data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/b0614/b061486d4aa081817ce48deadb51aa6d69c9b238" alt="Image"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/b255a/b255adebafc80542f80e2bca92c24448af3db95b" alt="Image"
Hilliary Clinton claims her home state...takes Obama
Moderator: Jesus H Christ
Jsc810 wrote:RACK McCain. The more Rush, Coulter, et al complain about him, the more I like him. If he is pissing off "true conservatives" that much, then he's doing something right.
Typical Dem tool.Jsc810 wrote:RACK McCain. The more Rush, Coulter, et al complain about him, the more I like him. If he is pissing off "true conservatives" that much, then he's doing something right.
:?The Seer wrote:No offense...
RACK. I vote Republican on plenty of issues/candidates also, but it makes me sick how many candidates cow-tow to the religious right, when they're a small fanatic sliver of the party. In no way do they represent the majority of Americans or majority of Republicans, yet candidates all but recite from the bible during speeches to cater to them. You don't see Democrats shun deodorant and bathing to cater to the hippie crowd...Jsc810 wrote: Although I almost always vote Republican for President, the "true conservatives" -- as articulated by Rush, Hannity, Tony Perkins, Coulter, and those on the Religious Right -- disgust me. They've hijacked the Republican party and further divided the country.
Moving Sale wrote: I could easily have an IQ of 40
Moving Sale wrote: I could easily have an IQ of 40
So, how many Democrats have you had in your mouth lately?Wolfman wrote:
Not to mention -- that's 6-8% in the Republican primaries. In a general election, that percentage falls.OCmike wrote:How do you figure that Ron Paul is going to get 10% of the vote when he's only scoring 6%-8% in most states?
War Wagon wrote:The first time I click on one of your youtube links will be the first time.
OCmike wrote:How do you figure that Ron Paul is going to get 10% of the vote when he's only scoring 6%-8% in most states?
I agree that he'd certainly get plenty of votes, but I don't think he'll pull anywhere near 10%.
...or Nader, or Bloomberg or any of the other third party candidates that may run. Sure, some of those votes will go to McCain, but I just don't think it will be 10%.RumpleForeskin wrote:I think some of those votes will go to Paul if McCain is the GOP's nominee.
I listened to political talk radio when I lived in CA, because the show was done by two guys who were basically libertarians, so they had no Dem or GOP agenda. During an election year like this, I shun ALL political radio, because everyone is just trying to push their own personal candidate or agenda. It's all a bunch of biased crap. And if you're asking if I listen to Hannity or Rush, then the answer is a KFC-Paul sized "NO". I lean a little bit to the right, so I can't stand any one who is too far on either side of the spectrum. Hannity can be okay at times, but certainly not during an election year.Don't you listen to the radio?
Moving Sale wrote: I could easily have an IQ of 40
I listened to the first 5 minutes of Sean Hannity's show this morning just to hear him melt down over McCain's impending nomination. I wasn't disappointed. ;)OCmike wrote:I listened to political talk radio when I lived in CA, because the show was done by two guys who were basically libertarians, so they had no Dem or GOP agenda. During an election year like this, I shun ALL political radio, because everyone is just trying to push their own personal candidate or agenda. It's all a bunch of biased crap. And if you're asking if I listen to Hannity or Rush, then the answer is a KFC-Paul sized "NO". I lean a little bit to the right, so I can't stand any one who is too far on either side of the spectrum. Hannity can be okay at times, but certainly not during an election year.
Yeah. Generally a decent show (when I used to listen anyway), but once in awhile the constant shouting of John got me to shut it off.mvscal wrote:John and Ken?OCmike wrote:I listened to political talk radio when I lived in CA, because the show was done by two guys who were basically libertarians, so they had no Dem or GOP agenda.
Moving Sale wrote: I could easily have an IQ of 40
Maybe not, mv, but all I know is Michael Berry wasn't nearly as forthcoming about his distaste for McCain in the past. Over the last few days, he has taken the gloves off and has absolutely blasted him non-stop. Now, he is the only show I listen to with a strong stance on the right, so I am going off assumption for the other shows and what I saw on TV last night.mvscal wrote:You don't have a fucking clue, do you?
Um...The "Republican" radio honks want the democrats to win the election.RumpleForeskin wrote:That is the problem with the GOP contingent. All those fuckers are listening to Hannity, Rush, Berry, etc.
If the radio personalities (whom have a very strong influence for the GOP voters) keep blasting McCain over the airwaves, then the dems, Obama or Hilary, will coast into the White House. All those idiots need to swallow their pride until November.
But a number of Democrats might if Hilary is the other choice.mvscal wrote:Not a chance. Republicans aren't going to turn out to vote for him.
Agreed, her being the alternative will make a huge difference.Goober McTuber wrote:But a number of Democrats might if Hilary is the other choice.mvscal wrote:Not a chance. Republicans aren't going to turn out to vote for him.
Let them. Not only are they a small sliver of the Republican party, but the states that they dominate are sparsely populated and have few electoral votes.RumpleForeskin wrote:If Huckabee and McCain pair up, the evangelicals will come out just like they did in '04 when gay marriage was a hot button issue.
Moving Sale wrote: I could easily have an IQ of 40
Oh, Mike, how soon we forget that all those little red states in the south and midwest added up to give W the nod for a second term.OCmike wrote:Let them. Not only are they a small sliver of the Republican party, but the states that they dominate are sparsely populated and have few electoral votes.RumpleForeskin wrote:If Huckabee and McCain pair up, the evangelicals will come out just like they did in '04 when gay marriage was a hot button issue.
The only person I want to hear "Oh mike" from is my OL as I'm giving her the tubesteak from behind. Kindly refrain in the future.RumpleForeskin wrote: Oh, Mike, how soon we forget that all those little red states in the south and midwest added up to give W the nod for a second term.
Moving Sale wrote: I could easily have an IQ of 40
This article from Politico.com does a pretty good job explaining why Hillary's best chance to win the nomination might have already passed her by.Goober McTuber wrote:But a number of Democrats might if Hilary is the other choice.mvscal wrote:Not a chance. Republicans aren't going to turn out to vote for him.
Internet Explorer cannot display the webpage
Most likely causes:
You are not connected to the Internet.
The website is encountering problems.
There might be a typing error in the address.
What you can try:
Diagnose Connection Problems
More information
This problem can be caused by a variety of issues, including:
Internet connectivity has been lost.
The website is temporarily unavailable.
The Domain Name Server (DNS) is not reachable.
The Domain Name Server (DNS) does not have a listing for the website's domain.
If this is an HTTPS (secure) address, click Tools, click Internet Options, click Advanced, and check to be sure the SSL and TLS protocols are enabled under the security section.
For offline users
You can still view subscribed feeds and some recently viewed webpages.
To view subscribed feeds
Click the Favorites Center button , click Feeds, and then click the feed you want to view.
To view recently visited webpages (might not work on all pages)
Click Tools , and then click Work Offline.
Click the Favorites Center button , click History, and then click the page you want to view.
Goober McTuber wrote:But a number of Democrats might if Hilary is the other choice.mvscal wrote:Not a chance. Republicans aren't going to turn out to vote for him.
WacoFan wrote:Flying any airplane that you can hear the radio over the roaring radial engine is just ghey anyway.... Of course, Cirri are the Miata of airplanes..
Fuckin IE users.RumpleForeskin wrote:I didn't really get a whole lot out of that article, B.
Five reasons Hillary should be worried
By: Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen
Feb 6, 2008 02:31 PM EST
Former first lady holds a slight overall edge in delegates but the map, money and momentum favor Obama.
Hillary Clinton survived a Super Tuesday scare. But there are five big reasons the former first lady should be spooked by the current trajectory of the campaign.
Longtime Clinton friends say she recognizes the peril in careening between near-death primary night experiences and small-bore victories.
Although the friends did not have details, they believe she may go ahead with the campaign shake-up she had been planning just before her surprise victory in New Hampshire.
Her team is girding for trench warfare, telling reporters that the nomination will not be decided until at least the Pennsylvania primary on April 22, if then.
Clinton aides told reporters on a conference call today that the Democratic Party’s complex delegate allocation rules mean that neither candidate is likely to take a sizable lead in the foreseeable future.
While Clinton’s campaign gloated about having the most total delegates for the cycle so far, her staff nevertheless recognizes that Super Tuesday was no triumph. Here’s why:
1. She lost the delegate derby. Pure and simple, this is a war to win delegates, one that might not be decided until this summer’s Democratic convention. And when the smoke cleared this morning, it appeared that Barack Obama had ended up with slightly more delegates in the 22 states. Obama’s campaign says the senator finished ahead by 14 delegates.
With results still coming in, Clinton’s campaign says the candidates finished within five or six delegates of each other. Either way, Super Tuesday was essentially a draw. Clinton may still hold the edge overall, but Obama is closing in rapidly.
2. She essentially tied Obama in the popular vote. Each won just over 7.3 million votes, a level of parity that was unthinkable as recently as a few weeks ago. At the time, national polls showed Clinton with a commanding lead — in some cases, by 10 points or more. That dominance is now gone. One reason is that polls and primary results reveal that the more voters get to know Obama, the more they seem to like him. This is especially troubling for Clinton since the schedule slows dramatically now and a full month will pass before the next big-state showdown.
All of this allows candidates ample time to introduce themselves to voters in each state — which plays to Obama’s core strengths.
3. She lost more states. Obama carried 14 states, six more than Clinton, and showed appeal in every geographical region.
His win in bellwether Missouri was impressive by nearly every measure, marked by victories among men and women, secular and churchgoing voters, and urban and suburban voters.
4. She lost the January cash war. Money chases momentum, so Obama crushing’s 2-to-1 fundraising victory last month is revealing.
He raised more than $31 million; Clinton raised less than $14 million. The implication is hard to ignore: Democratic activists and donors are flocking to Obama at a pace that could have a profound effect on the race going forward.
5. The calendar is her enemy. Now that more than half the states have weighed in, there is a fairly predictable formula for determining who is most likely to win the upcoming contests.
In caucus states, Obama’s organizational strength shines: He has won seven of eight. Up next are three more caucus states, Washington, Nebraska and Maine.
Obama also runs tremendously well in states with large African-American populations, another promising sign since next Tuesday’s three primaries are in the District of Columbia, Maryland and Virginia — all of which have significant percentages of black voters.
Then comes another caucus state, Hawaii, where Obama is viewed as a native son.
The bottom line is that it figures to be another month before Clinton hits a stretch of states — places like Ohio and Pennsylvania — where she will be strongly favored to win.
So it couldn’t be any clearer as to why the supposedly inevitable candidacy is anything but — even when she’s supposedly winning.
I seriously doubt that.Goober McTuber wrote:But a number of Democrats might if Hilary is the other choice.mvscal wrote:Not a chance. Republicans aren't going to turn out to vote for him.
so Rush lost listeners the last 8 years Bush was in office?Voice of Reason wrote:Um...The "Republican" radio honks want the democrats to win the election.RumpleForeskin wrote:That is the problem with the GOP contingent. All those fuckers are listening to Hannity, Rush, Berry, etc.
If the radio personalities (whom have a very strong influence for the GOP voters) keep blasting McCain over the airwaves, then the dems, Obama or Hilary, will coast into the White House. All those idiots need to swallow their pride until November.
Rush was trying his hardest (by the same way of turning off Republican voters) to get Bush out last election too.
He doesn't really believe the shit he says, he's a fucking fictional personality. And its better for his ratings and his pocketbook to have a democrat in office. Makes his job easier, as its simple to drum up dissention against whoever's in charge.
Most dittoheads are too fucking retarded to even realize that Rush isn't on their side.
Not in the south, they're not...although they DO vote in significantly fewer elections, especially if they're poor, which many are.Nogs are only 13% of the population
...and about half of them are in prison.
Normally I'd agree with you on this, but if Obama is on the ticket, I'd expect the nog voting to at least double over elections when it's one honkey vs another and they just vote for whoever will continue giving them foodstamps.They are a completely inconsequential constituency. The population demographics have been shifting south for a long time.
Agreed, but that has nothing to do with the religious wackos.It is difficult, if not impossible to win without a strong showing in the south most particularly for Republicans as they lack strength in the northeast.
I specifically listed the states that I was talking about:BTW, Florida and Texas are not sparsely populated with few electoral votes. If you equate "The South" with the former Confederate states, you are talking about 153 electoral votes out of the 270 needed to clinch. Not exactly chump change.
Texas votes predominantly Republican, with the exception of the Austin area, which is an odd oasis of ultra-libs.OCmike wrote:You think predominantly nog states in the souf like AL, MS, GA, and LA...
Moving Sale wrote: I could easily have an IQ of 40
Rush has always had better numbers when he was an administration basher rather than an administration cheerleader. Tell me you knew... Hell, he did so well during the Clinton Administration that he parlayed his popularity into a tv show for awhile.titlover wrote: so Rush lost listeners the last 8 years Bush was in office?
shut the fuck up moron.
Moving Sale wrote: I could easily have an IQ of 40
They both stopped being funny at about the same time.Mace wrote:Bigger than Rome?? Get outta here! :)mvscal wrote:Yeah. He's got the biggest show on AM radio and has for years.
Okay, Rome is probably on the FM dial....and I haven't listened to him for years either.
Mace
WacoFan wrote:Flying any airplane that you can hear the radio over the roaring radial engine is just ghey anyway.... Of course, Cirri are the Miata of airplanes..
He's always been popular with the silver-haired crowd. He'll start dropping in the ratings as soon as people stop getting old.Mace wrote:
Rush apparently remains popular (judging from the numbers mvscal posted). He must get an amazing number of new listeners every year to compensate for the ones no longer listening.
Mace
Moving Sale wrote: I could easily have an IQ of 40
OCmike wrote:He's always been popular with the silver-haired crowd.