On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 08:58:55 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


"Tim" wrote in message
...
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.

------------------------------------

I thought she did for a while, mainly because she has run around the country
promising a government solution or handout to everybody's problems or
interests. Things like promising everybody $5k for every kid born during
her administration is a great way get attention and buy votes. It's a
classic.

Eisboch


Are you suggesting my wife and I should stop going to the fertility clinic?

Damn!
--
John H

wrote:
On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 10:04:51 -0500, HK wrote:


The super delegates as a group will support the will of the voters and
their delegates. If Hillary doesn't do very well in Texas, Ohio, and
Pennsylvania, it is all over for her.

If that's the case, why does Hillary lead in Super Delegates (242-196),
but trail in pledged delegates?


That is now. The convention is then.

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

****. We've been 'outed'!
--
John H

On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 09:42:42 -0500, HK wrote:

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.



Gosh, Harry. Why must you keep up the 'filter' pretense. There's only one
Republican here who's suggested such a thing.
--
John H

HK wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"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



The super delegates as a group will support the will of the voters and
their delegates. If Hillary doesn't do very well in Texas, Ohio, and
Pennsylvania, it is all over for her.

What is the original purpose of the super delegates. Why do they exist?
What problem(s) do they solve to justify their existence?

For the Democrat party, which wants to be called the Democratic party,
to use super delegates to select their nominee to the Presidency is
laughable due to it not being a democratic process.

"HK" wrote in message
...
wrote:
On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 10:04:51 -0500, HK wrote:


The super delegates as a group will support the will of the voters and
their delegates. If Hillary doesn't do very well in Texas, Ohio, and
Pennsylvania, it is all over for her.

If that's the case, why does Hillary lead in Super Delegates (242-196),
but trail in pledged delegates?


That is now. The convention is then.

And, to protect their rears, they are beginning to bail out on Hillary.

Eisboch

John H. wrote:
On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 08:58:55 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:

"Tim" wrote in message
...
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.

------------------------------------

I thought she did for a while, mainly because she has run around the country
promising a government solution or handout to everybody's problems or
interests. Things like promising everybody $5k for every kid born during
her administration is a great way get attention and buy votes. It's a
classic.

Eisboch


Are you suggesting my wife and I should stop going to the fertility clinic?

Damn!

You are just too cheap to buy the magazines yourself!

BAR wrote:
HK wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"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



The super delegates as a group will support the will of the voters and
their delegates. If Hillary doesn't do very well in Texas, Ohio, and
Pennsylvania, it is all over for her.

What is the original purpose of the super delegates. Why do they exist?
What problem(s) do they solve to justify their existence?

For the Democrat party, which wants to be called the Democratic party,
to use super delegates to select their nominee to the Presidency is
laughable due to it not being a democratic process.


Read a book, d.f., and become enlightened.

BAR wrote:
HK wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"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



The super delegates as a group will support the will of the voters and
their delegates. If Hillary doesn't do very well in Texas, Ohio, and
Pennsylvania, it is all over for her.

What is the original purpose of the super delegates. Why do they exist?
What problem(s) do they solve to justify their existence?

For the Democrat party, which wants to be called the Democratic party,
to use super delegates to select their nominee to the Presidency is
laughable due to it not being a democratic process.


They were started because of the 68 Convention, and because every time
they had a brokered convention, they hurt themselves so badly, they lost
the general election. The Republican's use a winner take all delegate
program in many states so it won't go to a broker convention. Since
this follows the general election, I think it makes more sense than
Super Delegats who can overide the entire primary system.

wrote:
On Feb 13, 7:13?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.

Nah, as far as delegates, she's really not that far behind. The media
spin, however makes it look like Obama is just running away with the
nomination.

yeah, "Sweeping" and "Landslide" victories, etc...