Patterico's Pontifications

5/20/2008

Primary for Oregon and the Middle State Near Arkansas Today

Filed under: 2008 Election — Patterico @ 7:13 am



Going into the primaries for Oregon and one of those middle states close to Arkansas and nowhere near Illinois, Hillary has the lead in the popular vote. Or not. It all depends on what the meaning of popular vote is.

Meanwhile, Obama is expected to hit a grim milestone*: a majority of pledged delegates. But he’s not planning to flaunt it. That’s OK: he has the media to flaunt it for him.

*I suppose for Obama it’s not so grim, but what about the rest of us?

10 Responses to “Primary for Oregon and the Middle State Near Arkansas Today”

  1. hooray for oregon! if we seceded from the union, the other 56 states would lack the will to fight us.

    assistant devil's advocate (e0faac)

  2. This is yet another meaningless milestone for the Baracky supporters. Nobody on the Dem side can win without the Superdelegates selecting a candidate.

    JD (5f0e11)

  3. I don’t think it’s grim. But then again, Sen. Clinton has sufficiently convinced me of her willingness to sacrifice the world to her personal ambition that I would not trust her as President, so the closer she gets to be knocked out of the race, the happier I am.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  4. Denver ’08
    Recreate ’68 !!!

    JD (5f0e11)

  5. Aphrael, I’ve said it many times ~ including here ~ that if it were a choice between Hillary Clinton and Satan, I’d have to give the devil his due.

    I’d point out that I grew up in that “middle state close to Arkansas,” that shares a border with Illinois. Senatrix Clinton might beat Barack Hussein Obama in the Bluegrass State, but, come November, it’ll be Mr Obama’s turn to lose to John McCain in Kentucky! :)

    Dana R Pico (3e4784)

  6. Aphrael: Given your statement, should a miracle occur and the lovely Mrs Clinton actually steal win the Democratic nomination, will you be voting for Senator McCain in November?

    Dana R Pico (3e4784)

  7. Dana: I would certainly consider it. I voted for Sen. McCain in the 2000 primary (it was a “blanket primary” in which all of the candidates from all primaries were on the same ballot).

    My choices at that point would basically be:

    * vote for Sen. McCain while hoping for a Democratic majority Congress to restrain any temptations a Republican majority Congress might have to pass legislation which would annoy me;

    * hold my nose and vote for Sen. Clinton;

    * cast a protest vote for Rep. Barr.

    I suspect it would come down to the answers to three questions, for me: (a) how likely would a President McCain be to get the US involved in a military action against Iran; (b) how likely would a President McCain be to pursue what I think are harmful economic policies; (c) how likely would a President McCain be to pursue a constitutional amendment for gay marriage.

    If the answer to all three were ‘not at all or very unlikely’, I would vote for him. If the answer to all three were ‘highly likely’, I would hold my nose and vote for Sen. Clinton> Otherwise I would be likely to vote for Rep. Barr.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  8. #2
    This is yet another meaningless milestone for the Baracky supporters. Nobody on the Dem side can win without the Superdelegates selecting a candidate.
    You forgot to add JD that the said superdelegates have been moving steadily towards Obama’s side by trickles and by spasms. Right now he is about 100 delegates from reaching the goal of 2025 delegates which we all know will happen within the next week or days. Just putting it in perspective for you.

    love2008 (d2a57f)

  9. Am I mistaken in thinking that the “pledge” that superdelegates have made is not binding?

    SteveG (71dc6f)

  10. Oh yes our former dictator gose to cregon and stumps for the queen of darkness i mean THE EVIL KING AND EVIL QUEEN look out its willie the fink and the wicked witch

    krazy kagu (06d0a6)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2181 secs.