I've had this topic brought to my attention, so I figure I might as well make a post about it just for the record.  The short answer is that no, I haven't just gone somewhere; rather, I've lost all interest in posting here.

Quite frankly I'm surprised it took as long as it did for it to get to this point, but I suppose it was just an old habit that I was just following without really asking why I was doing so.  I've mostly lost interest in politics, or at least discussing politics.  While I still support Obama 100%, I have little interest and see little point in endlessly defending him on the internet against the same thing over and over again.  I only use this as an example; the same could obviously be said about other things that just get repeated time and time again.

Essentially, for a few days there I was too busy to come to this forum, and then when I did come back with a clear view of topics that I had no stake in, I pretty much had a sudden epiphany where I just asked myself "why the heck do I bother with this crap?"  I took a quick look through the 2008 elections forum and saw pretty much nothing I actually wanted to reply to.  I've always found it to mostly be the case that people seems to have little interest to actually talk about things, and instead listen to what others have to say only as far as they need to in order to determine whether they should call the poster an idiot or post in agreement, and thus seems to be getting more and more the case as the election season rolls on.

Perhaps I'm just burnt out and maybe I'll be back later.  We'll see.  But right now, I just see little point in continuing to post here; it seems like a largely futile effort, kind of like the fate given to Sisyphus in Greek mythology.  I've since found other things to keep me occupied and am perfectly happy with them.  If you really, really want to contact me, all of my contact info is in my profile.

The original poster specified that this is only "winner takes all in the states that republicans do".  In other words, if the Republicans don't have winner take all in a state, neither do the Democrats in this scenario.

Assuming the total pledged delegates is the same:


Obama: 1190
Clinton: 1075

That doesn't include MI and FL or the superdelegates.


So Obama would have a bigger lead in that case.  (But would be more susceptible to a fall in Ohio and Texas)

Eh?  Where does Obama pick up all those delegates?  I figured for sure Clinton would have a lead, what with her winning most of the big states.

Does that change things re; Florida and Michigan?

Why would it?

I don't know. Just wondering aloud.

That exact thing actually happened in Nevada (Obama won the most delegates despite losing the popular vote), but not much of a deal was made of it.

Does that change things re; Florida and Michigan?

Why would it?

Obviously Clinton, due to California and New York.

Where will Obama be through Tuesday?

He's got three stops in Wisconsin tomorrow alone.  Something tells me that he's not planning on riding on his laurels.

I believe that Obama also got a heavy fundraising spike after New Hampshire.  It's possible that it might have been something along the lines of people going "oh crap, clinton might actually win this, we'd better back obama".

If leaving a shotgun in an area where a 10 year old can get it it isn't illegal, it clearly should be.

^^^^

This seems like quite a clear case of gross neglect on the part of the parents.

look at the results for southern AZ Republican

Which, as I pointed out before, were incorrect.

Thompson didn't break 4% anywhere in AZ.

how were they incorrect?

Thompson's percentages were erroneously swapped with Romney's.  Romney was the one who got ~30% in those areas, not Thompson.

dont worry.

you guys still have the endorsement that everyone wanted...david wilhelm.

and teddy kennedy!  pushed you all over the top in mass and california!

And even without those states, Barack Obama still got the momentum and the most delegates.

Kinda sucks, doesn't it?

[tried]

If she loses Texas, she'll ignore the loss and declare victory anyway:



Not sure why I find that picture so funny.

I don't think she could get more blatantly pandering if she freaking tried.

Of course she could. She could be wearing one of those hats as well.

I suppose she could also put on one of those gigantic Mexican mustaches, as well.

It's not idiomatic English; it's just flat-out wrong English stemming from people saying something without really thinking about it.  It's akin to "could of" instead of "could have".

No, it's not wrong, it's sarcastic: when people say it, they mean the opposite.  You can tell from the intonation with which it is usually said.  Now I'm just repeating myself.

This isn't a prescriptivist v. descriptivist argument.  I'm as much a prescriptivist as pretty much anyone else here.  But it's a pet peeve of mine when the public is declared wrong just because it's more clever than people give it credit for.

I have heard many people say "I could care less".  There is generally no sarcasm or specific intonation whatsoever.  They say "I could care less" with the identical intonation that you would give the statement "I couldn't care less", indicating that what they meant was the latter.  The intonation is different from someone actually intending to say that they could care less, yes, but that's because what they meant to say was "couldn't care less", not because they're being clever and secretly sarcastic.

It is not a clever idiomatic use of language; it is just repeating incorrect English without thinking about it.

It's not idiomatic English; it's just flat-out wrong English stemming from people saying something without really thinking about it.  It's akin to "could of" instead of "could have".

Sorry to let you know, Gabu, but, within 50 years, that'll probably be widely used and perhaps nearly accepted outside of formal writing.

In other words, damn you for beating me to posting that pic.

Over my cold, dead, pedantic body.

This prescriptivist vs. descriptivist linguistic thread hijack brought to you by...

Pff, the question over whether or not "could care less" should be tolerated is infinitely more interesting than what some guy from Iran has to say.

It's not idiomatic English; it's just flat-out wrong English stemming from people saying something without really thinking about it.  It's akin to "could of" instead of "could have".

Sorry to let you know, Gabu, but, within 50 years, that'll probably be widely used and perhaps nearly accepted outside of formal writing.

In other words, damn you for beating me to posting that pic.

Over my cold, dead, pedantic body.

It's not idiomatic English; it's just flat-out wrong English stemming from people saying something without really thinking about it.  It's akin to "could of" instead of "could have".

Your title is misleading.

To say that one *could* care less implies that there is a level of disinterest that has yet to be reached. What you meant, surely, is the he *couldn't* care less, implying that there was no way that his regard for the matter could stoop any lower.

Speak good english, dammit.

"Could care less" is not incorrect, it's sarcastic.  This is clear from its intonation: to mean that you are actually able to care less, you would emphasize only the word 'less', but the idiom is usually emphasized more strongly on 'care' with a secondary emphasis on 'less'.  "Couldn't care less," on the other hand, is not an English idiom except among the hypercorrect.

Speak idiomatic English, dammit.

Miles better than Layton, but not quite as good as May.

Keep dreaming.

Oh good, I am glad to hear that he cares about Obama's story.

Wyoming is showing 105% for Voter Turnout.  I entered a bug report as well.

That's not a bug, actually.  Wyoming has same-day registration, and those who register at the time of voting are not counted as registered voters for the purposes of turnout.  Thus, it is possible to have turnout recorded as greater than 100%.

I just got an instant message from a girl I know who lives in New York, and she said she wanted to let me know she had a dream about me. The dream was that I was in New York with her, but my hair was purple, and that as she was showing me the Empire State Building...I turned all rubbery like "Strech Armstrong". Then she woke up.

What is the matter with this world?

What do you mean? It's a dream. Those are supposed to be weird.

The other night I had a dream where the second coming of Jesus occurred.  Only he wasn't carrying a flaming sword.  He was carrying a flaming acoustic guitar.  Then he flew towards the ground and slammed into it and there was a huge shockwave and I think I converted right at the last moment so everything was cool.

The moral of this story is that yes dreams are f**king weird.

I would give the benefit of the doubt to the Washington GOP if it weren't for the fact that they're the Washington GOP.  This is not an isolated incident; they have a very, very long history of absolute incompetence.  I'm not saying this to knock Republicans; I'm saying this as an objective fact.

This is why I said I was only speaking to the difficulties of organizing a Caucus, not necessarily speaking to the other activities of the Washington GOP

Well yes, but if they suck at absolutely everything else, I don't see why it's an unfair assumption to make that they just suck at organizing caucuses too.

I would give the benefit of the doubt to the Washington GOP if it weren't for the fact that they're the Washington GOP.  This is not an isolated incident; they have a very, very long history of absolute incompetence.  I'm not saying this to knock Republicans; I'm saying this as an objective fact.

True.

Pinko commie.