Obama: "I am the Democratic nominee"

Jeff · **Posted:** June 3rd, 2008, 7:24 pm

Obama has announced that he will be the Democratic nominee for the 2008 presidential election.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/03/ ... democrats/index.html

However, Clinton says today that she will not be "making any decisions tonight," so she has not yet conceded defeat. There is still a slight chance that Clinton will earn the nomination if she continues to fight for it. Will she do so?

Will she be the VP? Or who will be the VP? How will Obama get the blue-collar votes? How will he get the Latio votes? I think he has a long way to go, but he certainly has made a historic mark today.

Thoughts? Projections for November?

Adbot · **Posted:** June 3rd, 2008, 7:24 pm

Kyle · **Posted:** June 3rd, 2008, 8:06 pm

There are three options she has below, i will tell you what they are.

#1- She takes her fight to the American people. She won the popular vote so the American people chose her but because how the electoral college Obama got more pledged delegets so he won. She will make the case to the people that the electoral college isnt fair and how there vote dosnt count.

#2- She is Obama's running mate, In my eyes its highly unlikely because if i was an Obama supporter i voted for him not her. So i think Obama would lose votes and Mccain would gain votes if Obama seleted Hillary as his Vp.

#3- This is the decision i hope she takes. She runs as an Independed. She think she has enough support by the American people so she would run as an indepenndent. If she did this is basic politics, she would split the democrat vote and Mccain would win the race the day she announces this.

As fair as my thoughts Im a republican, but Obama is new to the politcal scence and really speaks to the American people just as JFK did. So if i had to pick the lesser or two evils i would pick Obama over Hillary. Im not a real big fan of Mccain, he ran as a democrate last race so is voting record is really bad to some of the GOP. I would rather someone tell me there a liberal and tell me there conservative and vote with the liberals. I was hoping Ron Paul would win, ive met him. He is a extremely nice guy. I like his voting record and he has never voted to go to war or to raise taxes, so he is a good choice in my mind.

Jeff · **Posted:** June 3rd, 2008, 8:27 pm

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... atic_vote_count.html
Kyle, I don't believe in Hillary when she says "I won the popular vote," because, well, she didn't. The argument is flawed because
1) Obama wasn't on the ballot for Michigan, and didn't campaign in Florida and Michigan, unlike Hillary. (I won't go into the details as for why, you can look it up)
2) You can't count "votes" for caucuses because a caucuses don't work the way like a primary. Obama has won most of the caucuses so the popular vote argument is also flawed.
But ultimately, the delegate system is old, unfair, and flawed; nevertheless, it's the system.

Kyle · **Posted:** June 4th, 2008, 6:18 am

Jeff wrote:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html
Kyle, I don't believe in Hillary when she says "I won the popular vote," because, well, she didn't. The argument is flawed because
1) Obama wasn't on the ballot for Michigan, and didn't campaign in Florida and Michigan, unlike Hillary. (I won't go into the details as for why, you can look it up)
2) You can't count "votes" for caucuses because a caucuses don't work the way like a primary. Obama has won most of the caucuses so the popular vote argument is also flawed.
But ultimately, the delegate system is old, unfair, and flawed; nevertheless, it's the system.

Well its weird, if i won California and then Obama won South Dakota, Montana, And Wyoming. he won more pledge delegets but i won more popular votes. But did she in fact get more votes by winning the bigger states, i cant say. One think is sure, im not a Clinton supporter but the American people deserve a fair election.

Jeff · **Posted:** June 4th, 2008, 3:52 pm

Kyle wrote:

Jeff wrote:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html
Kyle, I don't believe in Hillary when she says "I won the popular vote," because, well, she didn't. The argument is flawed because
1) Obama wasn't on the ballot for Michigan, and didn't campaign in Florida and Michigan, unlike Hillary. (I won't go into the details as for why, you can look it up)
2) You can't count "votes" for caucuses because a caucuses don't work the way like a primary. Obama has won most of the caucuses so the popular vote argument is also flawed.
But ultimately, the delegate system is old, unfair, and flawed; nevertheless, it's the system.

Well its weird, if i won California and then Obama won South Dakota, Montana, And Wyoming. he won more pledge delegets but i won more popular votes. But did she in fact get more votes by winning the bigger states, i cant say. One think is sure, im not a Clinton supporter but the American people deserve a fair election.

You're missing my point Kyle. That's a flawed logic because Obama won 36 states, many of which are small states where caucuses are more suitable. It's impossible to count votes for caucuses. On the other hand, he has also won many big states like Georgia and Mississippi anyways.
So you're suggesting this is a flawed election? How so?

Kyle · **Posted:** June 5th, 2008, 9:06 am

Jeff wrote:

You're missing my point Kyle. That's a flawed logic because Obama won 36 states, many of which are small states where caucuses are more suitable. It's impossible to count votes for caucuses. On the other hand, he has also won many big states like Georgia and Mississippi anyways.
So you're suggesting this is a flawed election? How so?

I see your point jeff. I just think the electoral college is out of date and needs to be changed.

Adbot · **Posted:** June 5th, 2008, 9:06 am