has said repeatedly that he's not interested in national office. Granted, history is replete with politicians making this vow and then breaking it, but I have the sense that Daniels is one of the few who means it.
And I'm glad he's not throwing his hat in the ring. Daniels would be one of the stronger opponents I can think of.
Don't get me wrong, I'm thrilled that Franken's chances just increased (and that the Coleman camp's ulterior motive to toss out votes was defeated), but the logic of this ruling escapes me. It seems odd for the court to, in essence, say that a winner should be named before questions regarding who deserved to win are raised in court. I would think that if the roles were reversed, we'd all be saying that if the questions over these ballots would impact who wins, then we should answer the questions before--not after--a winner is named.
Clearly, though, the legal issues are pretty clear, given the unanimous ruling, and I just don't understand them. Can a better mind educate me on this one?
and how much McCain. Granted, Palin helped bring home the base, but Obama is genuinely religious. McCain called his wife a C**t in public. I would be interested if Obama's 2012 opponent is religious and, if so, if these numbers hold.
And a friendly comment from a professor in the social sciences: one of our biggest pet peeves is people treating "data" as singular instead of plural ("datum" is singular). It should be "the raw data are interesting, and suggest that ..." You'll get some serious brownie points from your advisor for getting that one correct. :-)
and in a county that went 75/25 for Bush. I drove down Main St. (real name) yesterday, and Obama had 8 signs to McCain's 3. Two other households were clearly Republican, because they had signs for Mitch Daniels (who is very popular here) and local Republican candidates, but did not have one for McCain.
If the rural areas like mine can close the gap even a little, and it certainly seems to be happening, then the Indy area will pull this one out for Obama. I would f*cking LOVE to see Indiana go O, and I think it just might!
I could see that being the case if she was ending the campaign, thanking people for supporting her. But she didn't acknowledge the end of the primary, or that Obama won. As it is, it was odd timing for a rally just to thank supporters (if that was the main purpose).
I should clarify, I don't begrudge her not dropping out so that she has leverage in discussions, and so she's prepared in case a really ugly skeleton is found in Obama's closest before Denver. I certainly would have preferred that she drop out, though.
I am an Obama supporter, and don't begrudge her not dropping out. But why hold this kind of rally to say....nothing. It's not like it was held as a victory speech in SD. She just wanted to get her equal air time when the networks were going to cover Obama. I just don't get how this helps anyone.
In Eugene, I have not seen the Novick-Clinton pair in bumper stickers or yard signs. Obviously, this isn't universal, as Susan in Oregon is a counterexample, but I think that most Novick supporters are also Obama supporters just from what I've seen talking to friends and walking/biking around.
Regarding whether or not this is a test of Obama's coattails, I'm of two minds. On the one hand, because I see the Novick-Obama correlation I could forsee Obama increasing turnout, and that would help Novick.
On the other hand, because Obama hasn't campaigned for Novick or ever expressed a preference in this race (that I know about...feel free to correct me), whether Novick wins or not doesn't seem like a legit test of Obama's coattails.
I agree. I don't like a strategy that downplays some states while saying only the ones their preferred candidate wins are important. Whether or not WV is a key part of a Dem electoral map, I think the party should be taking the 50-state strategy seriously, and "state X is unimportant" comments don't help.
I am a current student at the UO, and I think that there is a very strong pro-Obama sentiment. My experience might be different because I'm a grad student and interact more with faculty than students, but among the faculty I know, they like both candidates, but are only excited about Obama.
Perhaps the students are more anti-Clinton, but I don't see much of that.
What a complete load of BS. You still haven't addressed the issue, all you say is that you have reasons, and that I can't understand because I'm a tropist. But you haven't spelled out your reasons, so how could I understand?
Furthermore, your ad hominem "tropist" line isn't even clear. Is the accusation that I'm a typical "Obamabot" who gravitates toward empty rhetoric at the expense of reason, or that I gravitate toward a straight party line at the expense of reason? If the former, then you have no clue what you're talking about (you can see my post below), and if it's the latter, the purpose of this site is tropistic. In either case, your perceived cleverness is coming at the expense of clarity.
And, seriously, what's up with the last line? My question, while being intentionally provocative, invited an answer, so by definition understanding was my objective. And then the "understanding (of anything) does not serve you" bullshit? As if anyone who does not agree with you has a complete lack of intellectual curiosity? Get over yourself.