Posted: Sun Mar 09, 2008 1:14 am
Clinton stole the footage of a kid sleeping for her attack ad. Turns out that kid is now an adult and an avid Obama fan and very active in politics. How ironic 
Brilliant!
Page 18 of 19
Posted: Sun Mar 09, 2008 9:41 am
Brilliant!
Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 5:52 pm
Wow, it seems that Obama will win Texas after all.
One more nail in the coffin that is Clinton's campaign.
SourceClinton Will Lose Texas
By David Knowles
Mar 11th 2008 8:20AM
Filed Under:eHillary Clinton, Democrats, Barack Obama, Breaking News
Barack ObamaThe Texas Secretary of State will release the official results of the Democratic primary on March 29th. But if initial estimates hold, Barack Obama will beat Hillary Clinton in the race for delegates. CNN confirms what others have been seeing for days. While Clinton won the state's popular vote, Obama racked up more caucus support, so that, now that the dust is settling, the Lone Star state's delegate total reads:
Obama: 61 delegates from the popular vote + 38 delegates from caucuses = 99 delegates.
Clinton: 65 delegates from the popular vote + 29 delegates from Caucuses = 94 delegates.
So news people can now stop saying "two big wins in Ohio and Texas." Big win in Ohio, sure, but not Texas. Yes, Clinton could still pull it out, but that seems increasingly unlikely.
A further analysis of the delegate race over at DailyKos reveals that Clinton's supposedly big week has actually resulted in a net loss of 15 delegates to the front-runner. That's right, Obama continued to widen his delegate lead. Add to that another 5 delegate cushion after Mississippi, as well as another 99,000-vote-advantage to buttress Obama's overall lead in the popular vote, and one gets the feeling that Obama's momentum didn't really subside as much as was reported.
For those who have asked, roughly one-third of Texas voters participate in the state's caucuses.
One more nail in the coffin that is Clinton's campaign.
Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 5:57 pm
I've never understood the split between between the popular vote and caucuses, other than the latter apparently involves signing lots of bits of paper. Why is this done? Could someone please explain it to me. 
Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 7:10 pm
Yeah, it's confusing as hell. Why can't the public just vote like they do everywhere else?
Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 11:14 pm
Primaries are like regular voting. You show up, you go in a booth, you vote, you go home.
Caucuses however are different. First of all they are at a specific time. Busy at 7:15 that day? No caucus for you. And, especially in the earlier ones, you'd better be willing to stick around because it's going to be a party as the supportors of a candidate fight over independents. Also if a particular candidate doesn't get 15% of the vote than they have to change and vote for someone else. So supporters will fight over these people.
If you want you can also call people who are going to vote for the other side racists or other mean and nasty names.
Anyway the point is that to win a caucus you want energetic people with time on their hands. And that's Obama's demographic. Hillary has more older voters on her side and people who have to get to work or go home and help with the kids.
Personally I think it's less democratic. And far less telling of how a candidate will perform in the general election.
It can also lead to bits of hilarity. For example in an early republican winner-take-all caucus a bunch of people standing around that were going to vote for McCain counted up the heads and realized that Romney, McCains cheif competition, was going to win it. So they all ran over and voted with the Huckabee guys to deny Romney and of the delegates. Worked great.
Caucuses however are different. First of all they are at a specific time. Busy at 7:15 that day? No caucus for you. And, especially in the earlier ones, you'd better be willing to stick around because it's going to be a party as the supportors of a candidate fight over independents. Also if a particular candidate doesn't get 15% of the vote than they have to change and vote for someone else. So supporters will fight over these people.
If you want you can also call people who are going to vote for the other side racists or other mean and nasty names.
Anyway the point is that to win a caucus you want energetic people with time on their hands. And that's Obama's demographic. Hillary has more older voters on her side and people who have to get to work or go home and help with the kids.
Personally I think it's less democratic. And far less telling of how a candidate will perform in the general election.
It can also lead to bits of hilarity. For example in an early republican winner-take-all caucus a bunch of people standing around that were going to vote for McCain counted up the heads and realized that Romney, McCains cheif competition, was going to win it. So they all ran over and voted with the Huckabee guys to deny Romney and of the delegates. Worked great.
Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 11:19 pm
So it scraps the principle of the secret ballot, disenfranchises anyone who can't make it, and is incredibly complicated?
How did this nonsense come about in the first place?
How did this nonsense come about in the first place?
Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 1:14 am
I don't know but I think it comes from a time when party officials decided who nominies should be by getting together and talking it over. Then the practice spread and stuck around in early American politics.
I think the idea is that it is supposed to be birds of a feather getting together and deciding on the best course of action amongst each other. Like how a small team would do things.
I just don't think it meshes well with how things are currently.
I think the idea is that it is supposed to be birds of a feather getting together and deciding on the best course of action amongst each other. Like how a small team would do things.
I just don't think it meshes well with how things are currently.
Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:05 am
That's why you will only see it a caucus during an intra-party election. The caucus has stuck around because it is a wonderful opportunity for people who are already of like mind to hang around, pat each other on the back, and congratulate themselves for thinking the way they do.
Historically, my own hypothesis (and that's all that it is) is that the caucus as a somewhat closed session was a way to check the ballot stuffing, voting in the name of deceased persons, ballot "tax," outright threats, and other ways for either party machines or organized crime to influence regular popular votes.
This year in particular, I don't mind it at all because Obama has turned it to such an advantage.
Historically, my own hypothesis (and that's all that it is) is that the caucus as a somewhat closed session was a way to check the ballot stuffing, voting in the name of deceased persons, ballot "tax," outright threats, and other ways for either party machines or organized crime to influence regular popular votes.
This year in particular, I don't mind it at all because Obama has turned it to such an advantage.
Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2008 4:27 am
Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:20 am
That was awesome. Thanks for the link, Monroe. He's really coming at this election full-on; talking about things I and my friends discuss frequently, rather than focusing on rhetoric and slogans. I'm looking forward to adding an "Obama '08" sticker to my collection in November. 
Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2008 10:37 am
Come on, America. You have a great candidate here, don't screw up again!
Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2008 10:42 am
sadly Rochey a ton of people were pissed off by Wright. I for one never saw it as a big deal but a lot of people are saying this speech changed their minds. Hopefully the news covers this speech well.
Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2008 10:54 am
How many states are there left to vote for the Democratic candidate? Would that thing about Wright be detrimental to his campaign? I hope it isn't, he's the only one there that seems halfway competant.
Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2008 10:59 am
I think there's like 9 left. The only one that really is important (no offense to the others) is Pennsylvania which is strong Clinton territory anyway.
I don't think this will affect the democratic primary too much but I think this will hurt him in the face of the actual race. Its hurting the democratic party with those fence sitters that McCain cleaned the plate with in the '00 election. If Moderates switch from Obama to McCain then its McCain's election and polls already show McCain is closing the gap between the two.
I don't think this will affect the democratic primary too much but I think this will hurt him in the face of the actual race. Its hurting the democratic party with those fence sitters that McCain cleaned the plate with in the '00 election. If Moderates switch from Obama to McCain then its McCain's election and polls already show McCain is closing the gap between the two.