Yes, (West) Virginia …

Democratic voters in West Virginia will today elect 28 delegates by some method or other. I can’t be bothered looking into it because the New York Post reports that Hillary Clinton is “toast”, and papa says, “if you see it in the Post, it’s so”.

Author: William Bowe

William Bowe is a Perth-based election analyst and occasional teacher of political science. His blog, The Poll Bludger, has existed in one form or another since 2004, and is one of the most heavily trafficked websites on Australian politics.

1,725 comments on “Yes, (West) Virginia …”

Comments Page 33 of 35
1 … 32 33 34 35

  2. Well, he could have resigned. He was outplayed by Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rice. He should have quit, like Tennant. But he chose to serve out his term and in so doing supported Bush.

  3. don’t waste your sympathy on Powell ladies.

    he was a little bit better than the other scumbuckets…but unworthy of sympathy.

  5. Oh me too, Catrina. He’s probably a good bloke. But he was used by Bush and should not have stood for it. I guess a lifetime of accepting orders creates habits of mind that are hard to break with. His loyalty is not in doubt. But he couldn’t claim to be politically savvy.

  7. I want to know what happened to the war criminals-
    Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et al..
    Where are they,
    and why the hell aren’t they locked up?

  8. I wonder. The Bush doctrine of pre-emptive attack was legitimised and co-sponsored by Powell. He was scammed, but he still validated the whole exercise. Bringing him into the Obama campaign would be almost like saying this didn’t matter. It is also a bit like George Bush: co-opting a soldier for political purposes. I’m not sure that I approve.

  9. Catrina

    I’m not sure that presenting what he knew or at least he suspected to be a false case for War is a sign of character and soul.

    Loyal? Yes.

    Deserving of sympathy? No.

  10. Wolfowitz was running the World Bank for a while, dreaming up new ways to inflict misery on Africans, but had to quit. Rumsfeld…who knows!

  11. all-of-the-above at whatever-ther-number
    I know, I agree, but he is the only Republican I trust. Well, maybe not, there is this guy I know down in Florida and he’s a Republican and I trust him (sort of).

  12. I don’t want to see him (Powell) in Obama’s team.
    I don’t want to see him as the scapegoat for the crimes that Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Bush and Rice committed.
    And while we are at it- please don’t bother telling me that Hillary didn’t know what she was doing when she supported the invasion.
    She was already thinking about appealing to the ‘All-Americans’ who will happily die for their country and who’s Mom’s and Dad’s will vote for patriotism.
    Until Billy arrives home in a body bag.

  13. Catrina, luckily for me I’ve never met a single Republican so have not had to confront my fears. Then again, I’m not an American butterfly, so I have been spared all kinds of shame and indignities.

  15. And Jen, the appeals to patriotism ring very hollow after a while, don’t they. I am a pale shade of nationalist, I’m afraid.

  16. Jen

    The run up to Iraq was a very complicated targeted operation. Powell was in the thick of it. At times he fought against it but in the end he acquiesed and gave it his blessing. A very vital blessing.

    He only started speaking out after it started unravelling. Career before Honour.

    If he indeed has a soul he will depart this earth with a very heavy heart.

  18. elitebutterfly at 1617
    No, actually, I was insinuating that insects across the planet, of all species, of all races, insects of every gender, insects from the right, insects from the left, Democrat insects and Republican insects, insects everywhere are looking up to you and saying “Yes We Can”.

  20. Catrina, I have to admire your passion. It will be a great day when he wins. And I’m sure he will win too. The future is pressing in on us now and there is so much to be done. Youth and intelligence and humanity and wisdom and calmness and conviction: all these things are needed and he has them. America can do it. I’m sure you’re right.

  22. He is too attached to the exercise of free speech to be VP. And anyway, he’s an invaluable asset in Virginia.

  30. It has been rumoured that Sibelius is Obama’s 1st choice.

    I’m pretty sure it will be out of Governors Sibelius, Kaine, Strickland or Richardson.

  31. HarryH at 1630
    For me Sibelius makes a lot of sense. Up front – it kills the feminine political agenda cold, secondly in reinforces the change agenda, thirdly, it has geographic value, and lastly, she’s a popular Governor who has demonstrated ability to bring over Republicans.

  32. I agree Catrina.

    I was pleased when i heard she was his choice. if it’s true of course. They will be a true, ethical team for change.Also,as you say, important to smooth over the female demographic.

    Kaine has been a strong Obama supporter from the get go. Obama,Kaine,Webb and Edwards would form a very strong quartet to win Virginia and the Carolinas.

    Richardson would be good for experience. Also good with Hispanics, although it might be counter productive in some places to have a Black/Brown ticket. He will help with the Western states.

    Strickland would be important to secure Ohio, which is still very important.

  33. HarryH at 1632
    On Richardson – I agree with you in that if Richardson is on the ticket it could perceived (or emphasized by the MSM) as too much of the ethnic thing and as a result it could trigger a backlash against the campaign.

  35. Just for reference

    Tere are currently 9 Edwards pledged delegates that have not endorsed. At the same time, Obama (according to my data) is 9.5 pledged delegates away from reaching a majority of pledged delegates. The Obama campaign site is suggesting that they need 14.5 delegates. My majority numbers are based on the Green Paper numbers for totals of pledged and total delegates (which is the DCW source). I’m not sure what Obama’s numbers are based on but by my calculations he is underestimating his figures by 5 delegates at a moment where we are converging on a significant political tipping point.

    I’m guessing that on Wednesday morning our time – he’s counting on having more than a reasonable margin of error when it comes to doing the delegate maths. This would ensure that when the announcement time comes (from the upcoming contests results) – it will not matter much which source you go to for numbers (AP, NYT, MSMBC, etc.) you will see a delegate majority, and from that a message from the MSM that ‘Clinton cannot possibly win the competition’. After all, it could all happen before Wednesday just from Edwards’ delegates but will happen anyway as a consequence of the upcoming competitions.

    However … keep in mind the Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting on the 31st. – as it seems that the meeting will change the mathematics. I’m predicting that the change will add percentage points to the Clinton’s potential, but no where near enough to change the end-game scenario. Even with the best possible solution for Hillary (which according to insiders just will not happen) her numbers don’t deliver a victory – so the only good exit strategy is to play out the game and look like someone out for the interests of the common people. I would just like to note that this strategy does not take into account the fact that a lot of the common people can access the internet and figure this stuff out by themselves.

    And just for reference – nothing is moving on the superdelgate front for the moment.

  37. Another point of reference, is there anyone out here who supports the notion that Hillary Clinton still has a claim to the popular vote? I’m only asking because this is an assertion made by Clinton earlier today – and yes, I can grant her this if I discount every caucus and if I discount completely the ‘Undecided’ vote in Michigan (which was an order of magnitude bigger than this artificial lead she is claiming). And, yes, I know, she’s still campaigning – but really, isn’t this just a bit over the top?

  39. More breaking news ..
    Earlier at 1592 I suggested than Enemy Combatant won the quote of the night but out there in the real world things are changing. Obama just said the following statement that eclipses the EC statement:

    She was relentless and very effective.

    Note the past tense.

  40. Before I disappear for the night – I read Finns posts at 1529 and the subsequent post by GG at 1542.

    To Finns – one of the things that bothered me about your 1529 post was the following:

    As i said many times, i will support him if he can prove that he can win in Nov.

    I someone who likes to get inside the skin of my opponent – but on th8is occasion I just need a little more. Thing is your asking Obama to prove to you he can win – but I think this is the wrong question. I think one needs to look at the candidate and ask onself – not what the candidate can do for me – but what is it I can do for the candidate – and in this context – that means doing some research and investigation. I know that when I switched from Clinton to Obama I stopped looking at Hillary policy documents. I’ll also confess that I was guilty of ignoring her wins in favor of Obama’s victories. But thing is – the information is out there. For me, part of it is in the policy stuff (mainly foreign policy), but the most significant change drivers have been one on one interviews. I guess my thing in this message is “what can you do” as opposed to being a passive distraction. If you dig up policy material and you have issues – I’d be interested in hearing your opinions.

    To GG on your comment as 1542:

    1. Ultimately, the Iraq War was, is and will continue to be about oil. Hardly a revelation. Paddy O’Rourke summed it up perfectly when he said it would have been better to pay ten times the going rate, rather than try to steal it.

    I agree.

    2. Yes Hillary voted for the war based on information that was available to her at the time. Bad call, probably but most others went along.

    I have personal issues on this – I believe Hillary was playing politics – but I cannot discount my own support for Colin Powell who to a large degree did the same thing. But if I was inviting someone to dinner – I’d choose Colin Powel over Hilary Clinton in a New York Minute. I know its not a compelling argument – but whatever – its what I feel – inside.

    3. Obama did not. Obama was not in the Senate at that time. So neither did he vote against the Iraq War when it was declared.
    4. Obama made a speech about not supporting the war. However, when pressed about how he would have voted, replied that “he was not sure”.

    This is an attempt to prove an argument with a negative. What Obama actually said was that “I can’t say how I would have voted because I was not provided with the inside material – and the inside material could have an impact on my decision” – how can anyone argue with that? His moral position was clearly stated before the event, his voting record has been consistent with that position, his policy as presidential candidate has been consistent with both. I.e. I think we disagree on point 3 and 4.

    5. Significant difference or just politicking? Certainly, doesn’t justify the Jen hysterics.

    Not my problem but if we got into a fight I’d be backing Jen.

    6. 2008 is about how you get out. Hillary’s tougher approach appeals to me. (Peace through strength!)

    I don’t have a problem with being tough. I do have a problem with being stupid. Both Hillary Clinton and John McCain have demonstrated shades of stupidity – in particular with respect to the Middle East. John McCain simply appears to me to be someone who wants to settle some old scores. Hillary Clinton appears to me to want to appease domestic sentiment without rationalization of the consequences. Both attitudes are truly scary. I also think that Obama is ready and willing to be tough – but with a significantly higher level of consideration of what his decisions will do for the world, Americas position and standing in the world after his 8 years are over, and the impact of his Presidency on the following 24 years of Democrat Party control.

    7. Iraq although an issue, is not nearly as important in the mindset of the US voters as many on this blog site believe.

    Maybe, maybe not. I’m not disagreeing, but I’m not conceding the point either.

    8. Americans believe they are the great world power and any politicians that prick that balloon won’t win. New politics, new way etc is code for appeasement (watch the Republican attack dogs).

    This is difficult territory – you don’t need to dig to deep into the American psyche to find a bunch of demons circling just below. They don’t want the bubble to burst – but they don’t want anyone digging too deep – because – they know the real truth in their hearts. Think about it – they actually do cling to guns and religion. Trust me, I know this Democrat guy who sleep in his bedroom with a 44 in the draw beside the bed. He is smart, he is intelligent, and as an individual he is economically independent, but as a US citizen – he is scared and insecure. Take him out of the USA (e.g a trip to Canada, Tokyo, Paris, and he starts to behave like a regular person but inside the USA he is a dork). Thing is – deep down he knows it – and come ballot box time – he’ll be voting to change the status quo. But yes, I agree – prick his balloon and he’ll go all ballistic for a month or so. It’s all a question of timing.

  44. Obama spoke to a crowd of 75,000 today in Portland, OR!
    I dare say Hillary would be lucky to get 10% of that at one of her gigs.
    Obama/Clinton? I can’t see it eventuating.
    Obama/Richardson perhaps?

  45. Being the weekend there’s not much happening in the US. The SD count on RCP has moved +1 to Obama since Firday taking his lead to 20. Obama’s national average lead has moved t0 7.2, up from 6.8 yesterday thanks mostly to a Gallup tracking poll showing Obama now 11 points clear of Clinton. A Rasmussen tracking poll over the same period has Obama only 2 points in front.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/democratic_presidential_nomination-191.html

    There has also been some slight movement in the Primary polls with Oregon now showing Obama 12.4 ahead (down 2) and KY with Hillary 30.5 in front (up 2).

    Obama has been talking openly about declaring himself the winner following this week’s contests. Would he do that without waiting for Hillary to concede? Will he have the numbers? What if he claims victory and Hillary tells him to shove it??? Why would Obama take the risk??

  48. Further to a post I made a while back (ignored by the Clintonistas) regarding the eccentric polling preferences of electoral-vote.com. I’ve been comparing the RCP averages with electoral-vote’s single poll method (more of which later) and found this doozy of an example. New Mexico, according to electoral-vote.con is (albeit barely) in McCain’s camp: McCain 46%/Obama 45%.
    Here are the latest polls for New Mexico, according to RCP:
    Survey USA 26/2 Obama 50% McCain 43%
    Rasmussen 8/4 Obama 45% McCain 42%
    Survey USA 11/4 McCain 50% Obama 44%
    Rasmussen 14/5 Obama 50% McCain 41%

    If you scroll down on electoral-vote.com to find the list of recent polls for New Mexico, all these are listed except the latest Rasmussen poll. But what I find most interesting is that the figure of McCain winning by 1% can only have been derived by a poll average – a methodology which the site doesn’t use in other races (and which would put Michigan and Wisconsin in Obama’s camp). The only justification for using a different methodology would be if you used the latest poll in states where polls are too infrequent and a poll average woould have to include ancient data. But the polls in Wisconsin and Michigan appear to be just as frequent as in New Mexico.
    This is important. Swing Michigan, Wisconsin and New Mexico over to Obama (as you would have to based on RCP averages) and that’s 32 electoral votes.
    Instead of electoral-votes current EV taly of McCain 290, Obama 237 and 11 tied up, you would have McCain 258, Obama 269 and 11 tied up.

  49. RB,

    You poor old thing.

    Last night you decry Hillary for relying on things such as polls (a very heroic position on this occaissionally psephological site). She was “poll driven”, you rant.

    Now, you want to argue the toss about the accuracy of various polls. Are your polls and interpretations better, longer and more reliable or are you just swishing around looking for facts to support a pre-determined position.

    Off to the Institution for the bewitched, bothered and bewildered for you.

  50. 1649
    Greensborough Growler

    Gruffy, you do need edjamacatin don’t ya! LOL

    The expression ‘poll driven’ and querying a psephological methodology are two entirely seperate things.

    Only a doofus could confuse the two.

    RB’s exposure of the el-vote method and irregularities is not inconsistent with criticising a polly’s pandering to the popular will (as determined by polls)

    You really arent’ quite up to speed are you?

Comments are closed.

Comments Page 33 of 35
1 … 32 33 34 35