The Brand New Respectful Presidential Campaign Thread
Comments
-
The U.S. is full of FAR left liberals. The right is just trying to KEEP the earth balanced. I could go on and on about what the far left has done, but it would tire me.
Shirley
-
Shirley,
I wish the U.S. were full of far left liberals, although I thought in the Republican lexicon all liberals were far left. I might suggest to those of you who think "liberal" is a pejorative term that you look it up and then consider if you prefer to be thought the opposite.
As an aside, you don't need to keep the earth balanced--it's round, not flat. We liberals have know this since at least the time of Copernicus (1543), but "Flat Earth" Republicans keep insisting otherwise. You needn't keep reminding us that Republicans don't believe in science; we see evidence of it every day.
The following is from Paul Krugman today, in the Times:
Self-Inflicted Confusion
After Barack Obama’s defeat in Pennsylvania, David Axelrod, his campaign manager, brushed it off: “Nothing has changed tonight in the basic physics of this race.”
He may well be right — but what a comedown. A few months ago the Obama campaign was talking about transcendence. Now it’s talking about math. “Yes we can” has become “No she can’t.”
This wasn’t the way things were supposed to play out.
Mr. Obama was supposed to be a transformational figure, with an almost magical ability to transcend partisan differences and unify the nation. Once voters got to know him — and once he had eliminated Hillary Clinton’s initial financial and organizational advantage — he was supposed to sweep easily to the nomination, then march on to a huge victory in November.
Well, now he has an overwhelming money advantage and the support of much of the Democratic establishment — yet he still can’t seem to win over large blocs of Democratic voters, especially among the white working class.
As a result, he keeps losing big states. And general election polls suggest that he might well lose to John McCain.
What’s gone wrong?
According to many Obama supporters, it’s all Hillary’s fault. If she hadn’t launched all those vile, negative attacks on their hero — if she had just gone away — his aura would be intact, and his mission of unifying America still on track.
But how negative has the Clinton campaign been, really? Yes, it ran an ad that included Osama bin Laden in a montage of crisis images that also included the Great Depression and Hurricane Katrina. To listen to some pundits, you’d think that ad was practically the same as the famous G.O.P. ad accusing Max Cleland of being weak on national security.
It wasn’t. The attacks from the Clinton campaign have been badminton compared with the hardball Republicans will play this fall. If the relatively mild rough and tumble of the Democratic fight has been enough to knock Mr. Obama off his pedestal, what hope did he ever have of staying on it through the general election?
Let me offer an alternative suggestion: maybe his transformational campaign isn’t winning over working-class voters because transformation isn’t what they’re looking for.
From the beginning, I wondered what Mr. Obama’s soaring rhetoric, his talk of a new politics and declarations that “we are the ones we’ve been waiting for” (waiting for to do what, exactly?) would mean to families troubled by lagging wages, insecure jobs and fear of losing health coverage. The answer, from Ohio and Pennsylvania, seems pretty clear: not much. Mrs. Clinton has been able to stay in the race, against heavy odds, largely because her no-nonsense style, her obvious interest in the wonkish details of policy, resonate with many voters in a way that Mr. Obama’s eloquence does not.
Yes, I know that there are lots of policy proposals on the Obama campaign’s Web site. But addressing the real concerns of working Americans isn’t the campaign’s central theme.
Tellingly, the Obama campaign has put far more energy into attacking Mrs. Clinton’s health care proposals than it has into promoting the idea of universal coverage.
During the closing days of the Pennsylvania primary fight, the Obama campaign ran a TV ad repeating the dishonest charge that the Clinton plan would force people to buy health insurance they can’t afford. It was as negative as any ad that Mrs. Clinton has run — but perhaps more important, it was fear-mongering aimed at people who don’t think they need insurance, rather than reassurance for families who are trying to get coverage or are afraid of losing it.
No wonder, then, that older Democrats continue to favor Mrs. Clinton.
The question Democrats, both inside and outside the Obama campaign, should be asking themselves is this: now that the magic has dissipated, what is the campaign about? More generally, what are the Democrats for in this election?
That should be an easy question to answer. Democrats can justly portray themselves as the party of economic security, the party that created Social Security and Medicare and defended those programs against Republican attacks — and the party that can bring assured health coverage to all Americans.
They can also portray themselves as the party of prosperity: the contrast between the Clinton economy and the Bush economy is the best free advertisement that Democrats have had since Herbert Hoover.
But the message that Democrats are ready to continue and build on a grand tradition doesn’t mesh well with claims to be bringing a “new politics” and rhetoric that places blame for our current state equally on both parties.
And unless Democrats can get past this self-inflicted state of confusion, there’s a very good chance that they’ll snatch defeat from the jaws of victory this fall.
-
And reported by newsletter to Obama supporters:
Pennsylvania Results
The news for Obama supporters is we minimized delegate wins in PA. A 25 point lead favoring Clinto was cut to 10 points and ONLY 10 net delegates in a race with 158 delegates available. Senator Obama continues to lead with 140 to 150 delegates.
Campaign Manager David Plouffe recapped the Pennsylvania results by stating "Senator Clinton used up her last, best chance to cut appreciably into Barack Obama's elected delegate lead. She came up short."
"In fact, she barely made a dent. At most, she picked up a net gain of 10 delegates -- less than our gain, for example, in Colorado (where we gained 17) or Kansas (where we gained 14). Her gain in Pennsylvania was less than half of our gain in Virginia, where we added to our lead by 25 delegates."
Clinton -- 1,260,444 votes -- 55% -- 83 delegates
Obama -- 1,046,220 votes -- 45% -- 73 delegates
The Democratic nomination is in our sights and here's how it breaks out:
· After Pennsylvania, we have a lead of at least 159 elected delegates earned through all of the primaries and caucuses so far. We have a total of at least 1493 pledged delegates.
· Meanwhile, we've been rapidly gaining ground among the so-called superdelegates, cutting Senator Clinton's lead from more than 100 early this year to less than 25. We have a total of 238 publicly committed superdelegates.
· The total number of delegates needed to secure the nomination is 2,024. That means we are only 293 delegates away from securing the nomination.
· In less than two weeks, we'll square off in the battleground states of North Carolina and Indiana, when there will be as 177 delegates at stake as there were in Pennsylvania.
· Clinton's was cut from as much as 25 points in the weeks leading up to the election to 10 points and only 10 Delegates.
Barack focused the issues in Pennsylvania. He talked about his plans for the economy, standing up to special interests, delivering quality health care, and bring this misguided war to an end.
Senator Clinton used up her last, best chance to cut appreciably into Barack Obama's elected delegate lead.
She came up short.
In fact, she barely made a dent. At most, she picked up a net gain of 12 delegates -- less than our gain, for example, in Colorado (where we gained 17) or Kansas (where we gained 14). Her gain in Pennsylvania was less than half of our gain in Virginia, where we added to our lead by 25 delegates.
But there is one measure by which her campaign's gains are real.
The Clinton campaign claims they've raised $3.5 million dollars since the polls closed yesterday.
We can't afford to let that go unanswered.
Grassroots support from people like you has the Democratic nomination in our sights.
Here's how it breaks out:
After Pennsylvania, we have a lead of at least 159 elected delegates earned through all of the primaries and caucuses so far. We have a total of at least 1493 pledged delegates.
Meanwhile, we've been rapidly gaining ground among the so-called superdelegates (elected leaders and party officials who get a vote to choose our nominee), cutting Senator Clinton's lead from more than 100 early this year to less than 25. We have a total of 238 publicly committed superdelegates.
The total number of delegates needed to secure the nomination is 2,024. That means we are only 293 delegates away from securing the nomination.
In less than two weeks, we'll square off in the key battleground states of North Carolina and Indiana, when there will be as many delegates at stake as there were last night in Pennsylvania.
To grow our significant lead and close out this race, we must remain competitive in these contests and the 7 others that will follow.eading up to the election.
But thanks to people like you, Barack gained support among key voters in the face of long odds and unrelenting negativity from Senator Clinton, and kept the margin close enough that her delegate gain was insignificant.
Indeed, the only surprising result from Pennsylvania is how much Barack was able to improve his standing among key voter groups since the Ohio primary.
Among white voters, Obama narrowed the gap by 6 points. Among voters over 60, he nearly cut the gap in half, from 41 points to 24 points. Meanwhile, we continued to run strong where we have all along -- for example, winning voters ages 18-24 with over 65% of the vote.
Barack campaigned hard in Pennsylvania. He talked about his plans to stand up to the special interests and bring people together so that we can change Washington to turn our economy around, make sure that every American has quality health care, and bring this misguided war to an end.guess we will be waiting to see who prevails at the convention!!
-
we liberals have know [n] this...
-
Wonder if Amy will find herself tuning into "Faux News" this Sunday since
since Chris Wallace's guest on Fox News Sunday will be none other than Barack Obama.
PS--Had Hillarys troops been watching Fox on their screens instead of CNN at the Pa Primary they would have been celebrating a half hour earlier.
-
McCain is really pissing me off today.........I really want to trust him but then he has to go and pander to the liberal media and then go to New Orleans,LA that has been a democrat city and state for years and mismanaged and was warned for years about the levys and did nothing.....McCain has the nerve to criticize Bush and say nothing about the Mayor of New Orleans and the Governor?...........and the people knew this Hurricane was coming......this wasn't Galveston in 1918........they knew days in advance that this storm was bad............and is anyone here a Republican from North Carolina.......how do you guys feel today?.........holy moly.......
......Shokk -
Shokk...that whole New Orleans thing ticked me off from the beginning, making it a Federal problem when the damn mayor should have taken responsibility, that was the biggest mess and talk about politicing....gees Louise! That kind of ticked me off with McCain as well, I don't know why anyone thinks it is the fault of Bush but then it is easy to blame him for everything rather than to blame the party responsible. Another example of people thinking the government owes/is responsible for everything.
-
Paulette--McCain did not say anything in New Orlean's that strayed from his personal beliefs.
From Time
_________________________________________
Rather than promise much new federal money to address poverty, he spoke of "controlling spending" and scrubbing federal agencies for waste. Rather than announce any major anti-poverty initiatives, he proposed a three-month holiday from the gasoline tax, some subsidies for rural Internet providers and a doubling of the tax credit for families with dependent children. Rather than follow in the footsteps of Lyndon Johnson, he praised the nobility of Johnson's cause but then pointed out the failures of the "War on Poverty" effort.
"He proclaimed that large government bureaucracies and government was going to solve the problem," McCain said of Johnson. "Government didn't." When asked if he could promise that he would not cut the discretionary federal programs that help the impoverished communities he visited, McCain answered carefully. "I can't guarantee that every single program will be kept in place," he said. "But I can guarantee that every program that's viable and that's achieving the purpose for which it is intended will be kept in place."
-
Susie this is true but didn't he promise that what happened in New Orleans about gov't response would "never ever happen again"......how in the world can he make a promise like that?........doesn't any one remember Homestead,FL?............Shokk
-
Okay --He pandered-LOL
---------------------------------------------
On the subject of pandering........
Here is a reality check for the Democrats by the Democrats.
------------
Dems hedge on healthcare
By Manu Raju
Posted: 04/23/08 08:17 PM [ET]
Congressional Democrats are backing away from healthcare reform promises made by their two presidential candidates, saying that even if their party controls the White House and Congress, sweeping change will be difficult.
It is still seven months before Election Day, but already senior Democrats are maneuvering to lower public expectations on the key policy issue.
In the back of their minds is the damage done to President Bush’s second term by his failed attempts to change the nation’s Social Security policy.
For some senators, the promises made by Sens. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) outside of Washington may not match the political reality on Capitol Hill.
“We all know there is not enough money to do all this stuff,” said Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), a Finance Committee member and an Obama supporter, referring to the presidential candidates’ healthcare plans. “What they are doing is … laying out their ambitions.”
The Democratic candidates say their plans would cover the 47 million uninsured people living in the United States, except for millions of illegal immigrants. Their push for universal healthcare has sparked sharp exchanges over who would do more to cover the uninsured. A recent Wall Street Journal-NBC News poll found that 58 percent of Americans say healthcare costs are an “important” part of their economic concerns.
But veterans on Capitol Hill say that getting a sprawling piece of legislation requires broad compromise from both parties and outside groups.
Should the majority party rush the issue through, the minority may hunker down — as was the case with Bush’s Social Security proposal and President Bill Clinton’s attempt at addressing healthcare policy.
If supporters wait too long, however, it could fall victim to the political considerations of the next election cycle.
Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.), a member of Senate Democratic leadership and a key Hillary Clinton ally who also sits on the Finance Committee, said he is “not sure we have the big plan on healthcare.”
“Healthcare I feel strongly about, but I am not sure that we’re ready for a major national healthcare plan,” Schumer said.
Schumer said he would focus “on prevention above all and cost cutting until we can get a national healthcare plan.”
Making sweeping changes to healthcare issues often takes several Congresses to work through. For instance, a bill to create a drug benefit under Medicare passed the House in 2000 and 2002, but didn’t land on Bush’s desk until late 2003.
“You don’t want to rush and do something and do it incorrectly,” said former Sen. John Breaux (D-La.), who helped negotiate the Medicare law.
Congressional Democrats have set smaller goals on healthcare next year, like an expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, which has been repeatedly vetoed by President Bush. But passing broader proposals aimed at insuring greater numbers will more than likely have to wait, they say.
Rep. Kendrick Meek (D-Fla.), a Clinton supporter who sits on the House Ways and Means Committee, said “the money is not necessarily there right now” to enact the plans and said calls to end the war in Iraq might consume Washington’s attention. The healthcare proposals are a “really good start,” he said, but any promises that the next Congress would enact the healthcare plans “at even the beginning of next year to mid-next year would really be political talk at this point.
“I hear on the campaign trail, ‘This is what I’m going to do,’ as if there is not a Congress here with feelings and experience on this issue,” Meek said. “I think it’s important that everyone takes that into consideration and that this is not a kingdom, this is a democracy.” -
Grace, I suppose I should avoid disagreeing with those who, as Shirley describes us are "far left liberals," but nonetheless, in response to your last post and to uphold accuracy, not Obama spin:
First, cross your heart and hope to die that you never, ever, suggested that Bush taking the White House in 2000 was unfair because Gore had the popular vote. As my mother would have said, "shame the devil."
Second, Obama and his supporters can do all the spin they want, the reason the Democratic Party introduced the concept of super delegates was for exactly what's happening in this election. It wanted to be sure that the Party would never again nominate a "McGovern type," someone who couldn't win in the general. In effect, they said we'll have primaries but if we disagree with the result, we'll overturn the result. And in this year's instance, there can never be a pledged candidate result, because at the end of all the voting neither candidate can get a sufficient number of pledged delegates to win the nomination. If Clinton winds up in June with the popular vote and they give it to Obama, they will, in effect, hand McCain a victory in the fall. If Obama winds up with the popular vote (and I include Florida in my calculation since he was on the ballot and he was the one who refused to redo the primary) then I think, in fairness, he should get it, even though I know he'll lose in November, but fairness dictates that if Clinton has the popular vote she should be the nominee. I'm quite sure if Obama is the nominee and does, indeed, lose in November, the Democrats will never recover--hopefully, a viable third party will come out of this mess. I'll be one of the first to join!
I wrote the following a while back regarding the Democratic Primary rules.
Shokk--further to the super delegate issue. The reason we have super delegagtes (this is from the top of my head, so I may be off in some particulars) is that in an earlier presidential election (I believe McGovern) but not completely sure, the prmary voters went for a very liberal, untested candidate (similar in a sense to what's happening today with Barack Obama). When the convention was held, this candidate had sufficient pledged delegates to win the nomination. The party regulars, who were sure McGovern couldn't win the national, were unable to prevent his nomination, and the Democrats lost (to Nixon). Subsequent to the election they introduced the concept of super delegates to keep this from happening again. Thus, super delegates were instituted to keep someone with the largest number of pledged delegates from getting the nomination if the party regulars thought this nominee could not win the national election.
This is why it seems so disingenuous when Obama supporters say that the super delegates must vote whichever way the pledged delegates vote. If this were the case, the Party would have apportioned all the delegates to the voters and not retained 20% of the votes for itself. The purpose of the super delegates is exactly the opposite. They came into being to prevent the pledged delegates from totally controlling the nomination. Obviously, if the super delegates believe that the nominee with the most pledged delegates is also the candidate most likely to win in the fall, they should vote for that candidate But if they disagree with the choice made by the voters, but solely in terms of electability, they should vote differently. In national elections, the only point is to win. This is particularly true for those who vote platform, not candidate.
If, for example, the flap over Obama and Wright takes hold (I hope it doesn't) and it appears that Obama can't win the national election, but Clinton can't overtake his lead in pledged delegates, the super delegates can decide that Clinton should get the nomination.
Whether this is fair is not the issue. Obama is quick to say that the Florida delegates should not be seated because of the rules, but in the case of the super delegates he wants to change the rules--i.e., the super delegates must vote to support the candidate with the most pledged delegates. This is not to say that if Clinton were in the same place as Obama she wouldn't take the same position. Each candidate pushes for what's best for him or her. But in the end, it's winning the national election that counts. So if in the end, it looks like Obama can't win the national, the super delegates may kick in and give the nomination to Clinton, which creates a whole other problem.
Which leads me to say at the end of this, that the Democratic Party hasn't a clue how to win elections!
Apportioned Delegates: One other point. In the Republican primaries, the candidate that wins the popular vote in a state gets all the state's delegates. If this had been true in the Democratic primary, Clinton would probably have locked up the nomination after Super Tuesday. I believe it was after Jesse Jackson ran for the Democratic nomination that the Democratic Party changed the rules to apportion the delegates in each state. Again, this is all from memory (old memory at that). Jackson felt it was unfair that he didn't have more delegates at the convention. The black Democratic vote is larger than the white Democratic vote in only one or two states (South Carolina is a good example), so he only received the delegates for those states but didn't get any for the large number of blacks that voted for him in the other states. Back when Jackson ran, the Democrats followed the same rule as the Republicans--winner gets all delegates. It was after this that the Democrats decided to apportion delegates.
The problem is that no matter how you look at it, someone gets cheated. The way it is now, the winner of the larger, populated, states is at a disadvantage under the new rules. In the national election, the candidate who wins the popular vote in a state gets all the electoral votes of that state. I'm quite sure that the Democratic process will be changed next year after this election. It's obviously not working the way it was intended, to be both fair and also to win elections. My own view is that the popular vote should be the deciding factor, always, in primaries and in national elections and that the old system of selecting candidates should be thrown out. All states should vote on the same day, some time in late April or May. I
This would eliminate the concept of momentum, which some people might object to, but it would give the voters in all states more time to vet the candidates. In addition, some of the lesser-known candidates who were eliminated early might still have a chance of winning the nomination. If Democratic voters want a very liberal candidate that the party elders think can't win the election, I say tough. The Party elders is one reason, in my view, that we almost always get the same tired old politicians. Just think of it, under my scenario, we might have had Dennis Kucinich as our nominee. If we have to lose, let's do so with someone who at least has a sense of humor. I haven't had a laugh out of Clinton or Obama for this entire electon season.
Of course, under the above scenario, we would have to change our laws on both funding of elections and time to campaign. I think the season should start at the beginning of the election year (January of this year, for example), not months and years ahead, and that funding should be provided solely by the Federal Government, restricting the amount that each candidate can spend. Otherwise, under my scenario a lesser-know candidate with little money wouldn't have a chance. The old scenario, where Idaho and New Hampshire get to vote first, gives a little known candidate a chance to get known without spending globs of money.
Oh, well, I'm starting to write myself right back into supporting the old system! For sure, our conservative Supreme Court would never agree to limited funding of election campaigns or the time to campaign. Sigh!
-
Anneshirley the reason you miss conservatives "acting" embarrassed is anytime any conservative opens their mouth to say something you stick your finger's in your ears and go lalalalalalalala........ha........thanks for the info update on the super delegate situation.......I think I finally got it..........oh and you guys that are for Hillary are going to love this website.......in case she gets the nod instead of Obama......... www.recreate68.org Shokk
-
Shokk,
I read that website ... and I still don't know what it's all about.
Are they revolutionaries??
-
Shokk--I know you guys hate science, but I feel it only right to tell you that I don't read with my ears, so sticking my fingers in my ears won't help me on this thread. And I'll be damned if I'm going to poke myself in the eye!
-
"I hear on the campaign trail, ‘This is what I'm going to do,' as if there is not a Congress here with feelings and experience on this issue," Meek said. "I think it's important that everyone takes that into consideration and that this is not a kingdom, this is a democracy."
They're already hedging on health care reforms. Amazing, it's not even on their desk yet. We really don't need this entire Congress. Let's just start over with "can do" people. I believe it can get done if they want to roll up their sleeves and do something for a change. Hillary's plan shows where they can find the money. Maybe we need to be a kingdom, if one person can send them off to the tower or write a good program instead.
-
Anneshirley yes we do hate science......gets in the way of the whole Adam and Eve thing........ha.......Bren if you go to the Listing of Actions and Events it says that it is sponsored by the The State of the Black Nation and The Barack Obama Campaign.........they say that if Hillary "steals" the nomination from Obama "they" whom ever they are are going to riot..........to say the least the City of Denver is not happy...........Shokk
-
Rosemary--And those are Democratic voices. They all have their pet projects. We need people who know how to work together for the better good whether they be Republicans or Democrats.
-
I thought that riot in the streets of Denver was started by Rush. He wants all the republicans out there inciting everyone to do what he's not willing to go to jail for. Well if it's only the republicans that show up it will be a very tidy riot, napkins on laps and the like. No loud voices, very tasteful signs, all color keyed and such, and pick up after yourself type of riot.
-
Wow, Rosemary, where do you live? Most of the Republicans I've met had no idea what napkins were for. Of course, that was in upstate New York. I've never met any Republicans in Manhattan--at least they don't admit to it. The locals upstate, the vast majority of whom were Republican, drove pickup trucks with guns across their back seats, spent their summers working for New York liberals, painting our houses and mowing our lawns, and their winters on welfare listening to Rush Limbo on the radio. I remember sadly when one of Rush's greatest admirers, a local handyman who had painted our house, set himself on fire (and died) when he found his ex-wife in bed with his brother. As the New York liberals often remarked: the second biggest social activity in the area (after drinking) was incest! These were the people who wanted to have a beer with Bush. And they don't tidy up after themselves.
-
Wow Anneshirley - You need to get out more if those are the only republicans you know! I could introduce you to some business owners, doctors, lawyers, nurses, even a few rare teachers that are my republican neighbors. Oh, and you talk like having a gun in your car makes you some kind of a red-neck rebel....well, I have a gun with me almost all the time these days. Since the brown bears are all waking up hungry, it is the wise thing to do if you don't want to end up as lunch for a bear. The first mauling of the year happened about 2 miles from my house this week....a jogger who was scalped by the bear biting his head and then sustained huge bites to the back and rump. He was lucky to live. SO....me and my gun will go mast places together until the bears move to the river.....
Stereotypes can be dangerous folks. I think we should ALL try to think before we post things like the insinuation that all republicans are licking the boots of liberals that know better, make more money and making sure not to practice incest....
Deb C
Who is too grumpy for this thread.....
-
Anne,
I am living in the genteel south, where proper Republican ladies would never be seen with a paper napkin let alone be using one, at least not in public. What your describing there are those damn yankees that came here to show us the way. Those are our dem O crats who've learned to say, you all, after many years of trying.
-
BREAKING POLL
Pennsylvania:
McCain 44%
Obama 43%Election 2008: Pennsylvania Presidential ElectionPennsylvania: McCain 44% Obama 43%Friday, April 25, 2008What a difference two weeks of intense campaigning can make. The final two weeks of campaigning in the Pennsylvania Primary may not have changed the outcome of the Democratic race, but it helped John McCain in the Keystone State.
Two weeks ago, in Pennsylvania, Hillary Clinton enjoyed a nine-point lead over McCain and Barack Obama had an eight-point edge over the Republican hopeful. Now, however, Clinton’s lead is down to five points and Obama trails McCain by a point.
The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in Pennsylvania finds McCain with a statistically insignificant 44% to 43% advantage over Obama. Clinton attracts 47% of the vote against McCain while the Republican earns 42%. In early March, McCain was essentially even with both Democrats.
Clinton is currently supported by 78% of Democrats, Obama by 65%. Among unaffiliated voters in the state, McCain leads Clinton by twelve and Obama by five. One bonus for McCain is that his support among Republicans has increased after two weeks of heavy Democratic campaigning. Once again, it appears that Obama and Clinton may provide the key to unifying the GOP base.
McCain and Obama are each viewed favorably by 51% of the state’s voters, Clinton by 49%. For Obama, that’s a six-point decline over the past two weeks. Clinton’s numbers are down four points. McCain has gained a point during the same two week period.
Rasmussen Markets shows that Democrats are currently given a 65.0contract_type = "rasmussen";contract_id = 68394;node_id = 8367 + "_" + 2186;new Ajax("/extension/ajax/intrade_lastprice.php", {data: 'contractID=' + contract_id + '&contract_type=' + contract_type,method: 'get',update: $('intrade_' + node_id)}).request(); % chance of winning Pennsylvania’s twenty-one Electoral College Votes this fall. John Kerry won the state for the Democrats in 2004 by a narrow 51% to 48% margin. Four years earlier, Al Gore won the state by four percentage points. Immediately prior to release of this poll, Pennsylvania was rated as “Leans Democrat” in the
-
I'm almost afraid to ask and it's not like this thread has gotten boring at all but.....why haven't we heard from the no-it-all, seen-it-all, done-it-all, insulting, condescending, rude, degrading, mean, nasty, jewish, atheist, lesbian? (Not that there is anything wrong with that.)
-
Okay Shokk,
It said,
Didn't say it was sponsored by the Barak campaign.
Sounds a lot like the Black Power movement from the 60's. Well, now that I've figured out what that link was about ... I'll try to catch up with the rest of you.
Something about rural upstate NY gun carrying Republicans!
Oops gotta run ... Just call me Annie Oakley (demoncrat) from San Diego, Southern Utah, Iowa, NC, and the great Commonwealth of VA!!
-
Deb--I'd apologize for my post if I'd seen even one objection from you concerning the other stereotypes that are posted here regularly, almost all of them directed at those who call themselves Democrats.
It's called tit for tat, and I'm as capable of it as I am at writing reasonably detailed, factually-correct posts about the actual election. It would appear, however, that too few of us want facts or details, particularly when name calling is so much easier.
I was very specific that I was talking about upstate New York. Margareville is not Alaska and bear sightings are rare, in town or out, and there's absolutely no reason for the guns in the back seats, particularly out of hunting season, beyond the macho factor.
Rosemary--I've been to the south and I think you've been reading "Gone With the Wind" again. Those ladies are long gone!
-
What happened to Chris Matthews! It appears that his wife has beaten him up (I gather she's a Hillary supporter), and he's actually trying--trying--to be objective when discussing Hillary's chances. A few minutes ago, one of Obama supporters, a black woman whose name I don't know, stated that according to some group or other, that Kerry had to have the black vote to win Ohio, Pennsylvania, and the Carolina's. Matthews came right back at her and said, but Kerry didn't win those states. A few months ago he would have let that one go. Those Obama supporters have no shame! (I'll confess, neither do Clinton's supporters; I just like them better, particularly James Carville.)
I'm still wishing that Huckabee would have an epiphany and wake up some morning to discover he's really a Democrat!
-
"
Rosemary--I've been to the south and I think you've been reading "Gone With the Wind" again. Those ladies are long gone!"
Those days are not gone forever for a few of the ladies I know. Not many of them left. Funny you should say that, I was thinking of renting that movie again. I'm watching all the early academy award winners.
Chris Matthews, I turn the channel quickly. He's one rung higher on the ladder full of snarley-snakes.
-
tripleneg...... shhhh
---------------
Anneshirley: thank you soooooooo much for explaining the superdelegates! I was wondering what that was about. I thought perhaps that they were just popular delegates that could get the other delegates to swing their vote ... thanks again!
-
Ahhhhhh---Anne Shirley---The PA primary is over and the people spoke loud and clear. Matthews of late has been courting the favors of Eddie Rendell--Our Governor.
If you had an inkling that you may want to run for the Senate against our
beloved Republican Arlen Specter---wouldn't you want our Eddie on your side? Think of the job he did for Hillary. Eddie says Matthews drank the Kool-aide but, maybe he'll forgive him if he makes amends and starts giving Hillary a fair shake.
Democratic Senator from Pa Chris Matthews??????Courtesey of Eddie Rendell---can't think of a better person to cultivate.
PS-- I still haven't forgiven Rendell for calling on Gore to concede to Bush
And now here we go with Florida again!!!!!!!!
-
First about the hurricane in New Orleans. Yes, I was very angry that EVERTHING was Bush's fault. But you know why don't you? Because Bush is God...all seeing...all knowing...all powerful! Well, at least in the liberals eyes!
And, when the Mayor was re-elected I was livid!
Shirley
Oh, and I am from N. C. (really from Texas but been gone for 41 years).
Categories
- All Categories
- 679 Advocacy and Fund-Raising
- 289 Advocacy
- 68 I've Donated to Breastcancer.org in honor of....
- Test
- 322 Walks, Runs and Fundraising Events for Breastcancer.org
- 5.6K Community Connections
- 282 Middle Age 40-60(ish) Years Old With Breast Cancer
- 53 Australians and New Zealanders Affected by Breast Cancer
- 208 Black Women or Men With Breast Cancer
- 684 Canadians Affected by Breast Cancer
- 1.5K Caring for Someone with Breast cancer
- 455 Caring for Someone with Stage IV or Mets
- 260 High Risk of Recurrence or Second Breast Cancer
- 22 International, Non-English Speakers With Breast Cancer
- 16 Latinas/Hispanics With Breast Cancer
- 189 LGBTQA+ With Breast Cancer
- 152 May Their Memory Live On
- 85 Member Matchup & Virtual Support Meetups
- 375 Members by Location
- 291 Older Than 60 Years Old With Breast Cancer
- 177 Singles With Breast Cancer
- 869 Young With Breast Cancer
- 50.4K Connecting With Others Who Have a Similar Diagnosis
- 204 Breast Cancer with Another Diagnosis or Comorbidity
- 4K DCIS (Ductal Carcinoma In Situ)
- 79 DCIS plus HER2-positive Microinvasion
- 529 Genetic Testing
- 2.2K HER2+ (Positive) Breast Cancer
- 1.5K IBC (Inflammatory Breast Cancer)
- 3.4K IDC (Invasive Ductal Carcinoma)
- 1.5K ILC (Invasive Lobular Carcinoma)
- 999 Just Diagnosed With a Recurrence or Metastasis
- 652 LCIS (Lobular Carcinoma In Situ)
- 193 Less Common Types of Breast Cancer
- 252 Male Breast Cancer
- 86 Mixed Type Breast Cancer
- 3.1K Not Diagnosed With a Recurrence or Metastases but Concerned
- 189 Palliative Therapy/Hospice Care
- 488 Second or Third Breast Cancer
- 1.2K Stage I Breast Cancer
- 313 Stage II Breast Cancer
- 3.8K Stage III Breast Cancer
- 2.5K Triple-Negative Breast Cancer
- 13.1K Day-to-Day Matters
- 132 All things COVID-19 or coronavirus
- 87 BCO Free-Cycle: Give or Trade Items Related to Breast Cancer
- 5.9K Clinical Trials, Research News, Podcasts, and Study Results
- 86 Coping with Holidays, Special Days and Anniversaries
- 828 Employment, Insurance, and Other Financial Issues
- 101 Family and Family Planning Matters
- Family Issues for Those Who Have Breast Cancer
- 26 Furry friends
- 1.8K Humor and Games
- 1.6K Mental Health: Because Cancer Doesn't Just Affect Your Breasts
- 706 Recipe Swap for Healthy Living
- 704 Recommend Your Resources
- 171 Sex & Relationship Matters
- 9 The Political Corner
- 874 Working on Your Fitness
- 4.5K Moving On & Finding Inspiration After Breast Cancer
- 394 Bonded by Breast Cancer
- 3.1K Life After Breast Cancer
- 806 Prayers and Spiritual Support
- 285 Who or What Inspires You?
- 28.7K Not Diagnosed But Concerned
- 1K Benign Breast Conditions
- 2.3K High Risk for Breast Cancer
- 18K Not Diagnosed But Worried
- 7.4K Waiting for Test Results
- 603 Site News and Announcements
- 560 Comments, Suggestions, Feature Requests
- 39 Mod Announcements, Breastcancer.org News, Blog Entries, Podcasts
- 4 Survey, Interview and Participant Requests: Need your Help!
- 61.9K Tests, Treatments & Side Effects
- 586 Alternative Medicine
- 255 Bone Health and Bone Loss
- 11.4K Breast Reconstruction
- 7.9K Chemotherapy - Before, During, and After
- 2.7K Complementary and Holistic Medicine and Treatment
- 775 Diagnosed and Waiting for Test Results
- 7.8K Hormonal Therapy - Before, During, and After
- 50 Immunotherapy - Before, During, and After
- 7.4K Just Diagnosed
- 1.4K Living Without Reconstruction After a Mastectomy
- 5.2K Lymphedema
- 3.6K Managing Side Effects of Breast Cancer and Its Treatment
- 591 Pain
- 3.9K Radiation Therapy - Before, During, and After
- 8.4K Surgery - Before, During, and After
- 109 Welcome to Breastcancer.org
- 98 Acknowledging and honoring our Community
- 11 Info & Resources for New Patients & Members From the Team