God this is Clinton Central!
Look - Obama will win WI, Pa, narrowly win OH and will get 40% plus in Tx.
btw where was she on the telephone tapping vote - drinking champagne?
Posted by John at February 14, 2008 12:43 PMyes, john- by quoting polls that show numbers other than your completely speculative opinion, i'm spinning.
Posted by Turkana at February 14, 2008 12:45 PMbtw where was she on the telephone tapping vote - drinking champagne?
Maybe she was drinking with Obama, since he wasn't there for the final vote, either!
Posted by iamcoyote at February 14, 2008 12:52 PMUh oh, here we go again...nahhh...I'll spare everyone.
Consider it a non-Hallmark Valentine's gift.
Posted by snark at February 14, 2008 12:55 PMhttp://www.veracifier.com/post/5704/senate-votes-on-wiretap-immunity-obama-against-mccain-for-hillary-is-a-no-show
Posted by John at February 14, 2008 12:57 PMbtw what's she doing on that MSNBC debate issue?
Posted by John at February 14, 2008 12:58 PMBarack Obama angered fellow Democrats in the Illinois Senate when he voted to strip millions of dollars from a child welfare office on Chicago's West Side. But Obama had a ready explanation: He goofed.
"I was not aware that I had voted no," he said that day in June 2002. Yes, he pushed the wrong button. Many of you people feared that W would do this, he hasn't, but this guy has done it more than this just once. You want him to the "football" when he can't seem to vote responsibly.
Posted by peter at February 14, 2008 01:03 PMMurray (D-WA), Nay
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Obama (D-IL), Not Voting
Pryor (D-AR), Yea
Reed (D-RI), Nay
Reid (D-NV), Nay
Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Salazar (D-CO), Yea
john,
she's agreed to an nbc debate. what does that have to do with this post?
Posted by Turkana at February 14, 2008 01:08 PMWhat does Hillary think of this - does she agree with it?
Posted by John at February 14, 2008 01:09 PMbtw what's she doing on that MSNBC debate issue?
Didn't TPM already report she was going to do it? And it looks like TPM has also confirmed that Clinton's letter to MSNBC was not about "firing" Shuster, it was about Tweety's pattern of disgusting behavior. Hmm...
Posted by iamcoyote at February 14, 2008 01:11 PMSo Mr Soto will Hillary win WI?
Thing is that the people staking money on it (check Betfair) have got Barack on 1/9 and Hillary on 9/2!
Think i might put money on it myself.
Posted by john at February 14, 2008 01:15 PMPoor John! Turkana wrote this post. Maybe you oughta come back when you've read a few things, instead of just spewing out whatever pops into your head, huh? You might not look so silly next time.
I guess the Obama campaign has hope no one will notice the change in thinking.
Turkana, I don't know why he shouldn't assume no one will notice. John's pretty much proven it right here, and I'm still waiting for other people to acknowledge the other mistakes I've put up, specifically, Stephanie Miller on Air America, who spent days saying "Hillary demanded Shuster be fired." Not gonna happen. People need their fairy tales, dontcha know.
Posted by iamcoyote at February 14, 2008 01:27 PMiac,
if you start with the premise that hillary is evil, then everything she does can be intrepreted as an act of evil. never thought i'd see such a dislocation from reality among democrats, but it's, well, infectious...
Posted by Turkana at February 14, 2008 01:33 PMThanks for quoting the Rasmussen polls, Turkana. Here's one you seem to have overlooked:
In general election match-ups, Obama leads John McCain 46% to 42% while McCain leads Clinton 48% to 41%.
What will you say if this is the same one month from now?
t2,
i was only discussing the primary state polls, as relates to the actual topic i wrote about. if you want to talk about the polls for the general, and they're an entirely different story. if you want to discuss those, i'd suggest you take a look at jerlyn's post:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=3742326
obama's not doing too well in key states.
Posted by Turkana at February 14, 2008 01:47 PM...key states.
Watch it Turkana! You'll have the democracy police after you.
All the talk about the will of the people being ignored is pretty ironic seeing as the framers of the Constitution went about as out of the way as they could to make sure that how we elect our government is as undemocratic as they thought they could get away with.
Posted by snark at February 14, 2008 01:52 PM"Popular Vote?"
This is a delegate contest.
You Clinton hacks spin like tops.
I may have mentioned that Hillary is unelectable. If I haven't, let me say it now: Hillary Clinton is UNELECTABLE.
Why the fuck is that so hard for you people to understand?
Posted by RAM at February 14, 2008 02:18 PMWho would have thought that Senator Clinton would have to pull out the negative campaign playbook. Most of the pundit agreed early on she was unbeatable. As we enter the summer it is imperative we elect a liberal congress. It is not enough to elect Democrats who are going to side with the other side on the war, healthcare and taxes. That is why I am running against Nancy Pelosi on The Virtual Congress. Please join me at http://www.thevirtualcongress.com/comparison.aspx?Challenger_Id=17
Thank you.
Andrea
ram,
you're very smart. this is, indeed, a delegate contest. and superdelegates are delegates. either you like the rules, or you don't. you can't pick which ones you like and throw out the others. if you're honest, anyway.
Posted by Turkana at February 14, 2008 02:29 PMTurkana;
You claim to be Edwards supporter but in this blog you appear to be Hillary cheerleader. It is time to chill it and let the voters decide who they want to be their candidate in November. Why are you so much against Obama and providing all kinds of ammunition to Republicans? Just cool it and let the upcoming primaries decide. Both Hillary and Obama are far superior than any of the Repub candidates. Be happy that any one of the Democratic candidates will make a great president.
Posted by suresh at February 14, 2008 02:34 PMHere ya go.
Murray (D-WA), Nay
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Obama (D-IL), Not Voting
Pryor (D-AR), Yea
Reed (D-RI), Nay
Reid (D-NV), Nay
Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Salazar (D-CO), Yea
Posted by iamcoyote at February 14, 2008 01:05 PM
-----
Hey, spinning hack, Obama voted correctly on all of the meaninful amendments when his vote mattered. The final vote wasn't close so his vote didn't matter.
Your Girl, on the other hand, didn't show up at all.
You've been caught in distortion and dissembling. A friend of Mark Penn's, are you?
Hack.
Posted by RAM at February 14, 2008 02:35 PMram,
your ability to split hairs is laughable. hillary missing a vote that wasn't close is bad. obama missing a vote that wasn't close is okay.
suresh,
sorry for talking about politics on a political blog.
Posted by Turkana at February 14, 2008 02:41 PMI think Josh Marshall has it right about the Super Delegates - there's basically no way they would want to throw the nomination to Clinton if she had a minority of the pledged delegates because in fundraising and general election polls, Obama has her beat. I agree with Marshall's assumption that the remaining undeclared Super Delegates are waiting to line up behind the pledged delegate winner, whoever that may be.
Alot of people (me included) have been upset at the Clinton campaign's stated desire to win the nomination without a plurality of delegates, relying on the Super Delegates. Yes, she could theoretically do it within the rules, but it would be intensely destructive and divisive to override the will of the voters.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at February 14, 2008 02:48 PMram,
your ability to split hairs is laughable. hillary missing a vote that wasn't close is bad. obama missing a vote that wasn't close is okay.
suresh,
sorry for talking about politics on a political blog.
Posted by Turkana at February 14, 2008 02:41 PM
-----
Spinning hack. Obama voted on the amendments prior to the final bill that actually mattered and that were actually in doubt.
Mark Penn called, he wants his steaming bullshit back.
Posted by RAM at February 14, 2008 03:04 PMcapj,
i don't understand why winning by a close margin of delegates, which are not at all democratically elected, is okay, but overcoming that non-democratic allocation with non-democratic superdelegates isn't.
ram,
your intelligence overwhelms.
Posted by Turkana at February 14, 2008 03:07 PMTurkana, I don't see how the pledged delegates aren't democratically elected. With multiple delegates per district, it's more democratic than Congress. There are quirks on the edges, like the Nevada case, but proportional representation overall does a very good job of having the pledged delegate count match the will of the voters. A 50 vote margin in pledged delegates would be a difference of 1.5% between the candidates - alot more than the amount by which Gore won the popular vote in 2000.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at February 14, 2008 03:24 PMcapj,
let me put it this way- in many districts in california, a candidate had to get 60% of the vote to get a majority of the delegates. so, a 59-41 split meant they split the delegates. that's not democratic. another example: hillary got more votes in nevada, yet obama may have gotten more delegates. that's not democratic. edwards got more votes in iowa than did hillary, yet hillary got more delegates. that's not democratic. etc.
Posted by Turkana at February 14, 2008 04:07 PMTurkana:
No you are not talking politics. You are promoting Hillary and putting down Obama. I supported Hillary but I never trashed Obama. We all should keep our focus on November and should not marginalized our own candidates. As they say Democrats always find ways to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Now I know why.
Posted by suresh at February 14, 2008 04:21 PMThis ram character reminds me of the 2 time Bush voters in my Ford Lightning club with the nasty comments and disrespect. Undercover GOP?
"I am not young enough to know everything."...Oscar Wilde
Turkana, Chris Bowers did anayses of the popular vote and pledged delegate count. Obama has 52% of the popular vote and 51% of the pledged delegates. There is round-off error in each district and state, but it balances out pretty well. Note that the small error between popular vote and delegates is in Clinton's favor, hardly a case for Super Delegates to "correct" the tally in her direction.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at February 14, 2008 04:24 PMcapj,
that's as of now. as of now, obama's clearly the frontrunner.
suresh,
if i wanted to attack obama, i could come down quite hard. i'm not supporting hillary, i'm trying to offer some rational balance. obama, the media, and many bloggers are excoriating hillary for a double-standard. as usual.
Posted by Turkana at February 14, 2008 04:30 PM"I am not young enough to know everything."...Oscar Wilde
TIKI, it seems obvious to me, RAM is God of War, remember him? He's always been like this, and has always been for Edwards, but he's now transferred his vehemence to Obama. If you think of it as a variation of the GoW vernacular, when he says "Obama's gonna take the bitch down!" it's equivalent to Judith saying "I think Obama has the better ground game." In essence we're having a conversation at the bar about 3am on the third day of the last TLC convention. Anything goes, 'cos none of us'll remember it in the morning(or afternoon as the case may be).
Posted by iamcoyote at February 14, 2008 08:11 PM