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 09:03:27 -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.

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.

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.

She has lost 6 or 8 in a row. It is hard to get contributions when you
are on a big loosing streak.

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

On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 09:43:46 -0500, HK wrote:


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.

I have no problem with your definition of a "brokered" convention, but
both parties have a history of smoke-filled backroom deal making.
Frankly, that's just out of place in modern day politics. Hopefully, the
Democrats have learned by now. Republicans never seem to learn
anything. ;-)

"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 07:13:58 -0500, "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.

My game plan worked. However, yesterday while in the car (taking another
lens back) I heard Rush comment that no matter who gets the most votes,
Hillary will win.

I hope not. I'd like to see Obama in a face to face with McCain. Any
debates should be interesting, if only to see how soft the balls can be
thrown by NBC. I doubt if either Obama or Clinton would face McCain on a
Fox debate.
--
John H

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.

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?