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.

I don't think any of the Dems put their names on the Michigan ballot themselves, Michigan's Democratic Party does it automatically. Obama removed his name from the Michigan ballot as a political play for Iowans, who were PO'ed at Michigan for moving it's primary. Also, IIRC, the early polls had HRC with a decent lead (like 10-20+ points) and Obama polling 3rd, behind Edwards. So it was a strategic political move for him to remove his name from the ballot.

I think the arguement about the Michigan "uncommitteds" is that the whole gaggle of Democratic candidates were still in the race, so who knows how many would have went Obama or Edwards or Richardson or Biden or Dodd or Gravel (snicker) or Kucinich (snicker). Plus there's those that didn't cast a vote at all. The only logical solution was a revote, but the powers that be in the DNC were just hoping that one of the candidates would run away with it so they could just avoid the Michigan issue, that it would just go away by itself so they wouldn't have to deal with it.

Caucus states popular vote is a bit of a sticky wicket because caucus states don't record their popular vote and only a small percentage of the electorate participates in their respective precinct or district caucus (it's an all day affair that mostly attracts the more motivated participants and activist... people with campaign signs on their lawn, etc.). Democratic caucuses aren't secret ballot, so there are issues like peer pressure and supporters of less-viable candidates making "arrangements" to realign their vote to another candidate.

Also, "caucus" sounds like an STD virus or something

dajafi wrote: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.

ARG poll: May 31-June 1

Montana: Clinton 44%, Obama 48%, Undecided 8%

Barack Obama leads Hillary Clinton 56% to 35% among men (45% of likely Democratic primary voters). Among women, Clinton leads 52% to 41%.

Obama leads 49% to 45% among voters age 18 to 49 (44% of likely Democratic primary voters) and Obama leads 48% to 43% among voters age 50 and older.





South Dakota: Clinton 60%, Obama 34%, Undecided 6%

Hillary Clinton leads Barack Obama 56% to 39% among men (46% of likely Democratic primary voters). Among women, Clinton leads 63% to 29%.

Clinton leads 57% to 38% among voters age 18 to 49 (46% of likely Democratic primary voters) and Clinton leads 63% to 30% among voters age 50 and older.

dajafi wrote:....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.

technological advances have greatly attenuated the 'life/choice' debate, and that dichotomy will look positively anachronistic within most of our lifetimes.

but most importantly, you said "hard-right"

Senator Robert Byrd (WV) hospitalized.

Just reported on CNN, nothing online yet.

wow, all the old democrats are dropping like flies

Reelect Frank Lautenberg. Otherwise Ted Stevens is gonna be really lonely in the Senate Nearly Dead Caucus with Teddy K and Byrd going.

jerseyhoya wrote:Reelect Frank Lautenberg. Otherwise Ted Stevens is gonna be really lonely in the Senate Nearly Dead Caucus with Teddy K and Byrd going.

Strom started this trend of dying I think

Strom made it into retirement first, though.

jerseyhoya wrote:Strom made it into retirement first, though.

wonder why the fathering bastard black babies trend never quite caught on with the other senators

Even if others did, it wouldn't have the same sort of panache as Strom pulling that off while also running as a segregationist.

jerseyhoya wrote:Even if others did, it wouldn't have the same sort of panache as Strom pulling that off while also running as a segregationist.

he was quite the pioneer

jerseyhoya wrote:Reelect Frank Lautenberg. Otherwise Ted Stevens is gonna be really lonely in the Senate Nearly Dead Caucus with Teddy K and Byrd going.

Ted might lose too. If the Alaska Rs were smart, they'd get behind whoever is primarying him; you know that guy would roll in the general.

Young is the one who has the real primary challenger. Stevens is in trouble for sure, but he has a real Dem opponent, in the Mayor of Anchorage. I don't think his no name GOP opponent would stroll against him. Frankly, Stevens is probably the GOP's best shot of holding that seat, if the filing deadline is passed. The man's an institution, even if he's an institution who's under federal investigation.

Bill Clinton goes ape@#%!, unleashes tirade against a Vanity Fair writer during an interview on Monday.

The Vanity Fair article, called a tawdry anonymous quote-filled attack piece by Clinton's office, not only blasts Bill for bringing negative attention to Hillary's campaign, but also eludes that Bill's been hittin' the ladies whilst on the campaign road for Hillary.

Clinton's office issued a memo in response. Link to a blog that contains the text of the memo.

Phan In Phlorida wrote:Senator Robert Byrd (WV) hospitalized.

Just reported on CNN, nothing online yet.

So far, FoxNews is the only one to have it online...

Sen. Robert C. Byrd's spokesman says the 90-year-old lawmaker was hospitalized Monday night at his doctor's urging after suffering from lethargy and sluggishness at his home.

jerseyhoya wrote:Young is the one who has the real primary challenger. Stevens is in trouble for sure, but he has a real Dem opponent, in the Mayor of Anchorage. I don't think his no name GOP opponent would stroll against him. Frankly, Stevens is probably the GOP's best shot of holding that seat, if the filing deadline is passed. The man's an institution, even if he's an institution who's under federal investigation.

I defer to you on this one, since I'm pretty sure you're paying closer attention. I just figured that with the corruption allegations but the state's built-in Republican tilt--Palin certainly seems to be popular--getting rid of the ethically troubled guy would help. (Since you guys often bring up Bob Torricelli, who was indeed slimy, maybe we can name this phenomenon after him.) But it's true that Begich (?) seems like a serious contender, maybe strong enough to win against some no-name.

Phan In Phlorida wrote:

dajafi wrote: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.

ARG poll: May 31-June 1

Montana: Clinton 44%, Obama 48%, Undecided 8%

Barack Obama leads Hillary Clinton 56% to 35% among men (45% of likely Democratic primary voters). Among women, Clinton leads 52% to 41%.

Obama leads 49% to 45% among voters age 18 to 49 (44% of likely Democratic primary voters) and Obama leads 48% to 43% among voters age 50 and older.





South Dakota: Clinton 60%, Obama 34%, Undecided 6%

Hillary Clinton leads Barack Obama 56% to 39% among men (46% of likely Democratic primary voters). Among women, Clinton leads 63% to 29%.

Clinton leads 57% to 38% among voters age 18 to 49 (46% of likely Democratic primary voters) and Clinton leads 63% to 30% among voters age 50 and older.

Why is there such a huge disparity in these races? I thought, evidently incorrectly, that SD and Montana would have similar constituencies with similar concerns. It does not appear that one state is older and one state younger or that one state is more male or female than the other...the winning candidate wins in all of those demographics in each state. I assume, perhaps incorrectly, that there is not a large African American population in either state. So why the big difference? Or, does this boil down to a problem with the poll?

Debbie F. wrote:

Phan In Phlorida wrote:

dajafi wrote: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.

ARG poll: May 31-June 1

Montana: Clinton 44%, Obama 48%, Undecided 8%

Barack Obama leads Hillary Clinton 56% to 35% among men (45% of likely Democratic primary voters). Among women, Clinton leads 52% to 41%.

Obama leads 49% to 45% among voters age 18 to 49 (44% of likely Democratic primary voters) and Obama leads 48% to 43% among voters age 50 and older.





South Dakota: Clinton 60%, Obama 34%, Undecided 6%

Hillary Clinton leads Barack Obama 56% to 39% among men (46% of likely Democratic primary voters). Among women, Clinton leads 63% to 29%.

Clinton leads 57% to 38% among voters age 18 to 49 (46% of likely Democratic primary voters) and Clinton leads 63% to 30% among voters age 50 and older.

Why is there such a huge disparity in these races? I thought, evidently incorrectly, that SD and Montana would have similar constituencies with similar concerns. It does not appear that one state is older and one state younger or that one state is more male or female than the other...the winning candidate wins in all of those demographics in each state. I assume, perhaps incorrectly, that there is not a large African American population in either state. So why the big difference? Or, does this boil down to a problem with the poll?

Montana has a sizable contingent of latte-sippers in the Missoula area--think Aspen without the paparazzi. SD doesn't have that.

Bush would veto U.S. climate change bill
"I urge the Congress to be very careful about running up enormous costs for future generations of Americans"

Umm...right. You got that one covered chief.

Also, ARG is a piece of shit pollster, and I wouldn't trust a single thing they have to say. It would be a minor surprise if Obama loses South Dakota at all, let alone by a wipeout margin. He has had enthusiastic backing from Tom Daschle, who I would think carries a lot of weight still in SD Dem politics.