," but joking someone who's done something similar is offended by it highlights how egregious and against the social norms the act in question is.

I'm sorry you're a colossal idiot and can't understand what you fucking read. Even George W. Bush thinks that's messed up.

Obama could top Clinton by 3

By Mike Ward | Wednesday, March 5, 2008, 03:55 PM

With all the back-and-forth over the delegates gained by Obama and Clinton in yesterdayâ??s Texas primary, this word is just in from state Democratic officials.

Obama could pick up a net gain of three delegates, after all the dust settles.

Hereâ??s how Dem officials say thatâ??s possible:

Clinton won the popular vote, and could pick up as many as four delegates from that.

Obama appears to be winning the caucus voting on delegates, and could pick up as many as seven delegates there.

If that holds true, Obama would end up with three more Texas delegates than Clinton.

But weâ??re staying tuned for the final results, whenever they come out.