To my knowledge, he *never* had a "sure thing" in Indiana. N. Carolina, sure, but Indiana has always been a toss-up (except that it was actually Hillary's to lose, like every other farking state, up until about 4 months ago).

FTFA:
"Barack Obama, 48 percent
Hillary Rodham Clinton, 47 percent

A similar poll conducted March 31-April 2 found 49 percent support for Clinton, with Obama's support at 46 percent."

Subby fails at reading comprehension. Or is a freeptard. To-may-toe, to-mah-toe.

BlueDjinn: To my knowledge, he *never* had a "sure thing" in Indiana. N. Carolina, sure, but Indiana has always been a toss-up (except that it was actually Hillary's to lose, like every other farking state, up until about 4 months ago).

there you go, remembering things accurately.

Obama could lose every single contest from here on out and still win the nomination.

Skleenar: Obama could lose every single contest from here on out and still win the nomination

nope, because that would make hillary's case that he lost his mojo and she's got it, and it would be a brokered convention with the top spot going to here

albo: it would be a brokered convention with the top spot going to here

Where?

Dinki: albo: it would be a brokered convention with the top spot going to here

Where?

There.

Dinki: Where?

Where wolf?



There wolf.

Skleenar: Obama could lose every single contest from here on out and still win the nomination.

Key Word: could

Hell Al Gore "could". You think that your "votes" really matter in the primaries? They are not votes, they are suggestions. Right now as the rules stand the delegates for any state "could" vote for the other candidate then the one that won them.

And that is factoring out MI and FL plus the super delegates. If those states come in at all then Hillary is ahead in both delegates and total votes.

Subby: "Obama's sure thing"

That's odd. Hillary was ahead in all polls not long ago, including one poll that had her up by 16 less than 2 weeks ago. (new window)

today is "add an extra 'e' daye"

The Stealth Hippopotamus: They are not votes, they are suggestions.

As they are for any primary. This is merely the way an organization determines their candidate for the actual, real election in the general contest.

By the way: Obama will convincingly win the majority of the remaining contests, so the issue is moot.

Three Crooked Squirrels: Subby: "Obama's sure thing"

That's odd. Hillary was ahead in all polls not long ago, including one poll that had her up by 16 less than 2 weeks ago. (new window)

guys, the narrative of the election is a whole lot more entertaining if you stop basing it on what actually transpired.

The Stealth Hippopotamus
Hell Al Gore "could". You think that your "votes" really matter in the primaries? They are not votes, they are suggestions. Right now as the rules stand the delegates for any state "could" vote for the other candidate then the one that won them.

Theoretically yes, but not if they want to avoid completely alienating a large chunk of their party members. The superdelegates are bad enough and if they override the pledged delegate winner, there will be hell to pay from many angry people in the party. If pledged delegates changed their votes too in any significant numbers, there wouldn't be a Democratic party to speak of by the time it was over.

patrick767: Theoretically yes, but not if they want to avoid completely alienating a large chunk of their party members. The superdelegates are bad enough and if they override the pledged delegate winner, there will be hell to pay from many angry people in the party. If pledged delegates changed their votes too in any significant numbers, there wouldn't be a Democratic party to speak of by the time it was over.

Please.

It would not be the first time the Democratic Bosses go back into a smoke filled room to decide who would be the candidate. The party weathered it back then and will today. Way too many people are dependent on the party for their power, there is no way it is going away.
All the saber rattling is just that. When the time comes and they have to choose between being on the field or taking their ball and going home, they will stay on the field. They are way to accustomed to the wealth and power to just give it up.
And the person that will get behind is Hillary. It's so much better if you don't fight it. Just sit back and relax it will all be over faster that way.

The Stealth Hippopotamus: It would not be the first time the Democratic Bosses go back into a smoke filled room to decide who would be the candidate. The party weathered it back then and will today. Way too many people are dependent on the party for their power, there is no way it is going away.

Primary voting is a relatively new development in either party.

It is laughable that so many people try to make brokered conventions out to be a Democratic issue.

HulkHands [TotalFark] Quote 2008-04-25 10:23:58 AM

very happy i have my own card now!!!

Love the pick, love the quote, however still waiting for someone to use rational thinking on me :P

Skleenar: It is laughable that so many people try to make brokered conventions out to be a Democratic issue.

Not trying to say that it was. We are just talking about the Democratic party right now. If I gave that impression I am sorry. He was talking about he Democratics doing it and how the Democratic faithful would react. So natural I kept my comments limited to the party we were talking about.
However if you think that FDR and JFK were bad ideas you can blame the whole "smoke filled back room deals" for them. In the modern era it has worked well for the party.

/never going to the graveyard
//told you i was hard core

The Stealth Hippopotamus
All the saber rattling is just that. When the time comes and they have to choose between being on the field or taking their ball and going home, they will stay on the field. They are way to accustomed to the wealth and power to just give it up.
And the person that will get behind is Hillary. It's so much better if you don't fight it. Just sit back and relax it will all be over faster that way.

Times have changed. People have access to far more information now and their expectations have changed. The party picking a candidate without the consent of the people won't be as well tolerated as it once was.

A party is under no obligation to listen to voters at all. They could have their party chair just pick a candidate and go with it if they wanted, but that's no way to keep voters around.

IN was ever a "sure thing?" For Obama?

According to who, Terry McAuliffe?

BlueDjinn: To my knowledge, he *never* had a "sure thing" in Indiana. N. Carolina, sure, but Indiana has always been a toss-up (except that it was actually Hillary's to lose, like every other farking state, up until about 4 months ago).

And so the excuses begin...

Last night I met a Hillry Clinton supporter, the first I had ever met and talked to at length, and we had a very interesting conversation.


/Basically, Hillary is tough and weren't the 90's good?

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Hell Al Gore "could". You think that your "votes" really matter in the primaries? They are not votes, they are suggestions. Right now as the rules stand the delegates for any state "could" vote for the other candidate then the one that won them.

And that is factoring out MI and FL plus the super delegates. If those states come in at all then Hillary is ahead in both delegates and total votes.

Please check the data before talking about shiat like this. Hillary would not be ahead in ANYTHING even if Florida were counted as-is.

Michigan cannot possibly be counted as-is, since Obama was not on the ballot. So either Michigan is re-voted, Michigan is split 50-50 or Michigan is not counted at all.

I know several people involved with the Indiana campaign. Indiana has never been a sure thing for Obama.

The Stealth Hippopotamus

"saber rattling"
"smoke filled back room deals"

"And that is factoring out MI and FL plus the super delegates. If those states come in at all then Hillary is ahead in both delegates and total votes."

I see you've been boning up on your Freeper talking points

Dear Indiana,

Try to get your shiat together, unlike the asshats in Ohio and Pennsylvania. You could be the state that finally drives a stake through Hillary's cold, dark heart.

Signed,
The State's That Don't Matter

Chester the Snake: And so the excuses begin...

Show me a news article that tells how Obama is or was a sure thing or had a reasonable lead in polls in Indiana. If you can, then you are not an incredible nitwit.

Chester the Snake: BlueDjinn: To my knowledge, he *never* had a "sure thing" in Indiana. N. Carolina, sure, but Indiana has always been a toss-up (except that it was actually Hillary's to lose, like every other farking state, up until about 4 months ago).

And so the excuses begin...

The Stealth Hippopotamus: It's so much better if you don't fight it. Just sit back and relax it will all be over faster that way.

Except now we have the Internet and the young Democrats are all online day and night. 20 years ago with a brokered convention you could get away with it because the only communication was TV and Radio. TV didn't cover it because it wasn't a huge selling point on the evening news. Now it is, and online news can cover it twelve ways til next Tuesday.

This might be the first time I cast a ballot in Indiana that actually matters.

TSP: If those states come in at all then Hillary is ahead in both delegates and total votes.

What about all of th mock elections that have been held in Kindergartens all over the country? There votes have not been counted either!

IF these votes were counted Hillary would already be the President!!!!

\Why do you hate kindergarteners?

I'm pretty stupid, but it seems to me like most of the third parties just pick someone to be their candidate. Or, maybe, they're so small they only have one person running.

Anyway, I can't remember hearing any huge cry coming from those people, and I'm not sure why we think the two major parties have to be held to a different standard.

If a party says, "this is who we're running," I guess you could not vote for that person if you wanted. Or, join another party.

vernonFL: Last night I met a Hillry Clinton supporter, the first I had ever met and talked to at length, and we had a very interesting conversation.


/Basically, Hillary is tough and weren't the 90's good?

I've noticed that a lot, too. You'll get something like "Hillary is strong on the Economy." When you ask why, the response is generally "Because the Economy was good under Bill Clinton."

There's a lot of people out there, it seems, who believe that they are voting for a 3rd term for Bill Clinton by voting for his wife.

Michigan should be split 50-50 and Florida should be counted as-is.

Anyone who stayed home on election day because their vote MIGHT not be counted is a raging, plastic dingus.

Hung Like A Tic-Tac: And so the excuses begin...

See this-->

Lando Lincoln: Show me a news article that tells how Obama is or was a sure thing or had a reasonable lead in polls in Indiana.

" When you ask why, the response is generally "Because the Economy was good under Bill Clinton."

Hillary's Mortgage plan is better. Not much, they both suck but Hillary's sucks a little less because it doesn't re-cast secured debts as unsecured which should help keep interest rates low(er) as the markets pick back up. She also avoids adding a new layer of Federal Oversight.

The Homer Tax: IN was ever a "sure thing?" For Obama?

According to who, Terry McAuliffe?

Well Hillary WAS the underdog in PA according to him.

danlpoon: Michigan should be split 50-50 and Florida should be counted as-is.

Anyone who stayed home on election day because their vote MIGHT not be counted is a raging, plastic dingus.

They never said 'might' they said it wouldn't be counted. Anyone who thinks changing the rules after the game is done is a raging plastic dingus.

danlpoon: Michigan should be split 50-50 and Florida should be counted as-is.

Neither should be counted because they broke the rules KNOWING the consequences.
I understand being a hardcore Republican you don't have the concept of "rules" that have to be followed, however these delegates cannot be seated at the convention.

The nominee will be decided WELL before that anyway.

\Stop with the FL- MI talking point. It's tired and worthless
\\Dead horse

I am going to say what most of you are thinking... we do not want a female in the White House- the country does not need any more problems.
No female presidents! Let the superior gender win!!!!

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Not trying to say that it was. We are just talking about the Democratic party right now. If I gave that impression I am sorry. He was talking about he Democratics doing it and how the Democratic faithful would react. So natural I kept my comments limited to the party we were talking about.
However if you think that FDR and JFK were bad ideas you can blame the whole "smoke filled back room deals" for them. In the modern era it has worked well for the party.

It was you who was framing brokered conventions as a shady deal, using the anachronistic term "smoke filled back rooms" to make it sound as if the Democrats are up to something nefarious.

While I prefer the modern method of actually having party members vote on their preference, there really is no external imperative for the parties to use this method to select their candidates.

But in today's political environment, it would probably be a fatal strategy to try to appoint candidates in the historical manner.

Passive Aggressive Larry: This might be the first time I cast a ballot in Indiana that actually matters.

Not to mention getting a decent governor in there.

/Always nice to see someone else from W. Laf on here

Farkingwhatever: I am going to say what most of you are thinking... we do not want an female inferior candidate in the White House- the country does not need any more problems.
No female more terrible presidents! Let the superior gender candidate win!!!!


FTFY

This is a beautiful headline. Subby is a great troll. Look at all the Obama fans rushing to say how great he is. Oh wait, they're rushing to say he doesn't have much support.

Awesome

OMG!!! You mean she could gain 2 delegates on him!!!?!?!?!?!??!

Oh noes!!!!!

Hmoob: This is a beautiful headline. Subby is a great troll. Look at all the Obama fans rushing to say how great he is. Oh wait, they're rushing to say he doesn't have much support.

Awesome

They're coming in to point out reality.

People HATE it when you do that!

The Homer Tax: vernonFL: Last night I met a Hillry Clinton supporter, the first I had ever met and talked to at length, and we had a very interesting conversation.


/Basically, Hillary is tough and weren't the 90's good?

I've noticed that a lot, too. You'll get something like "Hillary is strong on the Economy." When you ask why, the response is generally "Because the Economy was good under Bill Clinton."

There's a lot of people out there, it seems, who believe that they are voting for a 3rd term for Bill Clinton by voting for his wife.

That. And purportedly, she has a vagina.

Sure Thing in Indiana?




I always thought she was out in California...