325)This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.
Not a member? Sign-up today!
About Propeller | Frequently Asked Questions | Help
© 2003-2008 Propeller. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Use | Privacy Policy
I wish I had the opportunity to vote for Hillary - she has bigger political balls than either one of them. But it doesn't look like that will happen, so McCain got this vote - given his record of blowing with the wind he might actually work out with a democratic congress - the republicans are to busy resigning
Can you imagine if the West Virginia primary was last week along with the Indiana & N.C. primaries. The headlines would have been Clintons squeeks by in Indiana, Obama wins by 14 in NC & Clinton smashes Obama by 35 in West Virginia.
If that would have happened Clinton would have had momentum going into Kentucky & Oregon next week. Anyway Clinton will win Kentucky next week by far more than Obama wins Oregon. More than that Clinton just may get a bounce from West Virginia & actually make Oregon a tossup, I'm not saying it will happen but it might. If it did the band could start playing
"The world turned upside down" Don't forget that Oregon is not a caucus it is a primary, so the Moveon, Daily Kos radicals can't dominate like they did in the caucus plain states. I'd be nervous if I were Obama, very nervous, very unsettling I'm sure also to his gullible supporters.
Of course the Obama supporters are nervous. The longer it goes, the louder the chorus for Hillary to forfeit grows.
Hillary won this election, and was completely screwed out of it. Why won't the DNC allow Michigan and Florida to vote?
Hillary will win WV and Kentucky big and she might catch Obama in the popular vote. If that happens, and Florida and Michigan weren't even allowed to vote? Oh yeah...it's going to be fun.
John McCain WILL win this election because the Democratic party ignored the voice of the people. The people want Hillary! But the DNC chose to listen to their bloggers, party elites, and the morons over at dailykos.
McCain doesn't have to win the popular, just the electoral. And by throwing Hillary out the way you did, you Dems just lost Florida, Michigan, TN, WV, KY, OH, and PA...in other words, you lost every single swing state.
Michigan and Florida threw away their own votes. They knew the election rules and knew their delegates would be lost almost a year before they violated the party rules and moved their primaries earlier than allowed.
Rules are rules and if you violate the anyway you suffer the known consquences. When everyone except clinton followed the party rules and pulled their name off the Michigan ballot how can you with a straight face say in reality she won. She was the only one who did not follow the rules of the candidates and she should suffer for that like the states.
In some way they will be seated, but not with the ability to change the results due to their violation or rules.
Finally the states mentions will not determine the election. It is the ability of Obama to win some long term red states in the south and upper midwest that make him the candidate who can win for the democrats. He does not have as many negatives to rebuplicans as she does and he can win.
And all of the polls are disagreeing with you. Obama is picking up nothing. He is not capturing long term Republican states. He isn't losing Democrat states either but he is losing the swing states.
Hillary wins FL, MI, TN, OH, and PA head to head against McCain, Obama doesn't. Hillary ties in WV and KY, Obama loses. Keep dreaming on about Obama capturing Republican states, it isn't going to happen. McCain hits 290.
McCain cruises to 270 before California, Oregon, and Washington are even in.
What I don't get is if the case is soooo strong that Hillary can and will beat McCain if she is the nominee, why are the right-wingers so all-fired gung-ho to see her do so?
Somethin' suuuure smells fishy...
> Michigan and Florida threw away their own votes.
The citizens and parties did nothing wrong, in fact they tried to compromise.
It was the damn Republican establishment in Florida that f`ed their citizens out of another election, just like 2000, only this time it is only for the nomination.
Why Floridians have not kicked the crooks out yet is beyond me.
Does it not matter to you that John McCain would be keeping our soldiers in the Middle East indefinitely? ...or that the next president will choose at least two nominees to the Supreme Court? If nothing else, consider that John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsberg each have one foot in the grave and another on a banana peel. Should McCain be the president to choose their replacements, God help us all!
Whether the Democratic nominee is Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, the time for change is now....
Change for the sake of change isn't always good.
Me? With what options we have...I want Hillary as does every single working-class person, as does every single moderate, as does about 1/3 of Republicans who feel betrayed by McCain.
But the DNC won't listen to the people, they only want their base, and for that they will lose.
Hmm. This comment is quite strange to me.
So the DNC won't listen to their poeple?
Correct me if Im wrong but ... dont the majority of Liburals WANT Obama? I mean, its easy to answer ... he DOES have the majority of the popular vote.
But I hear ya.
Just because the MAJORITY want a person ... that dont mean the best person gets the job.
I remember a recent election where a DEMOCRAT had over HALF A MILLION more votes than the REPUBLICAN!
And yet, the REPUBLICAN was declared the winner.
And of course, that Republican, recognizin the narrowness of his victory ... offered to govern NOT with a partisan mandate ... but to reach accross the aisle to his ideeological opponents ... as a sort of appreciation that the nation ... bein so closely divided ... would only become MORE so should he arrogantly promote his extremist, Neo-Con philosophy.
Oh wait.
-"Change for the sake of change isn't always good."-
I dont think anyone is talking about change just for the sake of change.
Mostly its people wanting change because they'd rather see building of the American infrastructure rather than Iraq's.
Its people wanting change in building alliances throughout the world to promote commerce, rather than threatening, bombing and promoting hostility.
Its people wanting change to foster a healthier environment rather than continuing to allow corporations and consumers to pollute at will and consume inordinate amounts of the planet's resources just because they can.
Where you been for the past 8 years dj?
"Mostly its people wanting change because they'd rather see building of the American infrastructure rather than Iraq's."
-So they vote for someone who wants to give $80 billion more in foreign aid to Africa....that isn't rebuilding American infrastructure.
"Its people wanting change in building alliances throughout the world to promote commerce, rather than threatening, bombing and promoting hostility."
-And the first step to build alliances is threaten to bomb our ally Pakistan WHILE STILL A PRIMARY CANDIDATE?
"Its people wanting change to foster a healthier environment rather than continuing to allow corporations and consumers to pollute at will and consume inordinate amounts of the planet's resources just because they can."
- And Obama is going to change that? He has more oil money than Hillary.
Where you been for the past 8 months GW? Don't you listen to what the man says? Or are you mesmerized by the word "change"?
-"-So they vote for someone who wants to give $80 billion more in foreign aid to Africa....that isn't rebuilding American infrastructure."-
We WONT bomb them back to the stone age first - this is called diplomacy - helping those in need. NOT killing them and then trying UNSUCCESSFULLY to revive them.
-"-And the first step to build alliances is threaten to bomb our ally Pakistan WHILE STILL A PRIMARY CANDIDATE?"-
Good try, but this is speculation, NOT the reality that is the failure of Iraq.
I have oil money too - its called wise investing - but I dont discredit the pursuit or utilization of renewable energy sources.
Ohhhhhhh, its djrevelry....must be more of his infamous "Circle Theory" - sooooooo crazy that those responsible for their actions (think Iraq & the economy) CANT be held accountable - discredit, deceive, hypothesize, and discount ANY kind of real solution to deflect reality!!
Right on D.
Clinton will win the Appalachian primaries by 400,000 votes.
There are as many people in West Va. & Kentucky as there are in Indiana & more Democrats & approximately 1,300,000 voted in Indiana. Clinton will win both those states by 2 to 1. That means 850,000 Clinton to 450,000 Obama. Then even according to your figures 400,000 -87,823 Clinton will have a 310,000 plus lead. In the remaining primaries Oregon slightly for Obama as I see it & Puerta Rico where Clinton wins big & Montana & S.D.
should yield a or - of 10,000 either way. Therefore, Clinton goes into the convention with a 300,000 vote lead or better.
lum, if you'd been anywhere close on any of your past predictions, I'd be worried.
That right-wing republicans want Hillary Clinton to be president, is sign enough that the Republicans have no clue which way they are going, or what they want.
It is like watching a herd of stampeding zebra on the plains.
I blame Bush and Rove; they have cracked the base of American conservatism.
Change may not be good; but it has obviously already happened. America has changed. We will see, to what.
Actually right-wing Republicans want Hillary to be president becuase she is more conservative than McCain and is not a racist, hate-mongering, threat to national security like Obama.
Actually Republicans like me are afraid Bush has such low approval ratings that the Republican brand is in troouble.
I'll vote Republican as usual but could easily accept Clinton a middle of the road democrat, Obama is a creation of the far left with a Marxist tinge to his associations & writings. He'd be a terrible choice!
What? I thought Hillary was a marxist lesbian drug-dealing radical in a hair-band?
Is this a Republican plot to confuse us poor libs?
It is working!
Err, I get it confused.
Is it Obama's black half that hates his white half, or his white half that hates his black half?
I have heard rumours that his white half is the black nationalist, while the black half is the elitist muslim marxist*.
And I agree about the hate mongering. It's terrible. Have people no shame?
-------------
*I started the rumour, but it was a good one.