Politics: Sorta Black guy v Sorta Old Guy

by **jeff2sf** » Mon Jun 02, 2008 07:49:16

I've thought about that, Vox, and see what your point is regarding the anti-abortion crowd (the pro-choice crew though, not seeing it as murder, does not have a leg to stand on).

That being said, I think you have to weigh some of the other things going on in this world and not just pull the lever on the pro-life candidate. You also, of course, have to weigh the utility of accomplishing anything with your vote since abortion is pretty well entrenched in this country. The genie's not going back in the bottle.

Now the thing is, of course, in the majority of cases, this really doesn't matter. Pro-lifers tend to like what the GOP sells and Pro-choicers tend to be even more invested in what the Dems sell. It's just for the single issue people.

by **Bob Loblaw** » Mon Jun 02, 2008 10:42:11

Warszawa wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:Looks like she'll win by 140-150,000ish.

At some point, the fact that Obama has been taking a dump in these primaries for the past three months might become a concern to you all. Since Hillary is dead and all.

Well, it is true he's not quite reaching out to these people...

Coulda just written "I hate black people" and saved some ink.

So, I've not seen this, although I haven't looked hard -- why did Michigan not have Obama's name on the primary ballot?

by **dajafi** » Mon Jun 02, 2008 11:33:13

pacino wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:Looks like she'll win by 140-150,000ish.

At some point, the fact that Obama has been taking a dump in these primaries for the past three months might become a concern to you all. Since Hillary is dead and all.

he won't lose puerto rico in the general election. guarantee it

Serious question, I guess for j-hoya: do the Republicans have a Puerto Rico primary? Either way, the "you have a primary vote but not a general election vote" makes absolutely no sense to me.

by **swishnicholson** » Mon Jun 02, 2008 11:35:03

jeff2sf wrote:I've thought about that, Vox, and see what your point is regarding the anti-abortion crowd (the pro-choice crew though, not seeing it as murder, does not have a leg to stand on).

Well, it might be conceivable also that health care providers get a little defensive when they are labeled as mass murderers, or worked up when they contemplate the medical and human disasters if abortion were once again forced underground. And, of course, women might feel a little put out if the decision whether or not to bear a child was taken out of their hands.

Abortion is always going to be a hot button issue on either side. Its emergence as an issue in an election depends on the degree to which the parties make it so, and the presence of circumstances, such as the Supreme Court situation, that make it more likely for changes to the status quo to occur. If you want to argue that these circumstances don't exist and the parties are pandering to fears about an issue over which they won't actually be able to have an impact, that would be legitimate.Candidates often save their loudest volume for problems they can't do anything about-it's safer that way-and they should be called to task when they do. So if you think abortion is a non-issue in that way, fine, but minimizing people's concern about it on either side just makes you sound condescending and out of touch.

by **dajafi** » Mon Jun 02, 2008 11:38:57

The abortion issue was the one thing I refused to argue with the late Dave Snyder about on the old board. Just too tough. Vox's point is well taken: those who care about that over all else come by it honestly. But that happens to be true on both sides: for millions of women (and not just women), it's a threshold issue, something both crucially important in its own right and representative of a whole host of other things around gender equality.

I'm pro-choice but I've never been particularly comfortable with either position. (And as technology allows for ever-earlier fetal viability, that will only get worse.) The only thing I know for sure is that measures to lower the incidence of unwanted pregnancies should be supported by both sides--and the refusal of the hard-right religious folks to get behind any measure that includes sex education or birth control strongly suggests to me that they're less interested in the tragedy of abortion than controlling sexual behavior itself.

by **Stay_Disappointed** » Mon Jun 02, 2008 12:26:38

I agree with Ron Paul

by **traderdave** » Mon Jun 02, 2008 12:28:21

Bob Loblaw wrote:
Warszawa wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:Looks like she'll win by 140-150,000ish.

At some point, the fact that Obama has been taking a dump in these primaries for the past three months might become a concern to you all. Since Hillary is dead and all.

Well, it is true he's not quite reaching out to these people...

Coulda just written "I hate black people" and saved some ink.

So, I've not seen this, although I haven't looked hard -- why did Michigan not have Obama's name on the primary ballot?

Obama had it removed.

by **traderdave** » Mon Jun 02, 2008 12:43:33

dajafi wrote:
pacino wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:Looks like she'll win by 140-150,000ish.

At some point, the fact that Obama has been taking a dump in these primaries for the past three months might become a concern to you all. Since Hillary is dead and all.

he won't lose puerto rico in the general election. guarantee it

Serious question, I guess for j-hoya: do the Republicans have a Puerto Rico primary? Either way, the "you have a primary vote but not a general election vote" makes absolutely no sense to me.

I completely agree with this. I was watching Terry McAuliffe this morning on Morning Joe and, naturally, he was making the popular vote argument. As he was talking I was thinking to myself how ridiculous the Clinton argument is. I mean they want to include Florida as is but refuse to acknowledge that an "uncommitted" vote in Michigan essentially meant a vote for Obama; they refuse to acknowledge the caucus states popular vote but are gung-ho to include voting from a territory that doesn't even count in the general election.

He also made this incredibly silly argument that was essentially Obama has only a tiny 160 delegate lead out of nearly 4,000 total delegates. Well guess what, that percentage (4.0%) is a hellava lot larger than the percentage of the popular vote that Clinton is ahead even following all of the Clinton campaign's cherry-picking (0.8% at best).

She really is coming off as nothing but a spoiled child who had her favorite toy taken away from her - "Whhaaaaaaa, that nomination is mine, now give it back!" It will be very interesting to see if she takes to fight to Denver and if McCain beats Obama in November how much she is blamed.

by **Stay_Disappointed** » Mon Jun 02, 2008 12:59:32

traderdave wrote:
dajafi wrote:
pacino wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:Looks like she'll win by 140-150,000ish.

At some point, the fact that Obama has been taking a dump in these primaries for the past three months might become a concern to you all. Since Hillary is dead and all.

he won't lose puerto rico in the general election. guarantee it

Serious question, I guess for j-hoya: do the Republicans have a Puerto Rico primary? Either way, the "you have a primary vote but not a general election vote" makes absolutely no sense to me.

I completely agree with this. I was watching Terry McAuliffe this morning on Morning Joe and, naturally, he was making the popular vote argument. As he was talking I was thinking to myself how ridiculous the Clinton argument is. I mean they want to include Florida as is but refuse to acknowledge that an "uncommitted" vote in Michigan essentially meant a vote for Obama; they refuse to acknowledge the caucus states popular vote but are gung-ho to include voting from a territory that doesn't even count in the general election.

He also made this incredibly silly argument that was essentially Obama has only a tiny 160 delegate lead out of nearly 4,000 total delegates. Well guess what, that percentage (4.0%) is a hellava lot larger than the percentage of the popular vote that Clinton is ahead even following all of the Clinton campaign's cherry-picking (0.8% at best).

She really is coming off as nothing but a spoiled child who had her favorite toy taken away from her - "Whhaaaaaaa, that nomination is mine, now give it back!" It will be very interesting to see if she takes to fight to Denver and if McCain beats Obama in November how much she is blamed.

That kind of sounds what the priest at Trinity was saying :-D

Watching all the interviews this weekend really irritated me too, but as long as Clinton is in the race she has to try and win. Its just that the superdelegates can't be stupid enough to buy into her arguments....can they?

by **Bucky** » Mon Jun 02, 2008 13:24:23

traderdave wrote:
Bob Loblaw wrote:
Warszawa wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:Looks like she'll win by 140-150,000ish.

At some point, the fact that Obama has been taking a dump in these primaries for the past three months might become a concern to you all. Since Hillary is dead and all.

Well, it is true he's not quite reaching out to these people...
[imdg]http://ndn.newsweek.com/media/18/dnc-rules-meeting-protest-hsmall-vertical.jpg[/idmg]

Coulda just written "I hate black people" and saved some ink.

So, I've not seen this, although I haven't looked hard -- why did Michigan not have Obama's name on the primary ballot?

Obama had it removed.

Had it removed or just never filed to be on the ballot??? I thought it was the latter....

by **Woody** » Mon Jun 02, 2008 13:32:53

You are correct, Buckles

by **jerseyhoya** » Mon Jun 02, 2008 13:42:15

dajafi wrote:
pacino wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:Looks like she'll win by 140-150,000ish.

At some point, the fact that Obama has been taking a dump in these primaries for the past three months might become a concern to you all. Since Hillary is dead and all.

he won't lose puerto rico in the general election. guarantee it

Serious question, I guess for j-hoya: do the Republicans have a Puerto Rico primary? Either way, the "you have a primary vote but not a general election vote" makes absolutely no sense to me.

I think we had a caucus there back in February. I don't think we give them nearly so many delegates though.

And like so much of this nominating process, the counting of Puerto Rico so heavily with delegates makes absolutely no sense.

Obviously Puerto Ricans are an important constituency in states that do get to vote, most notably Florida, so maybe the party is just trying to make those expats feel more positively disposed towards it by giving PR a lot of respect? I dunno.

by **dajafi** » Mon Jun 02, 2008 13:55:26

I saw on the dKos that Puerto Rico has more representation at the Dem convention than 27 states. That's absurd and at least a little disgraceful.

by **traderdave** » Mon Jun 02, 2008 13:58:44

Bucky wrote:
traderdave wrote:
Bob Loblaw wrote:
Warszawa wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:Looks like she'll win by 140-150,000ish.

At some point, the fact that Obama has been taking a dump in these primaries for the past three months might become a concern to you all. Since Hillary is dead and all.

Well, it is true he's not quite reaching out to these people...
[imdg]http://ndn.newsweek.com/media/18/dnc-rules-meeting-protest-hsmall-vertical.jpg[/idmg]

Coulda just written "I hate black people" and saved some ink.

So, I've not seen this, although I haven't looked hard -- why did Michigan not have Obama's name on the primary ballot?

Obama had it removed.

Had it removed or just never filed to be on the ballot??? I thought it was the latter....

It appears it was actually both:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/2 ... 03132.html

I guess we each get 1/2 a delegate?

by **dajafi** » Mon Jun 02, 2008 15:12:47

The end could be near:

"Obama and Clinton spoke Sunday night and agreed that their staffs should begin negotiations over post-primary activities. In addition to help raising money to pay off some $20 million-plus in debts, Clinton is known to want Obama to help out black officials who endorsed her and are now taking constituent heat, including, in some cases, primary challenges from pro-Obama politicians."

I really like this. One of the knocks on the Clintons has been that their concept of loyalty runs only one way; Jimmy Carter's line was "they're always there when they need you." Her call for Obama to speak out for African-American leaders who endorsed Sen. Clinton is a noble gesture... even if that does make it less likely that we can get rid of my dimwit Congresswoman, who falls into that group.

by **philliesphhan** » Mon Jun 02, 2008 16:54:34

dajafi wrote:The end could be near:

"Obama and Clinton spoke Sunday night and agreed that their staffs should begin negotiations over post-primary activities. In addition to help raising money to pay off some $20 million-plus in debts, Clinton is known to want Obama to help out black officials who endorsed her and are now taking constituent heat, including, in some cases, primary challenges from pro-Obama politicians."

I really like this. One of the knocks on the Clintons has been that their concept of loyalty runs only one way; Jimmy Carter's line was "they're always there when they need you." Her call for Obama to speak out for African-American leaders who endorsed Sen. Clinton is a noble gesture... even if that does make it less likely that we can get rid of my dimwit Congresswoman, who falls into that group.

Update: TPM confirms Obama and Clinton talked on the phone last night, but a spokesman says he just called to congratulate her on winning in Puerto Rico.

by **jerseyhoya** » Mon Jun 02, 2008 17:31:09

philliesphhan wrote:
Update: TPM confirms Obama and Clinton talked on the phone last night, but a spokesman says he just called to congratulate her on winning in Puerto Rico.

Obama: So Hillary, congrats on winning Puerto Rico. You really did well here.

Clinton: Thanks, Barack.

Obama: Soooo....do you have anything you want to tell me?

Clinton: Like what?

Obama: Oh, I don't know. I was just throwing it out there. In case there was anything on your mind.

by **traderdave** » Mon Jun 02, 2008 17:51:46

jerseyhoya wrote:
philliesphhan wrote:
Update: TPM confirms Obama and Clinton talked on the phone last night, but a spokesman says he just called to congratulate her on winning in Puerto Rico.

Obama: So Hillary, congrats on winning Puerto Rico. You really did well here.

Clinton: Thanks, Barack.

Obama: Soooo....do you have anything you want to tell me?

Clinton: Like what?

Obama: Oh, I don't know. I was just throwing it out there. In case there was anything on your mind.

Clinton: Well, I'm going to go have a few shots of rum with the locals and I'll get back to you after you hand my ass to me in South Dakota and Montana.

Man, would I love to be a fly on the wall for the actual conversation.

by **dajafi** » Mon Jun 02, 2008 18:00:21

A poll came out today giving the Clintons an enormous lead in South Dakota. Seems unlikely to me, but who knows. Nate Silver comments here.

by **Stay_Disappointed** » Mon Jun 02, 2008 19:07:22

Newsweek:

....on Tuesday, Obama will reach the end of regulation a mere 20-30 delegates away from clinching the nomination; Clinton will come in a whopping 200 behind. Which means that if Obama's unquestionable lead in the delegate count--i.e., the metric by which the Democratic nominee is chosen--sways 10 percent of the 200 or so remaining superdelegates before the other 90 percent buy Clinton's highly questionable popular-vote claim, it's game over for HRC. Obama isn't just a lock; he's, like, a giant tungsten carbide safe designed to withstand an apocalyptic nuclear holocaust.

Whew! Hillary was beginning to sway me! :wink:

Archived

Politics: Sorta Black guy v Sorta Old Guy