Rules:

1. All times must be EST.

2. Must be the closest to the actual time without going over (like on the Price Is Right).

3. Extra points given to the person who guesses which network makes the first winner projection at that time.


MY PICK:


CBS CALLS ELECTION FOR OBAMA AT 9:50 EST.

Each day delegates were won Obama first, followed by Clinton

1/3 (IA) 16 - 15
1/8 (NH) 9 - 9
1/15 (MI) 0 - 0
1/19 (NV) 13 - 12
1/26 (SC) 25 - 12
1/29 (FL) 0 - 0
2/5 (SuperTuesday) 842 - 828 (11 still to be decided)
2/9 (LA, NE, WA, VI) 105 - 56
2/10 (ME) 15 - 9
2/12 (DA, DC, MD, VA) 111 - 57.5 (6.5 to be decided)
2/19 (HI,WI) 56 - 38

It's true -- this entire contest, Obama has never lost the delegate count. If it weren't for the superdelegates, Clinton would be looking at nine out of nine election days without a single delegate victory.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/2...

-------------------------------

Even John Edwards won South Carolina in 2004, so he can claim a day that he got a "victory." And everyone looks at John Kerry's primary course as a romp.

So basically, why is she still considered a serious candidate?

11 lost contests in a row. Superdelegates jumping ship. The campaign is in debt. Workers talking of leaving. Poll numbers shrinking in firewall states. Confusion, disorganization, multiple-personalities on the campaign trail.

This is a mess. An utter and complete mess.

And people still say "well, you can't count her out, look at New Hampshire."

Except she didn't "win" New Hampshire. She tied New Hampshire.

And a tie is not going to get it done at this point. She needs wins. Big wins.

And she's never had a day in this campaign, not one single solitary day, where she has come up with a big win, or a medium-sized win, or a small win.

Why should Tuesday be any different?

my mom said something similar to me one time when she was upset.

Hillary could fund her campaign through August.

Ding. Ding.

Are we ready to rumble?

....


Posted 10 minutes early to avoid duplicate threads and the wasting of other people's three posts.
I'll bite the bullet on this one and then, say, 130 posts from now someone else can start one.

There were two threads in GD-P about Al Queda being substituted for Hillary Clinton on a closed captioning feed of CNN's broadcast Tuesday night. Most people thought this was a conspiracy on the part of CNN.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discu...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discu...

I tried in vain, for more than a dozen posts, to prove that it wasn't, but most people didn't get what I was saying. Maybe I can make it more clear by starting this and trying to educate some people as to how the closed captioning process works.

This is a stenograph machine:

This is what the keyboard looks like with letters on it:

As you can see, there are only 17 different letters on it. That's because you have to hit those letters in combination with other letters to make completely different letters.

For example, the TPH letters on the left-side, when hit together, form the letter N.
The TP letters on the left side, when hit together, form the letter F.
The PH letters on th eleft side, when hit together, form the letter M.

IF you're wondering about the vowels, and where the I is, that's the E and U buttons hit together.

It's very complicated and takes about a year to learn that in school.

Now, as a basic court reporter, you have to learn this letter pattern, which teaches you how to form the different letters, as well as how to make words and sentences in one stroke (ie, hitting specific keys at the same time) as well as how to do it really really quickly.

Most people type on their home computer at about 30 to 75 wpm.

To graduate from court reporting school, you have to be able to type 225 wpm.

To do real-time, live tv captioning, you have to type up to 350 wpm.

THREE HUNDRED AND FIFTY WORDS A MINUTE. That's almost six words a second.

And you have to do it without thinking. Your hands have to be an extention of your ears. You heard the words and type them without looking at the keyboard and without processing any of the information you're hearing. They could be talking about war, puppies, sex, garbage, insurance, accidents, Anna Nicole Smith, Sesamie Street, ect. It is just the transition from spoken word to typed-form that matters.

Now, that brings me to why I started this post. The CNN Al Queda issue.

People have claimed, incorrectly, that CNN is responisble for this. CNN does not hire their captioner. They are not sitting next to the table of reporters taking down what they say like in a court room. They are someone like you or me, sitting at home, watching it on tv and transcribing it. When the tv program takes a commercial break, the captioner gets up and goes to the bathroom, or goes to check on their kids, or goes to get something to eat - but they have to be back in time to pick up when the show starts again.

During election night coverage, which frequently goes on for hours without a break, that captioner will be sitting at their chair, immobile, for hours on end typing away while their back, their arms, their hands and their mind, gets really really tired.

It's very likely that after an hour or two of solid non-stop transcribing, that the captioner jsut slipped up and substituted Al Queda for Hillary Clinton.

It would be very easy to do, and I'll show you how that could happen.

I'll refer back to the keyboard for a moment....



Now, do you see the BG on the right hand side? Press those together and that's a K. Press the H on the left and the BG on the right, you can make H-K, a shortform for Hillary Clinton.

Now, do you see the HR on the right hand side, below the 4? Press those together and it's an L. Press that on the left and the BG on the right, and you can make L-K, a shortform for Al Queda.

Now, the captioner would have to pre-program these shortforms into their machine beforehand, or else it would take a fraction fo a second longer for them to type out the words Al Queda (because it would look like this A-L / KAEU / DA*. Those / marks indicate different strokes.

So you can do L-K in one stroke, or A-L / KAEU / DA* in three strokes. When you have to type 350 wpm, you do everything in as few strokes as possible.

Hillary Clinton, if it had to be written out, would be H*EUL / RAOE / KHREUPB / TO*PB. Four strokes, as opposed to H-K, which would be one.

Again, it's just to save time. Because in real-time captioning, you can't afford to miss what people are saying. It's better to get a word wrong, than to get big chunks of text missing.

So, I hope that explained things a little better, and people don't try to go ballistic and see consiracies everywhere when there's logical explanations for things. I know we've been conditioned for the last 7 years to look under every rock for a hidden agenda, but in this instance, it was just a case of a tired captioner meeting a slipped finger and two words that, even though aren't spelled the same, can be quite similiar to the person typing them out.


Thanks for reading, I hope I haven't bored you too much.

This is Ethel, he's the longest-standing member of the cult, been in it 68 years, waiting for this moment.


A follow signs their name on the wall of death.


A young indoctronated soul tries to chew his way out of his chains.


A visibly shaken youngster plea's to be released from bondage.


A lineup of identical groupthinkers prepare for indoctronation.


Cast out from the cult, a former worshipper bids farewell to her life of insalvement.


That kool-aid tastes good, doesn't it, kid?


A snapshot of the Obama forced-labor camp in China.


Ebony and Ivory? No, cult leader Omega and cult leader Alpha.


Preparing the cross for the anointed one.


The messiah speaks, obviously terrifying this young woman.

I know she voted for the war.
I know she voted for the amendment with Iran.
I know she's hawkish on foreign policy.
I know she is divisive and grates some people the wrong way.

But there are two reasons to support Hillary if she's the nominee.

Those would be these two reasons....
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.



These two probably can't wait another 4 or 8 years for a Democrat to appoint their successors.

Please, think of that when you make up your mind. McCain WILL nominate RW judges, and not just RW judges, but YOUNG RW judges who will be on the court for decades.

That is a legacy that outlasts anything else a president can do while in office.

Thinnk of that, please.

And I urge Hillary supporters to think the same of Obama.

Since the rise of Rush Limbaugh in the early 1990's the Right Wing Noise Machine (VRWC) has known only one enemy - Bill/Hillary Clinton.

Talk radio, cable news, magazines, books, websites, think tanks - they all rose to under the guise and unifying theme of destroying the first two-term Democratic administration since FDR.

The Clintons, collectively, are the only enemy face they know. Oh, they rail against the "liberal media" and "liberals" in general - but specifically, they are a cottage industry of Clinton hate.

And Clinton hate is the oxygen to their fire.

You've seen it over the past eight years. Since Bush has been in the office and has steadily shown himself to be a bumbling moron and corrosive disease to his own party - right wing radio has declined in ratings, FOXNEWS has declined in ratings, right wing book sales are down.

They have nothing to rail against. Nothing to focus their anger on.

The Right Wing, as a political wing of the Republican party, and as a cottage industry of political thought and opinion, needs Hillary Clinton to run in 2008.

Win or lose, they still win.

If she runs, they'll have their oxygen back. Their ratings will rise, their book sales will increase, their voters will be energized.

If she loses, great for them, they defeated the Clinton's one and for all.

If she wins, EVEN BETTER for them, they get another four, possibly eight, years of high ratings, high book sales, ect.

Clinton Hate Inc. will be back with a vengeance.

.

Now, this isn't meant to be a post saying don't nominate Hillary, she'll lose. Or don't nominate her because it would benefit this industry. Personally, I think if she's the nominee she'll beat them. She's done it before, I think she'll do it again.

It just means, to me, even more reason to vote for Obama. He'll depress their turnout, dry up their ratings, obliterate their book sales - and - AND - win the White House.

It would be a win-win for us, and a lose-lose for them.

Just another reason to vote for Obama.

I'm just curious, this connection I feel with Obama isn't like a lot of other connections I've had with other politicians.

2004 was the first year I was really involved in a campaign from pre-primary all the way up through the election. I was always a supporter of Kerry, and I thought he'd be a great president and was devastated when he didn't win, but I never had that extra...something that made me a die-hard with him. I think I appreciated and respected him greatly, but I could only get about 90% of my heart into Kerry (which is still a lot, but not everything).

But with Obama, it's different. He's sealed the deal with me. It's something instinctual.

I have this connection with him that I don't have to a lot of things in my life.

There are my sports teams I root for. My favorite movies. My favorite musicians. My fiancee. My family. My friends.

And now, my candidate.

Even if he doesn't win the nomination, I'm still going to remember this feeling I have for him. I'm still going to remember this time in my life when this guy came along and captured my imagination and made me believe in more than just the nuts and bolts of real politik.


I don't believe I should be made fun of for having these feelings. I wish everyone connected with their candidate this way. I wish every candidate had the ability to connect with their supporters this way.

I don't see anything to be ashamed of about that.

Do you?

Julia B. Collins cries as Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama speaks at Tulane University February 7, 2008 in New Orleans, Louisiana. The Louisiana presidential primaries are February 9. By Mario Tama/Getty Images.



why did you make this nice lady cry?

There are certain strengths and weaknesses that both of our candidates possess. As I see it, now with Romney out of the race and McCain the defacto nominee for the GOP, this is how I see that affecting us in the General Election.


It will hurt Obama in his attempt to attract Independents, because they will probably split 50/50 or close to it. This wouldn't have been a problem with either Romney or Huckabee, who don't do well with Independents.

It will hurt Hillary in her claim that she's experienced, as McCain has both more time in the Senate on domestic and foreign policy issues, but also by virtue of his service in the war, which Romney and Huckabee couldn't claim.

It will hurt Obama with his claim of bringing change, because McCain represents the most radical 'change' candidate the GOP has. For evidence of this, look at how much the rabies-wing of the GOP hates him, and how much they DON'T want change in their party.

It will help Hillary, because McCain might be the one GOP candidate that even the most hard-core right-winger wouldn't run to the polls to support to keep her from getting in the White House. I heard RWers on the radio floating the theory that letting Hillary get into the White House to mess up so badly the country would be running back to the GOP with open arms in four years might be a silver lining in the mess they're in.

It will help Obama with his biggest issue weakness, illegal immigration. His support for drivers licenses for illegal immigrants would KILL him against any other candidate, but McCain is the softest of the Republicans on immigration, so he won't lose much ground there.

It will hurt Obama in Southern states with large military populations that also have large amounts of African Americans, like Georgia and the Carolinas.

It will hurt Obama in Arizona. Hell, it would hurt both in Arizona, but Obama more since Hillary won that state in the primary.

It will help Obama in Montana, where McCain didn't come in first or second in that primary.

It will help Obama in Colorado, where he won the caucus HUGE and McCain didn't get 20%.

It will help Hillary in Arkansas, since Huckabee won't be the nominee, providing he's not the VP.

It will help Obama in North Dakota, where he got over 60% of the vote and McCain got 23%.

It will hurt both candidates in New Hampshire.

It will help both candidates in Iowa.

It will help Obama in Alaska, where he won 75% of the caucus and McCain got beat by Romney, Huckabee and even Ron Paul.

----------------

So that's how I see McCain being the nominee affecting the race.

"In states where the black population is less than 5%, Obama has a record of 7 wins, 2 losses and 1 undecided (NM). In states where the black population is 20% or higher, he is undefeated at 4-0. However, in states that are between 5-20% black, his record is a fairly dismal 4-10 (with one of those victories being Illinois).

The theory here is that Obama does well where the black population is so low that identity politics isn’t an issue. And, he does well where the black share of Democratic primary voters is so high that he needs few white voters to carry the day. He has the hardest time in states that are black enough to have some racialized politics, but without enough black voters to completely tip the scales.

This corresponds to the long held observation that black candidates in general do best in either fairly non-black environments or in heavy black environments but struggle with the in between, where white majority fears that they will be the tool of an aggrieved constituency. (Some, of course, have broken that mold like Doug Wilder, and Carol Mosely-Braun and Obama himself).

For Obama’s upcoming contests, this bodes well for Maryland, D.C., Virginia, Nebraska and Vermont and maybe Rhode Island, but not so well for Ohio and Texas."

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_...

Romney is probably the most sane of all the GOP candidates running. I believe, from looking at the guy, hearing him speak, and looking at his record, that at heart, he's a moderate Republican.

That's how he should have run in the primary. As as a pro-corporate, big business, small government conservative who respects women's rights and gay rights.

If he did, I think he would have gotten a lot more support than he has gotten.

Instead, he tried to be all things to all different types of conservatives. It made him look like the ultimate flip-flopper.

He reminded me of the awkward smart kid in school who tried to dumb himself down to fit in with the cooler, but less intelligent kids.

Instead, it just made him look more awkward.

On top of that, he caught flak for his religion. Mormonism, whatever you think of it, is a recognized religion and a subset of Christianity. But with the GOP, that wasn't good enough. He wasn't "their type" of Christian. They didn't trust him because of it.

And I think that sort of discrimination has a lot of resonance for me, as an Obama supporter, because I see how he's attacked for supposedly being a non-Christian.

I don't like to see anyone get trashed just because of how they choose to believe in God, even if they're a Republican.

Some aspect of me say "well, that's what he gets for being a member of a bigoted, backwards party filled with racists and bigots." And that may be true, but this is such a big country, and since we only have two major political parties, I guess it just depresses me to think that someone can only get a fair shake if they belong to one political party, or else they'll have to fit a absurdly narrow standard to be the standard-bearer of the other party.

I think Mitt Romney was qualified to be a presidential candidate. I would never have voted for him, but I think he deserved a better shake than he got.

I know I'm probably the only one who feels this way.