The Next President of the USA will be?

[DRUNK]

No depression for me fortunately. I would admit it if I was. I'm more content than anything else.

Thanks for the concern.

[overthehillsandfaraway]

The supers can back whichever candidate they want, for whatever reason they want. The size of the states Hillary won is not. in and of itself, a critical measuring stick because the democratic bases in those states will (hopefully) turn out in vast numbers to support whichever candidate ultimately gets the nomination, thus securing those electoral college votes of those big states for the dem candidate rather than the repub candidate in the general election.

While "popular vote" doesn't matter in determining the winner of the general election (electoral college votes does), in the primaries the popular vote total matters because it's a reliable measuring stick for determining the collective will of the party populace. [Hillary is desperately trying to get Florida and Michigan included in the primary totals, because she won those states and thus garnered popular votes that she wants included in her total. That aint gonna happen though becsue her wins were hollow.. the races were uncontested; Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan. there's no way those popular votes are going to go into her total].

Three factors will determine who gets the nomination:

1. pledged delegates,

2. popular vote totals, and

3. superdelegates.

Currently Obama is ahead in popular votes [13,355,209 ; 49.5% to 12,638,123; 46.9%; the spread: Obama +717,086 +2.6%], and has won more primaries and as such is also leading in the pledged delegate race [1417 to 1251]. Currently Clinton leads the superdelegate race [262-236], but her lead has been steadily eroding, ie, Obama has been gaining superdelegates at a much faster pace than Hillary.

It will take a miracle for Hillary to catch/overtake Obama in pledged delegates and popular votes over the course of the remaining 10 primaries. Ands since none of the remaining primaries are winner-take-all (delegates), barring a full-on Obama implosion, she's simply not gonna catch Obama in the pledged delegates race. She's hoping to catch him.. or at least close the gap.. in the popular vote race so she can make a case to the superdelegates that they should back her. If she doesn't significantly close the popular vote gap, its over for her. The superdelegates are not likely to go against the collective will of the party (as indicated by the pledged delegates total and the popular vote total) and back Clinton over Obama. If they did, it would cause a party crisis that would doom the democratic party in the general election.

So you see now why it would require Hillary winning EVERY remaining primary by huge margins (to close the gap in popular votes and to take the lead in pledged delegates) in order for her to get the nomination?

Remember, friend and fellow democrat,.. any state that Hillary has won in the primaries, and any state that Barack has won in the primaries, will hopefully ALL do well in the general election against John McCain.. assuming the democratic party isn't irreparably fractured by what remains of the primary process and we all stick together to put a democrat in the WH next year. When the primaries are over and we have a nominee.. whoever it is.. we NEED to stick together as a party to defeat John McCain. If by some miracle Hillary gets the nomination, I will support her in the general election. I hope Hillary supporters such as yourself would be wise enough and gracious enough to throw your support behind Barack in the general election if he gets the party nomination.

Will you support Obama in the general election if he gets the nomination, overthehillsandfaraway? Or out of Hillary-not-getting-the-nomination "bitterness" will you (as the repubs are hoping you will) abandon the party and thereby increase the chances that More Of The Same McCain will be the next POTUS?

We dems GOTTA stick together in the general election, overthehillsandfaraway!

I agree that she cant catch him outright on delegates alone but that is a trivial matter because he cant get the "magic number either". I disagree that she cant win the popular vote. the so called experts on television are saying she can. and Florida absolutly should count. I will concede Michigan but not Florida. Those votes must count in some form or other. Or it could be construed that we have another botched process. It is not a trivial matter that you seem to make it out to be that Hillary is winning the big states that must be won to beat McCain. And I believe Hillary is more electable come November. More experienced and battle tested. We know what we are getting with her .And if you watched larry King tonight and listened to her views on the big issues, she has good answers and yet is realistic. Not just getting up there and saying she can snap her fingers and change washington like Obama. He doesnt have a clue of what he faces. And is he willing to work with the Republicans. Hate them or not, bi-partisanship extremism must end or it will undue us. I am predicting an 8-9 range victory tomorrow. Hoping for better and it is possible. This is far from over. Remember, NY, California, Ohio, Florida, Texas and soon Pennsylvania will belong to Hillary. That is something you cant ignore. You are hanging your hat on the delegate lead. This will be a photo finish. It can go either way. But my money says if Hillary holds her own and wins tomorrow, she has a fighting chance with the Supers. As for Drunks comment on McCains camp helping Obama, I doubt he would take that chance of getting busted. That is lidicrous. But I do agree that he would rather face Obama than Hillary. Hillary has a good plan. She will get us out of Iraq, go after Afganistan, and go after the oil kingpins. Put pressure on Texaco and Exxon. And fight like hell for health care.

[Hermit]

No depression for me fortunately. I would admit it if I was. I'm more content than anything else.

Thanks for the concern.

"I am not motivated, tired, lazy, and don't care, I can't put forth the effort."

That's.. contentment?

[sounds more lack apathy, lethargy, and.. depression.. to me.]

If you're so content, why are you leaving the country?

[its a rhetorical question; no need to reply]

Anyway,.. you're welcome for the concern, bro.

cheers, friend.

[The Rover]

As much as i detest all religions, I do believe the Pope now is a good man who is trying to fix the priest scandal, which was there long before he became pope. I wish when he was here, he would've kicked some of those people who were in charge out, but that thier call, and im sure he has reasons to keep them floating along.

So im not interested in any crap about any religion. I just don't think it was right for Bill Maher to call him a nazi who supports rape. Thanks anyways

You may of gotten my point screwed up.

Oh I understand. I was not trying to say that you had a particualr opinion about the current Pope.

He hasn't been involved in any scandals, at least that I know of. I don't know of any Bishops that were foricbly removed that had oversight of diosces where abuses took place, that they knew about.

As for Bill Maher, he is acostic to most everyone, as his motif in the entertainment world.

There were certainly thousands of actual rapes and molestions by priests, and that's what that website deals with to a certian degree.

[Pb Derigable]

Oh I understand. I was not trying to say that you had a particualr opinion about the current Pope.

He hasn't been involved in any scandals, at least that I know of. I don't know of any Bishops that were foricbly removed that had oversight of diosces where abuses took place, that they knew about.

As for Bill Maher, he is acostic to most everyone, as his motif in the entertainment world.

There were certainly thousands of actual rapes and molestions by priests, and that's what that website deals with to a certian degree.

okay, thats whats what i thought you meant.but after seeing how my quote was worded, i thought you meant i was supporting the notion that the pope was a Nazi, which i believe is a bad allegation. I quickly glanced at the site and rather not get involved in that discussion. I have made bad jokes,but i was unmature back then.

[Hermit]

I agree that she cant catch him outright on delegates alone but that is a trivial matter because he cant get the "magic number either".

True,.. neither can reach the magic number, but that doesnt mean you completely

ignore/discount the fact that one candidate has won more delegates than the other.

Its no trivial matter that one candidate wins more pledged delegates than the other, my friend. He/she who wins the most pledged delegates has won in more states and has garnered more voter support in the overall primary process than the other candidate. That matters quite a bit,.. doncha think? Shouldn't the candidate who garners the most support be the candidate who.. uhh.. gets the nomination?

I disagree that she cant win the popular vote. the so called experts on television are saying she can.

I didn't say she "can't" win the popular vote, I said it's highly unlikely,.. almost impossible.. and it is. It's a simple matter of mathematics. To catch up in the popular vote total she has to win by HUGE margins in each and every remaining primary. With each passing primary that she does not win by a HUGE margin, she then has to win by an even HUGER margin in every remaining primaries. She's not likely to win every remaining primary, is she? No, she's certainly not. So her chance of catching up to Obama in popular votes is extremely slim.. to the point of being near-impossible. Why is it so hard for you to acknowledge this simple mathematical and political reality?

From the article I posted a few pages back:

"To earn that split decision [Hermit: ie, to break even in the popular vote race], Clinton would need a 25-point victory in Pennsylvania, plus 20-point wins in later contests in West Virginia, Kentucky and Puerto Rico. Even that scenario assumes Clinton would break even in Indiana, North Carolina, South Dakota, Montana and Oregon [Hermit: a scenario that seems HIGHLY unlikely]."

Do the math, babe.

..and Florida absolutly should count. I will concede Michigan but not Florida. Those votes must count in some form or other. Or it could be construed that we have another botched process.

The process itself isn't botched, per se; the FL democratic party violated party rules by scheduling the primary too early in the primary season. The primary was rendered moot before it even took place and the candidates didn't campaign there. It wasn't legit and it won't count; it shouldn't count. I understand your political desire/desperation for Hillary to get those popular votes, but she won't.

Fwiw,.. even if the FL votes were counted in the popular vote total, Hillary would still be behind Obama.

[Popular Vote w/FL: 13,931,423; 48.5% to 13,509,109; 47.1%. The spread: Obama +422,314; +1.4%]

Fwiw II,.. even if both Fl and MI were counted in the popular vote totals, Hillary would still be behind Obama.

[Popular Vote w/FL & MI: 13,931,423; 47.6% to 13,837,418; 47.2%. The spread: Obama +94,005; +0.4%]

Popular vote total excluding FL and MI:

13,689,293; 49.6% to 12,861,985; 46.6%. The spread: Obama +827,308 +3.0%]

Hillary is facing a steep uphill climb no matter how you slice it, friend.

It is not a trivial matter that you seem to make it out to be that Hillary is winning the big states that must be won to beat McCain.

Are you suggesting that dems who vote for Hillary in those states wont

vote for Obama and will instead not vote at all or will vote for McCain?

If thats the case, those voters aren't really democrats, they're "Hillarycrats" who are really more interested in Hillary being elected than they are in a democrat getting elected.. who are willing to see John McCain be elected if their first-choice democrat, Hillary, doesn't get the nomination.

I don't think that would be the case at all. I think the dems in those sates will vote for the dem candidate, whether its Obama or Hillary. If Hillary can beat McCain, so can Obama. And vice-versa. Your argument doesn't hold water unless you're maintaining that Hillary-voting dems would abandon the party if Obama gets the nomination.

I asked you before and you didnt answer:

If Obama gets the nomination, will you support him?

And I believe Hillary is more electable come November. More experienced and battle tested. We know what we are getting with her.

I think Hillary and Barack are BOTH electable. I happen to think Obama is more electable and thats where we differ. No biggy; that's a perfectly fair and reasonable disagreement to have. But I'm also clearly stating my willingness to support Hillary if she gets the nomination whereas you're apparently not yet willing to say if you'll support Obama if he gets the nomination. Its people like you, friend, who have the democratic party on edge right now. Its people like you.. who may abandon the party if Hillary doesn't get the nomination.. who create the the greatest possibility that John McCain will win in November.

And if you watched larry King tonight and listened to her views on the big issues, she has good answers and yet is realistic. Not just getting up there and saying she can snap her fingers and change washington like Obama. He doesnt have a clue of what he faces.

Your characterization of Obama's approach is silly to the point of not warranting being taken

seriously. If I didn't know better, I'd think it was a Rove-republican saying such things.

And is he willing to work with the Republicans. Hate them or not, bi-partisanship extremism must end or it will undue us.

You seem a bit confused. "Working with republicans",.. as you correctly note Obama is willing to do.. represents "bi-partisanship".. ie, working with the other party. "Partisanship" is fighting between the parties and leads to nothing getting done or one party cramming its policies down the throat of the other party. Obama has clearly said he's willing to work with republicans in a bi-partisan spirit, as mush as possible, to bridge differences. I'd think that'd be a point on which you might give him some credit, but apparently not.

I am predicting an 8-9 range victory tomorrow. Hoping for better and it is possible. This is far from over.

A single digit win for Hillary (ie, by 8-9%) is as a good as a loss. She led PA by 20+% not long ago. If she wins by only 8-9% she will make NO headway in the pledged delegate race and she will make negligible headway in the popular vote count. If she "wins" by less than 10%, it's over. The superdelegates will flock to Obama. Count on it.

Again, from the article I posted a few pages back:

"After more than 40 Democratic primaries and caucuses, Obama, the Illinois senator, leads Clinton by more than 800,000 votes. Even if the New York senator wins by more than 20 percentage points tomorrow -- a landslide few experts expect -- she would still have a hard time catching him.

"Clinton needs blowout numbers,'' says Peter Fenn, a Democratic consultant who isn't affiliated with either campaign. "The wheels would have to come off the Obama bus, and the engine would have to blow.'' A popular-vote victory is vital to Clinton's chances because she is likely to end the primaries still trailing Obama in the race for delegates to the Democratic National Convention."

And you're talking about a 8-9% margin of victory, 'overthehillsandfaraway?

That's not gonna get it done for Hillary, my friend. Sorry.

Remember, NY, California, Ohio, Florida, Texas and soon Pennsylvania will belong to Hillary. That is something you cant ignore.

I'm not ignoring it; I'm explaining it away. Big difference.

PA is not "winner take all" (delegates). She has to win HUGE in order to make any notable gains in either delegates or popular votes. It aint gonna happen.. on either front. A low margin of victory means the candidates will split the delegates and will virtually split the popular vote count. By now you ought to be able to connect the dots to see what that means for Hillary in the big picture.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that Obama actually won 5 more delegates (99 to 94) in Texas than Hillary and she only won the popular vote by 8%. You hail that as a big victory for her, and you're hoping for a similar result in PA, but you are absolutely not getting it that an 8% victory margin in PA will not be enough to do her any good.

Texas results:

Clinton - 1,459,814; 51%; 94

Obama - 1,358,785; 47%; 99

In CA she won big, but in the general election those voters who voted for Hillary will (should) vote for Obama.. so your point is moot. Same goes for NY, OH, and FL. Dems who voted for Hillary in those states will (should) vote for Obama if he gets the nomination. Those Hillary votes are not automatically lost to Obama in a general election; they're the votes of democratic party voters and those voters should vote for Obama in the general election if he gets the nomination. You do get that, don't you?

I say again.. respectfully.. your point is moot.

You are hanging your hat on the delegate lead. This will be a photo finish. It can go either way. But my money says if Hillary holds her own and wins tomorrow, she has a fighting chance with the Supers. As for Drunks comment on McCains camp helping Obama, I doubt he would take that chance of getting busted. That is lidicrous. But I do agree that he would rather face Obama than Hillary. Hillary has a good plan. She will get us out of Iraq, go after Afganistan, and go after the oil kingpins. Put pressure on Texaco and Exxon. And fight like hell for health care.

If you think McCain would rather face Obama than Hillary, you're not being very politically astute. You have obviously lost sight of the fact that Hillary and Bill Clinton are republican public enemies #1. Republicans HATE Bill and Hillary.. they despise them.. and they will come out in droves on election day for one reason and one reason only: not to vote for John McCain, but to vote against Hillary Clinton.

Disaffected republicans will not have the same motivation to come out merely to vote against Obama; they may not like him for reasons that Rovian-repubs are conjuring up, but they have no reason to loathe him the way do Hillary. Many disaffected repubs will stay home on election day in a McCain vs Obama race.

I'm not hanging my hat on the delegate lead; I'm basing my prediction on the delegate count; the popular vote count; the mathematical and political likelihood that Hillary is not going to catch Obama in either of those categories (pop vote and delegate count), and therefore the supers are going to support Obama. The rationale and logic, clear though it is, seems to be escaping you. I guess the possibility of a Hillary defeat is just too painful for you to consider right now. That's ok,.. I just hope that if/when Obama does get the democratic party nomination you'll support him.

[edited for typos]

[Del Zeppnile]

General Election: McCain vs. Obama

Latest poll results:

*source*

[edited to add]

Its just a hunch, but it seems to me those poll results will shift decidedly in Obama's favor

once Hillary is officially out of the race and dem support solidifies behind Barack Obama.

..just a hunch.

I recall the polls saying that both Al Gore and John Kerry would also win

Obama has no chance of being President.

[Hermit]

Obama has no chance of being President.

Why not Del?

..becuz he's Black?

..becuz you think Americans are eager for "More Of The Same"?

..or just becuz you say so?

Please,.. do elaborate.

[Hermit]

Hermit, nice to see you back here! I hope you'll be around tomorrow to give us updates on the PA primary.

Thanks MSG.

Not sure if I'll be here tomorrow to discuss the primary in real time, but I'll certainly stop by at some point to discuss the results. I'm eager to see what kind of turnout there is of young voters. A high young voter turnout could upset the poll predictions as most young people carry cell phones and the pollsters don't call people on cell phones. The landline polls show the race to be pretty close... a high young voter turnout could actually give the primary to Obama.

..wouldn't that be cool?!

Obama drew 35,000 for a rally in Philly. That's amazing.. and encouraging.

[allthekingshorses]

Thanks Dzldoc. I'm not really a fan of internet acronyms.

I think McCain and the Republican party WANT to face Obama, and they have probably been supporting the effort against Hillary, behind the scenes.

It is easier for him to beat Obama than to beat Hillary.

Um..... you must not watch Faux News then... they are terrified of facing Barack that's why they are all the sudden Clinton Lovers over there. IMHO The Rep.'s think they have a better chance of beating Billary.

[overthehillsandfaraway]

True,.. neither can reach the magic number, but that doesnt mean you completely

ignore/discount the fact that one candidate has won more delegates than the other.

Its no trivial matter that one candidate wins more pledged delegates than the other, my friend. He/she who wins the most pledged delegates has won in more states and has garnered more voter support in the overall primary process than the other candidate. That matters quite a bit,.. doncha think? Shouldn\'t the candidate who garners the most support be the candidate who.. uhh.. gets the nomination?

I didn\'t say she \"can\'t\" win the popular vote, I said it\'s highly unlikely,.. almost impossible.. and it is. It\'s a simple matter of mathematics. To catch up in the popular vote total she has to win by HUGE margins in each and every remaining primary. With each passing primary that she does not win by a HUGE margin, she then has to win by an even HUGER margin in every remaining primaries. She\'s not likely to win every remaining primary, is she? No, she\'s certainly not. So her chance of catching up to Obama in popular votes is extremely slim.. to the point of being near-impossible. Why is it so hard for you to acknowledge this simple mathematical and political reality?

From the article I posted a few pages back:

\"To earn that split decision [Hermit: ie, to break even in the popular vote race], Clinton would need a 25-point victory in Pennsylvania, plus 20-point wins in later contests in West Virginia, Kentucky and Puerto Rico. Even that scenario assumes Clinton would break even in Indiana, North Carolina, South Dakota, Montana and Oregon [Hermit: a scenario that seems HIGHLY unlikely].\"

Do the math, babe.

The process itself isn\'t botched, per se; the FL democratic party violated party rules by scheduling the primary too early in the primary season. The primary was rendered moot before it even took place and the candidates didn\'t campaign there. It wasn\'t legit and it won\'t count; it shouldn\'t count. I understand your political desire/desperation for Hillary to get those popular votes, but she won\'t.

Fwiw,.. even if the FL votes were counted in the popular vote total, Hillary would still be behind Obama.

[Popular Vote w/FL: 13,931,423; 48.5% to 13,509,109; 47.1%. The spread: Obama +422,314; +1.4%]

Fwiw II,.. even if both Fl and MI were counted in the popular vote totals, Hillary would still be behind Obama.

[Popular Vote w/FL & MI: 13,931,423; 47.6% to 13,837,418; 47.2%. The spread: Obama +94,005; +0.4%]

Popular vote total excluding FL and MI:

13,689,293; 49.6% to 12,861,985; 46.6%. The spread: Obama +827,308 +3.0%]

Hillary is facing a steep uphill climb no matter how you slice it, friend.

Are you suggesting that dems who vote for Hillary in those states wont

vote for Obama and will instead not vote at all or will vote for McCain?

If thats the case, those voters aren\'t really democrats, they\'re \"Hillarycrats\" who are really more interested in Hillary being elected than they are in a democrat getting elected.. who are willing to see John McCain be elected if their first-choice democrat, Hillary, doesn\'t get the nomination.

I don\'t think that would be the case at all. I think the dems in those sates will vote for the dem candidate, whether its Obama or Hillary. If Hillary can beat McCain, so can Obama. And vice-versa. Your argument doesn\'t hold water unless you\'re maintaining that Hillary-voting dems would abandon the party if Obama gets the nomination.

I asked you before and you didnt answer:

If Obama gets the nomination, will you support him?

I think Hillary and Barack are BOTH electable. I happen to think Obama is more electable and thats where we differ. No biggy; that\'s a perfectly fair and reasonable disagreement to have. But I\'m also clearly stating my willingness to support Hillary if she gets the nomination whereas you\'re apparently not yet willing to say if you\'ll support Obama if he gets the nomination. Its people like you, friend, who have the democratic party on edge right now. Its people like you.. who may abandon the party if Hillary doesn\'t get the nomination.. who create the the greatest possibility that John McCain will win in November.

Your characterization of Obama\'s approach is silly to the point of not warranting being taken

seriously. If I didn\'t know better, I\'d think it was a Rove-republican saying such things.

You seem a bit confused. \"Working with republicans\",.. as you correctly note Obama is willing to do.. represents \"bi-partisanship\".. ie, working with the other party. \"Partisanship\" is fighting between the parties and leads to nothing getting done or one party cramming its policies down the throat of the other party. Obama has clearly said he\'s willing to work with republicans in a bi-partisan spirit, as mush as possible, to bridge differences. I\'d think that\'d be a point on which you might give him some credit, but apparently not.

A single digit win for Hillary (ie, by 8-9%) is as a good as a loss. She led PA by 20+% not long ago. If she wins by only 8-9% she will make NO headway in the pledged delegate race and she will make negligible headway in the popular vote count. If she \"wins\" by less than 10%, it\'s over. The superdelegates will flock to Obama. Count on it.

Again, from the article I posted a few pages back:

\"After more than 40 Democratic primaries and caucuses, Obama, the Illinois senator, leads Clinton by more than 800,000 votes. Even if the New York senator wins by more than 20 percentage points tomorrow -- a landslide few experts expect -- she would still have a hard time catching him.

\"Clinton needs blowout numbers,\'\' says Peter Fenn, a Democratic consultant who isn\'t affiliated with either campaign. \"The wheels would have to come off the Obama bus, and the engine would have to blow.\'\' A popular-vote victory is vital to Clinton\'s chances because she is likely to end the primaries still trailing Obama in the race for delegates to the Democratic National Convention.\"

And you\'re talking about a 8-9% margin of victory, \'overthehillsandfaraway?

That\'s not gonna get it done for Hillary, my friend. Sorry.

I\'m not ignoring it; I\'m explaining it away. Big difference.

PA is not \"winner take all\" (delegates). She has to win HUGE in order to make any notable gains in either delegates or popular votes. It aint gonna happen.. on either front. A low margin of victory means the candidates will split the delegates and will virtually split the popular vote count. By now you ought to be able to connect the dots to see what that means for Hillary in the big picture.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that Obama actually won 5 more delegates (99 to 94) in Texas than Hillary and she only won the popular vote by 8%. You hail that as a big victory for her, and you\'re hoping for a similar result in PA, but you are absolutely not getting it that an 8% victory margin in PA will not be enough to do her any good.

Texas results:

Clinton - 1,459,814; 51%; 94

Obama - 1,358,785; 47%; 99

In CA she won big, but in the general election those voters who voted for Hillary will (should) vote for Obama.. so your point is moot. Same goes for NY, OH, and FL. Dems who voted for Hillary in those states will (should) vote for Obama if he gets the nomination. Those Hillary votes are not automatically lost to Obama in a general election; they\'re the votes of democratic party voters and those voters should vote for Obama in the general election if he gets the nomination. You do get that, don\'t you?

I say again.. respectfully.. your point is moot.

If you think McCain would rather face Obama than Hillary, you\'re not being very politically astute. You have obviously lost sight of the fact that Hillary and Bill Clinton are republican public enemies #1. Republicans HATE Bill and Hillary.. they despise them.. and they will come out in droves on election day for one reason and one reason only: not to vote for John McCain, but to vote against Hillary Clinton.

Disaffected republicans will not have the same motivation to come out merely to vote against Obama; they may not like him for reasons that Rovian-repubs are conjuring up, but they have no reason to loathe him the way do Hillary. Many disaffected repubs will stay home on election day in a McCain vs Obama race.

I\'m not hanging my hat on the delegate lead; I\'m basing my prediction on the delegate count; the popular vote count; the mathematical and political likelihood that Hillary is not going to catch Obama in either of those categories (pop vote and delegate count), and therefore the supers are going to support Obama. The rationale and logic, clear though it is, seems to be escaping you. I guess the possibility of a Hillary defeat is just too painful for you to consider right now. That\'s ok,.. I just hope that if/when Obama does get the democratic party nomination you\'ll support him.

[edited for typos]

Well I dont know how to shorten your post. Or use the quote features, but I guess I owe you an answer. Hope you see this and one of the others doesnt pounce on it so you wont see it. Which will probably be the case. But as for the question will I support Obama IF he wins, I will cross that bridge when I come to it. I am leaning that way only because Hillary says she will if she loses. But she has NOT lost yet like you seem to imply. And if she wins Pennsylvania today it is truly a win unlike what you say. And it gives the Supers more moral fortitude to chose her based on the fact that she will have won all the major states. Your guy is winning states that have more grizzly bears than homo sapiens.

[Uncle Bill]

I think if the hard core lefty base won't give her the nomination she believes she deserves she should do a "Lieberman" and run as an independent.

nobama

[overthehillsandfaraway]

I think if the hard core lefty base won\'t give her the nomination she believes she deserves she should do a \"Lieberman\" and run as an independent.

nobama

Im sure you are joking because we know its too late for that. And nobody would buy it. She still leads the supers and that is important. and if she kicks his butt today it will help. Hermit, if you read this, see my reply above. thanks

[Uncle Bill]

Im sure you are joking because we know its too late for that.

Is it too late? I think independents can still get in. <shrugs> I like her better now than I ever have. (although that isn't saying much) I like how she's standing up to the pressure to quit. I'm also amazed at how well she has done in spite of Bubba.

edited to add:

nobama

[overthehillsandfaraway]

Is it too late? I think independents can still get in. <shrugs> I like her better now than I ever have. (although that isn\'t saying much) I like how she\'s standing up to the pressure to quit. I\'m also amazed at how well she has done in spite of Bubba.

edited to add:

nobama

Haha. Nice to know I have someone on my side. Now we shall wait for Hermits wrath.

[Uncle Bill]

Now we shall wait for Hermits wrath.

I wouldn't notice. I gave up trying to wade through all the talking points and other crap he posts and just scroll past. Not enough interest on my part.

nobama

[Pb Derigable]

I think if the hard core lefty base won't give her the nomination she believes she deserves she should do a "Lieberman" and run as an independent.

nobama

[overthehillsandfaraway]

[i have seen that Obama's wife wrote a very racist thesis at Princeton in 1985. I wont post it but she states she will do whatever it takes to put the black community first. You Obama lovers better think long and hard what you are getting. And do you think he went to this pastor for 20 damn yrs for nothing? He is a liar. He has an agenda. Wake up and smell the coffee before its too late.

NOBAMA

[Nathan]

Who does one vote for in this fucked up election?

This is my first election, and the more learn, the less I want to vote. At the beginning, we had some great candidates on both sides. Ron Paul, John Edwards... now it's down to Primordial McCain, Double-talking Obama, and the dynamic duo Batman and Robin hated, Billary.

I don't want McCain because the last thing our economy needs is another 100 years in Iraq. Yeah, I respect his patriotism for this country, but his ideals are flawed. He supports torture when he was tortured, he believes we are going to spend another 100 years in Iraq... NO WAY!

I don't want Obama because he's a double-talker with a slick message and a hidden agenda. You don't know whether or not to trust him.

I don't want Billary because, for one thing, it's time for the Bush's and the Clinton's to step down. They've ruled the White House for way to long. We need another family in there. Plus, Hillary's health care plan, while very good on paper, is extrememly Unconstitutional just based on the fact the her plan includes forcing everyone onto health care. Plus, what with all scandals surrounding the Clinton family and Hillary herself (Whitewater, Travelgate, the Dubai Port Deal, The Kaplan Connection, etc), I don't want to put my trust in her.

I'm seriously considering not voting.

I wish Ron Paul had more support. He'd be a better candidate, IMO.

[overthehillsandfaraway]

Who does one vote for in this fucked up election?

This is my first election, and the more learn, the less I want to vote. At the beginning, we had some great candidates on both sides. Ron Paul, John Edwards... now it's down to Primordial McCain, Double-talking Obama, and the dynamic duo Batman and Robin hated, Billary.

I don't want McCain because the last thing our economy needs is another 100 years in Iraq. Yeah, I respect his patriotism for this country, but his ideals are flawed. He supports torture when he was tortured, he believes we are going to spend another 100 years in Iraq... NO WAY!

I don't want Obama because he's a double-talker with a slick message and a hidden agenda. You don't know whether or not to trust him.

I don't want Billary because, for one thing, it's time for the Bush's and the Clinton's to step down. They've ruled the White House for way to long. We need another family in there. Plus, Hillary's health care plan, while very good on paper, is extrememly Unconstitutional just based on the fact the her plan includes forcing everyone onto health care. Plus, what with all scandals surrounding the Clinton family and Hillary herself (Whitewater, Travelgate, the Dubai Port Deal, The Kaplan Connection, etc), I don't want to put my trust in her.

I'm seriously considering not voting.

I wish Ron Paul had more support. He'd be a better candidate, IMO.

Well thats a better choice than picking someone "just for the hell of it". But I must disagree with your argument on linking Bush to the Clintons. That makes no sense. They are not on the same page at all. FDR was ok for being around a long time. If it aint broke dont fix it. Clinton is the only sensible choice. And who in this world doesnt want health care. Get real.

[Nathan]

Well thats a better choice than picking someone "just for the hell of it". But I must disagree with your argument on linking Bush to the Clintons. That makes no sense. They are not on the same page at all. FDR was ok for being around a long time. If it aint broke dont fix it. Clinton is the only sensible choice. And who in this world doesnt want health care. Get real.

I wasn't linking. Quite frankly, I'm sick of both.

And I know everybody wants health care. But you still don't force it on them.

[overthehillsandfaraway]

I wasn't linking. Quite frankly, I'm sick of both.

And I know everybody wants health care. But you still don't force it on them.

So if you get hurt or need surgery you would rather pay the whole bill than have coverage? I owe the hospital $2000 right now and I blame the Republicans for it. Ill tell you right now, McCain is a sacrificial lamb being served up for Bush's mistakes. He cannot win because the polls show that most americans want out of Iraq. Pure and simple. this one issue will fry him.

[Nathan]

So if you get hurt or need surgery you would rather pay the whole bill than have coverage? I owe the hospital $2000 right now and I blame the Republicans for it. Ill tell you right now, McCain is a sacrificial lamb being served up for Bush's mistakes. He cannot win because the polls show that most americans want out of Iraq. Pure and simple. this one issue will fry him.

Oh for fucks sake:

And I know everybody wants health care. But you still don't force it on them.

I have health care, I need health care, and I buy health care:

BUT OF MY OWN FREE WILL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[MisterMcLov1n]

I hate them all.

If Colon Powell (sorry if I butchered his name) should run for president, I'd vote for him.

[Uncle Bill]

I hear you nathan, this is my 10th Pres. election and neither party has ever put up a candidate I really liked. I usually end up voting 3rd party or, as last time, voting against someone or just sitting out as I did in 2000.

Who does one vote for in this fucked up election?

This is my first election, and the more learn, the less I want to vote.

I'm seriously considering not voting.