It's really sad how logic doesn't make a dent in some people's arguments. I say time to leave the delusional to themselves. They can all yell as loud as they want that Hillary should have won, or even really did win by certain measurements, but it won't make a difference to reality.

Really, though. I like Obama, but hate the way he's running his campaign. He is doing almost the exact same thing the DEMS did in 2006 by saying they can make change in Washington, and they ended up winning the majority in the House and Senate based on that, and have done shit. When you have nothing to show you can get real change, that's worrisome because saying you want change in American is easy, anyone can do that, but not anyone can get it done. And the DEMS have clearly shown they can't get it done so far in Congress.

I like Obama, but hate the way he's running his campaign. He is doing almost the exact same thing the DEMS did in 2006 by saying they can make change in Washington, and they ended up winning the majority in the House and Senate based on that, and have done shit.

I'm not one of those die-hard supporters. The main reason I would have prefered Clinton over Obama is because she could have won OH, PA, and FL. Obama can't win in FL, he'll struggle big time in OH, while PA will go for him. Losing 2 of these 3, and he's finished, and with 1 (FL) being a definte loss, that's troublesome. If you look at a county map of the election so far, Clinton is winning in the same places Bush won in 2000 and 2004, while Obama is winning where Gore and Kerry won, and who won those elections? If you check the Electoral Map at RCP right now, Clinton is beating McCain 229- 168, while Obama wins 228-190.

You can make a case that Clinton vs Obama will be similar to McCain vs Obama given the areas Obama and CLinton have won/loss in. And if you do that, based on the winner-take-all system that the REP party uses, as well as in a general election, Clinton beats Obama, and McCain would beat Obama.

And that's not taking into account some women-vote backlash against Obama. Over 50% of the vote this NOV will be by women, while 15/20 will be from blacks.

Just listen to yourself. The Dems employed this strategy and SWEPT INTO OFFICE with one of the biggest majorities in history. Obama has employed this strategy and beaten THE biggest powerhouse name in Democratic politics.

Your problem seems to be that he won't live up to his promises. I'd say he already has in terms of delivering a new kind of politics. Whether or not he can implement his policies is a question that no one could answer about any candidate, including Hillary. You can't really compare him to Congress, since the Congress is facing a Republican minority so obstructionist that they voted overwhelmingly against Mother's Day just to block Democratic legislation.

People forget that the Senate is deadlocked. Nothing is happening in washington because nothing gets through the Senate. The Senate is really tied since Liberman leans republican. The democrats need to gain 3 or 4 seats in the senate to try to do something. Also look at the house a lot of bills have passed but they never make it to the Senate floor because of that reason.

Just listen to yourself. The Dems employed this strategy and SWEPT INTO OFFICE with one of the biggest majorities in history. Obama has employed this strategy and beaten THE biggest powerhouse name in Democratic politics.

The Democrats have a strong majority (in the House), but it is nowhere near "one of the biggest majorities in history."

Hillary sure has changed America a lot in the 8 years she's been in Congress. With this argument, you really shouldn't be voting Dem at all, and you wouldn't really be missed.

Why do I picture Hillary 20 years from now sitting arounnd like Gloria Swanson from Sunset Blvd.

"It's time for my inaugauration now, Mr. Demille... They should've counted those Michigan and Florida votes! THEY SHOULD'VE COUNTED THEM!!!"

At least she'll be alive in 20 years.

The Democrats have a strong majority (in the House), but it is nowhere near "one of the biggest majorities in history."

The 7th-17th were much more massive even though the current 435 member limit had not yet taken place. 21st-24th as well. Lest we forget the post Civil War Period where the Republicans dominated the House? Just going back to the 103rd Congress, a much larger majority, 258-176, was in place.

I'm surprised Jedi Master Carr didn't note this.

http://clerk.house.gov/art_history/house_history/partyDiv.html

I honestly didn't see the point to push it on him, mainly because he probably didn't even know it. Besides I didn't know which congress had the largest majority. I would have guessed post civil war but that would have been a guess.

I would be surprised that SC would be that close unless the black vote turnout is like 95% or something. I wonder why Georgia isn't closer since they lean more democratic?

About Liberman you obviously missed my point he is a republican because he is kissing McCain's butt so much he should join his party. Liberman was always a very conservative democrat. I guess you forgot he is the one who pushed for the censorship of video games and tv shows.

Pushing for censorship makes one a Republican? As I noted earlier, Lieberman might be a more moderate Democrat, but the only area where he really sides with the GOP is with the war. He caucuses with the Democrats and he has a lifetime ACU rating of 16.38 with a 2007 rating of 8 (though I am not sure how much of 07 was factored in).
http://www.acuratings.org/2007all.htm#CT

It makes him conservative. True Liberals are against censorship.

Unfortunately, that's not always true. Some liberals think it's OK to censor books from libraries that may be bad for kids, or video games and movies. And "hate crime" laws are a kind of censroship, too.

CNN projects Democratic nominee lost the SD Democratic Primary.