|
16 Jan 08 - 11:56 PM (#2238202) Subject: BS: Nevada Caucus Snafu From: Ron Davies Main question appears to be just how politically tone-deaf Hillary is. We already have the Woodstock museum funding, playing into McCain's hands if he's the Republican nominee. And recently the spectacle of her surrogates attacking Obama on the basis Mr. Limbaugh would be expected to use--smearing on the basis of drug use--then of course artfully backing away--fooling nobody. And getting barely a slap on the wrist from Hillary. And now the Nevada caucus. Last March the Democratic party agreed to set up "so-called at-large caucus sites in nine Strip hotels (Las Vegas) on Saturday to accommodate workers who can't attend caucuses in their neighborhoods." (WSJ) Hillary may well win Nevada--she was long expected to do so and has increased appeals to women just recently. But not being satisfied with this, the Nevada state teachers union, whose members are among Hillary's core supporters, has asked a federal court to stop the casino caucuses. Bill Clinton supports the objection. All the campaigns--including Hillary's-- signed off on the casino caucus plan months ago. But now there is a chance Obama might win in Nevada. Timing of the objection is interesting. If there was a problem, why wait til now to bring it up? Perhaps Hillary has decided that in the event she is the nominee, she won't need the votes of the Culinary Workers Union, which has endorsed Obama. The union's secretary-treasurer calls the suit "an attempt to disenfranchise thousands of union members" who will be working on the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday weekend. And there are quite a few blacks and Hispanics--Hispanics supposedly being one of Hillary's main targets--in the union. Must be nice being so secure that you can write off thousands of votes. |
|
17 Jan 08 - 10:22 AM (#2238407) Subject: RE: BS: Nevada Caucus Snafu From: Q (Frank Staplin) The 'at-large caucus' move is a sore point with many Nevadans, who regard it an attempt to bias the vote with those of people who come to work in the tourist industry and don't intend to permanently settle in the state. The concern is understandable. |
|
17 Jan 08 - 01:34 PM (#2238581) Subject: RE: BS: Nevada Caucus Snafu From: Riginslinger I can see how it would rankle with people who work at other kinds of jobs, and don't have this same opportunity, though. |
|
17 Jan 08 - 02:13 PM (#2238619) Subject: RE: BS: Nevada Caucus Snafu From: Richard Bridge Now Americans object to the enfranchisement of other American voters? Gee, some democracy! |
|
17 Jan 08 - 02:39 PM (#2238640) Subject: RE: BS: Nevada Caucus Snafu From: Riginslinger Well, the judge dismissed the case, so it's all academic now. |
|
17 Jan 08 - 02:42 PM (#2238645) Subject: RE: BS: Nevada Caucus Snafu From: freightdawg As I understand it, the agreement creating the at large caucuses was made because the caucus will be held on a Saturday. Teachers, etc, will not be working. The culinary workers will, and given only an hour for lunch, will not have the time to travel to a caucus site, caucus, and then return to work. Unfair? Maybe, but the time to hash it out was months ago, not days before the caucus and days after the culinary union endorsed Obama. Dance with the one that brung you to the dance. With this kind of behavior, how can it be said that the Republicans have a monopoly on dirty politics? Freightdawg |
|
17 Jan 08 - 02:46 PM (#2238649) Subject: RE: BS: Nevada Caucus Snafu From: Q (Frank Staplin) MSNBC reports that the Culinary Workers have withdrawn their endorsement of Obama and will be neutral. Service Employees International declares for Obama. A lot of jockeying going on. It is the executive of the unions which are declaring support for particular candidates; it remains to be seem if membership will pay attention. Nevada has an employee voting leave statute; up to 3 hours for 10 miles or more. The employees must be paid their regular salaries. Reno Gazette says close to a dead heat, Obama sl. ahead, Edwards sl. behind Clinton. (Jan 13) For the Republicans The Gazette says McCain 22%, Giuliani 18, Huckabee 16, Romney 15, Thompson 11, Paul 6. (Jan. 13) (I would like to see Bible-banger and 9-11 farther down.) |
|
17 Jan 08 - 03:13 PM (#2238672) Subject: RE: BS: Nevada Caucus Snafu From: Little Hawk Anyone naive enough to say that the Republicans have a monopoly on dirty politics is seriously out of touch, freightdawg! ;-) I think this 2008 campaign will go down as the dirtiest one ever. Note that MSNBC had originally set a condition that the 4 Democratic candidates with the highest public support would be allowed to appear in the recent Nevada debate...they expected that to be Clinton, Obama, Edwards, and Richardson. Then Richardson dropped out...BINGO! And Kucinich was now among the 4 Democratic candidates with the highest public support, so they had to include him! Not what they wanted at all. So after a couple of days they arbitrarily decided to change their own stated rules...and make it open to only the 3 Democratic candidates with the highest public support! Thus eliminating Kucinich. How transparent. So then Kucinich took it to court and got an injunction against them that would shut down the show if he wasn't allowed to participate. So then MSNBC (which is owned by General Electric) rushed to the Supreme Court of Nevada, called an emergency session in the last 24 hours, and one hour before the televised debate got a ruling that overruled the Superior Court ruling and AGAIN refused to allow Kucinich to participate in the debate! MSNBC claimed to be the "injured party"!!!!!!!! Why? Because Kucinich's policies are very different from those of Clinton, Obama, and Edwards...and totally put them to shame, frankly. And because General Electric, a major defence contractor, does NOT want anyone to hear Dennis Kucinich's policies if they can possibly prevent it. They prevented it by keeping him out of the debate. They apparently have enough pull to buy the Nevada Supreme Court. That's quite a lot of pull, wouldn't you say? That's blatant corruption of the political process by a major corporation through its control of a surrogate major media outlet AND its control of the courts. That's corruption on a grand scale. You won't hear a peep from Clinton or Edwards about it...and you won't hear much from Obama about it either, although he did have the decency to very briefly allude to the fact that Kucinich wasn't appearing in the debate. When you have this kind of unofficial shadow corporate control of the media it is virtually impossible to have an honest election process. It all becomes a charade, controlled by those who control the major media outlets, and it is accomplished through payoffs and favors...through graft. Kucinich wants to change the system in future so that all the political campaigns are funded from a common public fund. That change would, in a single stroke, eliminate the kind of gross corruption and cronyism which has basically ruined the democratic process in North America in the last 100 years or so, and turned it simply into a lobbyist's game which can only be played by the richest and most powerful people in the society. |
|
17 Jan 08 - 03:32 PM (#2238687) Subject: RE: BS: Nevada Caucus Snafu From: Peace We have all followed elections for decades. Why does it come as a surprise when it gets dirty? It's politics and about gaining power to help the people who got you INto power. So what's new? |
|
17 Jan 08 - 03:47 PM (#2238702) Subject: RE: BS: Nevada Caucus Snafu From: Don Firth Good summation of the situation, Little Hawk. I must admit that I am one voter who is royally pissed off! Don Firth |
|
17 Jan 08 - 03:58 PM (#2238707) Subject: RE: BS: Nevada Caucus Snafu From: Riginslinger Besides all of that, it made for a really boring debate. |
|
17 Jan 08 - 04:49 PM (#2238747) Subject: RE: BS: Nevada Caucus Snafu From: Azizi Q, you wrote that the Nevada culinary union has just rescinded its endorsement of Senatory Obama. I very much doubt that is true. That would really be breaking news at any time, and especially so given the judge's ruling in support of the at large caucus sites. I've looked and found no such news on MNSBC's Internet site or the Los Vegas Sun newspaper's Internet site or on any newspaper site or political blog. It appears you may be passing along misinformation, though I'm sure you're not doing it on purpose. I'd love to know what link or source you have for that information. ** Here's an article about the culinary union's endorsement of Senator Obama: UPDATE 2-Key Nevada union backs Obama in blow to Clinton Wed Jan 9, 2008 3:57pm EST By Adam Tanner LAS VEGAS, Jan 9 (Reuters) - Barack Obama rebounded from a close loss to Hillary Clinton and won the support of the heavily Hispanic union representing Las Vegas casino workers on Wednesday ahead of the next Democratic presidential contest. The Obama endorsement by the Culinary Workers Union, whose 60,000 members service the famed hotels and casinos on the Las Vegas strip and is a major political force in Nevada, was a blow to Clinton, who had campaigned for its backing in the state's Jan. 19 contest. "We had a wonderful dilemma," D. Taylor, the union's secretary treasurer, told a noisy news conference. "It's been a very difficult decision." "We understand we are going against the Democratic power establishment ... we are used to being underdogs," he added. Clinton, the New York senator aiming to become the first woman president in the November election, had led in polls in Nevada and courted the union and Hispanics, which make up 45 percent of the union's membership. The group's parent organization, UNITE HERE, with 460,000 food service, gaming and other workers nationwide, also expressed support for Obama, the Illinois senator who is hoping to become America's first black president. "It's a little bit of a surprise," said David Damore, an associate professor of political science at the University of Nevada at Las Vegas. "A lot of people expected, especially after Clinton's turnaround in New Hampshire yesterday, that they would go for the for the establishment candidate." ... http://www.reuters.com/article/bondsNews/idUSN0961529720080109 |
|
17 Jan 08 - 05:02 PM (#2238753) Subject: RE: BS: Nevada Caucus Snafu From: Azizi January 17, 2008 "Casino caucuses win in court A win for the Culinary Workers, and for Obama, via CNN: The Democratic Party can go ahead with a plan to let casino workers take part in Saturday's Nevada caucuses in "at-large" precincts set up in their workplaces, a federal judge ruled Thursday. UPDATE: Obama campaign statement: "We're glad that the Nevada court upheld the Nevada Democratic Party's caucus plan which encourages voter participation. While the Clinton camp clearly believed the voices of workers should be silenced in service of their perceived political interest, they enjoyed a twenty five-point lead two months ago and have much of the party establishment in their camp. So, despite their inherent advantages we are pleased this should be a close and competitive contest Saturday," said Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton." http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/ ** Btw, Hillary Clinton's Nevada co-chair is Rory Reid, who is the son of Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid/D-Nevada. Both Harry Reid and Rory Reid help craft the plan for at-large caucus at the Las Vegas casinos. |
|
17 Jan 08 - 05:11 PM (#2238768) Subject: RE: BS: Nevada Caucus Snafu From: Azizi Though news reports routinely connect that lawsuit with her campaign, Hillary Clinton has repeatedly denied that the suit was tied to her campaign. However, her husband former President Bill Clinton was heated in his defense of that same lawsuit. See this YouTube video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uthdea6X2PE ABC San Francisco TV Report "Bill Clinton angrily responses to questions regarding a lawsuit by Hillary backers that would disenfranchise casino workers in Las Vegas and prevent virtually all of them from participating in the caucus." |
|
17 Jan 08 - 05:47 PM (#2238793) Subject: RE: BS: Nevada Caucus Snafu From: Q (Frank Staplin) Azizi, this was my source about the Culinary Union: A google hit for "Nevada Primary" hours, which i was trying to check. "Top of the Ticket: Los Angeles Times: Breaking News: Big Nevada... the culinary workers have pulled their Obama endorsement, the union will be neutral in the Nevada Primary (source: Tim Russert on MSNBC),... latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/01/breaking-news-n.html" A blog on withdrawal is there, but the other blogs seem to contradict. Russert is director and moderator of "Meet the Press." My wife always watches and recalls no such statement on his program. It seems that a blog about his program, sent to the LA Times, was incorrect; he seems to have been no such statement. Looking at the LA Times, today, as you say, they carried the story about a Federal Judge ruling that the special caucuses were legal, so the State Supreme Court was overruled. |
|
17 Jan 08 - 05:59 PM (#2238800) Subject: RE: BS: Nevada Caucus Snafu From: Q (Frank Staplin) "made" no such statement. |
|
17 Jan 08 - 06:30 PM (#2238817) Subject: RE: BS: Nevada Caucus Snafu From: Azizi Q, apparently whoever posted that comment on that blog was intent on making mischief. For the record, I didn't think you were. That said, I do believe that some members of the culinary union and other unions will caucus for other candidates besides Obama. However, I think that most of the members of the culinary union will caucus for Obama, partly because of their disgust about that lawsuit which was thrown out. |
|
17 Jan 08 - 06:36 PM (#2238820) Subject: RE: BS: Nevada Caucus Snafu From: Riginslinger Yeah! It seems to me whoever brought the lawsuit really shot themselves in the foot. |
|
17 Jan 08 - 08:10 PM (#2238888) Subject: RE: BS: Nevada Caucus Snafu From: Q (Frank Staplin) The teachers union started the suit. Nevada is a hotbed of discontent, with different groups having different goals. In 2004, Nevada's 5 electoral votes went to the Republicans and probably will again. Noise is being generated by the candidates, but contrast those paltry 5 votes with neighboring California (56 votes), Texas 34 and even Arizona with 10. Much ado but few bananas. The U. S. census estimates 24% Hispanic and latino, 8% Black and 6% Asian, no idea what this means in votes. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/32000.html My picks to lead are McCain and Clinton, but my bet is a bogus penny; too many contending groups. |
|
17 Jan 08 - 08:48 PM (#2238905) Subject: RE: BS: Nevada Caucus Snafu From: Ron Davies If Clinton were to lose both South Carolina and Nevada--in a short time--her inevitability would be severely called into question--with possible impacts on other, larger states. It appears she knows this and is determined this will not happen. And she doesn't care how it is prevented. So now she has a classic snafu in Nevada, as I indicated. The irony of course is that she might well have won Nevada if her supporters had not made this stupid move. And of course she may well win it anyway. But the brilliant maneuvering of Team Clinton has--again--guaranteed substantial bitterness among voters she will need--and not just in Nevada. |
|
19 Jan 08 - 09:38 AM (#2239963) Subject: RE: BS: Nevada Caucus Snafu From: Ron Davies WSJ 19 Jan 2008: "Polls find" edge for Clinton over Obama in Nevada. But, as article points out, it will depend on the actual turnout. If the Obama supporters are fired up by the despicable maneuverings on the Clinton side, or by the idea of making history-- (but these are workers, not students)-- that may make the difference. Against this is are the facts that Hillary has the Democratic establishment on her side, and some tension between blacks and Hispanics, leading many (but not all) Hispanics to be reluctant to vote for a black candidate. |
|
19 Jan 08 - 03:14 PM (#2240126) Subject: RE: BS: Nevada Caucus Snafu From: Q (Frank Staplin) So much for the early polls. Looks like the old folks (retirees) were ignored. Of the Republican candidates, Romney an easy winner, although it looked like McCain from the early guesses. |
|
19 Jan 08 - 03:27 PM (#2240135) Subject: RE: BS: Nevada Caucus Snafu From: kendall Democracy in danger? Remember this: A politician's number ONE duty is to get elected.Being a nice guy in second place is worthless. |
|
19 Jan 08 - 03:41 PM (#2240146) Subject: RE: BS: Nevada Caucus Snafu From: McGrath of Harlow A democratic politician's number one duty is to defend the electoral process. |
|
19 Jan 08 - 05:17 PM (#2240208) Subject: RE: BS: Nevada Caucus Snafu From: Q (Frank Staplin) I'll go with Kendall on that, but would add or get whomever he is supporting elected. |
|
19 Jan 08 - 07:09 PM (#2240253) Subject: RE: BS: Nevada Caucus Snafu From: McGrath of Harlow A politician's number ONE duty is to get elected..." For example "President" Kibaki in Kenya? |
|
19 Jan 08 - 07:49 PM (#2240288) Subject: RE: BS: Nevada Caucus Snafu From: Azizi Repost from : http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters?bid=45&pid=272881 "OBAMA WINS MOST NEVADA DELEGATES...Barack Obama may have won the most delegates in Saturday's Nevada Caucus, even though Hillary Clinton bested his statewide turnout by about six points. A source with knowledge of the Nevada Democratic Party's projections told The Nation that under the arcane weighting system, Obama would win 13 national convention delegates and Clinton would win 12 delegates. The state party has not released an official count yet. Barack Obama released an official statement celebrating a delegate victory. "We came from over twenty-five points behind to win more national convention delegates than Hillary Clinton because we performed well all across the state, including rural areas where Democrats have traditionally struggled," he said. " -snip- If my understanding of what happened is correct, the reason why Obama got more delegates than Clinton is because he won more rural caucases than she did. |
|
19 Jan 08 - 08:40 PM (#2240324) Subject: RE: BS: Nevada Caucus Snafu From: Azizi Barack Obama won 11 districts to Hillary Clinton's 6. He won Reno & rural districts while she won most of the Las Vegas at large caucases. |
|
19 Jan 08 - 08:51 PM (#2240329) Subject: RE: BS: Nevada Caucus Snafu From: Q (Frank Staplin) We won't know until April 22 when the Nevada Democratic State Convention is held and the delegate vote and selection is finalized. Hillary is rumored to have the most superdelegates (delegates whose vote is not determined by caucus or primary). Two declared early for Hillary, but early statements by superdelegates may be straws in the wind. In any case, the few delegates from Nevada matter little, the overall vote is what people hear about. |
|
19 Jan 08 - 09:12 PM (#2240340) Subject: RE: BS: Nevada Caucus Snafu From: Azizi the overall vote is what people hear about. People hear [and read] what people talk about [and write] about. And the MSM {main stream media] is talking about how Obama won the delegate count because he won the rural counties where Dems usually don't win. And the caucuses in the rural counties were weighted more than the urban caucuses-including the at large Las Vegas casino caucuses.. And re the point that the overall vote is most important than the delegate count, remember what happened in 2000 with the electoral college in the national election? Seems to me that this system needs fixin'. But it is what it is now. |
|
19 Jan 08 - 09:30 PM (#2240344) Subject: RE: BS: Nevada Caucus Snafu From: Q (Frank Staplin) My post got cut off for some reason. The latest CNN count summary for Nevada shows 14 Clinton, 14 Obama (as of 6PM Nevada time today); but nothing certain until after April 22- ELECTION Scorecard Posted before from CNN but, for convenience- Democrats 4049 total delegates 3253 pledged 796 superdelegates Republicans 2380 total delegates 1917 pledged 463 unpledged (123 automatic delegates) |
|
19 Jan 08 - 09:39 PM (#2240346) Subject: RE: BS: Nevada Caucus Snafu From: Azizi The MSM has moved on to focus on the winner of S.Carolina's Republican primary-John McCain. I hope she's not, but if Hillary Clinton is the Democratic candidate-how will she win given the possible {probable?} loss of many African American voters who are angry as heck at her campaign...and given the fact that her campaign doesn't do half as well as Obama's in bringing in new young voters and independents? |
|
19 Jan 08 - 10:15 PM (#2240354) Subject: RE: BS: Nevada Caucus Snafu From: Q (Frank Staplin) Nevada unimportant in the overall scenario. Soon forgotten. Feb. 5 brings up the important states. The networks have exaggerated beyond reason the importance of early primary-caucus states. The so-called rural vote in Nevada I think was a mis-statement. MSNBC says Clinton won half the white votes, two-thirds of the Hispanic vote, while Obama won 80& of the black vote. Associated Press, an hour ago, reports Clinton 14, Obama 13 delegates, while CNN holds at 14-14. Of course these are temporary counts and leave out some superdelegates, they will remain uncertain until April 22. Outside of the large centers of Las Vegas and Reno, centers of the gambling-tourist industry, the vote comes from the employees of the large ranches and irrigated farms, the military bases and from many retirees. Many of the agricultural employees are Hispanic. Rural, in the usual sense, is a hard term to apply in Nevada. |
|
19 Jan 08 - 10:47 PM (#2240363) Subject: RE: BS: Nevada Caucus Snafu From: Q (Frank Staplin) Let's just draw cards instead of voting. One Las Vegas precinct tied, Clinton and Obama. The precinct leaders decided the winner by high card draws. Clinton won- Obama- Ten of spades Clinton- Queen of hearts. Now they could have just drawn for high card before the vote- save all the expense and trouble of holding a vote. An ideal solution for a state where the money comes from gambling and tourists. Nevada, 2006 census Urban population- 2, 233, 388 Rural population- 262, 141 10% of the population in farm-related jobs, half of these in urban areas. As I said, difficult to define rural, a very small group. |
|
19 Jan 08 - 11:05 PM (#2240370) Subject: RE: BS: Nevada Caucus Snafu From: Q (Frank Staplin) To bore you with more Nevada trivia- Over 50% of the farms are from 1-99 acres. Very small yields posted. Reason- Retirees buy small acerages and perhaps raise a small crop, which they sell to neighbors. The property gets listed on tax rolls as farm land rather than recreational. These former city folk get away with it because they bring money into the area. The same stunt works here, with a little quarter section I bought for fun. A friend has a similar property, he built an arena, hires it out to a horse trainer, raises a little hay to keep the place trim, and qualifies as a farmer with very low taxes. He runs a consultancy as a business and makes a good income. |
|
20 Jan 08 - 12:03 AM (#2240389) Subject: RE: BS: Nevada Caucus Snafu From: Amos On the Democratic side, Sen. Hillary Clinton took Nevada, and among Republicans, Romney was the winner. Clinton led rival Barack Obama by 6 percentage points with 98 percent of precincts reporting. Although Clinton won the overall state vote, Obama took more delegates because of the areas where he won. CNN projects that Obama will pick up 13 delegates to Clinton's 12. Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards was a distant third. |
|
20 Jan 08 - 12:46 AM (#2240400) Subject: RE: BS: Nevada Caucus Snafu From: GUEST,samori Does anyone else find it troubling that after Hillary's "spadework" statement regarding Obama, his draw card was "the ten of spades?" What was it Dick Morris said about the Clintons and coincidence? |
|
20 Jan 08 - 05:41 AM (#2240445) Subject: RE: BS: Nevada Caucus Snafu From: John MacKenzie Well I hate to intrude on private grief, but looking at it from this side of the pond, it seems like you're heading for a President McCain. How does that grab y'all? Giok |
|
20 Jan 08 - 10:23 AM (#2240569) Subject: RE: BS: Nevada Caucus Snafu From: Ron Davies The point, Giok, is that if Obama is the Democratic nominee we will probably not get a President McCain--since Obama will get liberal and moderate Republican votes and independents---especially voters against the Iraq war---that Hillary will never get. |
|
20 Jan 08 - 10:40 AM (#2240574) Subject: RE: BS: Nevada Caucus Snafu From: Riginslinger "The point ...is that if Obama is the Democratic nominee we will probably not get a President McCain..." Exactly Right! |
|
20 Jan 08 - 10:47 AM (#2240579) Subject: RE: BS: Nevada Caucus Snafu From: Ron Davies Added to which, as Azizi points out, Hillary is not giving black voters much of reason to vote for her, to say the least. If Edwards, even at this late date, were to volunteer to be Obama's VP, and urge his followers to support that ticket, that would be it for Hillary--and probably also McCain, who also has a possible recession and uncertain Iraq war prospects to deal with. McCain also has Republicans who think he's not punitive enough against illegal immigrants, disagree with him on McCain-Feingold, and resent the fact that he opposed the Bush tax cuts (which he now supports). |
|
20 Jan 08 - 02:18 PM (#2240712) Subject: RE: BS: Nevada Caucus Snafu From: Q (Frank Staplin) We'll be able to speculate a little more firmly after Feb. 5, when states with important delegate numbers get into the picture. Delegate totals after Feb. 5- (not a red cent wagered-) Republicans McCain, Huckabee and Romney in that order. Democrats Clinton, Obama and Edwards in that order. Giuliani- for some reason he reminds me of a dead fish in the bottom of a bait bucket. He is hoping for Florida votes, but I don't think he will get them. |
|
20 Jan 08 - 02:26 PM (#2240716) Subject: RE: BS: Nevada Caucus Snafu From: Peace There is no way on God's Earth that the next President will be Republican. They have screwed up for over 7 years. It just won't happen. |
|
20 Jan 08 - 03:30 PM (#2240760) Subject: RE: BS: Nevada Caucus Snafu From: Tweed What's all this got to do with Nevada cactuses? What's happened to them?? |
|
20 Jan 08 - 03:42 PM (#2240770) Subject: RE: BS: Nevada Caucus Snafu From: Ron Davies Transplanted to South Carolina. Though it may be a bit wet there for cactus. |
|
20 Jan 08 - 06:27 PM (#2240876) Subject: RE: BS: Nevada Caucus Snafu From: Riginslinger "There is no way on God's Earth that the next President will be Republican. They have screwed up for over 7 years. It just won't happen." They screwed it up for 8 years under Reagan, and the people came back and elected the ex-director of the CIA. |
|
20 Jan 08 - 06:42 PM (#2240882) Subject: RE: BS: Nevada Caucus Snafu From: Ron Davies McCain may have a chance. No other Republican does. And he doesn't have a good one. Though if he survives the Republican primaries his chances--against Hillary, but not Obama----will rise dramatically. Unless the recession has hit. |
|
20 Jan 08 - 06:52 PM (#2240889) Subject: RE: BS: Nevada Caucus Snafu From: Ron Davies Or Iraq has blown up--again. |