How many States & Delegates do you honestly think Kerry

..will even carry come November?

The point, is that 30 states have yet to decide who they want as the Dem. nominee.

The point is that stopping the process right now, when Kerry has only 1/3 of the necessary delegates, is anti-democratic in principle.

Furthermore, he hasn't exactly been lighting it up with independents and "other-party" voters in swing States such as Tennessee, Virginia & Oklahoma. I'm pretty sure Edwards & Clark have done much better in this respect (although Kerry somehow thinks "nothing" has documented THIS occurrence).

The sort of steem-rolling politics (for example, "....Period. Kerry's won. He is the nominee. Nominee's get to write the platforms....", that have been soaking our airwaves, is precisely the kind of mentality that has scared many voters--not Du'ers--but rather, casual, "undecided" voters--to just settle on Kerry.

I'm not making this up folks. I have actually made calls for the Edwards camp, and have heard many time, "may heart's with edwards, but I had better vote Kerry, so my vote will count"..I also heard this from Dean & Clark "supporters" (i.e., there wasn't alot of "support" in any of the 3 types of voters, for there "heart-felt" candidate.)

he will not have enough to win the nomination, so the primaries will continue.

But there wll not be enough delegates left for anyone else to do so either, or even pass Kerry. It will become necessary for Edwards to win the ramining states with over 95 percent, plus get every superdelegate if Kerry wins tomorrow by the anticipated percentages. Actually, all Kerry has to do is win a minimum of 35 percent ot the remaining delegates in order to keep Edwards from winning. WOnt be difficult given the current polling data.

I'm really worried about what will happen in November if Kerry is the nominee. this bandwagon effect is a terrible thing.

You nominate the guy with the best chance of beating bush, you vote for Kerry cuz he's winning so he's the guy with the best chance of beating Bush. Circular, but inescapable logic.

just DUer-types think otherwise.

There will be no stopping the steamroll this time around. Vote your conscience in the primary, but don't get disappointed or frustrated when you find your strategy doesn't work. It doesn't mean that Democracy isn't working. It means that Democracy works quite well - especially when the voting bloc that decides this stuff also happen to be the ones who don't realize how much their vote really does matter. Whoa...irony.

and now we have to settle for the one our hearts aren't set on.

tell us anything about what the true Democratic votes really were. How ridiculous for Independents and even Republicans getting to vote on who our nominee will be. (California used to have this same system, but we discovered that there was just too much mischief happening). This was the first and it really hurt several candidates, several of these are still trying to overcome this! Shouldn't we be able to vote in the Republican primaries.....who would you have put on the ballot, instead of Bush?

There should be equitable, and severly price-reduced air-time, for all candidates who qualify to be on the ballots for Dem's & repub's.

This should not be a drawn out process, nationally, as it currently is.

If we had this system, this year--Howard Dean would actually been our nominee.

....And I'm an Edwards supporter.

I was shocked as hell over his 2nd placefinish in Iowa.

I was shocked as hell that sen. Kerry has been coming up with the greatest percentages up until now.

Media has shaoed this nomination process in a gross and unjust manner.

If Edwards didn't get the nomination, I had always hoped it would be Dena or Clark. But NEVER Kerry.

I severely doubt that I'm alone in this thought--even among some who ended up voting for Kerry.

It seems like....no it couldn'
t have been....but it seems like the party had pre-ordained who they wanted, and used their connections to spein things just right so that the "stars" would allign for the Honorable John Kerry. This has all been very disheartnening--except for few glimpses of "victory" Senator Edwards has had in SC, OK , TN, MO & WI.

That was 6 weeks ago. There have been 19 other state primaries since then.

Edwards will lose more states than Kerry in November, so I will vote the lesser of two evils.

I will vote Kerry in Ohio's primary tomorrow. If Clark is on the ticket with Kerry, the odds of taking back the white house are greatly improved, and at this point, that is the best I can hope for.

BTW, what makes you think Edwards would beat Bush? hahahahahaha

No chance.

A candidate with NO foreign policy experience or gravitas has NO CHANCE in November.

At least with Kerry/Clark or Kerry/Cleland, we have a better shot.

and you still think Wes would do better on the ticket than edwards, despite his piss poor showing?

what evidence to you have that clark would win more votes? Is it the way he steadily plummeted in the polls?

you guys are holding on to something that's just not there!

And exactly which woodshed is this?

Excuse me, but CLARK, by the date of the Feb 10th primaries, had better overall placing in the contests in which he participated against Edwards.

The only state Edwards won is SC, and his second place finishes were minimal until Clark dropped out.

The biggest difference between General Clark and Edwards is that Clark is a gentleman, and a gentleman knows when to leave.

Your guy just keeps hanging out on hope and luck, no matter that Kerry keeps wiping the floor with Edwards' behind.

AND IT IS YOU THAT IS HOLDING ON TO SOMETHING THAT IS JUST NOT THERE.

My guy is out, I am supporting Kerry. I think it is you who needs to let go.

edwards led clark 2-1, and picked up more delegates. That's what matters, not 2nd place finishes in North Dakota where only 10 people voted

where is this better overall placing? Clark was destroyed in Missouri, SC(where he spent tons of money in) wussed out in Iowa (it COUNTS folks), blew a big lead in Tennessee and finished behind edwards(another key 04 swing state) and dropped like a rock from 25% in NH to 13%.

Oh, since when did the popular vote count in the primaries, or General Election?

It is STATES, and nothing but winning states, that count. Media Momentum is EVERYTHING, and that momentum comes from winning states.

Think about this (if you are capable of reasoned thinking): The media gave ZERO coverage to Clark after New Hampshire, and he STILL finished better than the media darling Edwards did on February 3rd (look it up--Edwards got 9 times the coverage Clark did).

And how many states has Edwards WON? His birth state/neighboring state?

hahahahhahahahhahahah

Seriously, that's all he has won. And Kucinich beat him in Hawaii! LOL

Kerry will cream him tomorrow, and I will be laughing away at all your silliness and arrogance.

Why did clark deserve media coverage after new hampshire after such a dissapointing finish and sitting out Iowa? It was over for him by then.

you can bring up NM, Arizona, and OK. In Oklahoma Clark blew another huge lead and had Edwards almost beat him. You forget Edwards was rising in the polls in NH, clark was falling, as he did in every single state.

but what about Missouri, SC, Michigan, Delaware, Iowa, Washington, Maine, Tennessee. I'm not saying Edwards did great in these states, but he did finish ahead of clark in every single one. And edwards was in direct competition with clark when these races were going on.

sharpton beat clark in SC, LOL! Sharpton beat clark in Michigan, roflmao!

...were you once a Deanie? You are just as delusional.

I can't WAIT to see your guy lose tomorrow, then we will see who is laughing.

Hope John Edwards enjoys his trip back to Washington! Can you tell me, what are his plans? Is he going to channel 5 year olds in court again? Or is he going into partnership with John Edward and starting a John Edward/John Edwards psychic hotline network?

Or is it back to ambulance chasing?

I can tell you where General Clark will be--nicely seated in a Kerry administration. Edwards blew that chance.

Adios, enjoy the torturous ride you will have tomorrow! I sure will!

Why would you be so happy to see edwards lose tomorrow? could it be vengeance and bitterness for what edwards did to clark? I think so.

Clark is too scatterbrained to be in any administration, he has no future in politics. He just endorsed the front runner and sunk back into irrelevance.

hahahahhahahhah

Right. First in his class at West Point. Rhodes Scholar. Top in his class at the War College. SACEUR. Somehow, scatterbrained just doesn't fit that.

You want to know what I have against Edwards: Hugh Shelton.

And Edwards did nothing to Clark in the primaries, other than Hugh Shelton.

Edwards is simply a bad candidate trying to play on his looks alone.

He is sunk, and I will dance in your misery tomorrow.

I will be laughing last...and it will be the best laugh ever!

Don't you think that if I were bitter, I would be bitter about Kerry? IT is Kerry that took votes from Clark, not Edwards.

No, I am not bitter. I am supporting the 2nd best candidate for President, and that is John Kerry, NOT John Edwards.

Funny, because if i was bitter, like all you Deanies and Edwardians, I would be voting for Edwards now wouldn't I?

No, I am supporting the best of what is left. And I will greatly enjoy your lose tomorrow!

...and diplomatic trips to Middle east and Asia, were foreign relations experience.

Sorry...I must have been confused...:eyes:

In most of the exits polls for tha lat 20 states, Kerry has outshone Edwards in the percentages of both Independent and Democrats voting for him as opposed to Edwards.

...in the major "open" States (TN, WI, SC). Edwards has done better. I don't the logic in discounting this. "closed" States don't count in formulating this argument. People would have had to change their party affiliation considerably before the elections, and hence, would not have been counted as Indies & GOP-cross-overs.

This kind of smoke and mirrors politics is precisely what many Americans are sick and tired of. I hope lots of people saw through Sen. Kerry's old-pro tricks during the LA & NYC debates.

It's also possible most people see Kerry as the most qualified candidate for President. A point that seems to be painful for many folks here.

Some people betray their lack of faith in democracy by claiming people voted for the wrong reasons.

Assuming we run a better campaign than we did in 2000, I see the dem nominee taking the Gore states and if its Kerry I think we will definately get New Hampshire as well. Add any other swing state, except WV, and we win. With Edwards, all we need are the Gore states and his home state North Carolina and we win. With the jobless recovery, I don't see Bush having more of an advantage now than he did in 2000, unless we run a horrible campaign like Gore did.

Enough. That's all you need

Kerry has a track record of winning nationally across all demographics and in nearly all parts of the country. You can't deny that. Kerry will win all the Blue states and then some.

The rundown so far:

JANUARY 19, 2004
Iowa - Presidential Caucuses WON!

JANUARY 27, 2004
New Hampshire - Presidential Primary WON!

FEBRUARY 3, 2004
Arizona - Presidential Primary WON!
Delaware - Presidential Primary WON!
Missouri - Presidential Primary WON!
New Mexico - Presidential Caucuses WON!

FEBRUARY 7, 2004
Michigan - Presidential Caucuses WON!
Washington State - Democratic Caucuses WON!

FEBRUARY 8, 2004
Maine - Presidential Caucuses WON!

FEBRUARY 10, 2004
Tennessee - Presidential Primary WON!
Virginia - Democratic Presidential Primary WON!

FEBRUARY 17, 2004
Wisconsin - Presidential Primary WON!

FEBRUARY 24, 2004
Idaho - Presidential Caucuses WON!
Utah - Presidential Primary WON!
Hawaii - Presidential Caucuses WON!

MARCH 2, 2004 (My prediction)
California - Presidential & State Primary - WILL WIN
Connecticut - Presidential Primary - WILL WIN
Georgia - Presidential Primary - WILL WIN
Maryland - Presidential & State Primary - WILL WIN
Massachusetts - Presidential Primary - WILL WIN
Minnesota - Presidential Caucuses - WILL WIN
New York - Presidential Primary - WILL WIN
Ohio - Presidential Primary - WILL WIN
Rhode Island - Presidential Primary - WILL WIN
Vermont - Presidential Primary - WILL WIN

MARCH 9, 2004
Florida - Presidential Primary - WILL WIN
Louisiana - Presidential Primary - WILL WIN
Texas - Presidential & State Primaries - MAY WIN
Mississippi - Presidential Primary - MAY WIN

If Edwards is such a great candidate, why has he only won one state (and by a very small percentage)?

How many States & Delegates do you honestly think Kerry...will even carry come November?

For the primaries, 45 or 46 states- or a little more. About 55% of delegates.
For the general, pretty much the ones Gore carried plus New Hampshire, Nevada, Arizona, and one or both of Ohio and Florida. Not sure about West Virginia.

The point, is that 30 states have yet to decide who they want as the Dem. nominee.

After tomorrow, 20. As of this moment over 50% of Democratic primary voters have either cast votes or are certain of who they'll vote for.

The point is that stopping the process right now, when Kerry has only 1/3 of the necessary delegates, is anti-democratic in principle.

Well, no poll gets all voters tallied- just a representative sample. Given that ~60% of all primary voters (the 60% of states voting to date coincidentally have 60$% of the electoral votes) will have tallied in the count that matters here, I'd say we do have a representative sample of what our half of 150 million people hold as an opinion about the people running.

Furthermore, he hasn't exactly been lighting it up with independents and "other-party" voters in swing States such as Tennessee, Virginia & Oklahoma.

And the chances of carrying those in November in reality is...close to zero. See, there's this guy named Bush who is determined to suck all the conservatives in again and has $250 million (when all is said and done) to get that done.

I'm pretty sure Edwards & Clark have done much better in this respect (although Kerry somehow thinks "nothing" has documented THIS occurrence).

Ask Al Gore how that 'appeal to Southern moderates' thing went.

The sort of steam-rolling politics (for example, "....Period. Kerry's won. He is the nominee. Nominee's get to write the platforms....", that have been soaking our airwaves, is precisely the kind of mentality that has scared many voters--not Du'ers--but rather, casual, "undecided" voters--to just settle on Kerry.

Noooo. Undecideds don't care how it happens. Trust me, it's like sausage to them- they claim otherwise but ultimately don't care how it's done, it's whether what ends up on their plate appeals to them or not. That's what Undecideds are about- leaving the details to other people.

I'm not making this up folks. I have actually made calls for the Edwards camp, and have heard many time, "may heart's with edwards, but I had better vote Kerry, so my vote will count"..I also heard this from Dean & Clark "supporters" (i.e., there wasn't alot of "support" in any of the 3 types of voters, for there "heart-felt" candidate.)

This is politics-on-the-brink-of-warfare, not a TV dating game, to those of us who are serious people. For those of us who consider it a war the present choice is about superior generalship rather than the warm fuzzies. In the end we have to pick a subtle but hard liberal over a closet conservative careerist.

which is better than Edwards or Clark could do, apparently.

if these people you called were really for Edwards and Clark and the others, then why didnt they vote for them AT THE ACTUAL POLLS?? Why do supporters of losing candidates suddenly think that the voters theyve been wooing for months on end are now idiots?