nuttyjoe

Ohio and Texas were supposed to be very key for Clinton. She won in numbers, but not in reality. What she won; she quickly forfieted back in the ensuing primaries. This is her position now. She must win overwhelmingly in every remaining primary to overtake Obama's lead. Highly improbable that she can win by such margins until the end. This is what all remaining superdelegates are waiting for: a mass exodus to Obama- to which they will join- or each and every high-profile endorsement- which they will follow suit. This is what's happening now. And how many more will follow up until Pennslyvania? How big will the lead be at that point?
Thanks for the info, H80! Try the ham yet?

highway80west

I had ham for Easter, Joe. So I will have to do the recipe later. With baseball season starting tonight for me at the ballpark, there won't be many days when I get to cook. So as I work two jobs during baseball season, which I start my 32nd season with the Padres tonight, it can be a grinding six months for me.

Question for Forester: You planning to see the Brewers' home opener?

On the elections, why must we wait for another three weeks, when Pennsylvania do theirs? Someone mentioned earlier that why don't every state vote the primaries at the same. Kind of like a melodrama.

__________________
Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path. Psalm 119:105

garysher

forester814

Yup! We took the day off and went to the opener here in Chicago. Two rain delays and 10 innings later, a great Brewer win!

We will also be off on Friday, to go to Milwaukee for their home opener.

I do love my Brewers... thanks for asking!

But I do agree with gary... let's move the baseball talk to another thread.

nuttyjoe

This actually is a good idea, Gary; but it might be a little overwhelming for the staffs needed to cover the elections in the media. I don't know if that is the actual reason or not; but it definitely would be hard,
Another thing I've been wondering... why don't the Dems have winner-take-all primaries like the Republicans?

Katczinsky

You mean her 10% lead here? Much of that was gained by lying to Ohioans about NAFTA anyway.

Actually, Clinton only won with significant margins (10%+) in a few states (Ohio, Arkansas, etc.), whilst Obama lead with significant margins (10%+, and even some reaching greater than 30%) in as many as 25 states.

Most of Clinton's victories were by single digit margins. The vast majority of Obama's victories were by margins of greater than 10%.



This is true, but this fact is inconsequential for Clinton's bid for the nomination unless all of the remaining states poll the same way. In actuality, Obama is polling well in the two next most significant states (North Carolina and Indiana).

Whether or not a joint ticket is the 'right answer' is irrelevant as long as such a ticket remains highly unlikely. But who knows, the terrain might be completely different by the time some diplomacy is going on in the national convention.

Such a ticket has it's positive and negatives. On the one hand, you might avoid some unnecessary division among Democrats, but you may also risk losing a lot of independents and conservatives by putting Clinton on the ticket. You may also give the conservatives of the Republican Party a reason to vote for McCain.

That I'm not too sure about. Obama continues to poll pretty sufficient against McCain but Hillary is often either at a dead 50-50 or loses to McCain. I don't care what you think about Hillary, you're just going to have to accept this political reality of American politics; there are entire machines dedicated toward Hillary-hate, on both sides of the isle.

__________________
Political Compass:

Economic Left/Right: -9.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.72

garysher

intangible child

No more fascism from the Clinton's!

Many people believe that David Koresh (or the Branch Davidians) were responsible for the deaths of the 74 men, women and children who died in the inferno at Waco on April 19, 1993. This is the story that the FBI put out. It is a lie. The guns they had were legal. The local sheriff investigated and found no basis for complaints against them. These were law-abiding American citizens, even if they thought differently to most other folks. They trusted the U.S. Constitution to ensure their political rights, but they were murdered by agents acting under the authority of the U.S. government.

Waco occurred under the presidency of Bill Clinton, with Janet Reno and Wesley Clark in supporting roles. Already back in 1993 the US government demonstrated its contempt for the American people by carrying out a massacre in order to "demonstrate" (on prime time TV) its supposed "authority" (a tactic favored by fascist governments). Following the usurpation of the presidency in 2000 by the psychopath George W. Bush, and the subsequent installation of the insane John Ashcroft as Bush's Himmler, things became much worse. On 9/11 about forty times as many people were murdered as at Waco. In both cases the murderers have so far gone unpunished.
The Waco Massacre

__________________

Live the Light, Give the Light,
Bring Heaven to Earth Every Day!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=jBcwAJZGX...=john%20denver


The ancient Greeks used to say, "You shall know a man by the friends that he keeps." Given the nature of his friends and advisors, what are we to conclude about George W. Bush:
Stop the madness before us it stops!
Σταματήστε την τρέλα προτού να μας σταματήσεϊ Greek