Quote from: John MorrowMy only concern is that this is going to be yet another thing make race relations even worse than they already are.  The way the racial divide is showing up in the polls is not good for anyone, though various states have done a very good job of pointing out, to anyone who actually looks at what's going on, that neither the Republican Party nor the South corner the market in white people who won't vote for black candidates.

Nor black people who won't vote for white candidates - check the percentages of blacks supporting Obama as opposed to Hillary, or McCain for that matter - think its all policy, or just more "one of us" mentality?

The Race War in America is far from over, and it's simmering just fine, fueled by the millions in the Criminal Justice system. People like Clinton and Obama (And McCain.) are so far removed from everyday life as to be laughable. These people no more represent the face of the public than any of the posters here do.

Hey, now - *I* represent the face of the public, clearly. Just ask me.

Quote from: WerekoalaNor black people who won't vote for white candidates - check the percentages of blacks supporting Obama as opposed to Hillary, or McCain for that matter - think its all policy, or just more "one of us" mentality?

Which is exactly what I mean about it making race relations worse.  That's what happens when tribes pick sides and vote for the candidate most like them.  If we have any lesson to learn from the failed democracies of the world it's that tribal voting wrecks democracy, whether it's white voting for a white because they are white, blacks voting for a black because they are black, women voting for a woman because she's a woman, men voting for a man because he's a man, and so on.  This election have been one massive example of identity politics coming home to roost, from Obama and Hillary to the Evangelicals who wouldn't vote for Romney because he's Mormon.  It leads no place good.

Quote from: darThe really fucking funny thing, Pundit, is I think your exactly wrong.

Personally I don't want her to be president, but I think she is shoring up to be the centrist in this, currently, three way battle. I think that would leave her much more likely to compete with McCain. Her dumping the moveon George Soros lackeys is just the first step.

I'm sure, though, that the Democrats are hunting, with laser guided efficiency, defeat out of the jaws of success, again.

Rush could very well be very sorry he helped keep her in the fight.

Very fucking entertaining.

Going by the delegate numbers, I don't think Hillary has much of a chance to take the nomination from Obama.  Which is kinda sad, because I think she's the lesser of the two evils on the Dem side (not that I really supported her in the first place).  McCain was really the best of a bad bunch on the right.  No matter who gets the Dem nomination, though, I'm really not sure who I'll vote for come November.

The whole primary grind this time around (coupled with a few other events of late...not least the sudden and dramatic fall of my state's assholish-but-supposedly-non-corrupt governor) has pushed me from being a stalwart for participation in the voting process to near apathy.  The football team mentality engendered by our stupid two-party system just makes it worse...like Shrub's "You're either with us or against us" speechifying, every issue gets reduced to a simplistic binary proposition.

It has been entertaining watching the Dems eat their own, though.  I've always known the left-of-the-left folks in the party were nuts, but day-umm.  Liberal blog sites have made for...interesting...reading of late.

Quote from: KenHRGoing by the delegate numbers, I don't think Hillary has much of a chance to take the nomination from Obama.

Yea, I guess I was saying 'IF'. Still isn't over though.

Quote from: KenHRGoing by the delegate numbers, I don't think Hillary has much of a chance to take the nomination from Obama.

I don't think that's true.  The super-delegates are going to decide this either way.  If you count Michigan and Florida, her popular vote total may currently be bigger than Obama.  Her Pennsylvania win gave her an infusion of cash.  And she can rightly point out that Obama couldn't win Ohio or Pennsylvania despite vastly outspending her, not to mention the polls showing that her voters would go over to McCain in fairly large numbers if Obama wins and polls showing Obama as weak against McCain in such must-win states as New Jersey and even, in some polls, New York and Massachusetts. You can find a good overview of the case for Clinton by her supporter Lanny Davis here.  

Basically, I think Clinton can make a very good case that Obama won't be able to win some key constituencies that Democrats need to win to win the election, especially if he can successfully be painted with the weak liberal brush (like McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis, and Kerry), which I think is very likely.  The problem is that I'm not sure she can make a good case that she can win given her negatives.  But if the super-delegates where ready to just turn over the nomination to Obama on the basis of pledged delegates and popular vote, they could have done that by now, but they aren't and I think that's for a reason.  I think they (and Clinton) might be waiting for an Obama meltdown and he's got a few more months for that to happen.  To be honest, their best chance of winning might be a brokered convention that picks someone else entirely.  Call it the Bob Torricelli/Frank Lautenberg maneuver.  There is a certain appeal to putting a fresh undamaged candidate up against an opponent when it's clear that your candidate can't win.

If anything, I think this primary season has shown the wisdom in the electoral college and the system that the Founders put in place, making states "winner take all" instead of proportional.  If the Democrats hadn't been using proportional voting, there would be a clear winner right now that would look like they had a mandate, like the Republicans have.

With respect to polarization and the football mentality, the sound bite mentality and inability for people to actually argue a point doesn't help.  Everyone just wants to trot out their talking points but if anyone asks for some thought or analysis, well, cut to a commercial break or take another caller.

No matter who wins between Obama and Clinton, the Democrats lose.

Quote from: Serious PaulNo matter who wins between Obama and Clinton, the Democrats lose.

No matter who is the democrat's nominee, as long as the economy sucks in november, the republicans lose.

Quote from: mhensleyNo matter who is the democrat's nominee, as long as the economy sucks in november, the republicans lose.

Just like Bush was a goner in 2004, right?

Quote from: mhensleyNo matter who is the democrat's nominee, as long as the economy sucks in November, the republicans lose.

I think you'll be proven wrong, and I admit I'm just guessing here-but so far the Economy hasn't really been a factor in this election.

Quote from: Serious PaulI think you'll be proven wrong, and I admit I'm just guessing here-but so far the Economy hasn't really been a factor in this election.

Even if the economy is a factor, the Democrats are going to have 3 problems using it as an issue.  (1) McCain is not Bush and spent much of his career long before this election staking a claim to not being a typical Republican, (2) the Democrats have controlled Congress since 2006 and haven't done anything to make things better, and (3) talking about raising taxes (see Obama's bizarre answer to Charlie Gibson's capital gains tax question in the last debate) or even letting Bush's tax cuts expire don't strike most people as being a good economic move.

Quote from: John MorrowI don't think that's true.  The super-delegates are going to decide this either way.  If you count Michigan and Florida, her popular vote total may currently be bigger than Obama.  Her Pennsylvania win gave her an infusion of cash.  And she can rightly point out that Obama couldn't win Ohio or Pennsylvania despite vastly outspending her, not to mention the polls showing that her voters would go over to McCain in fairly large numbers if Obama wins and polls showing Obama as weak against McCain in such must-win states as New Jersey and even, in some polls, New York and Massachusetts. You can find a good overview of the case for Clinton by her supporter Lanny Davis here.  

Basically, I think Clinton can make a very good case that Obama won't be able to win some key constituencies that Democrats need to win to win the election, especially if he can successfully be painted with the weak liberal brush (like McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis, and Kerry), which I think is very likely.  The problem is that I'm not sure she can make a good case that she can win given her negatives.  But if the super-delegates where ready to just turn over the nomination to Obama on the basis of pledged delegates and popular vote, they could have done that by now, but they aren't and I think that's for a reason.  I think they (and Clinton) might be waiting for an Obama meltdown and he's got a few more months for that to happen.  To be honest, their best chance of winning might be a brokered convention that picks someone else entirely.  Call it the Bob Torricelli/Frank Lautenberg maneuver.  There is a certain appeal to putting a fresh undamaged candidate up against an opponent when it's clear that your candidate can't win.

If anything, I think this primary season has shown the wisdom in the electoral college and the system that the Founders put in place, making states "winner take all" instead of proportional.  If the Democrats hadn't been using proportional voting, there would be a clear winner right now that would look like they had a mandate, like the Republicans have.

With respect to polarization and the football mentality, the sound bite mentality and inability for people to actually argue a point doesn't help.  Everyone just wants to trot out their talking points but if anyone asks for some thought or analysis, well, cut to a commercial break or take another caller.

But its not clear Obama can't win.

He appeals to a lot of moderates - moderates who are finding out McCain's moderate appeal was a house build on sand.  In order to get the nomination, he had to show support for the traditional republican base he didn't like before.

After Obama wins the nomination, Hillary will have already run through all the big "skeletons" (cause none of them are really skeletons of any proportion) in his closet.  The Wright thing and all the other stuff - it'll be old news.  McCain bringing it up will just look like he's parroting all of Clinton's criticisms.  And I don't think McCain can beat Obama in debates.

I think the only thing stopping Obama from taking Oval Office in the end will be  Hillary enacting such a monumental scorched earth policy that the Democratic party fractures in such a way that its impossible to move forward.  Once he's the nominee, all sorts of things fall in place that will help him - experienced policy hounds can help him shore up his initial Primary policy promises into official planks that are solid, he'll have a whole host of people who are still fence sitting behind him, trumpeting his praises where now they say little.  

The actual election will be a different story altogether.  I hope Obama wins thumpingly in the next few races, so more people climb down off the fence and start pushing Hillary out the door.

Quote from: HackmastergeneralHe appeals to a lot of moderates - moderates who are finding out McCain's moderate appeal was a house build on sand.  In order to get the nomination, he had to show support for the traditional republican base he didn't like before.

This word "moderate" - I don't think it means what you think it means...

Quote from: HackmastergeneralAfter Obama wins the nomination, Hillary will have already run through all the big "skeletons" (cause none of them are really skeletons of any proportion) in his closet.  The Wright thing and all the other stuff - it'll be old news.  McCain bringing it up will just look like he's parroting all of Clinton's criticisms.  And I don't think McCain can beat Obama in debates.

McCain has already made clear he wants to try to take what politicians consider to be the high road. Whatever he brings up in the general it won't be this and it will be in what passes for as a statesmen - that's what all that time in the senate will give him. It's like second nature with the "My good friend' this and "My esteemed colleague that" bullshit they all do. Obama has it a bit, but it's in McCain's DNA at this point.

An Obama/McCain debate will be very interesting to watch. Quite honestly, it will all depend on the questions and the way they are put to the candidates. Your opinion shows how low the expectations will be for McCain - given the Obama rhetorical skills it's clear as to why. So what happens if McCain focuses on issues, knows his stuff, and makes his experience shine a light on Obama's? Even if he simply holds his own in those ways, it will be considered a huge success and will be reported as such in the media. Like I said, it will be very interesting...

Quote from: HackmastergeneralI think the only thing stopping Obama from taking Oval Office in the end will be  Hillary enacting such a monumental scorched earth policy that the Democratic party fractures in such a way that its impossible to move forward.  Once he's the nominee, all sorts of things fall in place that will help him - experienced policy hounds can help him shore up his initial Primary policy promises into official planks that are solid, he'll have a whole host of people who are still fence sitting behind him, trumpeting his praises where now they say little.  

The actual election will be a different story altogether.  I hope Obama wins thumpingly in the next few races, so more people climb down off the fence and start pushing Hillary out the door.

Oh, and btw, never underestimate Illinois politics and the taint it may bring with it. The governor here is going to be destroyed in the Resko trial - the same Resko with whom Obama is familiar. If there's any story there at all, some enterprising reporter/republican operative is already putting it together for the generals...

Quote from: John MorrowJust like Bush was a goner in 2004, right?

The economy didn't suck back in 2004.  Bush Sr. was a much more competent president, had some of the highest approval ratings in history right after the first gulf war, and lost his reelection simply due to the economy going into recession.