NationStates Jolt Archive

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/08/clinton-touts-white-support/

Mr. Begala, a Clinton supporter, said the party could not win in November with just “eggheads and African-Americans,” that the party could not ignore white middle-class voters.

That's really, really surprising to hear out of the mouth of a supposed Democrat.

And from Hillary:

“I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on,” she said in the interview, citing an article by The Associated Press.

It “found how Senator Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me.”

“There’s a pattern emerging here,” she said.

So, is it really white vs. black within the Democratic Party? And if the black candidate wins (as it would appear to me he would, if delegates and superdelegate vote fairly), would the white voters really vote for McCain? And if the superdelegates buy her argument, and feel that Obama is somehow "unelectable" would the African-Americans feel that the Republican argument (that Democrats have been using African-Americans for votes and not really helping them in any way, shape, or form) was true - and while not voting for a Republican, instead stay home on election night and let the Democrats enjoy a slow, agonizing loss on election night?

sounds like a good race war is in order...no wait it also mentions college education

so its the lower middle class against the working class!

She's right, you know. But nobody cares.

< Black American.

If Obama wins both the popular vote, and the delegates count, and Clinton wins the nomination, I'll be voting for McCain. I can't really speak for others of my race, but I think that it would be proof that the party doesn't care about us, for anything except our votes.

"Clinton Claims More Support From Whites"

"Blacks say: 'no shit, sherlock.'"

no.

she's full of shit. the campaign is over. obama has won. there is no race war anymore than there is a gender war.

all that matters now is can he beat john mccain in november.

it might be "for the war vs against the war" or "for nationalized medical insurance vs continuing the status quo" or "tax cuts vs tax increases"

but it wont be ohmygod he's black vs ohmygod he's old.

Reminds me of what a reporter on Newsnight said a couple of nights ago:

"It would appear that Sen. Clinton is now the populist blue collar candidate, while Sen. Obama is being cast as the elitist middle class representative. Quite an odd state of affairs considering Sen. Clinton has been living for most of her life either in a Governor's Villa or the White House, while Sen. Obama was raised by a single mother on food stamps."

If Hilary doesn't bow out, the Dems will deserve what they will be getting.

That's really, really surprising to hear out of the mouth of a supposed Democrat.

Nah, many Democrats are very elitist and resentful of the "riff-raf." Then their fellow Democrats have to say "shame on you." It's quite hilarious.

< Black American.

If Obama wins both the popular vote, and the delegates count, and Clinton wins the nomination, I'll be voting for McCain. I can't really speak for others of my race, but I think that it would be proof that the party doesn't care about us, for anything except our votes.
That's pretty much how Parties work: they care about you up until the point that they find a bigger constituency that is opposed to your interests.

no.

she's full of shit. the campaign is over. obama has won. there is no race war anymore than there is a gender war.

And there's no class war either, unfortunately.

And there's no class war either, unfortunately.
You sound LMC at the least, I wouldn't be yearning for class war if I was you.

That's pretty much how Parties work: they care about you up until the point that they find a bigger constituency that is opposed to your interests.

Goodbye blacks, hello latinos!

Seriously though, blacks never seemed to be a good fit for the Democrat party.

It would be so hillaryous if with all the stupid thinggs Bush did to sink his party the Democrats can NOT win next elections because they are fighting among themselves :D:p

It would be so hillaryous if with all the stupid thinggs Bush did to sink his party the Democrats can NOT win next elections because they are fighting among themselves :D:p
It would be about as hilarious as skin cancer.

Hillary Clinton: The candidate of choice for dumb white people.

It would be so hillaryous if with all the stupid thinggs Bush did to sink his party the Democrats can NOT win next elections because they are fighting among themselves :D:p
No. McCain wins. McCain expires. Huckabee gets in. Huckabee fail.

Goodbye blacks, hello latinos!

Seriously though, blacks never seemed to be a good fit for the Democrat party.

how not? are blacks more conservative?

im thinking not.

many hispanics are more conservative than the average democrat but, like african americans, they are unlikely to join a party (republican) that doesnt like them.

No. McCain wins. McCain expires. Huckabee gets in. Huckabee fail.

That would be funny in a movie. In real life that is a horrible future.

how not? are blacks more conservative?

im thinking not.

many hispanics are more conservative than the average democrat but, like african americans, they are unlikely to join a party (republican) that doesnt like them.

Im one and Itell you...YES hispanics are WAY more conservative (save for some sane exceptions) that blacks.... I think that even whites. If hispanics werent a minority we would be much worse than the white elites.

No. McCain wins. McCain expires. Huckabee gets in. Huckabee fail.

That would make me laught for a week....and move to argentina next week.

Im one and Itell you...YES hispanics are WAY more conservative (save for some sane exceptions) that blacks.... I think that even whites. If hispanics werent a minority we would be much worse than the white elites.

which is why the republicans are stupid to be dissing hispanics. if hispanics felt welcome in the republican party many of them would join because of its conservative social platform.

which is why the republicans are stupid to be dissing hispanics. if hispanics felt welcome in the republican party many of them would join because of its conservative social platform.

Good to see that stupidity is the universal feature of both parties...

which is why the republicans are stupid to be dissing hispanics. if hispanics felt welcome in the republican party many of them would join because of its conservative social platform.

Sure they would....if they were admited.... but save some exceptions (Gonzales) Republicans dont want them to get in the bus.

Good to see that stupidity is the universal feature of both parties...

have you ever doubted it?

Good to see that stupidity is the universal feature of both parties...

its not about parties.... its a requirement to be a politician

like african americans, they are unlikely to join a party (republican) that doesnt like them.

ROFLMAO!

I find it funny that when democrats target the back vote they are considered progressive, but when they target white voters they are suddenly unenlightened. LOL!

ROFLMAO!

why was that funny?

I find it funny that when democrats target the poor they are considered progressive, but when they target rich voters they are suddenly unenlightened. LOL!

I find it funny that when democrats target the back vote they are considered progressive, but when they target white voters they are suddenly unenlightened. LOL!

You havent been reading this carefully.

The main idea is that Clinton seems to be trying to turn the Democratic election in a blacks vs whites stuff... and thats very idiotic.

You havent been reading this carefully.

The main idea is that Clinton seems to be trying to turn the Democratic election in a blacks vs whites stuff... and thats very idiotic.

Polls show more whites vote for Clinton and more Blacks for Obama. Also that she has greater working class support and he has more support from middle/higher class voters.

This is not just a competition about whose ideals the democratic party prefer, electability is a major part of it.

"It would appear that Sen. Clinton is now the populist blue collar candidate, while Sen. Obama is being cast as the elitist middle class representative. Quite an odd state of affairs considering Sen. Clinton has been living for most of her life either in a Governor's Villa or the White House, while Sen. Obama was raised by a single mother on food stamps."

Or perhaps people are choosing based on how they perceive their policies rather than solely on their social backgrounds?

Polls show more whites vote for Clinton and more Blacks for Obama. Also that she has greater working class support and he has more support from middle/higher class voters.



Or perhaps people are choosing based on how they perceive their policies rather than solely on their social backgrounds?

I have no doubt that its as you say. But that the candidates are trying to use this to win the internals having little interest in what kind of damage can this cause to the party.... its quite stupid.

I think that Hillary believes she can use this to get the win over barack and then perform a successfull Scar Operation to face McCain.

I have no doubt that its as you say. But that the candidates are trying to use this to win the internals having little interest in what kind of damage can this cause to the party.... its quite stupid.

I think that Hillary believes she can use this to get the win over barack and then perform a successfull Scar Operation to face McCain.

They're being judged on likelihood to win a presidential election as well as policies etc. It's no crime for her to make a point of that.

The only thing here is people are going 'ooh race was mentioned'. If it was about class/age/etc only no-one would be bothered.

have you ever doubted it?

Personally, no, but some of the adherents of each party are quick to say that their party isn't the stupid one.

why was that funny?

The fact that you have to ask is what makes it funny!

< Black American.

If Obama wins both the popular vote, and the delegates count, and Clinton wins the nomination, I'll be voting for McCain. I can't really speak for others of my race, but I think that it would be proof that the party doesn't care about us, for anything except our votes.
Really, those things creep me out. What would you rather have for president: your less favorable Democrate candidate, but still a Democrate, or anóther Republican wich is nothing like ány Democrate (and in this case, it looks like that would mean another 4 years of Bush...woopydoo hmm?)

Anyway, it looks to me like Clinton is almost using a more Republican-ish style of campaigning in these primary's. Maybe that is to pull doubting Republican voters, who can also see the rubbish the Republicans left behind the last 8 years, to the Democratic side. Maybe Obama is trying to get the more regular Democratic voters, and Clinton is trying to expand the Democratic horizon. Even then, are tactics like that favorable? I think not, since they focuss on non-issues and populism (well, that's a problem in politics as a whole anyway).
I still doubt though wich Democratic candidate would be a more suitable candidate with the biggest change to win from McCain, although I favor them both over McCain ánytime. I haven't look deeply in the difference between the 2, what I know about them is mostly what I hear from CNN since I watch The Situation Room every day ;) Well, night really, it's 0:00 when it starts here in Holland.

PS: Not that it matters anyway, since I'm Dutch and 17, I neither have the legal age to vote nor can I vote in the US :D

Far be it from me to point out electoral integrity should be of more importance than cynically voting to nobble the opposition as best one can.

In any case, I agree with Yootopia. She probably is correct, but any logical analysis of her comments will be submerged by the deluge of polemic she recieves.

Far be it from me to point out electoral integrity should be of more importance than cynically voting to nobble the opposition as best one can.

In any case, I agree with Yootopia. She probably is correct, but any logical analysis of her comments will be submerged by the deluge of polemic she recieves.

It might be correct except that she's Hillary Clinton and so many people already hate her.

It might be correct except that she's Hillary Clinton and so many people already hate her.

More balanced commentary from NSG then? Every politician is hated by many; it is inherent to the job.

More balanced commentary from NSG then? Every politician is hated by many; it is inherent to the job.
But some are hated more than others. Nixon was truly, truly HATED but Gerald Ford was just laughed at. Unfortunately, a lot of people have an irrational level of passion against Hillary.

But some are hated more than others. Nixon was truly, truly HATED but Gerald Ford was just laughed at. Unfortunately, a lot of people have an irrational level of passion against Hillary.

And that's exactly what I was saying. Obviously all politicians have pissed some people off enough to hate them, but Hillary for some reason is especially notable for the vast numbers that hate her guts.

how not? are blacks more conservative?

im thinking not.

many hispanics are more conservative than the average democrat but, like african americans, they are unlikely to join a party (republican) that doesnt like them.

I don't claim to speak for all blacks, but I think that on average, we're more fiscally liberal, and more socially conservative than average. At that point it becomes a matter of what do you vote on, you wallet or your heart? But since the Republicans took most of the anti-black Democrats (see: Strom Thurmond), there's a cretain antipathy towards them.

Really, those things creep me out. What would you rather have for president: your less favorable Democrate candidate, but still a Democrate, or anóther Republican wich is nothing like ány Democrate (and in this case, it looks like that would mean another 4 years of Bush...woopydoo hmm?)

Anyway, it looks to me like Clinton is almost using a more Republican-ish style of campaigning in these primary's. Maybe that is to pull doubting Republican voters, who can also see the rubbish the Republicans left behind the last 8 years, to the Democratic side. Maybe Obama is trying to get the more regular Democratic voters, and Clinton is trying to expand the Democratic horizon. Even then, are tactics like that favorable? I think not, since they focuss on non-issues and populism (well, that's a problem in politics as a whole anyway).
I still doubt though wich Democratic candidate would be a more suitable candidate with the biggest change to win from McCain, although I favor them both over McCain ánytime. I haven't look deeply in the difference between the 2, what I know about them is mostly what I hear from CNN since I watch The Situation Room every day ;) Well, night really, it's 0:00 when it starts here in Holland.

PS: Not that it matters anyway, since I'm Dutch and 17, I neither have the legal age to vote nor can I vote in the US :D

I would actually prefer Ron Paul. I'm a fiscally conservative, socially liberal, anti-war isolationist, who wants to see several branches of the government pruned. No candidate meets all of my desires, so I'm supporting a candidate that has the best secondary bonuses for myself and the black community in Obama. After that?

Well McCain's crazy, but at least he's honest about what he wants to do. Clinton's just absorbed in gaining power for herself, and I feel she'll say anything to get it.

“I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on,” she said in the interview, citing an article by The Associated Press.
Too bad that base is all in Republican strongholds and is no help at all :rolleyes:

Too bad that base is all in Republican strongholds and is no help at all :rolleyes:

Too bad Obama's base is all in solid Democrat strongholds and is no help at all. Clinton did after all win more of the swing states.

If Clinton wins, I'm moving

Too bad Obama's base is all in solid Democrat strongholds and is no help at all.
Hardly. The South is a major Republican area that could swing with enough energizing of the black vote.

Too bad Obama's base is all in solid Democrat strongholds and is no help at all. Clinton did after all win more of the swing states.

That, you'll find, depends heavily on what you consider a swing state.

I do not think it is hardly surprising that many African Americans are supporting Obama, I mean really you could have knocked me over, I don't think.

That is why Clinton needs to get the votes of White and Hispanic Americans

which is why I will laugh myself crazy if Sen. John McCain asks Sen. Hillary Clinton to be his running mate. Just the look on everyone's faces will be priceless.

As to Sen. Clinton being hated , the Republicans have had 16 yrs to make "Clinton hatred" a fact of life, and a fact of politics in America. So exactly why should anyone think it strange now.

And speaking of Sen. Barrack Obama Please Please someone explain to me what he actually stands for, That is if anyone can without chanting Change in a zombie-like fashion.

sheesh is this what we are left with.

Mccain--I'm the worst :D
Obama--No I Am :D
Clinton--excuse me the polls say I am :D Especially in Florida and Michigan :D

Obama/McCain--Is she still here :rolleyes:

I remember another politician (http://www.ontheissues.org/Ross_Perot.htm) who thought he could change Washington... LOL.

IMHO this election is a fantastic opportunity to watch two people I hate tear out each others throats while an inexperienced boob makes a complete fool of himself between them. In the long run - the least amount of anything will be done with Hillary in office - so go girl power!

However, in all practicality, I think all this Democratic noise is just a big fuss over which one of them will get to lose to McCain...

Whatever the case - American citizens will lose no matter who wins. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVW3-PQ0tFU

Schwullunde;13681877']which is why I will laugh myself crazy if Sen. John McCain asks Sen. Hillary Clinton to be his running mate. Just the look on everyone's faces will be priceless.

As to Sen. Clinton being hated , the Republicans have had 16 yrs to make "Clinton hatred" a fact of life, and a fact of politics in America. So exactly why should anyone think it strange now.

And speaking of Sen. Barrack Obama Please Please someone explain to me what he actually stands for, That is if anyone can without chanting Change in a zombie-like fashion.

He's for transparency in government, he's for federally legal civil unions for gays, he's for cheaply available healthcare, he's for unions, he's for increased focus on education with more funding to universities, he's for protecting civil rights, for ending the war in Iraq, , and he's for a political system free of the influence of monied special interest groups. And that was just off the top of my head. If you do not know what Obama stands for, you haven't been paying attention.

If you look at this page (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/) you can find many, many things on which he has a very clear stance. Or you can just chant "he doesn't stand for anything" in a zombie-like fashion

Ignorance or truth. It's your choice.

I think we may see some race riots if Hillary gets the nomination.

He's for transparency in government,
- just no details on how to achieve that
he's for federally legal civil unions for gays,
- have fun trying to pass that one - that would be up to Congress, not the President
he's for cheaply available healthcare,
- no way to achieve that, you either have socialized medicine funded by taxes (which cost money), or you pay insurance (which costs money), and he's had zero ideas on how to actually lower the costs
he's for unions,
- which is meaningless, since most US workers don't want a union and don't belong to one
- he's for increased focus on education with more funding to universities,
more blather with no plan on how to fund it, every candidate is "for" education
- he's for protecting civil rights,
yadda yadda
- for ending the war in Iraq,
and according to his advisors, leaving nearly the same number of troops there to prevent genocide, after declaring the war in Iraq "over". About as funny as Bush declaring "victory"
he's for a political system free of the influence of monied special interest groups.
- Remember McCain-Feingold? That was concrete evidence of McCain trying to fix the political system. It was the best that the rest of the people up there would allow - by comparison Obama has done zero in that regard, and as President, it's unlikely he'll do any more, because the Supreme Court has said that money is speech, and restrictions on money are restrictions on free speech.

When people ask what Obama stands for, we don't want to hear, "I'm for this and that." We want to hear actual, realistic, concrete examples of how he's solved the problem before AND/OR how he will solve the problem now.

Not, "I am for this!" Anyone can talk. Tell us how, realistically, you're going to actually make it happen - how you'll overcome the Supreme Court, the Congress, and the American people who will stand in your way - how you'll come up with the trillion dollars to fix healthcare without raising taxes or making us pay for it - that's what we mean by Obama stands for nothing.

he's for federally legal civil unions for gays,
- have fun trying to pass that one - that would be up to Congress, not the President

That's hasn't stopped any president before him.

That's hasn't stopped any president before him.

The votes aren't there in Congress. Period. It would be nice if gays could just marry, and I think that with the current Supreme Court that's also impossible.

Hahaha, this is great. Obama and Clinton spend so much time making each other the enemy, when the real election comes around and McCain's got his moderate policies, the supporters of the defeated Dem candidate will vote for McCain.

He's for transparency in government,
- just no details on how to achieve that
he's for federally legal civil unions for gays,
- have fun trying to pass that one - that would be up to Congress, not the President
he's for cheaply available healthcare,
- no way to achieve that, you either have socialized medicine funded by taxes (which cost money), or you pay insurance (which costs money), and he's had zero ideas on how to actually lower the costs
he's for unions,
- which is meaningless, since most US workers don't want a union and don't belong to one
- he's for increased focus on education with more funding to universities,
more blather with no plan on how to fund it, every candidate is "for" education
- he's for protecting civil rights,
yadda yadda
- for ending the war in Iraq,
and according to his advisors, leaving nearly the same number of troops there to prevent genocide, after declaring the war in Iraq "over". About as funny as Bush declaring "victory"
he's for a political system free of the influence of monied special interest groups.
- Remember McCain-Feingold? That was concrete evidence of McCain trying to fix the political system. It was the best that the rest of the people up there would allow - by comparison Obama has done zero in that regard, and as President, it's unlikely he'll do any more, because the Supreme Court has said that money is speech, and restrictions on money are restrictions on free speech.

When people ask what Obama stands for, we don't want to hear, "I'm for this and that." We want to hear actual, realistic, concrete examples of how he's solved the problem before AND/OR how he will solve the problem now.

Not, "I am for this!" Anyone can talk. Tell us how, realistically, you're going to actually make it happen - how you'll overcome the Supreme Court, the Congress, and the American people who will stand in your way - how you'll come up with the trillion dollars to fix healthcare without raising taxes or making us pay for it - that's what we mean by Obama stands for nothing.
Must people keep giving me more reasons for wanting Obama to win?

Honestly, at this point I'm seriously asking myself if the Clintons aren't, at some level, old school racists.... :eek: :(

When people ask what Obama stands for, we don't want to hear, "I'm for this and that." We want to hear actual, realistic, concrete examples of how he's solved the problem before AND/OR how he will solve the problem now.

Not, "I am for this!" Anyone can talk. Tell us how, realistically, you're going to actually make it happen - how you'll overcome the Supreme Court, the Congress, and the American people who will stand in your way - how you'll come up with the trillion dollars to fix healthcare without raising taxes or making us pay for it - that's what we mean by Obama stands for nothing.

So you didn't actually want to know what he stands for. You knew what he stands for. What you wanted to know was his exacting and precise plan for accomplishing what he wants to accomplish in the white house. Just making sure I know where those goalposts are now.

Now if you don't know about his plan for affordable healthcare, you haven't been paying any attention at all. Maybe you don't like it, but you cannot possibly say he does not have a plan.

In fact, on quite a few issues, he does seem to have a plan. for instance
here's a plan for restoring fiscal discipline (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/fiscal/#restore-discipline) his detailed plans on foreign policy. (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/#iraq) There are a few more, too.

Now a lot of the things on his Issues page are goals more than they are plans, but do you really expect him to publish his plans for manipulating congress into passing he laws he wants?\

To make it simple: When you say "Obama stands for nothing" you are lying. Maybe you've deluded yourself into believing the lie, but you are still lying.

Hahaha, this is great. Obama and Clinton spend so much time making each other the enemy, when the real election comes around and McCain's got his moderate policies, the supporters of the defeated Dem candidate will vote for McCain.

that would only happen if mccain smartens up and drops his support of the war in iraq.

that would only happen if mccain smartens up and drops his support of the war in iraq.

And, you know, starts to have moderate policies and stops pandering to fanatical fundie preachers.

And, you know, starts to have moderate policies and stops pandering to fanatical fundie preachers.

it will be interesting to have a clear choice between the 2 major parties for a change. there is no "oh they are both the same" this year.

there was just an ad on my TV dissing a republican senate candidate (the primaries are next month) because as a rep. she supported the S-chip expansion that the dems wanted. that kind of "not true republican would want to make sure that children have health insurance" thing is just the kind of thing that might make a true landslide for the democrats this year unless the republicans smarten up.

Hillary Clinton: The candidate of choice for dumb white people.

This is mean but funny.

I would actually prefer Ron Paul. I'm a fiscally conservative, socially liberal, anti-war isolationist, who wants to see several branches of the government pruned. No candidate meets all of my desires, so I'm supporting a candidate that has the best secondary bonuses for myself and the black community in Obama. After that?


Paul's not socially liberal. He's authoritarian. Ex. We the People Act.

Edit: Also, anyone who proposes the Honest Money Act doesn't get to be considered fiscally conservative, unless fiscal conservatism was redefined to mean "making everyone's money completely worthless".

They're being judged on likelihood to win a presidential election as well as policies etc. It's no crime for her to make a point of that.

The only thing here is people are going 'ooh race was mentioned'. If it was about class/age/etc only no-one would be bothered.

people here complain about sexism (hillary), agism (McCain), and racism (Obama). Then they all scream class warfare when it comes to fiscal policy. So I think you are wrong. These other issues are in the limelight, but not as much as race right now because obama is in the lead.

Paul's not socially liberal. He's authoritarian. Ex. We the People Act.

Edit: Also, anyone who proposes the Honest Money Act doesn't get to be considered fiscally conservative, unless fiscal conservatism was redefined to mean "making everyone's money completely worthless".

But he says he's fiscally conservative and socially liberal! That makes it true, right?

This is mean but funny.

Whereas claiming Obama to be the racially opposite would be abhorrent?

Whereas claiming Obama to be the racially opposite would be abhorrent?

Yes. Because it'd be groundless.

Senator Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me.
And West Virginians are especially attracted to my plan for universal dental coverage.
Fixed.

If i had a chance to do it in the white house i would do it!;)

Paul's not socially liberal. He's authoritarian. Ex. We the People Act.
He's socially liberal insofar as liberally emacipating society from the Federal government's few protections for anyone who isn't a WASP.

All those nice things Obama Supports are generally just the same old drivel spouted in one form or another by every Democrat politician in washington as well as a few Republicans. Promises, Promises, and more Promises. The main differance here is that for some reason, Quite beyond me, every Obama supporter actually beleaves him. All he stands for is Empty Promises of Change, You know the same thing that every Wanna Be President spouts every four years.:rolleyes:
Get used to it, Lies,Lies, and more Lies. At least with Sen. Clinton and Sen. McCain everyone already knows the promises are lies. Go ahead, Be my guest, Beleave the lies.
As to any other of his Promises, well Wake Up The President Has little real power to make any of them happen. That takes a willing Legislature.
President Bush got all of his bad ideas through because the Legislature Allowed him to

Prediction

Sen. Hillary Clinton Will Lose The Nomination to Sen Barrak Obama. Once he has it, He will continue on Saying the same old things. Sen John McCain will continue his Polite Campain, While The rest of the Republican party hammer Obama into the dust with a constant barrage of Not so Polite attack ads. McCain will of course protest again Politely, But really knowing that he cannot stop them and not really caring.
Come Nov 4th everyone will be once again crying over the fact that once again the Democrat has managed to Snatch Defeat from the jaws of Victory.
that said the democrats will probibly pick up several seats in both the House and Senate as a result.

If somehow or other Sen. Obama actually wins then it will spell certain loses in both the House and Senate and not one of those wonderful things will pass a Republican Held Legislature.

As to the slim Posibility of Sen. Clinton winning the nomination. well I cannot give a possible prediction here except that it would be a nasty nasty campain that will end in a president who cannot possibly get anything done because of the wounds suffered during the election.

one note: Republicans fear Sen Clinton because they know that they have never managed to defeat a Clinton. Thats why they have let her be defeated by another Democrat that they know they can Defeat.

Wait, maybe someone could explain this to me. Why is everyone (including Clinton) advertising that she can draw in the under educated vote? Isn't it a bad thing if the only people you can get to vote for you are people who didn't get any education?

Click Stand;13686831']Wait, maybe someone could explain this to me. Why is everyone (including Clinton) advertising that she can draw in the under educated vote? Isn't it a bad thing if the only people you can get to vote for you are people who didn't get any education?

Depends how you phrase it, the overlapping statistic with that one is that she has more working class support. And there tend to be more of them than any other class.

Schwullunde]If somehow or other Sen. Obama actually wins then it will spell certain loses in both the House and Senate and not one of those wonderful things will pass a Republican Held Legislature.

You see, I'd have less trouble accepting this baseless assumption if you knew what you were talking about.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/10/AR2008051002441.html?hpid=topnews
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0512/p01s04-uspo.html
(sorry bout the CSMonitor, couldn't find the original article I wanted)

one note: Republicans fear Sen Clinton because they know that they have never managed to defeat a Clinton. Thats why they have let her be defeated by another Democrat that they know they can Defeat.

Then why does Operation Chaos exist? Wouldn't Republicans prefer an Obama candidacy?

The best part was she said she has more support from hard working whites (guess Im a lazy white?) and the non-college educated. Which also implies that the college educated are not hard working?


Really, her comment was epic fail.

Yep, that's why she's behind; because she has the support of the majority. :p

Take it to the main (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=556482) Democrat nomination thread.