AP & ABC News now reports Obama has clinched the nomination Posted: 3 months ago by Moe
Hillary expresses an interest in the VP slot.
Who the hell knows what is really going on?
Comments: 20 Score: [-] 292 [+].
< 1 >
Posted: 3 months ago by bingo:
CRAP!!!
Score: [-] 46 [+].
Posted: 3 months ago by Chez:
YES! f**kING YES! OBAMA 08!!!!
Score: [-] 48 [+].
Posted: 3 months ago by thebluefrog:
Obama - Clinton '08?
Score: [-] -5 [+].
Posted: 3 months ago by ImNotBlue:
« thebluefrog : Obama - Clinton '08? Not... a... chance...
Says this guy.
Score: [-] 15 [+].
Posted: 3 months ago by tvirus:
This call seems a little bit hasty, but if it's true then it's great news!
Score: [-] 59 [+].
Posted: 3 months ago by JoshSF49:
It's called forcing an election. The media does it all the time.
Sometimes it doesn't work, i.e. Election 2000 :).
Score: [-] 47 [+].
Posted: 3 months ago by hmtksteve:
So, will he resign his Senate seat?
Score: [-] 0 [+].
Posted: 3 months ago by horsefeathers:
Heh. I'm not crazy about any of the incumbents. None of them give me the warm fuzzy. With all due respect.
I may sit out this election, although I hate to do that.
At least if I vote, I have the right to b!tch about whoever is elected.
Score: [-] 45 [+].
Posted: 3 months ago by theshirtpocket:
« horsefeathers : Heh. I'm not crazy about any of the incumbents. None of them give me the warm fuzzy. With all due respect.
I may sit out this election, although I hate to do that.
At least if I vote, I have the right to b!tch about whoever is elected. Nor am I...but I gotta pick someone! It'll be my first presidential election that I can vote in, so I need to make it count. But the more I know about the candidates and their plans, the more unsure I am....
Score: [-] 12 [+].
Posted: 3 months ago by dork:
« horsefeathers : Heh. I'm not crazy about any of the incumbents. None of them give me the warm fuzzy. With all due respect.
I may sit out this election, although I hate to do that.
At least if I vote, I have the right to b!tch about whoever is elected. George Carlin says if you DONT vote you can complain about the candidates that the voters voted for because its the voters who mess up.
Score: [-] 21 [+].
Posted: 3 months ago by Maven:
Sitting out doesn't accomplish anything. Apathy isn't a party.
Score: [-] 133 [+].
Posted: 3 months ago by horsefeathers:
« theshirtpocket : Nor am I...but I gotta pick someone! It'll be my first presidential election that I can vote in, so I need to make it count. But the more I know about the candidates and their plans, the more unsure I am.... So sorry to hear that this is your first election.
Score: [-] 12 [+].
Posted: 3 months ago by melgesevad:
« Maven : Sitting out doesn't accomplish anything. Apathy isn't a party. Wouldn't that be cool if it was? I mean people who didn't care one way or the other could vote for the Apathy party, which has no real goals or ideals. It could work, if only people cared enough o vote.
Score: [-] 0 [+].
Posted: 3 months ago by Chamale:
« melgesevad : Wouldn't that be cool if it was? I mean people who didn't care one way or the other could vote for the Apathy party, which has no real goals or ideals. It could work, if only people cared enough o vote. Sounds like the Rhino party. Their platform was to overrule the law of gravity, and then wing it from there. Once, they got 1% of the vote here in Canada.
Score: [-] 21 [+].
Posted: 3 months ago by chinook:
« Chamale : Sounds like the Rhino party. Their platform was to overrule the law of gravity, and then wing it from there. Once, they got 1% of the vote here in Canada. Was it last election someone was trying to revive the Rhino party?
Either way, they might have been my favourite out of all of the parties in our nation's history.
Score: [-] 0 [+].
Posted: 3 months ago by JoshSF49:
« melgesevad : Wouldn't that be cool if it was? I mean people who didn't care one way or the other could vote for the Apathy party, which has no real goals or ideals. It could work, if only people cared enough o vote. I'd totally vote for the Apathy Party if they promised not to do anything.
I think that's safer than the two candidates we have now :).
Score: [-] 20 [+].
Posted: 3 months ago by gammerus:
« JoshSF49 : It's called forcing an election. The media does it all the time.
Sometimes it doesn't work, i.e. Election 2000 :). Forcing the election? He has had the majority of delegates since the very beginning, as well as the popular vote.
Score: [-] 35 [+].
Posted: 3 months ago by JoshSF49:
« gammerus : Forcing the election? He has had the majority of delegates since the very beginning, as well as the popular vote. What I mean by forcing the election is that he had won before the election already started.
They claimed that Obama had clinched the nomination even before the polls had closed.
Why? Exit polling. And while exit polling may be accurate, it's forcing an outcome if they start reporting on one side more than the other. For example, looking at google trends, we can see in Chart 1 that Obama has a slight lead in press coverage this past year over Clinton. But when you look at Chart 2 You can see that a lot of the "Clinton" coverage is of Bill Clinton, which tended to be in a very negative way this year.
Basically what I'm saying is that if you cover someone more than the other they're more than likely to win. We'll look at the Republicans as even more proof. John McCain received more media coverage starting January 2008 than any other candidate.
The media forces elections, that's why we never get the best people.
Score: [-] 0 [+].
Posted: 3 months ago by smarty1052:
I'm soo confused by everyones comments... but congratulations Obama, I dont see whats so un-likeable about him that people are even considering not voting at all.. thats serious BS, every citizen should vote, think of how many people died and fought to give you that right to vote. anyways, I think Obama is the best candidate and I'm glad he won.
Score: [-] 15 [+].
Posted: 3 months ago by gammerus:
« JoshSF49 : What I mean by forcing the election is that he had won before the election already started.
They claimed that Obama had clinched the nomination even before the polls had closed.
Why? Exit polling. And while exit polling may be accurate, it's forcing an outcome if they start reporting on one side more than the other. For example, looking at google trends, we can see in Chart 1 that Obama has a slight lead in press coverage this past year over Clinton. But when you look at Chart 2 You can see that a lot of the "Clinton" coverage is of Bill Clinton, which tended to be in a very negative way this year.
Basically what I'm saying is that if you cover someone more than the other they're more than likely to win. We'll look at the Republicans as even more proof. John McCain received more media coverage starting January 2008 than any other candidate.
The media forces elections, that's why we never get the best people. Of course he had more news coverage, he was popular and new. No one knew anything about him, Hillary on the other hand is old news.
McCain only recieved the nomination because he was the most rational sounding republican candidate there was (aside from Paul). Romney wanted to double Quantanamo, Huckabee wanted to build a theocracy, and Guiliani was just a 9/11 whore.. There really wasn't any other option, well that and people were still in love with the war hero from 2000.
Score: [-] 0 [+].
< 1 >