Democratic primaries will be held Wednesday our time in Oregon and Kentucky, which will respectively choose 52 and 51 delegates. Below is another race associated with the latter state, which this year ended with runner-up Eight Belles having to be put down*. Does the knackers’ yard beckon for a certain second-placed Democratic nag? Discuss.
* Unfortunately for my metaphor, Clinton in fact holds a handy 30.5 per cent lead in Kentucky, according to Real Clear Politics. Obama however leads by 12.4 per cent in Oregon.
2,133 Comments
Pages: « 1 … 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 43 » Show All
Growler-
“2) Send in the US Air Force and the US Special Forces to reduce Natanz to a pile of rubble. This is what you’ll get with President McCain.”
yep. That works.
KR,
Trying to root my boot again! I down loaded EC’s little cartoon @96 (hat tips EC) and put put a tiny red circle in texta in an appropriate spot and pinned the whole thing to my nearest board. Every time you slag me off, I’ll be thinking of the tiny little red prick you are.
What it is , is an example of mainstream opinion. Your denialist bomastic burblings seek to ignore the reality that there are deeply held views that endorse the comment above. Obama’s bleatings to date will in no way persuade them that he has their national security interests at heart.
If Obama wants the nomination and the POTUS then he will need to develop a better communications strategy to get these voters in the boat.
So you want a POTUS who will pander to ignorance and fear, GG? You’ve already got one of those.
Leadership is not about getting those folk on board; it’s about showing the nation why those views are dangerous and downright wrong. Obama’s doing that
GG, enough cyber bullying. You might make KR/wrist.
How does Obama appeal to those kinds of voters without becoming a facsimile of the neocons? What would be your strategy?
FG,
The point is that by not engaging them, you ended up with W.
Who is he convincing? A bunch of left leaning bloggers in the antipodes . That really counts!
Growler- as well as we sad, deluded little lefties on PB it would seem that Obama is having a bit of an impact with a few others in the US. I imagine you saw the photo of the rally fro example,and have seen his lead in teh pledged delegates. Of course, it is possible that all these millions of supporters are as stupid as we are, but I think not.
And one of the reasons he has such support is that he does not support your option 2. Thank the gods.
TW,
One of the reasons for Labor’s success last year was that when Libs brought in their Work Choices legislation, all of a sudden, a lot of previous Howard supporters arked up and became receptive to Labor. Once they were listening about one thing, they started listening about other matters and the rest, as they say is history.
I sense that the Obama campaign has a touch of the KRs (I’m right, your wrong, get stuffed). They probably need to embrace Hillary in a meaningful way since she has the keys to the demographic they need to be talking with in order to win.
That would be a start.
GG [Who is he convincing?]
– 72% of the voting population to start with – those who are not happy with the US’s direction, and I suggest more to follow as the campaign proceeds, as McCain is continually covered in Bushwash.
It’s worth considering that, depending on how heavily Puerto Rico turns out and Hillary’s margin there, Hillary may well end up with the overall lead in popular vote, however counted.
And then how does the Democratic Party allow a candidate to win the popular vote but not the nomination? Rember Al “I-won-but-they-screwed-me” Gore?
A really handy tool to forecast popular vote is here: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/chooseyourown.html
Yo ho ho #143
“Just thinking out loud i guess.”
Don’t , your maths are so bad , Pancho has probably gulped on his lattee
GG
#138
“the most delusional, pie-in-the-sky liberals.”
Ron: they are here GG ! , the ‘butterfly doves” , anti US , anti the Western Countries military shield without which their intellegentia precious-soaked Ivory Towers would be a dustbin , never realising its wise threat of or use of that military power protects these FL looneys simply as a coincidence of protecting the majority the sensible peoples & notwithstanding dumb POTUS’s like Bush.
of course , Obama they dream will dismantle this eyesaw & make loving oratorial sermon to the rulers of Syria , Iran & the like as they think the yanks have replaced one dumb POTUS with worse actor than Reagan who wa serious.
of course this obama foreign affairs manifesto you notice mentions zero of forcing Burma’s hand on 2 million starving nor the famines of Ruwanda or Darfur ,
oh I forgot , they are not important to the Obama big picture message
Ron-
what?
MB, Hillary has used the electabilty and popular vote arguments all year and guess what, she’s lost the delegate count. She can bang on about it all she likes, the SDs are breaking Obama’s way, and after tomorrow she will need 80% of remaining delegates. Aint going to happen.
How does the Democrat Party deal with it: simple, its the delegate count that secure the nomination as it has always been. You cant change the rules because you dont know the outcome. Comparing this to Gore is ridiculous
sorry I meant dont like the outcome
Poor Gruffy, he can’t tell the difference between hurling abuse and actually having an argument based on facts.
Obama HAS made a better argument, as have the bloggers here, but you insist that he hasn’t.
You are really trying to be a mini-Ron, aren’t you.
So don’t come the raw prawn with this crap Gruffy, you got slapped yesterday for being a dipstick and you’re at the same old rubbish again today.
VERY slow learner.
Jen, if you refuse to take my advice and dont read or reply to Ron, fair enough. Could you spare us the incredulity though, it’s getting a bit tiresome
Ron
Appreciate the constructive criticism. Glad you were nice enough to point out the flaws rather than just dismiss like an obamabot.
Andrew- sorry. Just a slip up. I will try and control myself in future.
JV,
This “heading in the right direction” question was a crock when Morgan used it here and I am not convinced it is any more valid in the US context. I can only refer you to polls like Vote Master that show McCain in front of Obama in a head to head.
Re the huge crowds, I can only refer you to recent elections in Australia like Hewson in 93 and Gough in 1975. Crowds were huge and energised and excited, but the ones that didn’t turn up, voted them out. Perhaps large mobs of screaming people scare the horses.
GG 167
The biggest crowd Obama has had was in Pennsylvania (100,000 +), about three days before Hillary thumped him by 10%!
Sigh what is wrong with Geraldine Ferraro.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/19/us/politics/19women.html?partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all
Ms. Ferraro, who clashed with the Obama campaign about whether she made a racially offensive remark, said she might not either. “I think Obama was terribly sexist,” she said.
True Diogs, but she was meant to thump him by 20%.
Dio
i don’t think you realise how good a -10 point result was for Obama in Penn. The state is tailor made to prefer Hillary as a Dem candidate and it was right in the middle of the Wright boogaloo scare.
He closed a 20 point margin to 10.
I am not surprised at all that Pennsylvania (with Ed Rendall helping enormously) preferred Clinton to Obama.
That doesn’t mean that they will prefer McCain to Obama though.
Obama is already polling a comfortable victory there.
In a big boost to Obama’s economic credibility Warren Buffet endorses him.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080519/ts_alt_afp/germanyusinvestpoliticsbuffett_080519163709;_ylt=AoMZ0By0QIhdx_88YO8En7Fh24cA
GG @ 167 [his “heading in the right direction” question was a crock]
Fair enough -try these more direct poll questions about Iraq then. It doesn’t seem to matter which pollster asks the question or how it is framed, the proportions ar about the same as the ‘right direction’ question. Stilll cuts around 65-70/30-35 against the Repugs.
http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm
As to the current general election polls, don’t worry, all will be well once the Dems nomination is official, and certainly by November the electoral college votes will be sewn up. McCain simply can’t escape the Bushwash.
Crowds often mean little, agreed, but the Oregan crowd was about 50% up on the number Kerry got, so it’s at least an indicator of the enthusiasm levels Obama is generating.
What is it with you people? I was just pointing out the GG’s comment was true. A big crowd does not mean you will win the state. Nothing more, nothing less. I’m beginning to understand how GG, Finns and Ron feel.
oops wasn’t finished lol
Geraldine Ferraro is the face of the ugly side of feminism. She is supporting Hillary Clinton because she is woman. Despite the fact older white women are practically the largest voting bloc if not nationally then within the democratic party. Despite this she shows the extent of her hypocrisy by saying Obama is lucky to be black despite this logic applying better to Hillary than Obama.
As another article i read suggested Obama did well because he framed himself as post racial Hillary did no present herelf as post gender. I put that Ferraro is the sexist and the irony of being called racist didn’t make her realise that is what she does to people when she calls them sexist.
Scotty @ 170,
Slap her down. A politician that tells the truth. Can’t have none of that, eh!
Diogenes-
you seem a tad defensive. I was simply pointing out that while you are right (and i know what you are saying is true), that his support is increasing even in Hillary’s safe seats, and the crowds he is attracting does seem to indicate this.
The Democratic Party have a dismal history of voting with the heart and not considering if the nominee can win. A history of nominating left-wing candidates, candidates that the Party faithful loves but the electorate can’t stomach. They then get flogged in the general.
Think Dukakis (goodness, was that ten whole states you took in the general?) Mondale (oops, only one state!) and McGovern (kept to one state by NIXON!)
Interestingly, for the last forty years, it’s only the centerists that the party has nominated – Clinton and “peanut-farmer” Carter – that have managed a win.
Oh well. The world will have to suffer McSame for four years. Hillary 2012!
JV,
1. But how important is Iraq in the overall context of the election? Is it a cut through issue, or something that people have a strong view but not a vote decider?
2. Gunner polls “hmm”. Margin of error high I hear.
3. Negatives = Positives. Positives = negatives. The answer is a pineapple at this time.
179
MB
Tell ya what MB, if Obama only wins 1 state in November, I’ll eat America, the whole damn lot of it! LOL
Seasoned US election watchers have said it over and over, there’s no use reading polls in May.
But what is in evidence is a resounding turnout for Dems, three safe house seats lost, and a startling candidate that’s bringing them out and raising money for full-on run in November.
And all this against a candidate who is not even considered a Republican by some of the 3G crowd (god/gays/guns)!
Just calmly watch, while the game ratchets up into serious play mode.
Sorry folks, it’s whinge time:
1. Since when did a thread about Clinton vs Obama on an electoral website, become about whether the USA should ensure enduring peace in the Middle East by starting another major war there (gee, the last one went so well…)? Neither candidate is advocating bombing Iran. (In case anyone pulls me up, HRC’s “obliterate” response was to the question “What would you do if Iran launched a nuclear attack on Israel?”) So shouldn’t the debate go off to shouldwebombiran.blogspot.com, or somewhere it might be vaguely relevant?
2. All of the debatin’ about electoral-vote.com vs someone else’s site, is irrelevant. Sorry to shout: IRRELEVANT. You are talking about figures from May 2008, or earlier. The election is in November. Newsflash: 4 months ago, HRC was leading Obama by almost exactly 2-to-1 as preferred Democratic candidate. The figures are relevant to talk about general trends, identify the true battleground states, discuss how McC and O are each planning to get to 270, look states that Obama is gunning to win where HRC would have struggled and those where he’s weaker than her, but to argue ‘this site gives him only 239 electoral votes, so he’ll lose’; ‘no, this site gives him 271, so he’ll win’, 6 months before the darn election, is just stoopid. And anyone who has sleptwalked through a single campaign in their whole lives should know it. Give me some polling from September 2008, and there’ll be something worth debating about.
William may have stopped caring, but I can’t stop.
MB,
“Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it”.
179
MB
that’s ‘lost by the Republicans’ by the way.
What we need to note is that the last 8 years have seen the US move so far to the right that even many Republicans (real conservatives) are shocked.
There has not been anything this extreme in 40 years, so you would have to expect that those 80% who think the country is going down the toilet would largely want to head in the opposite direction to some degree.
Or in other words, if a northern liberal can’t win this one, then it’s never going to happen. I think you could argue that this election is really being held under some very different circumstances: recession, inflation, Iraq, corrupt Republicans and the nutbag Neocons still punching the same buttons. Oh, and Rovian politics is utterly discredited.
Democrats have an inspiring candidate, a well funded machine, and lots of favourable polls.
Calm.
Keep the faith! LOL
182
SimonH
181
“Seasoned US election watchers have said it over and over, there’s no use reading polls in May.”
SNAP!
Beatcha!
Hmm, those who keep doing the same thing and getting the same result are very slow learners.
History doesn’t repeat itself, but it rhymes, as we all know. Assuming that this election is like all the others is not using history or the evidence, it’s just a silly argument for nothing ever changing.
SimonHAggrieved,
See you in September.
A very wise man once said,
“You have an astounding lack of self-awareness sometimes, KR.”
188
Greensborough Growler
And I said I don’t suffer nongs, and you prove my case.
I would have thought William’s comment an appropriate slap down.
We still haven’t heard your “gay baiting” defence.
So, it looks like you caught some of that “cognitive dissonance” thingo. In your case, it has turned your brain to black pudding and crap is oozing from your mouth.
Poor little red prick.
Gruffy, I have no idea what you’re talking about, which wouldn’t be the first time.
As for your insults, like I said, you are a complete nong.
THE END
GG 2 180
1. Iraq – One of the main reasons the Repugs are so on the nose nationally.
2. early polls – There cannot be any direct, unfiltered nominee v nominee polling yet – so a little speculation as to what this polling will show is justifiable until then. Do you predict an increase in Obama’s vote against McCain once Barry is the Dem nominee, or not?
3. ? …
It’s certainly not only the Iraq issue damaging the Repugs – For example:
Quinnipiac University Poll. May 8-12, 2008
“Do you think the United States economy is in a recession now?”
Answers: 71% – Yes; 24% – No
(Including a majority ‘Yes’ among Repug voters)
As to the parties themselves:
ABC News/Washington Post Poll. May 8-11, 2008.
“Overall, which party — the Democrats or the Republicans — do you trust to do a better job in coping with the main problems the nation faces over the next few years?” [Options rotated]
Democrats -53 Republicans – 32
I think there’s a bit of support there to my contention that the Dems support will rise once Obama is confirmed.
MB @ 159: I couldn’t plug any figures in for Puerto Rico, not even 2 million voters on a HRC margin of 25%, that would give HRC “the overall lead in popular vote, however counted”. The fact is that there are 15 different ways of counting the ‘popular vote’ on that calculator. So if anyone isn’t ahead in all 15 of them come 3 June (and there’s only one person who can be), then any claim to be the voters’ choice will be so riddled with asterisks and footnotes as to lose most of its persuasive force. There is a problem with the data in the calculator, anyways: it reduces Obama’s lead by 50,000 if you ‘Use WA Primary’, but in fact he won the state’s Primary by 40,000.
In addition, 3 of the 15 methods listed involve giving an anti-democratic windfall to HRC in Michigan. To argue that full legal force should be given to a plebiscite that was known to have no force at the time it was held, where the candidate’s opponent wasn’t even on the ballot resulting in an inevitable almost-100% victory, is an absurd parody of ‘democracy’ worthy of Mugabe at his worst. How anyone purporting to advocate a democratic counting of votes could plump for it, is beyond me.
Al Gore’s argument was never that he had won the national popular vote so the election should have been awarded to him. He always knew the game he was playing, and the game was electoral college votes. The structural weaknesses of the US Presidential election system that make it ripe for reform, was/is an issue for a different forum. His argument was that on a proper count, he (would have) won Florida, giving him the majority of EC votes.
Similarly, HRC and O have always played the game knowing that the game was delegates. If you lose that, you lose the game; and everything else is just accumulating statistics. Like if you’re one point behind at the final siren, to say ‘we had more disposals, more inside 50s, more tackles, better efficiency of ball use, plus we had some injuries and the umpiring went against us, and so you might be pretending to enjoy a narrow technical victory but the fact is you were outplayed’ sounds like exactly what it is: irrelevant sour grapes.
The statistics are only not irrelevant so far as you can use them to persuade superdelegates, but the number of SDs who will decide only on (a certain calculation of) the national vote count, will be slim indeed. The Pelosi Club, on my understanding, is promising to follow the pledged delegate winner.
JV, it’s seeping in:
END OF AN ERA?….David Frum is pretty pessimistic about the current state of movement conservatism, but George Packer says that David Brooks is even more dejected:
When I met David Brooks in Washington, he was even more scathing than Frum. Brooks had moved through every important conservative publication — National Review, the Wall Street Journal editorial page, the Washington Times, the Weekly Standard — “and now I feel estranged,” he said. “I just don’t feel it’s exciting, I don’t feel it’s true, fundamentally true.” In the eighties, when he was a young movement journalist, the attacks on regulation and the Soviet Union seemed “true.” Now most conservatives seem incapable of even acknowledging the central issues of our moment: wage stagnation, inequality, health care, global warming. They are stuck in the past, in the dogma of limited government. Perhaps for that reason, Brooks left movement journalism and, in 2003, became a moderately conservative columnist for the Times. “American conservatives had one defeat, in 2006, but it wasn’t a big one,” he said. “The big defeat is probably coming, and then the thinking will happen. I have not yet seen the major think tanks reorient themselves, and I don’t know if they can.” He added, “You go to Capitol Hill — Republican senators know they’re fucked. They have that sense. But they don’t know what to do. There’s a hunger for new policy ideas.”
JV, it’s seeping in:
END OF AN ERA?….David Frum is pretty pessimistic about the current state of movement conservatism, but George Packer says that David Brooks is even more dejected:
When I met David Brooks in Washington, he was even more scathing than Frum. Brooks had moved through every important conservative publication — National Review, the Wall Street Journal editorial page, the Washington Times, the Weekly Standard — “and now I feel estranged,” he said. “I just don’t feel it’s exciting, I don’t feel it’s true, fundamentally true.” In the eighties, when he was a young movement journalist, the attacks on regulation and the Soviet Union seemed “true.” Now most conservatives seem incapable of even acknowledging the central issues of our moment: wage stagnation, inequality, health care, global warming. They are stuck in the past, in the dogma of limited government. Perhaps for that reason, Brooks left movement journalism and, in 2003, became a moderately conservative columnist for the Times. “American conservatives had one defeat, in 2006, but it wasn’t a big one,” he said. “The big defeat is probably coming, and then the thinking will happen. I have not yet seen the major think tanks reorient themselves, and I don’t know if they can.” He added, “You go to Capitol Hill — Republican senators know they’re fucked. They have that sense. But they don’t know what to do. There’s a hunger for new policy ideas.”
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_05/013750.php
Let’s face it JV- if the Democrats can’t pull this off , no matter who the candidate is, with the economy in recession, the war, global warmimng and a complete moron as POTUS, then they deserve to lose.
JV, it’s seeping in:
END OF AN ERA?….David Frum is pretty pessimistic about the current state of movement conservatism, but George Packer says that David Brooks is even more dejected:
When I met David Brooks in Washington, he was even more scathing than Frum. Brooks had moved through every important conservative publication — National Review, the Wall Street Journal editorial page, the Washington Times, the Weekly Standard — “and now I feel estranged,” he said. “I just don’t feel it’s exciting, I don’t feel it’s true, fundamentally true.” In the eighties, when he was a young movement journalist, the attacks on regulation and the Soviet Union seemed “true.” Now most conservatives seem incapable of even acknowledging the central issues of our moment: wage stagnation, inequality, health care, global warming. They are stuck in the past, in the dogma of limited government. Perhaps for that reason, Brooks left movement journalism and, in 2003, became a moderately conservative columnist for the Times. “American conservatives had one defeat, in 2006, but it wasn’t a big one,” he said. “The big defeat is probably coming, and then the thinking will happen. I have not yet seen the major think tanks reorient themselves, and I don’t know if they can.” He added, “You go to Capitol Hill — Republican senators know they’re f**ked. They have that sense. But they don’t know what to do. There’s a hunger for new policy ideas.”
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_05/013750.php
When abuse is sophisticated, humorous or otherwise imaginative, it can be quite tasty. Fact. But when it’s poorly prepared and dished up cold without a hint of spice or flavour, it’s just plain dull and forgettable.
William @ 25:
*You people are lucky I don’t care anymore.*
Sorry, neither do I, so my reading and contributions are ceasing, temporarily I hope.
I can go down to the local primary school for nothing if I want to watch squabbling.
JV,
Sorry if 3 was obscure. My point was that sometimes a strenghth can be a weakness in some eyes e.g. huge crowds indicating support and momentum on the one hand versus alarm that mobs are taking over the streets. And vice versa.e.g. Rudd was a wimp to the Lib supporters versus his stud muffin status with women.
I am sure you are convinced about the merits of your hopes for the campaign.
I always contend that predictions are difficult to make, especially about the future.
Pages: « 1 … 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 43 » Show All