<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/1.5.1-alpha" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Nevada and South Carolina showdowns</title>
	<link>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2008/01/19/nevada-and-south-carolina/</link>
	<description>Just another WordPress weblog</description>
	<pubDate>Mon, 09 Nov 2009 23:18:08 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.1-alpha</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: NinaBr</title>
		<link>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2008/01/19/nevada-and-south-carolina/#comment-487215</link>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 Feb 2008 23:51:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2008/01/19/nevada-and-south-carolina/#comment-487215</guid>
					<description>My apologies, the correct URL for the above mentioned film is www.bluestatemovie.com</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>My apologies, the correct URL for the above mentioned film is <a href='http://www.bluestatemovie.com' rel='nofollow'>www.bluestatemovie.com</a>
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: NinaBr</title>
		<link>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2008/01/19/nevada-and-south-carolina/#comment-483451</link>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Jan 2008 10:01:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2008/01/19/nevada-and-south-carolina/#comment-483451</guid>
					<description>What if we do end up with another war-hungry republican like McCain? Would Americans opt to move to Canada in order to avoid his proposed &quot;100 Years War?&quot; I heard Canada was ramping up its immigration centers in expectation of another wave of &quot;Blue Staters&quot; in the event of a Republican victory: http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/index.asp
In the independent film &quot;Blue State,&quot; the protagonist does exactly that. He decides to flee the United States after another republican victory in 2004, due to strong liberal ideals: www.bluestate.com</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>What if we do end up with another war-hungry republican like McCain? Would Americans opt to move to Canada in order to avoid his proposed &#8220;100 Years War?&#8221; I heard Canada was ramping up its immigration centers in expectation of another wave of &#8220;Blue Staters&#8221; in the event of a Republican victory: <a href='http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/index.asp' rel='nofollow'>http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/index.asp</a><br />
In the independent film &#8220;Blue State,&#8221; the protagonist does exactly that. He decides to flee the United States after another republican victory in 2004, due to strong liberal ideals: <a href='http://www.bluestate.com' rel='nofollow'>www.bluestate.com</a>
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: tpx</title>
		<link>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2008/01/19/nevada-and-south-carolina/#comment-483221</link>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Jan 2008 12:39:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2008/01/19/nevada-and-south-carolina/#comment-483221</guid>
					<description>That Donohue fuck sure did Marcotte a favor of forcing Edwards to abandon his campaign bloggers. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>That Donohue fuck sure did Marcotte a favor of forcing Edwards to abandon his campaign bloggers.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: wayward</title>
		<link>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2008/01/19/nevada-and-south-carolina/#comment-483030</link>
		<pubDate>Sun, 20 Jan 2008 22:41:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2008/01/19/nevada-and-south-carolina/#comment-483030</guid>
					<description>Right now Clinton is favorite, but I will probably vote for Obama. 

Why?  Between &quot;Clinton hatred&quot; and sexism, Hillary Clinton simply cannot win on her own.  Neither is rational.  I know a woman who will not vote for Hillary Clinton because she doesn't think Hillary is a good mother because she heard somewhere that Chelsea tended to call her dad more than her mom when she needed help.  When I mentioned how unfair this was to all female candidates, since men do not have to deal with this, she just talked about how Hillary must be a bad person because she has no maternal instinct.  Men, even progressive men, see her as an evil bitch who must be stopped.  It doesn't matter what the truth is, (just ask John Kerry) America knows Hillary the caricature, and will not elect her.

Furthermore, even if she could win nationwide, Hillary Clinton would be a disaster down the ballot here in SC.

According to The Onion, most people will decide who to vote for based on meaningless bullshit.  Meaningless bullshit is Obama's strength and Hillary's weakness.

As for the differences between the two of them, they are relatively minor.  Clinton and Obama voted together about 90% of the time in the Senate.  

As for the Republicans, I (heart) Huckabee doesn't have a prayer, and Mulitiple-choice Mitt is the Republican John Kerry (or perhaps Michael Dukakis?).  A lackluster Republican nominee could save Clinton's campaign.  However, I think the nominee will be John McCain, who will be difficult for any Democrat to beat.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>Right now Clinton is favorite, but I will probably vote for Obama. </p>
	<p>Why?  Between &#8220;Clinton hatred&#8221; and sexism, Hillary Clinton simply cannot win on her own.  Neither is rational.  I know a woman who will not vote for Hillary Clinton because she doesn&#8217;t think Hillary is a good mother because she heard somewhere that Chelsea tended to call her dad more than her mom when she needed help.  When I mentioned how unfair this was to all female candidates, since men do not have to deal with this, she just talked about how Hillary must be a bad person because she has no maternal instinct.  Men, even progressive men, see her as an evil bitch who must be stopped.  It doesn&#8217;t matter what the truth is, (just ask John Kerry) America knows Hillary the caricature, and will not elect her.</p>
	<p>Furthermore, even if she could win nationwide, Hillary Clinton would be a disaster down the ballot here in SC.</p>
	<p>According to The Onion, most people will decide who to vote for based on meaningless bullshit.  Meaningless bullshit is Obama&#8217;s strength and Hillary&#8217;s weakness.</p>
	<p>As for the differences between the two of them, they are relatively minor.  Clinton and Obama voted together about 90% of the time in the Senate.  </p>
	<p>As for the Republicans, I (heart) Huckabee doesn&#8217;t have a prayer, and Mulitiple-choice Mitt is the Republican John Kerry (or perhaps Michael Dukakis?).  A lackluster Republican nominee could save Clinton&#8217;s campaign.  However, I think the nominee will be John McCain, who will be difficult for any Democrat to beat.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Foucault</title>
		<link>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2008/01/19/nevada-and-south-carolina/#comment-482990</link>
		<pubDate>Sun, 20 Jan 2008 11:44:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2008/01/19/nevada-and-south-carolina/#comment-482990</guid>
					<description>
No, Obama did not win more delegates in Nevada than Clinton. 

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/01/20/who-won-the-battle-for-democratic-delegates-in-nevada-it%E2%80%99s-complicated/

Nevada Democratic Party Chair Jill Derby said in a statement, “What was awarded today were delegates to the County Convention, of which Sen. Clinton won the majority.”

“No national convention delegates were awarded. That said, if the delegate preferences remain unchanged between now and April 2008, the calculations of national convention delegates being circulated by the Associated Press are correct.”

That estimate would give Obama a 13-to-12 edge in Nevada’s national convention delegates.

Obama still trails Clinton in the overall hunt for national convention delegates. According to a CNN survey, Clinton now leads Obama 210 to 123 in delegates overall when the preferences of party insiders known as “superdelegates” are factored in. A total of 2,025 national convention delegate votes are needed to clinch the Democratic nomination.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>No, Obama did not win more delegates in Nevada than Clinton. </p>
	<p><a href='http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/01/20/who-won-the-battle-for-democratic-delegates-in-nevada-it%E2%80%99s-complicated/' rel='nofollow'>http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/01/20/who-won-the-battle-for-democratic-delegates-in-nevada-it%E2%80%99s-complicated/</a></p>
	<p>Nevada Democratic Party Chair Jill Derby said in a statement, “What was awarded today were delegates to the County Convention, of which Sen. Clinton won the majority.”</p>
	<p>“No national convention delegates were awarded. That said, if the delegate preferences remain unchanged between now and April 2008, the calculations of national convention delegates being circulated by the Associated Press are correct.”</p>
	<p>That estimate would give Obama a 13-to-12 edge in Nevada’s national convention delegates.</p>
	<p>Obama still trails Clinton in the overall hunt for national convention delegates. According to a CNN survey, Clinton now leads Obama 210 to 123 in delegates overall when the preferences of party insiders known as “superdelegates” are factored in. A total of 2,025 national convention delegate votes are needed to clinch the Democratic nomination.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: SarahMC</title>
		<link>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2008/01/19/nevada-and-south-carolina/#comment-482986</link>
		<pubDate>Sun, 20 Jan 2008 09:41:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2008/01/19/nevada-and-south-carolina/#comment-482986</guid>
					<description>Just like in NH, Obama won more delegates than Clinton.  So in reality, she hasn't won *any* state.  

Grumble.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>Just like in NH, Obama won more delegates than Clinton.  So in reality, she hasn&#8217;t won *any* state.  </p>
	<p>Grumble.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Arun</title>
		<link>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2008/01/19/nevada-and-south-carolina/#comment-482985</link>
		<pubDate>Sun, 20 Jan 2008 09:37:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2008/01/19/nevada-and-south-carolina/#comment-482985</guid>
					<description>This morning's commentary (I was half-asleep, sorry) on NPR seemed to imply that Fred Thompson voters would switch preferentially to Huckabee than to McCain, being of the evangelical sort.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>This morning&#8217;s commentary (I was half-asleep, sorry) on NPR seemed to imply that Fred Thompson voters would switch preferentially to Huckabee than to McCain, being of the evangelical sort.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: mcc</title>
		<link>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2008/01/19/nevada-and-south-carolina/#comment-482977</link>
		<pubDate>Sun, 20 Jan 2008 03:53:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2008/01/19/nevada-and-south-carolina/#comment-482977</guid>
					<description>&lt;i&gt;On the matter of South Carolina and the Republicans, the first thing to point out, since polls don’t close until 7PM, is that right off the bat there were serious voting machine problems in high-population areas. (AP)&lt;/i&gt;

What can be done to ensure this does not happen in the Democratic primary?

</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p><i>On the matter of South Carolina and the Republicans, the first thing to point out, since polls don’t close until 7PM, is that right off the bat there were serious voting machine problems in high-population areas. (AP)</i></p>
	<p>What can be done to ensure this does not happen in the Democratic primary?
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: ColoradoDave</title>
		<link>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2008/01/19/nevada-and-south-carolina/#comment-482972</link>
		<pubDate>Sun, 20 Jan 2008 00:40:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2008/01/19/nevada-and-south-carolina/#comment-482972</guid>
					<description>ace:

&quot;Shocked by Edwards doing that badly–I prefer Obama over Clinton, and it’s a little bothersome that Edwards’ delegates are actually expected to go more towards Clinton than Obama by many analyses.&quot;

As an Edwards supporter I do not know who to support between Clinton and Obama.

To me both seem like seriously flawed candidates.

Obama is the most conservative of the three. On domestic policies he is very conservative. His health care plan is the least progressive. He spends too much effort pandering to the faith based crowd. I mean I like HOPE too but jeez can't you throw me a progressive bone or something?

Clinton brings her own problems. The first is the obvious anti-Clinton hate. She will galvanize the right wing and do more for Republican Get-Out-The-Vote efforts than any other issue. Secondly, she appears to be the same kind of mealy mouthed Washington insider as is Gephardt, and Dodd. Not too attractive to me.

I think both Clinton and Obama are seriously flawed candidates who can easily loose to any of the GOP Clown Car contenders.

If Clinton get the nomination she will turn out the Republicans. If Obama gets the nod we can expect months of Osama/Obama flubs in the media as well as replays of the whole Madrassa/Indonesian Public School thing. 

This election is going to be another squeaker. It will come down to a handful of votes in one, maybe two or three, states. Yes, I know Left Blogosphere thinks Mickey Mouse can beat this year's Republicans. I think that Huckabee, Romney, McCain, Paul or Guiliani will give either Obama or Clinton a run for their money. I think this election is close.

Clinton will turn out the Republicans but also will not sit still for theiir smears and will throw it right back at them.

Obama may, or may not, turn out the YOUTH VOTE, but I am unsure whether he can handle the smears the Republicans will throw out at him.

Both have serious flaws and neither is a progressive.

So I do not know who I will support.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>ace:</p>
	<p>&#8220;Shocked by Edwards doing that badly–I prefer Obama over Clinton, and it’s a little bothersome that Edwards’ delegates are actually expected to go more towards Clinton than Obama by many analyses.&#8221;</p>
	<p>As an Edwards supporter I do not know who to support between Clinton and Obama.</p>
	<p>To me both seem like seriously flawed candidates.</p>
	<p>Obama is the most conservative of the three. On domestic policies he is very conservative. His health care plan is the least progressive. He spends too much effort pandering to the faith based crowd. I mean I like HOPE too but jeez can&#8217;t you throw me a progressive bone or something?</p>
	<p>Clinton brings her own problems. The first is the obvious anti-Clinton hate. She will galvanize the right wing and do more for Republican Get-Out-The-Vote efforts than any other issue. Secondly, she appears to be the same kind of mealy mouthed Washington insider as is Gephardt, and Dodd. Not too attractive to me.</p>
	<p>I think both Clinton and Obama are seriously flawed candidates who can easily loose to any of the GOP Clown Car contenders.</p>
	<p>If Clinton get the nomination she will turn out the Republicans. If Obama gets the nod we can expect months of Osama/Obama flubs in the media as well as replays of the whole Madrassa/Indonesian Public School thing. </p>
	<p>This election is going to be another squeaker. It will come down to a handful of votes in one, maybe two or three, states. Yes, I know Left Blogosphere thinks Mickey Mouse can beat this year&#8217;s Republicans. I think that Huckabee, Romney, McCain, Paul or Guiliani will give either Obama or Clinton a run for their money. I think this election is close.</p>
	<p>Clinton will turn out the Republicans but also will not sit still for theiir smears and will throw it right back at them.</p>
	<p>Obama may, or may not, turn out the YOUTH VOTE, but I am unsure whether he can handle the smears the Republicans will throw out at him.</p>
	<p>Both have serious flaws and neither is a progressive.</p>
	<p>So I do not know who I will support.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: ColoradoDave</title>
		<link>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2008/01/19/nevada-and-south-carolina/#comment-482971</link>
		<pubDate>Sun, 20 Jan 2008 00:39:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2008/01/19/nevada-and-south-carolina/#comment-482971</guid>
					<description>ace:
&lt;blockquote&gt;
Shocked by Edwards doing that badly–I prefer Obama over Clinton, and it’s a little bothersome that Edwards’ delegates are actually expected to go more towards Clinton than Obama by many analyses.&lt;/blockquote&gt;

As an Edwards supporter I do not know who to support between Clinton and Obama.

To me both seem like seriously flawed candidates.

Obama is the most conservative of the three. On domestic policies he is very conservative. His health care plan is the least progressive. He spends too much effort pandering to the faith based crowd. I mean I like HOPE too but jeez can't you throw me a progressive bone or something?

Clinton brings her own problems. The first is the obvious anti-Clinton hate. She will galvanize the right wing and do more for Republican Get-Out-The-Vote efforts than any other issue. Secondly, she appears to be the same kind of mealy mouthed Washington insider as is Gephardt, and Dodd. Not too attractive to me.

I think both Clinton and Obama are seriously flawed candidates who can easily loose to any of the GOP Clown Car contenders.

If Clinton get the nomination she will turn out the Republicans. If Obama gets the nod we can expect months of Osama/Obama flubs in the media as well as replays of the whole Madrassa/Indonesian Public School thing. 

This election is going to be another squeaker. It will come down to a handful of votes in one, maybe two or three, states. Yes, I know Left Blogosphere thinks Mickey Mouse can beat this year's Republicans. I think that Huckabee, Romney, McCain, Paul or Guiliani will give either Obama or Clinton a run for their money. I think this election is close.

Clinton will turn out the Republicans but also will not sit still for theiir smears and will throw it right back at them.

Obama may, or may not, turn out the YOUTH VOTE, but I am unsure whether he can handle the smears the Republicans will throw out at him.

Both have serious flaws and neither is a progressive.

So I do not know who I will support.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>ace:</p>
	<blockquote><p>
Shocked by Edwards doing that badly–I prefer Obama over Clinton, and it’s a little bothersome that Edwards’ delegates are actually expected to go more towards Clinton than Obama by many analyses.</p></blockquote>
	<p>As an Edwards supporter I do not know who to support between Clinton and Obama.</p>
	<p>To me both seem like seriously flawed candidates.</p>
	<p>Obama is the most conservative of the three. On domestic policies he is very conservative. His health care plan is the least progressive. He spends too much effort pandering to the faith based crowd. I mean I like HOPE too but jeez can&#8217;t you throw me a progressive bone or something?</p>
	<p>Clinton brings her own problems. The first is the obvious anti-Clinton hate. She will galvanize the right wing and do more for Republican Get-Out-The-Vote efforts than any other issue. Secondly, she appears to be the same kind of mealy mouthed Washington insider as is Gephardt, and Dodd. Not too attractive to me.</p>
	<p>I think both Clinton and Obama are seriously flawed candidates who can easily loose to any of the GOP Clown Car contenders.</p>
	<p>If Clinton get the nomination she will turn out the Republicans. If Obama gets the nod we can expect months of Osama/Obama flubs in the media as well as replays of the whole Madrassa/Indonesian Public School thing. </p>
	<p>This election is going to be another squeaker. It will come down to a handful of votes in one, maybe two or three, states. Yes, I know Left Blogosphere thinks Mickey Mouse can beat this year&#8217;s Republicans. I think that Huckabee, Romney, McCain, Paul or Guiliani will give either Obama or Clinton a run for their money. I think this election is close.</p>
	<p>Clinton will turn out the Republicans but also will not sit still for theiir smears and will throw it right back at them.</p>
	<p>Obama may, or may not, turn out the YOUTH VOTE, but I am unsure whether he can handle the smears the Republicans will throw out at him.</p>
	<p>Both have serious flaws and neither is a progressive.</p>
	<p>So I do not know who I will support.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
