10 in a row for obama

in the above map: barack obama’s wins are red, hillary clinton’s wins that earned delegates are dark blue, and hillary clinton’s wins that did not count are light blue. on tuesday february 19th, there were primaries or caucuses in wisconsin, hawaii, and washington state. wisconsin was a primary for both parties, hawaii was a caucus for democrats only, and washington was a primary for both parties. washington already voted in caucuses for both parties earlier though. so the washington primary did not count at all for democrats, whereas both the primary and the caucus contributed delegates to the republican national convention. quite a complicated mess. march 4th will be even more complicated. but the results of these contests on february 19th are not complicated at all, even if the rules for them were. barack obama won every single democratic contest that happened after super tuesday (february 5th): every single primary or caucus from february 9th through february 19th, a winning streak of 10 wins in a row. hillary clinton, on the other hand, has a losing streak of losing 10 in a row, every single primary or caucus after super tuesday. it is absolutely clear who is going to win the democratic nomination: barack obama. hillary clinton has no chance in hell. every time she attacks barack obama or goes negative now, she is only helping republicans, only helping john mccain. if she wants to stay in this race, she had better stay positive and not attack barack obama, because attacking him helps john mccain win in november, and she has no chance of winning the nomination or in november. and if she does attack obama, she had better limit her attacks to attacking him from the left, accusing him of being too right-wing. if she joins forces with the right wing and attacks him of being a radical leftist, that shows incredible disloyalty to the democratic party and a reckless disregard for having democrats win in november. the national journal has said barack obama is the most liberal senator, out of all 100 united states senators, based on his voting record in some random year. of course, that national journal statistic is largely meaningless, given their flawed methodology in which votes they decided were important, but still, it does tell us that hillary clinton is the more right-wing of the 2 democratic candidates. and shouldn’t we offer voters a better, more clear-cut choice than a centrist democratic senator or a centrist republican center? okay, so what about the republicans? well, they voted for a 2nd time in washington state, and for the first time in wisconsin, and john mccain won both of these february 19th contests. but who cares? we already know he locked up the nomination after super tuesday and mitt romney conceding defeat, and having willard “mitt” romney and former president george bush sr. both endorse senator mccain. and john mccain has such a wide lead in delegates over everyone else, it is ridiculous. memo to ron paul and mike huckabee: you lost fair and square, and now it is all over for you. now beat it, and endorse someone other than yourself. hopefully a democrat. just to spite that awful john mccain that conservatives hate so much. rush limbaugh and ann coulter endorsed hillary clinton, even though ann coulter says it was a mistake to give women the right to vote. maybe ron paul and mike huckabee could endorse barack obama, just to shake things up a bit. or maybe they could help revive the clinton campaign and help her win the nomination so republicans can beat hillary in the general election. now here is the map with republican results up through february 19th, with john mccain blue, mike huckabee red, and mitt romney purple:



ok, so what happens next? march 4th has 4 primaries in both parties. except the one in texas is not really a primary, not really a caucus. it’s a hybrid! a really fucked up hybrid! the “texas two-step”, they call it. first people vote in a primary, then, later the same day, they vote in a caucus. the state of washington had a caucus in both parties on february 9th and a primary 10 days later on february 19th, but texas is doing things in the reverse order and all in one day. march 4th will be texas, ohio, rhode island, and vermont. texas and ohio are both must-win states for hillary clinton if she wants even a snowball’s chance in hell of winning the nomination. and she doesn’t just have to win them, she has to win by wide margins, to rack up a big lead in delegates in those states, since democrats do not have winner-take-all primaries like republicans. even if she wins by a few %, barack obama will still win almost as many delegates from texas and ohio as hillary clinton. he could even beat her in delegates in texas despite more people there voting for hillary, due to texas’s really complicated, silly, wacko rules for their “prima-caucus / texas two-step”. as for rhode island and vermont? i don’t think hillary clinton is wasting any time campaigning in those states, so barack obama should easily win them because he campaigns in every single state, and has had a long winning streak recently. barack obama already has connecticut and maine, and hillary clinton already has new hampshire and massachusetts. but maine was the most recent new england contest and hillary clinton was heavily favored to win, yet lost quite badly. and rhode island is right next to connecticut, which barack obama won on super tuesday, prior to his momentum and winning streak kicking in. so on march 4th, either hillary clinton will be “the comeback kid” just like her husband in 1992, or it will be the end of her campaign and she will have to concede defeat to barack obama. but even if she loses, she could stay in the race all the way until the convention, through tactics such as trying to get michigan and florida seated at the convention, trying to win even more superdelegates, and counting on later wins such as the final primary, which is in puerto rico in june. and since puerto rico is about 110% hispanic, and hillary clinton always gets about 120% of the hispanic vote, maybe if she stays in this race all the way until puerto rico, that tiny island could win her the nomination. personally, i cannot wait for march 4th, or for whenever this is finally over. this election, all this political coverage in the news, all these debates, it is a national nightmare for us to have so much politics for so long. i am really starting to get sick of this. why not just have an election with instant runoff voting and national popular vote tomorrow, and have the new president sworn into office the day after tomorrow? goodbye george bush jr., or dumbya, or shrubya, or whatever you’re called. george w. bush’s grandpa prescott was a supporter of adolf hitler during world war ii. dumbya’s a real chip off the old block, supporting asshole dictators like pervez musharraf in pakistan, you know, the dude whose country is now a safe haven for al qaeda, the country where osama bin laden is living in peace and security. pakistan just had elections and pervez musharraf’s party lost badly; his party got beaten by a party led by a dead woman! if a dead person is able to beat you at something, you know you are a loser. we need to ditch this musharraf jerk and tell him we want to start seeing other leaders. like the leaders of the new nation kosovo! kosovo might be a majority muslim nation, but they are pro-american, since we liberated them from oppressive serbia, whose dictator slobodan milosevic was committing genocide against them. the evil russians are supporting the evil serbs, as always, because russian leader vladimir putin is just like previous leaders of russia ending in “-in”: rasputin, lenin, stalin, and yeltsin. we americans just shot down one of our own satellites. why? to practice shooting down satellites, in case we want to take down some belonging to another country in the future. you know, a country like russia. a country that bullies its neighbors and helps genocidal regimes like the government of sudan escape punishment for war crimes in darfur. a country that murders any journalists who dare question the government. russia is not a democracy, and their behavior over the situation in kosovo is just one of many examples of how that nation is led by evil people such as vladimir putin. russia poisoned viktor yushchenko, president of ukraine, with dioxin. russian agents poisoned a dissident living in exile in england, alexander litvinenko, with polonium-210. these are just a few out of many examples of the evils in russia’s current corrupt, totalitarian government, led by ex-kgb spies who hate the united states. russia claims to be opposed to breakaway factions that want to split up nations as a principle they believe in: they believe in this with regard to both russia itself and with regard to their close ally serbia. but what about the pro-american former soviet republic georgia? the russians are supporting separatist movements inside the former soviet republic of georgia to try to destroy the country of georgia. this shows how the russian government has no principles, and how the cold war is not really over yet. but anyway, we do not really need any more wars, we need peace. we do not need a president like hillary clinton or john mccain who voted for war in iraq, who voted in favor of using land mines and cluster bombs against civilians. we need barack obama. and luckily for us, he is going to win, and lead us in the direction of peace, not war. that is not to say he is a pacifist. he knows pervez musharraf is a two-timing whore and would not hesitate to drop bombs in pakistan without the pakistani government agreeing, in order to kill osama bin laden once and for all. a while back, the cia found out where the #2 guy in al qaeda was hiding in pakistan, and asked for permission from the pakistani government to bomb. the pakistani government leaked this information to al qaeda, and the #2 guy fled from where he was and hid somewhere safer. and then the pakistani government gave us permission to bomb the place where the #2 guy in al qaeda had previously been hiding, after trucking in some innocent civilians to take his place to make the united states look bad. and then we ended up looking like idiots. all because the pakistani government is thoroughly infiltrated with al qaeda operatives. we should never ask permission from the pakistanis for any actions taken against al qaeda, because then al qaeda will know in advance what we are planning to do. and barack obama understands that. but he is not some war hawk who would recklessly go into war in pakistan. he would plan things carefully and actually have an exit strategy! how amazing! who ever heard of an exit strategy before? john mccain promises 100 years more war in iraq. what a horrible idea! that idea should go down in flames along with john mccain’s chances for winning the white house in november. as for hillary clinton... the end of the road for her is likely to be on march 4th. and if she did somehow manage to win the nomination based on a big win in texas... that’s the kind of thing that would make the 2 george bushes proud. “it was our state that stopped that awful black guy everyone loved from winning the white house! we kept the white house white! don’t mess with texas!” george w. bush has proven that speechifying skills are misoverestimated when it comes to winnifying the white house. even someone with severe language deficiencies can become president, even a mentally handicapped person like george bush junior. so can barack obama’s rhetorical skills at giving speeches really win him the white house? or do americans prefer a president who is obviously dumber than they are, thinking that it makes them look smart by comparison? actually, having a retard as president makes the entire nation look like a special ed class, since the american people were dumb enough to vote for him! hopefully the next president will not be some spoiled brat troublemaker whose daddy was in charge of the entire vietnam war (which we lost), who got a ton of demerits at the naval academy but received special treatment because of his daddy, who successfully intercepted a surface-to-air missile with the plane he was flying over vietnam, who spent years being brainwashed by vietnamese communists, and who suddenly became interested in ethics in government after being implicated for “questionable conduct” in the keating 5 scandal. if it was okay to go after john kerry for being a war hero in vietnam, it is even better this time around going after john mccain for the same thing. what goes around comes around... you can call it karma, if you believe in that sort of thing. anyway, john mccain, or as i just decided to call him, george bush the third, is going down. big time. and his best friend in the whole wide world joey lieberman from connecticut will also be going down, although that does not happen until 2012, unfortunately. since barack obama won connecticut on super tuesday, this shows that connecticut is in a “throw the bums out” mood and wants some real “change”. and conservatives in arizona do not really like john mccain much, either. john mccain might lose re-election to the senate the next time around, after losing this presidential election. he could face a very strong conservative challenger in the republican primary for the arizona senate seat, you know, someone who actually opposes illegal immigration instead of endorsing amnesty like ronald reagan did. anyway, the elections look to turn out very well this year, and i cannot wait until they are all over and we have won everything! then we will have 2 out of 3 branches of the federal government, and will have to wait for the supreme court members to die off, since 7 out of 9 members of the supreme court are republicans, and 4 of those 7 republicans are ultra-right-wing while the other 3 republicans on the supreme court are “moderates”. i hope the next president will nominate judges to the supreme court in the model of ruth bader ginsburg, a liberal feminist from the aclu, rather than reich-wing political hacks like antonin scalia, clarence thomas, john roberts, and samuel alito. if only all 9 judges on the supreme court were liberals from the aclu... then we might actually have some balance of power among the 3 branches of government, some limits on executive power, and a government that actually protects individual liberty against government and corporate encroachment upon our deeply cherished freedoms. the aclu is not all liberals; they include former conservative republican congressman bob barr, for instance. anyway, my point is, the conservative republican domination over all 3 branches of the federal government ended in january 2007 after the results of the november 2006 congressional elections, and liberal democrats are poised to make an even bigger comeback by electing the most liberal member of the united states senate to be president of the united states, and then we can pack the court with liberals over the years, as all the old supreme court justices die off or retire. if we fail to win the white house in november, our nation will be ruined, even worse than it already has been over the last 7 years. there is no room for failure. we have no choice but to succeed. if we do not do it, our nation is doomed to end up like russia, a third-rate former superpower that still has nukes but is ruled by corrupt murderous thugs, with a fake rigged democracy, a media that is nothing but pro-government propaganda, a lousy and highly unequal economy where most people are poor except for a few billionaire oligarchs, and a foreign policy that supports genocidal regimes. oh wait... we already are like russia, in all of those ways i just listed! that is why we need someone like barack obama to save us! and guess what? he will, with our help. YES WE CAN!