Also: I don't think it's over if Obama loses California, but I think it'll help him enormously if he can bring it within 5 percentage points. The thing to remember is that every state is proportional. If Obama can get close in Hillary's big states , he can pull a lot of delegates out of states Hillary was counting on. Also, this survey is good news for Obama supporters.
She has more delegates now so he has to get a majority of delegates on Tuesday. he might get New York since not many people like Clinton. I can see him getting New Jersey and California will be the decider.
Which states are winner-take-all and how what is the delegate spread? Seems to me you need to focus on winning those states by the smallest margin possible and just make sure you are close in all others.
Clinton did win the Nevada popular vote but Obama got more delegates. Which means (just as in 2000) Obama won Nevada.
No Democratic primary or caucus is winner-take-all. Every Democratic primary or caucus is proportional representation, with certain specific rules.
Also, I think Clinton only has more delegates if you count superdelegates, and I don't think that the superdelegates should be counted, since I doubt they'd revolt and put Clinton over the top if Obama had a majority of regular delegates, because that would be suicide for the party's chances in the general. (Superdelegates are delegate seats given out to party officials and office-holders; usually, they don't matter much, but this year they might)
Because every state is proportional, and because the race seems to be drawing closer as we approach super Tuesday, I don't think, delegate-wise, we're probably going to see a pretty even split. Now, in terms of momentum, and in terms of media spin, it really depends on how close Obama can get in California, New York, and Massachusetts. A close second in California is important vis a vis delegates, and a win would be such an upset that he would be hard to stop after that. A strong performance in New York really hurts for Hillary, since it's her home state. And a Massachusetts victory makes it easy to make an "Obama momentum" storyline, since he was down so far so recently there.
Oh snap! I'm feeling the Obama/Edwards ticket now.
That would be so awesome ... and when you think about, who else could it be? Kucinich? Yeah, right.
I think I'd actually prefer if Edwards wasn't the VP candidate, so he could be the attorney general instead. Attorney general could get a lot more done than a vice president, and I don't know how much Edwards would help Obama in the general.
Also, there's a lot of other people who could be VP for Obama. It doesn't have to be someone who was in the Presidential race. I've heard a lot of people mention Kathleen Sebelius, Brian Schweitzer, or perhaps Joe Biden or Evan Bayh if he wants to go moderate.
Personally, my dream ticket would be Obama/Specter, but I realize that would never happen.
God, if it was Obama/Biden I'd go out and help the campaign. That sounds like an amazing ticket. Too bad Biden said he wouldn't accept Vice-President. Maybe he'll change his mind?
Obama/Edwards would be a winning combination, though.
As for Republicans, I honestly don't see how they even have a chance after this administration. I have many real republican friends (ie: not neo-cons), and they concur that they're not going to get the presidency for a while.
God, if it was Obama/Biden I'd go out and help the campaign. That sounds like an amazing ticket. Too bad Biden said he wouldn't accept Vice-President. Maybe he'll change his mind?
So has Edwards, I believe. I think saying you wouldn't accept a VP spot is standard for any candidate, you know?
I'm a registered Republican. So I don't have dog in this fight.
I still have to make up my mind in this Tuesday Primary if I’m going to vote for John McCain or Mitt Romney.
I'm actually very interested by this. Why do you even give Romney a second glance?
Oh snap! I'm feeling the Obama/Edwards ticket now.
That would be so awesome ... and when you think about, who else could it be? Kucinich? Yeah, right.
I think I'd actually prefer if Edwards wasn't the VP candidate, so he could be the attorney general instead. Attorney general could get a lot more done than a vice president, and I don't know how much Edwards would help Obama in the general.
Also, there's a lot of other people who could be VP for Obama. It doesn't have to be someone who was in the Presidential race. I've heard a lot of people mentionKathleen Sebelius,Brian Schweitzer, or perhapsJoe BidenorEvan Bayhif he wants to go moderate.
Personally, my dream ticket would be Obama/Specter, but I realize that would never happen.
Ah ... but Biden repeatedly said he wouldn't. Richardson, maybe? I agree Edwards would make a good Attorney-General.
I really like the idea of a moderate as VP though - could lead to more bipartisanship in the White House.
I know McCain has the best chance of winning in Nov. So I'm stuck between a rock and hard place.
Wow, you must be someone who believe the whole swift boat thing in 2004 and the whole McCain fathered a Black baby in 2000 (which has been blamed for sinking him in South Carolina that year, when in reality he adopted).
Seriously, McCain is a different type of conservative in a party of mainly ideologues. He is more in tune with Teddy Roosevelt then Ronald Reagen. He may be "liberal" compared to the republicans today but he's still conservative.
Why do I find myself defending McCain so much, I'm not even going to vote for him.
How about McCain/Fiengold Campaign Finance Reform which is nothing but a way to shut people up by only allowing the media to control what gets said 60 days out from an election by denying people the right to pay for political advertising.
I'd much rather see Obama as the Democrat nominee so I can vote for someone rather than against someone.
I'm a registered Republican. So I don't have dog in this fight.
I'm a registered Republican, and I do have a dog in this fight. Even though I can't vote in the primary, I'll be voting Democrat this year, whether the caucus selects Clinton or Obama. Based on the candidates' voting records and platforms, I would prefer Clinton, and the polls have her leading now in New York and California.
Although I can agree with most of Obama's proposed policies, I just can't shake the feeling that Clinton would be the better President. Wouldn't an Obama/Clinton ticket attract both the youth voters and the alpha-mom voters?
In a day dominated by familiar stump speeches, Hillary Clinton made news by saying she might allow workers' wages to be garnisheed if they refuse to buy health insurance.
Pressed on how she would enforce her mandate, Clinton said: "I think there are a number of mechanisms" that are possible, including "going after people's wages, automatic enrollment."
She said such measures would apply only to workers who can afford health coverage but refuse to buy it, which puts undue pressure on hospitals and emergency rooms. Under her plan, she said, health care "will be affordable for everyone" because she would limit premium payments "to a low percent of your income."
So, Hillary wants to make everyone buy health insurance whether they want it or not. What else will she decide we have to have and garnish our wages to pay for? Everyone should be terrified of a Hillary presidency. She has already said that she would steal oil company profits (even though they are lower than most industries as a percentage. They only seem like big profits because of the size of the companies involved.) and use them for her own purposes.
Only Americans would think that universal health coverage would be a bad thing.
It's not about Universal Health Coverage. The problem is we have someone running for President (that may win the nomination) that wants to garnish wages (corporate and personal) to pay for things that she thinks we have to have whether we want those things or not.
Only Americans would think that universal health coverage would be a bad thing.
That's because we're the only ones who enjoy the best health care in the world. We also know that if you really want health care, you can find a job that provides health care coverage as a benefit.
So, Hillary wants to make everyone buy health insurance whether they want it or not. What else will she decide we have to have and garnish our wages to pay for? Everyone should be terrified of a Hillary presidency.
OMG, YES! I am terrified of Hillary making me pay for health insurance! Why, that'd be almost like making people pay for car insurance. That's nothing like listening to my phone conversations, reading my email, torturing me and then sending me to rot in Gitmo. I haven't been this scared since I saw The Shining. I'm gonna scrunch down into the kneehole of my desk and try to hide until the scary communist lady goes away. . .
When McCain goes against the party he is called a Maverick.
When a Democrat goes against the party he is labeled a traitor (Zell Miller, Joe Lieberman).
Also, back when "jumping" Jim Jeffords jumped out of the Republican party McCain was talking to Democrats about doing the same thing.
Awww, the poor, poor Republicans. They're so mistreated. They have no friends in the MSM, and it's not like they own about 95% of talk radio and they don't have a whole TV network of their own to spew their noxious filth every day. I'm so sad for the poor Republicans, I'm liable to openly weep at my desk. Seriously, those humane society commercials showing abused pets don't move me as much as the thought of the MSM calling McCain a maverick and Zell Miller a traitor. I . . . I just don't know how I'll make it through the rest of the day.
We also know that if you really want health care, you can find a job that provides health care coverage as a benefit.
Yeah, these jobs are ridiculously easy to get. Anyone should be able to get one of these jobs because they literally hand them out gratis to anyone who wants to sign up. Even if you fail to get one, you should be able to just heal yourself by the force of your own will. If you can't do that, you're either too dumb or too lazy to live.
The problem is we have someone running for President (that may win the nomination) that wants to garnish wages (corporate and personal) to pay for things that she thinks we have to have whether we want those things or not.
Hmm . . . sounds suspiciously like a . . . TAX. Nothing like that has ever been tried before. I'm'a skeert.
The american health care is by far not the best health care in the world. The life expectancy in the U.S. is lower than in most countries with universal health care and medical drugs are by far cheaper in other countries. Also if the U.S. would have universal health coverage there wouldn't be a need to find a job who provides it. It is not an argument against it.
And what is so bad about "forcing" people to ensure themselves to have health care. Garnishing wages? It's a tax. It works in so many other countries. Why do you think it is a bad idea or it wouldn't work in the U.S.?
So, would you be opposed to having the government garnish 100% of your wages if they covered 100% of your basic needs and wants? nothing extravagant of course. They would not give you PS3's and 50" HDTVs instead those would be reserved for government officials. You would get old NES systems and 27" SDTVs...
I desire the freedom to make my own mistakes, thank you very much. I do not want my government to act like a mother but like a father.
When a mother sees their kid about to hurt themselves they jump in before any harm comes. In the end the kid learns that momma will always take care of them (and they become dependant.)
When a father sees their kid about to hurt themselves they do a quick risk calculation in their head and as long as the activity will not result in death or dismemberment they allow the kid to make the mistake and learn from it. In the end the kid learns how to become independent and self-reliant.
If you put enough effort into your life you can do anything. Why limit yourself by being a part of a nanny state?
Comments
Also: I don't think it's over if Obama loses California, but I think it'll help him enormously if he can bring it within 5 percentage points. The thing to remember is that every state is proportional. If Obama can get close in Hillary's big states , he can pull a lot of delegates out of states Hillary was counting on. Also, this survey is good news for Obama supporters.
They got a camera shot of him watching the UNC game against Boston College. He looked pretty bummed, but then again, I would be too.
Clinton did win the Nevada popular vote but Obama got more delegates. Which means (just as in 2000) Obama won Nevada.
Also, I think Clinton only has more delegates if you count superdelegates, and I don't think that the superdelegates should be counted, since I doubt they'd revolt and put Clinton over the top if Obama had a majority of regular delegates, because that would be suicide for the party's chances in the general. (Superdelegates are delegate seats given out to party officials and office-holders; usually, they don't matter much, but this year they might)
Because every state is proportional, and because the race seems to be drawing closer as we approach super Tuesday, I don't think, delegate-wise, we're probably going to see a pretty even split. Now, in terms of momentum, and in terms of media spin, it really depends on how close Obama can get in California, New York, and Massachusetts. A close second in California is important vis a vis delegates, and a win would be such an upset that he would be hard to stop after that. A strong performance in New York really hurts for Hillary, since it's her home state. And a Massachusetts victory makes it easy to make an "Obama momentum" storyline, since he was down so far so recently there.
/I really like Bill on all other things.
Also, there's a lot of other people who could be VP for Obama. It doesn't have to be someone who was in the Presidential race. I've heard a lot of people mention Kathleen Sebelius, Brian Schweitzer, or perhaps Joe Biden or Evan Bayh if he wants to go moderate.
Personally, my dream ticket would be Obama/Specter, but I realize that would never happen.
I still have to make up my mind in this Tuesday Primary if I’m going to vote for John McCain or Mitt Romney.
Obama/Edwards would be a winning combination, though.
As for Republicans, I honestly don't see how they even have a chance after this administration. I have many real republican friends (ie: not neo-cons), and they concur that they're not going to get the presidency for a while.
Ah ... but Biden repeatedly said he wouldn't. Richardson, maybe? I agree Edwards would make a good Attorney-General.
I really like the idea of a moderate as VP though - could lead to more bipartisanship in the White House.
But Obama/Specter? Not a chance.
John Mccain.
I know McCain has the best chance of winning in Nov. So I'm stuck between a rock and hard place.
Seriously, McCain is a different type of conservative in a party of mainly ideologues. He is more in tune with Teddy Roosevelt then Ronald Reagen. He may be "liberal" compared to the republicans today but he's still conservative.
Why do I find myself defending McCain so much, I'm not even going to vote for him.
When a Democrat goes against the party he is labeled a traitor (Zell Miller, Joe Lieberman).
Also, back when "jumping" Jim Jeffords jumped out of the Republican party McCain was talking to Democrats about doing the same thing.
Keating 5 anyone?
How about McCain/Fiengold Campaign Finance Reform which is nothing but a way to shut people up by only allowing the media to control what gets said 60 days out from an election by denying people the right to pay for political advertising.
I'd much rather see Obama as the Democrat nominee so I can vote for someone rather than against someone.
Those are important issues that were said in that ad. Maybe you don't think so WaterIsPoison,but their are to me.
So, Hillary wants to make everyone buy health insurance whether they want it or not. What else will she decide we have to have and garnish our wages to pay for? Everyone should be terrified of a Hillary presidency. She has already said that she would steal oil company profits (even though they are lower than most industries as a percentage. They only seem like big profits because of the size of the companies involved.) and use them for her own purposes.
And what is so bad about "forcing" people to ensure themselves to have health care. Garnishing wages? It's a tax. It works in so many other countries. Why do you think it is a bad idea or it wouldn't work in the U.S.?
I desire the freedom to make my own mistakes, thank you very much. I do not want my government to act like a mother but like a father.
When a mother sees their kid about to hurt themselves they jump in before any harm comes. In the end the kid learns that momma will always take care of them (and they become dependant.)
When a father sees their kid about to hurt themselves they do a quick risk calculation in their head and as long as the activity will not result in death or dismemberment they allow the kid to make the mistake and learn from it. In the end the kid learns how to become independent and self-reliant.
If you put enough effort into your life you can do anything. Why limit yourself by being a part of a nanny state?