Front Office Football Central

Front Office Football Central (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//index.php)
-   FOFC Archive (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//forumdisplay.php?f=27)
-   -   Who will (not should) be the Democratic presidential nominee in 2008? (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//showthread.php?t=62530)

Mizzou B-ball fan 05-22-2008 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 1732651)
Mizzou, you really need to have your reading comprehension checked out. Above, I stated clearly that Lieberman can hold whatever policy positions he wishes. However, when he attacks his party and his party's presidential candidate, and the same would be true IMO for a Republican attacking his/her own party, he has no right to rewards granted by that party. Socially and economically he's on my side most of the time, so I can forgive the differences with foreign policy, but the lengths to which he's gone to hurt his party should carry some consequences.

The poll cited above isn't proof that Leiberman will lose in 2012, but it is proof that he's considerably less popular in CT now than two years ago and is in real danger of losing his seat.


Exhibit #1 as to why the American Government doesn't get much done. You've proven that my reading comprehension is quite intact.

JPhillips 05-22-2008 09:16 AM

Chambliss is a conservative in a state dominated by conservatives. Leiberman needs to put together a coalition that includes a large portion of Republicans and independents with just enough Dems to eek out a majority. It's possible, but a lot harder than winning with a strong majority of your own party. Right now that 52% approval rating for Leiberman breaks down to 77% for Republicans, but just 39% for Democrats.

st.cronin 05-22-2008 09:28 AM

Its amazing that Leiberman was once the VP candidate for the Jackass Party. To hear Democrats talk about him now, you'd never believe that was possible.

flere-imsaho 05-22-2008 09:56 AM

I think it's one part the national party not quite knowing his policy stances prior to 2000 and one part Holy Joe moving even more rightward after 9/11.

Fighter of Foo 05-22-2008 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho (Post 1732682)
I think it's one part the national party not quite knowing his policy stances prior to 2000 and one part Holy Joe moving even more rightward after 9/11.


This issue is that he thinks the (I) next to his name is for Israel.

ISiddiqui 05-22-2008 10:21 AM

The policy stances are fairly Democratic aside from national security issues. But he believes so highly in those national security issues that it tends to overshadow his policy stances (ie, on things like taxes and what not).

Young Drachma 05-22-2008 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui (Post 1732695)
But he believes so highly in the security of Israel that it tends to overshadow everything else.


Fixed.

chesapeake 05-23-2008 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui (Post 1732695)
The policy stances are fairly Democratic aside from national security issues. But he believes so highly in those national security issues that it tends to overshadow his policy stances (ie, on things like taxes and what not).


+1

Other than Iraq and McCain, Lieberman's fits well within the mainstream of the Democratic Party. However, these happen to be the 2 biggest issues on the table right now.

By the time he runs for reelection, I think he will have healed a lot of the rift between himself and most CT Dems. The CT party apparatus may still be pissy, but I don't it will keep him from reelection if he chooses to run.

Vegas Vic 05-23-2008 09:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by st.cronin (Post 1732669)
Its amazing that Leiberman was once the VP candidate for the Jackass Party. To hear Democrats talk about him now, you'd never believe that was possible.


Such is the transient nature of politics.

Ronald Reagan was a Democrat until the 60's, and he remained pro-choice for a while after he switched parties.

Buccaneer 05-27-2008 11:00 PM

The Clintons have gotten so bad that my favorite columnist, Roland Martin of cnn.com, had to chime in. Basically, he's hammering on the constant theme of selfishness. I know some like to deify Bill Clinton but this was no different than how he had acted during his presidency - everything had to be about him. Can you Dems please get rid of these two..please?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/...tin/index.html

Young Drachma 05-28-2008 07:49 AM



Moveon.org ad against McCain.


And a commentary piece from Ezra Klein of The American Prospect.
If Reagan Democrats existed, they're gone for good.

Buccaneer 05-30-2008 07:48 PM

So you think that if tomorrow's meeting doesn't go the Clintons' way (i.e., she gets nearly all of the delegates Obama gets a token few), she'll be highly pressured to quit or perhaps she'll quit on her own?

path12 05-31-2008 01:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buccaneer (Post 1738033)
So you think that if tomorrow's meeting doesn't go the Clintons' way (i.e., she gets nearly all of the delegates Obama gets a token few), she'll be highly pressured to quit or perhaps she'll quit on her own?


Personally, I'm hoping that a bunch of superdelegates declare after the last primary on Tuesday and that it ends by late next week. I'm not convinced that will stop her though. Sigh.

Greyroofoo 05-31-2008 06:50 PM

Looks like Michigan's delegates are going to get half a vote.

I honestly can't wait to vote independent.

Buccaneer 05-31-2008 06:52 PM

But they haven't said what the delegate totals will be.

Greyroofoo 05-31-2008 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buccaneer (Post 1738473)
But they haven't said what the delegate totals will be.


I think they split the delegates 69-59 with each delegate getting half a vote.

Greyroofoo 05-31-2008 07:04 PM

dola
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24905193/&GT1=43001
Quote:

Originally Posted by MSN
The committee agreed on a compromise offered by the Michigan Democratic Party that would split the difference, allowing Clinton to take 69 delegates and Obama 59. Each delegate would get half a vote at the convention in Denver this summer, according to the deal.


SirFozzie 05-31-2008 07:04 PM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7428909.stm

This gives Mrs Clinton 69 delegates in Michigan, compared to Mr Obama's 59. And in Florida, she gains 105 delegates to Mr Obama's 67.

This reduces Mr Obama's lead - previously 202 - by 48, but the delegates from Michigan and Florida will only have half a vote each, so her gains are reduced.


So she gained 48 delegates in all, but realisticaly only cut the deficit by 24

Young Drachma 06-01-2008 02:24 PM

Sebelius is really impressive. She was on MSNBC just now. I think she might be trying to position herself for a VP nod, though I think picking a woman would just piss off the Hillary folks to the nth degree, so he has to go with a man to balance things out who gives him a security/experience advantage to toe up with John McCain.

Clinton wins Puerto Rico.

Buccaneer 06-01-2008 04:07 PM

Does the results in Puerto Rico and exit pollings mean anything?

Young Drachma 06-01-2008 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buccaneer (Post 1738827)
Does the results in Puerto Rico and exit pollings mean anything?


Well in the primaries only. Puerto Ricans can't vote in the general election, unless they move to the states and become residents of an actual state. So no, they really don't mean much, but the parties do give them (and Guam) delegates to the national convention.

Buccaneer 06-01-2008 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud (Post 1738843)
Well in the primaries only. Puerto Ricans can't vote in the general election, unless they move to the states and become residents of an actual state. So no, they really don't mean much, but the parties do give them (and Guam) delegates to the national convention.


It probably goes with her lying and cheating persona in being the only one stating that she will try to get them statehood when she knows damn well it's just empty rhetoric. Bill used to do the same thing with them, acting liked he cared but doing nothing about it.

Raiders Army 06-01-2008 07:06 PM

Do they really want statehood? I thought they were perfectly content with the status quo.

Young Drachma 06-01-2008 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raiders Army (Post 1738893)
Do they really want statehood? I thought they were perfectly content with the status quo.


Their political parties are actually split between statehood and status quo. It's pretty split down the line evenly with about 5% favouring independence, but no way that happens. They'd be third world almost instantly, not that they're exactly first world now.


Story

Quote:

It’s not Republicans and Democrats in Puerto Rico: it’s the Partido Popular Democratico, or PPD vs the Partido Nuevo Progresista, or PNP in the battle over whether the island should become a state. The PPD, associated with the color red because of its logo, believes in keeping an upgrading commonwealth status; the blue PNP is in favor of full statehood.

While the island is fairly evenly divided, the Statehood party is in ascendency now — in part due to the Commonwealth governor’s indictment on corruption charges.

Clinton stressed that she’d let Puerto Ricans decide for themselves whether they want statehood or not by the end of her first term, and she’d work with the Congress to make their decision law. While the economy, crime, and health care are important issues here, Status is number one. Her stance always draws the biggest round of applause — and her commitment to doing something right away is cited as an advantage over Obama by islanders.

Maple Leafs 06-02-2008 08:05 PM

Interesting article, in which a West Wing screenwriter imagines what the convention could look like if she takes it all the way:
http://nymag.com/news/politics/45786/

(The first few paragraphs are probably unnecessarily graphic and don't add much, feel free to skip down a bit to the good stuff.)

Young Drachma 06-02-2008 08:12 PM

I read on another forum the idea that the Dems actually wanted the race to go the whole way, because it gave them a chance to build ground organizations in all of the states, giving them a huge leg up on the RNC going into the general election. If so, that's brilliant strategy. Not sure that's really the case, but nice spin in any case.

ISiddiqui 06-02-2008 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs (Post 1739885)
Interesting article, in which a West Wing screenwriter imagines what the convention could look like if she takes it all the way:
http://nymag.com/news/politics/45786/

(The first few paragraphs are probably unnecessarily graphic and don't add much, feel free to skip down a bit to the good stuff.)


LOL! That was great stuff. Especially on the last page.

SFL Cat 06-02-2008 10:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud (Post 1739897)
I read on another forum the idea that the Dems actually wanted the race to go the whole way, because it gave them a chance to build ground organizations in all of the states, giving them a huge leg up on the RNC going into the general election. If so, that's brilliant strategy. Not sure that's really the case, but nice spin in any case.


That IS some groovy spin!

wbatl1 06-03-2008 07:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SFL Cat (Post 1740001)
That IS some groovy spin!


And it does have a lot of merit. In NC, the only state I know the data off off the top of my head, they registered 200,000 new voters prior to the Democratic primary. If 60% of them vote, it would nearly makeup the 2004 difference. Essentially, the new voters put NC in play again (although the vast majority might not vote if Hillary somehow won the nomination).

Honolulu_Blue 06-03-2008 10:17 AM

CNN is reporting that Clinton will concede the race tonight.

God, I hope they're right. I so want this thing to be over.

Link: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/...ats/index.html

ISiddiqui 06-03-2008 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue (Post 1740351)
CNN is reporting that Clinton will concede the race tonight.

God, I hope they're right. I so want this thing to be over.

Link: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/...ats/index.html


You realize that link is saying that Clinton campaign is saying the reports of her conceeding are wrong, right?

Ksyrup 06-03-2008 10:56 AM

I think that is more semantics than anything...

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...1&cat=breaking


The advisers said Clinton has made a strategic decision to not formally end her campaign, giving her leverage to negotiate with Obama on various matters including a possible vice presidential nomination for her. She also wants to press him on issues he should focus on in the fall, such as health care.

Universal health care, Clinton's signature issue as first lady in the was a point of dispute between Obama and the New York senator during their epic nomination fight.
Clinton was at home in Chappaqua, N.Y., with her husband, former President Clinton, and was placing calls to friends and supporters.

On NBC's "Today Show," Clinton campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe said that once Obama gets the majority of convention delegates, "I think Hillary Clinton will congratulate him and call him the nominee."

In a formal statement, the campaign made clear the limits of how far she would go in Tuesday night's speech. "Senator Clinton will not concede the nomination," the statement said.

SFL Cat 06-03-2008 11:03 AM

Not so fast there, Dems...

Campaign Says Clinton Won't Concede Tonight
A WALL STREET JOURNAL ONLINE NEWS ROUNDUP

Officials in Hillary Clinton's campaign said the New York senator won't concede the Democratic nomination for president tonight. Earlier, the Associated Press reported that Sen. Clinton would acknowledge that rival Barack Obama has the delegates for the nomination, effectively ending the race.

The campaign released a two-sentence statement this morning in response to the AP's report: "The AP story is incorrect. Senator Clinton will not concede the nomination this evening."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1212..._us_whats_news

I don't think she joins hands and sings Kumbayah with Obama unless she gets what she wants from the party...whatever that may be...she may not win the nomination, but she could still play spoiler. Obama certainly can't make the claim that he has decisively whupped her in the primaries...especially since she has beaten him pretty soundly in most of the big states...which are the ones that will really matter in the general as far as electoral votes go.

cartman 06-03-2008 01:48 PM

The AP is now reporting that with the latest superdelegate commits, that Obama has enough delegates to clinch the nomination.

http://www.statesman.com/news/conten...imary_Rdp.html

Maple Leafs 06-03-2008 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SFL Cat (Post 1740474)
...she may not win the nomination, but she could still play spoiler.

This is certainly a very reasonable and healthy attitude for her to have at this point in the race.

-apoc- 06-03-2008 03:49 PM

She can't formally end her campaign because of the amount of debt that she has. If she formally ends it she is only allowed to repay herself 250k of the roughly 11 mil she owes herself. If she doesnt formally end it she can keep raising money until the convention to pay herself back as much as possible.

SFL Cat 06-03-2008 03:50 PM

Quote:

This is certainly a very reasonable and healthy attitude for her to have at this point in the race.

I've never accused Clinton of being either.... :)

Young Drachma 06-03-2008 05:48 PM

Team Clinton is selling her as VP now. Ugh. They're sabotaging him for sure. Tonya Harding ftl

Coffee Warlord 06-03-2008 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud (Post 1741019)
Team Clinton is selling her as VP now. Ugh. They're sabotaging him for sure. Tonya Harding ftl


Obama better hire a food taster if that happens.

st.cronin 06-03-2008 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord (Post 1741024)
Obama better hire a food taster if that happens.


I lol'd.

Buccaneer 06-03-2008 06:19 PM

You know, I've been waiting since February to say "DING DONG THE WITCH IS DEAD" but I got this bad feeling that she'll still be around as VP. (Personally, I don't see it because Bill, being the self-centered a-hole that he is, will try to steal the spotlight.) I just want them both out of the presidency or potential to be president.

But congrats to Obama, they ran a great campaign to beat a formidable opponent.

Young Drachma 06-03-2008 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord (Post 1741024)
Obama better hire a food taster if that happens.


No kidding, right?

Young Drachma 06-03-2008 07:02 PM

Obama is 6 delegates away, according to the networks. So he'll be clinching for sure tonight. Clinton is trying to steal some thunder with "I wanna be Veep" talk and McCain will speak tonight too.

Young Drachma 06-03-2008 07:33 PM

Word on the street is that he'd offer the VP slot, but only if she won't take it. His people don't want to deal with the baggage of it and Hillary doesn't want the job, having basically been there, done that.

DaddyTorgo 06-03-2008 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud (Post 1741076)
Word on the street is that he'd offer the VP slot, but only if she won't take it. His people don't want to deal with the baggage of it and Hillary doesn't want the job, having basically been there, done that.


as i've mentioned before - i'd love to see Hillary throw her support and campaigning behind Obama in exchange for her getting put up for the next vacant seat on the Supreme Court during the Obama-administration

Young Drachma 06-03-2008 07:52 PM

Given how much she's changed in just one election cycle, I can't imagine she won't change again for the good of the party or more importantly, the good of the Clinton legacy.

Young Drachma 06-03-2008 08:02 PM

TV networks call the Democratic race for Obama. AP did it earlier today.

Young Drachma 06-03-2008 08:11 PM

Harold Ford said and I noticed too that McCain is trying to revive the McCain of 2000 and that they used green as his background, rather than something red or blue. Obama needs Harold Ford help him behind the scenes. I've been impressed with his ability on TV to detach himself from being a partisan or a friend of the candidates to actually talk strategy in real terms.

Young Drachma 06-03-2008 08:44 PM

Hillary uses her speech tonight (in front a crowd that was larger than McCain's but not that big..) to keep the troops rallied until she gets to talk to Obama face to face.

Young Drachma 06-03-2008 08:59 PM

That speech was clearly a speech for someone feeling the need to leverage themselves into the VP spot. It was hardly a speech of someone who has LOST the nomination campaign. No way he picks her.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:20 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.