<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>The Five Mistakes Clinton Made By KAREN TUMULTY Thu May 8, 11:40 AM ET For all her talk about "full speed on to the White House," there was an unmistakably elegiac tone to Hillary Clinton's primary-night speech in Indianapolis. And if one needed further confirmation that the undaunted, never-say-die Clintons realize their bid might be at an end, all it took was a look at the wistful faces of the husband and the daughter who stood behind the candidate as she talked of all the people she has met in a journey "that has been a blessing for me." It was also a journey she had begun with what appeared to be insurmountable advantages, which evaporated one by one as the campaign dragged on far longer than anyone could have anticipated. She made at least five big mistakes, each of which compounded the others: 1. She misjudged the mood That was probably her biggest blunder. In a cycle that has been all about change, Clinton chose an incumbent's strategy, running on experience, preparedness, inevitability - and the power of the strongest brand name in Democratic politics. It made sense, given who she is and the additional doubts that some voters might have about making a woman Commander in Chief. But in putting her focus on positioning herself to win the general election in November, Clinton completely misread the mood of Democratic-primary voters, who were desperate to turn the page. "Being the consummate Washington insider is not where you want to be in a year when people want change," says Barack Obama's chief strategist, David Axelrod. Clinton's "initial strategic positioning was wrong and kind of played into our hands." But other miscalculations made it worse: 2. She didn't master the rules Clinton picked people for her team primarily for their loyalty to her, instead of their mastery of the game. That became abundantly clear in a strategy session last year, according to two people who were there. As aides looked over the campaign calendar, chief strategist Mark Penn confidently predicted that an early win in California would put her over the top because she would pick up all the state's 370 delegates. It sounded smart, but as every high school civics student now knows, Penn was wrong: Democrats, unlike the Republicans, apportion their delegates according to vote totals, rather than allowing any state to award them winner-take-all. Sitting nearby, veteran Democratic insider Harold M. Ickes, who had helped write those rules, was horrified - and let Penn know it. "How can it possibly be," Ickes asked, "that the much vaunted chief strategist doesn't understand proportional allocation?" And yet the strategy remained the same, with the campaign making its bet on big-state victories. Even now, it can seem as if they don't get it. Both Bill and Hillary have noted plaintively that if Democrats had the same winner-take-all rules as Republicans, she'd be the nominee. Meanwhile, the Clinton campaign now acknowledges privately: 3. She underestimated the caucus states While Clinton based her strategy on the big contests, she seemed to virtually overlook states like Minnesota, Nebraska and Kansas, which choose their delegates through caucuses. She had a reason: the Clintons decided, says an adviser, that "caucus states were not really their thing." Her core supporters - women, the elderly, those with blue-collar jobs - were less likely to be able to commit an evening of the week, as the process requires. But it was a little like unilateral disarmament in states worth 12% of the pledged delegates. Indeed, it was in the caucus states that Obama piled up his lead among pledged delegates. "For all the talent and the money they had over there," says Axelrod, "they - bewilderingly - seemed to have little understanding for the caucuses and how important they would become." By the time Clinton's lieutenants realized the grave nature of their error, they lacked the resources to do anything about it - in part because: 4. She relied on old money For a decade or more, the Clintons set the standard for political fund-raising in the Democratic Party, and nearly all Bill's old donors had re-upped for Hillary's bid. Her 2006 Senate campaign had raised an astonishing $51.6 million against token opposition, in what everyone assumed was merely a dry run for a far bigger contest. But something had happened to fund-raising that Team Clinton didn't fully grasp: the Internet. Though Clinton's totals from working the shrimp-cocktail circuit remained impressive by every historic measure, her donors were typically big-check writers. And once they had ponied up the $2,300 allowed by law, they were forbidden to give more. The once bottomless Clinton well was drying up. Obama relied instead on a different model: the 800,000-plus people who had signed up on his website and could continue sending money his way $5, $10 and $50 at a time. (The campaign has raised more than $100 million online, better than half its total.) Meanwhile, the Clintons were forced to tap the $100 million - plus fortune they had acquired since he left the White House - first for $5 million in January to make it to Super Tuesday and then $6.4 million to get her through Indiana and North Carolina. And that reflects one final mistake: 5. She never counted on a long haul Clinton's strategy had been premised on delivering a knockout blow early. If she could win Iowa, she believed, the race would be over. Clinton spent lavishly there yet finished a disappointing third. What surprised the Obama forces was how long it took her campaign to retool. She fought him to a tie in the Feb. 5 Super Tuesday contests but didn't have any troops in place for the states that followed. Obama, on the other hand, was a train running hard on two or three tracks. Whatever the Chicago headquarters was unveiling to win immediate contests, it always had a separate operation setting up organizations in the states that were next. As far back as Feb. 21, Obama campaign manager David Plouffe was spotted in Raleigh, N.C. He told the News & Observer that the state's primary, then more than 10 weeks away, "could end up being very important in the nomination fight." At the time, the idea seemed laughable. Now, of course, the question seems not whether Clinton will exit the race but when. She continues to load her schedule with campaign stops, even as calls for her to concede grow louder. But the voice she is listening to now is the one inside her head, explains a longtime aide. Clinton's calculation is as much about history as it is about politics. As the first woman to have come this far, Clinton has told those close to her, she wants people who invested their hopes in her to see that she has given it her best. And then? As she said in Indianapolis, "No matter what happens, I will work for the nominee of the Democratic Party because we must win in November." When the task at hand is healing divisions in the Democratic Party, the loser can have as much influence as the winner. View this article on Time.com</div> http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20080508/us_t...akesclintonmade
I don't agree with much of this. The bottom line is she is who she is. Being a Clinton, many big donors threw their weight behind Obama. Just because she was a Clinton. It was pretty obvious when guys like David Geffen came out and said the Clintons had trouble with the truth and then supported Obama from day 1. That she is who she is also speaks to her sense of entitlement and inevitability. About the only truth in the above article is that they didn't go after the caucus states hard enough and that is basically the difference in pledged delegate count in Obama's favor. No matter how you spin it, the Democratic Party's process does not work very well. Obama will likely win because he won more delegates than she did in states that the party isn't going to contend in. There's no electoral math in the process, which makes it outright bogus. The pundits are looking toward the general election and how the electoral math works out. It's still going to come down to who wins 2 of 3 of PA, OH, and FL. If people want to win, they'd look at which of Obama/Clinton has the best chance to achieve 2 of 3. If they want to nominate Obama for the sake of it (or to spite Clinton), the election is no lock, regardless of how many people come out to vote for Democrats in their "safe" states.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ May 9 2008, 11:38 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I don't agree with much of this. The bottom line is she is who she is. Being a Clinton, many big donors threw their weight behind Obama. Just because she was a Clinton. It was pretty obvious when guys like David Geffen came out and said the Clintons had trouble with the truth and then supported Obama from day 1. That she is who she is also speaks to her sense of entitlement and inevitability. About the only truth in the above article is that they didn't go after the caucus states hard enough and that is basically the difference in pledged delegate count in Obama's favor. No matter how you spin it, the Democratic Party's process does not work very well. Obama will likely win because he won more delegates than she did in states that the party isn't going to contend in. There's no electoral math in the process, which makes it outright bogus. The pundits are looking toward the general election and how the electoral math works out. It's still going to come down to who wins 2 of 3 of PA, OH, and FL. If people want to win, they'd look at which of Obama/Clinton has the best chance to achieve 2 of 3. If they want to nominate Obama for the sake of it (or to spite Clinton), the election is no lock, regardless of how many people come out to vote for Democrats in their "safe" states.</div> The Electoral math should be done with, it makes no sense in the general election. Obama's also more consistent and less polarizing. I've heard Tim Russert talk about Obama's other paths to the nomination, it doesn't have to be so traditional; Ohio is no lock for McCain either.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ May 9 2008, 01:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Ohio is no lock for McCain either.</div> You mean Ohio, where Republicans jumped the primary lines to vote for Clinton in hopes of not facing BO in the Nov? You mean Ohio, where the State Attorney General is dealing with a huge scandal in his office? He is a Democrat that ran his campaign based upon attacking Republicans for being unethical and is now defying calls from all top Ohio Democrats to resign. Ohio is a huge mess, but it will take a lot more than they have shown for the Dems to win the State in Nov.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ May 9 2008, 02:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ May 9 2008, 01:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Ohio is no lock for McCain either.</div> You mean Ohio, where Republicans jumped the primary lines to vote for Clinton in hopes of not facing BO in the Nov? You mean Ohio, where the State Attorney General is dealing with a huge scandal in his office? He is a Democrat that ran his campaign based upon attacking Republicans for being unethical and is now defying calls from all top Ohio Democrats to resign. Ohio is a huge mess, but it will take a lot more than they have shown for the Dems to win the State in Nov. </div> I'm just going off the recent polls. Ohio is empirically close, it was pretty much a tie a few months ago, which is why I made the statement. The Democrats and Republicans want the Attorney General gone in Ohio. They've disowned him.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ May 9 2008, 04:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ May 9 2008, 02:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ May 9 2008, 01:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Ohio is no lock for McCain either.</div> You mean Ohio, where Republicans jumped the primary lines to vote for Clinton in hopes of not facing BO in the Nov? You mean Ohio, where the State Attorney General is dealing with a huge scandal in his office? He is a Democrat that ran his campaign based upon attacking Republicans for being unethical and is now defying calls from all top Ohio Democrats to resign. Ohio is a huge mess, but it will take a lot more than they have shown for the Dems to win the State in Nov. </div> I'm just going off the recent polls. Ohio is empirically close, it was pretty much a tie a few months ago, which is why I made the statement. The Democrats and Republicans want the Attorney General gone in Ohio. They've disowned him. </div> Having unfortunately lived a large part of my life in Ohio and unfortunately a current resident, you'll have to excuse me when I ignore the polls. Obviously, the Republicans are calling for the AG to step down; however, they all hope he stays on for several more months so that they have a platform to rail against the Dems every day.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ May 9 2008, 03:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ May 9 2008, 04:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ May 9 2008, 02:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ May 9 2008, 01:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Ohio is no lock for McCain either.</div> You mean Ohio, where Republicans jumped the primary lines to vote for Clinton in hopes of not facing BO in the Nov? You mean Ohio, where the State Attorney General is dealing with a huge scandal in his office? He is a Democrat that ran his campaign based upon attacking Republicans for being unethical and is now defying calls from all top Ohio Democrats to resign. Ohio is a huge mess, but it will take a lot more than they have shown for the Dems to win the State in Nov. </div> I'm just going off the recent polls. Ohio is empirically close, it was pretty much a tie a few months ago, which is why I made the statement. The Democrats and Republicans want the Attorney General gone in Ohio. They've disowned him. </div> Having unfortunately lived a large part of my life in Ohio and unfortunately a current resident, you'll have to excuse me when I ignore the polls. Obviously, the Republicans are calling for the AG to step down; however, they all hope he stays on for several more months so that they have a platform to rail against the Dems every day. </div> Well you can ignore a couple of polls, but all of the major ones averaged out hint to legitimate evidence of it being close. This isn't Florida.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ May 9 2008, 04:15 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Well you can ignore a couple of polls, but all of the major ones averaged out hint to legitimate evidence of it being close. This isn't Florida.</div> It is a state that managed to elect Bob Taft as governor and that has significant support for mandatory teaching of (un)intelligent design in the classroom. The state isn't doing great and Strickland isn't that popular. At the last election, there was the anti-Taft backlash that helped the Dems, but all of that is reversed now.
Meh it is still incredibly close, I don't know what there is to dispute. I'm not predicting success for either candidate yet, obviously McCain has a bit of an edge there right now.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ May 9 2008, 10:10 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ May 9 2008, 11:38 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I don't agree with much of this. The bottom line is she is who she is. Being a Clinton, many big donors threw their weight behind Obama. Just because she was a Clinton. It was pretty obvious when guys like David Geffen came out and said the Clintons had trouble with the truth and then supported Obama from day 1. That she is who she is also speaks to her sense of entitlement and inevitability. About the only truth in the above article is that they didn't go after the caucus states hard enough and that is basically the difference in pledged delegate count in Obama's favor. No matter how you spin it, the Democratic Party's process does not work very well. Obama will likely win because he won more delegates than she did in states that the party isn't going to contend in. There's no electoral math in the process, which makes it outright bogus. The pundits are looking toward the general election and how the electoral math works out. It's still going to come down to who wins 2 of 3 of PA, OH, and FL. If people want to win, they'd look at which of Obama/Clinton has the best chance to achieve 2 of 3. If they want to nominate Obama for the sake of it (or to spite Clinton), the election is no lock, regardless of how many people come out to vote for Democrats in their "safe" states.</div> The Electoral math should be done with, it makes no sense in the general election. Obama's also more consistent and less polarizing. I've heard Tim Russert talk about Obama's other paths to the nomination, it doesn't have to be so traditional; Ohio is no lock for McCain either. </div> The electoral math is a huge factor, and Democrats are living in dreamland because they choose to ignore it. The republican primaries, for starters, do reflect electoral math in the sense it's winner take all. In addition, you can and should be looking at the state polls and counting the electoral votes because the general election works that way. No point in sobbing about it after the fact if you win the popular vote and lose the electoral vote. Which can be technically done by winning just two states - California and New York - by large enough margins. Heck, just two cities (LA and NYC).
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ May 9 2008, 06:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ May 9 2008, 10:10 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ May 9 2008, 11:38 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I don't agree with much of this. The bottom line is she is who she is. Being a Clinton, many big donors threw their weight behind Obama. Just because she was a Clinton. It was pretty obvious when guys like David Geffen came out and said the Clintons had trouble with the truth and then supported Obama from day 1. That she is who she is also speaks to her sense of entitlement and inevitability. About the only truth in the above article is that they didn't go after the caucus states hard enough and that is basically the difference in pledged delegate count in Obama's favor. No matter how you spin it, the Democratic Party's process does not work very well. Obama will likely win because he won more delegates than she did in states that the party isn't going to contend in. There's no electoral math in the process, which makes it outright bogus. The pundits are looking toward the general election and how the electoral math works out. It's still going to come down to who wins 2 of 3 of PA, OH, and FL. If people want to win, they'd look at which of Obama/Clinton has the best chance to achieve 2 of 3. If they want to nominate Obama for the sake of it (or to spite Clinton), the election is no lock, regardless of how many people come out to vote for Democrats in their "safe" states.</div> The Electoral math should be done with, it makes no sense in the general election. Obama's also more consistent and less polarizing. I've heard Tim Russert talk about Obama's other paths to the nomination, it doesn't have to be so traditional; Ohio is no lock for McCain either. </div> The electoral math is a huge factor, and Democrats are living in dreamland because they choose to ignore it. The republican primaries, for starters, do reflect electoral math in the sense it's winner take all. In addition, you can and should be looking at the state polls and counting the electoral votes because the general election works that way. No point in sobbing about it after the fact if you win the popular vote and lose the electoral vote. Which can be technically done by winning just two states - California and New York - by large enough margins. Heck, just two cities (LA and NYC). </div> Obama's supposed to represent a new age of politics, I look forward to abolishing this ridiculous system. Democrats are complaining about the process now. I'm well aware of how possible it is to lose the Electoral math but not the Pop vote.
If Democrats had their way, politicians running for president would visit the 10 most populated cities during the campaigns and everyone else would be left out of the "democratic" process. No thanks.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ May 9 2008, 07:53 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>If Democrats had their way, politicians running for president would visit the 10 most populated cities during the campaigns and everyone else would be left out of the "democratic" process. No thanks.</div> And if Republicans had their way.... Right I get it Denny. Still, it would be so easy to fix the general election process.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ May 9 2008, 08:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ May 9 2008, 07:53 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>If Democrats had their way, politicians running for president would visit the 10 most populated cities during the campaigns and everyone else would be left out of the "democratic" process. No thanks.</div> And if Republicans had their way.... Right I get it Denny. Still, it would be so easy to fix the general election process. </div> You can have many gripes on the way Bush has been President or how Republicans block progress in Washington, but I think something that's pretty obvious, is that Republicans run the better elections. It's just fact. Look at the Contract with America in '94. Look at 2000, look at 2004. Howard Dean and the DNC have shown themselved to be incompetent when it comes to running elections. They had a full year to work something out with Florida and they couldn't get it done. Instead, they had to stand pat and disenfranchise the voters there. Not to mention that's probably the state the Democrats can least afford to fuck up in. If you don't believe me, you might if a Republican wins the presidency this year after eight years of a historically unpopular Republican president who many believe mislead us to war, launched an historic attack on our constitution and ruined our economy. Here's something that will piss off anyone who lived in the U.S. from 1976-1980. There are 795 Superdelegates. Take the number of people who have voted so far in the Democratic primaries, and do the math, so see how much Jimmy Carter's vote counts. I bet Jimmy Carter's one vote counts for thousands of people. How does that reflect the will of the people?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ May 9 2008, 08:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ May 9 2008, 08:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ May 9 2008, 07:53 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>If Democrats had their way, politicians running for president would visit the 10 most populated cities during the campaigns and everyone else would be left out of the "democratic" process. No thanks.</div> And if Republicans had their way.... Right I get it Denny. Still, it would be so easy to fix the general election process. </div> You can have many gripes on the way Bush has been President or how Republicans block progress in Washington, but I think something that's pretty obvious, is that Republicans run the better elections. It's just fact. Look at the Contract with America in '94. Look at 2000, look at 2004. Howard Dean and the DNC have shown themselved to be incompetent when it comes to running elections. They had a full year to work something out with Florida and they couldn't get it done. Instead, they had to stand pat and disenfranchise the voters there. Not to mention that's probably the state the Democrats can least afford to **** up in. If you don't believe me, you might if a Republican wins the presidency this year after eight years of a historically unpopular Republican president who many believe mislead us to war, launched an historic attack on our constitution and ruined our economy. </div> When did I say the Republicans don't take advantage of the electoral college? Obviously they do since they have a shot at winning in November right now in spite of the popular vote not being in their favor, when that shouldn't be the case. Again I am also an independent voter. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Here's something that will piss off anyone who lived in the U.S. from 1976-1980. There are 795 Superdelegates. Take the number of people who have voted so far in the Democratic primaries, and do the math, so see how much Jimmy Carter's vote counts. I bet Jimmy Carter's one vote counts for thousands of people. How does that reflect the will of the people?</div> It doesn't, both parties are fucked up. Obama seems genuine on the subject though. I haven't heard him slurp up the concept.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ May 9 2008, 06:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ May 9 2008, 07:53 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>If Democrats had their way, politicians running for president would visit the 10 most populated cities during the campaigns and everyone else would be left out of the "democratic" process. No thanks.</div> And if Republicans had their way.... Right I get it Denny. Still, it would be so easy to fix the general election process. </div> We're not a democracy, we're a republic. The electoral college is the republican (small "r") way to elect a president. We elect people at every level to represent us, and the electors of the elector college are just that. The system makes it possible that Obama might actually have to campaign in places like Wyoming and Nevada to get elected. It's far better that way because the people of Wyoming and Nevada deserve a say and the attention of the candidates. If republicans had their way, they'd vote in McCain-Feingold which would give the Democrats hundreds of $millions worth of advantage in the 2008 elections (and beyond). Dopes that they are. On the other hand, if republicans had their way, they'd control the FLA congress and vote to move their primary up so the democrats would be exposed - the politburo rules are more important than counting peoples' votes.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ May 9 2008, 09:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ May 9 2008, 06:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ May 9 2008, 07:53 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>If Democrats had their way, politicians running for president would visit the 10 most populated cities during the campaigns and everyone else would be left out of the "democratic" process. No thanks.</div> And if Republicans had their way.... Right I get it Denny. Still, it would be so easy to fix the general election process. </div> We're not a democracy, we're a republic. The electoral college is the republican (small "r") way to elect a president. We elect people at every level to represent us, and the electors of the elector college are just that. The system makes it possible that Obama might actually have to campaign in places like Wyoming and Nevada to get elected. It's far better that way because the people of Wyoming and Nevada deserve a say and the attention of the candidates. If republicans had their way, they'd vote in McCain-Feingold which would give the Democrats hundreds of $millions worth of advantage in the 2008 elections (and beyond). Dopes that they are. On the other hand, if republicans had their way, they'd control the FLA congress and vote to move their primary up so the democrats would be exposed - the politburo rules are more important than counting peoples' votes. </div> What does the USA being a republic have to do with the fact that the EC is an unfair system? It's not mandated for the rest of eternity, the voting process can be modified. The Electoral college wasn't created to give Wyoming more attention and value; it has a more sinister purpose these days. The Candidates are going to campaign all over the country regardless of which system is in place either way. It is 2008, we have calculators, cell phones, and all that Denny . You know the EC is an arcane system meant for a different era.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ May 9 2008, 07:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ May 9 2008, 09:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ May 9 2008, 06:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ May 9 2008, 07:53 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>If Democrats had their way, politicians running for president would visit the 10 most populated cities during the campaigns and everyone else would be left out of the "democratic" process. No thanks.</div> And if Republicans had their way.... Right I get it Denny. Still, it would be so easy to fix the general election process. </div> We're not a democracy, we're a republic. The electoral college is the republican (small "r") way to elect a president. We elect people at every level to represent us, and the electors of the elector college are just that. The system makes it possible that Obama might actually have to campaign in places like Wyoming and Nevada to get elected. It's far better that way because the people of Wyoming and Nevada deserve a say and the attention of the candidates. If republicans had their way, they'd vote in McCain-Feingold which would give the Democrats hundreds of $millions worth of advantage in the 2008 elections (and beyond). Dopes that they are. On the other hand, if republicans had their way, they'd control the FLA congress and vote to move their primary up so the democrats would be exposed - the politburo rules are more important than counting peoples' votes. </div> What does the USA being a republic have to do with the fact that EC is an unfair system? It's not mandated for the rest of eternity, the voting process can be modified. The Electoral college wasn't created to give Wyoming more attention and value; it has a more sinister purpose these days. The Candidates are going to campaign all over the country regardless of which system is in place either way. It is 2008, we have calculators, cell phones, and all that Denny . You know the EC is an arcane system meant for a different era. </div> No. The EC is mandated by the constitution, as is that all state governments will be of republican form. The EC is perfectly fair, just as it's fair that I can't vote for whoever is running against Ted Kennedy. We're the United STATES, not something less. Just as the people of the STATE of Mass. get to elect Kennedy (or not), they get to elect their representatives to the electoral college. And no way do the candidates campaign all over. They would spend all their money on TV ads in the largest 10 cities, and if that's not enough to win them the popular vote, they'd move on to the 11th and 12th and so on. That's not at all a good way to run elections. The democratic primaries prove what a mess it'd be any other way.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ May 9 2008, 09:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ May 9 2008, 07:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ May 9 2008, 09:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ May 9 2008, 06:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ May 9 2008, 07:53 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>If Democrats had their way, politicians running for president would visit the 10 most populated cities during the campaigns and everyone else would be left out of the "democratic" process. No thanks.</div> And if Republicans had their way.... Right I get it Denny. Still, it would be so easy to fix the general election process. </div> We're not a democracy, we're a republic. The electoral college is the republican (small "r") way to elect a president. We elect people at every level to represent us, and the electors of the elector college are just that. The system makes it possible that Obama might actually have to campaign in places like Wyoming and Nevada to get elected. It's far better that way because the people of Wyoming and Nevada deserve a say and the attention of the candidates. If republicans had their way, they'd vote in McCain-Feingold which would give the Democrats hundreds of $millions worth of advantage in the 2008 elections (and beyond). Dopes that they are. On the other hand, if republicans had their way, they'd control the FLA congress and vote to move their primary up so the democrats would be exposed - the politburo rules are more important than counting peoples' votes. </div> What does the USA being a republic have to do with the fact that EC is an unfair system? It's not mandated for the rest of eternity, the voting process can be modified. The Electoral college wasn't created to give Wyoming more attention and value; it has a more sinister purpose these days. The Candidates are going to campaign all over the country regardless of which system is in place either way. It is 2008, we have calculators, cell phones, and all that Denny . You know the EC is an arcane system meant for a different era. </div> No. The EC is mandated by the constitution, as is that all state governments will be of republican form. The EC is perfectly fair, just as it's fair that I can't vote for whoever is running against Ted Kennedy. We're the United STATES, not something less. Just as the people of the STATE of Mass. get to elect Kennedy (or not), they get to elect their representatives to the electoral college. And no way do the candidates campaign all over. They would spend all their money on TV ads in the largest 10 cities, and if that's not enough to win them the popular vote, they'd move on to the 11th and 12th and so on. That's not at all a good way to run elections. The democratic primaries prove what a mess it'd be any other way. </div> Well I was obviously alluding to the Amendment process Denny. :/ The Democratic primaries are a mess because their primaries should be closer to each other and the SDs, that's all. Campaigning in ten/eleven cities is still more fair than having the magnitude of my win in California or Ohio ignored. I don't think the other cities would be ignored either, that's a fatal mistake Clinton would make.
This could be a dangerous election. The electoral college is going to be close, but Obama has the popular vote locked up already imo, and it will be a pretty significant margin. Gore won by 500,000 votes or so, Obama is going to crush that number. Breaking it down....start with Texas. Gore/Kerry both got slaughtered in Texas, in part because George W. was the governor there. Using the most recent poll data, I think somewhere along the lines of a McCain 53 Obama 46 seems about appropriate for Texas. Say Texas has the same 7.41 million votes. This would give McCain 3.93 million Texas votes, and Obama 3.41 million. This would net the Democrats 1.18 million votes just from Texas over the last election. I don't think Obama can come close to winning Texas, but the gap is definitely going to be a whole lot thinner than last election. Looking at the deep South, Obama is doing on pace with Kerry from 2004...might do a little better depending on how well his organization can bring out the black vote (remember, they didn't do too well during the primary rallying that). If he rallies the blacks, he can maybe get up to 39% in Alabama. Maybe net 60,000 votes here. Arkansas you can't tell yet until he gets out of this divisive campaign with Clinton...could probably lose votes here canceling out Alabama. Could pick up 140,000 or so in Georgia. Obama will run up the score in big population areas like New York, Chicago, and LA more so than Kerry could. He'll make Indiana somewhat competitive, while still losing...He'll pickup votes in the Southwest, in New Mexico, Colarado, and Nevada...possibly winning all three. He'll do better in Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, but not necessarily win. He is more popular in Wisconsin/Minnesota than Kerry was, so he'll run up some extra votes there. He'll win Iowa, doing better than Kerry. I think Obama will definitely have at least a 1 million popular vote lead, I think 2 million is definitely likely as well...but I'm still not sure that he will win the presidency, even with that. Then we will once again be a laughingstock for the rest of the world...denying the possible first black president, who won the election by plenty...it could be a shame. Rioting will occur.
