HuskyCaucasian

QUOTE (lostfan @ Apr 15, 2008 -> 06:33 PM) What you'd have to worry about is the rank-and-file GOP, they love to fight and McCain doesn't really have control over them. Yea. I never said it would be easy. But it is at LEAST worth a try. The first one to fire the first cannon gets the negative response IMO.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Apr 15, 2008 -> 06:50 PM) I'm talking about Hillary-style scorched earth take-no-prisoners tactics. I don't see that coming out of him. That's really my point. "Clean Campaign 08" is really aimed more at negative personal attacks. For example: a Dem ad pointing to McCain's age or a Rep. ad saying Obama is unpatriotic or Muslim. If it's policy based, like abortion or Iraq, hey man, as long as it comes form the campaigns and not 527s, it's fair game to me.

On March 26th, I proposed "Clean Campaign '08" on my BarackObama blog and my personal website. Well, McCain was just on Hardball and Matthews asked if he'd do what I proposed in my writing (I am not saying he ever saw my blog, but the ideas he asked him were exactly the same). McCain agreed. ROCK ON! Come on Obama. Join the Clean Campaign '08 bandwagon!

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 15, 2008 -> 02:17 PM) Bloomberg/LA Times are reportedly going to put out an Indiana Poll later today showing BO + 5 over Hillary. Polls are out:

QUOTE (Texsox @ Apr 15, 2008 -> 02:51 PM) Remember at the time, we had states getting together and forming a national government, not the other way around. So it is natural they figured out a way were each state would pick the President, not as individuals. Perhaps we have outgrown the need. But using your example. someone in a small state is totally screwed by whatever the large states want to do. Since the Federal government makes decsiions that effect the states, each state would want equal, or close to equal representation. Again, we are made up of states united together to form a federal government. very good points all around. I agree that it was VERY important in the beginning that states needed to have authority. I think there isnt a need for a state by state vote, but that is my opinion and I think your points are completely valid.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 15, 2008 -> 02:57 PM) They've been in Minnesota for a long time, so that's not outside the realm of possibility. But I'm betting that was aberrant - I doubt there is a significant population in Iowa. no doubt. just saying they have been seen there. Coyotes are the bigger issue.

For what it's worth, there are cougars in Iowa. I have family near Iowa City and there was a cougar spotted there 2 years ago.

I swear I am not trying to bash CLinton, but this is pretty funny... "100 Mayors for Hillary" Rally Fizzles

Still needs some time to play out... but post "bitter-gate" Obama holds his largest national lead over Clinton EVER.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Apr 15, 2008 -> 11:30 AM) While there is a lot of surface merit to that position, abandoning over 200 years of being individual states united together, makes me pause. Yea, i dunno. I completely understand the whole "states rights" thing. And I am very respectful of it. But, it is REALLY democratic when one person receives 500,000 more votes than the other and looses? I think it's still fair to let them have their own regional issues that states take care of. but this is a NATIONAL president, not a state governor. I dont think it's fair that a person in Idaho has twice the voting power as a person in CA or IL.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Apr 15, 2008 -> 10:03 AM) Neither system is perfect, but the Democratic model is far more representational. Unlike the GOP model, there are not winner take all situations in states. I agree. The closer we get to "popular vote" representation is good to me. As you can see in my sig, I am in favor of national popular vote. I dont think it works well in primaries because of the difference it time between the elections. Having "delegates" is a good way to judge the primaries. But if they could figure out an easy way to do it, popular vote would be preferable.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 14, 2008 -> 03:34 PM) This campaign has been defined by the concept that Survey USA = good, there are a few that are pretty good most of the time, the local ones tend to be all right, and a few like ARG and Zogby have just been trash. FOr waht it's worth: SurveyUSA has Clinton's lead in PA "down" to 14 points 54-40. The survey was conducted in the heard of the "bitter" comments debate and he rose 2 while she went down 2. Interesting.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 14, 2008 -> 09:12 PM) Cindy McCain's website is grabbing recipes word for word from the Food Network and presenting them as her own. well, at least they came from a good site. Cant go wrong with the Food Network.

FYI- you all HAVE to watch the replay of the Daily Show from today. he goes OFF on the "elitist" controversy and it's freaking hysterical.

What happened to the primary thread? Too Long?

This cant be good for hillary: Chatty Crowd Forces Clinton to Cut Speech Short I'm not buying their excuse that it was a planned short speech. She isnt going to go off the campaign trail to speak fro only 5 minutes.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Apr 14, 2008 -> 06:02 PM) on a side note: what happens if J.Carter and the mighty Goracle come out and endorse Obama (as to end the race) but it doesn't work and Hillary keeps winning states? I dont think it's a matter of winning more states. It's them saying "you cant win". Realistically speaking, it is nearly impossible. It's not to say that she doesnt have support. It's to say, "you are doing no good. you are hurting us."

Democratic Party Filing Suit Against McCain Here's the PDF file of the complaint

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 14, 2008 -> 02:34 PM) This campaign has been defined by the concept that Survey USA = good, I was a little "leery" of this, but the facts prove it correct...

QUOTE (Heads22 @ Apr 14, 2008 -> 02:31 PM) So, I haven't been following overly closely with the exception of Iowa, but have the more local pollsters done the best jobs? They seem to be in the range of accurate... Local Poll to the best of my ability: (parentheses are actual results) IA: Des Moines Register - Obama +7 (Obama +7.8) NH: Suffolk/WHDH- Obama +5 (Clinton +2.6) This poll was the "closest "to the real result NV: no local polls listed on RCP (RealClearPolitics) SC: Clemson- Obama +7.0 (Obama +28.9) No polls were even close here VA: no local polls listed on RCP MD: no local polls listed on RCP WI: Research 2000/WISC-TV- Obama +5.0 (Obama +17.4) this poll was in line with other WI polls OH: Ohio Poll/Univ of Cin.- Clinton +9.0 (Clinton +10.1) TX: WFAA/Belo Tracking- Clinton +1.0 (Clinton +3.5) TX: M-D/Star-Telegram- Obama +1 (Clinton +3.5) taken 5 days before election

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 14, 2008 -> 01:43 PM) It looks like the "bitter" bomb might be working... http://americanresearchgroup.com/ More on ARG:

New Penn Poll: Clinton +3 on Obama. 40%-37% Now we know why she has been hammering the bitter comment. She sees her lead vaporizing before her eyes.

Looks like the Clinton attacks MIGHT backfire on her... she's getting booed for bringing it up. I believe the same groups she spoke in front of also cheered Obama. And in NC, it seems to have fallen flat at recent rallies.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 14, 2008 -> 01:43 PM) It looks like the "bitter" bomb might be working... http://americanresearchgroup.com/ I've said it before and I'll say it again. i have no faith in any poll ARG does. They had Clinton +9 in Iowa the day before the election. She lost by 7.8 and finished 3rd. They had Obama +9 before NH and Clinton won +2.6. Their Chief polster also has connections to Hillary Clinton. RealCealrPolitics.com doesnt include ARG in their Penn poll averages at all.