it seems to me that is exactly what I did.
Your clarification was to claim that it wasn’t what you said. It may not have been what you meant, but it was what you said, unless you contend that the conjunction “and” is not used to join two terms together.
At any rate, it was unclear to me from the context. Sorry to piss you off.
Jesus Fucking Christ,
Son of God and Ayn.
Yes they can.
Sigh. For the eleven millionth time, if one of the candidates is not on the ballot, you cannot count the votes that the other one got as valid. Everybody agreed Florida and Michigan didn’t count before, but now Clinton’s trying to claim that they should because they’ll help her lose a little less badly.
That’s a bad example. How about "my mother, and my father (who taught me sewing.)? Assuming my mother did not teach me sewing.
As noted above, the Democratic Party does not award delegates based on total popular votes, and an accurate count is impossible, due to the caucuses.
Probably the clearest way to say it would be to place another parenthetical in there, like “even if you include Florida (which looks like a dong) and Michigan (where his name wasn’t even on the ballot!)”
Then we could avoid the confusion which plagues this thread.
It wasn’t what I said, it wasn’t what I meant, and I believe you knew that damn good and well. You just wanted to take the opportunity to show your grammatical prowess and nit-pick over a fucking comma (which not everyone agrees was even necessary). If you’d like to continue to criticize me over something utterly unrelated to the subject matter of the OP, take it to the Pit. Oh, and get over yourself.
I don’t think that’s grammatically or stylistically correct. It’s an ambiguous construction, but I would still leave out the comma because I’ve never seen it used in the way you are using it. If you can find a style guide suggesting otherwise, I’m all ears.
No, I didn’t.
No, I didn’t.
You might want to chill out. I apologized for pissing you off.
Oh yes, this. . .
sounds like a perfectly reasonable and sincere apology, couched in continued criticism. Mmhmmm. Ok, I accept. Now can we move on?
The assumption isn’t so much about whether or not he’s trouncing her as it is the entire premise presented in the OP: WHY CAN’T HE PUT HER AWAY?
And, the reasons provided are precisely the reasons.
McCain doesn’t have to be more palatable on ISSUES, the idea on the table is that he’d be more palatable as a PERSON than Hillary.
He just asked NC Pubs **not **to run an ad critical of Obama for his Wright background.
I know, I know, his policies suck, etc.; but that’s only part of the game when running wrong-headed policy against what will rightly be perceived as a neophyte.
A child with the right ideas vs. a senior with the wrong ideas. An American hero vs. a guy who wasn’t even in the country as a little kid. A POW vs. a guy whose middle name is Hussein, has connects to domestic terrorists, black racists, and just got the endorsement of HAMAS (international terrorism, to boot), who sounds elitist at times, and whose wife is only now proud of the USA for the first time.
It’s not as if people just vote on issues; I think THAT should at least be clear by now.
Absolutely. Thanks.
Both candidates at play **were **on the ballot in Florida. Both Obama and Clinton.
Obama even ran TV ads in Florida during that time (against the rules).
He still lost. By a lot.
Pissing off Florida voters by not counting their votes (again) should work really peachy.
What could go wrong for Obama as the nominee? Not a thing I can see! :rolleyes:
No, they really can’t.
You do know it was the Democratic National Committee, party of both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, the was entity that made the rule against which Florida and Michigan pushed and lost. How will that be more detrimental to Obama than to Clinton, as you seem to be implying.
I won’t even get into the fact that those ads were run as part of a bloc of national ads, ads that could not be carved out to just not play in Florida.
I’ve know we’ve been over this before but I also have to ask you again: is the list of negatives you laid in post #70 and here your opinion or, as you’ve said in the past, things that the general electorate believe about Obama. I have to ask now before I ask you how many of them represent your beliefs and how many of them have you examined for accuracy and truthiness.
As opposed to a guy who snickers and lies about using hard drugs and being a hell-raiser when he was younger? Who then didn’t straighten up, but went to his daddy’s super-elite school and came out with a mediocre record? Then weaseled out of military service? Would a guy like that have problems being elected?
As someone else said, the entire quoted paragraph is a complete non-issue to many of us and I have a hard time understanding why you think honesty and openness is less tolerable to the American public than lies and sly winks. I’d far rather see someone in office who isn’t ashamed of his past or the choices that made him what he is today.
Can you draw on history to demostrate that this has anything to do with winning? Lots of experiences candidates are now history’s roadkill.
To be honest, I don’t think anyone knows for sure who will win in November, because there just are not that many PResidential elections to draw data from; there have been only about 55-60 or so, and the elections of 1820 don’t tell us a lot about 2008. I can cite plenty of examples of candidates with less executive experience beating ones with more, and I’m sure you can do the reverse.
I’m sure Shayna will be along soon to tell us Obama’s election is inevitable (ignoring the question of why the Anointed One could not win Pennsylvania in his own party’s primary) but the truth is nobody really knows for sure, and I’m not even sure what people say are weaknesses really are weaknesses.
Personally, I think it’d be a tossup between McCain and Obama, and if I had to bet $10 on someone, right now I’m betting on McCain. But you just can’t know for sure.
I just wanted to note that this is an unfair and inappropriate characterization of Shayna’s advocacy. Normally I would let her defend herself, but since you’re imputing her objectivity, it seems appropriate.
She has been zealous, and occasionally cheerleaderish, but she hasn’t been ignoring facts or arguing by special pleading for Obama. Don’t insult her by implying that she ignores counter-arguments.
Way ahead? Less that 1% is “way ahead”? :dubious: Or by one way of counting Clinton is now ahead. At best, given the most favorable way of counting, Obama is 2.1% ahead.
Popular Vote Total 14,417,134 49.2% 13,916,781 47.5% Obama +500,353 +1.7%
Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA*14,751,218 49.3% 14,140,643 47.2% Obama +610,575 +2.1%
Popular Vote (w/FL) 14,993,348 48.3% 14,787,767 47.6% Obama +205,581 +0.7%
Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA* 15,327,432 48.4% 15,011,629 47.4% Obama +315,803 +1.0%
Popular Vote (w/FL & MI)** 14,993,348 47.4% 15,116,076 47.8% Clinton +122,728 +0.4%
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html
At this point in time any unbiased observer would call it a tie (and woudl agree). No one sez Obama is “way ahead”. :rolleyes:
In any case, given your “even if you include Florida and Michigan” allowance- then Clinton is slightly ahead. (psst, it’s a tie 
)
Yes, Obama was not on Mich, as he voluntarily withdrew his name, knowing he’d get whupped anyway.
Please see my post directly above.
I don’t disagree with your premise, and in fact if I were betting money I’d probably give a slight edge to Obama. I didn’t mean to suggest that he’s unelectable or any such thing - I was simply pointing out the negative aspects of his candidacy to answer the question about why he’s not completely running away with the nomination.
Normally, being a Senator would be a big handicap, because your voting record becomes tremendous fodder for the opposition. But everyone left in the race is a Senator, so that issue kind of goes away.
Sure, there are people who beat more experienced candidates. But experience is certainly a factor - especially executive experience. Bush II, Clinton, Reagan, and Carter were all governors. Bush I wasn’t, but he was a sitting vice president and had decades of service in the government at all levels. Johnson was a sitting vice president. You have to go all the way back to Kennedy 48 years ago to find a president who was elected to office without either being the vice president or a governor of a state.
Again, this year none of them are, but it does indicate that voters do consider experience a major factor.