Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island, and Vermont Election Results / Predictions

[Fellowship]

DISCUSS your thoughts of the election results tonight.

Predict if you wish.

Then after the numbers are in discuss what you think this means for the future of this general election in the fall. I will return after I caucus for Obama tonight. I am fearful that the democrats are headed for a big fight not least of which is made worse by the suggestion by Rush Limbaugh that republicans go out and vote for Hillary. I quite frankly don't know how to predict this race in each state but I will be happy to discuss the results after they are reported tonight.

Please share your thoughts!

Fellows

[groverat]

Predictions:

Obama gets more delegates in Texas
Obama gets more delegates in Ohio
Obama gets more delegates in Vermont
Clinton gets more delegates in Rhode Island

Further predictions:
- More people leave Clinton's campaign.
- Republicans who voted for Hillary will have sold themselves out to talk radio again and gained nothing from it, again.
- Obama will release his fundraising figures, record-breaking numbers.
- Obama will announce a massive block of superdelegates who have gone to his side.
- Clinton will vow to fight until Pennsylvania and get even nastier while the Democratic party moves away from her.

[trumptman]

Predictions:

Clinton wins three of four, but not by margins large enough to gain any delegates under the proportional system.

Further predictions:
-Obama will focus not on the losses or stoppage of momentum but on his delegate lead and how it cannot be overcome.
-Clinton will focus on how Obamamania is something temporary, largely created with the help of the press, and that the superdelegates had better appoint someone who can cross the finish line.
-Clinton will vow to fight to the convention which will be a brokered convention and reveal all that is ugly about the party.
-The Clinton/SNL strategy of wakng the press up will begin to yield results and the press will begin taking out their claws.
-The bloom will begin to come off the Obama rose with more stories being generated about how few press conferences he is willing to participate in, how short they are, and how not "once in a generation" the answers to questions about Tony Rezko happen to be.
-Obama will hit back with another round of Clinton is secretly a racist charges.
-Clinton will hit back with another round of Obama is really a member of the boys club charges.
-The Democratic Convention will replace "The Hills" on MTV because it has more reality, more drama and better fights.

[Bancho]

McCain will celebrate his easy victories in all four states with a special dinner and subsequently choke to death on a grape tomato. Romney will make his return and battle Huckabee in an epic slapfight that will expose all that is ugly about the party.

[franksargent]

Says MSNBC. :D:)

[dmz]

No ideas -- but I've got my fingers crossed and this queued up:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfV_ENR5IZE

...just in case.

[SpamSandwich]

McCain will celebrate his easy victories in all four states with a special dinner and subsequently choke to death on a grape tomato. Romney will make his return and battle Huckabee in an epic slapfight that will expose all that is ugly about the party.

I almost choked on a gummi bear while reading this... :lol:

[SpamSandwich]

No ideas -- but I've got my fingers crossed and this queued up:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfV_ENR5IZE

...just in case.

How 'bout the Rick Rolled video? :lol:

[@_@ Artman]

Predictions:

Clinton wins three of four, but not by margins large enough to gain any delegates under the proportional system.

Further predictions:
-Obama will focus not on the losses or stoppage of momentum but on his delegate lead and how it cannot be overcome.
-Clinton will focus on how Obamamania is something temporary, largely created with the help of the press, and that the superdelegates had better appoint someone who can cross the finish line.
-Clinton will vow to fight to the convention which will be a brokered convention and reveal all that is ugly about the party.
-The Clinton/SNL strategy of wakng the press up will begin to yield results and the press will begin taking out their claws.
-The bloom will begin to come off the Obama rose with more stories being generated about how few press conferences he is willing to participate in, how short they are, and how not "once in a generation" the answers to questions about Tony Rezko happen to be.
-Obama will hit back with another round of Clinton is secretly a racist charges.
-Clinton will hit back with another round of Obama is really a member of the boys club charges.
-The Democratic Convention will replace "The Hills" on MTV because it has more reality, more drama and better fights.

Prediction:

Trumptman will create a thread for each of these predictions, all the way to November. :smokey:

[Outsider]

Texas - Very close; Obama wins more delegates by a small margin
Ohio & Vermont - Obama wins by a large margin
Rhode Island - Clinton wins narrowly.

McCain wins all 4 states by a decent margin.

Clinton concedes under enormous pressure from her advisers.

Clinton takes the low road and does not back Obama despite him being the rightful democratic nominee.

[trumptman]

You know it!:lol::D

Actually the better prediction would have been before the convention since one of these two have to go by then.

[SpamSandwich]

Texas - Very close; Obama wins more delegates by a small margin
Ohio & Vermont - Obama wins by a large margin
Rhode Island - Clinton wins narrowly.

McCain wins all 4 states by a decent margin.

Clinton concedes under enormous pressure from her advisers.

Clinton takes the low road and does not back Obama despite him being the rightful democratic nominee.

You forgot the part where Hillary cries.

[Outsider]

You might as well have said I forgot the part where she breathes! :lol:

[sammi jo]

Obama will win Ohio, Texas, (and presumably the Democratic nomination). McCain, obviously, will win the Republican nomination.

McCain will be elected president in November, by fair means or foul. (America remains too hidebound by tradition to elect a black person of any gender, or a woman of any color, regardless of party affiliation).

And if circumstance should provide a chance for Obama, he had better watch his back as regards the hordes of KKK members (and racists in general) for whom the very idea of a black president is the worst thing that could ever happen to this country. There are millions of them, and many keep their extremist opinions to themselves.

And while he's at it (for similar reasons) he should beware of traveling in small airplanes as well.

[dmz]

You guys should check out politico.com -- they've got a nice self-updating graphic right on the front page.

[Outsider]

You guys should check out politico.com -- they've got a nice self-updating graphic right on the front page.

Ah, so they do. Thanks for the heads up!

[Fellowship]

I voted in my caucus, Just got home. The majority in my group went for Obama!!

I was very proud to show up for Barack Obama.

Fellows

[mydo]

Looks like Hillary is still in it. For better or worse. After tonight McCain has is locked up and can start working with the RNC. If Hillary is still in it it will hold Obama back.

[SDW2001]

This result is really "not good" for Dems. Clinton won in Ohio convincingly and will possibly win Texas narrowly. Obama will retain the delegate lead.

So now, Clinton and Obama go at each other for at least 6 more weeks. Even with a string of Clinton wins she won't get sufficient delegates, which means it's up to the supers. If she pulls off a miracle at the convention, it will tear the party apart.

I can't stand Alter, but he has a point:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/118240

:\

[BRussell]

Fuck. What is wrong with these Democrats? She can't win this nomination, so why would anyone vote for her?

[dmz]

You bastard, SDW2001, you beat me to it.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/

[franksargent]

This result is really "not good" for Dems. Clinton won in Ohio convincingly and will possibly win Texas narrowly. Obama will retain the delegate lead.

So now, Clinton and Obama go at each other for at least 6 more weeks. Even with a string of Clinton wins she won't get sufficient delegates, which means it's up to the supers. If she pulls off a miracle at the convention, it will tear the party apart.

I can't stand Alter, but he has a point:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/118240

:\

... three more months of free MSM attention for the D's, three more months to get new voters registered, three more months for the tag team of OBama/Clinton to vet each other and body slam McCain, three more months for the economy to continue to head south, three more months to realize that the USA is making bribery payments of $2,000,000,000+/year to Iraqi's to buy their silence, and three more months of massive campaign contributions.

You may not like what you wish for, have you heard that FIX News is changing it's name to Clown Car News?

http://www.bradblog.com/images/HannityColmes_LuntzMorrisRoveCoulter_030308.jpg

[Frank777]

What do they put in the tap water in Ohio?

I don't know what makes them look more foolish: thinking that they should back Hillary at this juncture, or thinking that NAFTA can actually be re-negotiated to save jobs.

[trumptman]

Fuck. What is wrong with these Democrats? She can't win this nomination, so why would anyone vote for her?

What is wrong with them? It is almost like they want their say and to have every vote counted?

Just so we are clear BRussell, it is impossible for both candidates to win the nomination at this stage with votes this close. Obama will go into the convention with a popular vote delegate lead but still not have enough to clinch the nomination. No one can do that at this stage.

If you "count every vote" and but that include Florida, Obama's nationwide vote lead is barely even 300,000 votes out of 25 million+ cast. Just because the press has been enamored with him, made him the new messiah, and is already swearing him in doesn't mean it reflects reality.

[El Capitan]

What do they put in the tap water in Ohio?

I don't know what makes them look more foolish: thinking that they should back Hillary at this juncture, or thinking that NAFTA can actually be re-negotiated to save jobs.

So now democratic voters are foolish and stupid for voting for the candidate of their own choice, a candidate that the 20something internet democrat crowd doesn't agree with.

The reason the democratic party sucks is because you all hate on everyone and throw them under the bus, even your own.

[Frank777]

Um, I'm not a Democrat. I'm a Canadian observer.

But even if I was an American, I probably wouldn't be a Democrat. ;)

Edit: I'm not a twenty-something either.

[El Capitan]

Um, I'm not a Democrat. I'm a Canadian observer.

But even if I was an American, I probably wouldn't be a Democrat. ;)

Edit: I'm not a twenty-something either.

It wasn't directly aimed at you. The tone in this thread is just surprising to me. I think it showcases the real problem the democratic party is experiencing right now.

[addabox]

The reason the democratic party sucks is because you all hate on everyone and throw them under the bus, even your own

It wasn't directly aimed at you. The tone in this thread is just surprising to me. I think it showcases the real problem the democratic party is experiencing right now.

Observations based on...... what, exactly?

The tone of your post showcases the real problem some people have of distinguishing between the voices in their head and reality.

[Denton]

It wasn't directly aimed at you. The tone in this thread is just surprising to me. I think it showcases the real problem the democratic party is experiencing right now.

The problem that Democrats have is the same problem that all liberals, everywhere, have: they have few "sacred cows." When everything is up for debate, people assume that you are lacking in principles and backbone. They say that you flip-flop on the issues and that you go with the consensus to appeal to the most people.

Conservatives on the other hand rarely change their minds, and even when they do, they seldom admit it. People perceive this as being principled and unwavering in resolve. And while these are admiral character traits if you are always right about everything, there will always be times where you are wrong.

I would rather have a leader who is reasonable (can be persuaded through sound reasoning), than someone who stubbornly refuses to bend because a certain issue is taboo under their value-system. I would also rather have a leader who is willing to admit mistakes.

And because I love to take shots at the religious-right anytime that I talk about conservatives (not that all conservatives are religious) :lol:, I'll end by saying that I generally distrust people who seriously believe in magic. I don't quite understand how people can function in a scientific society and hold on to the idea that the unexplained is unexplainable. It boggles my mind.

http://www.sciencecartoonsplus.com/images/miracle3.gif

[Denton]

So now democratic voters are foolish and stupid for voting for the candidate of their own choice...

You are quite right. As much as I'd like to see the Democratic race tied up, and as much as I think that Clinton is doing more harm than good to the Democratic party by staying in the race at this point, those who vote for her are not fools. Clinton is the fool.

There is almost no scenario (it would take a melt-down of epic proportions from Obama) where she comes to the Democratic convention with more pledged delegates. If she attempts to win the nomination with super-delegates, there will be riots on the convention floor and the party might never fully recover.

[Akumulator]

If Hillary ends up with the nomination, I will vote for Ralph Nader simply out of spite.

[Fellowship]

Which candidate got which voters?

It seems in the aftermath of Texas and Ohio that the following can be said:

Hillary got:
The poor "older" mexican/hispanic/latino vote (Texas in particular)
The poor older (60+) white woman vote (Texas and Ohio)
The poor blue collar white middle aged white men and women vote (Ohio)
The rural vote

Obama got:
The black vote (goes without saying for both states)
The younger 1/3 of the mexican/hispanic/latino vote (Texas in particular)
The college educated persons vote (all ages)(both states)
The middle class vote (all ages)(Texas in particular) Dallas / Fort Worth went Obama.
The liberal vote (Austin Texas for example) (all ages and races of liberals)
The urban vote

Fellows

[Fellowship]

If Hillary ends up with the nomination, I will vote for Ralph Nader simply out of spite.

If Hillary ends up with the nomination I will not vote in the general election for anyone unless some third party person shows up on the scene which I can get behind.

I am fed up with the royal family thing in this country with the Bush and Clinton families.

We need new people in Washington and neither McBush nor another Clinton provides this.


Fellows

[e1618978]

If Hillary ends up with the nomination I will not vote in the general election for anyone unless some third party person shows up on the scene which I can get behind.

Rather than not voting, I encourage you to put in a write in vote for John Stewart. That is what I plan on doing if Obama is not the nominee.

[El Capitan]

Observations based on...... what, exactly?

The tone of your post showcases the real problem some people have of distinguishing between the voices in their head and reality.

Yea.... ok...:err:

You guys continue to freak out and think its the end of the world that your messiah is starting to crack, meanwhile hillary will just continue her newfound momentum.

It's ridiculous the infighting amongst democrats.

Which candidate got which voters?

It seems in the aftermath of Texas and Ohio that the following can be said:

Hillary got:
The poor "older" mexican/hispanic/latino vote (Texas in particular)
The poor older (60+) white woman vote (Texas and Ohio)
The poor blue collar white middle aged white men and women vote (Ohio)
The rural vote

Obama got:
The black vote (goes without saying for both states)
The younger 1/3 of the mexican/hispanic/latino vote (Texas in particular)
The college educated persons vote (all ages)(both states)
The middle class vote (all ages)(Texas in particular) Dallas / Fort Worth went Obama.
The liberal vote (Austin Texas for example) (all ages and races of liberals)
The urban vote


Hm... that is a terrible and inaccurate analysis. Where exactly did you pull that from? Looking at the CNN multitouch map and seeing that Obama did well in Austin?

It's nice that you are trying to paint the picture that only snobs, arrogant college kids, the wealthy, and highly educated people vote for obama and the dumb and poor vote for hillary but it really isn't true. The truth is, Obama has won as many states as he has because they have had strong black populations and blacks are voting strictly by race.... an overwhelmingly high percentage that Clinton can't hope to break. You can say she has the female vote, but she clearly does not have the 20-40 female vote where as Obama has the black vote across the entire age spectrum.

[BRussell]

El Capitan is right that Obama has won as many states as he has because they have had strong black populations. Take Vermont yesterday, for example. I don't know for sure, but I think that's mostly black. And Iowa, isn't that like all black? And the only reason he crushed Clinton in Idaho is the massive black population there. And don't get me started on those Kansas blacks. And North Dakota and Utah and Maine and Wisconsin. The black population in those states is what, like 50%?

You tell it straight El Capitan! Speak truth to power!

[Fellowship]

Hm... that is a terrible and inaccurate analysis. Where exactly did you pull that from? Looking at the CNN multitouch map and seeing that Obama did well in Austin?

It's nice that you are trying to paint the picture that only snobs, arrogant college kids, the wealthy, and highly educated people vote for obama and the dumb and poor vote for hillary but it really isn't true. The truth is, Obama has won as many states as he has because they have had strong black populations and blacks are voting strictly by race.... an overwhelmingly high percentage that Clinton can't hope to break. You can say she has the female vote, but she clearly does not have the 20-40 female vote where as Obama has the black vote across the entire age spectrum.

Stick your head in the sand. Don't bother to take note that under the Obama list the first group of voters I listed was the black voters. Just pretend in pure ignorance that I did not list that even though I did.

You know there are many dynamics at play here and you for whatever reason can't come to terms that what I listed as I see it is for the most part true.

If you want to ignore reality go right ahead.

Fellows

[Fellowship]

El Capitan is right that Obama has won as many states as he has because they have had strong black populations. Take Vermont yesterday, for example. I don't know for sure, but I think that's mostly black. And Iowa, isn't that like all black? And the only reason he crushed Clinton in Idaho is the massive black population there. And don't get me started on those Kansas blacks. And North Dakota and Utah and Maine and Wisconsin. The black population in those states is what, like 50%?

You tell it straight El Capitan! Speak truth to power!

El Capitan is not the brightest bulb in the room. Just make up stuff as you go and hope other ignorant fools buy it is the method of El Capitan based on that last reply.

Fellows

[dmz]

El Capitan is right that Obama has won as many states as he has because they have had strong black populations. Take Vermont yesterday, for example. I don't know for sure, but I think that's mostly black. And Iowa, isn't that like all black? And the only reason he crushed Clinton in Idaho is the massive black population there. And don't get me started on those Kansas blacks. And North Dakota and Utah and Maine and Wisconsin. The black population in those states is what, like 50%?

You tell it straight El Capitan! Speak truth to power!
Not to mention all the blacks in Alaska.

[SDW2001]

... three more months of free MSM attention for the D's, three more months to get new voters registered, three more months for the tag team of OBama/Clinton to vet each other and body slam McCain, three more months for the economy to continue to head south, three more months to realize that the USA is making bribery payments of $2,000,000,000+/year to Iraqi's to buy their silence, and three more months of massive campaign contributions.

You may not like what you wish for, have you heard that FIX News is changing it's name to Clown Car News?

http://www.bradblog.com/images/HannityColmes_LuntzMorrisRoveCoulter_030308.jpg

Well, you're pretty much the only person in the country that thinks it's a good thing. The candidates will "vet" each other? :lol: Perhaps you mean "rip each other to shreds?"

The only point I agree with is the media attention. But, that is outweighed by so many other factors. The media factor also may not help if the coverage of both of them is negative and at the same time McCain is ignored. Either way, I can't believe you think a knock down, drag out battle between Clinton and Obama is actually good for them as a party.

Does anyone else share this view...seriously?

[Frank777]

The problem that Democrats have is the same problem that all liberals, everywhere, have: they have few "sacred cows." When everything is up for debate, people assume that you are lacking in principles and backbone. They say that you flip-flop on the issues and that you go with the consensus to appeal to the most people.

That's silly. Liberals have plenty of sacred cows. Try running as a Pro-life Democratic candidate for President and see how far you get.


Conservatives on the other hand rarely change their minds, and even when they do, they seldom admit it. People perceive this as being principled and unwavering in resolve. And while these are admiral character traits if you are always right about everything, there will always be times where you are wrong.

I can't decide whether this is a good example of a strawman argument or simply a very wrong oversimplification of a very broad group of society.

Every time I think I've decided, I keep changing my mind.


And because I love to take shots at the religious-right anytime that I talk about conservatives (not that all conservatives are religious) :lol:, I'll end by saying that I generally distrust people who seriously believe in magic. I don't quite understand how people can function in a scientific society and hold on to the idea that the unexplained is unexplainable. It boggles my mind.

Your mind is very easily boggled. Devout Christians have been responsible for some of the greatest scientific discoveries of all time. Again, you present a nonsense argument that Christians believe in "magic" and that "the unexplained is unexplainable".

Believing that the world was created by a being of limitless power and is subject to laws we do not yet fully grasp is neither belief in magic nor a call to cease seeking out the mysteries of Creation.

If those are the best shots at the RR you can take, you should leave such activities to smarter people.

[dmz]

...I generally distrust people who seriously believe in magic. I don't quite understand how people can function in a scientific society and hold on to the idea that the unexplained is unexplainable. It boggles my mind.
That's because you are ignorant with regards to both the history of philosophy, and the history of scientific inquiry.

[e1618978]

There was an interesting theory over on slashdot - Republican voters are going to the Democratic primaries and voting for Clinton, because she will be much easier to beat.

[@_@ Artman]

Just for your information, Ron Paul won his seat back in congress (http://enr.sos.state.tx.us/enr/mar04_135_state.htm?x=0&y=1395&id).

So, at least there was one good thing that came out of tonight...:smokey:

[Bancho]

There was an interesting theory over on slashdot - Republican voters are going to the Democratic primaries and voting for Clinton, because she will be much easier to beat.

Looking at the republican turnout numbers overall that claim seems plausible. It could also be because McCain was nearly a foregone conclusion and voters had less interest overall in that particular outcome.

[groverat]

That's what I get for being optimistic! :lol:

[SpamSandwich]

Obama will win Ohio, Texas, (and presumably the Democratic nomination). McCain, obviously, will win the Republican nomination.

You were wrong there.

McCain will be elected president in November, by fair means or foul. (America remains too hidebound by tradition to elect a black person of any gender, or a woman of any color, regardless of party affiliation).

You might be wrong there...

And if circumstance should provide a chance for Obama, he had better watch his back as regards the hordes of KKK members (and racists in general) for whom the very idea of a black president is the worst thing that could ever happen to this country. There are millions of them, and many keep their extremist opinions to themselves.

And while he's at it (for similar reasons) he should beware of traveling in small airplanes as well.


Now you're just pushing it.

[SpamSandwich]

I voted in my caucus, Just got home. The majority in my group went for Obama!!

I was very proud to show up for Barack Obama.

Fellows


Weren't you for Ron Paul for a long stretch? Don't tell me you've become sheeple?

[trumptman]

There was an interesting theory over on slashdot - Republican voters are going to the Democratic primaries and voting for Clinton, because she will be much easier to beat.

I suspect that would probably be true and will continue to be true in states that have open primary systems. I know if California still had it's primary in June I'd go grab a vote for the Democratic candidate since McCain already has the nomination locked up.

[e1618978]

Clinton is now saying that they should form a joint ticket, with her as president (or vice versa). Dont do it Obama! Al Gore would make a much better running mate, as would Wesley Clark.

[SDW2001]

sammi:

McCain will be elected president in November, by fair means or foul. (America remains too hidebound by tradition to elect a black person of any gender, or a woman of any color, regardless of party affiliation).

Well that really sums up your view and most lefties' view of the country, now doesn't it? America is racist. America is not fair. America is sexist. Of course, this very primary season proves you are wrong. Obama has huge support among ALL demographic groups, including white women and men. He's running a few points ahead of McCain in national polls. He won 11 straight primaries. Racist? Clinton was the odds on favorite not just to get the nom, but to be President just a few months ago. Sexism?

And finally we come to election fraud, which Republicans practice and Democrats do not. Disenfranchisment of 10,000 Republicans in the pandhandle in 2000? No worries. Voting confusion based on a ballot designed by a Democratic canvassing board and published in the paper weeks before the election? FRAUD!

[iPoster]

There was an interesting theory over on slashdot - Republican voters are going to the Democratic primaries and voting for Clinton, because she will be much easier to beat.

Interesting theory!

Weren't you for Ron Paul for a long stretch? Don't tell me you've become sheeple?

Guess he didn't want to waste his vote? I'm just saying, 5% average primary support won't get you the White House...

*points to signature*

[SDW2001]

Interesting theory!



Guess he didn't want to waste his vote? I'm just saying, 5% average primary support won't get you the White House...

*points to signature*

According to everything I've heard, that theory is exactly what happened. Republicans are Lovin' It(TM) right now. Hillary would have to win almost all elected delegates (more than 90%) in order to have a lead. Yet she is going to go scorched earth. They are coming to PA. I can't wait. I'm going to make popcorn.

But it gets better. If she does somehow get the nom, it will be from super delegates overturning the will of the people. My lord..I'm going to make caramel popcorn.

[mydo]

Clinton is now saying that they should form a joint ticket, with her as president (or vice versa). Dont do it Obama! Al Gore would make a much better running mate, as would Wesley Clark.

Why would Al Gore want to be VP again:???: Always the brides maid never the bride. Clark is the better choice to balance out Obama's lack of experience in "those areas".

[mydo]

There was an interesting theory over on slashdot - Republican voters are going to the Democratic primaries and voting for Clinton, because she will be much easier to beat.

Yea. People do that all the time.

[Denton]

That's because you are ignorant with regards to both the history of philosophy, and the history of scientific inquiry.

In 1687 Sir Isaac Newton wrote:

"Gravity may put ye planets into motion but without ye divine power it could never put them into such a Circulating motion as they have about ye Sun, and therefore, for this as well as other reasons, I am compelled to ascribe ye frame of this Systeme to an intelligent Agent."

The greatest man in the history of science could not use his two-body law of gravitation to explain the (near) circular orbits of the planets. He couldn't balance the systems of equations and didn't understand how such a complex could be kept aloft except through the intervention of a divine power. At that point, his creativity stopped. When you believe in magic, there is no explanation. "God did it," is not a reason. As I said, "I think you should be more explicit here in step two."

The solution to Newton's problem came a century later (I wish I could remember the name of the fellow who solved the problem) in the form of perturbation theory, which was based on Newton's own calculus. Newton was capable of solving the problem himself, but when you hit the wall and grasp for magical solutions, real science ceases.

[@_@ Artman]

Clinton Wins Big, But Math is Troubling (http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1719614,00.html?imw=Y)

In other words, Clinton won bragging rights. Obama solidified his delegate lead.

Unfortunately this is the kind of crap that Clinton feeds on. Just what we need, another president with the composure of a 13 year old. She was probably dancing on top of her bed in her Hannah Montanah pajamas singing into her hair brush last night.

Why are Hillary and John McCain refusing to release their tax returns? She pledged to release her tax returns after Texas and Ohio in the last debate. No more excuses!

Anyway, my state will be a serious battle. Pennsylvania Obama supporters. You must be registered as a Democrat to vote in the April 22 primary! Deadline for registration is March 24. Don't forget!

Nothing will stop me. Nothing. No Rendell (http://blog.pennlive.com/pennsyltucky/2008/01/report_rendell_to_endorse_hill.html) (FU ED!). No Nutter (http://www.philly.com/philly/news/breaking/12389131.html). Nobody. Obama 2008.

[Denton]

That's silly. Liberals have plenty of sacred cows. Try running as a Pro-life Democratic candidate for President and see how far you get.

This issue has been argued to death. There are no new arguments for or against. We put this to rest in the 80s here in Canada, and reason prevailed. Incidentally, the Bible itself doesn't value the life of a fetus as it does the life of an adult:

Exodus 21:22-25 (NIV)

"22 If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."

In our modern society, premature birth is a tricky thing. Before modern medicine, when the infant mortality rate was often as high as 50%, being born prematurely was a death-sentence. The fetus in the above verse was dead, and the offender was fined. Even the Bible thinks that the killing of a fetus is a civil matter, not a criminal matter.

But you say: look at verse 23-25! If there was serious injury, there are dire consequences! But this list applies only to injury to the woman! and is not at all concerned with the fetus. How do we know? Fetuses don't have teeth! And how the hell do you burn a fetus in the womb? The Bible recognises the truth: the life of an adult is worth considerably more than the life of a fetus ("life for a life" if it's the woman who dies, "fine" if it's the fetus who gets it).[/Quote]

I can't decide whether this is a good example of a strawman argument or simply a very wrong oversimplification of a very broad group of society.

Every time I think I've decided, I keep changing my mind.

And I suppose that Bush has admitted that going into Iraq was a mistake?

Straw-man: well, ask yourself, did I create a caricature of the argument in order to make my point seem trivial? At most I might have over-generalised. Harper, after all, has changed his mind on global-warming, so even conservatives can sometimes "see the light." ;)

Your mind is very easily boggled. Devout Christians have been responsible for some of the greatest scientific discoveries of all time. Again, you present a nonsense argument that Christians believe in "magic" and that "the unexplained is unexplainable".

Believing that the world was created by a being of limitless power and is subject to laws we do not yet fully grasp is neither belief in magic nor a call to cease seeking out the mysteries of Creation.

If those are the best shots at the RR you can take, you should leave such activities to smarter people.

Newton was a mystic who essentially believed that it was man's purpose to understand the mind of god in order to speed the coming of the "end times." He was certainly devout, though. Einstein didn't believe in a personal god. Darwin lost his faith as he saw the brutality in nature that led to his theory of evolution.

But arguing over whether people who believe in magic can still do science is a little absurd. They can, of course. The important thing is to keep the two separate, because, for instance, if you really do believe that it is possible to change water into wine (except through the process of growing grapes and fermenting them), I doubt that you will be a scientist of any value.

[Denton]

Clinton Wins Big, But Math is Troubling (http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1719614,00.html?imw=Y)

In other words, Clinton won bragging rights. Obama solidified his delegate lead.

Unfortunately this is the kind of crap that Clinton feeds on. Just what we need, another president with the composure of a 13 year old. She was probably dancing on top of her bed in her Hannah Montanah pajamas singing into her hair brush last night.

Ya, I had a look at the delegate counter linked to earlier in this thread, and I had to give Clinton wins on the order of doubling-up on Obama in order to get her more pledged delegates by the end of primary season. Obama is the nominee, it's just a matter of time now (just like we knew McCain was the nominee a month ago).

[mydo]

Why Hillary wants to burn the party to the ground is beyond me. Maybe the press will pick up on this and put a stop to her.

[SpamSandwich]

Guess he didn't want to waste his vote? I'm just saying, 5% average primary support won't get you the White House...

How do you figure? You're not going to make any impact if you pile on with the other sheeple. You will be noticed if you're part of a dissatisfied contingent of voters making a point. If you believe every vote counts, then every dissenting vote counts even more.

And most importantly, if you have any principles a dissenting vote with good reason is much more impactful.

[SpamSandwich]

Why Hillary wants to burn the party to the ground is beyond me. Maybe the press will pick up on this and put a stop to her.

Burn baby, burn! :lol:

[Frank777]

Clinton is now saying that they should form a joint ticket, with her as president (or vice versa).

How the mighty have fallen. She's so desperate for executive office she'll take VP.

However, if Obama has any sense (and I think he does) he won't be stupid enough to make his life the only thing standing between the Clintons and the Presidency. Not unless he really wants to be JFK.

[Frank777]

Incidentally, the Bible itself doesn't value the life of a fetus as it does the life of an adult:

Exodus 21:22-25 (NIV)

"22 If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."

In our modern society, premature birth is a tricky thing. Before modern medicine, when the infant mortality rate was often as high as 50%, being born prematurely was a death-sentence. The fetus in the above verse was dead, and the offender was fined. Even the Bible thinks that the killing of a fetus is a civil matter, not a criminal matter.

But you say: look at verse 23-25! If there was serious injury, there are dire consequences! But this list applies only to injury to the woman! and is not at all concerned with the fetus. How do we know? Fetuses don't have teeth! And how the hell do you burn a fetus in the womb? The Bible recognises the truth: the life of an adult is worth considerably more than the life of a fetus ("life for a life" if it's the woman who dies, "fine" if it's the fetus who gets it).

That is the single worst Biblical exegesis I have ever heard. And I've heard some whoppers.

[dmz]

In 1687 Sir Isaac Newton wrote:

"Gravity may put ye planets into motion but without ye divine power it could never put them into such a Circulating motion as they have about ye Sun, and therefore, for this as well as other reasons, I am compelled to ascribe ye frame of this Systeme to an intelligent Agent."

The greatest man in the history of science could not use his two-body law of gravitation to explain the (near) circular orbits of the planets. He couldn't balance the systems of equations and didn't understand how such a complex could be kept aloft except through the intervention of a divine power. At that point, his creativity stopped. When you believe in magic, there is no explanation. "God did it," is not a reason. As I said, "I think you should be more explicit here in step two."

The solution to Newton's problem came a century later (I wish I could remember the name of the fellow who solved the problem) in the form of perturbation theory, which was based on Newton's own calculus. Newton was capable of solving the problem himself, but when you hit the wall and grasp for magical solutions, real science ceases.
Inventing calculus -- writing Principia -- isn't good enough for you? Really?

[iPoster]

How do you figure? You're not going to make any impact if you pile on with the other sheeple. You will be noticed if you're part of a dissatisfied contingent of voters making a point. If you believe every vote counts, then every dissenting vote counts even more.

And most importantly, if you have any principles a dissenting vote with good reason is much more impactful.

You have a point if you're talking about personal satisfaction, but how much does that dissenting 3rd party vote count if you're voting against a 'red/blue' state? It'll amount a percentage or two less popular vote for the party candidates. IMHO, no 3rd party candidate has a realistic chance until we do away with the stranglehold on power the Republican and Democratic parties have, through a proportional representation or other methods.

[BRussell]

Inventing calculus -- writing Principia -- isn't good enough for you? Really? He's probably the greatest scientist in history.

[dmz]

He's probably the greatest scientist in history.
I'll say -- I wish my belief in God would screw me up as bad as it did Newton. Hell, I'd even become a Jansonist if it would mess me up half as bad as Blaise Pascal!

;)