surprise, rove sees red and blue states, says Clinton had a convincing win and obama won in states he has no chance in

chris wallace said 'our states' in regards to red states. there you go folks

pacino wrote:surprise, rove sees red and blue states, says Clinton had a convincing win and obama won in states he has no chance in

chris wallace said 'our states' in regards to red states. there you go folks

Boom! Game over!

It also showed the GOP bias of all the networks (including FOX) how all of them cut off McCain to show Obama talk.

"Shared hatred is the basis of a great friendship" - Karl Rove quoting Alexis de Tocqueville on the nomination of Hillary Clinton.

Yup.

no, it showed who wallace votes for, that's all. I don't want to hear people talk about hte 'liberal' media. it's just the MEDIA. they want ratings and money, they aren't looking to sway you


political operatives are a fairly evil sort. they only care about getting you elected, they don't care how and don't care about the message being represented. rove just epitomizes this with his analysis

pacino wrote:no, it showed who wallace votes for, that's all. I don't want to hear people talk about hte 'liberal' media. it's just the MEDIA. they want ratings and money, they aren't looking to sway you

I don't think Wallace is necessarily a GOPer. His dad is a liberal. You might have just misheard him.

And no, the media isn't monolithically liberal. Just most of it is, at least on TV.

Drag about California, but there you go. Latinos heart the Clintons, for some reason. Presumably it'll get closer, as most of the early-called Clinton states did.

Missouri's crazy. But again, with the delegates it'll essentially be a wash.

Gonna watch a few minutes more of this and then go to bed.

Also, did anyone notice that the Democratic caucuses in Alaska were something like 55 votes for Obama, 26 for Clinton... and that was 20 percent? If you want your vote to "count," I guess you know where to go.

dajafi wrote:Also, did anyone notice that the Democratic caucuses in Alaska were something like 55 votes for Obama, 26 for Clinton... and that was 20 percent? If you want your vote to "count," I guess you know where to go.

Hey, alter ego.

Those are state delegates, whatever the hell those are. They're not actual votes. It was another caucus won by Obama.

Alaska called for Obama

meatball wrote:Alaska called for Obama

he's not here right now take a message

As McCain is cruising to a 27% margin in NJ, at least I feel intelligent about commenting on the homeland.

lol nicely done, buckster

MSNBC did a worst-case scenario based on early CA results (again, which could very well tighten up a good bit), and had Obama coming out with a 4 point delegate advantage tonight. I know the Obama campaign was just playing the expectations game by saying they'd be happy coming out of today being down by less than 100 delegates, but this was a very encouraging showing, and should make for another month or two of interesting politics.

You know, if Obama can really pull the two parties together more than any other candidate, then count me in with his group. I am not supporting either him or Hillary (who I feel gets a raw deal and that may be the only reason why I'd even be ok with her).

VoxOrion wrote:

drsmooth wrote:
Just wishing a certain rotund radio blowhard/"conservative" would help himself to 2nds

Why you gotta go at me like that, Smooth?

you're a rotund radio blowhard?

This illustrates the problem with a significant portion of the republican party. I know it is a couple days old, but I just saw it today.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erMa0F_DCJE&eurl=http://www.crooksandliars.com/page/3/?rand=%7B20080206035650%7D[/youtube]

Yeah, I know it is Ann Coulter and she spews garbage just to get people to react (though it seems she always has a platform somewhere). What gets me is the animosity and blame for McCain. Ann, McCain is just running, it is the people in your PARTY voting for him. If they felt the same way you did, they'd vote for Romney.

VoxOrion wrote:I think Shore is Exhibit A in the case against George W. Bush destroying the Republican party.

You're giving the fellow more credit than he deserves. I think the name of the man you should be assigning responsibility to is Rove

Bush has trubble destroying pretzels

As a Republican who wants to see the Democrats take as long as possible to unite on a nominee, and as a political nerd who has never seen it happen before, the idea that we might see a knock out fight from now until the convention or at least close to it is awesome.

The Race for Delegates
Democrats Needed to Win = 2,025
Candidate
Pledged
Superdels.
Total
Clinton
632
193
825
Obama
626
106
732
Republicans Needed to Win = 1,191
Candidate
Pledged
Unpl. RNC
Total
McCain
598
17
615
Romney
259
9
268
Huckabee
166
3
169

The AP is reporting 845 for Clinton and 765 for Obama. Politico.com is saying that NBC is estimating 840 for Obama and 830 for Clinton but msnbc.com hasn't updated their count.

jerseyhoya wrote:California going for McCain and Clinton...

Can John Zogby have his pollster's license revoked? The man is a complete and total moron.

Um, that's been the case since at least the mid-nineties. He's really good at calling attention to when he guesses right though. AAPOR routinely criticizes Zogby's techniques.

I stole that from CNN. Between the proportional breakdown and the superdelegate thing, I guess it's really anyone's guess where it actually stands.

http://www.politico.com/rogersimon/ - Talking about the Democrats possibly heading for a mess.