Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on That Swearing Ban, and Hillary


If I ever receive a "swearing ticket", I swear to Tim Gunn I'll never pay it.

Posted by Mr. Poe | January 9, 2008 8:50 AM

So you're saying Edwards is just a high class Ralph Nader? Yeah, probably.

Posted by elenchos | January 9, 2008 8:52 AM

"more Democrats voted against her than for her"

The same can be said for every democratic candidate. In fact, it's even worse for the remaining candidates.

Posted by Brian | January 9, 2008 8:53 AM

That logic makes absolutely no sense. You could say that about any candidate, including Obama, who, surprise, really did lose. She won. Get over it.

Posted by huh? | January 9, 2008 8:55 AM


agreed. even in the iowa polls, more than half of democrats did not vote for obama.

Posted by ray ray | January 9, 2008 8:56 AM

What #4 said.

Posted by Mr. Poe | January 9, 2008 8:57 AM

It's doesn't just depend on Hillary getting less than 50%. The theory also depends on the assumption that the second choice of the Edwards voters is Obama. Probably based on what we know happened in Iowa. If you think that's true, then it's a good theory.

I noticed there's like a thousand commends from the middle of the night last night. Was everybody up too late to think this morning?

Posted by elenchos | January 9, 2008 9:02 AM

The logic is this: when the field is narrowed, who will the voters who chose neither of the two front runner go for? My instinct is that if a Dem wants Clinton to win, they're not voting for Edwards in the primary, they're voting for Clinton. But if voters in later states who would have voted for Edwards and have to choose between Clinton and Obama, they'll take Obama.

Posted by Chicago Fan | January 9, 2008 9:04 AM

Chicago Fan,

your Democrat thing is kooky. It was crowded primary. Of course more Ds voted against her.

Here's the stat you need to note: Hillary won among
self-identified Dems 45-34%. The majority of the remaining primary states don't allow independents to vote in the dem primary. This helps Hillary.

Posted by Josh Feit | January 9, 2008 9:04 AM

Most creative explanation yet for why Hilly won (from ABC News): Hillary's name was near the top of the ballot, Obama's was near the bottom. (Ballot position was determined ay a random drawing.)

Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty | January 9, 2008 9:12 AM

I'm pretty sure that New York and California will both go to Clinton on 2/5 and really, those are the only states that matter.

Posted by and | January 9, 2008 9:15 AM

Why does Chicago Fan get to post anything here? The point about Hillary wouldn't even make it into the Seattle Times.

Posted by i dont get it | January 9, 2008 9:18 AM


Because he's Dan's brother and occasionally posts about sports. Not that any of us give a shit about sports, but whatever.

Posted by NaFun | January 9, 2008 9:39 AM

And ALL the Republicans voted against the Democrats! Oh nos!

Posted by SPOILER ALERT! | January 9, 2008 9:53 AM

yeah, hillary got more dems and mccain got more independents. so much for obama's stronghold on liberals and moderates. and women.

Posted by kim | January 9, 2008 12:31 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).