"HK" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "HK"
Newsgroups: rec.boats
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 9:03 AM
Subject: Hillay bites the dust



Yet another reason why I prefer *closed* primaries and secret ballot
voting, as opposed to open primaries, which encourage crossovers, and
caucuses, which encourage group vote, not secret ballot vote.


Yet, you are a fan of "brokered" conventions?

Eisboch



I like the rough and tumble of tight primary races and conventions in
which delegates make a difference, and have to vote many times in order to
select a delegate. A good convention is like a microcosm of the House of
Representatives, with the delegates elected by the people back home
working for consensus. It's not the same animal as a caucus.

Today's conventions are just too antiseptic for my taste.


That's all fine, good and healthy if it weren't for the "Super Delegates"
who don't necessarily have the backing of the people back home. That's
where the "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" deals are made.

Eisboch

On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 09:21:07 -0500, HK wrote:

Oh, and despite what the pundits say, I believe Clinton and Obama will
be well-served by fighting for the nomination to the very end. Democrats
will be happy with either candidate.

My friend, you are in a serious state of denial.

Hispanics are abandoning Hillary because she fired what's her face who
was a Hispanic.

And they ain't going to Obama.

"HK" wrote in message
...

I like the rough and tumble of tight primary races and conventions in
which delegates make a difference, and have to vote many times in order to
select a delegate. A good convention is like a microcosm of the House of
Representatives, with the delegates elected by the people back home
working for consensus. It's not the same animal as a caucus.

I like that too. Make them work for it.

Today's conventions are just too antiseptic for my taste.

Better than the last one.

Oh, and despite what the pundits say, I believe Clinton and Obama will be
well-served by fighting for the nomination to the very end. Democrats will
be happy with either candidate.

Obama, hell I would vote for him over Hilary. Hilary is too much with the
wind, left liberal/socialistic go with the wind, say anything to get Bill
back into the Whitehouse. Do we all not remember Bills last days in office?
Are we not recognising the man can't keep his zipper up? I know, the girls
are cute but...

On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 09:10:29 -0500, Eisboch wrote:


Yet, you are a fan of "brokered" conventions?

Eisboch

A "brokered" convention could prove quite damaging to the Democrats.
I've been hearing quite a bit about Super Delegates lately. However, I
don't hear much about the Republican tool of anointing their "chosen
one", winner take all primaries.

wrote:
On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 09:10:29 -0500, Eisboch wrote:


Yet, you are a fan of "brokered" conventions?

Eisboch

A "brokered" convention could prove quite damaging to the Democrats.
I've been hearing quite a bit about Super Delegates lately. However, I
don't hear much about the Republican tool of anointing their "chosen
one", winner take all primaries.


My concept of a brokered convention is one in which the delegates vote a
couple of times over several times to agree on a nominee.

On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 14:41:04 -0000, wrote:

On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 09:10:29 -0500, Eisboch wrote:


Yet, you are a fan of "brokered" conventions?

Eisboch

A "brokered" convention could prove quite damaging to the Democrats.
I've been hearing quite a bit about Super Delegates lately. However, I
don't hear much about the Republican tool of anointing their "chosen
one", winner take all primaries.

There won't be a brokered Dem convention.
Majority pledged delegates will determine the winner.
I gar-an-tee it.

--Vic

HK wrote:
Tim wrote:
On Feb 13, 6:13 am, "Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is Here
wrote:
That loud sucking sound heard in Potomic area was Hillary losing 3 more
primaries.

It looks like the only way Hillary will win the primary is if Billary
can steal this away with super delegates and some rule changes.

well, you knew it was coming....

I really didn't think she had much of a chance when she started.


For what it is worth, some of the more rowdy boys on the firearms
discussion groups have been talking about voting for Obama in the
primaries in their states in order to help him win, because they think
he'll be easier to defeat in the general. In other words, they were
talking about *not* voting in the GOP primaries, as they usually do, and
crossing over to vote for Obama.

If this is the case, I have no idea how widespread it is...or isn't. I'm
pretty much convinced that either Obama or Clinton will flush McCain
down the toilet, so I don't care which of them wins the Democratic
nomination.

Yet another reason why I prefer *closed* primaries and secret ballot
voting, as opposed to open primaries, which encourage crossovers, and
caucuses, which encourage group vote, not secret ballot vote.

The far-righties are really getting apoplectic about the general
election. May they all burst an artery.


I read that Rush was recommending people contribute to Hillary's
campaign because he believed the Repub's can beat Hillary, but Obama
will win against McCain.

Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:

I read that Rush was recommending people contribute to Hillary's
campaign because he believed the Repub's can beat Hillary, but Obama
will win against McCain.


Hillary has a shrill tone.

McCain has a arrogant tone.

Obama has an optimistic tone.

Obama will win against McCain.

McCain will win against Hillary.

On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 09:03:27 -0500, HK wrote:

For what it is worth, some of the more rowdy boys on the firearms
discussion groups have been talking about voting for Obama in the
primaries in their states in order to help him win, because they think
he'll be easier to defeat in the general. In other words, they were
talking about *not* voting in the GOP primaries, as they usually do, and
crossing over to vote for Obama.

You don't suppose Republicans are responsible for the record turnouts in
the Democratic primaries? Nah, I think Obama is bringing record numbers
into the fold. Either that, or record numbers of Americans are motivated
by the past eight years of Bush.

wrote:
On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 09:03:27 -0500, HK wrote:

For what it is worth, some of the more rowdy boys on the firearms
discussion groups have been talking about voting for Obama in the
primaries in their states in order to help him win, because they think
he'll be easier to defeat in the general. In other words, they were
talking about *not* voting in the GOP primaries, as they usually do, and
crossing over to vote for Obama.

You don't suppose Republicans are responsible for the record turnouts in
the Democratic primaries? Nah, I think Obama is bringing record numbers
into the fold. Either that, or record numbers of Americans are motivated
by the past eight years of Bush.


No, I think Democrats are *motivated* like never before by the
possibility and probability of removing the Republicrooks from the White
House and giving their party a working majority in Congress. I think
some Republicans are playing the "crossover game" and voting for Obama
because they believe "white America" in the end will not vote for a
black candidate for president. It would not surprise me to learn that a
couple of the more rapid Republicans here did that. I think and hope
they are wrong.

Bush has been the ultimate disaster for this country. It seems only fair
that his party pay the price for that.

I am enjoying watching the rabid Republicans attempting to destroy John
McCain because all they really are doing is showing the world what
losers they are. McCain is a decent, honorable man with a long and
positive record of public service. He should have been the GOP nominee
in 2000. By trying to "swiftboat" him, the rabid righties are only
showing themselves up as slime.