• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Democratic Campaign Deathwatch Thread

Sefarst said:
Sorry, but I think McCain dropped the ball on this one. IMO, we need to be flooding that continent with condoms.
Click to expand...

That's a well grounded position. If ten percent of them fail, then ninety percent of them don't.

Brainster, folks are going to hump anyway. Pretending that condoms will increase humpage, or incidence of AIDS due to humpage, in a manner that overwhelms the prodigious humpage already in progress, and thus increase the spread of AIDS, ignores the ninety percent factor of condoms NOT failing, and the spread that occurs when no condom is used.

Are you sure you looked at the numbers on that one?

I suggest to you, however, the usual unintended outcomes. Folks who accept the free condoms and then sell them for a bit to those who can pay for them . . . that too is human nature.

Making a buck.

DR
 
Darth Rotor said:
That's a well grounded position. If ten percent of them fail, then ninety percent of them don't.

Brainster, folks are going to hump anyway. Pretending that condoms will increase humpage, or incidence of AIDS due to humpage, in a manner that overwhelms the prodigious humpage already in progress, and thus increase the spread of AIDS, ignores the ninety percent factor of condoms NOT failing, and the spread that occurs when no condom is used.
Click to expand...

Let's separate this derail into two parts:

1. Should the US government be paying for condoms? I say no. If some charity wants to spring up to pay for it, fine.

2. Does condom use decrease AIDS? Probably, but not as much as not having sex with people with AIDS would.
 
corplinx said:
Horrible article. It glosses over the fundamental misconception that neither candidate can secure the nomination on normal delegates alone.
Click to expand...

Not sure what you are trying to say here? You are implying that either candidate can still secure the nomination with delegates alone?

That is HIGHLY unlikely. Both candidates will likely need the super delegates to win and Hillary isn't going to get enough.... PERIOD.

The Super Delegates are not going to rock the boat that much. They only way they go in her favor strongly enough to make it matter is she sweeps the last of the major races and... news flash.... Obama is polling at around 50% to Hillary's 37% in North Carolina.

No matter what happens in PA if Obama pulls big in North Carolina I don't think the Super Delegates would be crazy enough to go against him.

Which is what the article that you dismissed eluded to.
 
Last edited:
T.A.M. said:
The trouble with the "Gore" thing is two-fold...

1. He lost in 2000, and REPs will exploit the "loser" aspect of it.
2. If he picks neither of Clinton or Obama as VP, the party will fall COMPLETELY apart, and if he picks either of them, the other half will be PISSED OFF, and likely skip out in November.

TAM:)
Click to expand...
TAM, you can forget all about Al Gore getting into the race in any way at this point. No Veep. No nothing. Yes - I'd have loved to see him run again, even contributed to the Draft Gore campaign - but Al has other things in mind. You must remember this: The "media" in this country fell on him like a pack of ravenous wolves in 2000, calling him Liar every chance they got. The "media" no longer reports what is going on: They wish to directly AFFECT what is going on. They are whores, nothing more.

And somebody here posted a link to Arianna Huffington's blog? Arianna is a dyed-in-the-wool Hillary Hater / Basher. There's big ratings in slamming Hillary, and the Democrats in positions of influence are piling on Hillary for that very reason.

I just saw something today that I could NOT believe. There is a "liberal / progressive" radio host named Randi Rhodes, broadcasting out of NYC. She eventually eased her show into a Hillary Basher safe zone. Well, she just did a public appearance in San Francisco and someone got a video of it. Over and over and over again in front of 500 people at this speaking event: She is referring to Hillary Clinton as a "effing whore" (but of course she used the actual word). Just pathetic. Foolmewunz is correct, from my view at this point in time. We Dems won't get the White House. We showed how pathetic we were by letting "president" SlobberSlurryStupidFace get elected - TWICE.

I like our Democratic platform. But we don't know how to appreciate a really good President (Bill Clinton) and we don't know how to get somebody in who can prevail. We've let the turd media - largely Republican-controlled - convince us that Bill was a bad president and that Hillary is an "effing whore".

Hillary gets my vote, regardless. I'll write her in if I have to.
 
Brainster said:
Let's separate this derail into two parts:

1. Should the US government be paying for condoms? I say no. If some charity wants to spring up to pay for it, fine.
Click to expand...

It will cost a lot more in the long run to do nothing.

2. Does condom use decrease AIDS? Probably, but not as much as not having sex with people with AIDS would.
Click to expand...

Yeah but people don't intentionally have sex with someone who has AIDS. People have sex with other people.... they often don't think about the AIDS part until later.

Your point is incredibly near sighted and not based on real situations... and looky there your point is also contradicted by research.

I would suggest that you read this.....

http://www.icw.org/node/100

"In a UNAIDS Position statement on Condoms and HIV/AIDS Prevention-July? 2004, It was concluded that “Condom is a critical element in a comprehensive, effective and sustainable approach to HIV prevention and their promotion must be accelerated”."
 
ConspiRaider said:
TAM, you can forget all about Al Gore getting into the race in any way at this point. No Veep. No nothing. Yes - I'd have loved to see him run again, even contributed to the Draft Gore campaign - but Al has other things in mind. You must remember this: The "media" in this country fell on him like a pack of ravenous wolves in 2000, calling him Liar every chance they got. The "media" no longer reports what is going on: They wish to directly AFFECT what is going on. They are whores, nothing more.

And somebody here posted a link to Arianna Huffington's blog? Arianna is a dyed-in-the-wool Hillary Hater / Basher. There's big ratings in slamming Hillary, and the Democrats in positions of influence are piling on Hillary for that very reason.

I just saw something today that I could NOT believe. There is a "liberal / progressive" radio host named Randi Rhodes, broadcasting out of NYC. She eventually eased her show into a Hillary Basher safe zone. Well, she just did a public appearance in San Francisco and someone got a video of it. Over and over and over again in front of 500 people at this speaking event: She is referring to Hillary Clinton as a "effing whore" (but of course she used the actual word). Just pathetic. Foolmewunz is correct, from my view at this point in time. We Dems won't get the White House. We showed how pathetic we were by letting "president" SlobberSlurryStupidFace get elected - TWICE.

I like our Democratic platform. But we don't know how to appreciate a really good President (Bill Clinton) and we don't know how to get somebody in who can prevail. We've let the turd media - largely Republican-controlled - convince us that Bill was a bad president and that Hillary is an "effing whore".

Hillary gets my vote, regardless. I'll write her in if I have to.
Click to expand...

CS:

I know you have been a long time Hillary Supporter, but can I ask you what it is about Obama you dislike, or do you simply like Hillary more?

TAM:)
 
Brainster said:
Actually the question was about US Government funding for condom distribution in Africa to prevent the spread of AIDS there, which McCain sensibly opposes.

Does condom use really prevent the spread of AIDS? An old rule of thumb was that condoms broke about 10% of the time, so it's quite possible that condom use may give people a false sense of security. In aggregate, I would guess that it does reduce transmission rates but it's an awfully silly question to be asking a politician.
Click to expand...

How is it sensible? Do you know how much money we are spending to fight AIDS in Africa? Why cripple our efforts by refusing to provide proper contraception?

I was pretty ****** off when they declared how much money they would spend in Africa, but then passed a bill stating that a third of the funding must be abstinence-only (I know it goes to a slightly different issue, but it is related).
 
T.A.M. said:
CS:

I know you have been a long time Hillary Supporter, but can I ask you what it is about Obama you dislike, or do you simply like Hillary more?

TAM:)
Click to expand...
Well Doc, that's a very good question.

Obama reminds me of a Sunday preacher and it's probably my deep anti-authority reaction kicking in on my distaste for that. Lots of rhetoric, lots of general, ambiguous statements, this "Yes We Can" chanting - not a draw for me. For others, yes, and fine by me. However, I strongly dislike being preached to and that is the first thought hitting me when hearing Obama's speeches. And he's preaching change, but what kind of? And he's talking about a "new kind of politics" but he uses the same old tried and true methods of politicking that everyone else has been, and is, using. And his inexperience is, to me, a distinct flaw because of the gravity of issues the USA must grapple with, over these next 4 to 8 years.

I like Hillary quite a bit. She's tough, political, damned intelligent, and she seems to have picked up Bill's quality of fence-mending. She was all set to go for the move-in to the Oval, and we needed that certainty. Us Dems and the country. Then everything turned on a dime and the relentless pounding of her began. With a vengeance that took on a life of its own. What happened with the Randi Rhodes abomination at that speaking engagement I mentioned, is essentially an exclamation point on the Hysteria of Hate being blasted at Hillary - and Bill. It's appalling. It makes me embarrassed at times to admit I'm a U.S. Democrat.

The Democrats missed this, but the Republicans didn't: By running two unconventional candidates head-to-head, a self-cancelling effect can be achieved to a certain degree. Internal hate and strife become lethal byproducts. Look at us Dems throwing roundhouse punches at each other. The Republicans cannot have prayed for something this fortunate to have happened. But they figured "what the hell let's try it" and laid the groundwork - using their media-controlled advantage. The Democrats obediently spit right into their wind. We Democrats are combative anyway, because of the diversity within our party. Republicans are more simplistic and therefore it's far easier for them to unite and consolidate power. A huge advantage in a Presidential campaign.

At this point, Clinton as President and Obama as Vice President actually IS the unbeatable Democratic ticket. But not the reverse. And now - because the Hate Express against Hillary is now clipping along at a nice 85 miles per hour on a long and endless straightaway - even she may not be able to beat McCain come November, should she get the nomination.

We're saps, we Democrats, in this regard. Just saps. We've proven our sapness in 2000 and 2004 and are about to prove it once again. What the Dems need is someone like me to kick a large quantity of asses in the party. Doc, I'll kick the asses, and then will ship the owners to your doctorly office so you can fit them for slings. Deal?
 
200 and 2004 were horrible travesties.

2000 - Gore running away from Clinton, just on the say so of right wing "pundiots"! The race was there to be won, and rather than take on the media and all the jokes about him being boring and dull, they played right into it. Bill would've taken Leno out behind the woodshed or gone on Leno and Letterman and played his saxophone and let them make spicy risque double entendres. Gore's camp just kept coming back with "But he's not boring. Really. He's not." And they let Chuckles the Chipmunk steal the "boy next door" vote (my favorite pet theory or Presidential elections)!

2004 - Even worse! Hey, we're the Democratic Party, Dammit. We don't need no stinkin' common sense! We're gonna nominate a guy the ghost of Richard Nixon could beat.

2008 - 18 months ago, I'd have said that the Democrats were not only going to take the White House but probably a clear majority in both houses and 75 or 80% of any available governorships. Now? I think we're heading for a Republican White House and Democratic Legislature(s).
 
ConspiRaider said:
No Veep. No nothing. Yes - I'd have loved to see him run again, even contributed to the Draft Gore campaign - but Al has other things in mind.
Click to expand...

Yes, perhaps he can fire-up the PMRC! Those "bored washington housewives", of which his was one. Never trust a person who wants to censor Rock-N-Roll, or music period! The watered down label idea was great for albumn sales, Oh the irony. How did MTV have the balls, to have him on rock the vote campaign! No mention of the censorship issue then...
 
Last edited:
I think the democrats in the end will rally behind the nominee. The loser will of couse have to endorse the winner and campaign for him. I agree that the negative stories like Pastorgate and Tuslagate would have come out anyway, so better to get them out now than in October. By election day, nobody's going to be thinking about 6-month-old news very much. There will be new memes. It's going to depend on the economy and the war and how the public perceive the direction of those issues.
 
ConspiRaider said:
Well Doc, that's a very good question.

Obama reminds me of a Sunday preacher and it's probably my deep anti-authority reaction kicking in on my distaste for that. Lots of rhetoric, lots of general, ambiguous statements, this "Yes We Can" chanting - not a draw for me. For others, yes, and fine by me. However, I strongly dislike being preached to and that is the first thought hitting me when hearing Obama's speeches. And he's preaching change, but what kind of? And he's talking about a "new kind of politics" but he uses the same old tried and true methods of politicking that everyone else has been, and is, using. And his inexperience is, to me, a distinct flaw because of the gravity of issues the USA must grapple with, over these next 4 to 8 years.

I like Hillary quite a bit. She's tough, political, damned intelligent, and she seems to have picked up Bill's quality of fence-mending. She was all set to go for the move-in to the Oval, and we needed that certainty. Us Dems and the country. Then everything turned on a dime and the relentless pounding of her began. With a vengeance that took on a life of its own. What happened with the Randi Rhodes abomination at that speaking engagement I mentioned, is essentially an exclamation point on the Hysteria of Hate being blasted at Hillary - and Bill. It's appalling. It makes me embarrassed at times to admit I'm a U.S. Democrat.

The Democrats missed this, but the Republicans didn't: By running two unconventional candidates head-to-head, a self-cancelling effect can be achieved to a certain degree. Internal hate and strife become lethal byproducts. Look at us Dems throwing roundhouse punches at each other. The Republicans cannot have prayed for something this fortunate to have happened. But they figured "what the hell let's try it" and laid the groundwork - using their media-controlled advantage. The Democrats obediently spit right into their wind. We Democrats are combative anyway, because of the diversity within our party. Republicans are more simplistic and therefore it's far easier for them to unite and consolidate power. A huge advantage in a Presidential campaign.

At this point, Clinton as President and Obama as Vice President actually IS the unbeatable Democratic ticket. But not the reverse. And now - because the Hate Express against Hillary is now clipping along at a nice 85 miles per hour on a long and endless straightaway - even she may not be able to beat McCain come November, should she get the nomination.

We're saps, we Democrats, in this regard. Just saps. We've proven our sapness in 2000 and 2004 and are about to prove it once again. What the Dems need is someone like me to kick a large quantity of asses in the party. Doc, I'll kick the asses, and then will ship the owners to your doctorly office so you can fit them for slings. Deal?
Click to expand...

Thank you for taking the time for such a thorough, thought out answer.

I can understand some people's dislike for "preaching" as I to have a little rebel in me (though for the most part I am the authority now, as I am my own boss, and a parent). While I feel his speeches give off a "preacher" aura, I think away from the stump/pulpit, he is more articulate, and emotionally more in control then Hillary...IMO.

My take on your assessment, is that it is a personal decision made mostly on gut response, which is fair.

As for Clinton-Obama Ticket, you can guess I see it the other way around, but I do not think either will happen.

I think either way, the bashing of each other by themselves, their surrogates, and their loyal followers/supporters has to stop, and soon, or it will be 4 more years of REP rule.

TAM:)

PS: Sorry, my practice is full, so you will have to find them another GP...;)
 
Puppycow said:
I think the democrats in the end will rally behind the nominee. The loser will of couse have to endorse the winner and campaign for him.
Click to expand...
Endorse him, yes, but I don't see how Clinton could possibly have any credibility campaigning for him. Every time she did, some reporter would just have to ask her: "Do you think his inexperience is a disadvantage?" and "What will he do when he gets that 3 a.m. call?" and "Would you also campaign for a yellow dog?"
 
ConspiRaider said:
We've proven our sapness in 2000 and 2004 and are about to prove it once again.
Click to expand...

Don't panic just yet because the media will rally around the democrat nominee, even if it is Hillary, and turn their destructo beam towards AARP Maverick McCain.
 
There is neither hysteria, nor delusion involved in the low opinion large swaths of the democratic party hold towards Hillary. She (and Bill) managed to alienate the progressive wing of the party quite on and of their own choices. Major marks against them as far as most progressives are concerned (YMMV of course, these are all arguments I've personally heard):

1) Support for the Iraq war.
2) Support for NAFTA

Lesser marks:
1) Membership and activity in the DLC (often opposed to the Progressive wing)
2) Having campaigned for Barry Goldwater
3) Former position on the board of directors of Wal-Mart (regardless of what influence or lack thereof she may have had on anti-labor practices)
4) Offensive misrepresentations she has made during the current election.

The bottom line is: It should hardly come as a surprise that many progressive pundits and websites choose to criticize Hillary.
 
Last edited:
ConspiRaider said:
I just saw something today that I could NOT believe. There is a "liberal / progressive" radio host named Randi Rhodes, broadcasting out of NYC. She eventually eased her show into a Hillary Basher safe zone. Well, she just did a public appearance in San Francisco and someone got a video of it. Over and over and over again in front of 500 people at this speaking event: She is referring to Hillary Clinton as a "effing whore" (but of course she used the actual word).
Click to expand...

I thought you were kidding, but no. (Definitely not safe for work!)

Obama fans like her (not here at the JREF forums) have done what I would not have thought possible: made me feel sorry for Hillary.
 
Brainster said:
I thought you were kidding, but no. (Definitely not safe for work!)

Obama fans like her (not here at the JREF forums) have done what I would not have thought possible: made me feel sorry for Hillary.
Click to expand...
Hey Brain -

I'm hip. When I got wised up to this from somebody on another message board - I didn't believe it. Figured the poster was paraphrasing, or just wildly exaggerating. Shocking to discover it was on-the-button true.

This is even WORSE than Ann Coulter. This is a pathetic person turning on her own political party with a demonic vengeance. And she's had Hillary Clinton on her radio talk show! But somewhere along the line, Rhodes climbed aboard the Hilary Hate Express, found she really liked it - and it has culminated in this reprehensible display.

Brain, you may get your wish for Mac as President. I didn't believe that could ever happen. Until I remembered (while grimacing) the results of the 2000 and 2004 Presidential elections.

Brain, I've projected that McCain would have no chance against a Clinton (prez) / Obama (veep) ticket. Only that combination. What are they saying out there in RepublicanLand? Would that ticket cause tent-folding-wait-til-2012?
 
ConspiRaider said:
Hey Brain -

I'm hip. When I got wised up to this from somebody on another message board - I didn't believe it. Figured the poster was paraphrasing, or just wildly exaggerating. Shocking to discover it was on-the-button true.

This is even WORSE than Ann Coulter. This is a pathetic person turning on her own political party with a demonic vengeance. And she's had Hillary Clinton on her radio talk show! But somewhere along the line, Rhodes climbed aboard the Hilary Hate Express, found she really liked it - and it has culminated in this reprehensible display.

Brain, you may get your wish for Mac as President. I didn't believe that could ever happen. Until I remembered (while grimacing) the results of the 2000 and 2004 Presidential elections.

Brain, I've projected that McCain would have no chance against a Clinton (prez) / Obama (veep) ticket. Only that combination. What are they saying out there in RepublicanLand? Would that ticket cause tent-folding-wait-til-2012?
Click to expand...

I don't see any tent-folding among GOP supporters regardless of the ticket. The current polls show McCain running slightly ahead of either Hillary or Obama. The addition of a veep candidate doesn't do that much to the race; when I looked at the VP effect I concluded that it appears to be worth about 2.5 percentage points in the VP's home state, but of course Illinois (or New York if the ticket is reversed) are safe blue states to begin with, so in that sense the VP choice wouldn't help the ticket (although obviously it would do much to cool the rancor).

If you buy that Obama's bringing a lot of new voters to the polls, then maybe you can make the argument, although I tend to agree with Carville's assessment of that strategy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom