Wrong. I never said that. I said it will go down as the greatest ever...which IMO is true because you will probably never see a race like this again. Atleast not for a very long time.
How was it suppose to be a walk in the park? Obama has made it much of a battle as Hillary clinton did. I don't think anyone would have tought Obama would be in the position that he is in.
Quote:
The argument is that it is almost statistically impossible for Hillary to have more delegates coming into the convention.
No that's not the argument. That's what the media has been biasing...The argument is both won't have enough to win. The super delegates were put in place for this type of situation. Do i agree with it? Not completely, but if that's how it's gonna go down, then I think you should wait till when it happens. Will they vote for Hillary? Will they vote for Obama?
It's not the "will of the people". It's the will of a majority base on the votes counted right now. And that doesn't include Florida or Michigan.
I still believe in letting things play out and seeing what happens.
Quote:
It's hard to have "good coverage" when the candidate is a lying, conniving bitch.
It's also hard to have good converage when the media is biasing the canidates.
Edit: 11:35am pst
Quote:
Next, do you understand how extremely unfair it would be to say "Obama, you don't even need your name on the ballot, Michigan doesn't count" then to say "Oh lol sorry, it does count, you lose"? It would be outrageous, and no one is proposing that.
Who told obama not put his name in the ballot? The DNC right? No one even fathom that Michigan and Florida would matter in the end. There was no rules that said he he shouldn't put his name on the ballot. The only two who did were Hillary, and the other guy "don't know his name". In the end, somehow it might end up helping her. She didn't break the rules. According to what everyone signed, they weren't allowed to campaign in those states, but in the end, somehow Obama's ad's came out in Florida...which broke the rule...but I don't see anyone go crazy about it.
Obama's name was on the ballot in Florida. Yet he got blown up by Hillary. Of course I see him not wanting a re vote or for those two states to recount, but for florida a state that he had his name on...that's messed up man.
Posts: 4,040
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
IGN: Squishface
Server: Mushpoie
Guild: Solstice
04-03-2008, 11:31 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tor
No that's not the argument. That's what the media has been biasing...The argument is both won't have enough to win.
Have to disagree with you there. If the media was truly biased against Hillary, they'd be reporting that the race is over. The fact that few people understand that statistically the race is over shows that that is untrue. Sure neither will have enough to claim outright without the superdelegates - but the super delegates are highly unlikely to go for Clinton if she isn't leading in the delegate count entering the convention. To do so would be to be a massive blow against the credibility of the DNC and any of its members.
Quote:
It's also hard to have good converage when the media is biasing the canidates
The media isn't biasing candidates. It might be biased for or against candidates, but it isn't actively biasing them. It's not like Hillary or Obama depend on MSNBC for their polling information. That's why they spend such insane amounts hiring their own pollsters - so they don't have to rely on outside sources.
IMO, i thik it is biasing against hillary. I'll agree with you guys on the super deletegate bit =D Yes it sucks to have to go down that road.
It's not that they the canidates care about these networks polling, but the fact that millions of people watch these networks expecting a fair and balance news cast.
Posts: 4,040
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
IGN: Squishface
Server: Mushpoie
Guild: Solstice
04-03-2008, 11:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tor
=D Oh well. Good election still ^^
Depends on your point of view I suppose. Certainly an interesting election so far. But come the actual election for me it'll be voting for the lesser of two evils, whichever candidate wins on the Left side.
IMO, the media is biased against Hillary Clinton because the public perception of her is that she's a lying, conniving bitch(which I personally agree with.) But they are biased because in this world we are in, the media exists to show people what they want. In my country, the Philippines, they all say Gloria Macapagal Arroyo is the worst thing that ever happened to this country.(she isn't, the Spanish Conquistadores are.) But tdo they show what good she has been doing for our economy? Of course not! They wouldn't sell papers if the hoi polloi don't see and read what they want to see and read. The media exists to give people what they want and sell itself. Just you wait. If ever Hillary starts becoming popular and Obama hated, all Obama-supporting networks will start showing Hillary.
Posts: 1,681
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Chicago IL
IGN: Shroomism
Server: Demian
Guild: Siege
04-10-2008, 10:28 AM
Quote:
Wrong. I never said that. I said it will go down as the greatest ever...which IMO is true because you will probably never see a race like this again. Atleast not for a very long time.
It won't go down as the greatest ever when things are a mess right now. The party is fractured, candidates are spending tens of millions on a primary race, they aren't listening to the chair, and who the hell knows when we will have a candidate.
Quote:
How was it suppose to be a walk in the park? Obama has made it much of a battle as Hillary clinton did. I don't think anyone would have tought Obama would be in the position that he is in.
Because of the huge amount of hatred for Bush and the war. The presidency was supposed to be handed to the democrats, especially with such a liberal republican.
Quote:
It's also hard to have good converage when the media is biasing the canidates.
That doesn't respond to my argument in any way. I'm saying the coverage appears "biased" because there is just simply more bad stuff to talk about when it comes to Hillary. Your response to my claim is "the media is biased". I just explained why you might think the media is biased.
Quote:
Who told obama not put his name in the ballot? The DNC right? No one even fathom that Michigan and Florida would matter in the end. There was no rules that said he he shouldn't put his name on the ballot. The only two who did were Hillary, and the other guy "don't know his name". In the end, somehow it might end up helping her. She didn't break the rules. According to what everyone signed, they weren't allowed to campaign in those states, but in the end, somehow Obama's ad's came out in Florida...which broke the rule...but I don't see anyone go crazy about it.
Clinton putting her name on the ballot won't do much. No one is proposing to just seat the Michigan delegates as they stand. They would either give Obama the undecided votes or split them down the middle. I also don't know how Obama broke the rules, if he ran ads in Florida, and how thats against the rules.
I do feel the media is acting somewhat unfair towards Clinton. Some even going as far as remarking she is a FEMALE candidate. zomg! But anyone who labels Obama's race gets called a racist on the spot.
The funny thing is Obama draws his support mainly from the age group that tends to vote the least. (18-24 year olds)
I no longer care about the Democratic nominees. I had high hopes for both of them early on and would swing my support for a Democratic president in '08 but their bickering has steady and surely pushed me towards McCain.
What the Democrats need to do is quickly unite behind one candidate. Then the candidate that gets chosen take up the losing nominee as thier running mate and bam we have a dream team that can blast McCain out of the Oval Office.
Point is I can ony see them actually winning if Obama and Clinto set aside their damn differences and decide to go on the ticket as Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama. (Highly unlikely though.) If not quite a few Democrats will defect to the Republican party.
Lulz at Iraq "war". It's an occupation. No nation-state to war against = no war. No war = no "OMG support our troops fighting for our freedom or you're a Nazi Commie!"
At this point the occupation of Iraq has nothing to do with freedom, and everything to do with we fucked up big-time, and need to build up some stability and good will so the Iraqis don't turn around and gang up on us with Syria and Pakistan, or whoever else, examples only. Regardless, it's not freedom we're looking for; the Iraqui people are considerably less free than they were before the invasion.
It's us, as usual. All about us. Which, at this point, I don't really see any way out of. I think no matter who we put in office, the "war" will continue for at least another term.
I feel sorry for all the young men and women that went into the military out of desperation or idealism, and are now stuck cleaning up our mistake. And the countless Iraquis on all sides who have to die because we thought we were better at governing their country than they were.
Posts: 1,681
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Chicago IL
IGN: Shroomism
Server: Demian
Guild: Siege
04-10-2008, 12:38 PM
Quote:
It's not like war comes without casualties.
But when it is a completely unjust mistake of a war, the fact that every troop that has died there did so completely unnecessarily, and at worst, to the detriment of the US, for those who argue (quite believably) that the war is breeding terrorism.
Quote:
It's us, as usual. All about us. Which, at this point, I don't really see any way out of. I think no matter who we put in office, the "war" will continue for at least another term.
I sort of agree, but I believe the course of the war will go very differently depending on who wins. McCain will probably reject any sizable troop withdrawals for some time, while the dems will focus more on getting some troops home now, and getting the rest back asap.
Quote:
What the Democrats need to do is quickly unite behind one candidate. Then the candidate that gets chosen take up the losing nominee as thier running mate and bam we have a dream team that can blast McCain out of the Oval Office.
Point is I can ony see them actually winning if Obama and Clinto set aside their damn differences and decide to go on the ticket as Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama. (Highly unlikely though.) If not quite a few Democrats will defect to the Republican party.
I agree, a joint ticket (mmmm joints) would be the dream team, and would slaughter McCain. Besides that, I am pretty confident Obama will win the nomination, if the current trends continue, and I don't think we have seen the true power of his fundraising machine yet, even though he has already set records.
I think the cards are heavily stacked against McCain. He is hinging his entire presidency on Iraq (how often does he talk about domestic issues? rarely), and staying in Iraq is beginning to look dimmer and dimmer every day.
Althought the media might be biased towards her, it is hard to tell. Honestly I believe that the media like any form of business is looking for the best way to please their customer/audiences. And Hillary at this particular moment happens to have a lot of negative things happening in her campaign. When the entire Obama paster situation was playing out it was hard to find anything about Hillary, or any other campaign for that matter, and with that blowing over and Hillary making many outrageous comments it is clear as to why they would be posting so much negative things about her, because it is quite honestly more entertaining.
04-03-2008, 09:49 AM
Linear Mode
