http://gamingtrend.com
April 17, 2014, 10:19:35 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Clinton's screwed  (Read 3212 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Canuck
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 5385


I live in Japan


View Profile
« on: June 01, 2008, 01:46:05 PM »

But are her supporters ever going to return to the Democratic party? Since the Florida/Michigan compromise I've been reading some really bitter comments from Clinton supporters.  That may have serious consequences for Obama come election time.  Bloody Hillary.  We all know and she knew she was fucked over two months ago and yet she wouldn't give up.  Now I'm worried that her greed has caused an unrepairable schism in the Democratic Party.
Logged
msduncan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2973


Roll Tide!!!!


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: June 01, 2008, 02:01:19 PM »

Quote from: Canuck on June 01, 2008, 01:46:05 PM

But are her supporters ever going to return to the Democratic party? Since the Florida/Michigan compromise I've been reading some really bitter comments from Clinton supporters.  That may have serious consequences for Obama come election time.  Bloody Hillary.  We all know and she knew she was fucked over two months ago and yet she wouldn't give up.  Now I'm worried that her greed has caused an unrepairable schism in the Democratic Party.

I sincerely hope you are right.
Logged
mb737
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 232


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: June 01, 2008, 04:13:49 PM »

I saw some shrew screaming about the compromise today.  She sounded like Stevie (the kid in the wheelchair) from Malcolm in the Middle:

I'M ... VOTING ... FOR ... MCCAIN! ... THE ... DEMO ... CRATS ...  crybaby

etc  Tongue
Logged
Electronic Dan
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 95


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: June 02, 2008, 12:26:44 AM »

I think whatever schism is there is repairable (Polls show Obama able to beat McCain before he's even had a chance to heal whatever wounds have been made), and on the flip side, the long primary season may have increased identification with democrats:

« Last Edit: June 02, 2008, 12:32:00 AM by Electronic Dan » Logged
msduncan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2973


Roll Tide!!!!


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: June 02, 2008, 12:34:53 AM »

Quote from: Electronic Dan on June 02, 2008, 12:26:44 AM

I think whatever schism is there is repairable (Polls show Obama able to beat McCain before he's even had a chance to heal whatever wounds have been made), and on the flip side, the long primary season may have increased identification with democrats:





Quote
Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll.

/chuckle


Edit to add clarification though:   I think Republicans lose in a country ass whoopin this fall.    They are being punished by the electorate -- some of which is justified (acting just like Democrats for 10 years in the spending department), and some of which is not (the massive tidal wave of reaction to energy prices that have spiked because of Chinese and Indian demand).
« Last Edit: June 02, 2008, 12:37:07 AM by msduncan » Logged
Electronic Dan
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 95


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: June 02, 2008, 12:46:58 AM »

Quote from: msduncan on June 02, 2008, 12:34:53 AM

Quote from: Electronic Dan on June 02, 2008, 12:26:44 AM

I think whatever schism is there is repairable (Polls show Obama able to beat McCain before he's even had a chance to heal whatever wounds have been made), and on the flip side, the long primary season may have increased identification with democrats:





Quote
Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll.

/chuckle


Fine Choose your own poll  or electoral map

The two are pretty much neck and neck with a long way to goes.

(WTF is up with SC and Indiana?)
Logged
msduncan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2973


Roll Tide!!!!


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: June 02, 2008, 02:02:35 AM »

Quote from: Electronic Dan on June 02, 2008, 12:46:58 AM

Quote from: msduncan on June 02, 2008, 12:34:53 AM

Quote from: Electronic Dan on June 02, 2008, 12:26:44 AM

I think whatever schism is there is repairable (Polls show Obama able to beat McCain before he's even had a chance to heal whatever wounds have been made), and on the flip side, the long primary season may have increased identification with democrats:





Quote
Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll.

/chuckle


Fine Choose your own poll  or electoral map

The two are pretty much neck and neck with a long way to goes.

(WTF is up with SC and Indiana?)

I can't speak for Indiana, but South Carolina has a large African American population.

Logged
msduncan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2973


Roll Tide!!!!


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: June 02, 2008, 02:04:42 AM »

If you click on the version of the electoral map link above that takes you to Clinton vs McCain.... it sure does bolster Clinton's argument that she's the stronger general election candidate.   
Logged
Sarkus
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2593


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: June 02, 2008, 02:18:35 AM »

Quote from: msduncan on June 02, 2008, 02:04:42 AM

If you click on the version of the electoral map link above that takes you to Clinton vs McCain.... it sure does bolster Clinton's argument that she's the stronger general election candidate.   

Which means what this far out?  Not much, I'd say. 

The alternative to Obama is to award the nomination to the candidate that didn't get the most actual votes and didn't win the nomination via the process the party put into place.  There's nothing good that could come from that scenario, whatever the polling would suggest.

Logged

Roger: And you should know, I have no genitals.
Syndey: That's alright.  I have both.

- American Dad
helot2000
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 287


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: June 02, 2008, 02:53:56 AM »

Dreams die hard. I am begining to think she will never give a concession speech. 
Quote from: Hillary
"One thing about superdelegates is that they can change their minds," she said aboard her plane in Puerto Rico before taking off for South Dakota.

She also said she is not committed to accepting the new 2118 delegate threshold for winning the nomination. "That's a question we will be considering," she said.

...the Clinton team signaled she might consider an appeal of the Michigan decision because the committee awarded the delegates based on a complicated formula devised by the state Democratic Party that did not reflect the votes as they were cast in the disputed Jan. 15 primary.
disgust



Logged

Saving the world one post at a time.
msduncan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2973


Roll Tide!!!!


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: June 02, 2008, 02:55:08 AM »

Quote from: Sarkus on June 02, 2008, 02:18:35 AM

Quote from: msduncan on June 02, 2008, 02:04:42 AM

If you click on the version of the electoral map link above that takes you to Clinton vs McCain.... it sure does bolster Clinton's argument that she's the stronger general election candidate.   

Which means what this far out?  Not much, I'd say. 

The alternative to Obama is to award the nomination to the candidate that didn't get the most actual votes and didn't win the nomination via the process the party put into place.  There's nothing good that could come from that scenario, whatever the polling would suggest.



I'm actually suprised there wasn't a major 3rd party candidate this year.   Seems to me this would have been a golden opportunity for one.    If you examine what has happened in the R and D camps, the party favored candidates were abandoned for either new faces (Barack) or mavericks (McCain).   This to me says the electorate was tired of the same old business in Washington, and it reflected as early as the primaries for both parties.  

If a strong 3rd party had run for President this year, they might have won the whole thing.
Logged
DarkEL
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2931



View Profile WWW
« Reply #11 on: June 02, 2008, 03:13:56 AM »

Quote from: Canuck on June 01, 2008, 01:46:05 PM

But are her supporters ever going to return to the Democratic party? Since the Florida/Michigan compromise I've been reading some really bitter comments from Clinton supporters.  That may have serious consequences for Obama come election time.  Bloody Hillary.  We all know and she knew she was fucked over two months ago and yet she wouldn't give up.  Now I'm worried that her greed has caused an unrepairable schism in the Democratic Party.

Personally I think it's all just posturing.

They know damn well that statements like that are going to cause fears in the DNC leaders of losing the election and thus they're using them as a form of verbal terrorism. Which of course is just par for the course in the clinton campaign thus far.

How her supporters can still have respect for someone who paints themselves as a victim this much is beyond me.
Logged
Moliere
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 5072



View Profile
« Reply #12 on: June 02, 2008, 03:28:36 AM »

Quote from: msduncan on June 02, 2008, 02:55:08 AM

If a strong 3rd party had run for President this year, they might have won the whole thing.

Ron Paul got 3% running as a Republican. Why would he or anyone else have done any better as a 3rd Party candidate? This is still a two party country fighting over which side of the Titanic they sit on.
Logged

That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
msduncan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2973


Roll Tide!!!!


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: June 02, 2008, 03:46:51 AM »

Quote from: Moliere on June 02, 2008, 03:28:36 AM

Quote from: msduncan on June 02, 2008, 02:55:08 AM

If a strong 3rd party had run for President this year, they might have won the whole thing.

Ron Paul got 3% running as a Republican. Why would he or anyone else have done any better as a 3rd Party candidate? This is still a two party country fighting over which side of the Titanic they sit on.

Because Ron Paul wasn't mainstream enough.    Ross Perot (yes, insane) at least early on in the 92 campaign made people think he was mainstream and had a 'let's fix it' message.    Nobody has come forward with that message from a third party perspective this year that was big name enough and electable enough.

Logged
Fireball
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1572


View Profile WWW
« Reply #14 on: June 02, 2008, 03:52:45 AM »

Quote from: msduncan on June 02, 2008, 02:55:08 AM

Quote from: Sarkus on June 02, 2008, 02:18:35 AM

Quote from: msduncan on June 02, 2008, 02:04:42 AM

If you click on the version of the electoral map link above that takes you to Clinton vs McCain.... it sure does bolster Clinton's argument that she's the stronger general election candidate.   

Which means what this far out?  Not much, I'd say. 

The alternative to Obama is to award the nomination to the candidate that didn't get the most actual votes and didn't win the nomination via the process the party put into place.  There's nothing good that could come from that scenario, whatever the polling would suggest.



I'm actually suprised there wasn't a major 3rd party candidate this year.   Seems to me this would have been a golden opportunity for one.    If you examine what has happened in the R and D camps, the party favored candidates were abandoned for either new faces (Barack) or mavericks (McCain).   This to me says the electorate was tired of the same old business in Washington, and it reflected as early as the primaries for both parties.  

If a strong 3rd party had run for President this year, they might have won the whole thing.

Nonsense. Third party candidates face normally insurmountable obstacle towards winning -- most importantly the lack of a built in ground organization (the GOP and Democrats have well-tuned turnout machines that took decades to construct and train) to turn out the vote -- and when they win they have NO partisan allies in the other branches of government to turn to for support. That third parties try to win the presidency instead of focusing first and foremost on the legislative bodies shows how third party-ism tends to attract those who are the least grounded in political realism.

Also, Hillary's "polls" against McCain are a chimera. Right now, NO ONE is taking pot shots at Hillary Clinton, she's getting a complete free ride. Obama switched to general election mode (and isn't even really pouring money into the present primaries) after Indiana and is focused on McCain, and McCain is focused on Obama. With no concerted effort to drag her down being executed, Clinton is, of course, benefiting in the polls.

She's toast by Thursday.
Logged

msduncan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2973


Roll Tide!!!!


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: June 02, 2008, 04:24:18 AM »

Quote from: Fireball1244 on June 02, 2008, 03:52:45 AM

Quote from: msduncan on June 02, 2008, 02:55:08 AM

Quote from: Sarkus on June 02, 2008, 02:18:35 AM

Quote from: msduncan on June 02, 2008, 02:04:42 AM

If you click on the version of the electoral map link above that takes you to Clinton vs McCain.... it sure does bolster Clinton's argument that she's the stronger general election candidate.   

Which means what this far out?  Not much, I'd say. 

The alternative to Obama is to award the nomination to the candidate that didn't get the most actual votes and didn't win the nomination via the process the party put into place.  There's nothing good that could come from that scenario, whatever the polling would suggest.



I'm actually suprised there wasn't a major 3rd party candidate this year.   Seems to me this would have been a golden opportunity for one.    If you examine what has happened in the R and D camps, the party favored candidates were abandoned for either new faces (Barack) or mavericks (McCain).   This to me says the electorate was tired of the same old business in Washington, and it reflected as early as the primaries for both parties.  

If a strong 3rd party had run for President this year, they might have won the whole thing.

Nonsense. Third party candidates face normally insurmountable obstacle towards winning -- most importantly the lack of a built in ground organization (the GOP and Democrats have well-tuned turnout machines that took decades to construct and train) to turn out the vote -- and when they win they have NO partisan allies in the other branches of government to turn to for support. That third parties try to win the presidency instead of focusing first and foremost on the legislative bodies shows how third party-ism tends to attract those who are the least grounded in political realism.

Also, Hillary's "polls" against McCain are a chimera. Right now, NO ONE is taking pot shots at Hillary Clinton, she's getting a complete free ride. Obama switched to general election mode (and isn't even really pouring money into the present primaries) after Indiana and is focused on McCain, and McCain is focused on Obama. With no concerted effort to drag her down being executed, Clinton is, of course, benefiting in the polls.

She's toast by Thursday.

I've often wondered what in the crap was happening back in 1992 when Ross Perot was getting a very significant percentage in the polls before he dropped out.       Without the machine you mentioned above, he was attracting huge numbers for an independent in a Presidential election.
Logged
Fireball
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1572


View Profile WWW
« Reply #16 on: June 02, 2008, 05:32:16 AM »

Yes, in the polls. But it's the turnout machine that's required to make those polls a reality that matters. Most independent candidates see their final numbers fall lower than the final polls, as they don't have the infrastructure required to maximize their opportunity.

That's the power, and value, of a political party to a candidate, and one reason that non-partisan races always see dramatically lower turnout. It's impossible to build from scratch the sort of mechanisms the DNC and RNC have put in place, building from the precinct level to the national level.
Logged

Blackadar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3459



View Profile
« Reply #17 on: June 02, 2008, 12:32:55 PM »

Hillary supporters need to STFU.  Their candidate lost, period.

The rules of the primaries were agreed-upon prior to the first ballot ever being cast.  This included the exclusion of FL and MI.  Once Hillary figured out she was losing, she started to campaign to change the rules after the game had already been played.  That in itself is absurd and I found her comments so distasteful and idiotic that I promptly switched to Obama.

Then, miracles of miracles, they actually managed to bitch enough to get the rules changed.  As far as I'm concerned, that was a mistake.  You play by the rules that were set.  Obama got reamed in the decision - does anyone really think that Obama would lose 105 to 67 in FL and 69 to 59 in MI?  He'd have a good chance of winning both states, not losing.  And the 1/2 seat was the *best* the committee could do - the DNC laywers said they couldn't fully seat FL or MI prior to the meeting.  As such, the decision was a lopsided in favor of Hillary but since it still won't give her the nomination, they're still complaining.  SHE LOST, GET THE FUCK OVER IT. 
Logged

Raise the bridge! I have an erection!
Scraper
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3764



View Profile
« Reply #18 on: June 02, 2008, 02:46:10 PM »

How many people in Florida and Michigan did not vote because they knew their primary vote did not count? I would be willing to bet a ton of people didn't vote because it was pointless. If they had known that their votes would actually go towards the delegate count then they may have had incentive to get out and vote. I vote in every election because my vote is actually counted. But if I knew that my vote was literally not going to count towards the final outcome then I wouldn't even bother to vote. Asking for a change in the rules after the game has been played is a slap in the face to every registered voter in those states.
Logged

" And they are a strong and frightening force, impervious to, and immunized against, the feeble lance of mere reason." Isaac Asimov
Brendan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3841


two oh sickness


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: June 02, 2008, 05:08:57 PM »

Quote from: msduncan on June 02, 2008, 02:55:08 AM

If a strong 3rd party had run for President this year, they might have won the whole thing.

I just read this article, and thought you might be interested given your hypothesis.
Logged
msteelers
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1773



View Profile
« Reply #20 on: June 02, 2008, 05:27:16 PM »

Quote from: Blackadar on June 02, 2008, 12:32:55 PM

Hillary supporters need to STFU.  Their candidate lost, period.

The rules of the primaries were agreed-upon prior to the first ballot ever being cast.  This included the exclusion of FL and MI.  Once Hillary figured out she was losing, she started to campaign to change the rules after the game had already been played.  That in itself is absurd and I found her comments so distasteful and idiotic that I promptly switched to Obama.

Then, miracles of miracles, they actually managed to bitch enough to get the rules changed.  As far as I'm concerned, that was a mistake.  You play by the rules that were set.

I agree, but everyone pretty much knew that the delegates were going to be sat one way or another. Both are swing states, and it would have been a gift to the republicans if the democrats didn't give them a voice at all. I wish more talk would have gone into a revote, but both states shot that down almost immediately, and nobody seemed to pick up the argument after that.
Logged

Tune in to hear me spout nonsense about Fantasy Football every Thursday evening at 6:08.
Blackadar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3459



View Profile
« Reply #21 on: June 02, 2008, 06:29:46 PM »

Quote from: msteelers on June 02, 2008, 05:27:16 PM

I agree, but everyone pretty much knew that the delegates were going to be sat one way or another. Both are swing states, and it would have been a gift to the republicans if the democrats didn't give them a voice at all. I wish more talk would have gone into a revote, but both states shot that down almost immediately, and nobody seemed to pick up the argument after that.

On principal, I disagree with this.  You don't set rules and plan on breaking them later.  If their votes don't count, they don't count - regardless on whether you seat the delegates at the convention.  The Republicans' plan for punishing MI and FL was a better one, but once the DNC decided, they should stick to it.

Plus, I'm not sure "everyone knew the delegates were going to be sat".  If that were so, everyone (but Hillary) wouldn't have pulled their names off the MI ballot.
Logged

Raise the bridge! I have an erection!
Montag
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 95


View Profile
« Reply #22 on: June 02, 2008, 06:36:12 PM »

Quote from: Blackadar on June 02, 2008, 12:32:55 PM

Hillary  Gore supporters need to STFU.  Their candidate lost, period.

The rules of the primaries election were agreed-upon prior to the first ballot ever being cast.  This included the exclusion crappy ballots of FL and MI.  Once Hillary Gore supporters figured out she he was losing, she they started to campaign to change the rules after the game had already been played.  That in itself is absurd and I found her their comments so distasteful and idiotic that I promptly switched to Obama.

 

I could not resist.
Logged
Sarkus
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2593


View Profile
« Reply #23 on: June 02, 2008, 06:41:20 PM »

Quote from: Montag on June 02, 2008, 06:36:12 PM

Quote from: Blackadar on June 02, 2008, 12:32:55 PM

Hillary  Gore supporters need to STFU.  Their candidate lost, period.

The rules of the primaries election were agreed-upon prior to the first ballot ever being cast.  This included the exclusion crappy ballots of FL and MI.  Once Hillary Gore supporters figured out she he was losing, she they started to campaign to change the rules after the game had already been played.  That in itself is absurd and I found her their comments so distasteful and idiotic that I promptly switched to Obama.

 

I could not resist.

I actually agree with that statement, at least in that form where the debate is limited to the discussion of the ballots.

Logged

Roger: And you should know, I have no genitals.
Syndey: That's alright.  I have both.

- American Dad
cheeba
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2045


View Profile
« Reply #24 on: June 02, 2008, 07:07:19 PM »

Again I'll state that this is the DNC's problem, not Michigan and Florida's. You can argue that Michigan and Florida shouldn't have changed their vote all you want, it doesn't change the fact that the Republicans handled it well with no problems whatsoever while the Democrats have been dealing with this issue, causing strife and perhaps even disenfranchisement, for about 5 or so months now.

It amazes me how inept the DNC is and has been for so long.
Logged
msteelers
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1773



View Profile
« Reply #25 on: June 02, 2008, 07:27:05 PM »

Quote from: Blackadar on June 02, 2008, 06:29:46 PM

Quote from: msteelers on June 02, 2008, 05:27:16 PM

I agree, but everyone pretty much knew that the delegates were going to be sat one way or another. Both are swing states, and it would have been a gift to the republicans if the democrats didn't give them a voice at all. I wish more talk would have gone into a revote, but both states shot that down almost immediately, and nobody seemed to pick up the argument after that.

On principal, I disagree with this.  You don't set rules and plan on breaking them later.  If their votes don't count, they don't count - regardless on whether you seat the delegates at the convention.  The Republicans' plan for punishing MI and FL was a better one, but once the DNC decided, they should stick to it.

I actually agree with what you are saying. Everyone knew the rules well in advance, and everyone signed off on them. Florida and Michigan broke the rules, they should be punished. At the same time, Clinton shouldn't be calling for all the delegates to be sat. It is an obvious and disgusting move to win at all costs. Would she have argued for this long to get them seated if she didn't need those delegates? Absolutely not.

And as a voter in Florida, I do not feel disenfranchised by the democratic party. Still, others will. Or more likely, the Republicans will constantly point out that the democrats didn't give FL or MI a voice (even though everyone knows that is stretching the truth)

Quote
Plus, I'm not sure "everyone knew the delegates were going to be sat".  If that were so, everyone (but Hillary) wouldn't have pulled their names off the MI ballot.

True, but I don't think anyone thought we would be in June without a clear nominee. I'm sure many thought there would be a clear winner back in February, and they would be able to let the delegates from the two states sit without affecting the outcome. But the fight has been so close they couldn't do that.
Logged

Tune in to hear me spout nonsense about Fantasy Football every Thursday evening at 6:08.
Electronic Dan
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 95


View Profile
« Reply #26 on: June 02, 2008, 08:06:31 PM »

Quote from: Fireball1244 on June 02, 2008, 03:52:45 AM


Also, Hillary's "polls" against McCain are a chimera. Right now, NO ONE is taking pot shots at Hillary Clinton, she's getting a complete free ride. Obama switched to general election mode (and isn't even really pouring money into the present primaries) after Indiana and is focused on McCain, and McCain is focused on Obama. With no concerted effort to drag her down being executed, Clinton is, of course, benefiting in the polls.


To a large degree I think you're right but I do think there are some bases Clinton has (women, elderly, working class, etc) and other advantages that give her a much better chance at winning states like Arkansas and Florida that does put her in a better position (just not as much as the polls suggest)
Logged
LordMortis
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 370


View Profile
« Reply #27 on: June 03, 2008, 02:37:32 PM »

Quote from: msduncan on June 02, 2008, 12:34:53 AM

Edit to add clarification though:   I think Republicans lose in a country ass whoopin this fall.    They are being punished by the electorate -- some of which is justified (acting just like Democrats for 10 years in the spending department), and some of which is not (the massive tidal wave of reaction to energy prices that have spiked because of Chinese and Indian demand).


I think you might be wrong.  Obama is coming off as more and more of politician in the last three months.  His saviour image is becoming more and more tarnished.  One needs look no further than at his evolving position on ethanol as energy savior over the last 18 months.  Federal position on energy will decide this election.  Obama's talk on energy policy versus Obama's talk on energy policy will likely defeat him rather than the republicans.  That's the problem with being righteous.  It can come back and bite you in the ass.  The ethanol cross is one that he will be crucified on.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11979179/

http://www.commercial-news.com/statenews/cnhinsall_story_233000901.html

But then he says:

http://www.mitchellrepublic.com/articles/index.cfm?id=27101&section=News

But then the farmers love him:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121236914379136639.html?mod=googlenews_wsj


There's a good chance that McCain sucks in commuter manufacturing states like Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana, and Michigan over energy policy alone.  Areas that Obama quite frankly needs.  These states won't be happy voting for McCain but they will if he can exploit Obama's changing perceptions on energy policy then Obama is done.  McCain's not a stupid man.

I never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever thought I would hear myself say this but the person who would most likely be favorable to win the general at this point is Hillary.  I'm confused and in pain.
Logged
Dan_Theman
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 418


View Profile
« Reply #28 on: June 03, 2008, 02:46:21 PM »

I hate to say this, but I think the public is far less savvy when it comes to vetting an energy policy than you give them credit for, my home state of Ohio included.  Obama's energy policy may have some issues, but in order for that to stick those problems would have to be expertly highlighted and on the same token McCain's would have to come off as flawless. 
Logged
kathode
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2469



View Profile
« Reply #29 on: June 03, 2008, 03:02:08 PM »

Just popped up on CNN.com that Clinton will be conceding tonight.
Logged
LordMortis
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 370


View Profile
« Reply #30 on: June 03, 2008, 03:10:17 PM »

Quote from: Dan_Theman on June 03, 2008, 02:46:21 PM

I hate to say this, but I think the public is far less savvy when it comes to vetting an energy policy than you give them credit for, my home state of Ohio included.  Obama's energy policy may have some issues, but in order for that to stick those problems would have to be expertly highlighted and on the same token McCain's would have to come off as flawless. 

McCain doesn't have to come off as savy.  All he has to do run snippets.

""I think this is a short-term problem," Obama said Monday of rising feed prices, adding that higher prices will encourage more people to grow more corn, eventually bringing prices down" - Aug 21, 2007

That's all his attack ad has to say.  It's not going negative.  And it doesn't even show if McCain has a plan.  And when a $12 an hour industry worker sees mile at $3.50 a gallon and gas still at $4.50 a gallon, they'll be questioning specifics of what the plan has been all along.

At the same time, I think you are right, as there is no solution in sight to energy policy as far as I know.  (But then I am part of the public)  But the less than savvy public will want to feel things are going in the right direction and that they are doing so by design.  They feel the current alternative design is more damning than the original problem.
Logged
PR_GMR
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3391



View Profile
« Reply #31 on: June 03, 2008, 03:18:32 PM »

Quote from: kathode on June 03, 2008, 03:02:08 PM

Just popped up on CNN.com that Clinton will be conceding tonight.

(A crowd of angelic little children sing:)

Alleluyahhh! Alleluyahhh!! Alllleeeee-luuuuu-yahhhhhhh!!!!
Logged
Electronic Dan
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 95


View Profile
« Reply #32 on: June 03, 2008, 03:24:21 PM »

Quote from: PR_GMR on June 03, 2008, 03:18:32 PM

Quote from: kathode on June 03, 2008, 03:02:08 PM

Just popped up on CNN.com that Clinton will be conceding tonight.

(A crowd of angelic little children sing:)


That's not a "crowd", that's just one lady.   icon_razz
Logged
Dan_Theman
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 418


View Profile
« Reply #33 on: June 03, 2008, 05:24:51 PM »

Just to keep people updated, there's been a correction released advising that she WON'T be conceding just yet.
Logged
SkyLander
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1868



View Profile
« Reply #34 on: June 03, 2008, 08:55:24 PM »




Logged

Pretty....what do we blow up first?
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.185 seconds with 93 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0.035s, 2q)