MyDD :: The Popular Vote? Really?

The Popular Vote? Really?

by RLMcCauley, Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:31:39 AM EST

So I've been seeing talk here and out of the Clinton camp about the popular vote and how HRC will be ahead in the pop vote by the end of the primaries.

So what's the argument there exactly? That the pop vote is more important than the delegate count?

Is that really the position the people who are screaming for the jokes that were FL & MI to count want to take?

Are you really saying that caucus states, who don't even report pop vote totals, shouldn't count at all? Even though they followed all of the rules?

Are you really saying that it would be better if, in the future, candidates skipped the small states and set up shop in the huge states?

This does not seem like a well thought out position but perhaps someone can show me that it is.

Any takers?

Tags: delegates, popular vote, barack obama, hillary clinton (all tags)

Permalink :: 74 Comments :: Post a Comment

Hasn't the Democratic Party argued for the past 8 years that Al Gore actually won the 2000 election because he got more actual votes than Bush although he lost the Electoral College vote.

Now Obama supporters are arguing that the popular vote doesn't matter. Astonishing.

by rayj on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:36:42 AM EST

I thought it was because Florida botched their system and we never got a clear count before it had a chance to be tampered with further.

If you're being chased by an angry bull and then you notice you're also being chased by a swarm of bees, it doesn't really change things. Just keep on running.

by vcalzone on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:40:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The real point is, we need to change our damn system so we don't have to deal with this again.

If you're being chased by an angry bull and then you notice you're also being chased by a swarm of bees, it doesn't really change things. Just keep on running.

by vcalzone on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:41:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Why were you troll-rated for that?

by Shaun Appleby on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:00:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Do states hold caucuses in the GE?

My candidate lost fair and square. So did yours. Get over it and let's kick McSame's ass!

by RLMcCauley on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:44:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Caucuses in the GE? (none / 0)

Oh please. Is this your first election?

Until recently I was selling drugs, and now I'm selling Obama T-shirts.

by switching sides on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:18:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Caucuses in the GE? (none / 0)

No.

My candidate lost fair and square. So did yours. Get over it and let's kick McSame's ass!

by RLMcCauley on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:26:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Not really. The argument was that he received more votes in Florida, which would have given him Florida's electoral votes and thereby allowed him to win the presidency via electoral vote. Once the recount was stopped, the protest movement died. And, there has been absolutely no serious effort to reform the electoral college system since then. For better or worse, people were satisfied with that result.

by rfahey22 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:53:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

LOL...he's not saying that. He's saying I'M WINNING THE POPULAR VOTE TOO!!

LOL..nice try!

by southernman on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:57:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

In the general election, every state runs the equivalent of an open primary, where all legal voters can cast their ballots. It makes sense to count the popular vote in that case because all states are on equal footing.

During nominating contests, certain states have semi-open, which restrict Republicans, other states have closed, which alienate independents as well, and of course many states are caucuses, which have limited turnout limited to only the most engaged activists.

We don't use popular vote in our nominating contests because it's not fair to states with differing levels of participation.

by Skaje on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:03:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

This is not a diary. (none / 0)

Its a comment. Put comments in existing threads. Dont diary abuse.

Until recently I was selling drugs, and now I'm selling Obama T-shirts.

by switching sides on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:17:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

the popular vote is the most democratic means of selecting a candidate. Why should caucus states with 1% turnout be able to determine an election when primary states with 20%+ turnout went heavily in favor of Clinton?

The fact is that neither can win the delegate count, so it will come down to the superdelegates. The superdelegates then have to decide who the best choice will be for the GE. It's a pretty compelling case that they should pick the one with the most popular votes, because the GE isn't comprised of caucuses.

by slynch on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:41:12 AM EST

So states who hold caucuses shouldn't count. That's your position?

My candidate lost fair and square. So did yours. Get over it and let's kick McSame's ass!

by RLMcCauley on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:45:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

no, that's not my position. The popular vote should be what's counted. States that wish to partially disenfranchise themselves by holding low-turnout caucuses make that choice themselves. By all means, if a state wants to do that, fine.

by slynch on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:14:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

It amazes me that you can actually voice these two opinions and they don't conflict at all inside of your brain:

States that follow the rules and choose their delegates via caucus shouldn't count. States that break the rules, after being told that doing so will void their delegates, should count.

I'll be happy with either of our awesome candidates, but the mental gymnastics being used here to rationalize a scenario in which Hillary takes the popular vote lead is breathtaking.

When you get into bed with evil incarnate, it always takes the covers.

by thatpurplestuff on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:26:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

um, you're ignoring what I'm saying and you're putting words into my mouth. I didn't say caucus states shouldn't count. And, I didn't say anything about Florida or Michigan.

by slynch on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:50:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

It's called cognitive dissonance and it is apparently amazing how much of it the human mind can endure during a political primary election.

by Shaun Appleby on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:02:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

No no. In THIS primary should the pop vote be what's counted?

My candidate lost fair and square. So did yours. Get over it and let's kick McSame's ass!

by RLMcCauley on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:27:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I think it may have to come to that. Neither candidate will win based on pledged delegates, and so the superdelegates have to decide how to choose. To argue that they should just replicate the pledged delegate vote is silly--if that's how they should choose, then there's no need for them at all. Instead, they're supposed to make a decision based on who they think can win the GE. And, that decision ought to based (IMO) on the popular vote and on who has won the states that really will go for the democrats (not solid red states).

by slynch on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:52:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

This primary is based on delegates, pledged and otherwise, as you've had pointed out to you incessantly by Hillary surrogates for two months they can do as they please and, believe me, they will.

by Shaun Appleby on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:03:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I don't follow your comment, but I agree--they'll do what they please. It's just not clear what that'll be.

by slynch on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:14:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

No, but going along with the popular vote may not be one of them.

by Shaun Appleby on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:14:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

So states who have inclusive primaries shouldn't count while states who have exclusive caucuses should count.

That's your position?

Until recently I was selling drugs, and now I'm selling Obama T-shirts.

by switching sides on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:20:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Who said that?

My candidate lost fair and square. So did yours. Get over it and let's kick McSame's ass!

by RLMcCauley on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:27:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Either candidate can very easily win the delegate count. Just get a majority of them.

by Mostly on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:49:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

neither one will get enough pledged delegates to cross the 2025 threshold. You know that.

by slynch on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:16:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

neither one will get enough pledged delegates to cross the 2025 threshold. You know that.

by slynch on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:17:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Because had they known that the popular vote was the most important factor, they likely would have switched to primaries. Every state wants to maximize its influence on the nomination, and that doesn't happen if a state uses caucuses in a race determined by popular vote.

by rfahey22 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:56:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

by southernman on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:56:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Exaggerating slightly, but not much. Most caucus turnouts are in the single digits, while the primary turnouts are at least 3 times greater.

http://elections.gmu.edu/Voter_Turnout_2 008_Primaries.htm

by slynch on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:19:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

and it's Obama's fault that Clinton wrote those states off?

It appears to be that Clinton only campaigns where she's already winning.

She runs that strategy against McCain and we lose.

by southernman on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:36:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

no, it's not Obama's fault. It's just a stupid setup. Caucuses are dumb. They exclude the majority of the electorate, and they give no indication of how a candidate will fare in the general. It's a stupid way to pick a candidate.

by slynch on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:54:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

by southernman on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:57:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

they are certainly better indicators of the will of the electorate than a caucus.

I'll take a look at your diary.

by slynch on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:59:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I agree only partially with your claim in the diary. The primary setup is much like the GE setup. If HRC beats BHO in the primary in state X, then she will be more likely to win the state than he when competing against McCain. However, simply because BHO beats HRC in a caucus does not mean he stands a better chance of beating McCain than she in the GE, because the caucus is nothing like the GE, and caucusgoers are not representative.

by slynch on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:08:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

and no account of the history in the diary?

Bill Clinton's own campaign puts the ridiculous theory to rest that a primary win or loss is more indicative of what will happen in a general election there.

by southernman on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:57:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Really, she is ahead in the popular vote.

Except we're definitely counting Florida, and we're also counting Michigan, obviously, and giving Obama zero votes out of Michigan since he didn't actually get any votes there. These two states are so important, we need to count them! They have to count!

But we're not counting those cheating "caucus" states. Caucuses are dumb, and nobody who wins them deserves to have them count in their favor.

Duh! It all makes perfect sense.

Hooray for John McCain!

by ragekage on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:43:59 AM EST

Yeah, the will of Michigan voters is clearly represented by allocating 0 votes to Obama. That really is the central hypocrisy of allocating the votes to Clinton as is and simultaneusly claiming that it represents popular will.

by rfahey22 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:57:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Hypocrisy? From Clinton supporters? HMPH!

Hooray for John McCain!

by ragekage on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:07:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Well, actually it does, as Obama's name was not on the ballot. Now, if Obama's name was on the ballot but was not getting any delegates, that's a different story.

Restore America's Strength.

by RJEvans on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:39:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

So what then do you do with the undecided vote? I understand that there is a number next to Clinton's name and there is a 0 next to Obama's name, but putting them into a popular vote count as is completely ignores the context. They are numbers without meaning.

by rfahey22 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:10:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm pretty sure that was a snark comment.

by gcensr on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:39:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Yeah, I know. I was agreeing with the snark.

by rfahey22 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:06:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

It's about winning the GE (none / 0)

When you have two candidates with very close votes, nothing matters but winning the GE. Popular votes, delegate counts, number of states, caucuses, etc.--it doesn't matter who's ahead or behind by a few points. What matters is who can beat John McCain in November.

Obama isn't able to pull in the percentages he needs in key demographics in key states. Hillary has been winning consistently what is needed to be won in the GE.

There are no caucuses in the GE. Caucuses are a very poor excuse for a primary, are very undemocratic, and should be banned. The entire purpose of the primary voting season is to choose the best candidate for the general election.

Obama has failed in every key metric, thus guaranteeing defeat in the fall. Hillary has won every key metric, thus ensuring her the best chance.

Super delegates are going to take a good look at what these primaries have demonstrated about each candidate. They are compelled to choose the best candidate, not the one with the most votes.

The super delegate system was put in place for the specific purpose of ensuring he party puts forth the best candidate. There's way too much at stake to take the risk of putting forth someone who doesn't stand much of a chance.

Obama supporters are going to have to get used to the idea that he might not be the nominee.

by Nobama on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:58:03 AM EST

Re: It's about winning the GE (none / 0)

"When you have two candidates with very close votes, nothing matters but winning the GE. Popular votes, delegate counts, number of states, caucuses, etc.--it doesn't matter who's ahead or behind by a few points. What matters is who can beat John McCain in November."

By that logic, then the person who is viewed most favorably by Democrats across the nation should be the nominee. Just so happens that that candidate is Obama by an average of 10 points.

And to respond to your point about Obama having "failed in every key metric, thus guaranteeing defeat in the fall," that is an untrue argument. A key factor for victory in the fall is energizing NEW voters to join the Democratic party. The current base of Democrats has failed us in '04 so we need to begin amassing a bigger majority. Obama has proven that he not only attracts new voters, he attracts them in droves. In that respect, to say Clinton comes up short would be a horrid understatement.

Also, as McCain proves, blue collar workers and women definitely have a good chance of supporting Obama. Before Huckabee quit, the conservative base was VERY dissatisfied with McCain and many feel that McCain is incompetent STILL, yet they still support him. Since this has happened to McCain, there is no doubt that the liberal base will rally behind Obama - like him or NOT. To argue that polling suggests otherwise is laughable. Anyone who argues that polling is more credible than HISTORY needs to take a trip back into High School History classes.

by Mokumi on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:17:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Please don't spoil our delusions with logic. (2.00 / 0)

by dystopianfuturetoday on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:07:11 AM EST

Make no mistake the winner will have more delegates than the loser by definition.

I said delegates not pledged delegates.

Its is a manufactured belief by Obama and team that pledged delegates decides this.

If Hillary has the majority of the vote and a large majority of Democratic party members she could well get a big super delegate boost and win.

But it will be delegates that wins. Not pledged delegates. Not popular vote.

by DTaylor on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:16:06 AM EST

The delegates will go by the pledged count for the very reason cited in this diary. Using the pop vote means that caucus states do not count.

My candidate lost fair and square. So did yours. Get over it and let's kick McSame's ass!

by RLMcCauley on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:29:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Caucus states clearly have skewed results and should not count more than 1 vote 1 person.

Why should someone in Alaska have 10 times my vote?

by DTaylor on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:40:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

"Caucus states clearly have skewed results"

So do elections in which the candidates can't campaign, and elections that don't have one of the candidates names on the ballot tend to skew results as well. You really can't make the results-in-caucus-states-are-skewed-but- MI-and-FL-are-perfectly-legitimate argument in good faith.

When you get into bed with evil incarnate, it always takes the covers.

by thatpurplestuff on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:45:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Do you decide when democracy is important?

Does Dean?

Does Obama?

Do you decide that Florida wasn't democratic enough?

Your position increases McCains votes more than you realize.

one vote one person and count all votes.

All of them.

I am for giving Obama every vote he got and not a vote more.

When you do that he loses.

by DTaylor on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:48:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

No, and we also don't get to decide which rules we want to follow and at what time. The time to fix the clusterfudge in MI and FL was long before they went to the voting booth. Unfortunately, we didn't hear any outrage from either camp until after we found out the results.

Now, I harbor no illusions here. I know full well that Obama and some of his supporters would be pushing to count both states if he had won them (even if Clinton had taken her name off the ballot in MI) and Clinton and some of her supporters would be dragging her feet had she lost them.

I guess my point is this: you don't tell people that their vote doesn't count and then change the rules mid-game. Hopefully the candidates can come to some sort of compromise here along with the DNC, but the people that can say that these states should be seated as-is just aren't being realistic.

When you get into bed with evil incarnate, it always takes the covers.

by thatpurplestuff on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:02:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The people who say that a democratic party that pisses on two battle ground states wants to win are not being realistic.

Fair or not Obama can't win without counting Florida and Michigan and he can't win with counting Florida and Michigan.

Life isn't fair sometimes.

by DTaylor on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:14:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The popular vote for caucus states are available. Call the SoS office of each state and you will get them. About four states have not reported popular vote totals.

I'm pushing for the popular vote measure. I think it is ridiculous that Clinton wins NV yet gets less delegates. I think it is ridiculous that Clinton wins TX, yet gets less delegates because people could vote twice. Talk about "one man, one vote."

Right now, Clinton leads the popular vote when FL, MI, the caucus states and the WA primary are included. She is about 200,000 votes behind when FL is included only and about 316,000 votes behind when FL, the caucus states and the WA primary is included. Without FL and MI, she about a half million votes behind. In some shape or form, Clinton will lead the popular vote at the end of this race.

On a personal level, I would like Clinton to appeal the results of the WA caucus and the TX caucus and have the DNC count only the WA and TX primary. That is highly unlikely, but you never know. It will result in a net gain of 15-20 delegates for Clinton. Throw in MI and FL at half a vote and the superdelegates and Obama's delegates lead goes from about 140 to 60.

Restore America's Strength.

by RJEvans on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:29:43 AM EST

And if the caucus states don't have those numbers?

The DNC will not change the rules at the end of the game.

I'm sorry. Are you giving Obama a "zero" for MI when you make that assertion?

My candidate lost fair and square. So did yours. Get over it and let's kick McSame's ass!

by RLMcCauley on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:31:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

No, Obama unfairly gets undecideds. Unfortunately we will have to please someone who did not have the courtesy to place his name on the ballot.

And if the caucus states don't have those numbers?

Estimate them as RCP has done for IA, NV, ME and WA. It is very simple frankly.

Tell me something, do you think it is fair that TX voters get to vote twice, which will then be translated into delegates? Do you think it is Democratic that the Washington primary, where turnout was MUCH higher than the caucus is not even counted? If we are the Democratic Party, which preaches Democracy, I think we should practice Democracy.

Restore America's Strength.

by RJEvans on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:45:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

By all means, there should be electoral reform. But it's too late to implement any changes in this cycle - that ship has sailed. Plus, there is something to be said for the argument that a system in which all of the contestants know the rules and can plan accordingly is a fair one. The "Texas two-step" isn't some mystery that was revealed a few months ago; Bill Clinton won under those very rules. And, while alternative voting methods aren't representative of the conditions in the general election, they may still challenge campaigns to organize in useful ways.

by rfahey22 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:21:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

TX voters got to vote twice, but it didn't give them extra say at all. Texas was given a set number of pledged delegates to award by the DNC based on their population and level of Democratic votes, the state is free to apportion them how they want. They chose to have both a primary and a caucus.

There are reasons why Washington has a delegate-less primary, but chooses to apportion their delegates according to its caucus.

by Skaje on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:09:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Courtesy! (none / 0)

Hahaha. What a crock.

Yeah estimate them. That sounds like a good idea. This isn't a banana republic.

TX voters don't get to vote twice. That's how their delegates are allocated. It's about the delegates not the popular vote.

You want to "practice democracy" but you want to guess about numbers for certain states? That's inconsistent.

There is NO right to a primary at all. This is party rules.

My candidate lost fair and square. So did yours. Get over it and let's kick McSame's ass!

by RLMcCauley on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:20:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

See that's the thing, the people supporting this argument have no long term outlook or plan. Their just trying to find a metric in which Clinton has a chance of coming out a head. There's really nothing beyond that, and there's no point of trying to find reason in promoting these absurd positions.

by gcensr on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:35:05 AM EST

Long term...

Hillary supporters are going to vote McCain if its Obama.

If its Hillary they will vote Obama next time around because we would owe him.

What do you think happens if AAs feel the core party which face it is who Hillary is backed by would rather vote McCain than Obama?

How do you think that helps things long term?

In contrast if the only penalty is waiting 8 years and having a VP who is AA now the damage is much less.

Hillary can give Obama the presidency in 8 years if he keeps AAs and adds her supporters. Obama can't give Hillary the presidency in 8 years no matter what.

by DTaylor on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:44:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Any Democrat that would vote for McCain over our nominee (whoever it is) simply because their candidate didn't win is crazy. McCain is the ideological opposite of both of our candidates on most key issues.

When you get into bed with evil incarnate, it always takes the covers.

by thatpurplestuff on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:53:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You can convince yourself that reality is crazy but it isn't any less real.

by DTaylor on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:15:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I have no doubt that there are some Obama/Hillary supporters that will vote for McCain if their candidate doesn't win. My point was that the idiots doing so care more about their politicians than actual policies, and by November the crossover rate will most likely be close to where it is every presidential election.

To go from either of our progressive candidates to John McCain requires some significant ignorance/indifference about actual policy positions.

When you get into bed with evil incarnate, it always takes the covers.

by thatpurplestuff on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:24:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Most democrats aren't progressives.

For the voters who will switch McCain isn't a boogey man.

Obama supporters need to come to grips with that before the convention.

Hillary voters are mad in several ways that are not historic.

He said his supporters won't back her

Dean cut Florida and michigan loose and she wins if they count.

He made her look racist and we know she isn't.

Its not a non issue.

by DTaylor on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:29:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You avoided my point. Compared to one another, our candidates hold similar if not virtually identical positions on most big issues. Compared to our candidates, McCain holds opposing views on most big issues. Any Democrat that votes for McCain because their preferred candidate didn't get the nomination is suffering from some serious hero worship.

When you get into bed with evil incarnate, it always takes the covers.

by thatpurplestuff on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:36:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Hillary and Obama do not hold similiar or identical points

Hillary would NEVER threaten that her supporters wouldn't vote for a compeditor if she lost.

Hillary would NEVER go against democracy in florida

Hillary would never try to force a compeditor out of the race because she was afraid of a surge from that candidate

Hillary would never paint a non racist as racist.

These are positions.

They matter

They matter more to me than abortion.
They matter more to me than tax cuts
They matter more to me than health care

I am being honest her and there are a LOT of democrats like me. They just don't post on the internet...

by DTaylor on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:48:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Well, obviously nothing I say is going to stop you from taking your ball and going home. I will say that I really don't understand how you can bounce back and forth between such righteous anger towards Obama to then suggesting that he be Hillary's VP. To each his/her own, I guess.

When you get into bed with evil incarnate, it always takes the covers.

by thatpurplestuff on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:56:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes and Obama wouldn't send people to die for votes but hey were supposed to forgive over Iraq right, I mean the fact aht some people I went High School with are missing limbs is just one big misunderstanding, I mean its not right to hold her accountable for the fact that she was to lazy to even read the NIE before rubber-stamping her buddy Dubya's war paln.

by Socraticsilence on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:39:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

When you want to know something you talk to the people who wrote the document...

If you do that you don't have to read the whole thing.

Have you read the phone book?

Yet you have very little problem working a phone.

by DTaylor on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:05:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

And by the way, I don't think McCain is the "boogeyman." I do, however, think his positions on the Bush tax cuts, the Supreme Court, abortion, Iraq, illegal immigration, and a plethora of other issues are something that any Democrat should be worried about.

When you get into bed with evil incarnate, it always takes the covers.

by thatpurplestuff on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:39:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

We don't need to come to grips with it. That's on your head not ours.

My candidate lost fair and square. So did yours. Get over it and let's kick McSame's ass!

by RLMcCauley on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:21:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]