Obama, another pastor problem

[AcesFull]

Ironically, the rush to have early primaries have hurt the Democrats in two different ways.

 

1) they have hurt their standing in Michigan and Florida

2) and given Obama such a huge lead before all of these things came out that he could not be caught.

 

I would hazard a guess that you have a revote in some of those early races and you would see a big difference in some elections and Hillary would be the nominee and already have it sewed up.

The Democrats' decision to go the proportional representation route also backfired on them. Had the big state primaries been winner take all affairs, Hillary would probably have wrapped up the nomination weeks ago. Instead, they are stuck with a stalemate in which they are having to justify not counting every vote in Florida and Michigan.

[ladiesbballcoach]

The Democrats' decision to go the proportional representation route also backfired on them. Had the big state primaries been winner take all affairs, Hillary would probably have wrapped up the nomination weeks ago. Instead, they are stuck with a stalemate in which they are having to justify not counting every vote in Florida and Michigan.

 

I think it is hilarious that they have set up a system that is having almost identical results to the system they railed against in 2000.

 

This is good tv, seeing them trip all over themselves and no Republican to blame for it.

 

When you take away their blame game with the Republicans, they simply don't know what to do.

 

It is hilarious.:lol::lol::lol::lol:

 

If you cannot adequately run your OWN NOMINATION PROCESS than there is no way anyone can have confidence in your ability to run the US. If they are a logical thinking person.

[Trinity alum]

I think it is hilarious that they have set up a system that is having almost identical results to the system they railed against in 2000.

 

This is good tv, seeing them trip all over themselves and no Republican to blame for it.

 

When you take away their blame game with the Republicans, they simply don't know what to do.

 

It is hilarious.:lol::lol::lol::lol:

 

If you cannot adequately run your OWN NOMINATION PROCESS than there is no way anyone can have confidence in your ability to run the US. If they are a logical thinking person.

What makes you think that there is something wrong with the Democrats nominating process? You are aware that the Republicans have also punished Michigan and Florida by giving them half representation aren't you? You are aware that it was the Republican governor and legislature in Florida that pushed the early primary, aren't you?

You are aware that the Democratic nominee will be selected by more voters than any nominee in history, aren't you?

 

You may lack confidence in the Democrats ability to run the country, but we have proof that the Republicans can't do it.

 

Still laughing?

 

http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/primaries/republicanprimaries/index.html

[Trinity alum]

The Democrats' decision to go the proportional representation route also backfired on them. Had the big state primaries been winner take all affairs, Hillary would probably have wrapped up the nomination weeks ago. Instead, they are stuck with a stalemate in which they are having to justify not counting every vote in Florida and Michigan.

 

Is that the same Michigan and Florida that the REPUBLICAN National Committee decided to give alf representation to?

[lynks66]

I said it when the Jeremiah Wright controversy came up. I've seen a lot worst in some of the church's I have attended. This won't change my mind one bit. I still will be voting for him in November.

 

Out of curiousity, what would have to happen to change you mind one bit?

[5wide]

What makes you think that there is something wrong with the Democrats nominating process? You are aware that the Republicans have also punished Michigan and Florida by giving them half representation aren't you? You are aware that it was the Republican governor and legislature in Florida that pushed the early primary, aren't you?

You are aware that the Democratic nominee will be selected by more voters than any nominee in history, aren't you?

 

You may lack confidence in the Democrats ability to run the country, but we have proof that the Republicans can't do it.

 

Still laughing?

 

http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/primaries/republicanprimaries/index.html

 

That's what's so funny to me...all we hear is how horrible Bush and the Republicans have been, yet they still maintain control of the White House. Things are set up for a Democrat massacre in a general election this year, yet it's looking like they're going to blow it again. Short of completely withdrawing from the election process, I'm not sure the Republicans could give the presidency away.

 

In fact, looking at the type of candidates the democrats continually nominate, I'm not sure they could win against BYE in a general...the nation might vote for nobody instead. If they could have come up with a decent moderate candidate, as opposed to the far left liberals they always nominate, they'd have won by a landslide...heck, CNN and FOX may have already called the election by now.

[ladiesbballcoach]

What makes you think that there is something wrong with the Democrats nominating process? You are aware that the Republicans have also punished Michigan and Florida by giving them half representation aren't you? You are aware that it was the Republican governor and legislature in Florida that pushed the early primary, aren't you?

You are aware that the Democratic nominee will be selected by more voters than any nominee in history, aren't you?

 

You may lack confidence in the Democrats ability to run the country, but we have proof that the Republicans can't do it.

 

Still laughing?

 

http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/primaries/republicanprimaries/index.html

 

The Democrat who will receive more votes in the primary than any candidate in the HISTORY of this country WILL NOT receive the Democrat nomination.

 

You had a process in Texas in which, as Bill Clinton pointed out, could have a person legally vote twice.

 

You have about 13 people in the state of Kentucky and more across the country who has more than one person one vote. Somehow Governor Breshear's vote means more than your vote and my vote in a country that was established on a record of one person, one vote.

 

You have a system that of caucuses used across the country that encourages people to not be a part of the electon process.

[ladiesbballcoach]

Read an interesting article in the Herald Leader today and thought of how Bush is viewed today.

 

It seems during his Presidency and afterwards, Abraham Lincoln was hated and despised by those people living in KY.

 

I would gather his popular rating would have been real low among Kentuckians.

[Hatz]

Read an interesting article in the Herald Leader today and thought of how Bush is viewed today.

 

It seems during his Presidency and afterwards, Abraham Lincoln was hated and despised by those people living in KY.

 

I would gather his popular rating would have been real low among Kentuckians.

 

 

You think???

 

Unless George Bush presided over a Civil War and you polled the rebelling states who fought the war against him, I don't see how that correlation works at all.

 

If the unpopularity of George is based without the benefit of a Civil War or Homeland invasion, that speaks more mightily against him than Lincoln's numbers.

[Hatz]

The Democrat who will receive more votes in the primary than any candidate in the HISTORY of this country WILL NOT receive the Democrat nomination.

 

You had a process in Texas in which, as Bill Clinton pointed out, could have a person legally vote twice.

 

You have about 13 people in the state of Kentucky and more across the country who has more than one person one vote. Somehow Governor Breshear's vote means more than your vote and my vote in a country that was established on a record of one person, one vote.

 

You have a system that of caucuses used across the country that encourages people to not be a part of the electon process.

 

 

 

Both sides have used caucuses in the past and now.

 

You also have a lot of crossover votes of GOP registered people (any of this sound familiar ) who crossed over and voted in the Primaries for a Dem Candidate. Some even debated about whether to vote a person the nomination that would be easier for their GOP nominee to beat. That in and of itself shows interesting flaws in the systems and the ethics of the voters doesn't it?

[ladiesbballcoach]

You think???

 

Unless George Bush presided over a Civil War and you polled the rebelling states who fought the war against him, I don't see how that correlation works at all.

 

If the unpopularity of George is based without the benefit of a Civil War or Homeland invasion, that speaks more mightily against him than Lincoln's numbers.

 

The point is that popularity of the citizens has no bearing on whether the President has done a good job or not. History will judge him and his actions, not on what the people of this country think about him.

 

Same as with Lincoln. Lincoln turned out to be one of the top 2 Presidents of all time. But KY that now holds him as one of our great native sons, despised him during and soon after his term in office.

 

Too many people think Bush's approval rating is somehow important.

[ladiesbballcoach]

Both sides have used caucuses in the past and now.

 

You also have a lot of crossover votes of GOP registered people (any of this sound familiar ) who crossed over and voted in the Primaries for a Dem Candidate. Some even debated about whether to vote a person the nomination that would be easier for their GOP nominee to beat. That in and of itself shows interesting flaws in the systems and the ethics of the voters doesn't it?

 

I would agree. My father rails on Republicans voting and somehow says it is the Republicans fault that they are allowed to vote in Democrat elections.

 

If the Dems are that stupid to allow Republicans to vote in their election process, it just goes to show how the Dems have no clue on what is going on.

 

Hillary is the best candidate that the Dems could put forth in this election and she has received more votes than any candidate in the history of this country and she will not be the nominee.

 

I found it historically hilarious that the party that whined and cried about Gore winning the popular vote in 2000 and we needed to change the election process, will NOT NOMINATE the candidate that 1) will win the popular vote of their nominating process; 2) and is the strongest candidate in the states that will decided the general election race.

[Hatz]

I would agree. My father rails on Republicans voting and somehow says it is the Republicans fault that they are allowed to vote in Democrat elections.

If the Dems are that stupid to allow Republicans to vote in their election process, it just goes to show how the Dems have no clue on what is going on.

 

Hillary is the best candidate that the Dems could put forth in this election and she has received more votes than any candidate in the history of this country and she will not be the nominee.

 

I found it historically hilarious that the party that whined and cried about Gore winning the popular vote in 2000 and we needed to change the election process, will NOT NOMINATE the candidate that 1) will win the popular vote of their nominating process; 2) and is the strongest candidate in the states that will decided the general election race.

 

 

Correct me if I'm wrong but the states that allow "open voting" do so on both sides of the ticket, GOP and Dem. Maybe they BOTH have no clue on what is going on.

[ladiesbballcoach]

Correct me if I'm wrong but the states that allow "open voting" do so on both sides of the ticket, GOP and Dem. Maybe they BOTH have no clue on what is going on.

 

No clue.

[lynks66]

I would agree. My father rails on Republicans voting and somehow says it is the Republicans fault that they are allowed to vote in Democrat elections.

 

If the Dems are that stupid to allow Republicans to vote in their election process, it just goes to show how the Dems have no clue on what is going on.

 

Hillary is the best candidate that the Dems could put forth in this election and she has received more votes than any candidate in the history of this country and she will not be the nominee.

 

I found it historically hilarious that the party that whined and cried about Gore winning the popular vote in 2000 and we needed to change the election process, will NOT NOMINATE the candidate that 1) will win the popular vote of their nominating process; 2) and is the strongest candidate in the states that will decided the general election race.

 

 

We she actually win the popular vote?