RE: Obama wins BIG in SC (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message


kittinSol -> RE: Obama wins BIG in SC (1/27/2008 7:38:56 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

While I'm for Obama, the racial bit causing him to win SC sickens me.

Damn people voting for/against him based on race, and people voting for/against Hillary based on gender.


White man whining.





LadyEllen -> RE: Obama wins BIG in SC (1/27/2008 7:44:15 AM)

Question - 'cause I dont know

Could we not run a "CM Primary" here for the Dem and the Rep candidates on the Polls board? Just for fun and to see where this highly unrepresentative audience are heading in terms of who they prefer etc? Apart from the few who have several profiles (who likely would affect things equally I guess) it would be one member one vote and all confidential.

Or is it not allowed for some reason?

E




kittinSol -> RE: Obama wins BIG in SC (1/27/2008 7:47:27 AM)

I don't see why it should be against the terms of service. Would non-US citizens get the right to vote? Because I'd want that [:)] .




TheHeretic -> RE: Obama wins BIG in SC (1/27/2008 7:55:10 AM)

      If you post it, LadyE, I'll vote in it.  As for non-citizens voting, that happens in the real elections in CA.




myflutterby79 -> RE: Obama wins BIG in SC (1/27/2008 7:58:37 AM)

That is not true, non-citizens can't vote in California. 




TheHeretic -> RE: Obama wins BIG in SC (1/27/2008 8:04:03 AM)

          I didn't say it was legal.  Remember that wonderful quote from '06 though?  "You don't need papers to vote?"

         I may have to watch the Telemundo news, to see if Hillary is running her ads in Spanish as well.




Level -> RE: Obama wins BIG in SC (1/27/2008 8:09:04 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

Question - 'cause I dont know

Could we not run a "CM Primary" here for the Dem and the Rep candidates on the Polls board? Just for fun and to see where this highly unrepresentative audience are heading in terms of who they prefer etc? Apart from the few who have several profiles (who likely would affect things equally I guess) it would be one member one vote and all confidential.

Or is it not allowed for some reason?

E


It should be allowed, hell, we had one about which potential First Lady was the hottest [:D]




kittinSol -> RE: Obama wins BIG in SC (1/27/2008 8:17:40 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

         I didn't say it was legal.  Remember that wonderful quote from '06 though?  "You don't need papers to vote?"

        I may have to watch the Telemundo news, to see if Hillary is running her ads in Spanish as well.


I'm an alien/I'm a legal alien...





chiaThePet -> RE: Obama wins BIG in SC (1/27/2008 8:30:50 AM)

Oh, sorry, saw the words Obama and BIG, and well, was hoping for pictures.

Nevermind.

chia* (the pet)




Owner59 -> RE: Obama wins BIG in SC (1/27/2008 8:37:36 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

I have not seen an inevitability of a Dem president at any point in the past decade.   Just because the Majority dislikes Bush, does not mean that a majority will vote for any paticular Dem candidate.  The anti Bush front has been incredibly divided all along.  It ranges from Neo Nazis to Stalinists, and. every point in between.  There is no candidate that can unite them.  I don't see any sort of Landslide for any side.  Likely the next president will beat Clintons record as the lowest % of vote in history, regardless of Party.   I doubt that will be good for the country.  


Just because the Majority dislikes Bush, does not mean that a majority will vote for any paticular Dem candidate. 
 
 
http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=5&issue=20080109

'Heavy Dem Turnout, Fundraising So Far Bad News For GOP'

With the dust settled in the first two major contests of the presidential primary, one thing is clear: The Democrats have the edge in voter enthusiasm.

By virtually every measure — voter turnout, grass-roots fundraising, polling data — the Democrats are showing the most energy and vigor. That bodes ill for the GOP in November.

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080102/NEWS/80102061

Iowa independents are expected to follow the lead set by their national peers in 2006. Nationwide, independents backed Democrats heavily in the watershed 2006 elections, in part out of a rejection of President Bush and a loud cry for change that has continued into the 2008 campaign, strategists in both parties agree.
 
 
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2004106612_apcaucusturnout03.html
 
Iowa:
 
220,588 -Democrats(up from 124,000 in '04')
 
114,000 -Republicans


http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1707063,00.html


Voters are showing up at Democratic primaries and caucuses in record numbers, doubling, tripling or even quadrupling the turnout totals recorded in the last fully contested two-party election in 2000. Overall, Democrats have so far outnumbered Republicans at primary polling places by a rate of almost two to one.

So far three states have held primaries or caucuses that both parties actively contested, and in each, Democratic turnout is outrunning participation by Republicans:

--In Iowa, some 239,000 Democrats turned out at the caucuses, almost twice the all-time record. Republicans doubled their turnout in Iowa, as well, but still only reached 114,000.

--In New Hampshire, some 287,000 Democrats turned out to vote, up from 156,862 in 2000, while Republican turnout decreased slightly to 238,000.


And yesturday is looking just as good for dems,with a record turnout.
http://www.thestate.com/presidential-politics/story/297243.html

 I don't see any sort of Landslide for any side.  Likely the next president will beat Clintons record as the lowest % of vote in history, regardless of Party.

So much for luckydog-analysis.I think I see "wish for",more that "might be".

Super duper pooper scooper Tuesday,will probably show a huge independent shift towards the dems ,also.

I`m looking forward to it.

As an aside,I heard that either one can win the rest of the caucuses,and still not have enough votes to win the nomination,pre-convention.

It`s that close.




tempest74 -> RE: Obama wins BIG in SC (1/27/2008 8:41:00 AM)

Interesting site that matches up your issues with the right candidate...

http://glassbooth.org/





Level -> RE: Obama wins BIG in SC (1/27/2008 8:42:39 AM)

Okay, we now have two polls going in the Random Stupidity section.




TheHeretic -> RE: Obama wins BIG in SC (1/27/2008 9:00:46 AM)

         That's all well and good, O59, and I've figured all along I would be working for the losing side in November, but lately it seems the Dems have been taking lessons in blowing good opportunities from the Palestinians.

         Hey.  Weren't the Dems supposed to end the war in Iraq once they regained Congress in '06?  How's that working out? 




kittinSol -> RE: Obama wins BIG in SC (1/27/2008 9:19:25 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

        That's all well and good, O59, and I've figured all along I would be working for the losing side in November (...) .



What remains to be seen now is how fair play you will be when you loose [:)] .




TheHeretic -> RE: Obama wins BIG in SC (1/27/2008 9:31:47 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol


What remains to be seen now is how fair play you will be when you loose [:)] .



       No worries.  The behavior of the Dems over the last few years has set that bar so low, I could stay in bounds while belly crawling in a ditch.




FatDomDaddy -> RE: Obama wins BIG in SC (1/27/2008 10:02:16 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: myflutterby79

That is not true, non-citizens can't vote in California. 


Sure they can, who's checking?




kittinSol -> RE: Obama wins BIG in SC (1/27/2008 11:09:51 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol


What remains to be seen now is how fair play you will be when you loose [:)] .



      No worries.  The behavior of the Dems over the last few years has set that bar so low, I could stay in bounds while belly crawling in a ditch.


I was brought up to believe that winners are all the better for claiming their victory without debasing their opponents [;)] .




domiguy -> RE: Obama wins BIG in SC (1/27/2008 12:44:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: myflutterby79

That is not true, non-citizens can't vote in California. 


Sure they can, who's checking?



Did you know that in every election that has been conducted over the last decade it was the votes made by the illegalls that determined the final results of those elections?

Did you know that? What you don't believe me? Okay maybe not every election but there has to be at least one, right? What you don't believe me? There has to be one or why would the educated people who write on this forum be concerned?

Everyone who votes is never asked to register and produce valid identification so anyone can vote at anytime...It's kinda like getting cigarettes from a vending machine...Your supposed to attain a certain age but no one really checks. Right?




CuriousLord -> RE: Obama wins BIG in SC (1/27/2008 12:51:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol
quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

While I'm for Obama, the racial bit causing him to win SC sickens me.

Damn people voting for/against him based on race, and people voting for/against Hillary based on gender.


White man whining.


You're so sexist.  =/




kittinSol -> RE: Obama wins BIG in SC (1/27/2008 1:06:27 PM)

You're funny, CuriousLord.




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125