• comment on a post A 50-State Campaign? over 6 years ago

    The 57 thing was a hyperbolic joke alluding to the length of the campaign. It's obvious from the clip but most people have just heard about it and have not actually watched it.

  • comment on a post The Realignment We've Been Waiting For over 6 years ago

    I've been saying this for a while. We can't win without Clinton somewhere on the ticket. I vote Obama but I don't think he can win seeing what I'm seeing in the numbers. I just hope we are catching on to this too late. John Kerry 2.0 is very likely here.

  • That type of view is conspiratorial at best. You give too much credit to the veep spot.

  • How can you call it "unthinkable" while at the same time you are saying you are going to directly contribute to that outcome? Are you a masocist?

  • comment on a post Obama/Clinton Ticket = The Will Of The People over 6 years ago

    This may sound surprising to most of you but this election isn't about how much you like the candidate. The candidates were chosen for you by the political elite and we only get to "vote" when it's whittled down to 3-4 people by the media and by the money in charge.

    What matters now is the old "best of two evils" game that always marks US elections. McCain is not the better choice for a Democrat. Obama is not so different from Clinton that you need to take this personally and lash out. Understand that you were never in total control of the outcome. Sometimes winning is more important than getting everything you want.

    Think of the women who will lose their reproductive rights. Think of the solidiers being killed. Think of the people without health care.

    Don't be selfish, please. I beg you.

  • You hate Obama? Geez. I'm really curious what he did you get you that mad. Are you one of those voters who really think their candidate is that different from all the rest? Let me tell you that she is great bu she's not 180 from Obama. They are 98% the same politically. To hold such a stance as yours has no foundation in reality unless it's personal.

  • I removed likely ties from my calculation to get the 39 vote margin.

  • comment on a post Obama/Clinton Ticket = The Will Of The People over 6 years ago

    First, I voted for Obama in the CA primary.

    Second, I don't think Obama will win in November as things stand now.

    Why? He's going to lose OH, FL, MI and WV to McCain. Clinton would likely win all of these states. That's 72 electoral votes. 72!!

    What will he get that Clinton likely won't?  CO and IA. That's a measly 16 votes.

    For the math challenged that's 72 - 16 = 56 more votes than Obama. Clinton would then beat McCain by 39 votes and Obama would fall short. Obama will lose to McCain and Clinton will win.

    I know this is hard to understand because how can someone win the primary (I'm not in any way saying Obama's win wouldn't be fair and square) and be worse in the GE than the loser. But that's a problem with the DNC setup. Same question can be said about how Gore could lose in 2000. Because "win" depends on the rules you use.

    If you want a Democray in the White House and you put Obama at the top, you need Hillary. It may not make sense for lots of standard reasons normally dropped in the talk about veep but this ISN'T A NORMAL YEAR. We haven't had this kind of 50-50 race before.

    It's Obama-Clinton or nothing (i.e. McCain wins). Take it or leave it, Barack. Don't screw us by picking someone else.

  • Where is all of this anger coming from?   I really don't understand what Obama did to piss you off so much.

    So basically you are saying that he won't win because you aren't going to vote for him as an alienated HRC-supporter? That's brilliant logic. Your argument against voting for him is driven by your not voting for him.

    And how exactly is he going to screw up the country? Need I remind you that he has run the best ship in this campaign while HRC has had to loan money to her campaign twice and had horrible planning for a post-Super Tuesday run? The job is about thinking ahead and organizing well.

  • You are why this country had 2 terms of Bush. Thanks for being such an idealist. You can't see the forest for the trees. Go and vote for a third party so that your vote can be oh so progressive when it accomplishs nothing for HRC's own causes.

  • Do HRC supporters really think Obama is THAT much worse than her? On what basis is he SO bad that you wouldn't vote for him? He may differ from her at times but he has a lot more common with him than McCain. I thought that was fairly obvious.

  • If you want a short-term solution you should be encouraging the hell out of speculation. If speculation becomes a vertical bubble, price will likely collapse. That's the nature of markets.

  • comment on a post New (& Old) media to dems: WWTBQ over 6 years ago

    It's called male privilege. The world unfortunately revolves around men. I'm one myself and I understand that I get it easy.

  • comment on a post Oil companies as a target over 6 years ago


    You are forgetting the basic economics for the consumer. First, a change in a single states tax isn't going to have the same effect on oil markets as a national tax change, especially coming from the USA. Oil prices aren't going to "fill the gap" because one state drops a tax. They will, however, fill the gap when the whole country goes down that route. Even if Clinton recovers revenue and "takes it" to the oil companies for windfalls, that doesn't help the consumer at the pump. It may save our highway funds but not our pocket books. But guess what, if we don't take the tax away, we STILL save our highway funds but we keep the price at the pump from erasing the savings. Why would be go around our back to scratch our nose? Are you as a consumer of gas willing to finance this attack on oil companies? Go after windfalls but don't make it tied to the idea of a tax cut.

  • It's basic supply and demand. If you lower the tax you increase demand and thus force price back up to "fill in" the void left by the tax. Now instead of the government getting the revenue, the oil company gets the money. Even if Clinton makes up the revenue, we are back paying what we paid before. I can understand this lack of understanding from McCain but not Clinton.


Advertise Blogads