babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » international news and politics   » CNN Projection: HRC Wins Both Texas and Ohio Primaries

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: CNN Projection: HRC Wins Both Texas and Ohio Primaries
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 04 March 2008 09:00 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
But, delegate count will still leave Obama with a slight lead.

That being said, the headlines will all say: "Clinton Wins Texas and Ohio" And that will give her much needed momentum.

This fight is going to go on for weeks (if not months). In the mean time, McCain will be raising (and banking) money for the General Election.

I think the proportionate delegate allocation rules of the Democrats (as opposed to winner-take-all rules of the Republicans) are not helping the Democrats make a decision and start focusing on the General Election...


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 04 March 2008 09:06 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
More on effect of delegate allocation rules:

OHIO:

Clinton (55% of the vote)
Obama (43% of the vote)
Delegates for Clinton: 63
Delegates for Obama: 48

McCain (63% of the vote)
Huckabee (33% of the vote)
Delegates for McCain: 79
Delegates for Huckabee: ZERO

TEXAS:

Clinton (52% of the vote)
Obama (48% of the vote)
Delegates for Clinton: 18
Delegates for Obama: 12

McCain (55% of the vote)
Huckabee (40% of the vote)
Delegates for McCain: 69
Delegates for Huckabee: ZERO

[ 04 March 2008: Message edited by: Sven ]


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463

posted 04 March 2008 09:10 PM      Profile for martin dufresne   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Sven: ...That being said, the headlines will all say: "Clinton Wins Texas and Ohio"

Scoundrels! Have they no decency???

From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 04 March 2008 09:14 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by martin dufresne:

Scoundrels! Have they no decency???

Well, I should have also said that the sub-headline to those stories will be "Obama Still Maintains Overall Lead Over Clinton" That sub-headline will be completely drowned out...and ignored.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 04 March 2008 09:15 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Bill was the "Comeback Kid"

Looks like Hillary will be the "Comeback Kid II"


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 04 March 2008 09:35 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Some interesting exit poll information:

Men split evenly between Obama and HRC.
Women's Vote: 55% HRC, 45% Obama

Latinos (in all age groups) overwhelmingly supported Clinton.

African-Americans (in all age groups) overwhelmingly supported Obama.

Older Whites: HRC
Younger Whites: Obama

Church Attendance:
More Than Weekly: HRC (45%) Obama (55%)
Weekly: HRC (55%) Obama (45%)
Monthly: HRC (52%) Obama (45%)
A Few Times a Year: HRC (54%) Obama (42%)
Never: 50-50


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463

posted 04 March 2008 09:46 PM      Profile for martin dufresne   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
"Obama Still Maintains Overall Lead Over Clinton" That sub-headline will be completely drowned out...and ignored.
Don't want to interrupt your hand-wringing, but I watched the CTV News and, au contraire, Obama's lead in overall delegate numbers was the factor highlighted and described as insurmountable for Clinton.

[ 04 March 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]


From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 04 March 2008 09:48 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by martin dufresne:
Don't want to interrupt your hand-wriging, but I watched the CTV News and, au contraire, Obama's lead in overall delegate numbers was the factor highlighted and described as insurmountable for Clinton.

"Insurmountable"? How do they figure?


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Left Turn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8662

posted 04 March 2008 11:31 PM      Profile for Left Turn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Clinton can only really win by getting the superdelegates to vote her over the top at a brokered convention. I don't see any way that Clinton can pick up enough pledged delegates to win.

Of course, the republican-biased media wants the Democrats to fight it out to a brokered convention, so Obama and Clinton will spend time attacking each other, rather than attacking Mccain. Claiming that Clinton has momentum helps to ensure that Clinton stays in the race, and that the Democrats arn't able to fully focus their attacks on McCain until after they pick their candidate at a brokered convention.

[ 04 March 2008: Message edited by: Left Turn ]


From: Burnaby, BC | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
Geneva
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3808

posted 05 March 2008 12:27 AM      Profile for Geneva     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Left Turn:

Of course, the republican-biased media wants the Democrats to fight it out to a brokered convention, [ 04 March 2008: Message edited by: Left Turn ]

sorry, it is the Democrats themselves who are fighting it out and it is their choice(s) to continue ...


From: um, well | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 05 March 2008 05:09 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Obama has no one but himself to blame for the result yesterday. Apparently morphing into Michael Dukakis and John Kerry, he let the Clinton campaign smear him on a daily basis and dictate media coverage. He probably never could have won Ohio, but he should have won Texas.

Nonetheless, the delegate split from yesterday is about even, and Obama should end up with more delegates in Texas. But if he doesn't show more toughness, the Republicans will eat him up in the fall.


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 05 March 2008 06:19 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
This is what I have been afraid of all along. I am a bit of an agnostic in the Clinton vs. Obama battle. I personally feel that the ideological differences between them are minute and to me the ONLY (repeat ONLY) consideration is which of them can defeat McCain in the fall.

Right now, the superficial analysis is that Obama is tougher for McCain to beat. But I have this haunting fear that if he were the actual nominee, the GOP and the press would turn on him very quickly and that he would make mistakes and collapse like a house of cards. In other words, he would be to the US like what Segolene Royale was to France (ie: seemed like a good idea at the time , but in the end the socialists would probably have done better with a more seasoned candidate)


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Stargazer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6061

posted 05 March 2008 06:40 AM      Profile for Stargazer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
In a very very perverse way, I would love Huckabee to win. Just to see what happens. Seriously, you think things are fucked now? Huckabee will outdo anything the Chimp has done.

What scares the hell out of me (and I still can't believe it is happening), is that there are enough people who like that freak religious nut Huckabee to keep him going. That does not say a lot about America. A Far far right religious nut bar who wants America to endorse God at every section, has a following.


From: Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist. | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463

posted 05 March 2008 06:56 AM      Profile for martin dufresne   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Isn't Huckabee out of the race with McCain the official Repug candidate now? That is what the media are saying.
I am not sure it's that much of a bad thing that Obama and Clinton are still campaigning... The Dems get more media exposure, each candidate is pressed to refine his or her program; call me an optimist but maybe there is a possibility for more accountability, more engagement with civil society demands, and finally a focus on the issues beyond fawning and superficial identity politics.
Meanwhile, McCain is being made the butt of Letterman's devastating (if ageist) Old Man McCain jokes. Not that sure this is a good thing for him and for the Repug. Maybe USians will come to see their future as a choice between Obama and Clinton rather than as one between the Repugs and the Dems?

[ 05 March 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]


From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 05 March 2008 07:30 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
How come we haven't seen this headline yet:

"U.S. finds Obama bin leadin"


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 05 March 2008 07:35 AM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stargazer:
In a very very perverse way, I would love Huckabee to win. Just to see what happens. Seriously, you think things are fucked now? Huckabee will outdo anything the Chimp has done.

What scares the hell out of me (and I still can't believe it is happening), is that there are enough people who like that freak religious nut Huckabee to keep him going. That does not say a lot about America. A Far far right religious nut bar who wants America to endorse God at every section, has a following.


Huckabee is a freak.

But, he's not going to be President. He dropped out last night.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 05 March 2008 07:37 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
What about VP? Think it's possible?

(Okay, I know, that belongs in the other thread.)


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 05 March 2008 07:39 AM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
What about VP? Think it's possible?

Stranger things have happened.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 05 March 2008 07:46 AM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'm quite winded from two hours of heavy work outside, which I'm not supposed to do, so I'm probably not thinking clearly but it does occur to me, that, if Mrs. Clinton manages to keep her candidacy alive through to the Convention, and deals are brokered, perhaps Clinton could be Pres and Obama the Vice, and perhaps with the understanding Mrs. Clinton would just serve the one term, and Mr. Obama could run an uncontested Dem nomination for the next two terms? Just an idea, as I don't know how these things work out (brokered convention...).
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 05 March 2008 07:47 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yeah, as if Clinton would ever agree to serve only one term.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 05 March 2008 07:52 AM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well, even if Mrs. Clinton serves two terms, Mr. Obama will still be younger than Clinton is today, and will have eight years VP experience by that time.
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 05 March 2008 07:54 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Unless Obama collapses in the remaining primaries, I don't see it happening.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 05 March 2008 08:03 AM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think you're right - I was speculating "what if...".
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
pookie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11357

posted 05 March 2008 08:27 AM      Profile for pookie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
What about VP? Think it's possible?

(Okay, I know, that belongs in the other thread.)



Conventional wisdom (which has gotten somewhat of a drubbing recently) says that for McCain to win he needs to make inroads with indies and dems. Huckabee is prolly too scary to help him with those pockets or to carry states that wouldn't have been squarely for the GOP anyway...like CA.

ETA: Also, Huckabee is almost as detested as McCain by the very conservative part of the Republican base (mostly on economic issues). So he wouldn't help McCain there either.

[ 05 March 2008: Message edited by: pookie ]


From: there's no "there" there | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 05 March 2008 09:48 AM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Clinton, in particular, projected confidence on the day after her candidacy-saving victories, suggesting she might want Obama as her vice presidential running mate.

"That may be where this is headed, but of course we have to decide who is on the top of ticket. I think the people of Ohio very clearly said that it should be me," she said on CBS


Obama no doubt had other thoughts.


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 05 March 2008 10:41 AM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I can't imagine Obama agreeing to play second fiddle to the de facto second fiddle (Bill) if HRC wins the nomination.

It would be a waste of eight years of his life!

[ 05 March 2008: Message edited by: Sven ]


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463

posted 05 March 2008 11:24 AM      Profile for martin dufresne   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Two interesting assumptions in that post, Sven...
From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 05 March 2008 12:44 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Obama has not won a single large state (other than his own state of Illinois and neighboring Missouri). In contrast, HRC has won NY (no surprise there), Ohio, Texas, California, Massachusetts, and Arizona, along with Michigan and Florida—although the voters’ choices in those two states do not count. The only big state left is Pennsylvania and she currently leads in the polls there by about 10 points.

If this isn’t resolved after the Pennsylvania primary, this may go all the way to the late August convention—which is held a mere nine weeks before the General Election. That cannot possibly be a good thing for the Democrats. The bitterness between the Obama and HRC camps—not to mention spending all of their campaign money fighting with each other—will make it harder to unify against and defeat McCain.

I think the Democrats’ delegate allocation rules need to be substantially revised to help the party pick a winner earlier.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Pogo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2999

posted 05 March 2008 01:45 PM      Profile for Pogo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The Republican winner take all approach may be cleaner, but it sure isn't fair. Perhaps the Democrats should look at timing issues.
From: Richmond BC | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 05 March 2008 04:16 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:
Obama has not won a single large state (other than his own state of Illinois and neighboring Missouri). In contrast, HRC has won NY (no surprise there), Ohio, Texas, California, Massachusetts, and Arizona, along with Michigan and Florida—although the voters’ choices in those two states do not count. The only big state left is Pennsylvania and she currently leads in the polls there by about 10 points.

If this isn’t resolved after the Pennsylvania primary, this may go all the way to the late August convention—which is held a mere nine weeks before the General Election. That cannot possibly be a good thing for the Democrats. The bitterness between the Obama and HRC camps—not to mention spending all of their campaign money fighting with each other—will make it harder to unify against and defeat McCain.

I think the Democrats’ delegate allocation rules need to be substantially revised to help the party pick a winner earlier.


Actually, Obama won two states bigger than Massachusetts, Missouri and Arizona, namely, Virginia and Georgia.

The problem is not the allocation rules, it is the imbalance the primary schedule. Most states rush to be near the beginning, so you're left with a seven week gap between Ohio and Texas and the next big state, Pennsylvania. Also, the amount of superdelegates is ridiculous. It should be 5% at the most, and probably should be eliminated altogether.


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Malcolm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5168

posted 05 March 2008 06:31 PM      Profile for Malcolm   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Someone asked how it is now implausible for HRC to win the delegate count.

Easy. There are fewer than 700 pledged delegates yet to elect. For Hillary to overtake Obama, she'd need to win more than 400 to his less than 300. In other words, given that all Democratic primaries and caucusses are (more or less) proportional, she'd need to win the remaining contests by a margin of almost 60 percent.

Notionally, she could well win some of them by that kind of margin. It's a long shot that shoe could average 60%+ across the board.


__________________________________________________


pookie noted conventional wisdom that McCain needs to make inroads among independents and soft dems. In fact, the conventional wisdom applies across the board. Candidates need to run to the outside to win their party's nomination, then run back to the centre to win the general.


__________________________________________________


McCain won't pick Huckabee because Huckabee doesn't bring him anything he needs. Huckabees latter day successes were because he was the non-McCain, but the conservative movement didn't much like Huckabee either.


From: Regina, SK | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 05 March 2008 08:52 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Malcolm French, APR:
Someone asked how it is now implausible for HRC to win the delegate count.

I think the word was "insurmountable", not "implausible".

The word I questioned was "insurmountable" ("impossible to surmount"). I don't think it's impossible for HRC win the Democratic nomination. It may be unlikely, but it's not impossible (i.e., it's "implausible").


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 05 March 2008 09:00 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Malcolm French, APR:
Huckabees latter day successes were because he was the non-McCain, but the conservative movement didn't much like Huckabee either.

It's true that economic conservatives did not much like Huckabee. But massive numbers of social conservatives (specifically of the Christian variety) did. He also had next to zero support from independents. Having little support from economic conservatives or from independents doomed his candidacy.

Independent voters will determine who the next president is. The red meat thrown to the extreme Left (by Obama and HRC) and to the extreme Right (McCain) will give way to a rush to the middle in the General Election to try an capture those independent voters. Whichever candidate is most successful doing that wins.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Lord Palmerston
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4901

posted 05 March 2008 09:17 PM      Profile for Lord Palmerston     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
While Romney seemed to be the choice of conservative elites as a rightwing alternative to McCain, for much of the Republican base - particularly more working class Republicans - it was Huckabee.

What I find interesting is that candidates of the Christian Right (like Huckabee and Buchanan before him) tend to be very pro-"small business".


From: Toronto | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 05 March 2008 09:28 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Palmerston:
What I find interesting is that candidates of the Christian Right (like Huckabee and Buchanan before him) tend to be very pro-"small business".

And protectionist.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Left Turn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8662

posted 05 March 2008 09:52 PM      Profile for Left Turn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by josh:
The problem is not the allocation rules, it is the imbalance the primary schedule. Most states rush to be near the beginning, so you're left with a seven week gap between Ohio and Texas and the next big state, Pennsylvania. Also, the amount of superdelegates is ridiculous. It should be 5% at the most, and probably should be eliminated altogether.

The solution to the timing schedule is for both the Democrats and Republicans to run a National primary, with all 50 states holding both Democratic and Republican primaries on the same day. They also need to eliminate the superdelegates on the Democratic side.

A 1 day national primary means all delegates for both parties are chosen at the same time. It also means that every primary voter in every state gets to vote for every candidate. There'd be none of this crap where candidates drop out before your state gets to vote, such that most states get fewer choices in the primaries than the early states.


From: Burnaby, BC | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
Adam T
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4631

posted 05 March 2008 09:57 PM      Profile for Adam T     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
1.I think Obama would accept being Vice President to Hillary Clinton, it is a position to launch a presidential campaign

2.It's good that this goes on simply because we'll see if he can toughen up. He had been doing well in that area prior to this week.

3.A brokered convention is impossible with only 2 candidates. This could well go to the end of all the primaries, but there will almost certainly be a great deal of pressure on the superdelegates and the handful of Edwards' delegates to announce who they're supporting so the party will know who the nominee is. I'd say we should know by the end of June the latest.


From: Richmond B.C | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Malcolm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5168

posted 05 March 2008 10:00 PM      Profile for Malcolm   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
As it stands, the only way for Hillary to win is with the support of Superdelegates. The best projection for her suggests she's got 1,370 delegates. If she were to win 100% from this point forward, that's an additional 611 (I checked) delegates, for a total of 1981 - still 44 short of the 2,025 needed to win. And she's not going to win 100% of the remaining delegates.

Currently she's behind Obama by 85 - 105 delegates, depending on whose projection you accept. To catch him, she needs to win 86 - 106 more delegates than Obama from this point forward. Meaning a spread of 349 - 262 (57%) at minimum, or a spread of 359 - 252 (59%).

Plus there are an additional 152 delegates spots (including 67 from the Texas caucusses and 85 from elsewhere) yet to be allocated. At this point, Obama still appears to be winning the Texas caucusses, and the vast majority of those remaining 85 delegates are from states won handily by Obama.

Of the twelve remaining primaries and caucusses, more than half match the demographics of the states Obama has won to date. Although, using the past to project the future, the largest bloc of delegates (Pennsylvania) is likely to break to Hillary, and the next largest (North Carolina) is likely a toss-up.

[ 05 March 2008: Message edited by: Malcolm French, APR ]


From: Regina, SK | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Geneva
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3808

posted 06 March 2008 12:40 AM      Profile for Geneva     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
the Washington papers today are full of talk of Florida and Michigan, whose governors are both pressing for some kind of "make-up" votes, maybe in June;

they are big big states, and no way they can be excluded from a close Democratic convention, as is now the case


From: um, well | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463

posted 06 March 2008 03:20 AM      Profile for martin dufresne   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Sven: "The red meat thrown to the extreme Left (by Obama and HRC)..."
I must have blinked.

From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 06 March 2008 03:52 AM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
What happens to delegates from earlier States (New Hampshire, for example) who were slated to vote for Edwards, Kucinich, Gravel, and others who've since dropped out of the race? Are they free to vote as they please? Do primary ballots have rankings, and have those votes thus been alloted by 2nd, 3rd (or lower) balloting?

Just curious. What a fucked up system.


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 06 March 2008 04:28 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
They can vote for whomever they choose. Many wait for direction from their candidate, if the candidate chooses to endorse.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 06 March 2008 04:29 AM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
US Dem Rep Mike Wallace was just on Newsworld saying the Dems have polling showing that either Obama or Clinton can beat McCain in a head-to-head battle.
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 06 March 2008 04:34 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Left Turn:

The solution to the timing schedule is for both the Democrats and Republicans to run a National primary, with all 50 states holding both Democratic and Republican primaries on the same day. They also need to eliminate the superdelegates on the Democratic side.

A 1 day national primary means all delegates for both parties are chosen at the same time. It also means that every primary voter in every state gets to vote for every candidate. There'd be none of this crap where candidates drop out before your state gets to vote, such that most states get fewer choices in the primaries than the early states.


Had there been a national primary, Clinton would have won in a walk. There's something to be said for giving unknowns and relative unknowns a chance to break through in state contests. But there needs to be a way to do it in a more rational manner and more condensed time period. Something like having a half a dozen geographically balanced contests every two weeks between February and May would be one way to do it.


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 06 March 2008 05:02 AM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Malcolm French, APR:
As it stands, the only way for Hillary to win is with the support of Superdelegates.

You are correct. It all depends on the Superdelegates.

She's going to make the following arguments to the Superdelegates:

1. She beat Obama in all of the larger, critical states (the states that will be essential to win in the fall general election). Therefore, the Superdelegates should vote for her (and thus give her the nomination) because she will have a better chance of winning those states in the race against McCain that Obama.

2. If one considers the votes cast in the Michigan and Florida primaries, she has a slight lead in the popular vote (she leads Obama 51% to 49%). Therefore, the Superdelegates should vote for her to reflect the will of the people.

Those are two pretty compelling arguments, in my opinion.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Geneva
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3808

posted 06 March 2008 06:37 AM      Profile for Geneva     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
yes, but ...

1/ the big states (NY, NJ, CA) would vote Democrat anyways, even if they ran a convicted horse thief at the head of the ticket;

2/ that slight Hillary lead is, well, slight ... 50/50 cannot be too much of an argument

Lots of room for Obama to wiggle there ...

[ 06 March 2008: Message edited by: Geneva ]


From: um, well | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Albireo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3052

posted 06 March 2008 11:34 AM      Profile for Albireo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:
Those are two pretty compelling arguments, in my opinion.
Only out of context. It's silly to believe that if Obama didn't beat Clinton in New York or California, then Obama can't beat McCain in those states. You can just as readily argue that Obama has won far more states than Clinton, adding up to more delegates, and has more appeal to Independents, swing voters and those who normally wouldn't get out to vote at all. Attracting people outside the mainstream of the Democratic party would actually be an asset for Obama in November.

From: --> . <-- | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 06 March 2008 01:30 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
AP reports that neither Obama or HRC can win the nomination without the Superdelegates. The committed delegates from the primaries and caucuses will be insufficient, by themselves.
From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Adam T
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4631

posted 06 March 2008 03:06 PM      Profile for Adam T     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Pledged delegates State by State

1.Alabama, 52 Delegates, 27 Obama, 25 Clinton
2.Alaska, 13 Delegates, 9 Obama, 4 Clinton
3.Arizona, 56 Delegates, 25 Obama, 31 Clinton
4.Arkansas, 35 Delegates, 8 Obama, 27 Clinton
5.California, 370 Delegates, 167 Obama, 203 Clinton
6.Colorado, 55 Delegates, not all decided yet?
7.Connecticut, 48 Delegates, 26 Obama, 22 Clinton
8.Delaware, 15 Delegates, 9 Obama, 6 Clinton
9.Florida, 0 Delegates, should have 210
10.Georgia, 87 Delegates, 61 Obama, 26 Clinton
11.Hawaii, 20 Delegates, 14 Obama, 6 Clinton
12.Idaho, 18 Delegates, 15 Obama, 3 Clinton
13.Illinois, 153 Delegates, 104 Obama, 49 Clinton
14.Indiana, 72 Delegates, Primary May 6
15.Iowa, 45 Delegates, 16 Obama, 15 Clinton, 14 Edwards
16.Kansas, 32 Delegates, 23 Obama, 9 Clinton
17.Kentucky, 51 Delegates, Primary May 20
18.Louisiana, 56 Delegates, 34 Obama, 22 Clinton
19.Maine, 24 Delegates, 15 Obama, 9 Clinton
20.Maryland, 70 Delegates, 42 Obama, 28 Clinton
21.Massachusetts, 93 Delegates, 38 Obama, 55 Clinton
22.Michigan, 0 Delegates, should have 128 Delegates
23.Minnesota, 72 Delegates, 48 Obama, 24 Clinton
24.Mississippi, 33 Delegates, 19 Obama, 14 Clinton
25.Missouri, 72 Delegates, 36 Obama, 36 Clinton
26.Montana, 16 Delegates, Primary June 3
27.Nebraska, 24 Delegates, 16 Obama, 8 Clinton
28.Nevada, 25 Delegates, 13 Obama, 12 Clinton
29.New Hampshire, 22 Delegates, 9 Obama, 9 Clinton, 4 Edwards
30.New Jersey, 107 Delegates, 48 Obama, 59 Clinton
31.New Mexico, 26 Delegates, 12 Obama, 14 Clinton
32.New York, 232 Delegates, 93 Obama, 139 Clinton
33.North Carolina, 115 Delegates, Primary May 6
34.North Dakota, 13 Delegates, 8 Obama, 5 Clinton
35.Ohio, 141 Delegates, 66 Obama, 75 Clinton
36.Oklahoma, 38 Delegates, 14 Obama, 24 Clinton
37.Oregon, 52 Delegates, Primary May 20
38.Pennsylvania, 158 Delegates, Primary April 22
39.Rhode Island, 21 Delegates, 8 Obama, 13 Clinton
40.South Carolina, 45 Delegates, 25 Obama, 12 Clinton, 8 Edwards
41.South Dakota, 15 Delegates, Primary June 3
42.Tennessee, 68 Delegates, 28 Obama, 40 Clinton
43.Texas, Primary 126 Delegates, 61 Obama, 65 Clinton
43b.Texas Caucus, 67 Delegates, 38 Obama, 29 Clinton
44.Utah, 23 Delegates, 14 Obama, 9 Clinton
45.Vermont, 15 Delegates, 9 Obama, 6 Clinton
46.Virginia, 83 Delegates, 54 Obama, 29 Clinton
47.Washington, 78 Delegates, 52 Obama, 26 Clinton
48.West Virginia, 28 Delegates, Primary May 13
49.Wisconsin, 74 Delegates, 42 Obama, 32 Clinton
50.Wyoming, 12 Delegates, 7 Obama, 5 Clinton
51.D.C, 15 Delegates, 12 Obama, 3 Clinton

Other contests
1.America Samoa, 3 Delegates, 1 Obama, 2 Clinton
2.Americans Abroad, 7 Delegates, 4.5 Obama, 2.5 Clinton (I'd hate to be the delegate who is chopped in half!)
3.Guam, 4 Delegates, Primary May 3
4.Puerto Rico, 55 Delegates, Primary June 7
5.Virgin Islands, 3 Delegates, 3 Obama

Total Pledged Delegates Available (Including Florida and Michigan)
3,591

Totals 2,632
Obama 1373.5
Clinton 1232.5
Edwards 26

Still available (including Florida and Michigan): 904

Also outstanding Colorado 55 Delegates

Pledged and distributed 2,632
Still Available 904
Outstanding 55
Total 3,591

Sometimes it helps to be an accountant

[ 07 March 2008: Message edited by: Adam T ]

[ 12 March 2008: Message edited by: Adam T ]


From: Richmond B.C | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Adam T
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4631

posted 06 March 2008 03:13 PM      Profile for Adam T     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Distribution of delegates still available

1.Florida 210 Delegates
2.Indiana 72 Delegates, Primary May 6
3.Kentucky, 51 Delegates, Primary May 20
4.Michigan 128 Delegates
5.Montana, 16 Delegates, Primary June 3
6.North Carolina, 115 Delegates, Primary May 6
7.Oregon, 52 Delegates, Primary May 20
8.Pennsylvania, 158 Delegates, Primary April 22
9.South Dakota, 15 Delegates, Primary June 3
10.West Virginia, 28 Delegates, Primary May 13
11.Guam, 4 Delegates, Primary May 3
12.Puerto Rico, 55 Delegates, Primary June 7
Total 904

[ 12 March 2008: Message edited by: Adam T ]


From: Richmond B.C | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 06 March 2008 04:32 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Jeez - someone - I forget who - was on the news tonight talking about letting Michigan and Florida run their primaries over again!

The argument was if they continue to be punished - left out - then the Dems can count Florida and Michigan out in the general election.


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Skinny Dipper
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11459

posted 07 March 2008 04:44 AM      Profile for Skinny Dipper   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
If the delegate distribution were based on the US Electoral College system where the winner takes all in each state, Clinton would be ahead of Obama by 219 to 193. It takes 270 to win. If one adds the disputed Clinton wins in Florida and Michigan, then Clinton would be leading Obama by 263 to 193. Obama has won more states; Clinton would be winning more electoral college delegates.
From: Ontarian for STV in BC | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Parkdale High Park
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11667

posted 07 March 2008 08:45 AM      Profile for Parkdale High Park     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Left Turn:
Clinton can only really win by getting the superdelegates to vote her over the top at a brokered convention. I don't see any way that Clinton can pick up enough pledged delegates to win.
[ 04 March 2008: Message edited by: Left Turn ]

Considering that we live in a country that has brokered conventions every time, surely we know that conventions are not the worst thing in the world, and are actually relatively helpful to the candidates, providing a considerable bounce. Note, for instance, that the Conservative Party happily dropped the leadership selection process of the Alliance (one man one vote).

Secondly, why is the idea of super-delegates deciding things so sinister? Keep in mind that Clinton will be very close, if not ahead of Obama in the popular vote. She is already ahead if you count Florida and Michigan. Pennsylvania will make here ahead if you count Florida. Other states could then put her in the lead in terms of votes.

Having a convention is a perfect way in which to account for the intricacies of the delegate selection process (which have screwed Clinton).


From: Toronto | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 07 March 2008 11:13 AM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Skinny Dipper:
If the delegate distribution were based on the US Electoral College system where the winner takes all in each state, Clinton would be ahead of Obama by 219 to 193. It takes 270 to win. If one adds the disputed Clinton wins in Florida and Michigan, then Clinton would be leading Obama by 263 to 193. Obama has won more states; Clinton would be winning more electoral college delegates.

There are some states that have eliminated the all-or-nothing BS in general elections, BTW. I can only think of Maine, but I know there are others.


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Skinny Dipper
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11459

posted 07 March 2008 02:58 PM      Profile for Skinny Dipper   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think Nebraska might be the other. Generally a candidate receives two electoral votes for winning the state and one electoral vote in each district won within the state.
From: Ontarian for STV in BC | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Skinny Dipper
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11459

posted 07 March 2008 03:04 PM      Profile for Skinny Dipper   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The reason why I extrapolated the Democratic race onto the Electoral College distribution is because in the presidential race, the winning candidate in each state wins all the electoral votes in the respective states. It is possible to come in second place in terms of overall votes in the US but still win the presidential race due to receiving a majority of the electoral college votes. I think technically if no candidate receives a majority then the House of Representatives decides as a block within each state grouping and the winning candidate must win a majority of the state grouping within the House of Representatives. I'll have to check my notes from Constitution 101 or Wikipedianize it.
From: Ontarian for STV in BC | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Malcolm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5168

posted 07 March 2008 08:22 PM      Profile for Malcolm   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Briguy:

There are some states that have eliminated the all-or-nothing BS in general elections, BTW. I can only think of Maine, but I know there are others.


True.

Each state's electoral votes are based on the total of senators and representatives - in the case of Maine, that's four electoral votes.

Maine's electoral votes are distributed with two going to whoever carries the state, and the remaining two based on the outcome in the two congressional districts. The best possible result for the second place candidate is 3-1.

I believe the system is the same for Nevada.

As it works out, I don't think either state has ever actually split it's electoral delegation since the state winner has also carried each congressional district.


From: Regina, SK | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Malcolm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5168

posted 07 March 2008 08:25 PM      Profile for Malcolm   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Left Turn:

The solution to the timing schedule is for both the Democrats and Republicans to run a National primary, with all 50 states holding both Democratic and Republican primaries on the same day.


That essentially restricts the nomination to one or two wealthy and well-connected candidates with incredibly deep pockets. No dark horses. No insurgencies.


And we'd already be looking at a Romney - Clinton faceoff.

It is hardly democratic to limit participation in the electoral process to the uber-wealthy.


From: Regina, SK | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 08 March 2008 03:48 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Looks like (which was not unexpected) that Obama ended up winning more delegates in exas than Clinton.

quote:

You may have received incorrect information about what happened in the Democratic presidential race the other night. There is the widespread impression that Hillary Clinton won Texas.

It looks like Barack Obama may well have.

. . . .

First, the over-all statewide vote in the primary, which she took by 51-48, meant nothing. It was as irrelevant as the nationwide vote in a presidential race - the one Al Gore won.

Delegates were apportioned according to margins in state senate districts. And some of these state senatorial districts had more delegates than others, on account of their having had more democratic votes cast in them in recent elections.

Anyway, this primary only counted for two-thirds of the delegates.

Hillary appears from that primary to have copped four more Texas delegates than Obama.

The other third of the delegates come from the caucuses that took place immediately after the polls closed.

. . . .

With about half the caucuses counted, Obama appeared to have picked up seven delegates, erasing his four-delegate deficit from the primary. That moved him ahead of Hillary in Texas by three delegates. If the trend generally holds for the other half of the caucuses, he'll move up three more delegates, putting him up on her in Texas by six.


http://tinyurl.com/2tjzor


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 08 March 2008 03:51 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Hmm. That's good news!
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 08 March 2008 07:45 AM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
Hmm. That's good news!

Good news, that the candidate winning the popular vote gets fewer delegates?

Well, it worked for George Bush . . .


From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463

posted 08 March 2008 10:35 AM      Profile for martin dufresne   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Noam Chomsky: Why Isn't Iraq in the 2008 Election?
Democracy Now!. Posted March 3, 2008.

The public is massively against the war, and the Dems are debating over tactics in Iraq -- here's why.

The following speech, transcribed by Democracy Now!, was delivered by Chomsky in Massachussetts at an event sponsored by Bikes Not Bombs.

quote:
Not very long ago, as you all recall, it was taken for granted that the Iraq war would be the central issue in the 2008 election, as it was in the midterm election two years ago. However, it's virtually disappeared off the radar screen, which has solicited some puzzlement among the punditry.

Actually, the reason is not very obscure.(...)


[ 08 March 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]


From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 09 March 2008 04:42 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:

Yet the most monstrous bigotry in this election isn’t about either race or sex. It’s about religion.

The whispering campaigns allege that Mr. Obama is a secret Muslim planning to impose Islamic law on the country. Incredibly, he is even accused — in earnest! — of being the Antichrist.

Proponents of this theory offer detailed theological explanations for why he is the Antichrist, and the proof is that he claims to be Christian — after all, the Antichrist would say that, wouldn’t he? The rumors circulate enough that Glenn Beck of CNN asked the Rev. John Hagee, a conservative evangelical, what the odds are that Mr. Obama is the Antichrist.

. . . .

In looking back at that history, you wish that a candidate had responded not only with, “No, I don’t have any black ancestor,” but also with, “So what if I did?”

Likewise, with countless people today spreading scurrilous rumors that Mr. Obama is a Muslim, the most appropriate response is a denial followed by: And so what if he were?


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/opinion/09kristof.html?ref=opinion

[ 09 March 2008: Message edited by: josh ]


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463

posted 09 March 2008 02:51 PM      Profile for martin dufresne   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Ha! I knew it... I knew that basing indignation on ponctuation was risky at best.
"Josh" had posted in the "Obama" thread a poison-pen blog article from Roger Simon with the following:
quote:
...On “60 Minutes” Sunday, when Steve Croft asked Clinton if she believed Obama was a Muslim, she replied: “No. No, there is nothing to base that on. As far as I know.”
“As far as I know”? Doesn’t that just continue a smear?...

But here is how Sam Stein transcribes for the Huffington Post Clinton's allegedly scurrilous "not as far as I know" line:

quote:
...Ellison's comments came two days after the CBS news magazine 60 Minutes ran a segment last Sunday in which a male voter explained how he was influenced by the fallacious Muslim smear campaign against Obama. Later in the show, Clinton was asked if she believed the rumors.'

"Of course not," said the New York Democrat. "I mean, that's -- you know, there is no basis for that. You know, I take him on the basis of what he says. And, you know, there isn't any reason to doubt that."

Asked by correspondent Steve Kroft whether she was taking Obama at his word or personally believed he was not a Muslim, Clinton expanded on her answer: "No. No. Why would I? ... There is nothing to base that on, as far as I know."



It makes a big difference when you do not transcribe her words with a dramatic full stop, as did Simon.
The complete cite also points out the extent to which it is the MSM that are working hard to make Obama's alleded Islam connection an issue and to pin that smear on Clinton.
Why play their game?

From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 20 March 2008 03:02 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Turns out Clinton lied her way to victory in Ohio:

quote:

The Obama campaign on Thursday accused Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of purposely distorting her position on Nafta, pointing to newly released White House schedules that show Mrs. Clinton attended several meetings on Nafta.

During one meeting cited by the Obama campaign, on November 10, 1993, Mrs. Clinton spoke to a group of approximately 120 participants at a Nafta briefing. (The Senate passed the Nafta bill on Nov. 20.)

According to an ABC News report, one person in attendance at the meeting said Mrs. Clinton’s remarks “were totally pro-Nafta and what a good thing it would be for the economy.”

The Obama campaign pounced on the meetings, describing them as evidence that Mrs. Clinton has misrepresented her support for Nafta. She has said in the past that she has been a critic of Nafta “from the very beginning.”


http://tinyurl.com/2gw4l4

[ 20 March 2008: Message edited by: josh ]


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca