Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

peeb · May 8, 2008, 07:28 PM

Originally Posted by BRussell

He's almost a foot shorter. Apparently that's what is really important in elections.

Since the tv age, only two candidates who were shorter than their opponents have won.

smacintush · May 8, 2008, 07:54 PM

Originally Posted by BRussell

a black man

Obama is around 6'5"

You truly have a gift for exaggeration.

He's a beige man around 6' 1.5"

ApeInTheShell · May 8, 2008, 09:55 PM

I just wanted to point out most of the people trying to oust her are liberal men. They p[retend to be about social equality to deferentiate themselves from us racist/sexist republicans but really they are just a bunch of bullies. I did not support hillary but i would almost like to see her win because i'm tired of listening to Obama's "i didnt support the war and i dont have a clue how to get us out".
One day we're all going to laugh about this. ha ha ha

peeb · May 8, 2008, 11:39 PM

Originally Posted by ApeInTheShell

I would almost like to see her win because i'm tired of listening to Obama's "i didnt support the war and i dont have a clue how to get us out".

I would have thought that was better than "i did support the war and i dont have a clue how to get us out"?

Chongo · 03:53 PM

no more Clinton polls
MyFox Dallas | 'Race Is Over': Polling Firm to Quit Asking Clinton Questions
let's hope this is not another

YouTube - Hillary's Downfall
I knew I'd seen this before.
YouTube - HD DVD losing the High-Def War vs Blu Ray

Atomic Rooster · May 9, 2008, 02:46 PM

Why won't the U.S. quit Iraq? It lost there long ago.

Chongo · May 9, 2008, 03:31 PM

Originally Posted by Atomic Rooster

Why won't the U.S. quit Iraq? It lost there long ago.

Saddam, Uday, and Qusay would think not. The war was won, maintaining the peace is another question. But that is another thread.

smacintush · May 9, 2008, 07:40 PM

The south lost 150 years ago and they never got over it.

Maybe she can try the "He stole the election from me! WAH WAH WAH!" tactic." Or do they save that one only for the general election?

spacefreak · May 10, 2008, 11:07 AM

Originally Posted by besson3c

There is no way for anybody to accurately measure the effects of Operation Chaos, these arguments are based on gut feeling. My gut feeling tells me that not all 7% of Republicans that voted in these open primaries are a part of the so-called Limbaugh army, because most people are simply not this politically informed, let alone plugged into Limbaugh.

I agree that there is no way to definitively quantify it, but watch out for your "gut" feeling, because the numbers are conceivably there.

Limbaugh has 2 million daily and 20 million weekly listeners, never dropping less than 13.5 million on even his worst week. Expand that to include a portion of people who are friends of Limbaugh listeners, but who perhaps work during the day and can't tune in, and combine that with an understanding that a very high percentage of Limbaugh listeners vote regularly... yeah, the numbers are definitely there.

1) Historically speaking, a massively unpopular president residing over a recession doesn't do well for his/her party

What recession? Shouldn't you first confirm that a recession exists before spouting that we are in one.

2) The pendulum has swung back at least towards the center. Newt Gingrich wrote about this just recently and pointed to some special elections where a Democrat in Louisiana beat a Republican in a district that has been Republican for the past 33 years.

Did either Gingrich or you take into account Bobby Jindal's crushing romp over Democratic rivals as the young Republican won the Louisiana governorship? If you're going to point to a win of a special election for a congressional seat in Louisiana, why not also consider the recent Governor's election there? I'd think the state-wide race is a better indicator than a district.

3) The Republican party is fragmented now. A quarter of Republican voters in these primaries voted for somebody other than McCain. This suggests that he hasn't fully unified his party even after all this time.

Bush had similar numbers in primaries in both 2000 and 2004 after sealing up the nomination. So this means very little. Fact is, McCain supporters have no real reason to get to the polls, and the McCain campaign has no reason to spend money in there races.

However, McCain is surely not the preferred choice of conservatives, but he's a significantly better choice for conservatives that Hillary or Obama.

4) Obama has broken all fundraising records - more evidence of the pendulum shift.

Perhaps. Perhaps not. The primary process of the Democratic candidates could not be any more different than what went down on the Republican side. If the Republican race was as competitive this late in the game, I'm sure we would have seen much higher fundraising numbers by Republicans.

It is too early to say with any certainty that the race won't at least be close, but if I was Republican I wouldn't be boasting and asserting projections of a Republican victory.

Actually, I hear much more boasting from the Democrat side. Regardless, I agree.

mduell · May 10, 2008, 01:30 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

The Supers overturning the will of the people would be a HUGE disaster. I can't see any way to win if this happens.

Isn't that the point of superdelegates? If they went with the popular vote every time, there'd be no point to having superdelegates.

besson3c · May 10, 2008, 01:40 PM

Originally Posted by mduell

Isn't that the point of superdelegates? If they went with the popular vote every time, there'd be no point to having superdelegates.

I'm not saying they should go with the popular vote - in fact, the popular vote is virtually irrelevant in the primaries.

There are different theories as to why we have superdelegates, and some say that we shouldn't, but over all I believe that unless something goes horribly wrong where it is necessary that they interject as a form of check/balance, they should follow along with the victor according to pledged delegate totals.

Captain Obvious · May 10, 2008, 01:51 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

There are different theories as to why we have superdelegates.

No, there aren't.
They were made in response to and to prevent another Jimmy Carter.

besson3c · May 10, 2008, 02:03 PM

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious

No, there aren't.
They were made in response to and to prevent another Jimmy Carter.

Superdelegate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Captain Obvious · May 10, 2008, 02:28 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

Superdelegate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

First off, what idiot takes wikipedia as accurate?
Nevermind, I answered my own question. I also don't see any of those alternate "theories" you spoke about.

Democratic leaders realized that the voters are morons after they picked Carter and that they needed to prevent the electorate from pushing another inexperienced but well-meaning dunce to the top of the ticket so they created super delegates. It is why the role was made for the 84 election cycle and not right after 72 with McGovern.

Its a sad fact that even Ted Kennedy would have made a better president than Carter.

besson3c · May 10, 2008, 03:18 PM

Obvious: interesting debate style you have - say something so uninviting of productive discourse that you shut down conversation...

smacintush · May 10, 2008, 03:32 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

I believe that unless something goes horribly wrong where it is necessary that they interject as a form of check/balance…

And when the hell should that be?

"TOO…MUCH…DEMOCRACY…POPULAR VOTE…TOO…POWERFUL…

QUICK! CALL THE SUPERDELEGATES!" </John Stewart>

Do you guys really see a need for checks and balances on democracy?

besson3c · May 10, 2008, 03:42 PM

smacintush: do you not understand why the popular vote is virtually irrelevant in the primaries (Republican and Democrat)?

Chongo · May 10, 2008, 03:50 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

Superdelegate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia