No it's Not Is Obama winning S Carlina in Nov? no. Why not he won HUGE in the primary over 50% of the voters were black. Oh wait only 50% of the DEMOCRATIC voters were black not 50% of ALL voters. And that's what matters in Nov. Obama supports want to make the case that he's teh guy ebcaus he won mre states. States that he won because they had high black poplations that were also members of the party he is trying to get the nomiation for but make a small % of ALL voters. These same states usually vote red. These same states that typically are racist and thus will never vote for a black guy.

winner winner chicken dinner

Again you're quoting things Obama supporters have said and trying to make that stick to the candidate, or to me. That's not an intellectually honest argument.

The fact of the matter is that the rules definitely allow superdelegates to do whatever they want, as a matter of fact pledged delegates are only required to stick with their candidate for the first ballot....if it takes more than one ballot at the convention to select a nominee then the pledged delegates for Obama and Clinton could vote for William Henry Harrison if they really wanted to.

However, if the superdelegates end up nominating the person with fewer votes and fewer pledged delegates, then alot of people will feel like the nomination was stolen, they will feel like their votes in the primaries didn't matter because it will seem like there was a back room deal to nominate someone other than the person the voters wanted. So while it's perfectly within the rules to do this, there would be consequences from the voters and the superdelegates know this.

As for Florida...you can't blame it on the republicans, because the democrats in the legislature didn't vote against the measure. They didn't even make a stand on principle, so there was implicit collusion there....they hoped that someone out there would make the argument that you're making now so that they could have an earlier primary.

If we let that happen then we'll have 40 states moving their primaries to New Year's day in 4 years because they want to be as important as Iowa and New Hampshire.

Personally, I prefer the republicans solution to this which was to strip the state of half their delegates rather than not count them at all....and then they allowed all of the candidates to campaign there.

Doesn't matter anyways. Sadly, McCain will be the next prez of the good ole US of A

Man, if you're thinking that Republicans would PREFER to go up against Clinton, you're dreaming. It's a ruse that republican pundits have been pushing for a long time now. They're very good at that stuff, lol.

Obama is still unknown to most people. In the last debate, some things were exposed that I'd never even known, and I follow this shit! Now Obama is declining invitations to debate again. Doesnt he think that if he's the eventual nominee that it's best to air dirty laundry NOW? McCain and his people will trash Obama really bad..blind side style. Whereas Clinton's dirty laundry was aired, folded and put away years and years ago.

I think republicans fear Clinton and will *never* admit it.

If states won were his only argument then you would have a point.

Speaking of which, if his states won argument doesn't matter, then why does Hillary's big states won argument matter?

I know you are new here, so let me enlighten you. There are a ton of other parties out there. You can not force people to join them.

* Republican Party
* Democratic Party
* Libertarian Party
* Constitution Party
* Green Party

These parties have offered candidates in recent elections, but did not in 2004, and they do not have ballot status in enough states in 2008 to win the presidency. Some do not have presidential candidates, but for other offices only.

This is an incomplete list, which may never be able to satisfy certain standards for completeness.
Revisions and sourced additions are welcome.

* America First Party (2002)
* Centrist Party (United States) (2006)
* Independence Party of America (2007)
* Jefferson Republican Party
* Moderate Party (2006) - Founded in Illinois by Bill Scheuer, registered as a party in Florida [1] [2]
* Marijuana Party (2002)
* Party for Socialism and Liberation (2006)
* Peace and Freedom Party (1967) - active primarily in California
* Prohibition Party (1867)
* Reform Party of the United States of America (1995) - currently divided into two factions both using the name of the "Reform Party"
* Socialist Equality Party (1953)
* Socialist Party USA (1973)
* Socialist Workers Party (1938)
* Workers World Party (1959)
* Working Families Party (1998)

Some of these parties have nominated candidates in the past, but have not done so recently for various reasons. Others have not yet nominated any candidates.

This is an incomplete list, which may never be able to satisfy certain standards for completeness.
Revisions and sourced additions are welcome.

* American Party (1969)
* American Patriot Party (2003)
* American Heritage Party (2000)
* American Reform Party (1997)
* Christian Freedom Party (2004)
* Christian Falangist Party of America (1985)
* Communist Party USA (1919)
* Democratic Socialists of America
* Freedom Road Socialist Organization (1985)
* Independent American Party (1998)
* Labor Party (1995)
* Libertarian National Socialist Green Party (1997)
* National Socialist Movement (1974)
* New American Independent Party (2004)
* New Black Panther Party (1989)
* New Union Party (1974)
* Personal Choice Party (1997)
* Populist Party of America (2002)
* Progressive Labor Party
* Ray O. Light Group (1961)
* Revolutionary Communist Party, USA
* Social Democratic Party of America (2007)
* Socialist Action (1983)
* Socialist Alternative (1986)
* Socialist Labor Party (1876)
* Unity08 (2006)
* Workers Party, USA
* World Socialist Party of the United States (1916)
* United Fascist League (2007)

Only uneducated people will feel their vote was stolen. And yeah, there's plenty of those out there, but while we cant blame them, we also cant FEAR them (which is the tactic).

Blame the media for constantly airing people and blog posts without correcting them, that it'll be a "steal", or a "give".

Simple math if Obama gets 74% of the remaining pledged delgates Hillary can get the remaining super deleagtes and it won't matter.

if Obama gets 56% of the remaining pledged delgates Hillary can get 75% of the remaining super deleagtes and it won't matter.

if Obama gets 50% of the remaining super delagtes he only needs 38% of the pledged delegates to get above 2025.

In 13 days after NC and IN vote and that % will be down to less than 25% of the remaining pledged delegates.

I suspect John Edwards will throw his support behind Obama right before the NC primary and give Obama his 18 remaining pledged delegates.

So Obama fanbois needs to untie the knot in their panties.

Okay, now you have done it. racist, racist, racist


</sarcasm>

It doesn't and if you'd read I already stated that.

All that matters is that can you guy/gal whatever get 50.1 of the total vote in a state in Nov so they can collect the electoral vote in that state. And frankly both Obama and Clinton will have a hard time winning any states that voted red both in 2000 and 2004. If Dems had been smart and supported Edwards this wouldn't even be an issue.

My stance all along.

i was kinda hoping she'd mess up and drop out
its not that I don't like her but they need to pick a candidate soon

Well said.

Yea, I know they exist baddog. It's just how this country works. They don't have support, or funding. There just hasn't been an ability to break through the 2 party system yet.

I'm not sure how other countries did it.

I admit, I know nothing about the procedures and policies of 3rd parties. I just see a sorely lacking support of them and I have to assume it's partly due to the system. Why would repubs or dems make it easy for another party to rise to power?

Talking out my arse at this point, just see 2 choices as a flawed system is all.

Gore, Kerry, and Edwards all should have came out for Hillary today.

Yeah and im part of the big cock party but with the media controlling the elections those parties might as well not even exist.

I may be wrong but i believe Gore supports Obama, I know Kerry does, and who knows or cares what Edwards thinks at this point.

Well Edwards is a supper delegate and he has 18 pledged delegates of his own. At this point every delegate is important. He's from NC and if his support can make Obama win by an even larger margin in 2 weeks thus giving Obama even more delegates or lessening the loss for Hillary if he supports her thus extending this race, then I would say what he think IS in fact important.

You mean the CFR's victory?

Well if the liberal media is controlling the election, it should be 100&#37; clear they are pro-Obama and anti-Clinton.

How would Obama supporters like to see Larry King Live do a full hour on "Should Obama Quit?" with a big banner along the bottom the entire time. Speculating on how Obama was destroying the party, how Obama just wouldnt go away etc etc ad nauseum?

And then he WINS by double digits and the next day they're asking "what will it take for Obama to quit?" Good lord. If you think the media is trying to help Clinton win, they have a funny way of doing it lol!

i was eating chocolate, didn't have time

I don't really consider the media to be liberal, any of it. Some of the reporters and hosts are, but the overall media in my eyes is super conservative. I listen to talk radio and they blast the same thing - but when I watch the news I feel no real liberal would back, say or do what they do.

This is only an opinion on how I view the media playing this game.

I think they really want McCain to win, in a bad way.

Obama only stands a chance because of the black vote, if they vote. His white vote count is not up with Hillary, and without the black vote he probably would have already been out.

So I think they are attacking Hillary now as she is only real threat. I take the attacks that almost appear to be exclusive to her, pretty much telling us how much of a threat she really is, to them. If they can damage her rep or make it so she isn't in the game at all, then the challenge is easy.

I can only guess what will happen if it's McCain vs Obama. But I think some very bad history is being held down about Obama until this match up happens. Between his already shady past and the new unknowns they will bring up, and the white 'man' vote count... I really think they feel they can beat Obama, easily.

For now the target is Hillary and she is doing a fine job hanging herself for them.

Other countries have parliamentary systems, that's the big difference.

i doubt he will be supporting Hillary or her bed buddy John mccunt.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3816551

In a Sunday appearance on "This Week with George Stephanopoulos," Edwards made clear his belief that Clinton "operates in a corrupt system."


"I think, first of all, that she defends a system that doesn't work in Washington, D.C.," Edwards said. "She thinks it's fine to continue taking lobbyist money. She thinks it's fine to be the biggest recipient of, you know, health insurance money, health industry money, defense money, et cetera. And she says she will be the agent for change. Well, I just don't think that's going to happen."

bcuz ther is nhothing to say....and jst leave it at tht

Here's what I think will happen:

Obama will get the Democratic nomination. Most super delegates simply will not go against the voter's choice, even though they have the right to, and even if they believe it would be the better decision.

McCain will most likely win against Obama in the general election. It's questionable if Obama will be able to withstand the Republican attack machine (which is much heavier and dirtier than Hillary's), and Obama just isn't very appealing for many swing voters (white or hispanic, blue collar).

Moreover, Obama will lose the hidden racist vote. It's sad, but many whites would choose McCain over Obama solely because Obama is black - just like many blacks, right now, are choosing Obama over Hillary because Obama is black.

If Hillary were to get the Democratic nomination now, she would most likely lose against McCain as well, because many people would consider it to be a "stolen nomination", and would either not vote, or vote against her for that reason.

That's been my experience as well. Every election we've ever had up here has seen local media (especially newspapers) print articles and opinion pieces that make them come off as very (and I do mean very) pro-conservative, and slanted negatively towards all other parties.

No surprise though, they are all owned by people who are themselves pro consevative. While understandible I think it's detestable. News media should be as unbiased as possible, and in an ideal world they would be. But this isn't an ideal world. :upsidedow

Here's a good example of Obama's big problem:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...t/florida.html

In Florida, Obama doesn't have the slightest chance of beating McCain. Hillary, on the other hand, would actually have some chance of beating McCain.

Her more bad news for Obama

"And, in a troubling sign for the Obama camp, only 50 percent of Pennsylvania voters who picked Clinton said they would vote for Obama if he was the Democratic nominee, but 26 percent said they would vote for McCain."

Well then why doesn't he announce his support for Obama then? He dropped out to supposedly clear things up. Well 3 months later it still isn't over. So call a press conference in NC say you're supporting Obama and give him your 18 delegates. The weird thing is ther are many super delegates that actually already made up their mind on who theya re going to support but sstay silent? why? Espcailly Obama super deleagtes. The sooner all his silent supporters speak up the bigger his delegate lead looks and this thing could be over NOW.

Hillary was expected to win in Penn.. it was obvious

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh
And McCain's 100 year war is much better?

VOTE NONE OF THE ABOVE!

As A Matter of Fact...

Yeah.

You people consider Iraq a war? It is a fucking Slaughter house that is cleansing the world of future terrorists that are more than willing to come over to the USA and fuck shit up if nothing is done about it today for the next number of years.

A good decisive plan for Iraq would have been helpful from the start but now I do believe the USA needs to own up to the responsibility for whats happened in Iraq.

USA NEEDS TO MAKE IRAQ A STRONG COUNTRY THAT CAN HOLD ITS OWN MILITARILY AND POLITICALLY. The way I see it we owe it to the Iraqi's that when USA Leaves Iraq we do it properly and not some wild cut out and leave.

Obama has it all wrong.
Hillary Has it kinda right.
McCain is Spot on about Iraq.

more like breeding ground.


you=RETARD

That to:) Let em Keep breeding terrorists.

The Score is about 1 American Death To 75 give or take 20.

So if you think America is losing this war you are on serious drugs.

The media does not know shit about Military statistics the media just loves to show the color red at every corner inbetween commericals. I am proud of the American Military for its Precision in execution. Never in the history of the world has there been a stronger army.

Now if we could just get the politians to be the best in the world instead of electing morons and Jr's we would be in alot better spot on the global stage.

The fact that it's taking longer to "win" this war than it was to defeat both Germany AND Japan is quite sad.

Only an idiot cares how long it takes.

As long as it takes is what it should be at this point such that America does not hand Iraq over to the Mullah's on a silver plater.

Little hint about Iraq. The Iraqi's do not want us there, but the Iraqis do not want us to leave either until they can stand on thier own. Thats a fact and under reported in the media. Rest Assured America should leave Iraq and I believe that when America does leave Iraq, Iraq should be better than when we came.

It is the right thing to do, rather than cut and run like the pussy liberal's keep going on and on about.

Obama's problem? :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh :1orglaugh

Colorado

Rasmussen. 4/16. Likely voters. MoE 4.5&#37; (3/17 results)

McCain (R) 43 (46)
Obama (D) 46 (46)

McCain (R) 50 (52)
Clinton (D) 36 (38)

North Carolina:

Rasmussen. 4/10. Likely voters. MoE 4.5% (3/20 results)

McCain (R) 47 (51)
Obama (D) 47 (42)

McCain (R) 51 (50)
Clinton (D) 40 (34)

California

Rasmussen. 4/16. Likely voters. MoE 4.5% (3/12 results)

McCain (R) 43 (38)
Obama (D) 50 (53)

McCain (R) 42 (39)
Clinton (D) 47 (46)


Minnesota

SurveyUSA. 4/11-13. Likely voters. MoE 4.3% (3/14-16 results)

McCain (R) 43 (47)
Obama (D) 49 (46)

McCain (R) 46 (46)
Clinton (D) 47 (49)

Washington:

SurveyUSA. 4/14-17. Likely voters. MoE 4% (3/14-16 results)

McCain (R) 40 (47)
Obama (D) 53 (48)

McCain (R) 45 (47)
Clinton (D) 48 (47)


Arizona.

Rasmussen. 4/15. Likely voters. MoE 4.5% (No trend lines)

McCain (R) 57
Obama (D) 37

McCain (R) 60
Clinton (D) 32



This is ALL post Reverend Wright. And all of these numbers reflect an untouched, untested, and unvetted John McCain due to the Dem race. Now are you going to tell me that polls don't matter? I can post more. I grabbed these quickly off the KOS but one visit to Rasmussen and you'll see that this is a trend. He loses Florida but she loses all the "states that don't matter". Stop drinking the Clinton Kool-Aid. It's amazing how they'll make a statement and every believes that it must be true since the Clinton's said it.

Polls dont matter.
Only the final outcome.

especially that blather you posted.

Democrats have not even had a chance to Campaign for Presidency yet.
So that poll is pure shit.

Holy fuck this thread is filled with fucking idiots. I am now totally sure that AlienQ and minuseonbit are related.

I know how much it drives you GFY biggots crazy that this black guy actually has a chance at being the President of the United States. "I'll never see it in my lifetime" you told yourself over and over again. "He'll never win because he's black" you said countless times....then all of the sudden....he started winning. Now the argument is "He only wins because he is black, blacks vote for him and white liberal guilt causes whites to vote for him". So which one is it?

And for all of the fortune tellers that say "Obama can't win" and wants to point to polls here goes a stack of them. Wait til Summer time when John McCain shows us that he's a continuation of George Bush and his record low approval rating. Mickey Mouse can beat John McCain at this point.


Real Clear Politics - Averages of 8 leading national polls

Rasmussen 04/19 - 04/22
Gallup Tracking 04/18 - 04/22
USA Today/Gallup 04/18 - 04/20
Cook/RT Strategies 04/17 - 04/20
Newsweek 04/16 - 04/17 44%
ABC/Wash Post 04/10 - 04/13 44%
Reuters/Zogby 04/10 - 04/13 45%
AP-Ipsos


General Election: McCain (leads 4 polls) vs. Clinton (leads 3 polls) - tied in 1 poll

McCain (R)
45.6%

Clinton (D)
45.8%



General Election: McCain (leads in 2 polls) vs. Obama (leads in 4 polls) - tied in 2 polls

McCain (R)
44.9%

Obama (D)
46.0%

So is your opinion what we are all to form our opinions around? Or should we go with the most solid thing we have so far....poll numbers?

I'm guess you think that we should listen to talking heads on FOX and internet message boards?

hmmm

No I consider the Iraq war a crime against humanity. There are almost no terrorist except the ones we made with our stupid policies. We can't not kill all the ones there are now because there will never be less only more since everyone killed creates at least 2 in his place. We didn't and don't belong there and we are only in Iraq because of lies. What we need to do is stop wasting money on this war and fix the problems in the USA before it collapses and stay out of other countries business. We can give them aid to rebuild but that is it.

You know this time 4 years ago Kerry led Bush by 15 points. how'd that turn out?