Actually he is getting less than 50% of democrats in voting so far, but is winning with the help of getting independent and republican votes to put him over the top. And in the south was pushed over by massive % of the AA vote.

If Clinton can win Ohio and TX or stay close in TX due to their primary then caucus thing, then a true test of what the Democrats themselves want will be in Pennsylvania where it is a closed primary where indy's and republicans can not vote in the democratic side.

Please state your source for this. Obama has won the last 11 primaries and caucuses by an average margin of 33%. I'd like to see how she's winning a majority of democrats and his entire 33% margin is from independents. I haven't seen that data.

All of your other stuff is just crap. Total crap. (in the post you made before this one)
If any of that stuff really mattered or was going to "sink his campaign" it would have happened already.
The Clintons have tried to hit him with everything and he's come out smelling like a rose. Do you really think McCain is a better campaigner than the Clinton machine?

I know you're biased for Hillary, and that's fine, the same way I'm biased for Obama.....but let's get real.
He's beating her across the board, by significant margins.
She's a fine candidate, she just ran in the wrong year, and now, it's almost over.

Wow, great article in TIME about experience and the presidency.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...717926,00.html

Interesting read, thanks for sharing:thumbsup

Democrats favor Clinton vs Obama:

"But, since this is actually the Democratic primary, perhaps we should look at how Democrats [i.e., not Republicans or low information voters in ?open? primaries] have actually voted. Based on the available exit polling data, we find that Hillary Clinton has a commanding lead over Barack Obama in the number of votes ? As of February 16, 2008, 391,992 more Democrats voted for Clinton than Obama.

In terms of actual Democratic voters, the numbers from Super Tuesday are astonishing ? and were, of course, ignored by the media. Out of over 12,100,000 votes cast by Democrats that day, Clinton beat Obama by nearly 7%, and just short of 837,000 votes. And if we include all the primaries that took place before Super Tuesday (NH, SC, MI, FL) the Clinton advantage among Democrats rises to 7.5%, and well over a million votes.
"

From - http://www.correntewire.com/count_whose_vote based on exit poll data found here: http://www.glcq.com/table.htm which also contains where the data came from.


As for your assertion my previous post was based on pure crap, lets see some evidence that what I said was wrong? I posted a link to an article that detailed his rise in Chicago, with quotes by the people that assisted to make him, and firm track record of his skewed record of sponsoring a whooping 26 big bills his final year in the state legislature. You say its crap, but lets start seeing the hard facts that point to that article being false and not true?

As to his sub committee record, he admitted in the debate.

As for his NAFTA debate today the government came out to say it didn't happen, yet CTV has come out to state firmly it stands behind the story, so there is more to come here. CTV is a nation wide reputable news station in Canada like ABC, NBC and CBS, so we'll see what path that goes down. Right now it can be argued its time to wait for more facts to get released before you can hold him down on it.

And on the Iraq mis-statement I provided you the source on his site that claims his 2002 run for US senator which is false. And showed you an article that shows you step by step how to see how he himself on his old website backs it up that it is indeed false. Used to deceive and create a false hope.

So if you can provide me with links to refute that and show me he was actively running for US senator in 2002 from any reliable source besides his website then I am all ears to listen to that.

You misunderstood what I said. I meant he was the current top dem canidate and winning overall. AND that the dems were currently winning with 60-70% of the votes.

So. 4 canidates, two dems. Obama the current top dem canidate, and winning overall. And dems winning over repubs with about 60-70% of the votes.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/

Honestly, I could care less who has gotten the most votes from the dem associated party. Because that doesn't matter in the end. And I can't stand one sided party members to begin with.

Sorry my bad, I mis-understood your point. But your point that it doesn't matter I do disagree with for the simple fact that if you don't look at the numbers of true democrats solely and look at those numbers then you will be left with a misguided picture of what is going to happen in the GE. It's crazy to expect the Indy's and republicans that voted in the democrat primaries to stay with the Dems come November. So you need to extract the breakdown to see where things really stand.

And when your dealing with the electoral college voting system in the general is very important to understand the breakdowns.

And with McCain being the nominee definitely hurts the Democratic party more than if Romney was the choice as McCain appeals to more moderates and will reach into the Democratic party. Especially in a key swing state like Florida who feels abandoned by its party.

Regarding my statement about NAFTA and Obama and CTV.

CTV has again gone on record to reconfirm the call took place and said one of their primary sources was a very high level official at the Canadian embassy who provided CTV with details of the call and a timeline.

So this story still has legs and more to come out on this issue.

Video of today's strict stand on the claim by CTV:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=jMpbpov-HcA

I've watched a lot of the debates... news... speeches etc. etc. etc... I'm starting to feel that Hillary would actually be the better president as far as getting more things done for the country... I suspect that if Obama is president, it will be more about "image", photo ops etc.

Axeman, you're quoting the voting totals from Super Tuesday, which politically speaking was forever ago.

In the last 11 contests in a row that Obama has won he has won convincingly.

What I mean by the stuff being crap is that it's penny ante stuff. It's nothing that's going to get traction in the national media or hurt Obama in the polls. It's the kind of stuff that the republicans will use in fund-raising emails and things like that, but it's nothing that's going to cost Obama any votes that he had a chance at getting in the first place.

The general election will be about a guy who was opposed to the Iraq war from the beginning and wants to get out now vs a guy who has supported it from day one and wants to stay indefinitely.

It will be about a candidate who wants every American to have access to affordable health care vs one who thinks we can't afford to do that.

It will be about a candidate who was opposed to the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy from the beginning vs a guy who opposed them at the beginning, but then embraced them when trying to win the republican nomination, and NOW says he wants them to be permanent.

Those are the kinds of things voters will be paying attention to in November, not who gave what speech on what day and when exactly did so and so start running for a certain office, or sponsor a bill in the Illinois state legislature. The fact that you have to scrutinize that hard to find something to use against Obama tells me that there isn't any there there.

Brent you're really reaching with this CTV thing. I just watched the video and they say that someone from Obama's campaign called someone in the Canadian embassy and said don't worry about what he says about NAFTA in Ohio because it's just "campaign rhetoric".

That's pretty thin man....unless they identify who it was from the Obama campaign, or unless Obama says it himself, then it's just more anonymous source bullshit like the crap they're trying to sling at McCain right now....which is also bullshit.

Saying he (McCain) did favors for a lobbyist is fair game, implying that he had an improper romantic relationship because someone who used to work for him (read: was fired) told the NYT that anonymously....is bullshit.

If you feel that those things wont pull Obama down, thats fine. I strongly disagree. He is near his peak. He will need almost every ounce of his popularity right now to beat McCain, and he will need to make big inroads with a good % of Clinton supporters to earn their vote, and he will need to somehow get Michigan and Florida back on board, which will be extremely difficult since he can not ask for their votes to count because it would cripple his momentum and delegate lead.

He has to make strong inroads in the south to get more voters than the AA population and even then he has no shot to win in most of those states. He will not win Alaska. He will not win Kansas. He will not win Idaho or Wyoming. He will be hard pressed to win swing state Missouri (where he lost 110 of the 115 counties on Super Tuesdays but carried the urban cities to get the slight delegate lead), and he will be extremely hard pressed to win Pennsylvania.

I have no problem with supporting Obama, but I also believe we need to get the good and bad out about both candiates out before the nomination is made so the people and party have all the facts and make the right choice. We are starting to get more straight facts in the media now, and its not going to stop.

Just don't keep looking thru the rosy glasses and think this is an easy win for Obama in November. When you look at the states he won to get momentum they were largely pure red states where he won the caucus which hardly is a true perception of the people. Look no further than Washington State where Obama won 57% to 30% in the caucus, but won 51 to 46% in their primary.

He lived on red state caucuses and its helped him very much. He has yet to win any major blue state. So I reserve judgment on his winning over the base until after the results from Texas and Ohio comes out and I see where the democratic party voters went. Maybe he surprises me and gets close to 55% of the democratic base in those states which would show he is making in roads in that regard. We shall see.

Just don't ignore the fact and plead ignorance to the fact that despite a 100 delegate lead before 3 big blue states vote, the Republicans are pushing hard for Obama and trying to pin him as the Democratic nominee. They are doing that for a reason, and that is they peg him to be the more vulnerable candidate in November.

Whether that ends up being true is yet to be seen but that very fact they are pushing so hard right now, makes me very nervous.

Lenny, I agree they should come out with it, and maybe they will if they continue to get slammed and called liars about the story. But in tonights video they said they got told the story from a high level official in the Canadian embassy which has more weight than what they said last night when they didn't mention their source at all and just said they were told that a high level official in the Obama campaign made the telephone call.

Unless the source comes out to call out the campaign for being liars, then its just going to be fodder as its he said, she said kind of thing. But the fact it was CTV doing the story and not some small city newscast leads credibity to it. And the fact they refused to back down from the story says something too. My point is its just another log in the fire right now. Whether it ends up getting out of control is a fair question. At this point I am not sure. Depends how hard the media and the campaigns push it, and whether or not CTV and their source feels their credibility is getting hit unfairly and wants to come out fully.

I disagree with alot of what you said Brent.

Obama will have no problem winning the votes of the democratic base in November. They will show up in record numbers to vote for a president who will end the Iraq war....just like they did for the congressional elections in 2006.

Obama also has alot of appeal to independents and some moderate republicans, which Hillary does not.

The republicans aren't pushing hard for Obama to be the nominee, they would much rather run against Clinton. ANY republican strategist who is being honest would tell you that off the record.
They're just looking at the numbers and seeing what the rest of us see...but what you're still in denial about.....the democratic primary is all but over and Obama will be the nominee....so of course they're going to attack him.

I wouldn't worry about him, he's proven that he can take a punch and give better than he gets, and when he gets on the debate stage against John McCain and they start talking about why McCain still supports a war that was based on a lie, it's gonna be game over IMO.

That's fair, we disagree on the crossover. I am seeing a very large backlash from Clinton supporters who openly vow they can no longer support Obama. It is a growing sentiment which is gaining ground daily in the blogs and Pro Clinton websites. There is also a growing sentiment of her supporters, especially the women who are very upset with what they proclaim is sexism in the campaign run by Obama. Only time will tell whether they stick to their words now, or end up voting D in November. All I can say is I have never seen such a divisive split in the party in my life.

I agree with you Obama does better with Independents. This article shows the data that he dominates the independents but trails in moderates. It also shows that the moderates greatly outnumber the independents.
http://www.correntewire.com/count_wh...s_vs_moderates

But first things first is seeing the results come March 4th and I'd suspect Clinton isn't going anywhere and will contest Pennsylvania and go to the convention. 5 months of attacks from the right digging on everything and anything will be a good test for Obama and if the DNC starts to feel he's been compromised she will be there ready to take the reigns if needed.

The logic of that is pretty bad man.
"if the DNC starts to feel he's been compromised she will be there ready to take the reigns if needed."

If he wins the most votes, and the most delegates, then he should be the nominee, PERIOD.

If you want to talk about backlash and a divided party, take the nomination away from the guy who got the most votes and give it to someone else, and watch them all stay home in November....or worse, start a 3rd party, one with teeth that could get 30%+ of the popular vote.

That is still an if of course, but no way the DNC sinks it ship if he becomes what they perceive as unelectable. Thats what the super delegates are for at the convention. Unless Obama gets to 2025 in pledged delegates before the convention he is not the nominee without the super delegate support.

I think its a very real possibility she ends up with more votes, less delegates and it then is in the super delegate hands to appoint the nominee. How do you think they should do it? on who they feel is best? on who they think is more electable at the time of the convention? Who their district supported?

Obama has won in 24 states.
Hillary has won in 13.

In the majority of states obama has won in, he's won by a LANDSLIDE. Hillary has only taken a major win in a couple.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/pri...s/scorecard/#D

Yep and how many were caucuses vs primaries. Which ones were in solid red vs blue states. What happened in the swing states. What % of the voters are dems, independents, republicans.

And what will the landscape look like on March 5th. The Texas primary and Ohio primary will be interesting to see. Rhode Island is strongly Clinton right now. Vermont looks to be Obama. The caucus part of Texas should goto Obama as well. So he could lose the popular vote in the state but get a lead in the delegates from the caucus portion.

You can be as simple as saying 24 to 13 and think that tells the story but it of course doesn't. He has won 11 more states yet only leads by 100 or so pledge delegates?

Lenny: you wanted names coming out well here they are for ya.

"The Obama campaign told CTV late Thursday night that no message was passed to the Canadian government that suggests that Obama does not mean what he says about opting out of NAFTA if it is not renegotiated.

However, the Obama camp did not respond to repeated questions from CTV on reports that a conversation on this matter was held between Obama's senior economic adviser -- Austan Goolsbee -- and the Canadian Consulate General in Chicago.

Earlier Thursday, the Obama campaign insisted that no conversations have taken place with any of its senior ranks and representatives of the Canadian government on the NAFTA issue. On Thursday night, CTV spoke with Goolsbee, but he refused to say whether he had such a conversation with the Canadian government office in Chicago. He also said he has been told to direct any question to the campaign headquarters."

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...hub=TopStories

I think someone in Obama's camp made a boo boo...

Yes this is a big boo boo it sounds like. He is Obama's senior economic adviser and goto man on all subject of the economy. He has been the face of the campaign on CNBC for example.

This charge is of Obama telling the voters of Ohio one thing to get the votes, and telling the government of a trade partner not to worry its just campaign rhetoric.

It seems as though CTV and the Canadian official is ticked enough to start naming names, and the fact Goolsbee refused to deny he had the conversation, instead was told to direct all question to the HQ speaks volumes....

He's 1 million votes ahead right now....and 150 delegates ahead. It would take a catastrophe on his side or a miracle from her side for her to close that gap and even make it close.

You say something about them sinking their ship....that's exactly what they would do if they gave the person with less votes the nomination. There would be a mutiny in the party like nothing we've ever seen.

In case you have not figured it out yet, votes mean dick.

This NAFTA blunder could very well do big damage to his credability by outright lying to the voters of Ohio while behind the scenes telling a government something completely different. Thats a huge charge that is getting scratched at.

The fact his adviser refused to deny the conversation took place and was told to direct all questions to the HQ says a lot. He was told beforehand if somehow his name does come out, this is what you need to do.

Caucuses vs Primaries doesn't matter. The reason Obama has done so well in caucuses is because he's had the money to put the organization on the ground. Hillary didn't contest the caucus states because she couldn't afford to. A win is a win. Period.

Red state and blue state doesn't matter either. If it did then they shouldn't have primaries in all of the states, they should only have primaries in the "states that matter"

The dems, independents, and republican vote proportions that you keep bringing up actually hurt your candidate. You can't win the white house without getting a majority of the independent voters in this country. You claiming that he's only won because of independent support is actually a nail in her coffin.

All of the momentum is on Obama's side right now. He's going to win Texas, he has a good chance of winning Ohio, and if she does hold on to win Ohio it will be so close that the delegate count from Ohio will be practically a split.

I really don't see how she can justify dragging it out further than that when she has no chance in catching him in either the popular vote or in the pledged delegate count....the appearance at that point would be that she's hoping the superdelegates will "steal" the nomination for her....and like I said earlier, that would ruin the democratic party forever.

One thing I have figured out is that you ARE A DICK.

Don't quote my posts or address me anymore asshole. Why don't you get a life instead of following democrats around trying to piss all over their threads with your racist and sexist bullshit?

most people would like to see snoop dog in white house.

Do not tell me what to do. Ever. Now go fuck yourself and put me on ignore if you don't want to read my posts.

FYI, I was a Democrat long before you were, asshole.

IF that's what really happened. Since you have a serious Mrs Jones thing going on with Hillary you're inclined to believe anything negative that's printed about Obama.

I need to wait and see how this shakes out before passing judgment. There is no smoking gun, only an accusation by someone in the Canadian embassy.....this could be someone who is a friend of the Clinton's.

I also think that you overestimate the ability of a Canadian bureaucrat and Canadian news organization to influence a U.S. election.

Obama had the money on the ground in caucus states but also had the demographics and raw enthusiasm of the youth and affluent voters to take the time to go do a caucus which is simply not a reality for most common workers and older voters. There is a reason caucuses are not part of the GE as they simply don't allow for the involvement of everyone as you have to be there at a specific time of the day before the doors close, unlike a primary where you can vote early and on voting day have 12 hours to get to the polls to cast their vote.

And if you don't think red state vs blue state matters then I don't know what to tell ya.

Go fuck yourself.

Just told you what to do again. Don't like it? I don't give a fuck.

Now, why don't you keep your old racist and sexist self out of a conversation that has nothing to do with you?

I believe you were a democrat before me....back in the days when they were the Dixiecrats and passed all of the Jim Crow laws. The party has changed alot since your salad days geezer....now butt the fuck out of conversations that don't involve you.

Your man got stung, so of course you do. When your Teflon don gets hit for the first time it stings, I understand your reaction to it.

The last thing the Canadian government wants is to look like its interfering in an election, so its going to deny. But to believe a major news organization is going to sit back and get kicked for telling the truth and expect not to fight is crazy. CTV wasted no time in releasing the name of the Obama official tonight.

You can certainly reserve judgment though, and I don't blame you as there is a lot more here to discover. But it doesn't look good.

Not great timing before the election on Tuesday.

From the guy that thinks it doesn't matter if a state is red or blue.

You are one funny guy.

Yeah it matters like this....the democrats will win the blue states no matter who the nominee is (it's not like Kerry or Gore were particularly exciting candidates) and the republicans will win the red states no matter who the nominee is (Bob Dole anyone?)

The swing states decide elections, and they are decided by independent voters....a demographic where Obama beats Hillary by a 2 to 1 margin.

So tell me again how this red state/blue state thing benefits your candidate?

The timing is all the more reason to be skeptical about it don't you think?

My man hasn't been "stung"....there has been no coverage about this in the mainstream U.S. media that I'm aware of...and it's all just a he said/she said thing at this point.

If it grows legs and it turns out there is some there there....then I'll be concerned....but until then he gets the benefit of the doubt from me.....the same way McCain gets it on the "improper relationship with a lobbyist" bullshit.

BTW your right - at this point I don't trust Obama as far as I could throw him. And that is a drastic turn from my stance on him since December when I decided to start looking into his rise and background and it bugged me. And the past week as more and more has come out, it pushes me further and further from him.

It doesn't have to be Clinton, you can take her out as long as you gave me Edwards, Gore, Richardson or even Biden.

So your not going to convince me about Obama, and I'll never convince you about Clinton, but I still like to have all cards on the table so its a 100% informed choice so that there is no regrets later.

But I like the debate, and I like the discussion and as long as you bring data and facts to the table along with your opinions then I am all for it.

I certainly don't think Clinton is perfect. She has pro's and she has cons. Her appeal is she is rock solid on most issues and with her you know her closet already. all skeletons on that woman are exposed.

We are just starting to get a peak in Obama's closet, and if the light ever gets turned on, it will be interesting to see whats discovered. The background of his state legistature and how Jones decided to make him a senator and put his name on 26 bills as a sponsor his final year is a big issue. His taking a chair of a major sub committe and holding no hearings on something important like NATO and Afghanastan in 13 months is important.

If this NAFTA story gets exposed more, that is a big blow and is important.

If all this just came out this week, what else it to be found once the journalists decide its time to take a look? What about the right? They already have people in Conn looking into his time spent there, what a lot of people call the missing years.

Your also discounting the facts of the distain each side has for each other, and the growing hatred of the Obama campaign as the sexism debate comes into play. There is going to be a % of Clinton democrats who will cross the isle. There was a poll out this week that showed more Obama supporters would vote for Clinton than Clinton voters would vote for Obama. I'll dig up that link asap.

Also in the link I provided earlier on this page the data shows Obama is winning the independants by a good margin, but he is not getting more moderates than Clinton is. And there are far more moderates than independant voters out there as the data also shows. And the margin of moderates voting for Clinton is even larger in the swing states as the data shows. http://www.correntewire.com/count_wh...s_vs_moderates

Read it again and look at the hard data and it will become clear.

I certainly understand you giving him the benefit of the doubt as long as your eyes are open if the facts continue to come out.

The mainstream media has not had a chance to respond again since the name got released tonight so tomorrow will be interesting to see how they choose to cover it and see if they actually dig for answers or gloss over it.

Goolsbee's response or lack there of to CTV says a lot to me. If he wasn't guilty of doing it then it would be easy to deny it took place since the embassy said it didn't happen and Obama said the Canadians even said it didn't happen.

When you start referring all questions to the HQ its the same as please refer all questions to my lawyer. Where there is smoke, there usually is fire.

I really don't think there's anything there in alot of this stuff you bring up. Like I said before it's penny ante stuff....it's alot of conjecture with no facts. Or it's facts, but they're presented in a specific way to make him look bad...when if they were looked at objectively they wouldn't raise any red flags.

I don't get this distinction between independents and moderates. Ideologically speaking they're the same thing....when I refer to independents, I refer to people who are registered to vote as independents. Those are the people who normally decide Presidential elections, and those are the voters Obama is winning in an overwhelming fashion. (If you're referring to democrats who consider themselves moderate....that's a totally different thing and doesn't really have any bearing on the electability argument)

About the poll that says Clinton supporters wouldn't vote for Obama....if it was done by someone reputable like Zogby or Gallup etc...then I would look at it...but if it's done by someone who works for the Clintons or was an online poll on a pro-Clinton blog then you can't expect me to take it seriously.

This is all just innuendo at this point man.....I realize you're dying for it to be true, that there will be some "Obama scandal" that will vault Hillary to the nomination....but you're reading way too much into this.

It's so patently obvious that you're willing to twist any little thing Obama may have said or done...or any little thing anyone who's ever known him or worked with him may have said or done....to make it look like he's a bad guy or something.....that I really can't take anything you say about this seriously anymore.

I realize you like her and don't like him, but can we at least be objective and reasonable adults about this?

The next thing I'm waiting for you to do is quote to me from the Rick Santorum (a bastion of objectivity....lol) article where he accuses Obama of voting for infanticide......let's be real about this ok?

Independents are just that. Registered as Independents. Moderates are Moderate Republicans.

You could say all facts and every article about anyone and anything is skewed anyway you see fit for all things. At some point you need to accept facts as they are. Look thru some of the bs and see the facts that are present in even the biased articles. Not easy sometimes I admit.

Not sure if anything short of Obama committing a murder on live tv could make you think it holds to discredit his ability to be the president of the most powerful nation in the world.

Rarely is there one silver bullet that takes someone down. Its a lot of issues that when combined put the nail in the coffin.

I am not being trivial and bringing up his duplicate campaign and speeches as Duval. I am bringing up the fact he says he sponsored and worked to get all these bills done and passed in Illinois when in fact he was put as a sponsor by Jones and barely did any of the work to get these bills passed. And those bills are his main experience. I am bringing up the fact that he chairs and important sub committee that deals with the EU, NATO and has jurisdiction to hold hearings on how to fix some of the issues in a nation currently under war, and yet he has not had 1 single hearing on it in 13 months because he has been to busy campaigning for president. And using your chair as your experience. Ummm ok then. Clinton has held 3 hearings as chair of her committee in that time with the last one in Mid October 07.

I am pointing out that he is claiming on his site on Iraq that he had the judgment to be against the war when he was running for US Senate in 2002 when in fact he didn't start running until early 2003 a full 3 months after the vote on Iraq was passed in the senate. The only reason for lying on his website is to try and give his anti war speech more weight than it really had because he was not privy to intelligence from the CIA and Pentagon to make an informed decision based on what was thought to be credible intelligence. And even said so when he got to the senate in 2004 and said he is not sure how he would have handled the vote since he was not given the intelligence the senators were given when they made their vote.

To me these are pretty significant issues into his background and credibility.

LOL - from a man who has provided zero links to dispute that any of the info I have posted has been skewed I find it laughable. All talk with no substance baby.

I could spew my opinion all day long as well and provide no links to actual quotes, background and data, but I prefer to back my talk up with actual record.

Anyway its pointless debating this with you anymore. We both obviously want to see different things. I just wish more Obama supporters would show actual facts that show his previous experience that demonstrates he is a uniter and can reach across the aisle. And not from his website which is proven to have lies in it as evident by his claim to be running for the US senate in 2002.

So if you can start showing me the links with quotes and facts about his 26 bills he sponsored in Illinois that demonstrates the hard work he did to champion these to pass and his fellow state senators applauding his successes in getting 26 major bills thru in a year I would love to see it. It would go a very long way into restoring my belief in the man.

Anyway have a good night Lenny, been fun.

Ok how are these for facts you need to accept as they are.

Obama has won 11 contests in a row. He's won them by an average margin of 33 points. (Before these 11 contests they were basically tied)

A month ago Hillary was ahead by 20 points in Texas and Ohio. Now he's ahead in Texas and her lead in Ohio has shrunk to single digits.

In Pennsylvania, where she has the support of the governor and all of the major politicians, her once substantial lead in the polls has dropped to 6 points..and that contest isn't until April 22.

It seems to me that even if Hillary lost Texas and Ohio you don't think she should concede at that point....she should still carry on to Pennsylvania.

Then if she lost Pennsylvania she still shouldn't concede, but should try to get the superdelegates to give her the nomination even though she got her ass kicked in elections all over the country.

But I'm the problem here....it's ME who needs to accept the facts as they are.

You can have all the objections you want to his candidacy, and all the questions you want about his record, but at some point you have to realize that the majority of the people disagree with you and you're going to lose.

Hell I have alot of objections to George W Bush...I had them in 2000 and in 2004.....but that didn't stop him from becoming President and that's just something I have to live with.

I don't have to provide links and proof and whatever else....my guy won.

It's all over but the crying (well the New Hampshire crying is over...but there's more crying to come)

You're trying to make an argument that even though my guy won, he should have his win annulled and that the superdelegates should give the nomination to Hillary regardless of what the voters want. To make that argument you need to come with more than a rumor from a guy at a Canadian news outlet and the dates of a speech.

Didn't you hear? Experience means nothing. Not a requirement.

If she loses both Ohio and Texas she is done. No doubt about it. Some polls show him ahead in Tx and some show her ahead. Remember polls in NH had him ahead by a lot and he lost. Polls had him ahead in Cali and he lost by a big margin.

And he has won 11 in a row since Super Tuesday. No dispute there.

If she wins 3 of the 4 states on Tuesday everything changes and the landscape flips on its ass again.

If she won Texas and Ohio on Tuesday she would have pretty much swept the biggest states in the nation and the most important blue states plus Florida. I won't give her MI since he removed himself from the ballot. If she did win those 2 states plus all the major states in the nation should he quit? What about if she then went on to get Pennsylvania? Would he quit then?

If I were him even if she did all that I would quit. Unless she gets 2025 I would fight.

Well it certainly seems to be the case lately in the nation. But damage to one's character may eventually count? nah. no experience and a damaged character doesn't overpower Hope & Change!

Oh I haven't said your guy won. Your guy says he won, but the voters in Tx and Ohio haven't given their signature on that just yet. And if both states vote the same way then he certainly may win on Tuesday.

He has a 100 pledged delegate lead and is declaring himself the king before 11 states have voted with Texas, Ohio and Penn not weighing in yet, and 2 states that voted for Hillary not counting. That kind of arrogance can go both ways to the voters and we'll see the beginning of the future on Tuesday until then its all talk.

Well today the Clinton campaign put out a memo that said that if Obama didn't win ALL 4 contests on Tuesday then that would be proof that voters had buyer's remorse over Obama and that Hillary should continue on.
They go on to say that Obama not only has to win all 4, he has to win them by significant margins.

Just another case of the Clinton campaign moving the goal posts and saying they scored a touchdown......or agreeing to rules early on when they thought this would be a coronation and not a nomination (not counting the primaries in Michigan and Florida....the Clinton campaign agreed to those rules and agreed not to campaign there) but now that it's in her best interest to count Fla and Michigan, she wants to count them. If Obama had won there do you think she'd be talking about how we should count them because they're so important in the general?

And now there's even talk of a lawsuit to challenge the rules of the Texas primary system......rules that she's known about for over 2 years.

It seems to me that no matter what the voters say, Hillary feels like she's entitled to the nomination and the presidency and will do whatever it takes to steal the nomination from the person who got the most votes.

How you can support someone to be the president of a democracy, when they obviously don't believe in democracy, is beyond me.