#Democratic schism could put some Rodham loyalists in McCain's camp
Kurt Nicklas
May 8, 2008
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/05/08/democratic_schism_
could_put_some_clinton_loyalists_in_mccains_camp/
Hillary Clinton's loyalists appear to be hardening in their disdain for
Barack Obama as he gets closer to the Democratic nomination.
more stories like this
Today on the presidential campaign trail
Numbers show steep challenge as she fights on
Obama picks up superdelegates; undecideds moving his way
The recurring case of Clinton Fatigue
Limbaugh effort has muted effect
Fewer than half of Clinton supporters in both Indiana and North Carolina
said they would vote for Obama in November, according to exit polls.
Instead, most said they would vote for presumptive Republican John
McCain - or just stay home. Even though voters say that Clinton has run
the more negative campaign, Obama backers are significantly more
supportive of Clinton if she were to be the nominee.
Analysts say that polls in the heat of the primary campaign don't
reflect what will happen in November, and Obama's campaign insists
Clinton supporters will return to the fold.
Still, McCain's campaign is jumping on the numbers. Campaign manager
Rick Davis issued a lengthy, figure-filled memo yesterday that says as
many as one in five Democrats - the vast majority of them Clinton
supporters - will defect and support McCain against Obama.
"If and when Senator Obama becomes the official nominee, Democratic
Primary voters may not form a tight coalition immediately," the memo
says. "Data to date suggest Democratic Primary voters will not blindly
support Senator Obama."
FOON RHEE
Limbaugh backs Obama as preferred GOP opponent
Talk show host Rush Limbaugh, who for weeks has promoted Hillary Clinton
to keep the Democratic race going, changed course yesterday and pushed
Barack Obama.
Obama would be the weakest nominee, Limbaugh declared, telling listeners
that Obama "has shown he cannot get the votes Democrats need to win -
blue-collar, working-class people. He can get effete snobs, he can get
wealthy academics, he can get the young, and he can get the black vote,
but Democrats do not win with that."
"He will lose big," Limbaugh predicted.
Limbaugh, who credits his "Operation Chaos" for Republicans crossing
over to support Clinton in open primaries such as the one in Indiana on
Tuesday - "released" Democratic superdelegates to "get in the tank" for
Obama, but also urged Clinton to stay in the race.
"You've come too far to quit," he said.
FOON RHEE
Tally shows Indiana ID law did not dampen turnout
Indiana's controversial photo identification rule did not appear to make
a major dent in the state's high turnout, or cause confusion at the
polls as some elections specialists feared.
More than 1.6 million votes were cast Tuesday in the presidential
primaries with nearly all precincts reporting, according to an
unofficial tally by the Associated Press. That smashed the 1992 primary
turnout of a little more than 1 million votes.
The Republican-led photo ID law was designed to combat ballot fraud, but
critics said it disproportionately affected minorities and elderly
voters. Last month, the US Supreme Court ruled that the law did not
violate the Constitution.
A group of voting rights advocates who established a hotline reported
receiving several calls from would-be voters who were turned away at
precincts because they lacked state or federal identification bearing a
photograph.
Falstaff
> Democratic schism could put some Clinton loyalists in McCain's camp
>
>
> critics said it disproportionately affected minorities and elderly
> voters. Last month, the US Supreme Court ruled that the law did not
> violate the Constitution.
>
> A group of voting rights advocates who established a hotline reported
> receiving several calls from would-be voters who were turned away at
> precincts because they lacked state or federal identification bearing a
> photograph.
What voter fraud? How many cases of voter fraud have been
prosecuted?
4067 Dead
<knic...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>Democratic schism could put some Clinton loyalists in McCain's camp
>
>May 8, 2008
>http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/05/08/democratic_schism_
>could_put_some_clinton_loyalists_in_mccains_camp/
Yeah. Maybe 5%.
I notice that running unopposed, your boy McKook can't seem to get
more than about 78% of the vote.
That doesn't bode well, Knickers. Are you whiny, fretfull right
wingers out of sorts because he isn't crazy enough for you?
--
What do you call a Republican with a conscience?
An ex-Republican.
http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=8827 (From Yang, AthD (h.c)
"Prosperity and peace are in the balance," -- Putsch, not admitting that he's against both
Putsch: leading America to asymetric warfare since 2001
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
Zepps_News...@yahoogroups.com
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
Zepps_essay...@yahoogroups.com
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
Kurt Nicklas
@finestplanet.com says...
> On Thu, 8 May 2008 06:32:10 -0400, Kurt Nicklas
> <knic...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >Democratic schism could put some Clinton loyalists in McCain's camp
> >
> >May 8, 2008
> >http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/05/08/democratic_schism_
> >could_put_some_clinton_loyalists_in_mccains_camp/
>
> Yeah. Maybe 5%.
But not YOU, of course. {snickers}
> I notice that running unopposed, your boy McKook can't seem to get
> more than about 78% of the vote.
That from someone who's first choice for a candidate is chromosome-
deprived.
----------------
"I'm supporting Edwards for now."
--------- 1/28/08
"Well, that's North Carolina. Whole state population's only got 14
chromosomes among them."
----------- 12/27/2006
4067 Dead
<knic...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>In article <b43624tpmeaohebnl...@4ax.com>, zepp22114067
>@finestplanet.com says...
>> On Thu, 8 May 2008 06:32:10 -0400, Kurt Nicklas
>> <knic...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Democratic schism could put some Clinton loyalists in McCain's camp
>> >
>> >May 8, 2008
>> >http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/05/08/democratic_schism_
>> >could_put_some_clinton_loyalists_in_mccains_camp/
>>
>> Yeah. Maybe 5%.
>
>But not YOU, of course. {snickers}
>
>> I notice that running unopposed, your boy McKook can't seem to get
>> more than about 78% of the vote.
>
>That from someone who's first choice for a candidate is chromosome-
>deprived.
>
I admit, it's pretty unfair that Edwards has 13 times as many
chromosomes as the rest of NC.
Still ashamed of your state, Knickers?
I wonder if it's ashamed of you.
milt....@gmail.com
> On Thu, 8 May 2008 06:32:10 -0400, Kurt Nicklas
>
> >Democratic schism could put some Clinton loyalists in McCain's camp
>
> >May 8, 2008
> >http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/05/08/democratic_schism_
> >could_put_some_clinton_loyalists_in_mccains_camp/
>
> Yeah. Maybe 5%.
You have to love this one, huh? They're so desperate for something to
cling to, that they actually believe that little nugget?
Perhaps they should look a little more closely at the actual vote.
They should be scared to DEATH of the actual results.
Obama gets almost twice as many independent votes as McCain, in the
states that allow independents to vote in primaries. In open primary
states, Obama received FAR more crossover votes than Hillary, even
AFTER "Operation Chaos" started. Independents love Obama, and moderate
republicans prefer Obama over McCain. And more than 70% of voters want
this war over, at the same time McCain is pushing for it to continue
for 100 years. (Yeah, yeah, I know... he said only if there were no
casualties, but if he can envision the US being there and no
casualties, he has a serious problem dealing with reality...)
>
> I notice that running unopposed, your boy McKook can't seem to get
> more than about 78% of the vote.
Do you know that NO Republican has ever been elected, who didn't get
at least 85% of the Republican vote? And in a year where the far right
is actively planning to sit this one out, and there are stirrings of
one or two third-party wingnut offerings, that should be worrisome, as
well.
>
> That doesn't bode well, Knickers. Are you whiny, fretfull right
> wingers out of sorts because he isn't crazy enough for you?
They are scared to DEATH of Obama. They have never run against a
politician like this before. This guy is unflappable, and he knows how
to defend himself and still stay on message. Think about this; Obama
is still not a well-known politician; people are still learning about
him. Yet, they threw Reverend Wright at him continuously for SIX
WEEKS, and he's stronger than he was when he started. he gave a speech
that was one of the greatest political speeches of all time, and he
gave a press conference that made people think he looked
"presidential."
Obama is their worst nightmare; a reasonable moderate Democrat with
sharp political skills who doesn't fall for their bullshit. Not only
that, but he's running against the weakest candidate the GOP could
possibly run this year; an old flip flopping ex-maverick with an anger
management problem, who's shaky on the economy and Middle East
politics.
>
> >Hillary Clinton's loyalists appear to be hardening in their disdain for
> >Barack Obama as he gets closer to the Democratic nomination.
This always happens. Clinton was a good candidate who fell under the
spell of the morons at the DLC. her followers related to her
emotionally, and they don't want to let go. In the long run, though,
only a moron would think they'd jump from Clinton to the new wingnut-
version of John McCain. When face with a third Bush term, they'll vote
for Obama...
star...@yahoo.com
Here's a hint, if Hillary can't be President, she'd rather a seat on
McCain's Cabinet if nothing else.
She's a megalomaniac bitch who will destroy the ticket if she's not on
top.
Mike
English-Elephant
I doubt it, there really isn't a schism.
I prefer Obama, but if Hillary wins about 48 hours after it's
announced, everyone including myself would get behind her and then
move on to the election.
All this schism talk is manufactured.
Thanks
4067 Dead
>On May 8, 10:23 am, 4067 Dead <zepp22114...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 8 May 2008 06:32:10 -0400, Kurt Nicklas
>>
>> <knick...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >Democratic schism could put some Clinton loyalists in McCain's camp
>>
>> >May 8, 2008
>> >http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/05/08/democratic_schism_
>> >could_put_some_clinton_loyalists_in_mccains_camp/
>>
>> Yeah. Maybe 5%.
>
>You have to love this one, huh? They're so desperate for something to
>cling to, that they actually believe that little nugget?
They'll believe whatever they are told, it seems. For months, we've
been hearing about that moron Limbaugh and his "operation choas" to
try and swing the vote to Hillary. This week made it clear that it
isn't working at ALL--crossover votes went pretty much the same as the
overall results for Democrats--so now the claim is that Rush was
secretly trying to help OBAMA!
>
>Perhaps they should look a little more closely at the actual vote.
>They should be scared to DEATH of the actual results.
>
>Obama gets almost twice as many independent votes as McCain, in the
>states that allow independents to vote in primaries. In open primary
>states, Obama received FAR more crossover votes than Hillary, even
>AFTER "Operation Chaos" started. Independents love Obama, and moderate
>republicans prefer Obama over McCain. And more than 70% of voters want
>this war over, at the same time McCain is pushing for it to continue
>for 100 years. (Yeah, yeah, I know... he said only if there were no
>casualties, but if he can envision the US being there and no
>casualties, he has a serious problem dealing with reality...)
Two points: Obama had to split his independent votes with Hillary and
STILL beat McCain two to one.
Second between crossovers and independents and voting for Huckabees
and other Lost Causes, McCain's actually getting about HALF the
Republican vote.
He's toast.
Now he's declared a "War on Evil" It's the ultimate silly "War on"
move by a right wing politician that's watched wars on terror, crime,
drugs and D&D all fail catastrophically.
>>
>> I notice that running unopposed, your boy McKook can't seem to get
>> more than about 78% of the vote.
>
>Do you know that NO Republican has ever been elected, who didn't get
>at least 85% of the Republican vote? And in a year where the far right
>is actively planning to sit this one out, and there are stirrings of
>one or two third-party wingnut offerings, that should be worrisome, as
>well.
>>
Add the fact that independents are strongly leaning Democratic this
year, and this race is Obama's to lose.
bval...@aol.com
Tell me, if you weren't cheating, why are you so nervous?
milt....@gmail.com
Exactly. And Obama is not Dukakis, Gore (2000 version) or Kerry. I
just hope and pray that he avoids any influence whatsoever from the
DLC. If he accepts anything but a congratulatory handshake from Al
From or Terry McAuliffe, I'll call Michelle and instruct her to smack
him upside his head...
Steve
>On May 8, 10:23 am, 4067 Dead <zepp22114...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 8 May 2008 06:32:10 -0400, Kurt Nicklas
>>
>> <knick...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >Democratic schism could put some Clinton loyalists in McCain's camp
>>
>> >May 8, 2008
>> >http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/05/08/democratic_schism_
>> >could_put_some_clinton_loyalists_in_mccains_camp/
>>
>> Yeah. Maybe 5%.
>
>You have to love this one, huh? They're so desperate for something to
>cling to, that they actually believe that little nugget?
>
>Perhaps they should look a little more closely at the actual vote.
>They should be scared to DEATH of the actual results.
>
>Obama gets almost twice as many independent votes as McCain, in the
>states that allow independents to vote in primaries.
<LOL> There was no reason for anyone to vote in th Republican
primary since McCain already won.. Republicans are logical and they
simply voted for whichever Democrat they thought to be the weakest..
In open primary
>states, Obama received FAR more crossover votes than Hillary, even
>AFTER "Operation Chaos" started. Independents love Obama, and moderate
>republicans prefer Obama over McCain. And more than 70% of voters want
>this war over, at the same time McCain is pushing for it to continue
>for 100 years. (Yeah, yeah, I know... he said only if there were no
>casualties, but if he can envision the US being there and no
>casualties, he has a serious problem dealing with reality...)
<ROTFLMAO> This is from Milt who is too stupid to find out what a
Congressional page does before claiming to have been one....
"I was a Senate Page for two years when I went to HS in Maryland. Why
is that hard to believe?"
--Milt.Shook
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics/msg/45a41b2be7278eed?&q=senate+page
"Of course, between commuting an hour each way to and from the Capitol
every day, and trying to keep up with my studies in high school, and
play JV football (I was "too skinny" for varsity, according to my
moronic coach), and a few other extra curricular activities, I
wouldn't have had much time for that, anyway. Especially after I blew
out my knee in the fourth game of the season... damn... "
--Milt Shook, apparently unaware that congressional pages attend
school mornings and evenings at the Capital so they can attend
sessions of Congress.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/d4fb757cb481a5c2
"I was a [..Congressional..] page. Twice; and both
under unusual circumstances, especially the second time. "
--Milt Shook
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/f2f538a583cb79c3
Canyon note: Fantasies like that aren't unusual at all for Shook..
>> I notice that running unopposed, your boy McKook can't seem to get
>> more than about 78% of the vote.
>
>Do you know that NO Republican has ever been elected, who didn't get
>at least 85% of the Republican vote? And in a year where the far right
>is actively planning to sit this one out, and there are stirrings of
>one or two third-party wingnut offerings, that should be worrisome, as
>well.
>>
>> That doesn't bode well, Knickers. Are you whiny, fretfull right
>> wingers out of sorts because he isn't crazy enough for you?
>
>They are scared to DEATH of Obama. They have never run against a
>politician like this before. This guy is unflappable, and he knows how
>to defend himself and still stay on message. Think about this; Obama
>is still not a well-known politician; people are still learning about
>him. Yet, they threw Reverend Wright at him continuously for SIX
>WEEKS, and he's stronger than he was when he started. he gave a speech
>that was one of the greatest political speeches of all time, and he
>gave a press conference that made people think he looked
>"presidential."
>
>Obama is their worst nightmare; a reasonable moderate Democrat with
Obama has the most liberal record in the Senate and that *IS* going to
hurt him...
John Baker
<steven...@yahooooooo.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 8 May 2008 08:43:47 -0700 (PDT), milt....@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>On May 8, 10:23 am, 4067 Dead <zepp22114...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 8 May 2008 06:32:10 -0400, Kurt Nicklas
>>>
>>> <knick...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>> >Democratic schism could put some Clinton loyalists in McCain's camp
>>>
>>> >May 8, 2008
>>> >http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/05/08/democratic_schism_
>>> >could_put_some_clinton_loyalists_in_mccains_camp/
>>>
>>> Yeah. Maybe 5%.
>>
>>You have to love this one, huh? They're so desperate for something to
>>cling to, that they actually believe that little nugget?
>>
>>Perhaps they should look a little more closely at the actual vote.
>>They should be scared to DEATH of the actual results.
>>
>>Obama gets almost twice as many independent votes as McCain, in the
>>states that allow independents to vote in primaries.
>
><LOL> There was no reason for anyone to vote in th Republican
>primary since McCain already won.. Republicans are logical
Oh? Since when?
trog69
>
> "Of course, between commuting an hour each way to and from the Capitol
> every day, and trying to keep up with my studies in high school, and
> play JV football (I was "too skinny" for varsity, according to my
> moronic coach), and a few other extra curricular activities, I
> wouldn't have had much time for that, anyway. Especially after I blew
> out my knee in the fourth game of the season... damn... "
>
> --Milt Shook, apparently unaware that congressional pages attend
> school mornings and evenings at the Capital so they can attend
> sessions of Congress.
>
>
> "I was a [..Congressional..] page. Twice; and both
> under unusual circumstances, especially the second time. "
...among us 28%ers.
While you're clinging to the 'liberal' boogieman, most of the rest of
the voters now know for sure just how fucked up the Republican party
really is. 8 years of the real deal, has left a bad taste in our
mouths, because we're not 'mouthbreathers'.
4067 Dead
Tell us about the cases of voter fraud, Billy.
znuybv
"Mr. Begala, a Clinton supporter, said the party could not win in
November with just “eggheads and African-Americans,” that the party
could not ignore white middle-class voters. Ms. Brazile, who said she
was not “undecided but undeclared” when it came to her choice for a
candidate, shot back that Mr. Begala’s notions were dividing the
party. (And that she’d chugged down many a beer with Joe and Jane “six-
pack” in an effort to woo white voters.)"
milt....@gmail.com
> On Thu, 08 May 2008 12:26:45 -0400, Steve
>
>
>
> >On Thu, 8 May 2008 08:43:47 -0700 (PDT),milt.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >>On May 8, 10:23 am, 4067 Dead <zepp22114...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 8 May 2008 06:32:10 -0400, Kurt Nicklas
>
> >>> <knick...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >>> >Democratic schism could put some Clinton loyalists in McCain's camp
>
> >>> >May 8, 2008
> >>> >http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/05/08/democratic_schism_
> >>> >could_put_some_clinton_loyalists_in_mccains_camp/
>
> >>> Yeah. Maybe 5%.
>
> >>You have to love this one, huh? They're so desperate for something to
> >>cling to, that they actually believe that little nugget?
>
> >>Perhaps they should look a little more closely at the actual vote.
> >>They should be scared to DEATH of the actual results.
>
> >>Obama gets almost twice as many independent votes as McCain, in the
> >>states that allow independents to vote in primaries.
>
> ><LOL> There was no reason for anyone to vote in th Republican
> >primary since McCain already won.. Republicans are logical
>
> Oh? Since when?
Since he just made it up.
>
> >and they
> >simply voted for whichever Democrat they thought to be the weakest..
IOW, these "patriotic" Americans took a right that our forefathers
fought and died to create and preserve, the right to vote, and abused
its use to try to influence the political process anti-democratically.
And they preach to us about "morals."
milt....@gmail.com
> > Congressional page does before claiming to have been one....
>
> > "I was a Senate Page for two years when I went to HS in Maryland. Why
> > is that hard to believe?"
> > --Milt.Shookhttp://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics/msg/45a41b2be7278eed?&q=...
>
> > "Of course, between commuting an hour each way to and from the Capitol
> > every day, and trying to keep up with my studies in high school, and
> > play JV football (I was "too skinny" for varsity, according to my
> > moronic coach), and a few other extra curricular activities, I
> > wouldn't have had much time for that, anyway. Especially after I blew
> > out my knee in the fourth game of the season... damn... "
>
> > school mornings and evenings at the Capital so they can attend
> > sessions of Congress.
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/d4fb757cb48...
>
> > "I was a [..Congressional..] page. Twice; and both
> > under unusual circumstances, especially the second time. "
They'll figure it out in November, when they're tossed out on their
asses in droves. They're too stupid to figure out why their dear
leaders have been "retiring" in droves this year; their not as stupid
as their lemming-like minions, who think the American people are too
stupid to see through their BS.
JTEM
> Obamagets almost twice as many independent votes
> as McCain, in the states that allow independents to
> vote in primaries.
Just check out Obama's recent "Big Win" in North Carolina.
CNN has the exit poll data online. Anyhow, Obama easily
captured 35% of the white vote, and that's an achievement
that nobody can take away from him.
He won by similar proportions (and when I say "similar" I
mean "less") in states like South Carolina, Alabama,
Mississippi and George... all states which your TV tells
you were impressive wins for him.
Obama is NOT a broad-based candidate. In my almost 15
years of usenet I have left a very long trial of posts, all
pro-Democratic. But, Obama is an empty suit. He can't
do it.
Heck, Obama couldn't even beat Hillary in an open & fair
election.
Besides the loss of Michigan & Florida -- both states that
Hillary not only won, but everybody knew she was going
to win -- Obama also needs a massive cash advantage and
the media 100% behind him just to make it look like he
has a small lead over Hillary.
The media alone accounts for all of Obama's "success."
Just take Indiana, for example. Obama should have won
that race. Hillary's win -- no matter how small -- what a
huge upset. It's was Obama's kind of state -- a red state
whose northeastern part is in Chicago's media market --
and yet he lost.
The fact is -- and I'm sure you'll deny it -- most people
simply vote for the candidate that they believe is going
to win. When the media is 100% behind a particular
candidate, spinning every story to their advantage, making
it out like he's the unavoidable victor, people will vote
for him because they think he is going to win, and no other
reason.
It's EXACTLY the same thing that causes the number of
fans of a sports team to swell when they have a
championship year.
But even so, even with all these advantages... even with
stripping Florida and Michigan of 366 delegates (Obama's
so-called "lead" is less than 150), Obama still can't win
the nomination. He didn't win it. And, yeah, there aren't
enough pledged delegates to put him over the top.
With all the advantages in the world, Obama couldn't
win the nomination. If it had been a fair fight, a free and
open election instead of a Obama media feast, he would
have been buried after Super Tuesday.
He can't beat McCain.
If you don't like Hillary, fine, but it can't be Obama. What
we'd need is a compromise candidate.... Al Gore being
my first choice... John Edwards wouldn't be bad either.
Steve
wrote:
>On Thu, 08 May 2008 12:26:45 -0400, Steve
><steven...@yahooooooo.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 8 May 2008 08:43:47 -0700 (PDT), milt....@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>On May 8, 10:23 am, 4067 Dead <zepp22114...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 8 May 2008 06:32:10 -0400, Kurt Nicklas
>>>>
>>>> <knick...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>> >Democratic schism could put some Clinton loyalists in McCain's camp
>>>>
>>>> >May 8, 2008
>>>> >http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/05/08/democratic_schism_
>>>> >could_put_some_clinton_loyalists_in_mccains_camp/
>>>>
>>>> Yeah. Maybe 5%.
>>>
>>>You have to love this one, huh? They're so desperate for something to
>>>cling to, that they actually believe that little nugget?
>>>
>>>Perhaps they should look a little more closely at the actual vote.
>>>They should be scared to DEATH of the actual results.
>>>
>>>Obama gets almost twice as many independent votes as McCain, in the
>>>states that allow independents to vote in primaries.
>>
>><LOL> There was no reason for anyone to vote in th Republican
>>primary since McCain already won.. Republicans are logical
>
>Oh? Since when?
Since most republicans recognize the value of being self reliant,
responsible and not expect the government to take care of us...
Steve
Speaking of morals..
"sometimes I lie about my personal life on Usenet,
because I like to throw off the stalkers, and
sometimes, making up personal stuff puts the debate
opponent off guard."
--Milt Shook
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/f2f538a583cb79c3
<Canyon note>: No shit Sherlock...
Steve
wrote:
Leftists somehow always believe that they can speak for others...
but then, crowing about winning is something they seem to do more
before the battle is fought than after....
>the voters now know for sure just how fucked up the Republican party
>really is. 8 years of the real deal, has left a bad taste in our
>mouths, because we're not 'mouthbreathers'.
Actually, you are mouth breathers..
Steve
Shook made a lot of noise before th last two presidential elections
too.....
"But I will make this prediction. The Dems will win the WH next year."
--Milt Shook 1999/09/15
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=7rpj0e%24j7j%241%40ash.prod.itd.earthlink.net
"Bush will lose because he can't win in the GOP at this point in time.
face it; he can only win as a moderate. But if he moderates enough
to win, about a third of Repubs will head elsewhere; either they
won't vote, or they'll vote for a third party. And if he plays to
the right wing, he loses the Dems."
--Milt Shook Aug 15 1999
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=7p74a2%249p3%241%40birch.prod.itd.earthlink.net
"I also predict 320 or more electoral votes for Gore, as well..."
--Milt Shook Sep 10 2000
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=x4Vu5.1826%24%25p2.89198%40newsread03.prod.itd.earthlink.net
The Weasel
> On Thu, 8 May 2008 08:43:47 -0700 (PDT), milt.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
> >On May 8, 10:23 am, 4067 Dead <zepp22114...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 8 May 2008 06:32:10 -0400, Kurt Nicklas
>
> >> <knick...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> >Democratic schism could put some Clinton loyalists in McCain's camp
>
> >> >May 8, 2008
> >> >http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/05/08/democratic_schism_
> >> >could_put_some_clinton_loyalists_in_mccains_camp/
>
> >> Yeah. Maybe 5%.
>
> >You have to love this one, huh? They're so desperate for something to
> >cling to, that they actually believe that little nugget?
>
> They'll believe whatever they are told, it seems. For months, we've
> been hearing about that moron Limbaugh and his "operation choas" to
> try and swing the vote to Hillary. This week made it clear that it
> isn't working at ALL--crossover votes went pretty much the same as the
> overall results for Democrats--so now the claim is that Rush was
> secretly trying to help OBAMA!
According to John Kerry and the Obama campaign, it is working.
"If it hadn't been for Republicans taking Democratic ballots, he
likely would have won in Indiana," Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) said
Wednesday on a conference call hosted by the Obama campaign. "Rush
Limbaugh was tampering with the primary and the GOP has clearly
declared they want Clinton as a candidate."
and
David Axelrod, Obama's top strategist, also attributed Clinton's two
point lead in Indiana to Limbaugh's scheme, speaking to reporters
Tuesday night , according to the Wall Street Journal.
“If we come up short, they ought to call a press conference tomorrow
and thank Rush Limbaugh for the victory,” he said. “Because there’s no
doubt if they do win it’ll be by a margin so narrow that the Limbaugh
project will have given them the margin.”
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Kerry_Limbaughs_tampering_gave_Clinton_IN_0507.html
milt....@gmail.com
> milt.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Obamagets almost twice as many independent votes
> > as McCain, in the states that allow independents to
> > vote in primaries.
>
> Just check out Obama's recent "Big Win" in North Carolina.
> CNN has the exit poll data online. Anyhow, Obama easily
> captured 35% of the white vote, and that's an achievement
> that nobody can take away from him.
Running against a well known white woman, it's not all that bad.
>
> He won by similar proportions (and when I say "similar" I
> mean "less") in states like South Carolina, Alabama,
> Mississippi and George... all states which your TV tells
> you were impressive wins for him.
Excuse me, but i don't listen to my tv.
And anyone who thinks they can compare the metrics in Democratic
primaries with the general election is starting out with a foolish
premise. They are not comparable.
>
> Obama is NOT a broad-based candidate. In my almost 15
> years of usenet I have left a very long trial of posts, all
> pro-Democratic. But, Obama is an empty suit. He can't
> do it.
>
Fifteen years of Usenet. Wow. There's a qualification.
Look; Obama is NOT an empty suit. Neither was Hillary. The schmucks
who ran Hillary's campaign were empty suits. Seriously; Terry
mcAuliffe, Howard Wolfson and Marc Penn?
It's simply not possible for anyone to credibly claim that an 'empty
suit" could break the back of the biggest national political machine
in Democratic history, the DLC.
The empty suit is McCain. if you think that anyone in the Democratic
Party would have a hard time against mcCain, then you don't know
McCain. Huckabee would have been a far more formidable candidate than
McCain.
> Heck, Obama couldn't even beat Hillary in an open & fair
> election.
Hillary Clinton was an extremely strong candidate. In fact, Any of the
top five Democrats in the primaries could have beaten any of the
Republicans this year. But he beat her. He beat her in organizing, he
beat her in strategy, he beat her in fund raising (by FAR), and he
beat her in message. He smacked the shit out of her.
>
> Besides the loss of Michigan & Florida -- both states that
> Hillary not only won, but everybody knew she was going
> to win -- Obama also needs a massive cash advantage and
> the media 100% behind him just to make it look like he
> has a small lead over Hillary.
Ah, Michigan and Florida. Two primaries that didn't count, that no one
campaigned in, and which untold people sat home because it was cold as
a bitch (in Michigan, anyway) and their candidate wasn't even on the
ballot. For all we know, if everyone had campaigned the way they
wanted, and everything counted, Edwards might have been a hell of a
lot stronger in both states, and knocked both Clinton and Obama out of
the race. Not likely, but who can tell? I can tell you that, had both
states been contested, it's quite possible Clinton wouldn't have
gotten 50% and 55% in them.
Both elections were called off, and didn't count. Which means that any
delegate selection based on that vote disenfranchises a hell of a lot
more people than not counting the vote at all.
>
> The media alone accounts for all of Obama's "success."
No, actually. The popular vote does. His strength in caucuses does.
His ability to get far more votes without bringing down the other
candidates does.
>
> Just take Indiana, for example. Obama should have won
> that race. Hillary's win -- no matter how small -- what a
> huge upset. It's was Obama's kind of state -- a red state
> whose northeastern part is in Chicago's media market --
> and yet he lost.
No, actually, no one predicted Obama would win Indiana. Indiana's
metric is almost identical to Ohio's, and even a day or two before, he
was behind by 5-8 points in most polls. And the only part in the
Chicago media market in Indiana was Obama's by 10 points.
>
> The fact is -- and I'm sure you'll deny it -- most people
> simply vote for the candidate that they believe is going
> to win. When the media is 100% behind a particular
> candidate, spinning every story to their advantage, making
> it out like he's the unavoidable victor, people will vote
> for him because they think he is going to win, and no other
> reason.
If you think the media is 100% behind Obama, you're not paying
attention. of course, given the misstatements in this post, it's
obvious you're not paying attention. Obama's been raked over the coals
by the media over pure bullshit, and they've largely let her slide.
the ABC debate was pure anti-Obama, and he came out of it pissed off,
but pretty much unscathed.
>
> It's EXACTLY the same thing that causes the number of
> fans of a sports team to swell when they have a
> championship year.
>
> But even so, even with all these advantages... even with
> stripping Florida and Michigan of 366 delegates (Obama's
> so-called "lead" is less than 150), Obama still can't win
> the nomination. He didn't win it. And, yeah, there aren't
> enough pledged delegates to put him over the top.
Keep playing that Michigan-Florida straw man.
His delegate lead is actually about 160, first of all, not "less than
160." Second of all, Michigan and Florida were early enough, delegates
would have likely been split among several candidates. Even with
almost no one else on the ballot, she got 55% of the vote in Michigan.
With more name recognition than anyone, and no one campaigning, she
only got 50% of the vote in Florida. which means, even if you give her
what she "earned" in those two phony primaries, she still hasn't
caught Obama.
But everyone signed a pledge, including Clinton, that neither one of
them would count. Therefore, when all of the primaries are over, even
if no other superdelegates endorse anyone until then, he will need 70
delegates for the nomination, and she'll need about 280. With 271
superdelegates uncommitted right now... well... do the math...
She's only won more delegates in three states since February. What
will it take for you to admit it? She lost.
>
> With all the advantages in the world, Obama couldn't
> win the nomination. If it had been a fair fight, a free and
> open election instead of a Obama media feast, he would
> have been buried after Super Tuesday.
Wow.
She assumed she would have it won by Super Tuesday. She blew it. Obama
didn't get the free ride; she did. She was the presumed nominee for
two years. Hell; when he started his campaign, even I was saying it
was too soon. but he kicked her ass, because her campaign was run by a
bunch of morons. "Ready on Day One" is a slogan for a goddamn dry
cleaner, not the president of the United States. This country is
looking for change, and her entire campaign was built upon "going back
to the 1990s." Fundraising went grassroots Internet in 2004, but
idiots running her campaign still went to corporate donors for money
and tapped them dry for two years, while Obama bypassed that, and
adopted a grassroots style of campaigning that represents (are you
ready?) CHANGE, and people responded. For Chrissakes, dude; he's on
track to having more than 2 million individual contributors this time,
and more than 85% of them have given less than a quarter of the
federal maximum, which means he can tap them again and again.
Obama won because he ran a better campaign. And it's the type of
campaign that will kick John McCain's ass in the fall.
>
> He can't beat McCain.
He can't NOT beat McCain.
Look, let's be real. ANY of the Democrats running this year, except
maybe Gravel and Kucinich, could beat McCain. You have no clue how
weak McCain AND the RNC are this year. No clue.
>
> If you don't like Hillary, fine, but it can't be Obama. What
> we'd need is a compromise candidate.... Al Gore being
> my first choice... John Edwards wouldn't be bad either.
I like Hillary. I expected her to win, to be honest, and if she had
won the nomination, I would have campaigned and voted for her. But I'm
glad she didn't, because her campaign people sucked, and I really
think we would have had another Kerry on our hands. Seriously; if she
had coasted to the nomination, SHE would have been more likely to be
beaten by McCain, because her campaign people are clueless as to
what's going on this year.
As for Gore and Edwards, um... Edwards ran, remember? I supported him
and he lost. Gore would have been a great candidate before, but if you
really want to piss off a majority of the electorate, throw a
candidate in there who hasn't run in one primary, ahead of two who
have.
Whether you like Obama or not, it IS him, and he'll have plenty of
coattails, and you'll have a choice; you can either cheer him on and
make him a better candidate, or you can stand on the sidelines and
whine because someone stole your binky. Your choice.
John Baker
Preaching about morals is all they *can* do, since they quite
obviously can't teach by example.
Kurt Nicklas
ze...@finestplanet.com says...
> On Thu, 8 May 2008 11:08:29 -0400, Kurt Nicklas
> <knic...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >In article <b43624tpmeaohebnl...@4ax.com>, zepp22114067
> >@finestplanet.com says...
> >> On Thu, 8 May 2008 06:32:10 -0400, Kurt Nicklas
> >> <knic...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Democratic schism could put some Clinton loyalists in McCain's camp
> >> >
> >> >May 8, 2008
> >> >http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/05/08/democratic_schism_
> >> >could_put_some_clinton_loyalists_in_mccains_camp/
> >>
> >> Yeah. Maybe 5%.
> >But not YOU, of course. {snickers}
> >
> >> I notice that running unopposed, your boy McKook can't seem to get
> >> more than about 78% of the vote.
> >
> >That from someone who's first choice for a candidate is chromosome-
> >deprived.
> >
> I admit, it's pretty unfair that Edwards has 13 times as many
> chromosomes as the rest of NC.
Nice to see you've backtracked on your statement, Sapp.
> Still ashamed of your state, Knickers?
Ashamed of racist democrats? Absolutely!
Steve
wrote:
ROTFLMAO and what could possibly be immoral about someone voting?
raven1
Thanks as well. I support Clinton, but will be delighted to support
Obama in the general election should he be the Democratic nominee. The
sad thing is that we have to choose between them in the first place.
My dream scenario would be to have a Clinton-Obama ticket now, with
Obama succeeding Clinton after serving two terms as her
Vice-President, but it's unlikely to happen.
raven1
>Republicans are logical
Explain the past 7 years, please.
raven1
<steven...@yahooooooo.com> wrote:
>Since most republicans recognize the value of being self reliant,
>responsible and not expect the government to take care of us...
You're kidding, right? An oldie, but a goodie...
A DAY IN THE LIFE OF JOE REPUBLICAN
Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with
water to prepare his morning coffee. The water is clean and good
because some tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water-quality
standards.
With his first swallow of water, he takes his daily
medication. His medications are safe to take because some stupid
commie liberal fought to ensure their safety and that they work as
advertised.
All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his
employer's medical plan because some liberal union workers fought
their employers for paid medical insurance - now Joe gets it too.
He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs.
Joe's bacon is safe to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for
laws to regulate the meat packing industry.
In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo.
His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in
the total contents because some crybaby liberal fought for his right
to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained.
Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath.
The air he breathes is clean because some environmentalist wacko
liberal fought for the laws to stop industries from polluting our air.
He walks to the subway station for his government-subsidized ride to
work. It saves him considerable money in parking and
transportation fees because some fancy-pants liberal fought for
affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity
to be a contributor.
Joe begins his work day. He has a good job with
excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and
vacation because some lazy liberal union members fought and died for
these working standards. Joe's employer pays these standards because
Joe's employer doesn't want his employees to call the union.
If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, he'll
get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some stupid
liberal didn't think he should lose his home because of his temporary
misfortune.
It's noontime and Joe needs to make a bank deposit so
he can pay some bills. Joe's deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC
because some godless liberal wanted to protect Joe's money from
unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the Great
Depression.
Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae-underwritten mortgage
and his below-market federal student loan because some elitist liberal
decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was
educated and earned more money over his lifetime.
Joe is home from work. He plans to visit his father
this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for
the drive. His car is among the safest in the world because some
America-hating liberal fought for car safety standards.
He arrives at his boyhood home. His was the third
generation to live in the house financed by Farmers' Home
Administration because bankers didn't want to make rural loans. The
house didn't have electricity until some big-government liberal stuck
his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification.
He is happy to see his father, who is now retired. His
father lives on Social Security and a union pension because some
wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberal made sure he could take care of
himself so Joe wouldn't have to.
Joe gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns
on a radio talk show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are
bad and conservatives are good. He doesn't mention that the beloved
Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe
enjoys throughout his day.
Joe agrees: "We don't need those big-government
liberals ruining our lives! After all, I'm a self-made man who
believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have."
Kurt Nicklas
> On Thu, 08 May 2008 12:26:45 -0400, Steve
>
> >Republicans are logical
>
> Explain the past 7 years, please.
Algore lost, George Bush Won then John F'n Kerry lost and George
Bush won again. Very logical
Simple enough for you, coward?
raven1
I was referring to the batshit crazy policies of the current
Administration, not to election results, but thanks for playing.
4067 Dead
<nick...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Are you finally calling Canyon a coward?
Gosh, we all knew that already?
How are all your phony nym accounts doing?
Kurt Nicklas
quotht...@nevermore.com says...
I don't care what you were "referring" to, you purile,
pretentious little coward.
Now, sit down and be quiet.
Steve
wrote:
<LOL> and it's Zepp is afraid to address me directly knowing that
anytime he deals with me directly I pin his ears back...
raven1
Your own reply belies your claim, idiot. As does your removal of two
of the three NG's in the "Followups" category. What are you afraid of
KKKurt? Running scared, little man?