Welcome to Mountain Buzz, the ultimate paddlers community. You are currently viewing our site as a guest which gives you limited access to most of our features. By joining our community (it's FREE) you will have access to post topics, send Private Messages (PM), respond to polls, upload content, connect with other paddlers and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free.
Clinton won the big delegate states. California, New York, New Jersey, Mass. Obama won more states. Interestingly, Obama won a lot of "Red" states, whereas Clinton wins in traditional Democratic states.
The margins were pretty comfortable about everywhere (except Missouri, more on that in a minute).
There was nothing surprising on the Democratic side. That lends itself to the status quo saying Hillary is the front-runner, still. But she has lost a lot of momentum. And Obama is out-raising her monetarily, and that could yet be the key to his win, if he's going to win.
I do not want to live in a world in which Hillary Clinton wins the nomination. It will wound whatever political idealist remains. I look at the country, and that stupid Democratic party and say "Now? After 8 years of THIS? When you have a choice between a uniter and the ultimate divider, you'll choose the latter?"
I do see parallels between the time, place, and person of Reagan's political ascension and Obama's. That's why I'm for Obama despite obvious differences in liberal policy preferences.
If the Democratic party nominates Hillary, and the opponent is McCain (which seems to be inevitable now), McCain will win the general election. And while that's a win for "me" insofar as it gets a Republican elected and one who will be a lot better on national security, I'd see it as a loss for the country. McCain might be the "Gerald Ford" who can temper some of the heat of the last 16 years, but he might not also.
Hillary would keep the rift that currently exists. Hillary would be another "49 percent hate me anyway, so F them" candidate. And I'll be in that 49 percent.
I just can't believe the Democrats can be so myopic right now.
I really do see a racial aspect to the anti-Obama vote. Maybe I'm wrong. But the statistics show, where Clinton won (in heavily urban areas in NY, NJ, CA) that Hispanics and Asians voted heavily in her favor. Maybe that's not racism. I'm not a part of any of those races, but the statistics play out to a racial divide I've heard about.
There's also the issue of the Boomers, particularly women in that category. Again, predominantly pro-Clinton. There must be a certain comfort factor with her.
Missouri:
Missouri has picked the ultimate winner in presidential candidates in 25 of the last 26 elections (remember, we've only had 43 presidents, and Missouri wasn't a state for many of the early ones).
Last night Missouri overwhelmingly picked McCain on the Republican side, and by the narrowest of margins, Obama on the Democratic side.
Statistics say one of those two will be our next president. I'm not a real big believer in statistics to pick a winner, but if I were betting on this race, I'd put my money on McCain right now. I haven't seen enough to demonstrate the Obama ultimately will win the nomination of his party. He might not.
The augeries of Missouri to me indicate that the closeness between Obama/Clinton is not something even they can decide on, but McCain is.
If Clinton wins the nomination, McCain is your next president. You heard it here first. If Obama wins it, then he will be.
At least "we" in Colorado did our part, and I'm proud of my state for that.
__________________
Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.
if clinton wins presidential the world will go down hill, the world will end in 2012, 4 years after sees oathed into office. i will be now where around why.
because ill be a hermit the time she steps into office. living in a deep canyon where nobody has ever been. ill be eating animals, herbs and berries and fish. growing some special plants next to a fresh springs. making hullenagenic river teas while watching the world fade to nothing.
If clinton wins the democratic nomination. I will vote for her. CM, the world has been going downhill for 8 years, do you prefer that we continue the current slide?
__________________
"I'm not here to make a record, ya stupid cracker" Governor Pappy O Daniel
Helio, I 'm not sure consulting the Oracle at Branson means much,probably mostly coincidence.Maybe it is a barometer of sorts,Mo. is a microcosm of America,a couple big cities and lots of rural folk ,kinda' southern and mid-western.One minor bone to pick I forgot the last go round,it was Obama who first played the race card when he deliberately misrepresented what Hillary said about MLK.That said though I am not big Hillary fan ,too corporatist,I will vote for her if she's the nominee.I'D SAY mCcain /Clinton would be to close to call,or OBAMA/McCAIN for that matter.McCAIN is the least offensive Republican,Huckabee's ok sort of a populist but too religious.Romney is a weasel ;he was a reasonable republican then changed everything he was reasonable on to pander to the religo's.Most glad RUDY TOOTY FULL OF SHIT ABOUT 911 gUILIANI IS DONE.
fOR what it is worth our precinct went 53 to 39 Clinton,I am 39[liar] and was one of the younger people,9 of ten black people voted Obama,we had only one obvious Hispanic.In a straw poll for SENATE uDALL 64 ,bRENNER 0, i LIKE uDALL ALOT,CAPS LOCK PROBLEMS.
Hillary would keep the rift that currently exists. Hillary would be another "49 percent hate me anyway, so F them" candidate. And I'll be in that 49 percent.
I just can't believe the Democrats can be so myopic right now.
I really do see a racial aspect to the anti-Obama vote. Maybe I'm wrong. But the statistics show, where Clinton won (in heavily urban areas in NY, NJ, CA) that Hispanics and Asians voted heavily in her favor. Maybe that's not racism. I'm not a part of any of those races, but the statistics play out to a racial divide I've heard about.
There's also the issue of the Boomers, particularly women in that category. Again, predominantly pro-Clinton. There must be a certain comfort factor with her.
I am bummed that our caucuses aren't open; I know more than a few Independents and Republicans such as yourself that would have loved to participate without switching party affiliations. For my experience, I found it to be a very interesting process (my first caucus since coming to CO- all the previous party nominees were foregone conclusions). That being said, my observations in my precinct were as follows:
Clinton supporters (33 of 78 )were 50+ y.o. and predominately women. Obama supporters (45 of 78 ) were younger, 1st-time caucus-goers and were extremely motivated. The type of folks that brought their kids to witness the political process. Some were former Republicans and Independents, and a cursory observation was that Obama actually carried the Hispanic vote in our precinct. But here's where your comments above particularly struck me:
During the debate process after the straw vote, a young Obama woman stood before the caucus and said that the key to this election was putting someone before the American public that is the least polarizing option for the broad middle, and the person that would keep the political vitriol to a minimum in order to subdue the impact of the far right factions of the neoconservatives. She spoke of her respect for Hillary, but pointedly said that the Right sees her as our "Bush" and that would bring the vote out against democrats regardless of which candidate the GOP fields. Hoo boy- that's all it took. The Clinton folks immediately bristled and got really loud in a hurry, without stopping to think about the perceptual nuance of what the woman was saying. So I think that sums it up in a nutshell- there are portions of the Democratic Party that are perfectly comfortable with swinging that F.U. pendulum back to 51% their way.... and that's a real shame. This is the same problem we have now- Party before Country.
If Clinton IS the party nominee, I'll have a serious choice to make. Despite the fact that Hillary's proposed platform is fairly congruent to my basic political beliefs (other than immigration), I have zero faith that there will be anything accomplished within her term(s). Too much bad blood from her last name, and the anti-Hillary rally cry will be deafening. She's also too ensconced with special interests. So nothing resembling a progressive agenda would be accomplished, and more alarming is that we'll have perhaps the better part of a decade of a widening political divide. McCain is a mixed bag for me- I give him a lot of credit for at least addressing campaign finance reform, which to me is the most important fix to our political system & how our government works. Simply critical. But the guy has changed since 2000. His economic plans (extending the tax cuts) and foreign policy (bomb-bomb-iran / 100 years of bases in Iraq) scare the shit out me fiscally and philosophically. His most recent kow-towing to the Religious Right is unconscionable & the Supreme Court is too far off-center as it is. Overall, I'm afraid that I might have to give the nod to McCain's favor in a McCain-Clinton matchup because if all things are equal, the lesser of two evils is offsetting the power struggle between the executive branch and Congress. The periods of great progress in recent history occurred when those two branches had to compromise in order to move the country forward. [Present circumstances excepted: Lame-Duck Bush has absolutely no motivation to give the current Congress any quarter; just take a look at that deficit-laden P.O.S. budget put forth this past week.] It really depends on what deal McCain makes in order to secure is nomination- if he and Huck have cut a backroom deal, he's out of the equation for me. If his VP pick were to be a moderate Republican or Democrat, or Bloomberg, then I'll give him a serious look.
Anyway- I'm glad I got to Caucus and I feel very encouraged by the groundswell of support that Obama generates. Anecdotal observation of the day: My conservative mother-in-law said this week that she'll vote for him over the GOP nominee, which is the type of cross-party support that this country needs, and that a guy like Obama won't forget.
__________________
"This is the reason why your headache didn't go away: That's actually pronounced analgesic, not anal-gesic. The pills go in your mouth."
A couple more things. There are possibly 3 supreme court appointment to be made in the next 4-8 years. I don't want McCain making those appointments. He is essentiallly going to be a 3rd Bush term, unacceptable.
-d
__________________
"I think I handled my alcohol pretty well considering how drunk I was." -Cousin Dan
I know more than a few Independents and Republicans such as yourself that would have loved to participate without switching party affiliations
I can't believe folks, especially Indendents, are complaining about this. As for cross-over voting in primaries, I've seen what happens in a state where there was a majority Democratic population back before Alabama became a Republican stronghold. Here's how it worked - Republicans would organize their support for the most conservative Democrat and often influence the vote in the primary to get them nominated, thus tainting the process of the party nomination system and, by gaming the system, getting the candidate most favorable to their position elected in a state where they were in the minority.
Independents have already decided to opt out of the party system by declaring themselves, well, " independent" of the political parties. Republicans always have the option of influencing the political process in their own party. If they don't want to be Republicans, they can always leave the party.
If you don't want to be part of one of the major parties, don't complain when you can't participate in their primaries. If you want to participate in a particular PARTY's primaries, delare a POLITICAL PARTY affiliation.
If Clinton wins the nomination, like Livingston, I'll hold my nose and vote for her even though I can't stand her because McCain will continue the policies that have hurt this country so much in the last 7 years. Do you think he's going to change his pro-big business, anti-environment stance if he runs against Clinton? He sure ain't going to nominate moderate or liberal judges to the Federal bench or the Supreme Court, I can tell you that...
Anyone that supports Obama (or Edwards, or any of the other Dems who have dropped out) and is even thinking of voting for a Republican if Hillary is the Dem nominee, is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Keep your eyes on the Prize!
__________________
Nothing in the world is more yielding and gentle than water. Yet it has no equal for conquering the resistant and tough. The flexible can overcome the unbending; the soft can overcome the hard. - Lao Tse
McCain is a mixed bag for me- I give him a lot of credit for at least addressing campaign finance reform, which to me is the most important fix to our political system & how our government works. Simply critical.
From Ron Paul: “In a devastating blow to political speech, the Supreme Court recently upheld most of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill passed by Congress last year. The legislation will do nothing to curb special interest power or reduce corruption in Washington, but it will make it harder for average Americans to influence government. “Campaign finance reform” really means the bright-line standard of free speech has been replaced by a murky set of regulations and restrictions that will muzzle political dissent and protect incumbents. Justice Scalia correctly accuses the Court of supporting a law “That cuts to the heart of what the First Amendment is meant to protect: the right to criticize the government…This is a sad day for freedom of speech.”
“Wealthy people will always seek to influence politicians, because government unfortunately plays a very big role in determining who gets (and stays) rich in our country. Our federal government has become a taxing, spending, and regulating leviathan that virtually controls the economy. Having rejected the notion of limited, constitutional government, we can hardly be surprised when special interests use corrupting campaign money to influence the process! We need to get money out of government; only then will money not be important in politics. Big government and big campaign money go hand-in-hand.”
Quote:
Originally Posted by Livingston
There are possibly 3 supreme court appointment to be made in the next 4-8 years. I don't want McCain making those appointments. He is essentiallly going to be a 3rd Bush term, unacceptable.
From Ron Paul: “Federal judges were never meant to wield the tremendous power that they do in modern America. Our Founders would find it inconceivable that a handful of unelected, unaccountable federal judges can decide social policy for the entire nation. With the federal judiciary focused more on legislating social policy than upholding the rule of law, Americans find themselves increasingly governed by men they did not elect and cannot remove from office. Unless and until Congress asserts itself by limiting federal court jurisdiction, judges will continue to act as de facto lawmakers.”
Linear Mode
