MERGED--> NH predictions + Hillary's win + NH recount?

[namkcuR]

I've been reading up on the Michigan thing.

The whole thing is basically about the timing of the primary. The National Comittees have rules that say no state outside of a precious few states(presumably Iowa and New Hampshire) are allowed to have their primaries/caucuses before February 5th. Iowa and New Hampshire have always been given special early treatment. Apparently some states didn't like that. Michigan defied National Party rules and scheduled their primary way ahead of time(January 15th). As a punishment, the National Parties are saying they will refuse to seat all of Michigan's Democratic delegates at the National Convention and half of Michigan's Republican delegates a the National Convention. All of the Democrats except for Hilary are boycotting Michigan in support of their National Party's punitive measures, although no Republicans are.

What I don't understand is that Nevada, South Carolina, and Florida have all also scheduled unsanctioned pre-February 5th dates and will recieve the same punishments, but I don't hear about Obama/Edwards/etc boycotting them. I also don't understand why Hilary is not following suite with her fellow Democrats.

But if they do, and they're not on the ballot for 4/5 states, that could have profound implications on who gets nominated.

However, those candidates boycotting the Michigan primary are urging their supporters to vote for "uncomitted" on their ballots.

This is all a mess, but frankly I think it would be more productive to vote for "uncommitted" than to not vote at all. Perhaps Obama supporters + Edwards supporters together can be enough to take the state away from Hilary.

Here are a couple articles - I got most of my information from these:

http://www.onlineathens.com/stories/010608/opinion_20080106026.shtml

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080107/NEWS06/801070333

 

[phanan]

What I don't understand is that Nevada, South Carolina, and Florida have all also scheduled unsanctioned pre-February 5th dates and will recieve the same punishments, but I don't hear about Obama/Edwards/etc boycotting them. I also don't understand why Hilary is not following suite with her fellow Democrats.

The South Carolina Democratic primary is sanctioned, so that's why you haven't heard about any boycott there. The Republican one is unsanctioned.

Don't know about the other ones.

As for Hillary not boycotting Michigan, I didn't know that. I'm surprised too.

 

[LarryMullen's POPAngel]

I've been reading up on the Michigan thing.

The whole thing is basically about the timing of the primary. The National Comittees have rules that say no state outside of a precious few states(presumably Iowa and New Hampshire) are allowed to have their primaries/caucuses before February 5th. Iowa and New Hampshire have always been given special early treatment. Apparently some states didn't like that. Michigan defied National Party rules and scheduled their primary way ahead of time(January 15th). As a punishment, the National Parties are saying they will refuse to seat all of Michigan's Democratic delegates at the National Convention and half of Michigan's Republican delegates a the National Convention. All of the Democrats except for Hilary are boycotting Michigan in support of their National Party's punitive measures, although no Republicans are.

What I don't understand is that Nevada, South Carolina, and Florida have all also scheduled unsanctioned pre-February 5th dates and will recieve the same punishments, but I don't hear about Obama/Edwards/etc boycotting them. I also don't understand why Hilary is not following suite with her fellow Democrats.

But if they do, and they're not on the ballot for 4/5 states, that could have profound implications on who gets nominated.

However, those candidates boycotting the Michigan primary are urging their supporters to vote for "uncomitted" on their ballots.

This is all a mess, but frankly I think it would be more productive to vote for "uncommitted" than to not vote at all. Perhaps Obama supporters + Edwards supporters together can be enough to take the state away from Hilary.

Here are a couple articles - I got most of my information from these:

http://www.onlineathens.com/stories/010608/opinion_20080106026.shtml

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080107/NEWS06/801070333

Gotta love that Michigan is being a huge fucktard per usual.

 

[U2isthebest]

Yes.

I was going to go and vote, but after finding out that neither Obama or Edwards was in the running I lost all desire to. I read that even if you were to write in their names it would not be counted.

There was an article in the Free Press about all the ins and outs of why, but I can't seem to find it now. If I do, I'll post it.

Thanks! I remember reading in the Free Press months back that the main candidates probably wouldn't be on the ballot, but I'd also heard they might change their minds closer to primary day. I hadn't heard any new news, so I assumed they hadn't. It's upsetting, but also just as well. My voter registration card still hasn't come. I registered almost a year and a half ago when I was up at college, but I realized I had accidentally gave the address of our old house; which we had just moved from. About 5 months ago I went to the Secretary of State's office to get it straightened out, and they told me my card would show up in 3 weeks. It's been about 20, and I'm still waiting. I went this morning, but it was packed by the time I got there. I'm just going to go tomorrow as soon as it opens.

 

[U2isthebest]

Gotta love that Michigan is being a huge fucktard per usual.

 

[2861U2]

At some point, Obama is going to have to end the vague generalizations and the rhetoric and really make the case for him being the next president. All this talk about changehopechangehope is somehow working, but I don't see in him right now the desire to end that and address the serious, real world problems we face. Just what kind of change is he talking about, anyways? How does he manage that he can bring it about? You know, Hitler wanted change too...

I never hear any of that, just changehopechangehope speak that my little sister could write for him.

 

[phillyfan26]

You know, Hitler wanted change too...

Honestly, you make conservatives look stupid.

 

[2861U2]

Honestly, you make conservatives look stupid.

Maybe you could answer that for me then, philly. Just what kind of change is Obama talking about? Be specific.

 

[Diemen]

Oh come on, don't even try and dodge that, 2861. Using Hitler in reference to Obama is beyond pathetic.

And if you're unclear on his policies, there's a little website you can visit.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

 

[Irvine511]

it's true, it is bad to govern through soundbytes

 

[2861U2]

Oh come on, don't even try and dodge that, 2861. Using Hitler in reference to Obama is beyond pathetic.

I'm not equating the two men. I'm just saying that Hitler brought about change by not being specific in his speak, and people bought into it, and Obama is doing the same. Is that not true? Sheesh, I'm not saying that a President Obama would be in any way slightly comparable to Hitler, I'm just saying that sometime he has to start talking in specifics.

 

[BVS]

At some point, Obama is going to have to end the vague generalizations and the rhetoric and really make the case for him being the next president. All this talk about changehopechangehope is somehow working, but I don't see in him right now the desire to end that and address the serious, real world problems we face. Just what kind of change is he talking about, anyways? How does he manage that he can bring it about?

And all we hear from you is "no experience"... But seriously you sound very scared, your broken record attacks just come off as very juvenile.

You know, Hitler wanted change too...

Wow, just wow... You just lowered the collective conservative IQ 10 points.

 

[BVS]

I'm not equating the two men. I'm just saying that Hitler brought about change by not being specific in his speak, and people bought into it, and Obama is doing the same. Is that not true? Sheesh, I'm not saying that a President Obama would be in any way slightly comparable to Hitler, I'm just saying that sometime he has to start talking in specifics.

Yeah, try opening a history book.

And just look up Obama's stances they are all over the internet.

Reading is fun.

 

[anitram]

I never hear any of that, just changehopechangehope speak that my little sister could write for him.

Yes, I'm sure she's a fantastic orator.

But your posts (and STING's) are quite instructive. You guys are really worried about Obama. I would be, too.

 

[Infinity]

You know, Hitler wanted change too...

You know, i've seen neo-cons compare Hitler to the War in Iraq. But comparing Hitler to Obama???

 

[Dreadsox]

You know, Hitler wanted change too...

Maybe you have not been in this forum enough to know, but references to anyone being Hitler or a Nazi is not allowed based on my recollection.

I personally find it disappointing because of my own families history in WWII.

People used to toss that around towards GW Bush in here and it was wrong to do that. It is equally wrong for you to do it.

And your comments have NOTHING to do with getting people to answer questions about Obama.

Sorry, to say this, but like some of the conservatives in this forum in the past, I am embarrased that I might be associated with your style of politics.

 

[Diemen]

I'm not equating the two men. I'm just saying that Hitler brought about change by not being specific in his speak, and people bought into it, and Obama is doing the same. Is that not true? Sheesh, I'm not saying that a President Obama would be in any way slightly comparable to Hitler, I'm just saying that sometime he has to start talking in specifics.

Apparently you're unfamiliar with Godwin's Law:

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."

Whether or not you meant to equate the two, by mentioning Hitler you created a comparison that is simply ridiculous.

And like dread, my family has had some rather unpleasant history with the Nazis, and throwing out casual comparisons with the Nazis is at best distasteful.

 

[phillyfan26]

I'm not equating the two men. I'm just saying that Hitler brought about change by not being specific in his speak, and people bought into it, and Obama is doing the same. Is that not true? Sheesh, I'm not saying that a President Obama would be in any way slightly comparable to Hitler, I'm just saying that sometime he has to start talking in specifics.

No, it's not true.

You can say he's not specific without making a bullshit reference to Hitler. You knew exactly what you were saying when you said it. Don't act surprised that people find it more than a little anti-intellectual to bring that into the argument.

I don't understand what's so vague about his positions. He's made his health care plan clear, as he's had to defend it from attack from Clinton. He's made it clear that he wants to begin withdrawing from Iraq. He intends to initiate steps in fighting human-caused global warming. He believes that civil unions should be available to homosexuals, and that the only thing left up to states should be the actual "title of marriage" (which is not everything I want, but a big step nonetheless). Those are major changes he wants to bring about. What's vague there?

 

[Vincent Vega]

And another one.

 

[2861U2]

And all we hear from you is "no experience"... But seriously you sound very scared, your broken record attacks just come off as very juvenile.

Maybe I'm the only one who realizes that this is one of the most crucial times in America's history, and electing someone like Obama who has no foreign policy experience just doesn't sound all that appealing to me.


Oh don't worry, though. I'm not scared. Bring him on. When the Obama hype wears down, and the Democrats are left with this guy as their candidate, I don't think they'll be real confident. When the general election rolls around, his record and experience (or lack thereof) will come out, and he'll have nothing to say in response. But if you want me to stop with the Obama "attacks," fine, I'll stop. You can just go on living in your little world where everyone agrees with you and you can all celebrate how perfectly flawless and qualified in every way to be president Obama is.


Oh, and about the Hitler thing, in the past 3 days alone here I've seen Obama compared to RFK, JFK, Martin Luther King Jr, Abraham Lincoln, and Jesus.

 

[BVS]

I don't understand what's so vague about his positions. He's made his health care plan clear, as he's had to defend it from attack from Clinton. He's made it clear that he wants to begin withdrawing from Iraq. He intends to initiate steps in fighting human-caused global warming. He believes that civil unions should be available to homosexuals, and that the only thing left up to states should be the actual "title of marriage" (which is not everything I want, but a big step nonetheless). Those are major changes he wants to bring about. What's vague there?

I think this may be 2861 when listening to Democrats...

 

[phillyfan26]

Maybe I'm the only one who realizes that this is one of the most crucial times in America's history, and electing someone like Obama who has no foreign policy experience just doesn't sound all that appealing to me.

Oh don't worry, though. I'm not scared. Bring him on. When the Obama hype wears down, and the Democrats are left with this guy as their candidate, I don't think they'll be real confident. When the general election rolls around, his record and experience (or lack thereof) will come out, and he'll have nothing to say in response. But if you want me to stop with the Obama "attacks," fine, I'll stop. You can just go on living in your little world where everyone agrees with you and you can all celebrate how perfectly flawless and qualified in every way to be president Obama is.


Oh, and about the Hitler thing, in the past 3 days alone here I've seen Obama compared to RFK, JFK, Martin Luther King Jr, Abraham Lincoln, and Jesus.

Yet electing someone who's experience is a series of shit performance was a good move? I call shenanigans.

And, funny thing, the GOP has a crop of candidates that is horrible. Even if the "hype" of Obama wears down ... his opponents will still be easily defeatable.

And for your last point ... uh ... . I don't think you know much about World War II and Nazi Germany, do you?

 

[sulawesigirl4]

Hi all. Friendly reminder. For the sake of keeping the discussion civil and on track, can we please refrain from bandying about inflammatory words like Hitler, Nazi, etc.? It's hardly useful.

Also, just a reminder to also keep from personal attacks.

Thanks.

 

[BVS]

Maybe I'm the only one who realizes that this is one of the most crucial times in America's history,

Yeah, somehow you are so intelligent that you use a Hitler comparison, but somehow you are smart enough to be the only one that realizes this... yeah I'm sure it's that.

Oh don't worry, though. I'm not scared. Bring him on. When the Obama hype wears down, and the Democrats are left with this guy as their candidate, I don't think they'll be real confident. When the general election rolls around, his record and experience (or lack thereof) will come out, and he'll have nothing to say in response. But if you want me to stop with the Obama "attacks," fine, I'll stop. You can just go on living in your little world where everyone agrees with you and you can all celebrate how perfectly flawless and qualified in every way to be president Obama is.

I'm not asking you to stop anything. Attack all you want, but at least do it in an intellectual way. You've yet to do that.

Oh, and about the Hitler thing, in the past 3 days alone here I've seen Obama compared to RFK, JFK, Martin Luther King Jr, Abraham Lincoln, and Jesus.

And your point? Try finishing a thought for once.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

Maybe I'm the only one who realizes that this is one of the most crucial times in America's history, and electing someone like Obama who has no foreign policy experience just doesn't sound all that appealing to me.

Compared to what - George W Bush's wealth of foreign policy experience circa 2000?

 

[INDY500]

Wow, just wow... You just lowered the collective conservative IQ 10 points.

What, from redneck to knuckledragger? Still preferable to being an elitist liberal in my book.

 

[phillyfan26]

What, from Redneck to knuckledragger? Still preferable to being an elitist liberal in my book.

Are you trying to defend him?

Because if you're not, well, you missed the point.

 

[BVS]

What, from Redneck to knuckledragger? Still preferable to being an elitist liberal in my book.

Well if you think the bar started at Redneck?

Oh, come on you have enough elitism in you, I've seen it come out now and then.

 

[Anu]

In the 2000 debates, Gore was more pro-war than Bush. What Bush did in Iraq in 2002 was in fact known as "the Clinton Doctrine."

Obama is very mainstream in terms of positions, advisors, etc. , and I still agree with Kucinich more than anyone. Yet I am now a huge Obama fan.

What is amazing about him is his authenticity and charisma and the way he can schmooze with without seeming slimy.

I am watching him on C-span right now, and he just shook a little girl's hand and said "I have a nine year old, and she is pretty just like you." That would and could be cheesy but he makes it real.

He so reminds me of Bono the way he works the hand-shaking thing, and for some amazing reason, manages not to come off as fake.

Now a Republican is calling C-Span to say he really likes Obama. That just freaks me out in a good way.

About why I like Huckabilly: it's his honesty, his populism, his charm: he's not one of 'them'.

No, I don't agree with him. I am anti-war, pro-choice, and pro-gay-rights.

 

[2861U2]

Hi all. Friendly reminder. For the sake of keeping the discussion civil and on track, can we please refrain from bandying about inflammatory words like Hitler, Nazi, etc.? It's hardly useful.

Also, just a reminder to also keep from personal attacks.

Thanks.

Fair enough. I apologize. I retract my statement, if at all possible. And no, it's not just because people have called me out on it. What I said was stupid, and I apologize.