Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Someone Tell Hillary... It's the Math, Stupid

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Vyan Donating Member (990 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-04-08 08:48 AM
Original message
Someone Tell Hillary... It's the Math, Stupid
Edited on Sun May-04-08 08:52 AM by Vyan

Despite all the huffing and puffing over just when and how Hillary Clinton will finally pull a heroic Rocky-II-like comeback knock this black teenager out of the race - all the real numbers say she's already lost.

Barack Obama will be the Democratic Nominee, all he has to do is sit back and wait for it.

And you can prove it for yourself and all your friends with CNN's handy-dandy popiel-o-matic Delegate Calculator.

With this pocket-size tool, You Too, can be a Pundicator.

(Isn't it odd that no-one who actually appears on CNN knows how to use their own website?)

As of today, May 4th - my wife's birthday - the Delegate Calculator indicates that Obama has a lead of 1736 total delegates (with 289 needed to win) and Clinton has a total of 1,599 total delegates (with 426 needed to win).

The only numbers that really matter are the number of delegates needed to win - which again are 289 and 426 respectively. That's how close the nose each of our candidates has come to crossing the finish line.

What we have to remember is that either candidate must reach the magic number of 2025 only using the pledge and Superdelegates that remain, of which - according to the calculator - there only 695.

Simple, very simple, basic math says that in order to win Clinton has to gain 61% of all the remaining delegates. Each time she falls short of that number, it gets larger for the next contest. Obama on the other hand only needs 41%, as long as he stays above that number - HE WINS.

He could lose Indiana, lose North Carolina, lose Kentucky - but as long as he doesn't collapse below 41% - he will be the Nominee. Period.

And if he does better than that, things continually get worse for Clinton.

As of today the results in Guam and some of the recent Superdelegate shifts have not been counted on the calculator but that is of little matter, you and I can put them in ourselves.

Grab the Guam slider and set it 50% Obama/50% Clinton, it automatically allocates 2 delegates to each. That puts Obama at 287 and Clinton at 428 with 691 available. Their percentage requirements to win remain at 41% and 61% respectively.

The latest Zogby Poll for the Indiana Primary gives Obama a one point lead (43/42%) over Clinton. Adding this to the Calculator as best you can (52/48 Obama) gives Obama an additional 37 delegates, bringing him to 1,775 and another 35 for Clinton bringing her to 1,636.

Are you following along at home kiddies? I knew that you were, because this is where it gets fun.

With a small victory in Indiana Obama's Magic Number drops to 250 - and his percentage required for final victory also drops a bit from 41% to 40.3%. Clinton's does the opposite, with still 389 needed to win her required percentage for the remaining delegates shifts upward slightly to 62.8%.

This means simply put, that as time goes one things get worse for her - not better.

Let me just say this again, after this point Clinton has to beat Obama by an average of 22 points on all remaining contests and on all remaining Superdelegates to win the nomination.

Who in their right minds thinks that's gonna happen? (Oh, yeah, most of punditocracy on on CNN, MSNBC, FOX, ABC, NBC, and CBS - except for Chuck Todd who seems to have actually passed 5th Grade math - continues to maintain the ridiculous delusion that Hillary still has a chance to win, silly of me not to notice....)

Ok, let look at North Carolina - where the latest polls places Obama with a nine point lead (46 to 37%) over Clinton. Let's be generous and say that Obama only wins by 8 points (because the slider won't go to nine - damn you CNN!) Obama would receive 62 delegates and Clinton 53. After this contest there are only 504 available delegates, and in order to win Obama would only need to 37.3% of the remaining delegates and Clinton needs a whopping 67% to win.

Anytime she doesn't beat him by greater than that number she falls further behind and can't catch up.

If Clinton doesn't win both West Virginia (where she leads 55/27) and Kentucky (where she has a massive lead) by a pair of double digit 20 point blowouts it's still all over but the whining because those states - with only 28 and 51 delegates at stake respectively - are both too small to make up the difference.

That's right Hillary, "Small States really don't count that much" do they?

Just one week from now - there will only be 425 delegates left (which in reality is an over-estimate since many more Supers will probably be committed by this point next week) and Clinton will need to get 298 or at least 68% of them all (which is assuming that she does blow Barack out by 22 point in Kentucky and again in West Virginia as predicted)

A 22 point landslide is what she needs just to stay even at this point, she has to do much better than that to win.

Once you plug in all the remaining poll estimates, which really only includes Oregon which has Obama up by 6 points, and assume he basically loses every other state by at least 8 points except Puerto Rico where Clinton is strongly supported and there he gets again blown out again by at least 22 points...

You get this:

Even with all that, with every break she could possibly get, Clinton still needs 212 delegates to win, while Obama only needs 95. All of the 287 Superdelegates would have to break for Clinton by 73%. She needs to get almost 3 to 1 of the Supers over Obama to Win. But if Obama just barely manages to squeek by with just 33% of the Supers - it's over, it's done, finito.

He wins.

See?

Your mileage may vary depending on your assumptions generally speaking, and the Calculator isn't perfect, but even if you give her every benefit of the doubt and 2/3 of the Supers - whom she happens to have been leaking lately like water from an old radiator - she still can't win.

By all reasonable measures, she already lost, her campaign is dead - a load of sound and fury signifying nothing - she just hasn't realized or admitted it yet.

Go ahead, try it. see for yourself.

Vyan

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Skidmore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-04-08 08:56 AM
Response to Original message
1. Hillary don't count.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RainDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-04-08 08:57 AM
Response to Original message
2. excellent post! k&r
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RichGirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-04-08 08:57 AM
Response to Original message
3. If you think it's the math...
you need to read the constitution. It's the WILL OF THE PEOPLE. It takes more than math to determine that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-04-08 09:02 AM
Response to Reply #3
7. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Darth_Kitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-04-08 09:11 AM
Response to Reply #7
12. Read the DU rules, stop being so insulting to a fellow DU'er.......
Have anger management issues or just never learned how to cope with opposing opinions? :shrug:

Learn some tact, and some class.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RainDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-04-08 09:51 AM
Response to Reply #12
24. pardon me. it's like trying to talk to a fundamentalist about evolution
the poster's "opposing opinion" is the equivalent of talk of creationism. people who insist on that particular belief also strain my patience. I have no problem with opposing opinions, but that post was simply.. something written without consideration of reality.

and that's really the gist of this entire thread and that particular post.

and, of course, the "tact" and "class" of Hillary supporters on this site is overwhelming sometimes. oh, but wait... if you tell me to learn some tact and some class... are you insulting me? how is that different than me asking a poster is he/she is an idiot for an obvious lack of comprehension of basic reality?

please explain that one to me. (actually, don't bother because I already know the answer.) Better to ask Hillary supporters to stop with worthless arguments.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquarius dawning Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-04-08 09:25 AM
Response to Reply #7
16. The math says Obama wil lose in November too. Care to talk about that math?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vyan Donating Member (990 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-04-08 09:51 AM
Response to Reply #16
25. No it doesn't...
Edited on Sun May-04-08 09:52 AM by Vyan
the current electoral map polls show Obama slightly ahead of McCain 264 Eelctoral votes to 263 with 11 votes tied in Indiana without even beginning to campaign against him yet.

Clinton does better largely because of her lead over McCain in Florida, where Barack is in a virtual TIE with McCain, but Obama doesn't lose.

Vyan
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
georgecolombo Donating Member (86 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-04-08 12:52 PM
Response to Reply #16
54. Candidate Hillary
What I don't understand is this: If Hillary is such a formidable candidate, why didn't she beat Obama? She's been running for president for eight years. Her hand-picked party chair restructured the primary calendar so as to raise the bar to an almost insurmountable level for less well-known, less well-financed challengers. (Remember when the California primary was in June?) She lined up a overwhelming slate of super-delegates before the primaries started. She inherited her husband's political machine, including significant operations in Texan and Pennsylvania, to name just a couple. With all of that, she finds herself in the position she's in today.

So why should we assume that she's the better candidate for November? I don't see a scintilla of evidence to make that case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rg302200 Donating Member (495 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-04-08 11:48 PM
Response to Reply #54
70. Exactly.....
well put! Hillary does show that she is the weaker of the two candidates!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillYourVoteBCounted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-04-08 02:31 PM
Response to Reply #16
61. Scoreboard: Obama 31 states, Clinton 15
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cornus Donating Member (720 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-04-08 09:08 AM
Response to Reply #3
9. The math does reflect the will of the people. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VolcanoJen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-04-08 09:10 AM
Response to Reply #3
11. Since you've read the Constitution, please show me the passage...
... that outlines the pathway to the Democratic nomination. I'd be very interested to read that part of the Constitution.

:shrug:

And, it would appear that the math is reflecting quite clearly the will of the people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KittyWampus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-04-08 09:26 AM
Response to Reply #3
18. not in a Democratic Primary it doesn't
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Snarkoleptic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-04-08 09:35 AM
Response to Reply #3
21. D is for delegate.
RichGirl...What you've just posted is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone who has seen your post is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RainDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-04-08 10:52 AM
Response to Reply #21
34. LOL
..but you're not supposed to say this. to acknowledge the idiocy of that post demonstrates a lack of "tact and class." No matter that is has to be one of the most clueless posts I have ever seen in gd-p. and that's saying something.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RichGirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-04-08 12:00 PM
Response to Reply #21
45. Here's a rational thought for you:
If the math, the sum total of delegates, determines who the nomination goes to than why do we need super delegates. As far as I know, the super deletes are not former math teachers who are going to check the numbers to make sure they were added correctly. I think we can agree with that. So, if they are not there to correct the numbers, they are there for something else. To determine an outcome based on many things, not just math.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SwampG8r Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-04-08 01:03 PM
Response to Reply #45
55. so to you
a hillary supporter
the will of the people is defined as ignoring the winner of the primaries and picking the loser as GE candidate??
:crazy: :crazy: :crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Snarkoleptic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-04-08 04:43 PM
Response to Reply #45
62. I feel your pain...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
muryan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-04-08 06:37 PM
Response to Reply #45
68. Ironic that you use the word rational
When your two posts have been anything but rational.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gore1FL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-05-08 12:05 AM
Response to Reply #45
76. The real reason they are there
Is to guarantee that elected democrats and party officials are delegates at the convention.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-04-08 11:59 PM
Response to Reply #21
73. Does that make me smarter
'cause its on Ignore?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tiptoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-04-08 09:41 AM
Response to Reply #3
23. Simple MATH and Graphs: What Obama needs to Clinch
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gore1FL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-05-08 12:02 AM
Response to Reply #3
74. Thewill of the people detrmined the variables
the math indicates that will.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sallyseven Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-05-08 10:28 AM
Response to Reply #3
87. The Obama people don't want to read
the constitution. (Probably can't read anyway.) They make things up and try to pass them off as fact. I have as much right to see my candidate accorded the same respect as anyone else to finish the primaries. You have no right to make statements when there are other people waiting to vote. I guess that your scared that Obama's losing strength rapidly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MonkeyFunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-04-08 08:58 AM
Response to Original message
4. You don't need a fancy calculator
you just need to count to 2025. Neither candidate is there yet. Neither candidate is likely to get there with pledged delegates only. Therefore, the nominee WILL be chosen by superdelegates.

Simple, huh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maddiejoan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-04-08 09:01 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. Shhhh,
Obama is playing chess --while Hillary is playing Checkers (mostly because it's a game of Checkers)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vyan Donating Member (990 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-04-08 09:23 AM
Response to Reply #4
15. And simply speaking...
Obama can lose *every* upcoming primary, only get 1/3 of the remaining Supers to STILL WIN. Hilary's got no reasonable or viable path to the nomination.

That's the point.

Vyan
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MindMatter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-04-08 09:35 AM
Response to Reply #4
20. Come on. Don't insult everybody's intelligence
The number 2025 is the number you need to get a majority of pledged delegates AND SUPERDELEGATES.

If you want to ignore the suprtdelegates, that is perfectly valid, because most of the remaining superdelegates will go for the candidate who wins the most pledged delegates. But in that case, the number needed to win is 1627, not 2025.

Assuming none of the Edwards pledged delegates goes to Obama, he is only 136 pledged delegates away from clinching that part of the content, and then the supers will avalanche their way into line. After Tuesday,he will probably be about 25-30 pledged delegates away from locking that up.

What do you think the odds are that he can pick up 30 pledged delegates from the remaining contests?
Oregon 52
Kentucky 51
Puerto Rico 55
Montana 16
South Dakota 15

And what do you think the chances are that a superdelegate who has held out this long will decide to back the loser? Somewhere between slim and none. When all is said and done, there will be about 50 superdelegates supporting Clinton at the convention. The rest will support Obama for party unity.

But by all means, let's have your girl fight this thing to the bitter end. The earth is already scorched beyond recognition, as is her legacy and political future. So let's all sit back and enjoy another month of her act.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MonkeyFunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-04-08 09:37 AM
Response to Reply #20
22. You've presented it well
Yes, Obama needs fewer superdelegates to get to the magic number. But... he's not there yet.

So pretending that it's impossible for Clinton to win is just wrong. It's just harder for her. But the race isn't over.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MindMatter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-04-08 10:17 AM
Response to Reply #22
28. The only way she can win ...
is to have the superdelegates select the candidate that lost the pledged delegates according to the rules. I'm old enough to know this very definitely can happen in politics.

But here's the bigger point. We can debate her ability to win in November under the best of circumstances. I am one who never believed she could overcome her historical 45% negatives and the intense animosity the Clintons create within the GOP base. I do not believe she could have won in November even without this divisive campaign. But I understand how her supporters feel differently. That is a theoretical argument.

There can be no doubt, however, that any victory possibilities she might have had under the best circumstances would have been slim -- one or two percentage points. They would be slim for any Democrat, and even slimmer for Clinton with her historical negatives.

If the Party insiders were to overturn the candidate who won the pledged delegate race according to the rules, take 7-10% away from Clinton's numbers in November. And she doesn't have that kind of a margin to spare. She would have absolutely no chance of winning in November launching a campaign from a convention where half the people feel they got ripped off.

And then you add to that the fact that the Clinton campaign is financially bankrupt, and the DNC is running on fumes. Obama has a million donors who are capable of generating easily $250,000,000 in funds rather quickly in support for Obama and the DNC. Be honest now. If the party overturns the winner in pledged delegates, as you wish, how many of those 1,000,000 donors are going to put their money into a Clinton campaign.

I will not, that's for sure. Moreover, I won't give a penny to the Party either under those circumstances.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MonkeyFunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-04-08 10:37 AM
Response to Reply #28
31. Your whole argument is predicated
on the assumption that there's a rule that says pledged delegates is the only criterion to be used by the superdelegates. That's just not true, and no matter how often you guys say it, it's still not true.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MindMatter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-04-08 11:04 AM
Response to Reply #31
36. There is no rule
You are quite correct. The Superdelegates are allowed to overturn the decision that the caucuses and primaries reached. No argument there. It is allowed.

The argument is what happens then.

Again I ask: How many of the 1,000,000 financial backers of Obama would you expect to give their resources to a Clinton campaign and to the DNC if the party insiders overturned the results of the elections?

And please tell me how you can possibly believe that Clinton could win in November after winning the nomination through that kind of shenanigan. Do you honestly think she could win in November if she didn't have the enthusiastic support of half the party?

Now, I realize the argument goes the other direction as well, and I believe it will be a very tough fight for Obama to beat McCain. I expect that some Clinton supporters will not support Obama enthusiastically. Indeed many of them have more in common with McCain than Obama. But all fair-minded Clinton supporters can wake up in the morning and know in their heart of hearts that Obama won this race according to the rules. Hillary didn't get cheated out of anything. She just lost, plain and simple. If Clinton supports can't get past that, so be it. I expect that most will get past it, just as most Edwards and Gore supporters have moved on when their favorite is no longer in the mix.

If we lose, say, 2 million Clinton supporters, that becomes a real challenge to make up that number by winning over disaffected "Reagan Democrats" who should now be open to reconsidering their support of the GOP. And remember, time keeps passing. Obama is very strong with first-time voters. We have 6 months to persuade them to commit to making a difference in the November elections.

Financially, losing 2,000,000 Clinton supporters is not much of a factor because they simply have not supported her very well financially. The Obama campaign will be very well funded -- probably better than the McCain campaign for a change.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RainDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-04-08 11:08 AM
Response to Reply #31
38. That is the traditional metric
so, to overturn this would be the equivalent of a super delegate coup... the equivalent of the Supreme Court giving the election to Bush. How do you think that will play among the democratic base?

Hillary's negatives are now at 51% among all voters. Again, she will bring out republicans in droves to vote against her...the republicans that, at this point, are ticked off because McCain is the nominee and not Huckabee. This voter surge among Republicans will put House and Senate seats at risk for democrats on the November ticket in contested races.

Why would these politicians want to make it harder for themselves to win an election by having Hillary at the top of the ticket?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MonkeyFunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-04-08 06:12 PM
Response to Reply #38
65. No, it's not the equivalent
of Bush v Gore.

You're just making up a requirement that doesn't exist, because it helps your candidate. But two seconds of thought would show that your requirement would make superdelegates meaningless.

There are plenty of good reasons for the superdelegates to choose contrary to the pledged delegates.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gore1FL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-05-08 12:14 AM
Response to Reply #65
81. The SDsa are not required to do anything but make a decision
I have yet to see a compelling argument made that would attract 2/3+ to her. That is where the "SD's can do anything they want and therefore Clinton can win" argument fails. There is no rationale reason for them to vote for Clinton in the numbers she needs. To overturn the pledged delegate totals, they would need to stampede to her side. Why would they?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-04-08 06:30 PM
Response to Reply #28
67. Hillary Has Succeeded In Creating a Whole New Set of Negatives, In Her Nominal Own Party
That takes talent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SwampG8r Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-04-08 01:06 PM
Response to Reply #20
56. and we need to pay
attention to who is still with her if she ends up going to the convention to stage a coup
all of her supporters need to be seen and remembered so they can be kept away from any important work requiring honesty
kill the DLC and kill it dead once and for all
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MonkeyFunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-04-08 06:13 PM
Response to Reply #56
66. LOL
let the purges begin!

You guys are funny.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jakes Progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-05-08 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #66
93. The thing that turned me off Obama
was his supporters. If we assume that most of those posting here are not trolls from RoveCo, they seem never to have read Barack's book or listened to any of his speeches or tried to bring about the kind of world he says he wants. They are divisive and dismissive and what my grandmother calls snotty. On the stage (except when his is giving Hillary the finger) Barack appears to earnestly want to have a more humane and decent society. But if those who worship him can't seem to make that happen, then his message must be a lot of bull. His supporters hate Hillary because she is keeping the New Age of Positive Soul from being enacted. But their behavior and demeanor are plain old world politics and dirty fighting. It that's the way they want politics, then I'm with the candidate who has the track record of being able to take the neocon onslaught and hand it back to them. All of the pretty words and the image of a bright new world seemed good to me for a while. Then I encountered the nasty words and dim world of his supporters. Doesn't seem that his ideas can be made to work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-05-08 12:02 AM
Response to Reply #56
75. Yes, we do...take names
and kick butt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-04-08 11:16 AM
Response to Reply #4
40. and don't forget that the 2025 number
doesn't include MI and FL. With them included it's 2,181
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gore1FL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-05-08 12:07 AM
Response to Reply #4
78. Very simple
And the likelihood of Hillary claiming enough of them is an asymptote that approaches zero at t-> june
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-04-08 09:00 AM
Response to Original message
5. Don't You Know Females and Politicians Are Math and Reality Challenged?
Edited on Sun May-04-08 09:01 AM by Demeter
Says the woman with perfect SAT scores....and an autistic child and a deadbeat ex...it don't get much more real than that.


Edited to add: :sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RainDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-04-08 09:10 AM
Response to Reply #5
10. the subj. is a take on "it's the economy, stupid"
and is not about females/math.

because, during bill's prez run, It's the economy, stupid was the reminder of where to put the focus to win the race. you have nothing to take offense at in that subject line unless you choose to misinterpret it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vyan Donating Member (990 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-04-08 09:20 AM
Response to Reply #10
14. Correct! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-04-08 09:31 AM
Response to Reply #10
19. I'm Not Taking It, I'm Giving It
Edited on Sun May-04-08 09:33 AM by Demeter
We haven't had a politician who could count since LBJ. He ran the House like a well-regulated clock. He knew what would pass, what could pass, and what should pass.

Instead, we have cheaters--who smear, bribe, bully, lie, steal, murder, anything to avoid revealing the underlying crime they are trying to legislate and make legal. These aren't public servants--they are pirates.

Hillary is another wannabe. She should have stuck to an LBJ model, instead of a Karl Rove one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donkeykick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-04-08 09:03 AM
Response to Original message
8. Really?!
It's the math stupid? Question: who won the states with the most electoral votes? There. You may politely figure that out on any calculator you wish to. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vyan Donating Member (990 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-04-08 09:25 AM
Response to Reply #8
17. The real question is who'se more likely
to beat John McCain in those states?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donkeykick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-04-08 10:37 AM
Response to Reply #17
32. Vyan: I already know becuse...
we have held those contests in those states, and I'm pretty sure that we know who won those states, that you and I are talking about. :donut:

Now, since I'm pretty sure that a diehard Republican is not going to vote for either Obama or Clinton in those states, I can only presume that he/she has cast their primary vote for McCain. Also, any Independents, that was eligible to vote, has cast their votes for either McCain, Obama, or Clinton. And, like I already said, we know the outcomes of those states that have those huge electoral votes--Clinton has won them, while McCain remains unchallenged.

Let us move on to those red states that Barrack Obama won in the Primaries, shall we?

With the exception of blue states (Solid South) turning red during the civil rights period, can you tell me the last time that you saw a red state turn blue? Do you really believe that Barrack Obama is going to carry any red state? If--and I do mean if--he carries even one, do you realize just how unprecedented this would be?

I'm starting to see at least one state, out of the two that will be voting this Tuesday, that Clinton may very well carry; however, it wouldn't surprise me to see that she may very well carry both.

This is what the rest of the Super delegates (or at least the ones that refuse to shoot from the hip :eyes:) are pondering on right now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vyan Donating Member (990 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-04-08 11:33 AM
Response to Reply #32
42. Blue States that Clinton have won
Edited on Sun May-04-08 11:35 AM by Vyan
are not at risk of going to McCain if Obama is the nominee. California and New York are staying blue period. It doesn't matter who won the Primary, that's the issue.

With the exception of blue states (Solid South) turning red during the civil rights period, can you tell me the last time that you saw a red state turn blue? Do you really believe that Barrack Obama is going to carry any red state? If--and I do mean if--he carries even one, do you realize just how unprecedented this would be?


Bill Clinton carried Florida in 1996, right now Barack Obama is only 1 point behind McCain in Florida, TEXAS, South Carolina and Ohio while they are exactly tied in Indiana. Even with all this Reverend Wrong mess, he's been gaining ground on McCain not losing it. If he takes any one of those states, ANY one, he wins.

And he could potentially take all of them.

Vyan


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donkeykick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-04-08 12:24 PM
Response to Reply #42
50. So I guess that you believe...
all he needs--substantially--is California and New York?! Seriously. You really do not believe that do you?! I guess that you are comfortable with a 1 point behind thing--with this being only May?!

And Vyan, if you think that the GOP is not going to play this Reverend Wright thing in commercials right up to voting day, I have some ocean front property in Arizona that you may be interested in.

Look. I'll tell you what I tell everyone else that I have this argument with--all I can do is vote for the guy, but I'm real nervous about seeing him carrying the important states. Seeing the way that the GOP plays all the time in these matters, I can not see Barrack--like John Kerry--having enough canine teeth to deal with what I can see that is going to be coming down the road at him.

If Obama thinks that Hillary is throwing hard knocks at him, he hasn't seen anything yet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vyan Donating Member (990 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-05-08 11:49 AM
Response to Reply #50
88. No, I said...
there's practically no way he can LOSE California or New York - what he needs is to only slightly improve from where he is now in either Texas, Florida, Ohio, New Mexico or South Carolina. If he gets ANY of those he wins by a slim margin, if he gets more than one - and he can, while Hillary can't - it's a landslide.

Vyan
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MindMatter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-04-08 12:33 PM
Response to Reply #42
52. Therein lies the fundamental divide in teh Party
The DLC wing doesn't believe we can win in most states, and they don't want to contest them. Whenever we follow that strategy, we are left with practically zero margin for error (or tampering). Moreover, this strategy leaves the state Democratic organizations to die on the vine.

What does that mean? It means even in the one case since 1976 where we have won, the rest of the party is so weak that the GOP is in a position to badger and bully the President, as they did with the Clinton impeachment.

With that strategy, even if you win, you still lose.

Dean and Obama are doing it the only way that can really succeed -- contesting every state. I look forward to seeing McCain having to spend a lot of time and money defending Mississippi, Texas, Georgia, Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada. Good luck with that, John.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donkeykick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-04-08 02:30 PM
Response to Reply #52
60. He will probably spend more $$ in Texas.
The rest will be spent in states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida. I do not see him having any trouble with the rest of your aforementioned red states.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MindMatter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-04-08 05:25 PM
Response to Reply #60
64. Don't be so sure.
Maybe not Mississippi. But there are a lot of so-called "red states" that will be in play. Even if Obama doesn't win in those states, he will force McCain to play defense, and that will help the down tickets.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RichGirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-04-08 12:12 PM
Response to Reply #17
46. If red states go to republicans...
and blue states go to democrats, the real question is who's more likely to beat McCain in swing states, like Ohio, Florida, etc. Answer: the person who won those states in the primary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gore1FL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-05-08 12:18 AM
Response to Reply #46
83. those are not the only swing states
Any Democratic startegy that relies on FL is a failed one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-05-08 12:06 AM
Response to Reply #8
77. Hey, rollie eyes...who cares if hilary
won those states by 10pt where there's evidence of buyer's remorse after they saw how she's run her campaign below the ground?

Obama will win them in the General.

You're getting sucked in by hilary's lies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gore1FL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-05-08 12:16 AM
Response to Reply #8
82. Its proportional, not winner take all.
the point is therefore moot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MannyGoldstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-04-08 09:15 AM
Response to Original message
13. I Expect That She Knows There's No Chance
At this point, she's probably in it for the destruction - she's trying to destroy Obama and possibly the Party.

Why? Is it for a shot at 2012? Is it to cause enough chaos so (she thinks) folks will want to bring back the DLC to run the Party?

Hopefully the SDs will finish this thing quickly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MindMatter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-04-08 10:02 AM
Response to Reply #13
26. About finishing it quickly ...
One wonders why superdelegates have not already come out.

Obama seems to be managing a reserve of superdelegates. However, at this point, I suspect he doesn't have a big list ready that he's holding in reserve. Maybe 10 or 20.

I doubt that Clinton has any in reserve. She needs every card on teh table at this point, so it would make no sense for her to hold any back.

That leaves something like 260 superdelegates who have not declared publicly, or at least privately to Obama. Why not?

I don't have the data, but I think a certain number of that 260 have yet to be named as "add-ons".

That would seem to leave 150-200 who are named superdelegates that have decided not to state a preference. Why would you not state a preference at this stage? I can only think of three reasons:
1) You honestly believe it is the most fair to wait until all primaries and caucuses have been completed. Fair enough. We will hear from them in early June, which makes their status moot because it will already be decided by then.
2) You intend to back the candidate that gets a majority of the pledged delegates. Obama probably will not secure a certain majority until May 20, so we should see these supers at that time.
3) You really don't want to make a decision. You are a politician, after all, and are just looking to glad hand whoever the winner is to be in the best career position. We may not see these people until they are forced to cast a vote in Denver.

So the question is how many 1s and 2s are there. If most of them are 3s, this could drag on a long time. I imaging there are quite a few 3s, because a) they are politicians at heart, and b) Dean has had to go very public to push them to take a position.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MannyGoldstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-04-08 10:08 AM
Response to Reply #26
27. Good Analysis
Seems sensible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RainDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-04-08 10:23 AM
Response to Reply #26
29. Great posts on this thread
thank you. as annoying as it may be, please keep up the good work.

I honestly think that the party wants to let the primaries finish before super delegates make the call. It looks better to those who would cry foul otherwise. And I think they will back the candidate with the majority of delegates from these primaries.

As far as the "they're politicians" - well, yeah. I think the supers who are newbies in the party will be the last to declare so that they won't ruffle feathers for their upcoming political bids.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MindMatter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-04-08 11:12 AM
Response to Reply #29
39. The time line
"I honestly think that the party wants to let the primaries finish before super delegates make the call. It looks better to those who would cry foul otherwise."

When Dean came out publicly on this, he was careful not to say they had to decide NOW, but that they had to decide in June. The last three weeks of scorched earth campaigning have been very divisive. I keep telling myself Clinton will surely read the writing on the wall and back down without doing any more damage. She keeps disappointing me.

I am hopeful that the joint appearance in NC is the thing that finally gets her to understand that we do not appreciate her divisive negative campaigning, frequent use on innuendo, and occasional borderline race baiting. NPR reported this morning that the audience gave her a polite reception, but then erupted when Obama came into the room. At some point, one would think this would get through to her.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RainDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-04-08 11:33 AM
Response to Reply #39
41. Her rally appearances are also telling
where I am - Hillary and Obama appeared for rallies within one week of each other. She drew 3000 supporters. He drew 13,000. this same disparity showed up before and after these appearances - all within the last couple of weeks. so much for her momentum.

What amazes me about her refusal to concede is the knowledge that Hillary is a political survivor. She will face a senate campaign and any opponent of hers simply has to ask for small donations from those who have been through this primary in order to unseat her. I would be willing to bet that such a candidate would raise a huge campaign chest on this plea alone. I thought she had enough survivor instincts to recognize this - esp. considering the Ned LaMont/Lieberman issue. Lieberman may have won the Senate race in his state, but he is no longer a democrat and he could never win a national office as a democrat. He hurt the party.

After putting up with his insufferable presence on the Gore ticket, what an f-you to those who "took one for the team" ...when he refused to do so. Makes a poor argument to the democratic base when the DLC won't do the same. Clinton's support of him over the democratic nominee is another strike against her for any calls to support her if she takes the nom. by coup.

I have contributed to the Obama campaign but I will not contribute to the DNC until after the primary is over. In consideration of Hillary's "Liebarman-esque" actions, I won't if she's the nominee.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MindMatter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-04-08 12:13 PM
Response to Reply #41
47. Maybe I'm crazy, but
I don't think she will run for another Senate term. Her only reason for running as a New Yorker was to position herself with some experience to run in 2008. If Obama loses to McCain, then she will probably try to run for the resident nomination again in 2012. Would she also run for her Senate seat at the same time, as that is also a 2012 election?

And if Obama wins, there is a good chance he would be a lock for the 2012 term. I can't see her running in 2016. There will be a younger generation on the scene, and she already doesn't do so well with today's under-35. So if she isn't running in 2016, would she be content to be a Strom Thurmond and hang out in the Senate for another 20 years?

And why would New Yorkers want that? There will be other players on the scene: Bloomburg, Andrew Cuomo, and I'm sure many others.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SwampG8r Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-04-08 01:18 PM
Response to Reply #41
57. i live in florida and i have
already set aside 2600 dollars for her DEMOCRAT opponent in her next run
and every payday i add another 50
i have decided that she has gone over the edge and the line and she must be depowered
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigbrother05 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-04-08 10:34 AM
Response to Reply #26
30. There's also a money factor
With the primaries still going, Obama can spend PRIMARY funds to build recognition and a grassroots organization. With the possibility of using public funding for a GE with McCain, money spent now won't count against the GE limits. That's part of the reason he's been talking with the DNC to help raise money for the party. That not only helps him, it will work down ticket to give a Dem Pres a stronger hand in Congress. Think of how it could have been different for BC if it was seen that a large part of the Dem Congress were helped. Think what would have been different if the Dems had held Congress in '94.

Obama & Dean both know how important a Dem Congress is to reversing the RW damage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RichGirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-04-08 12:15 PM
Response to Reply #13
48. You miust be one of those new people that Obama brought to the party.
No one with any sense at all would believe anything so ludicrous!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quantass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-04-08 10:44 AM
Response to Original message
33. Wow thanks for the post!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marshall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-04-08 11:00 AM
Response to Original message
35. Extrapolating from Rev. Wright's sermon--girls aren't good at math
If he thinks blacka and whites use their brains differently based on how they are raised then it's not that far a leap (in fact it's less of a leap) to say that males and females use their brains differently. So we're back at the old stereotype that girls aren't good at math.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RainDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-04-08 11:49 AM
Response to Reply #35
44. oh please
just fwiw - a female sociologist studied mill worker towns back in the 80s, I think it was. You can call a research university's soc. dept/lib. to get the name/article etc. b/c I don't have it on hand... tho I could find it b/c I have the article in a box somewhere around here.

anyway, this sociologist found that fundamentalist whites, because of the way in which they were brought up -i.e. to approach the bible as unquestioning fact - were stymied when called upon to use their imaginations, to invent poetic language, to question anything they were presented in class, no matter how outrageous. the black children in the school in this town grew up in a culture in which "dozens" and other forms of humorous and imaginative language where rewarded. want to guess whether or not they had better grades in areas in which these skills were rewarded?

this is a demonstration of ppl using their brains differently based upon how they were raised.

your own post moves from "how they were raised" to a statement of biological determinism. the two aren't the same.

So, let's look at your post.

1. start by calling out Wright, who in no way matters concerning the substance of this post.
2. then move to a black/white comparison made by Wright that is actually not a racial slur of any sort. it is a comment on some cultural forms, as noted by the sociologist's study I noted above.
3. then move from a social comparison to a genetic one without also noting that the two are totally different sorts of remarks. Cultural norms or forms do not indicate abilities at all. They note what is valued in one place or another at one time or another. these may change rapidly. genetics... not so much.
4. Ignore the context of the header, which, as I'd already noted above, and which the OP also acknowledged, was a nod to Bill Clinton's campaign staff's slogan "It's the Economy, Stupid." So, do you think Clinton's staff was trying to say that they were stupid or had no understanding of economic issues? Of course not.

Your attempt to muddy the waters with this sort of blather does not reflect well upon your character.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marshall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-04-08 12:43 PM
Response to Reply #44
53. It got you talking, didn't it?
Edited on Sun May-04-08 12:55 PM by marshall
That's what a conversation is about. You may not agree with the statements made, but it's a give a take.

FWIW, I agree with what you said, but I don't want to be combative. My comment was a take off on the original post--calling Hillary stupid and implying that she doesn't know how to count or do long division (which may or may not be true, I don't know). You're probably aware of the studies that try to show how boys and girls use their brains differently--either because of the way they were raised or because of biology. If not, it would make a good read.
I think there is a correlation between studies that look at differences in gender and differences in race--whoever does it, whether it's sociologists, reverends, or those of uf who are just ruminating.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vyan Donating Member (990 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-05-08 11:57 AM
Response to Reply #53
89. The idea that
girls supposedly "aren't good at math" honestly didn't occur to me until some commenter brought it up. The title is a take-off of James Carville's number one rule during Bill Clinton's original campaign. "It's the Economy, Stupid".

That is all.

Vyan
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marshall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-05-08 12:41 PM
Response to Reply #89
91. Serendipity
We look for one thing and find something unexpected.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-05-08 12:10 AM
Response to Reply #35
79. Quit regurgitating those
sqiggly red herrings because you have nothing interesting to add.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marshall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-05-08 09:54 AM
Response to Reply #79
84. It does make you want to regurgitate, doesn't it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bill McBlueState Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-04-08 11:06 AM
Response to Original message
37. I think this clarifies Clinton's path to the nomination
Damage Obama so badly that superdelegates, even those who have already gone public for Obama, peel away from him in huge numbers to support her. It's the only way she can do it.

I wish she would think hard about the effect this approach has on our ability to win in November.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MindMatter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-04-08 12:26 PM
Response to Reply #37
51. And not just the Presidency
Three huge factors:

1) This should be a down year for the GOP. The most unpopular President ever, a tanking economy, 2 wars including a very unpopular one, and a candidate who has lots of problems, not the least of which is that he is really old and not terribly sharp. This should be a year where we score big wins up and down the ticket. We haven't had a chance like this since 1976.

2) Obama is energizing the youth, including first-time voters, like nobody since JFK. This is vital to our future as a party.

3) Obama has all the money. While Clinton and the DNC are out of money, Obama has $50M and a donot base that can give $300M or more to take advantage of this historic opportunity.

She is not just messing with the Presidency. She is causing damage that could be with us for another generation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RainDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-04-08 02:15 PM
Response to Reply #51
58. Power corrupts
at this point, the DLC doesn't want to admit that their time is over... whether it is this election or any future election.

the political pendulum swings and the Bush years have done more to damage conservatism than any democrat could have hoped to achieve. the religious right is now trying to claim religion has gotten too deeply into politics (b/c they want to keep liberal religious people out) and the hawks on both sides have been totally and thoroughly discredited by the run up to the Iraq invasion (even if they will not admit this to themselves.) Short history can look at their positions and see that they were wrong and so COSTLY - in every sense of the term.

long history will view this time in American history in the same way that McCarthyism is now viewed and any who refused to stand up to this mindset will also not be viewed kindly by history.

(and you know, if I knew BushCo was full of lies before that invasion, I find it hard to accept any sort of mea culpas from either media or democratic hawks. I understand the republicans were using this issue as an election wedge, but in such a case, statesmen and women are called for. Didn't see too many of those in the last 8 years.)

The turning point, in fact, was the 2004 election and getting rid of Dean in the primary. That was the beginning of this new grassroots era. What Dean said was true...about Iraq, healthcare, the Bush League....I hope the Obama presidency will mean a major re-alignment of power within the party sooner rather than later.

Honestly, I think this nation is in serious trouble if we continue with politics as usual. I think this is why moderate republicans can find ways to support Obama, because we have to address the disasters created by 30 years of republican misrule and they know it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MindMatter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-04-08 05:22 PM
Response to Reply #58
63. Frankly, I'm more hopeful about moderate Republicans
than I am of the DLC types.

A lot of the moderate Republicans are not very tuned into politics. They aren't stupid people, just people who felt it was OK to have a really superficial understanding of what was going on, especially at the national level. That gave them more time to go to their kids' soccer games or attend church, or deal with the sick aunt. It does not make them bad people, just ones that were too trusting.

It is easy to win over the superficially involved types with the right rhetoric. "We are for your freedom." "We fight to keep government out of the way." "We'll cut taxes. After all, it's YOUR money." You know all the usual GOP lines.

As you say, power corrupts, and our system has become very corrupt -- borderline fatally corrupt -- the level of corruption that brought the USSR to their knees not so long ago. But for a few decades, the GOP has been successful keeping their base superficially interested. Whenever there was a scandal, even huge scandals like S&L, they would fall back on, "Well you know, sometimes people do get out of control, but we are a nation of laws, and we will bring the bad guys to justice ... " They would offer up a scapegoat now and again, if that was necessary to provide cover for the big operation.

And I am not saying this was only Republicans. A lot of Democrats have been essential enablers.

And that is why I am hopeful about winning over millions of these voters. There are several elephants in the room that can no longer be ignored:

1) The war is continuing to kill Americans and Iraqis. We have accomplished nothing. And most people now understand we are spending a fortune there every week INSTEAD OF investing in Americans.

2) The exporting of jobs by Cheap Labor Republicans has reached the point that it is affecting nearly every family in some way. This is just not right.

3) The cost of energy has everyone's attention. They may not know what the right answer is, but they sure as hell understand that invading Iraq hasn't helped the average American, at least at the gas pump.

These things don't mean that moderate Republicans will automatically swing our way. But they, like us, are looking for answers. And Obama is the only guy who is making a great deal of sense. He fully understands that the sickness in our system runs deep, and cannot be cured by simple gimmicks, and he is asking for sacrifice. But not sacrifice for the sake of sacrifice. He is asking for us to be open to changes that will require us to change the way we do some things.

For example, like building effective mass transit systems, we need to do this. Our energy usage is not sustainable. In order to get the benefits of more efficient transportation, we'll have to fund it, and be patient as the pieces come together over decades. Maybe that's not the best example, but everything he is proposing is put in the context of "This is the right thing to do. I will lead the way. We will not accomplish it overnight, but in the end you will personally be better off, and America collectively will be better for it."

A great many people who select the Republican party do so because the GOP's rhetoric is all about personal gratification and self-absorption, and we will never have common cause with them. Most, but not all. I believe there are millions of Republicans who will join us this time, and we should each open our minds to that, and begin reaching out.

Now, the DLC types -- I'm afraid I don't have any hope at all for them. It seems to me their only guiding principle is to be as much like the Republicans as they can be. This could well be a year of major realignment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RainDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-04-08 09:38 PM
Response to Reply #63
69. What do you think will be the "first order of business?"
assuming HIllary doesn't pull of the nuclear option, in which case I finally give up.

I think ANY president could have easily helped to transition people from closed factories, etc. with an infrastructure program. Eisenhower is the magic buzzword for that one... moderate republican nod to make it workable across the aisle. Instrastructure is public transportation, and bridges - and acting rather than reacting over engineering issues like levees. Most importantly, it seems to me, is an investment in alternative energy solutions. I know it would be a hard sell for some, but one way to create jobs across states that cannot be exported overseas is by making energy solutions smaller in scale... I know it's possible to create solar panels in the desert to power, but local solutions are also needed, if only for the sake of redundancy/backup.

There are many issues that cannot be dealt with by a president, per se, but encouraged. the higher costs of petrol will make fertilizers more expensive, along with the gas for trucks to ship them. Maybe this alone will help us to buy products that use fewer monsanto seeds and more local/organic produce. I mean, if they cost the same, which would you prefer? This may sound silly to you, but, again, those things that build local, non-exportable jobs as well as work to create community are where it's at, imo, for the future. It's not that strange, really. Europe kept its regionality for a long time... and that's what made it so attractive to some... quality, not quantity.

I don't know, but it seems that, economically, we will face high interest rates after the elections because the fed cannot go much lower, can they? Don't know about the dollar, either. One thing I can say with a lot of confidence is that other nations around the world will have much more confidence in us as a nation, which will help. Just getting rid of the republicans will help so much.

I think America-corp is a great idea and would be a good thing to again help develop a sense of community among people from various places... sort of like a "summer abroad" - except working in areas of this nation that need it to help train/retrain, educate and house those who have taken a bad hit with the Bush economy.

health care - to me this is such a no-brainer. I still cannot believe that most americans do not know that France has the best health care system and Canada has consistently top 5 quality of life indices (because of their health care and other social safety net programs.) Even Bill Kristol said that universal health care is the future of this nation. he's such a cynical bastard, of course, that he knows this and yet cares more about profits than people.

anyway - my ramblings, but more than that, a response just to get your opinion on these issues and on your own ideas.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MindMatter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-04-08 11:52 PM
Response to Reply #69
71. I'll think about that. Item #1 is easy.
Items #2-5 aren't completely obvious.

Item #1 is a no-brainer. It is to follow through on getting us out of Iraq. We are wasting $400B a year or more there. Ending that drain has to be the first item of business. Not only does it address the greatest economic problem this country faces, it will also make us safer if it is combined with solid diplomacy in the region.

I can't see health care changes coming quickly.

I can see some of the green investments happening in the first 100 days. Certainly ending the millionaire tax breaks is a necessary move. As I recall, the expire, so it isn't as if a new bill has to be passed. There probably would be a new bill because there would be other adjustments needed at the same time these taxes go off the books.

There rest of it really depends on whether or not we can get a fillibuster-proof Senate, which is surely a long shot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-04-08 11:42 AM
Response to Original message
43. Great Post !!! - K & R !!!
:kick::yourock::kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RUMMYisFROSTED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-04-08 12:20 PM
Response to Original message
49. The calculator is broken!
Hillary keeps losing! :grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sfam Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-04-08 02:16 PM
Response to Original message
59. Math is sooo elitist. Just one more proof that Obama is out of touch...
Math? your talkin 'bout math??? Who knows math? Elitists, that's who.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-04-08 11:57 PM
Response to Original message
72. Thank you, Vyan..very put together
calculator for us mathemathically challenged!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dugggy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-05-08 12:11 AM
Response to Original message
80. What stands out like a sore thumb from your charts....
Edited on Mon May-05-08 12:12 AM by dugggy
and by the way the charts are quite nice...

is that except for Illinois, Obama has won mostly RED states
which went for Bush in 2004.

In General Election, Hillary is the stronger candidate in Blue
states based on your charts. Obama has little chance of winning
many red states. Being the weaker candidate in blue states than
Hillary, Obama could easily lose a few blue states to McCain.

Here comes President McCain's inaugural in 2009.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TragedyandHope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-05-08 10:01 AM
Response to Original message
85. Thanks for the informative post!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vyan Donating Member (990 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-05-08 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #85
90. Ha! The Vampire Candidate
Time to call Buffy and the Slayers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberaldem4ever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-05-08 10:22 AM
Response to Original message
86. That is so cool!
I hadn't seen that before-it is a really fun to change the percentages around and see how the delegate count changes. I would love to see how the Clinton camp could use that and prove she can actually win.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vote4Change Donating Member (59 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-05-08 12:56 PM
Response to Original message
92. It's FUZZY Math (Not!)
Funny. The further along we go in this nomination process, the more Hillary resembles G. "Dumbya" Bush. I remember in the 2000 election debates that whenever Al Gore would quote statistical data to support a position, Dumbya would respond with a puzzled look and call it "fuzzy math." As someone who probably speaks math better than English, I remember telling my dear wife that math is "fuzzy" only for those who don't understand it.

And now, Hillary clings to a failed campaign because she has the same "fuzzy" grasp on the basic, concrete principles of math that Dumbya has. It's not the math that's fuzzy ... it's the minds of a couple of presidential candidates, both past and present, that are! And, Hillary, you don't have the SCOTUS in your hip pocket to render the math inconsequential. Sum total = You Lose!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 30th 2024, 05:17 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC