Chilly

I've said a couple times on this forum that I find Obama's strategy risky for the general election. Today, on the WSJ's site was an excellent article explaining why political scientists agree: http://blogs.wsj.com/politicalperceptions/...obama/#more-87/

Democratic Rules Committee

Uh, yeah, it should be. Obama isn't even fully supported by his party's traditional base either (Clinton). The parties both managed to nominate candidates who appeal more to the middle than their party's base. You have two candidates going after and appealing to the same areas, which is going to split the vote. Did you read the analysis I linked? No, it is generally accepted that the primary structure was put into place so that the Democrats could avoid having another ugly convention with lots of negative press like the 1968 Democratic convention. Instead of such a process where the candidates were determined by a few elite, it was placed into the hands of the people (mostly). They kept super delegates to make sure that they still had *some* control over who the candidate would be. The likely confusion here is because the first mandate for the reformation of the Democratic party system said: "all Democratic voters have had full and timely opportunity to participate." However, this goal was later dropped. Instead, they pushed through increased representation for minority groups through quotas, and dropped the number of party-nominated delegates to 20%. The intention was to make sure that minorities had much more of a say in party positions and initiatives - essentially moving the party further to the left. The Republicans then followed suit, with some differences (I don't believe they had quotas, and they have around 10% super delegates instead of 20%, plus winner-take-all). The effect of the primary system has been to push the candidates further to the sides, not the other way around. The Super Delegates are on the fence because they don't want to come out and trump the primary system and get the negative press for doing that. There are still two more primaries today, remember. If that was actually the case, perhaps, but the system was designed to increase African American participation and influence.

What I'm saying is: If the results were not valid, then they should not have counted as a basis of anything. If they were valid, then they should have counted. Instead, the DRC decided to make them "valid enough" to use as a basis of estimating delegates (the much more important count), but not as a basis of estimating the popular vote (the much less important count). Its doublespeak to say its good enough to count to use for determining delegates, but not good enough to use for the popular vote (the way that they determine those delegates). It was, of course, a political play designed to not upset or overturn anything, but one that doesn't have a whole lot of continuity or make a whole lot of sense.

I'd certainly suggest that he talk to his preferred lawyer, as thats who would be handling the case if it went further.

Didn't say it would work - said she *could* try it. Erm, its remarkable that Hillary stayed close when Barack was attempting to forge a new coalition? No, its not. Its remarkable that Barack Obama was able to forge that new coalition successfully and squeak out a victory. Quite frankly, I *still* feel that Clinton is the better candidate against McCain. Obama's campaign strategy is extremely risky, and Clinton would be wayyyy up against McCain in the electoral college. That said, there's no doubt it could very well work. We'll just have to wait and see. The reason why the super delegates wouldn't go against Obama was not about winning this election, but because they see an opportunity to try to build more people into the party. The problem is I think they're voting for the candidate, not the party, so I'm not sure how well that's going to work out.

Erm, its been flipflopping. There was a period back in March when McCain had a decided advantage in the national poll, not that the national poll matters much. Not quite. Pew publishes the best analysis of their polls online, with this one being the one RCP is using. I suggest giving it a read - it has more to do with his declining image than his policy issues. Really? Then why did they have McGovern head the redesign committee, and why did he win it the very next time after it was instituted?

You're looking at this the wrong way. Really, that means he has a 70% chance of not getting infected! Thats way better than a coin flip!

Damn straight you are. In fact, I have proof: Google doesn't give a damn how big your penis is. See? They aren't after EVERY bit of personal info.

Sure, why wouldn't they request that he speak to his lawyer first?

Could be another reason actually (which would take it to the convention) - try to sabotage Obama in 08, so she can be Clinton in 12

This, is, just..... awesome. http://www.kutv.com/content/news/local/sto...43-3a2fd9347606

Sure. If the team is requiring that he talks to his preferred lawyer before he talks to the media, then that stipulation could be preventing him from doing so. Or it could be Karl Rove, who knows.

'Sup, pasta?

Right, because the sheriff didn't say that there was proof Vick was involved in May of 2007. Exhibit A: Sheriff says there is evidence Vick was involved in a crime. Exhibit B: Police find no evidence that there was any crime committed by Hardy. Just to simplify this so you can understand it: Exhibit A: Evidence Exhibit B: No evidence Get the difference?

There could be all sorts of reasons, including: Wanting to wait to work with a lawyer you trust first, Being asked by the team to not talk about it yet for PR reasons, Knowing it was a friend driving the car, not wanting to tell white lies or anything else during the statement, Not wanting to complicate the investigation, Not wanting to bring the story back to the spotlight (its not all that big of a topic right now on the national news sites), waiting to work out some issues with insurance before releasing a statement, waiting to talk to the person who was driving the car first, etc. Yes, it could be that he was involved, or it could be other factors that are preventing it.

Yup, they weren't completely fair elections. Its also not completely fair saying someone won the popular vote, but not taking into account two of the more populous states in the US. That was largely my point when I was wondering why the Obama supporters are even responding to this argument: Any claim of a moral victory here based on popular vote totals is worthless.

No, not really, there are tons of strange situations that could cause a statement from him to be delayed a while. What strikes me (and the woman, lol) was that his car was used in it, and according to the cops they have video evidence. I wonder if that will point at him being the driver or not.

Yeah, but would you donkey punch?

Would you be all that eager to talk to the media after something like this, especially when your attorney is out of town?

Here is where your argument gets hairy: true, official, fair contests You'll be arguing until you're blue in the face over that word "fair". If you wanted to say "Officially", thats fine, but there is no way at this point in time to have any popular vote count be "fair".

Uh, if you're going to include embassy attacks, then you CAN'T say "No attacks since 9/11/01". There was just one in February in Belgrade, and back in 2005 in Iraq. By the way, since when has Clinton been an acceptable justification for anything for you?

I would have figured that the Obama supporters like yourself would have just given up on trying to argue the point, since it isn't relevant to the price of rice in China, or anything else.

Amazing, isn't it, that he's trying to argue that they're the same thing?

O RLY? Wow, I guess that the sheriff didn't say on television that there had in fact was evidence that Vick was there. Its really amusing you put the word "facts" in quotes, since that was IN FACT A FACT that he owned the house. So, I repeat: A.) Vick owning a house where a crime has actually been committed and is known about by the fed, occupied by his family members, and having the local sheriff say on television that Vick had indeed been at the house and knew about the dog fighting. and B.) Hardy may or may not have a gun in an incident where the cops came but found no evidence of a crime.