I hope not. He lost so much money to his ex wife in his divorce that he might need to make the five mil from football rather than the million or two he'll make on TV.

But going out on top would be sweet. We're still covered on the D-end with Tuck, Osi and Kiwi.

Jesus, four pitch walk?!

I love Strahan. Look forward to seeing him on TV...

...as my stomach settles with Bruntlett catching the ball at the track. Geez.

All of DeSoto in, Davis basically ties it. He will lose by 5,000 votes.

They said on CNN that Clinton would need more than 71% of the remaining delegates to win.

jerseyhoya wrote:All of DeSoto in, Davis basically ties it. He will lose by 5,000 votes.

Swing State guys seem to think it's over.

dajafi wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:All of DeSoto in, Davis basically ties it. He will lose by 5,000 votes.

Swing State guys seem to think it's over.

Yeah, no, the AP called it. I think 5,000 should be about right.

Honestly, this is a disaster.

Obama needs to talk about this tomorrow. He should make a speech about this, this week. Seriously.

Speech about what?

philliesphhan wrote:Speech about what?

The GOP lost a house seat tonight in Mississippi (a seat Bush got 62% in 2004) where we attacked the candidate for being endorsed by Obama, and it looks like the attack had literally no effect.

By the way, Obama might not get 30% in WV, which is seriously pathetic.

What is the extra 7% voting for? Edwards? Not committed?

jerseyhoya wrote:By the way, Obama might not get 30% in WV, which is seriously pathetic.

What is the extra 7% voting for? Edwards? Not committed?

Edwards least according to CNN

That's some smart people right there

Lost by 7,000 votes. Jay-sus Christ my party blows.

Obama sucks nearly as much as my party. Holy hell he got swatted today.

jerseyhoya wrote:Obama sucks nearly as much as my party. Holy hell he got swatted today.

ehhhh - he just got grudge-voted against

Can't wait for that to happen again in November for realsies.

keep waiting


States & elections won with 60% or more of the vote:

Barack Obama: 15 States + DC + VI
* Virgin Islands (89.9%)
* Idaho (79%)
* Hawaii (76%)
* Alaska (75%)
* District of Columbia (75%)
* Kansas (74%)
* Washington (68%)
* Nebraska (68%)
* Minnesota (67%)
* Colorado (67%)
* Georgia (67%)
* Illinois (65%)
* Virginia (64%)
* Maryland (62%)
* North Dakota (61%)
* Wyoming (61%)
* Mississippi (61%)

Hillary Clinton: 2 States
* Arkansas (70%)
* West Virginia (??)

54-46 final tally in MS-1. Margin was just less than 8,000 votes. What's the world coming to when race-baiting and guilt by association can't get the Republicans a win?

It's actually sort of a shame McCain isn't 10 years younger. After getting slimed by Bush/Rove in 2000, he's likely to lose this year pretty much solely thanks to what they did once in office. He probably deserves better.

Who knows what will happen, but I have a lot of trouble believing that the usual Republican effort to feminize and otherwise smear Obama will work well enough to balance the (substantially accurate) charge that McCain is running for "Bush's third term."

Final thought: I've been reading for years that, sotto voce, the Republicans in Congress actually hate and resent the Bush administration. The reasons seem to be similar to what Democrats in Congress complained about when the Clintons were in: loyalty was a one-way street, no political protection, not consulted on big policy moves, etc.

But they kept voting with the president, and have done so on broadly popular legislation like S-CHIP even since losing the majority two years ago. So in part, what's happening to them is chickens coming home to roost... even considering that the special-election Republican losers in IL, LA and MS weren't incumbents. It seems to me like those candidates didn't do nearly enough to distance themselves from an administration that's very widely regarded as a disaster. The 30 or so retiring Republican incumbents presumably have read the tea leaves.

(Meanwhile, Walter Jones won his recent primary pretty easily.)

If it's perceived that the parliamentary-style cross-branch politics of the last ten years creates undue risk at the ballot box, maybe co-partisans in Congress (and I'm thinking mostly of the Republicans here, though if Obama wins I'm sure that a lot of Democrats in the next Congress--the ones that represent reddish districts, Clinton endorsers, etc--will feel these same cross-currents) will be less likely to march in lockstep with the executive and more inclined to go their own way, as they generally did before 1994.

This probably would be a good thing, in terms of passing legislation that really does have broad popular support--which, in a representative democracy, is kind of the point.

jerseyhoya wrote:Can't wait for that to happen again in November for realsies.

monarchist?

Clinton Beats Obama Handily in W. Virginia

Racial considerations emerged as an unusually salient factor in Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s lopsided victory over Senator Barack Obama.

:roll:

41 points?! This should cause a great deal of concern for the Dems. Obama is not connecting with the white blue collars and the rurals. The map CNN just showed of the big area of connected PA/WV/OH counties of which Obama didn't take a single county is worrisome. A huge chunk of blue collar and rural counties that Kerry and Gore lost but Bill Clinton won. An area that's the typical representation of "middle America". An area that has determined the prez since Hoover (if I heard right... I'm only half-listening to the TV right now). If this area (and the blue collars and rurals in general) is up for play for McCain, the Democrats should be legitimately worried.

BTW, have I mentioned how rediculous this Dem proportional delegate thing is? It's like 5 year old tee-ball, everyone gets a trophy. Maybe this proportional delegate thing would make some sense if the electoral college was also proportional, but it ain't.