Those who will not vote for Obama.

please add

djia, her husband, son and her best friend and her husband(from S.D.) and i am working on my mom (From MN ):D

“P. Rico, Montana, and South Dakota”
——————

Wow! that is really you. I am a big fan and you are a genius with your videos. Thank you. Thank you.

See my page with quotes from Brazile, Dean, Pelosi and SDs about what criterion the remaining SDs should use. This takes quotes from different periods in the race.

http://www.ironmyvote.com/superdelegates-follow.htm
&&&&&&

1950, extremely useful. Nice work.

I like this little Pelosi-ism (kind of like a Yogi Berra-ism, in that it tinkers with logic, but unlike yogi-isms in that Nancy’s don’t make you smile, and they are not illuminating):

“Pelosi has said superdelegates should take into account whatever is important but not give the nomination to the candidate who lags in delegates.”
In other words, whatever else you SDs would want to take into account, there is only ONE overriding criteria: delegates.

And on that count, Pelosi is vague. “Committed” delegates are the results of primaries and caucuses. “Pledged” delegates adds SD pledges into the mix. On top of that, SDs can change to whom they are pledged. So Ms. Pelosi, perhaps you’d like to clarify what the heck you mean.

Earlier, when Obama was behind on SDs, They (Obama & Cabal, MSM, and the DNC) were adamant that SDs keep their nose out of the mix. “We don’t think it’s right that SDs should override the will of the people”.

I am curious to go back to Jan, Feb, etc, to CNN and NYTimes coverage of what made up the “delegate race”, to see if/when they started mixing in the SDs into the mix as part of the “pledged” dels. I recall that in Feb., when Obama was racking up wins after SuperTuesday, they would very carefully contrast his 150-ish delegate lead, against Hillary’s Establishment SD lead, as if commingling the two would give her some unfair advantage.

But now, with him coming up short, suddenly, it’s “pledged delegates”, and blurring the distinction that SDs (who don’t even have a real say until the convention, because supposedly they are only needed if no nominee wins the nomination with COMMITTED delegates) are part of the mix now, now that it helps Obama.

Conventional wisdom has it that Barack Obama’s primary victories are based on his ability to increase turnout.

A look at what happens when voter turnout increases in the primaries proves that this notion is wrong. In fact, Obama has had his greatest primary (and caucus) victories when turnouts have been low.

Obama received 66% of the primary vote in Georgia when 22.7% of all registered voters in the state voted in the Democratic primary. In Virginia, Obama received 64% of the primary vote when 21.1% of all registered voters in the state voted in the Democratic primary. In Mississippi, Obama received 61% of the primary vote when 24.4% of all registered voters in the state voted in the Democratic primary.

Hillary Clinton received 67% of the primary vote in West Virginia when 30.1% of all registered voters in the state voted in the Democratic primary. In Pennsylvania, Clinton received 55% of the vote when 27.7% of all registered voters in the state voted in the Democratic primary. In Ohio, Clinton received 54% of the primary vote when 30.5% of all registered voters in the state voted in the primary.

There are exceptions (such as Arkansas, Tennessee, and Rhode Island), but Clinton, and not Obama, tends to win in the states where turnouts are higher. The relationship is strong enough that Democratic primary turnout can be predicted using Clinton’s share of the vote.”

This really should put the DNC on its heels! Forget those pictures of the huge ralleys, they don’t translate into votes. Lets hope we see a huge turnout in Oregon and KY and PR. This was a really huge eye opener!

FROM AMERICAN RESEARCH GROUP

It is very hard to watch him go out this way. Someone mentioned that the tumor may have affected his judgment.

I have no idea if that is true, but if it were true it might help to explain some of his more recent, irrational decisions and statements.

Who knew that when BaJoke tried to take shots at McCain for ‘losing his bearings,’ the reality could well have been much ‘closer to home’ for Obama and his inner circle of surrogates?

Good luck to the Kennedys and Ted.

Paul F. Villarreal
VillarrealSports.com

Then there are comments that even make me go, WTF?!

If they came to the site today and read Kostner’s posts, I think it’s a very poor reflection on all of us.