NationStates Jolt Archive

You're talking to yourself.

Yes, I've noticed. See, even though CTOAN and I have been more reasonable toward Clinton than most people in this conversation, CH and Shal have to avoid replying to us. See, we have REAL arguments. When you have nothing to base your position on, it's best to reply to arguments about whether or not Clinton is crazy or a bitch. God forbid, you actually tell why it is Hillary should win and support it.

And, no, showing polls without addressing the context of those polls is not an argument. Until one of them explains why we should listen to polls that demonstrate that Clinton does well when running WHILE supported by Republicans. Since that won't happen in the general, it is not relevant.

...and you'd accept that? Even though you're from Brazil, if you could, you'd vote for her?

I think not.

Have some compassion for those who lie on the other side.

Once more, I stress that I'd rather anything than John McCain to win, but that's the point, anything.

A choice between her and McCain. I would have to vote for her. While I don't see much substantial difference between the two of them I tend to think Congress would drive her towards less aggressive and better policies.

Well the rules say that super delegates can vote for whomever they feel has the best chance of winning the election.

Would Barack Obama supporters accept if super delegates overwhelmingly went for Hillary Clinton, even those who've 'pledged' already?

I wouldn't like it. But I also wouldn't whine that she cheated. I'd just know that she was acting like a typical politician, and that wouldn't surprise me in the least.

Now, if by "accept it", you mean "vote for whoever the Democrats happen to choose just because they're Democrats," I wouldn't do that. But I wouldn't do that anyways. If that were to happen and Clinton didn't earn my vote (which she'd be hard-pressed to do), then I'd go 3rd party or exercise my write-in option.

A choice between her and McCain. I would have to vote for her. While I don't see much substantial difference between the two of them I tend to think Congress would drive her towards less aggressive and better policies.

If only you were representative of America - I don't mean to attack anyone personally, I just want a little perspective here, not that you and others haven't shown it, I just think that Shal also has a certain perspective and it should be understood rather than derided.

I have read the posts but really?

Yes. Really. Did you see my accounting over in the polls thread?

Clinton benefited far more from both sexism and racism throughout the contest.

*snip*

I'm not sure what the rest of this has to do with what I said.

Is the general going to be a cake walk? Of course not. It never is.

I have read the posts but really?

Barack Obama won states that count for nothing in the actual election despite the black vote being 80-90% for him?

And? Does that mean they are racist, or is it just possible that blacks are more likely to vote for the change candidate rather than the establishment candidate? Is it possible that blacks are more likely to dislike a candidate whose campaign distributed pictures of Obama attempting to freak out white voters? Is it possible blacks are less tolerant of "he's not muslim... that I know of."? None of those are racism. Correllation is not causation. Dem is talking about people who actually admit to voting based on race and sex and they favor Clinton significantly.


Prior to Super Tuesday, there's a fair amount of Obamania counting for his varied votes but, as that died down, we saw actual voting patterns and, in states such as Pennsylvania and Ohio, where many of you point out, Barack Obama is fighting the relatively racist-free Democrat vote rather than the overall vote - will the majority go for him?

We can read patterns one way or the other, certainly been done, but if you take Democrat votes as, being generous, 60/40 to Barack Obama, that says nothing when you count in base Republican votes, of which a good section is Christian White and even the rest are not likely to vote for a liberal black candidate.

My central point remains, Barack Obama is not a clean sweep and that should be recognised sooner not later.

Are they more likely to vote for a liberal female candidate who they've already disliked for two decades?

Barack Obama is polling well even when half of the Dem party is angry at him and the Dem race is still contentious. He is polling well WHILE being attacked by his own party. He is polling well WHILE being accused of stealing an election where the rules were changed to favor the other candidate. What happens when this all dies down? Obama is favored right now. That can only be a good thing.

If only you were representative of America - I don't mean to attack anyone personally, I just want a little perspective here, not that you and others haven't shown it, I just think that Shal also has a certain perspective and it should be understood rather than derided.

Some of us have tried to understand it. Shal has carefully avoided any explanations. Check back through the thread. He hasn't answered a single one of my reasonable questions to explain his postion. I don't think that's accidental.

I have read the posts but really?

Barack Obama won states that count for nothing in the actual election despite the black vote being 80-90% for him?

Prior to Super Tuesday, there's a fair amount of Obamania counting for his varied votes but, as that died down, we saw actual voting patterns and, in states such as Pennsylvania and Ohio, where many of you point out, Barack Obama is fighting the relatively racist-free Democrat vote rather than the overall vote - will the majority go for him?

We can read patterns one way or the other, certainly been done, but if you take Democrat votes as, being generous, 60/40 to Barack Obama, that says nothing when you count in base Republican votes, of which a good section is Christian White and even the rest are not likely to vote for a liberal black candidate.

My central point remains, Barack Obama is not a clean sweep and that should be recognised sooner not later.

It's unfortunate, but I think this is pretty true. He is going to have a harder time than it often seems and a harder time than a lot of us would like.

I'm currently living in Louisiana (very, very deep South, for anyone who doesn't know), and I've talked to a decent number of people about their views on the current 3 candidates. My anecdotal consensus is that most people who are not diehard Democrats already despise Hillary, and have shaky (and possibly reversible) reasons for not voting for Obama. The most common ones I've gotten are: 1. He's too young, 2. I could never vote for someone with that name, and 3. He's a Muslim terrorist, or at least there's a chance that he is. The third one I've actually heard more often when going back to visit West Virginia. Now, I know that those of us on here are relative political junkies for the most part, but these views are still surprisingly prevalent, indicating a more difficult road ahead for Obama than we'd like to admit.

Unfortunately for me, all of this evidence is anecdotal and most likely useless, but, you know, it's out there at least.

*snip*

So is Hillary Clinton actually, perhaps it speaks more of a distaste for 4 more years but, as has been said, polls now count for nothing once the election machine is in action and the RNC has been pulling in more money than the DNC - if RNC is a correct terminology but the point is made.

The point remains, alienating Hillary Clinton supporters does nothing for Barack Obama - alienating Barack Obama supporters does everything for Hillary Clinton supporters in that, when election comes they can say - 'see!'

Don't downplay the challenge faced by Barack Obama, take what you can take, there's nothing to be gained from proving a point.

We can read patterns one way or the other, certainly been done, but if you take Democrat votes as, being generous, 60/40 to Barack Obama, that says nothing when you count in base Republican votes, of which a good section is Christian White and even the rest are not likely to vote for a liberal black candidate.

My central point remains, Barack Obama is not a clean sweep and that should be recognised sooner not later.

whats your point here?

its not like there IS a "clean sweep" candidate available. the party picks the best person out of those who are running and does what it can to get him elected.

whats your point here?

its not like there IS a "clean sweep" candidate available. the party picks the best person out of those who are running and does what it can to get him elected.

Ammm...my point is 'don't alienate Hillary Clinton' - read: Democrat - supporters, out of instant gratification - I'd hoped this was clear.

My battery is at 6% so I'm out for now - sleep well all.

Ammm...my point is 'don't alienate Hillary Clinton' - read: Democrat - supporters, out of instant gratification - I'd hoped this was clear.

are you sure that makes sense? we cant say bad things about mrs clinton on an internet forum because it might piss her off?

do you have any idea of how much worse shit she faces every day from conservatives?

are you sure that makes sense? we cant say bad things about mrs clinton on an internet forum because it might piss her off?

do you have any idea of how much worse shit she faces every day from conservatives?

Lately it's all sunshine lollipops and rainbows from them.

So is Hillary Clinton actually, perhaps it speaks more of a distaste for 4 more years but, as has been said, polls now count for nothing once the election machine is in action and the RNC has been pulling in more money than the DNC - if RNC is a correct terminology but the point is made.

The point remains, alienating Hillary Clinton supporters does nothing for Barack Obama - alienating Barack Obama supporters does everything for Hillary Clinton supporters in that, when election comes they can say - 'see!'

Don't downplay the challenge faced by Barack Obama, take what you can take, there's nothing to be gained from proving a point.

I'm not downplaying the challenge. I think Clinton has created quite a mess. I full expect her to clean it up. I've put a lot of faith in Clinton and have throughout this process. I think she went WAAAAAY too far. I'm disappointed she did. I expected better. You can't take back accusations that you lost due to sexism. You can't take back accusations that you were cheated. I do, however, hope she'll do her best.

I would like Clinton supporters to actually analyze the candidates and stop suggesting people should vote on race or sex or because she "deserves" it. She lost. We all know she lost. It's time to worry about who is going to be in the white house in 2008 and not about who isn't.

Looks like Hillary is going to ask for an appeal of the current delegate deal on Michigan and Florida, which probably will take it all the way to the convention floor.

Her supporters were chanting "McCain, McCain" and "Denver, Denver".

Your worst nightmare is now coming true.

I always thought her supporters were a few bricks short of a full load.

Clinton has won the popular vote unless Barack Obama does something really dramatic in the last two primaries:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html

Um yea...no she doesn't have the popular vote lead at all. The only way she has it is if you exclude all the caucus states.

I am not conceding it. I am stating, however, that Clinton has a very significant edge in this state whereas Obama has none. Nominating him is a gamble whereas nominating Clinton seems more likely, at present, to return a favorable result.

The bolded part is the only important part of the equation. No one is running against her, so it makes numbers are little more favorable for her. You'd also have to deny that Obama has shown, over and over again, that he has a great ground game and overcomes large leads when he actually campaigns.

I always thought her supporters were a few bricks short of a full load.

Now now you're only allowed to talk about Hillary-hime and her supporters in the most glowing of terms.

Though there is a serious stench of denial about the campaign.

That's outrageous beyond compare, and it only strengthens my resolve to defeat Obama.

Yeah, a lot of good that resolve did for Hillary during the nomination fight. Color me unimpressed with your "resolve." Also, I'd like to point out that you are shooting yourself in the foot out of spite. This is the Hillary strategy now though... Destroy Obama so I can run again in 2012. "Next time I'll prepare like there was actual competition and I wasn't entitled to it because I'm a Clinton."

clinton still has a number of plausible paths to the nomination (http://fafblog.blogspot.com/2008/06/audacity-of-hope.html)

clinton still has a number of plausible paths to the nomination (http://fafblog.blogspot.com/2008/06/audacity-of-hope.html)

elle oh elle.

All this has done in the end is cost Obama any chance of winning Michigan in November, and with it the election.
You are very unfamiliar with the situation on the ground in Michigan, if that's what you think.
Hillary has UTTERLY INFURIATED the city in Detroit with all her bogus claims of having "won" the state and efforts to make sure every non-Hillary-voter was disenfranchised there. Now, Detroit is one of the gold mines of Democratic votes (2000: 93% Gore, 4% Bush, 3% Nader; 2004: 94% Kerry, 6% Bush) and if Hillary is the nominee, turnout there will be extraordinarily low, while if Obama is the nominee, turnout will be extraordinarily high. Clinton's best showings in the bogus "primary" were in Grand Rapids and the rural outstate, solidly Republican territory in the general; no Democrat wins this state without a lot of Detroit votes. Other golden territories for the Dems are Detroit suburbs (Oakland county has a lot of white upscale voters, very Obama; Macomb county has a lot of blue-collar "Reagan Democrat" types, very Clinton; both are locally for Republicans but of the fiscal-conservative wing, and detest the religious-right types who have been drummed out of the local Republican party committees after bruising fights; nationally they tend to lean Democrat at least recently) and the university towns (Ann Arbor and Lansing; both very Obama). With Hillary on the ticket, it is possible that Macomb would be the only county she carried in the whole state, getting wiped out by a 20-to-30 point margin (there haven't been recent polls in the state on McCain/Clinton head-to-head, since she became irrelevant; but this latest round of fighting has made her name poison around here).

Lately it's all sunshine lollipops and rainbows from them.

they are holding their breath hoping that she can find some way to pull this out.

Yeah, a lot of good that resolve did for Hillary during the nomination fight. Color me unimpressed with your "resolve." Also, I'd like to point out that you are shooting yourself in the foot out of spite. This is the Hillary strategy now though... Destroy Obama so I can run again in 2012. "Next time I'll prepare like there was actual competition and I wasn't entitled to it because I'm a Clinton."

Clinton will never run again. Obama has effectively ended her hopes of reaching the Presidency. Enjoy it now. Once the media has crowned Obama the nominee, the reality of your situation may begin to sink in.

You have alienated many of Hillary Clinton's supporters, such as myself. I am a lifelong Democrat. I have been voting straight Democratic tickets since I became old enough to vote in 2000. In 2004, I backed Howard Dean but was defeated, then became a campaign volunteer for John Kerry, quite unperturbed by Dean's tumble. The vicious, slanderous attacks of several of Barack Obama's supporters have cost him my support.

You like to claim that your numbers will "bump up" once Clinton is out of the race. But it may not bump in a direction you like. I know many Hillary supporters who are preparing to throw their support behind John McCain for a variety of reasons. Some of them do not trust him enough to see him in charge of national security. Others worry about his inexperience.

My concerns are numerous, but I don't think he'll stand up for Democratic values, and I don't trust him in the War on Terror, and I don't appreciate how his supporters have treated me. One of them even dared to call me a "beer-swilling, pickup-driving, gun-toting hick", even though I do not drive a pickup truck and I don't own a gun. I'll plead guilty on the beer, though even in that I do not drink to excess.

Be prepared for a real fight, especially here in Ohio. McCain is not as weak as Obama's overconfident team seems to think he is. Obama couldn't even finish off Hillary Clinton...it'll take the superdelegates to do that. He has no chance whatsoever against John McCain, especially when droves of former Clintonites break ranks and vote for McCain in the fall. I think we'll get to Election Day and the Obama people will be shocked, just shocked. If I could have picked a Republican to fight Barack Obama, I couldn't have picked any better than John McCain, a moderate and maverick G.O.P. senator and a war veteran to boot. I strongly believe McCain will win this election because Obama can't win in the big swing states. When you start off your campaign effectively conceding Florida, you've got a problem with appeal to certain bases.

I'M A VICTIM HERE! I'M A VICTIM HERE! I'M A VICTIM HERE! I'M A VICTIM HERE! I'M A VICTIM HERE! I'M A VICTIM HERE! I'M A VICTIM HERE! I'M A VICTIM HERE! I'M A VICTIM HERE! I'M A VICTIM HERE! I'M A VICTIM HERE! I'M A VICTIM HERE! I'M A VICTIM HERE! I'M A VICTIM HERE! I'M A VICTIM HERE! I'M A VICTIM HERE! I'M A VICTIM HERE! I'M A VICTIM HERE! I'M A VICTIM HERE! I'M A VICTIM HERE! I'M A VICTIM HERE! I'M A VICTIM HERE! I'M A VICTIM HERE! I'M A VICTIM HERE! I'M A VICTIM HERE! I'M A VICTIM HERE! I'M A VICTIM HERE! I'M A VICTIM HERE! I'M A VICTIM HERE! I'M A VICTIM HERE! I'M A VICTIM HERE! I'M A VICTIM HERE! I'M A VICTIM HERE! I'M A VICTIM HERE! I'M A VICTIM HERE! I'M A VICTIM HERE! I'M A VICTIM HERE! I'M A VICTIM HERE! I'M A VICTIM HERE! I'M A VICTIM HERE! I'M A VICTIM HERE! I'M A VICTIM HERE! I'M A VICTIM HERE! I'M A VICTIM HERE! I'M A VICTIM HERE! I'M A VICTIM HERE! I'M A VICTIM HERE! I'M A VICTIM HERE! I'M A VICTIM HERE! I'M A VICTIM HERE! I'M A VICTIM HERE! I'M A VICTIM HERE! I'M A VICTIM HERE! I'M A VICTIM HERE! I'M A VICTIM HERE! I'M A VICTIM HERE! I'M A VICTIM HERE! I'M A VICTIM HERE! I'M A VICTIM HERE! I'M A VICTIM HERE! I'M A VICTIM HERE! I'M A VICTIM HERE! I'M A VICTIM HERE! I'M A VICTIM HERE! I'M A VICTIM HERE! I'M A VICTIM HERE! I'M A VICTIM HERE! I'M A VICTIM HERE! I'M A VICTIM HERE! I'M A VICTIM HERE! I'M A VICTIM HERE! I'M A VICTIM HERE! I'M A VICTIM HERE! I'M A VICTIM HERE! I'M A VICTIM HERE! I'M A VICTIM HERE! I'M A VICTIM HERE! I'M A VICTIM HERE! I'M A VICTIM HERE! I'M A VICTIM HERE! I'M A VICTIM HERE! I'M A VICTIM HERE! I'M A VICTIM HERE! I'M A VICTIM HERE! I'M A VICTIM HERE! I'M A VICTIM HERE! I'M A VICTIM HERE! I'M A VICTIM HERE! I'M A VICTIM HERE! I'M A VICTIM HERE! I'M A VICTIM HERE! I'M A VICTIM HERE! I'M A VICTIM HERE! I'M A VICTIM HERE! I'M A VICTIM HERE! I'M A VICTIM HERE! I'M A VICTIM HERE! I'M A VICTIM HERE! I'M A VICTIM HERE! I'M A VICTIM HERE! I'M A VICTIM HERE! I'M A VICTIM HERE! I'M A VICTIM HERE!

If you say so.

If you say so.

I will pointedly ignore your attempt to be clever.

The fact is that you're gonna lose. Sorry. The math just doesn't add up for you.

clinton still has a number of plausible paths to the nomination (http://fafblog.blogspot.com/2008/06/audacity-of-hope.html)

This reply made me laugh out loud.

"Ha! The joke is on you, Fafnir, since pill bugs are vegetarians!

And don't go tryin' to say giant pill bugs are different or anything 'cuz they're not!

And since they're vegetarians, and since they are found in compost heaps, I'm blamin' the hippies!"

And this one -

"Do giant pill bugs eat only vegans then?

And who ground up the pixies to get the magic dust? The dinosaurs?

Where do the super delegates come in?

This primary season is so confusing...."

And this one -
"I took this all very seriously until I got to the part about robot ponies.

Seriously - What's their motivation?

And more importantly - Do robot ponies dream?"

I know it's all silly and that's why it was fun. Sometimes this all gets too serious to take.

I will pointedly ignore your attempt to be clever.

The fact is that you're gonna lose. Sorry. The math just doesn't add up for you.

I think that there's already enough bad blood that if you nominate Hillary, a lot of Obama supporters will merely sit out the election - Hillary loses.

If you nominate Obama, a lot of Hillary supporters sit out the election - Obama loses.

Just a gut feel, but despite any polling data, I think Obama would come closer to winning.

The Democrats should have settled this a long, long time ago.

I think that there's already enough bad blood that if you nominate Hillary, a lot of Obama supporters will merely sit out the election - Hillary loses.

If you nominate Obama, a lot of Hillary supporters sit out the election - Obama loses.

Just a gut feel, but despite any polling data, I think Obama would come closer to winning.

The Democrats should have settled this a long, long time ago.

We have settled it. The liberal wing of the party has tried to hijack it (the Party). They have succeeded in wresting control from Democratic moderates, thereby alienating them. I don't think the split that you see is temporary. I think the split will hamper Democratic politics for years to come.

I will pointedly ignore your attempt to be clever.

The fact is that you're gonna lose. Sorry. The math just doesn't add up for you.

The fact is you have lost, and holding your breath and pouting is just going to amuse the rest of us.

Tell you what though, in six months after I lose, come back and see how I'm handling it. It might do you to see how adults deal with disappointment. Bring Hillary along.

http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j258/jpittman01/LegendaryMotivational.jpg

Obama couldn't even finish off Hillary Clinton...it'll take the superdelegates to do that.

You do know that if there was no such thing as a superdelegate Obama would have been the nominee back in Oregon, right? If you're going to make this part of your argument you have to acknowledge that situation is worse for Clinton.

The fact is you have lost, and holding your breath and pouting is just going to amuse the rest of us.

Tell you what though, in six months after I lose, come back and see how I'm handling it. It might do you to see how adults deal with disappointment. Bring Hillary along.

I have a pretty good suspicion that I am both older and more seasoned than you, so I don't need advice on how to deal with disappointment. As you might have noticed, I've lost every election I've participated in since the beginning of my electoral career. In 2000, I won but lost. In 2004, I lost twice.

In six months, we'll see how you deal with disappointment.

You do know that if there was no such thing as a superdelegate Obama would have been the nominee back in Oregon, right? If you're going to make this part of your argument you have to acknowledge that situation is worse for Clinton.

And if we ran this like the Republican Party runs primaries, Clinton would have emerged as the victor even earlier, and we wouldn't be in this colossal mess that we now find ourselves in. What is your point?

Shal. I don't think you understand what a McCain presidency would mean. Could you really look people in the eye, and tell them that you voted for:

The death of thousands of soldiers and Iraqi civilians,
The overturning of Roe v. Wade and, with it, the end of abortion rights in many states,
The destruction of the middle class as it declines into poverty,
The continued torture at Gitmo,
?

Shal, understand, if McCain is elected, these things and more will happen. You describe him as a moderate, as a maverick. But he is not a moderate anymore. He's a complete conservative. Think of the citizens of America, the citizens of the World! Don't subject them to another term of Bush policies over this. It's not worth it.

You do know that if there was no such thing as a superdelegate Obama would have been the nominee back in Oregon, right? If you're going to make this part of your argument you have to acknowledge that situation is worse for Clinton.
And IF the Dems ran their primaries like the Repubs (winner take all), then Hillary would be the nominee. :D

Shal. I don't think you understand what a McCain presidency would mean. Could you really look people in the eye, and tell them that you voted for:

The death of thousands of soldiers and Iraqi civilians,
The overturning of Roe v. Wade and, with it, the end of abortion rights in many states,
The destruction of the middle class as it declines into poverty,
The continued torture at Gitmo,
?

Shal, understand, if McCain is elected, these things and more will happen. You describe him as a moderate, as a maverick. But he is not a moderate anymore. He's a complete conservative. Think of the citizens of America, the citizens of the World! Don't subject them to another term of Bush policies over this. It's not worth it.


I have spent the better part of the last decade yielding. I have yielded to one political faction and then another, to one party and then the other. The line is being drawn here. This far, no farther. I will yield no more. If you want the nomination and/or the Presidency, you're going to have to utterly and totally defeat me.

Clinton will never run again. Obama has effectively ended her hopes of reaching the Presidency. Enjoy it now. Once the media has crowned Obama the nominee, the reality of your situation may begin to sink in.

You know, while it may not be meant that way, this really does sound like, "Obama is an evil meanie head for daring to run for president in the year that Clinton should have won."

You have alienated many of Hillary Clinton's supporters, such as myself. I am a lifelong Democrat. I have been voting straight Democratic tickets since I became old enough to vote in 2000. In 2004, I backed Howard Dean but was defeated, then became a campaign volunteer for John Kerry, quite unperturbed by Dean's tumble. The vicious, slanderous attacks of several of Barack Obama's supporters have cost him my support.

I really want to know: how does this make sense?

Some people who supported Obama made some attacks you didn't like. Therefore, you won't even consider him as a candidate?

I suppose it would make sense for me to say that I'd never support Clinton because some of her supporters are racist?

You like to claim that your numbers will "bump up" once Clinton is out of the race. But it may not bump in a direction you like. I know many Hillary supporters who are preparing to throw their support behind John McCain for a variety of reasons. Some of them do not trust him enough to see him in charge of national security. Others worry about his inexperience.

If someone votes for McCain over Obama because they really think he's the better candidate, more power to them. That is their choice.

And it is also their choice if they want to do it out of revenge. In that case, however, I can't say I'll respect them for it.

My concerns are numerous, but I don't think he'll stand up for Democratic values,

Why not? His voting record matches Clinton's fairly well. You may not think that actually working with the rest of the nation on issues is the best way to go about standing up for Democratic values, but it is still a way to do it. Obama thinks that he can get things accomplished best by working with people, whether they agree with him completely or not. Clinton thinks it should be a knock-down, drag-out fight. It's a difference in approach, not in goals.

Meanwhile, do you think McCain would "stand up for Democratic values"?

and I don't trust him in the War on Terror,

Why not?

and I don't appreciate how his supporters have treated me.

Just how many of Obama's supporters do you know?

And will you ever acknowledge the fact that you haven't exactly been polite yourself?

One of them even dared to call me a "beer-swilling, pickup-driving, gun-toting hick", even though I do not drive a pickup truck and I don't own a gun. I'll plead guilty on the beer, though even in that I do not drink to excess.

And you consistently paint Obama supporters in a bad light as well. I don't know how or when you were called that, but this seems to be a bit of the pot calling the kettle black to complain about it, don't you think?

Be prepared for a real fight, especially here in Ohio.

I think Obama is likely prepared for a real fight all over the country. That's what a nationwide effort entails.

Obama couldn't even finish off Hillary Clinton...it'll take the superdelegates to do that.

Well, when the Republicans and half the Democrats are throwing their weight behind someone, it is a little hard to finish them off.

Add to this the fact that the Democratic Party has been handling Clinton with kid gloves, that she was aided by both racism and sexism within her party, and the fact that Obama won't go as negative as she will.

It really isn't a positive for her that he "hasn't been able to finish her off." It doesn't reflect well on her at all that, despite everything she's thrown at it and the many advantages she's had, she still isn't winning. Will she have those advantages in the general?

He has no chance whatsoever against John McCain, especially when droves of former Clintonites break ranks and vote for McCain in the fall.

If those "droves" really do that, then he likely won't win. And those "droves" can revel in the mess they'll have made.

I think we'll get to Election Day and the Obama people will be shocked, just shocked. If I could have picked a Republican to fight Barack Obama, I couldn't have picked any better than John McCain, a moderate and maverick G.O.P. senator and a war veteran to boot.

McCain isn't really a maverick. He might have been at one time, but he certainly isn't now, and it isn't hard to show that.

Of the Republicans, I think he is the strongest candidate. He'll bleed off some of the Independents who still remember him from 8 years ago and don't pay much attention to the way he's acted in the meantime.

But if I had to pick a Democrat to run against McCain, I'd definitely go with Obama. His appeal to Independent voters is going to be invaluable in this contest.

I strongly believe McCain will win this election because Obama can't win in the big swing states. When you start off your campaign effectively conceding Florida, you've got a problem with appeal to certain bases.

Luckily, Obama doesn't plan on conceding Florida (as far as I can tell). He doesn't plan on just conceding in most states. That's the difference between him and most candidates. He's planning on running a nationwide campaign.

Clinton will never run again. Obama has effectively ended her hopes of reaching the Presidency. Enjoy it now. Once the media has crowned Obama the nominee, the reality of your situation may begin to sink in.

You have alienated many of Hillary Clinton's supporters, such as myself. I am a lifelong Democrat. I have been voting straight Democratic tickets since I became old enough to vote in 2000. In 2004, I backed Howard Dean but was defeated, then became a campaign volunteer for John Kerry, quite unperturbed by Dean's tumble. The vicious, slanderous attacks of several of Barack Obama's supporters have cost him my support.

You like to claim that your numbers will "bump up" once Clinton is out of the race. But it may not bump in a direction you like. I know many Hillary supporters who are preparing to throw their support behind John McCain for a variety of reasons. Some of them do not trust him enough to see him in charge of national security. Others worry about his inexperience.

My concerns are numerous, but I don't think he'll stand up for Democratic values, and I don't trust him in the War on Terror, and I don't appreciate how his supporters have treated me. One of them even dared to call me a "beer-swilling, pickup-driving, gun-toting hick", even though I do not drive a pickup truck and I don't own a gun. I'll plead guilty on the beer, though even in that I do not drink to excess.

Be prepared for a real fight, especially here in Ohio. McCain is not as weak as Obama's overconfident team seems to think he is. Obama couldn't even finish off Hillary Clinton...it'll take the superdelegates to do that. He has no chance whatsoever against John McCain, especially when droves of former Clintonites break ranks and vote for McCain in the fall. I think we'll get to Election Day and the Obama people will be shocked, just shocked. If I could have picked a Republican to fight Barack Obama, I couldn't have picked any better than John McCain, a moderate and maverick G.O.P. senator and a war veteran to boot. I strongly believe McCain will win this election because Obama can't win in the big swing states. When you start off your campaign effectively conceding Florida, you've got a problem with appeal to certain bases.

First off, I don't think it's really Obama that has ended her hopes, unless it is simply by virtue of running a good campaign. He has been nothing be courteous and concilliatory throughout the vast majority of the race. This is obviously not to say that his supporters have been; clearly they have not.

Secondly, as has been pointed out numerous times already (though in a more inflammatory manner than I'd like), it makes absolutely no sense to say that you don't support Obama because he won't stand up for Democratic values, and then say in the very same post that you're willing to back McCain. This is not meant to taunt or deride you in any way; I simply don't understand how that can be justified to you, and I would love to hear your reasoning. I also don't really understand the mistrust when it comes to the war, as he and Hillary have nearly identical policies.

Thirdly, I'm sure that there are some Obama supporters who are overconfident, but I think that if you read through the last couple of pages of this thread, you'll see that there are plenty of us who are not.

Fourth, I do find it encouraging that McCain is a moderate (at least by reputation, if not by recent stances), and I would much rather have him be the nominee than Huckabee, for instance. I also find it encouraging that the presumptive nominee for the Democrats has amazing potential to be a uniter. Either way, there is a good opportunity for everyone to come together. McCain very well may win the election, and he has his good qualities. I, personally, will still be hoping for an Obama victory, and on that it appears we will disagree.

Finally, to my knowledge, no one is conceding Florida. We've all been paying attention as Obama has closed massive gaps in the polls. There is no reason to think that he cannot overcome the relatively small one in Florida.

This debate has turned far too polarizing for my tastes. And by that, I don't mean this thread; I mean the rhetoric between Hillary supporters and Barack supporters in general. You must admit, Shal, that the rhetoric has been more vitriolic of late from the Clinton supporters than from the Obama fans. Perhaps this is understandable, but I urge you to try and see past all that, and at least be open to the discourse concerning Obama vs. Hillary, and more importantly, Obama vs. McCain.

And if we ran this like the Republican Party runs primaries, Clinton would have emerged as the victor even earlier, and we wouldn't be in this colossal mess that we now find ourselves in. What is your point?
I do believe we typed the same message at the same time. :)

I think that the problem is that the two Democratic nominees are each from a class of minority victimhood.

There are, however, obvious Democrats (see most of the people in West Virginia for example) who won't vote for a black man - even if it means voting for McCain.

And a lot of Democrats won't vote for a woman if it means a black man can be elected (see 90% of blacks) - and they'll stay home if they feel they've been fucked over for a woman.

Apparently, in Florida and Puerto Rico at least, Obama doesn't play well with Hispanics - perhaps because the up and coming "minority" in the US is now the Hispanics, and they see putting a black man in place as a problem.

While the Democrats were claiming that the "real" issue is war, economy, etc. - the real issue and question for Democrats is - whose "turn" is it to wield power, now that they have a really good chance at a cakewalk.

This quibbling over whose "turn" it is, and which "minority" will be represented is leading to more idiocy than 1968.

It will also lose the Democrats the election, and the moaning, shrieking, and handwringing will be neverending.

In six months, we'll see how you deal with disappointment.

Um, yes, that's what he said.

Clinton will never run again. Obama has effectively ended her hopes of reaching the Presidency.

Please explain to me how this is his fault. What did he do to ruin her run for the Presidency? You've been asked this question on numerous occasions by Joc, CTOAN, myself... Yet you have not bothered to answer. What specifically did Obama do to ruin her chances? Unless you're just declaring that he ended them because he beat her....? Then I'd agree.
Enjoy it now. Once the media has crowned Obama the nominee, the reality of your situation may begin to sink in.


Oh to cry out, "it's the media! It's a vast right wing, no left wing, no chicken wing conspiracy."

You have alienated many of Hillary Clinton's supporters, such as myself. I am a lifelong Democrat.

How have "I" done this? I told you I thought you were wrong and why. Most of the Hillary supporters I speak to in real life are far more rational than you or CH. They are upset their candidate didn't win, but are ready to back Obama to end the Republican presence in the White House.

I have been voting straight Democratic tickets since I became old enough to vote in 2000. In 2004,

Is that really something to be proud of? I'm mindless and always vote party line? I backed Howard Dean but was defeated, then became a campaign volunteer for John Kerry, quite unperturbed by Dean's tumble. The vicious, slanderous attacks of several of Barack Obama's supporters have cost him my support.

You like to claim that your numbers will "bump up" once Clinton is out of the race. But it may not bump in a direction you like. I know many Hillary supporters who are preparing to throw their support behind John McCain for a variety of reasons. Some of them do not trust him enough to see him in charge of national security. Others worry about his inexperience.

Realistically, what I'd like to claim is that your numbers right now are not indicivtive of a general election fight 5 months from now. That's exactly what I stated.

My concerns are numerous, but I don't think he'll stand up for Democratic values

Why, with a voting record so close to Hillary's wouldn't this mean that she doesn't support Democratic values by logical extension? and I don't trust him in the War on Terror Really, like what? What bothers you about his policies regarding the war on terror? How do they differ from Hillary's? and I don't appreciate how his supporters have treated me So you'd disown a candidate even though he has done nothing wrong to you?

One of them even dared to call me a "beer-swilling, pickup-driving, gun-toting hick", even though I do not drive a pickup truck and I don't own a gun. I'll plead guilty on the beer, though even in that I do not drink to excess.

There's assholes everywhere? Go figure!

Be prepared for a real fight, especially here in Ohio. McCain is not as weak as Obama's overconfident team seems to think he is.

Strawman! Who says McCain is weak? John McCain is an excellent candidate and it will require great skill to defeat him.

Obama couldn't even finish off Hillary Clinton...it'll take the superdelegates to do that.

Wouldn't the case be the same for Hillary? After all, she would need far more supers to propel her to a win. Obama was like a #10-12 contender to the HWT title. HRC was the champ, the clear favorite. Pity him for he didn't knock her out, he just beat her on the scorecards. As far as I can tell, that's still a victory and he's still the new champ.

He has no chance whatsoever against John McCain

You go from, "It'll be a hard fight to...He stands no chance." Hell, this is just you contradicting yourself in one post.


especially when droves of former Clintonites break ranks and vote for McCain in the fall.

You all will make it easier for us to know who to blame when the Democrats lost then. Her supporters will be remembered for working with her to do everything they could to tear the party down if she was not the nominee. It will make for a great Democratic party moving forward.

I think we'll get to Election Day and the Obama people will be shocked, just shocked. If I could have picked a Republican to fight Barack Obama, I couldn't have picked any better than John McCain, a moderate and maverick G.O.P. senator and a war veteran to boot. I strongly believe McCain will win this election because Obama can't win in the big swing states. When you start off your campaign effectively conceding Florida, you've got a problem with appeal to certain bases.



Otherwise, this has been shown to you. Florida, Ohio, PA, WV, and the plethera of other states that when Hillary wins them are suddenly the be all and end all of God's universe. As for a war record for McCain. How did John Kerry's war record work against someone who avoided service in 2004?

And if we ran this like the Republican Party runs primaries, Clinton would have emerged as the victor even earlier, and we wouldn't be in this colossal mess that we now find ourselves in. What is your point?

And IF the Dems ran their primaries like the Repubs (winner take all), then Hillary would be the nominee. :D

Wow, guys, really? You find yourselves wishing you were Republicans? Has this ever really been about the party for you two? Fuck, CH, you even smilied it. So, what's all this noise about representing the voters? Surely you're not arguing that 'winner takes all' is more representative of the constituency, so has all this stomping around and whining just been smoke and mirrors?

If you don't like proportional representation take it up with Harold Ickes-you know, the guy who voted to take away Florida and Michigan's votes and then said taking away their votes was a miscarriage...what changed...oh, right, he was a campaign manager for someone who desperately needed Florida and Michigan to even get within shouting distance of the nomination. He's the one who negotiated for proportional representation in 1992 when he was running Jessie Jackson's campaign.

But yes, please, crow about your beloved Republican's 'winner takes all' system out of one side of your mouth while whining about the voter representation with the other. I love novelty acts.

And if we ran this like the Republican Party runs primaries, Clinton would have emerged as the victor even earlier, and we wouldn't be in this colossal mess that we now find ourselves in. What is your point?

Ah, so if Democrats were Republicans Hillary would win? Very interesting.

I have spent the better part of the last decade yielding. I have yielded to one political faction and then another, to one party and then the other. The line is being drawn here. This far, no farther. I will yield no more. If you want the nomination and/or the Presidency, you're going to have to utterly and totally defeat me.

But that's not rational. Why, of all people, will you support McCain if you believe in Democratic values? You say you don't trust Obama on these issues, but you know what? You can trust McCain-- to do the Republican thing every time. If McCain wins the presidency, abortion will be illegal in a large portion of the country. If McCain wins the presidency, thousands more will die in Iraq.

For the nomination? Sure. If you want, keep fighting. I think it unwise, as it will aid McCain in the fall, but okay.

But why support McCain should you lose? Be the better man. It would not be weak to support your party's other candidate if your own does not win. It would be strong. Be the better man. You know you have it in you.

And IF the Dems ran their primaries like the Repubs (winner take all), then Hillary would be the nominee. :D

Wow, you and Shal seem to share a brain here. Once again, Democrate are not Republicans so...

Shalrirorchia, I really wish that you would give some responses to some of the very friendly and very well-reasoned posts that have been directed at you. It's a bit frustrating and difficult to have a reasonable debate when you keep ignoring the same questions, most notably from Jocabia, and my guess is that this contributes to some of the heat you've been getting. If someone makes a good point, and you don't have a response for it right away, at least say, "I'll get back to you," to let us know you're thinking about it. As it stands, it seems like you're willfully ignoring points that you find logically objectionable. (This goes for CanuckHeaven as well, though I have seen that it is a long shot with CH.)

So please, just expound upon your points reasonably without consistently ignoring ours, and I can assure you that you'll get the same from many of us in return.

We have settled it. The liberal wing of the party has tried to hijack it (the Party). They have succeeded in wresting control from Democratic moderates, thereby alienating them.

Ok, now we're on to conspiracy theories?

Obama and Clinton are both Democrats. Their voting records have been very similar. Primaries were held.

If Clinton doesn't win, it doesn't mean that there was some hijack or conspiracy. It means she doesn't win.

And, based on having read Obama's stances on many things, I'd venture a guess that he's probably more moderate than she is.

I have a pretty good suspicion that I am both older and more seasoned than you, so I don't need advice on how to deal with disappointment. As you might have noticed, I've lost every election I've participated in since the beginning of my electoral career. In 2000, I won but lost. In 2004, I lost twice.

In six months, we'll see how you deal with disappointment.

Imagine how it feels from the point of view of an Independent. I've never really had a chance at winning. I've been in the situation of voting for the lesser evil since I started voting, with only a few local candidates that I ever really felt I could vote for, instead of against.

And now I've finally got a national level candidate I can actually vote for. It feels damn good. Even if he loses, at least I'll have finally had that.

And if we ran this like the Republican Party runs primaries, Clinton would have emerged as the victor even earlier, and we wouldn't be in this colossal mess that we now find ourselves in. What is your point?

IIRC, someone already showed that this claim was incorrect.

But, even so, are you really now going to claim that you should have a less democratic system? One minute, you're talking about popular vote and now you're talking about a winner-take all system in most states?

You do realize how this appears, right? It appears that all of your platitudes about caring about voters are complete bull. It's all about anything and everything that might possibly maybe make Clinton win, if the stars are aligned properly.

I have spent the better part of the last decade yielding. I have yielded to one political faction and then another, to one party and then the other. The line is being drawn here. This far, no farther. I will yield no more. If you want the nomination and/or the Presidency, you're going to have to utterly and totally defeat me.

Done, what next?

And if we ran this like the Republican Party runs primaries, Clinton would have emerged as the victor even earlier

i haven't checked how things have changed, but obama was still winning even under 'republican rules' as of a couple weeks ago. i made a post in this thread about it. the problem was that you guys don't know what the rules are.

I have spent the better part of the last decade yielding. I have yielded to one political faction and then another, to one party and then the other. The line is being drawn here. This far, no farther. I will yield no more. If you want the nomination and/or the Presidency, you're going to have to utterly and totally defeat me.

That's right you other 304,233,905 Americans, fuck you all. Shalrirorchia alone gets to decide who's president!

Also welcome to my sig. Home of the absurd and the hilarious.

I have spent the better part of the last decade yielding. I have yielded to one political faction and then another, to one party and then the other. The line is being drawn here. This far, no farther. I will yield no more. If you want the nomination and/or the Presidency, you're going to have to utterly and totally defeat me.
Yeah...well, 'you've' already been defeated once, so...(actually, from your stated track record, you haven't won once...)

http://www.motifake.com/motivational_posters/bf368c13e8.jpg (http://www.motifake.com/index.php?start=1143)

Do be fair though. We don't actually have to do anything to alienate Clinton supporters. They come to us already alienated. And when they get on someone's nerves to the point that the person lashes out, they feel justified in their original statement that people were being meanie-heads.

At least, that's what happens around here.

And if you are polite, they don't answer. After all, you can't justify a martyr complex when people aren't being meanie-heads.

Bingo

Some of us have tried to understand it. Shal has carefully avoided any explanations. Check back through the thread. He hasn't answered a single one of my reasonable questions to explain his postion. I don't think that's accidental.

As Demp1 said...

I'm not downplaying the challenge. I think Clinton has created quite a mess. I full expect her to clean it up. I've put a lot of faith in Clinton and have throughout this process. I think she went WAAAAAY too far. I'm disappointed she did. I expected better. You can't take back accusations that you lost due to sexism. You can't take back accusations that you were cheated. I do, however, hope she'll do her best.

I would like Clinton supporters to actually analyze the candidates and stop suggesting people should vote on race or sex or because she "deserves" it. She lost. We all know she lost. It's time to worry about who is going to be in the white house in 2008 and not about who isn't.

This assumes rational actors. Unfortunately, it's looking like it may come to Demp1 and CNTOA's irrational actors...

clinton still has a number of plausible paths to the nomination (http://fafblog.blogspot.com/2008/06/audacity-of-hope.html)

I think that there's already enough bad blood that if you nominate Hillary, a lot of Obama supporters will merely sit out the election - Hillary loses.

If you nominate Obama, a lot of Hillary supporters sit out the election - Obama loses.

Just a gut feel, but despite any polling data, I think Obama would come closer to winning.

The Democrats should have settled this a long, long time ago.

Ultimately but reluctantly agreed.

We have settled it. The liberal wing of the party has tried to hijack it (the Party). They have succeeded in wresting control from Democratic moderates, thereby alienating them. I don't think the split that you see is temporary. I think the split will hamper Democratic politics for years to come.

Err.. :::points to the "liberal lefty" Obama voters like myself who voted for Bush I and Dole:::

Disregarding the "facts", can you look at the reactions to your candiadate actions and honestly say that the wide ranging perception that she's a miscreant, which you've not once answered, didn't hurt her?

You do know that if there was no such thing as a superdelegate Obama would have been the nominee back in Oregon, right? If you're going to make this part of your argument you have to acknowledge that situation is worse for Clinton.

Bingo, bingo, bingo.

Some hard thinking coming up for those superdelegates. Obama is not finishing strongly (http://news.sympatico.msn.ctv.ca/abc/home/contentposting.aspx?isfa=1&feedname=CTV-TOPSTORIES_V3&showbyline=True&newsitemid=CTVNews%2f20080601%2fClinton_obama_080602).

A conservative commentator told CTV's Canada AM on Monday that Obama is "inching" towards the finish line.

"Barack Obama faces a difficult problem. He's finished this race very weakly," said David Frum, a one-time speechwriter for President George W. Bush.

"I can't think of when a successful major party nominee has finished the campaign so weak," he said, adding that Obama's troubles go back to March.

Despite losing in the overall race, Clinton is looking strong, Frum said.

Peter Fenn, a Democratic strategist, told Canada AM that the key issue now is unifying the party. He predicted Obama will soon be the presumptive nominee.

In the general election against Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, "If we get the usual 90 per cent of Democrats and a reasonable number of independents ... we should be all right," he said.

Fears grow that Obama can't win (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/01/barackobama.uselections2008)

Republican analysts, meanwhile, are surprised about how healthy their party's prospects look in a year when almost all indicators suggested they should lose. McCain remains competitive against Obama. He even leads in some key states. Indeed, some research predicts he could romp home against Obama.

It is that prospect, Clinton supporters say, that leads them to keep fighting. They point to Obama's performance in North Carolina as a bellwether: it was his strong win there earlier this month that dealt an almost fatal blow to Clinton's chances. Yet, two weeks after that win, polls showed Clinton easily outperformed Obama there when measured against McCain. 'Clinton has a very strong argument that she is a stronger candidate against McCain. It is just that it has fallen on deaf ears,' said Mitchell.

i haven't checked how things have changed, but obama was still winning even under 'republican rules' as of a couple weeks ago. i made a post in this thread about it. the problem was that you guys don't know what the rules are.

Most people don't. There's been a lot of attention on the Dem primary rules this year and how confusing they get, but from what I understand, the Repub rules are even more arcane.

Most people don't. There's been a lot of attention on the Dem primary rules this year and how confusing they get, but from what I understand, the Repub rules are even more arcane.

It's true. I remember reading that Obama would be winning even under Republican rules. I'll have to find that info.

Some hard thinking coming up for those superdelegates. Obama is not finishing strongly (http://news.sympatico.msn.ctv.ca/abc/home/contentposting.aspx?isfa=1&feedname=CTV-TOPSTORIES_V3&showbyline=True&newsitemid=CTVNews%2f20080601%2fClinton_obama_080602).



Fears grow that Obama can't win (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/01/barackobama.uselections2008)

Just incase it hasn't sunk in previously:

IT'S FIVE MONTHS FROM THE ELECTION AND THE GENERAL CONTEST HASN'T YET BEGAN. ALSO HILLARY LOST, STOP HARPING ON ABOUT IT LIKE SOME KIND OF DEMENTED PARAKEET THAT ONLY KNOWS TWO SENTENCES.

I figure you might, even unwillingly absorb some information from huge letters. I'm raping your brain!

I think that the problem is that the two Democratic nominees are each from a class of minority victimhood.

There are, however, obvious Democrats (see most of the people in West Virginia for example) who won't vote for a black man - even if it means voting for McCain.

And a lot of Democrats won't vote for a woman if it means a black man can be elected (see 90% of blacks) - and they'll stay home if they feel they've been fucked over for a woman.

Apparently, in Florida and Puerto Rico at least, Obama doesn't play well with Hispanics - perhaps because the up and coming "minority" in the US is now the Hispanics, and they see putting a black man in place as a problem.

While the Democrats were claiming that the "real" issue is war, economy, etc. - the real issue and question for Democrats is - whose "turn" is it to wield power, now that they have a really good chance at a cakewalk.

This quibbling over whose "turn" it is, and which "minority" will be represented is leading to more idiocy than 1968.

It will also lose the Democrats the election, and the moaning, shrieking, and handwringing will be neverending.

While I don't necessarily agree overall, you've got the gist if the dems actually do go there.

We are overdue for a 36 year realignment...

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y128/aridog/flamewar.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y128/aridog/flamewar.jpg

http://brettduncan.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/spam-c07.jpg

Most people don't. There's been a lot of attention on the Dem primary rules this year and how confusing they get, but from what I understand, the Repub rules are even more arcane.

yeah, more arcane and less democratic. shit, a good portion of their contests are 'advisory'.

speaking of the rules, who here thinks that a streamlined prima-caucus process would be a good thing to push places to have? as i said what seems like forever ago, i like the democratic nature of caucuses, though i know lots of people do not.

yeah, more arcane and less democratic. shit, a good portion of their contests are 'advisory'.

speaking of the rules, who here thinks that a streamlined prima-caucus process would be a good thing to push places to have? as i said what seems like forever ago, i like the democratic nature of caucuses, though i know lots of people do not.

Longer primary season is more democratic I think. Rides less on name power and more on campaigning, and is a good warm-up for the general. It also gives smaller states a voice without getting drowned in the flood a single day vote would have.

Wow, guys, really? You find yourselves wishing you were Republicans?
You bring a "what if", and I bring forward a "what if" and that somehow equates to me wishing that I was a Republican? Give your head a shake.

Has this ever really been about the party for you two?
It is all about the party....too bad it is a divided party right now.

Fuck, CH, you even smilied it.
Think about it. :)

So, what's all this noise about representing the voters?
What is so democratic about having superdelegates, especially when they can legally over-rule the delegates selection in this case.

And yeah, it was great to see that Florida and Michigan finally got some recognition, even though most of you were dead set against it. They should get full votes though.

you're not arguing that 'winner takes all' is more representative of the constituency, so has all this stomping around and whining just been smoke and mirrors?
The caucus in Texas is a sad example that people can vote twice and on the second vote, involving less people, they can garner offsetting delegates for the candidate who lost the primary. Yea....demoracy in action. Heck, you even let Republicans sign up and choose your leader. :(

But yes, please, crow about your beloved Republican's 'winner takes all' system out of one side of your mouth while whining about the voter representation with the other. I love novelty acts.
This whole democrat nomination has been a novelty act that will cost the Dems at the poll in November.

And IF the Dems ran their primaries like the Repubs (winner take all), then Hillary would be the nominee. :D
Actually, the Republican primaries weren't all WTA, and they do also have a handful of "superdelegate" like individuals who are unpledged.

They also decided to only give Florida and Michigan half a vote apiece.

Whether a contest with rules just like the Republican party's would have given Clinton or Obama a lead at this point depends mostly on whether Texas democrats would have had a caucus (Obama) or primary (Clinton); further, however, the campaign strategies used would have been different.

You can bet that in a contest like the Republican one, Obama and all the other candidates would've campaigned in Florida and Michigan, and Hillary may well not have won Michigan.

Like Huckabee, Edwards may have still been running on Super Tuesday. All sorts of monkey wrenches in that theory.

Just incase it hasn't sunk in previously

*snip*

I figure you might, even unwillingly absorb some information from huge letters. I'm raping your brain!

I don't think that's really necessary. Also, it hurts my eyes.

Longer primary season is more democratic I think. Rides less on name power and more on campaigning, and is a good warm-up for the general. It also gives smaller states a voice without getting drowned in the flood a single day vote would have.

yeah, though i recommend we rotate who gets to go when - iowa and new hampshire just ain't where we ought always be weeding out candidates. i also think it would be good to have them come in a few smaller bunches, without random 6 week breaks between any of them and without many single-state election days.

also, love the proportional representation, hate the implementation. either up the number of delegates or break them down into fewer subcategories. and no mini-contests (district or statewide) get an even number of delegates - that's fucking stupid, its almost always a tie in a two-way race.

Snip.

Please answer me something and I'm sorry if I phrase it too tactlessly or anything. Its been a long day and I don't mean to insult you or the other half of the Party.

Do you still want the Democrats to win?

It seems like you only want Hillary to win. Don't you release what four more Republican years would mean?! Yes, Clinton fought a hard campaign and it was close. Very close. Clinton would have been a great candidate. But the Democratic primaries have decided that Obama will be the better candidate. We've got to respect that. Most voters just needed a new face to bring the new change to Washington. I can imagine I'd be equally angry if Obama had lost, but I hope I could have rallied behind Clinton quickly enough.

So I'm sorry that Clinton lost, but that is now the reality. The only question left for you as her supporter is are you in the Democratic team or aren't you?

What is so democratic about having superdelegates, especially when they can legally over-rule the delegates selection in this case.
Note, for the record, that Obama has had a pretty hefty lead in pledged delegates for most of the contest, and still has that lead. With no superdelegates, the pressure for Clinton to drop out would've come much sooner and much harder.
And yeah, it was great to see that Florida and Michigan finally got some recognition, even though most of you were dead set against it. They should get full votes though.
The compromise I saw was pretty much what I expected to see. Note for the record that Clinton's folks were dead-set against seating anybody from Florida and Michigan until after she won those contests.

And all things considered, it was a pretty fair compromise for the situation. Turnout was terribly depressed, and nobody else really campaigned in those states.
The caucus in Texas is a sad example that people can vote twice and on the second vote, involving less people, they can garner offsetting delegates for the candidate who lost the primary. Yea....demoracy in action. Heck, you even let Republicans sign up and choose your leader. :(
According to exit polling, insincere cross-party voting gave Hillary a majority in Indiana. Otherwise, she would've lost the state.

Indications also suggest that insincere cross-party voting had everything to do with the white end of the "racial divide" between Obama and Clinton voters in Mississippi.

There's no telling that if Texas had a single presidential contest, that it would be a primary or a caucus - or how it would've turned out differently.
This whole democrat nomination has been a novelty act that will cost the Dems at the poll in November.
Novelty act? Because a new candidate was elected, and the pre-season front-runner lost out, without even the excuse that s/he was being hurt by a three-candidate divide?

Just incase it hasn't sunk in previously:

*snip*

I figure you might, even unwillingly absorb some information from huge letters. I'm raping your brain!

You're raping ours too. Desist.

You bring a "what if", and I bring forward a "what if" and that somehow equates to me wishing that I was a Republican? Give your head a shake.
I know you get confused by 'chain of conversation,' but it was in response to a specific comment, that Obama can't win without Superdelegates. Except that it's the existance of superdelegates that makes them neccisary to win, without them he would have won, while by contrast Clinton absolutely needs them to exist to override the delegate total. You see how that works? Now give your head a shake.


It is all about the party....too bad it is a divided party right now.
If it was, you wouldn't be cheerleading the people setting fire to it.


Think about it. :)
You first. Seriously, did you take seminars from Eutrusca or something?


What is so democratic about having superdelegates, especially when they can legally over-rule the delegates selection in this case.
Then you agree that they should ratify the delegate total? Good to hear. We can move on to the general election finally.

And yeah, it was great to see that Florida and Michigan finally got some recognition, even though most of you were dead set against it. They should get full votes though.
Like Harold Ickes, who voted to remove their delegates. I'm so tired of explaining the situation to you that I'm just not going to do it anymore, there isn't a third party reader that doesn't see this as it is that I don't have to bother.


The caucus in Texas is a sad example that people can vote twice and on the second vote, involving less people, they can garner offsetting delegates for the candidate who lost the primary. Yea....demoracy in action. Heck, you even let Republicans sign up and choose your leader. :(
I am not a Democrat much less a citizen of Texas or a person who set up their system. You know all three of these facts as they have either been stated or obvious.


This whole democrat nomination has been a novelty act that will cost the Dems at the poll in November.
Only if people make it about themselves and not the party or the nation. Anyone want to take a poll on which camp has done that?

Actually, the Republican primaries weren't all WTA, and they do also have a handful of "superdelegate" like individuals who are unpledged.

They also decided to only give Florida and Michigan half a vote apiece.

Whether a contest with rules just like the Republican party's would have given Clinton or Obama a lead at this point depends mostly on whether Texas democrats would have had a caucus (Obama) or primary (Clinton); further, however, the campaign strategies used would have been different.

You can bet that in a contest like the Republican one, Obama and all the other candidates would've campaigned in Florida and Michigan, and Hillary may well not have won Michigan.

Like Huckabee, Edwards may have still been running on Super Tuesday. All sorts of monkey wrenches in that theory.
"All sorts of monkey wrenches" indeed. IF Michigan and Florida had been viable from the outset, and IF Hillary had won both after the campaigning there, she probably would have received a super boost taking her into Super Tuesday with quite a handy lead. Yes indeed "All sorts of monkey wrenches in that theory"!!

The numbers are quite clear, Heikoku. When Florida and Michigan are added, Clinton wins.

Not according to RealClear Politics.

When the caucus state totals are added, she still wins.

Proof?

...and you'd accept that? Even though you're from Brazil, if you could, you'd vote for her?

I think not.

Have some compassion for those who lie on the other side.

Once more, I stress that I'd rather anything than John McCain to win, but that's the point, anything.

I would vote for her. I HATE her, but I FEAR John McCain more.

Well, no, Ted had a seizure. But Hillary's case, if there's one, may or not induce them.

And had brain surgery.

Do be fair though. We don't actually have to do anything to alienate Clinton supporters. They come to us already alienated. And when they get on someone's nerves to the point that the person lashes out, they feel justified in their original statement that people were being meanie-heads.

At least, that's what happens around here.

And if you are polite, they don't answer. After all, you can't justify a martyr complex when people aren't being meanie-heads.

Thank you so much.

Only if you don't count Florida and Michigan. The current tally shows her winning by 65,000 votes, and is situated second from the bottom.

Even if you count Florida and Michigan, HE STILL IS LEADING!!!

And had brain surgery.

And how do you suggest Clinton has a brain surgery? It's like asking me to have a gill surgery.

Clinton will never run again.

From your keyboard to God's eyes.

"All sorts of monkey wrenches" indeed. IF Michigan and Florida had been viable from the outset, and IF Hillary had won both after the campaigning there, she probably would have received a super boost taking her into Super Tuesday with quite a handy lead. Yes indeed "All sorts of monkey wrenches in that theory"!!
Actually, you forget that if Michigan was in anybody's demographic boat, it was in Edwards' boat.

Most realistic scenarios? These two:

One. Hillary carried Florida on the elderly, and Edwards got Michigan. Result: Edwards still in play on Super Tuesday. Sheer havoc on Super Tuesday with a third candidate in play. Several contests' results are changed.

Two. Hillary carries Florida on the elderly, but a split of the powerful union vote in Michigan fails to elevate Edwards to the top of the ticket. Result: Obama wins Michigan. The split decision between Florida and Michigan, with next to no net margin for either candidate, has the effect of encouraging Edwards to drop out.

No, your hypothetical scenario, if you think about it carefully, isn't that likely to come into play. Even with low turnout and neither Edwards nor Obama on the Michigan ballot, 40% voted still "uncommitted." With a serious campaign in the state, Michigan was anybody's state potentially.

Note that it wasn't until after Super Tuesday that Obama started getting coverage as a front-runner. Clinton was the presumptive front-runner until Super Tuesday happened.

And how do you suggest Clinton has a brain surgery? It's like asking me to have a gill surgery.

Sometimes this thread feels like a rowboat race where every once in a while one of the rowers on my boat stops rowing and just splashes the other boat.

Yes, Clinton and her supporters are flopping for the refs. Validating their inflated sense of persecution doesn't help. Especially in this thread where they will take any provocation as an attempt to avoid any reasonable discussion.

Sometimes this thread feels like a rowboat race where every once in a while one of the rowers on my boat stops rowing and just splashes the other boat.

Yes, Clinton and her supporters are flopping for the refs. Validating their inflated sense of persecution doesn't help. Especially in this thread where they will take any provocation as an attempt to avoid any reasonable discussion.

I was nice in this thread - ONCE. Long-run, I have a 2 by my name and two guys that STILL have a victim complex. So yeah.

Even if you count Florida and Michigan, HE STILL IS LEADING!!!

Well, if you count them both, and don't give Obama a single vote from Michigan, then she's ahead.

See? There is a way! =)

I will pointedly ignore your attempt to be clever.

The fact is that you're gonna lose. Sorry. The math just doesn't add up for you.

And yet, when I point out how it CAN add up, and that assuming Obama loses Florida, Ohio and Michigan, which he won't, you answer NOTHING.

You are INCORRECT. Rasmussen polls show the state as a Tossup-State. RealClearPolitics lists this:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ohio.html

STATE OF OHIO:
Obama leading by 1.3

He's winning Ohio. Thanks :D

I was nice in this thread - ONCE. Long-run, I have a 2 by my name and two guys that STILL have a victim complex. So yeah.

Can you please just shut up about that damn 2? I'm tired of hearing about it, and I doubt that I am the only one.

We have settled it. The liberal wing of the party has tried to hijack it (the Party). They have succeeded in wresting control from Democratic moderates, thereby alienating them. I don't think the split that you see is temporary. I think the split will hamper Democratic politics for years to come.

The split is YOUR fault.

He's winning Ohio. Thanks :D

To be fair, that's within the MOE, but it contrasts rather sharply with Shal's "OBAMA ABSOLUTELY CANNOT WIN OHIO NO MATTER WHAT!!!" claim.

I am not conceding it. I am stating, however, that Clinton has a very significant edge in this state whereas Obama has none. Nominating him is a gamble whereas nominating Clinton seems more likely, at present, to return a favorable result.

Even though 141 delegates are up for grabs with Clinton and 90 with Obama?

Can you please just shut up about that damn 2? I'm tired of hearing about it, and I doubt that I am the only one.

I will when Shal stops playing victim.

I was nice in this thread - ONCE. Long-run, I have a 2 by my name and two guys that STILL have a victim complex. So yeah.

Get over it, dude. No one makes you flame. Saying it's their fault you lost your shit is the same thing in essence as blaming Obama for Clinton's shitty campaign. I've been in this since the beginning, I was accused of having a 'bag of tricks' when I simply pointed out that both candidates have Kennedys supporting them and that it was a shitty metric for choosing a candidate. While I've been stepped back by Ardie now and then, I haven't so much as gotten a formal warning. You lost your shit. Deal with it and stop trying to drag the rest of us down with you.

Get over it, dude. No one makes you flame. Saying it's their fault you lost your shit is the same thing in essence as blaming Obama for Clinton's shitty campaign. I've been in this since the beginning, I was accused of having a 'bag of tricks' when I simply pointed out that both candidates have Kennedys supporting them and that it was a shitty metric for choosing a candidate. While I've been stepped back by Ardie now and then, I haven't so much as gotten a formal warning. You lost your shit. Deal with it and stop trying to drag the rest of us down with you.

Oh, but I am.

Oh, but I am.

What?

That's outrageous beyond compare, and it only strengthens my resolve to defeat Obama.

You want the truth? YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!!

To be fair, that's within the MOE, but it contrasts rather sharply with Shal's "OBAMA ABSOLUTELY CANNOT WIN OHIO NO MATTER WHAT!!!" claim.

To be even fairer, the positive number is only a result of a poll 10 points out of step with the other two at the narrowest gap. It seems more likely that he trails around 4 points, which as you said is within the MOE and five months out from the general election with a candidate who has demonstrated that he is a strong campaigner.

What?

"Yes."

:p

Ok, I rephrase: I AM dealing with it. But I only have to follow the rules of the forum, I don't have to be nice. :p

"Yes."

:p

Ok, I rephrase: I AM dealing with it. But I only have to follow the rules of the forum, I don't have to be nice. :p

Ah. Darn. I was all set to say 'what' in a bunch of different languages too.

I'm reminded of when I use to referee soccer and we'd have these players that would fall to the ground and grab their shins every time someone got the ball from them. We ignored them, the game was slow enough as it is...

In my rule book, I'd start issuing either yellow cards or just throw the bums out.

Ah. Darn. I was all set to say 'what' in a bunch of different languages too.

"What?"
"Was?"
"O quê?"
"Qué?"
"Nani?"
"Che?"
"Quois?"
"*Several tongue-clicking sounds*?"

You're giving him an excuse to continue.

He continues, excuse or not, so I might as well have fun.

I will when Shal stops playing victim.

You're giving him an excuse to continue.

In my rule book, I'd start issuing either yellow cards or just throw the bums out.

That's how soccer works, yes.

Listen. I want to appeal to your humanity here. If McCain is elected. People. Will. Die. People will lose their rights to their own bodies. The Middle class will continue to fall into poverty.

Actually most Middle Class people put themselves into that position due to there spending frenzies and credit and debt.

He continues, excuse or not, so I might as well have fun.

Damn, time warps are back.

Actually most Middle Class people put themselves into that position due to there spending frenzies and credit and debt.

:p

Okay, but aside from that...

In my rule book, I'd start issuing either yellow cards or just throw the bums out.

Yellow cards=paper work (alright, just writing in my little book, but thats still paperwork) and whistles and penalty kicks and bitching parents. I was an older teenager and it was youth soccer, I could just look at the flopper and say, "Dude, c'mon..." and they'd get embarrassed and move on. (my favorite moment was when a dad tried to dispute my clock. "My watch says we have three more minutes." "My watch is the game watch.")

Yellow cards=paper work (alright, just writing in my little book, but thats still paperwork) and whistles and penalty kicks and bitching parents. I was an older teenager and it was youth soccer, I could just look at the flopper and say, "Dude, c'mon..." and they'd get embarrassed and move on. (my favorite moment was when a dad tried to dispute my clock. "My watch says we have three more minutes." "My watch is the game watch.")

Well, maybe, but let's be frank, are we comparing this to teenager soccer or pro soccer? :p

Well, maybe, but let's be frank, are we comparing this to teenager soccer or pro soccer? :p

Considering the actors? Youth soccer.

Considering the actors? Youth soccer.

I'd compare Clinton to a youth soccer player, Obama to a pro and McCain to a senile old moron soccer player. :p

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/02/clinton-summons-top-donor_n_104715.html

"What?"
"Was?"
"O quê?"
"Qué?"
"Nani?"
"Che?"
"Quois?"
"*Several tongue-clicking sounds*?"

I was think ¿Qué?, Was?, Quoi? 何, then maybe branch out into some Cyrillic or Arabic alphabets.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/02/clinton-summons-top-donor_n_104715.html

And watch all the vitriol get focused squarely on John McCain.


Guy can dream can't he?

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/06/02/bill-clinton-this-could-be-the-last-day/

He's winning Ohio. Thanks :D

Inaddition to not understanding electoral politics, you people also cannot understand statistics apparently.

I, however, have taken a course on statistics, so I can tell you what a 1.3% lead means: Bupkis.

There is a concept in all polls known as the statistical margin of error. The margin of error represents the random sampling error possible in all survey results. That margin of error is usually around 3%.

What does this mean?

I'll tell you what it means. It means that results that fall within the margin are too close to call because the margin for error is larger than the difference between the votes themselves.

In other words, Obama's lead is statistically insignificant because it is small enough to be impacted by random sampling errors. For all we know, McCain could be up by 2% or Obama by 2.2%. It's simply too close to have a definite idea of what's going on.

On the other hand, Clinton leads by a far greater amount, and is therefore outside of the statistical dead heat. She doesn't have to struggle for an advantage like Barack Obama does. She's already got one in Ohio.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/02/clinton-summons-top-donor_n_104715.html

hmmmm, this could be it eh? *crosses fingers*

Inaddition to not understanding electoral politics, you people also cannot understand statistics apparently.

Oh comedy. You presume to lecture others about statistics. That's hilarious. What happened to the one and two point leads you were trumpeting a week ago? Want me to look 'em up for you?

That's a lie, Obama is not leading in Ohio (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=13737215#post13737215). Apology now would be lovely.

hmmmm, this could be it eh? *crosses fingers*

The moment she withdraws, I'm endorsing McCain and moving to the other side of the aisle. Furthermore, I'm calling on all Clinton backers to revolt and fight Obama's candidacy.

On the other hand, Clinton leads by a far greater amount, and is therefore outside of the statistical dead heat. She doesn't have to struggle for an advantage like Barack Obama does. She's already got one in Ohio.

Like that big advantage she had 5 months ago in the primaries?

Inaddition to not understanding electoral politics, you people also cannot understand statistics apparently.

I, however, have taken a course on statistics, so I can tell you what a 1.3% lead means: Bupkis.

There is a concept in all polls known as the statistical margin of error. The margin of error represents the random sampling error possible in all survey results. That margin of error is usually around 3%.

What does this mean?

I'll tell you what it means. It means that results that fall within the margin are too close to call because the margin for error is larger than the difference between the votes themselves.

In other words, Obama's lead is statistically insignificant because it is small enough to be impacted by random sampling errors. For all we know, McCain could be up by 2% or Obama by 2.2%. It's simply too close to have a definite idea of what's going on.

On the other hand, Clinton leads by a far greater amount, and is therefore outside of the statistical dead heat. She doesn't have to struggle for an advantage like Barack Obama does. She's already got one in Ohio.


Doesn't matter - that all changes dramatically once Clinton gets behind Obama as well as when Obama picks a VP. Not to mention McCains challenges with Barr.

We'll see Obama's chances rise dramatically in the next couple of months. You're going to see some crazy panic on the Republican side as the Dems unify.

The moment she withdraws, I'm endorsing McCain and moving to the other side of the aisle.

Because McCain is going to "stand up for Democratic ideals"?

Meanwhile, what happened to your statements that you would (albeit reluctantly) endorse Obama if Clinton did?

I have no intentions of unifying behind a party that is going to ignore the popular vote total and nominate a candidate just because he has a feel-good fairy tale story propelling his candidacy. I intend to vigorously oppose Barack Obama's candidacy in November, and I hope that many Clinton supporters will follow me into outright revolt against our party.

The moment she withdraws, I'm endorsing McCain and moving to the other side of the aisle. Furthermore, I'm calling on all Clinton backers to revolt and fight Obama's candidacy.

So, the moment she withdraws, you're calling on everyone to support a candidacy of someone that differs from Clinton way more than Obama does, with results that include but are not limited to more death, less freedom, more rape, etc.

You're a terrific person.

Inaddition to not understanding electoral politics, you people also cannot understand statistics apparently.

I, however, have taken a course on statistics, so I can tell you what a 1.3% lead means: Bupkis.

There is a concept in all polls known as the statistical margin of error. The margin of error represents the random sampling error possible in all survey results. That margin of error is usually around 3%.

What does this mean?

I'll tell you what it means. It means that results that fall within the margin are too close to call because the margin for error is larger than the difference between the votes themselves.

In other words, Obama's lead is statistically insignificant because it is small enough to be impacted by random sampling errors. For all we know, McCain could be up by 2% or Obama by 2.2%. It's simply too close to have a definite idea of what's going on.

On the other hand, Clinton leads by a far greater amount, and is therefore outside of the statistical dead heat. She doesn't have to struggle for an advantage like Barack Obama does. She's already got one in Ohio.

Alright, and now that you're finished your condescending rant (and yet another post ignoring any of the good will which has been granted you, again most notably from Jocabia), perhaps you should go back through the last 140 pages and see how many times there have been references made to margins of error. You'll get a fair few.

But hey, way to latch onto one perceived slip up by someone of the opposing side isntead of making any sort of argument. Bravo.

Because McCain is going to "stand up for Democratic ideals"?

Meanwhile, what happened to your statements that you would (albeit reluctantly) endorse Obama if Clinton did?



It's all about revenge now. Fuck the country and it's needs. A few Obama supporters were meanies and therefore Obama is a jerk. Doesn't matter how full of praise for Clinton that Obama has been.

So, the moment she withdraws, you're calling on everyone to support a candidacy of someone that differs from Clinton way more than Obama does, with results that include but are not limited to more death, less freedom, more rape, etc.

You're a terrific person.

You do not know me, and you do not have any right to level such a comment about me. As far as I am concerned, there has been a gross miscarriage of democracy. I of course cannot support any candidate who comes in on such grounds.

hmmmm, this could be it eh? *crosses fingers*

Clinton is known to want Obama to assist black officials who endorsed her and who are now taking constituent heat, including, in some cases, primary challenges from pro-Obama politicians.
This would go a long way.

Earlier in the day it was reported that Clinton staffers were being urged by the campaign's finance department "to turn in their outstanding expense receipts by the end of the week," another sign that the run at the White House was nearing an end. In addition, Politico wrote that members of Clinton's advance staff had received calls and emails Sunday night, summoning them to New York City and telling them their roles on the campaign are ending.
This could also just mean that it's time to pair the campaign down to fighting weight in preparation of a lean battle where she's not going to get support.

The moment she withdraws, I'm endorsing McCain and moving to the other side of the aisle. Furthermore, I'm calling on all Clinton backers to revolt and fight Obama's candidacy.

Stuff like this is going to be why the name of "Clinton" will be mud if Obama loses the election.

I have no intentions of unifying behind a party that is going to ignore the popular vote total

Do you mean the actual popular vote total or the Clinton, alternate reality popular vote total?

Inaddition to not understanding electoral politics, you people also cannot understand statistics apparently.

I, however, have taken a course on statistics, so I can tell you what a 1.3% lead means: Bupkis.

There is a concept in all polls known as the statistical margin of error. The margin of error represents the random sampling error possible in all survey results. That margin of error is usually around 3%.

What does this mean?

I'll tell you what it means. It means that results that fall within the margin are too close to call because the margin for error is larger than the difference between the votes themselves.

In other words, Obama's lead is statistically insignificant because it is small enough to be impacted by random sampling errors. For all we know, McCain could be up by 2% or Obama by 2.2%. It's simply too close to have a definite idea of what's going on.

On the other hand, Clinton leads by a far greater amount, and is therefore outside of the statistical dead heat. She doesn't have to struggle for an advantage like Barack Obama does. She's already got one in Ohio.

I do hope that you'll see that I did, in all fairness, point this out several posts ago, and additionally, as CTOAN pointed out, we should probably throw the pro-Obama poll out as an outlier.

I hope you'll note that, because I want to have a rational discussion, not dogmatic team yelling.

Now, tell me. Do you think it irrelevant that, at this moment, Obama has the combined might of the Clinton campaign and the McCain campaign aggressively attacking him at the moment, while the Republicans largely ignore -- or even praise-- Mrs. Clinton? Because I do not think the Republicans would continue in this matter were she, somehow, to win the nomination, do you? On the other hand, do you think Mrs. Clinton's campaign will continue to attack Mr. Obama if he does receive the nomination?
I do not.
So, when looking at the polls, you must consider: what will happen to Obama's ratings once the Clinton campaign stops attacking him? What will happen to Clinton's campaign once the Republicans resume attacking her?
Do you think that those things will have an impact? Why or why not?

On the other hand, Clinton leads by a far greater amount, and is therefore outside of the statistical dead heat. She doesn't have to struggle for an advantage like Barack Obama does. She's already got one in Ohio five months before the election when no Republican is wasting ammo on her (and some are actively supporting her in the primaries that wouldn't in the general).

Fixed.

You do not know me,
Did this just devolve into an episode of Ricky Lake?
Stuff like this is going to be why the name of "Clinton" will be mud if Obama loses the election.
Pretty much. This is a problem that Clinton created, not Obama. and if it is seen as the reason they lose in the fall a Clinton won't get so much as a precinct captain's position. They're at a phase now where they have to lose sight of the presidency and decide how to protect their legacy.

You do not know me, and you do not have any right to level such a comment about me. As far as I am concerned, there has been a gross miscarriage of democracy. I of course cannot support any candidate who comes in on such grounds.

I think that's a poor attitude to take.
When voting, your only consideration should be the impact of your vote. What will a vote for McCain do? It will lead to more violence, the repeal of abortion rights, more torture, etc... things that I don't think you want.

These are things that a vote for Obama will not do. If you want to make the same statement, why not vote 3rd party? That way, you express your distaste with Obama, yet you still do not vote for violence, torture, anti-choice, etc.

You do not know me, and you do not have any right to level such a comment about me. As far as I am concerned, there has been a gross miscarriage of democracy. I of course cannot support any candidate who comes in on such grounds.

--------------------


I had three paragraphs typed out but I'm sure I'd of gotten banned for it.

I believe he's been saying Nader as of late. Not sure.

Of course he also complains that the 'radical left' has hijacked the party, so I'm not sure how a vote for Nader will 'show them.' But, you know, thats a whole other...thing...there...

Nah, CH was saying Nader, Shal's been saying McCain.

I think that's a poor attitude to take.
When voting, your only consideration should be the impact of your vote. What will a vote for McCain do? It will lead to more violence, the repeal of abortion rights, more torture, etc... things that I don't think you want.

These are things that a vote for Obama will not do. If you want to make the same statement, why not vote 3rd party? That way, you express your distaste with Obama, yet you still do not vote for violence, torture, anti-choice, etc.
I believe he's been saying Nader as of late. Not sure.

Of course he also complains that the 'radical left' has hijacked the party, so I'm not sure how a vote for Nader will 'show them.' But, you know, thats a whole other...thing...there...

You do not know me, and you do not have any right to level such a comment about me. As far as I am concerned, there has been a gross miscarriage of democracy. I of course cannot support any candidate who comes in on such grounds.

Oh, but I DO know you.

Do you not realize that arguing with someone allows a view into how they think, how they behave? Here you are, promising to support the candidate that will cause more DEATH, and you claim I don't have the right to make "such a comment"? Please.

I think that's a poor attitude to take.
When voting, your only consideration should be the impact of your vote. What will a vote for McCain do? It will lead to more violence, the repeal of abortion rights, more torture, etc... things that I don't think you want.

These are things that a vote for Obama will not do. If you want to make the same statement, why not vote 3rd party? That way, you express your distaste with Obama, yet you still do not vote for violence, torture, anti-choice, etc.

A 3rd Party vote is a wasted vote, as it does not go to anyone who can win.

Oh, but I DO know you.

Do you not realize that arguing with someone allows a view into how they think, how they behave? Here you are, promising to support the candidate that will cause more DEATH, and you claim I don't have the right to make "such a comment"? Please.

How about all the death that just yanking our troops out of Iraq will cause? I don't hear you saying much about THAT death.

A 3rd Party vote is a wasted vote, as it does not go to anyone who can win.

So, sorta like a Clinton vote?

I have no intentions of unifying behind a party that is going to ignore the popular vote total and nominate a candidate just because he has a feel-good fairy tale story propelling his candidacy. I intend to vigorously oppose Barack Obama's candidacy in November, and I hope that many Clinton supporters will follow me into outright revolt against our party.

That's silly. Do whatever you want, maybe you do like that other guy better, what's with roping 'Clinton supporters' in with you?

Incidentally, the lack of a popular vote total presents a problem.

How about all the death that just yanking our troops out of Iraq will cause? I don't hear you saying much about THAT death.

That's because it'll be less than the deaths staying there will cause, and because there ARE other ways to support Iraq, ways that Obama will pursue, without continuing the rape of the country.

Furthermore, Clinton herself said she'd withdraw troops. Just like Obama did. So, are you now actually doublethinking your way into supporting McCain?

How about all the death that just yanking our troops out of Iraq will cause? I don't hear you saying much about THAT death.

Which is why Obama favors a "staged withdrawl" policy. The exact same type of policy Senator Clinton supports...

A 3rd Party vote is a wasted vote, as it does not go to anyone who can win.

So instead of a wasted protest vote, you are willing to vote for violence, torture, rape (and I do consider forcing a woman to carry to term morally equivalent to rape), and such?

A 3rd Party vote is a wasted vote, as it does not go to anyone who can win.

Dude, you gave us your voting record, you aren't used to that by now? Alright, perhaps below the belt.

The only reason 'third party' votes are 'wasted' is because people like you convince themselves that they are. If every dissatisfied voter who didn't like either of the two dog choices voted their conscience 'third' parties could sweep. But the big dogs rely on you defeating yourself, so they owe you a cookie for keeping them dominant.

You do not know me, and you do not have any right to level such a comment about me. As far as I am concerned, there has been a gross miscarriage of democracy. I of course cannot support any candidate who comes in on such grounds.

As far as I am concerned, there has been a gross miscarriage of ladies' underwear, but that's neither here nor there in regards to reality.

That's because it'll be less than the deaths staying there will cause, and because there ARE other ways to support Iraq, ways that Obama will pursue, without continuing the rape of the country.

Furthermore, Clinton herself said she'd withdraw troops. Just like Obama did. So, are you now actually doublethinking your way into supporting McCain?

You are just pulling that out of nowhere. You have no real idea how many deaths will be caused if we stay or if we go. I CAN tell you that violence in Iraq is on a trajectory downwards, which suggests you're quite wrong in that regard.

That's because it'll be less than the deaths staying there will cause, and because there ARE other ways to support Iraq, ways that Obama will pursue, without continuing the rape of the country.

Furthermore, Clinton herself said she'd withdraw troops. Just like Obama did. So, are you now actually doublethinking your way into supporting McCain?
I beleive she even said specifically 6 months. That's yanking.

You are just pulling that out of nowhere. You have no real idea how many deaths will be caused if we stay or if we go. I CAN tell you that violence in Iraq is on a trajectory downwards, which suggests you're quite wrong in that regard.

Technically speaking it depends on precisely how steep that trend is, and, moreover, how the troops presence or lack thereof will affect that trend.

I have no intentions of unifying behind a party that is going to ignore the popular vote total and nominate a candidate just because he has a feel-good fairy tale story propelling his candidacy. I intend to vigorously oppose Barack Obama's candidacy in November, and I hope that many Clinton supporters will follow me into outright revolt against our party.

(a) Choosing not to unify behind the Democrats does not equate to backing the Republicans instead. The former would suggest that you had true problems with the chosen candidate. The latter suggests a sour grapes mentality.

(b) Yes, I'm sure that all of us who voted for Obama voted for him "just because he has a feel-good fairy tale story..." It couldn't possibly be that many - even most - of the voters disagreed with you on who was the best candidate, right?

You do not know me, and you do not have any right to level such a comment about me. As far as I am concerned, there has been a gross miscarriage of democracy. I of course cannot support any candidate who comes in on such grounds.

If this was such a miscarriage of democracy, why weren't you calling for changes to the rules before the contest? And why are you simultaneously lamenting the fact that the contest wasn't even less democratic (ie. like the Republicans)?

Meanwhile, again, I'm sure you are aware that choosing not to support one candidate doesn't mean you must support another.


These are things that a vote for Obama will not do. If you want to make the same statement, why not vote 3rd party? That way, you express your distaste with Obama, yet you still do not vote for violence, torture, anti-choice, etc.

Or even do a write-in vote.

If Shal is so certain that Clinton should be on the ticket, why not write her in? It's something I'd consider doing if Obama were not on the ticket.

You are just pulling that out of nowhere. You have no real idea how many deaths will be caused if we stay or if we go. I CAN tell you that violence in Iraq is on a trajectory downwards, which suggests you're quite wrong in that regard.

I'm NEVER wrong.

Furthermore, you were going to vote for Clinton, which supports the SAME kind of withdrawal Obama does. So, I repeat my question, are you doublethinking yourself into supporting McCain now?

(a) Choosing not to unify behind the Democrats does not equate to backing the Republicans instead. The former would suggest that you had true problems with the chosen candidate. The latter suggests a sour grapes mentality.

(b) Yes, I'm sure that all of us who voted for Obama voted for him "just because he has a feel-good fairy tale story..." It couldn't possibly be that many - even most - of the voters disagreed with you on who was the best candidate, right?



If this was such a miscarriage of democracy, why weren't you calling for changes to the rules before the contest? And why are you simultaneously lamenting the fact that the contest wasn't even less democratic (ie. like the Republicans)?

Meanwhile, again, I'm sure you are aware that choosing not to support one candidate doesn't mean you must support another.



Or even do a write-in vote.

If Shal is so certain that Clinton should be on the ticket, why not write her in? It's something I'd consider doing if Obama were not on the ticket.

I believe I stated that I'm voting for McCain instead.

We have settled it. The liberal wing of the party has tried to hijack it (the Party). They have succeeded in wresting control from Democratic moderates, thereby alienating them. I don't think the split that you see is temporary. I think the split will hamper Democratic politics for years to come.

You really do not have a clue about politics do you?

I believe I stated that I'm voting for McCain instead.

You also stated something about a revolt and a natural abortion of something or another?

A 3rd Party vote is a wasted vote, as it does not go to anyone who can win.

If you don't think either possible winner is a good candidate, why not make a statement with a "wasted vote"? Isn't that better than voting for someone who isn't a good candidate?

Or is it just important that you vote for the winner, no matter who that is?

I believe I stated that I'm voting for McCain instead.

Indeed. I'm just trying to understand the mentality that would cause you to vote for someone who is, as far as I can tell, fundamentally opposed to everything you stand for.

The only thing I can figure is that it's a sour grapes vote - a revenge vote - a spiteful vote.

What, exactly, has McCain done to earn your vote?

If you don't think either possible winner is a good candidate, why not make a statement with a "wasted vote"? Isn't that better than voting for someone who isn't a good candidate?

Or is it just important that you vote for the winner, no matter who that is?



Indeed. I'm just trying to understand the mentality that would cause you to vote for someone who is, as far as I can tell, fundamentally opposed to everything you stand for.

The only thing I can figure is that it's a sour grapes vote - a revenge vote - a spiteful vote.

What, exactly, has McCain done to earn your vote?

Well, for one, my local McCain supporters have asked for it, while my local Obama supporters have taken an arrogant, elitist tone and lorded their wins over me. I think if you were in my position, you'd feel a little differently.

(b) Yes, I'm sure that all of us who voted for Obama voted for him "just because he has a feel-good fairy tale story..." It couldn't possibly be that many - even most - of the voters disagreed with you on who was the best candidate, right?


This is what I was ranting about last week. We get all the slings and arrows, we're deluded, we're starcrossed, we're suckers, we're stupid, 'we're sexist, we're part of a vast conspiracy to steal an election by frowning on rule changes midgame, we're meanies. But they're the ones being slandered? Good grief.

Well, for one, my local McCain supporters have asked for it, while my local Obama supporters have taken an arrogant, elitist tone and lorded their wins over me. I think if you were in my position, you'd feel a little differently.

Can't you think for yourself?

I believe I stated that I'm voting for McCain instead.

Yes, and we're trying to point out why that is irrational-- based on feelings instead of reason-- and suggesting alternatives other than voting for our candidate.

Just remember: Whatever you may say about Obama, he won't get Roe v. Wade overturned. McCain will. He won't continue torture at Gitmo. McCain will. He won't keep us for another 4 years of fighting in Iraq. McCain will. He won't seek another war with Iran. McCain (probably) will.

Vote on issues. Vote on reason. Do not vote on feelings or on a thirst for revenge, for that could be the biggest mistake of your life.

I mean, consider:
say Obama gets the nomination. And you vote for McCain, and McCain wins. And McCain starts a new war in Iran, and many thousands of people die. If that were to happen, would you regret your vote?

I'm NEVER wrong.

Furthermore, you were going to vote for Clinton, which supports the SAME kind of withdrawal Obama does. So, I repeat my question, are you doublethinking yourself into supporting McCain now?

Because the most important thing in an argument, election, or sporting event is to never ever lose. If you start to lose you take a dive and play the victim. Better to have your opponent painted as a cheater.

Dude, you gave us your voting record, you aren't used to that by now? Alright, perhaps below the belt.

The only reason 'third party' votes are 'wasted' is because people like you convince themselves that they are. If every dissatisfied voter who didn't like either of the two dog choices voted their conscience 'third' parties could sweep. But the big dogs rely on you defeating yourself, so they owe you a cookie for keeping them dominant.

There arn't enough swing voters committed to not vote for either party to overturn die hards, especially Republican die hards. Also, there is this problem of a third party not being able to get on the ballot realistically. A vote for a third-party candidate is a wasted vote on a number of rational levels.

Well, for one, my local McCain supporters have asked for it, while my local Obama supporters have taken an arrogant, elitist tone and lorded their wins over me. I think if you were in my position, you'd feel a little differently.

So you feel that your local supporters were jerks. What does that have to do with what Obama will do if he was elected? That is the only criterion you should consider.
Were I in your position, with Hillary supporters treating me like you say Obama supporters have done to you (incidentally, some have), and she won the nomination, I can confidently say I wouldn't support McCain.

Because the most important thing in an argument, election, or sporting event is to never ever lose. If you start to lose you take a dive and play the victim. Better to have your opponent painted as a cheater.

It's why I said I'm NEVER wrong. ;)

Simply put. Clinton won the popular vote, but is going to lose the nomination. I find the idea to be reprehensible. Odious. Scandalous. I intend to resist his candidacy regardless of the temporary cost to my own beliefs and values.

That's how soccer works, yes.

Indeed. Considering the fact that I have been helping my Fiance study the book it has become quite clear that Clinton would have been given a red card a long time ago.

Well, for one, my local McCain supporters have asked for it, while my local Obama supporters have taken an arrogant, elitist tone and lorded their wins over me. I think if you were in my position, you'd feel a little differently.

Judging from your behavour here I'm going to have to assume that these faceless Obama supporters that kicked your puppy and insulted your momma really just pinched the bridge of their nose, let out a sigh and said, "You know-look, fine. Do what you want. We're gonna to get back to work now."

hey look, poblano made a popular vote calculator (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/06/popular-vote-scenario-tester.html) that includes a whole host of possibly relevant options. like using the michigan exit polls, or excluding the non-voting territories.

i love the internet

Simply put. Clinton won the popular vote, but is going to lose the nomination. I find the idea to be reprehensible. Odious. Scandalous. I intend to resist his candidacy regardless of the temporary cost to my own beliefs and values.

Did you riot in the streets after 2000? Or are you really a Republican, playing Democrat for the fools who hear you?

Simply put. Clinton won the popular vote, but is going to lose the nomination. I find the idea to be reprehensible. Odious. Scandalous. I intend to resist his candidacy regardless of the temporary cost to my own beliefs and values.

Except that statement doesn't make sense.

Simply put. Clinton won the popular vote, but is going to lose the nomination. I find the idea to be reprehensible. Odious. Scandalous...

...Fictional.

Well, for one, my local McCain supporters have asked for it, while my local Obama supporters have taken an arrogant, elitist tone and lorded their wins over me. I think if you were in my position, you'd feel a little differently.

(a) I would again ask you to look at your own behavior. I don't know how you act towards McCain supporters, but you have consistently been downright rude towards Obama supporters. Two wrongs don't make a right, of course, but you certainly can't be surprised when they are rude in return.

(b) I don't know about you, but someone asking me to vote for a candidate doesn't mean that I will. I actually vote based on the candidate. A good friend of mine desperately wanted me to support Ron Paul. He's a close friend, so I checked out Paul, and found him severely wanting as a candidate. So I don't support him.

(c) I've already told you what I'll do if something strange happens and Clinton gets the nomination. I don't see her as a particularly good candidate. I don't see McCain as a good candidate either. Unless one of them earned my vote (which seems rather doubtful), I'd be perfectly willing to vote 3rd party or even use a write-in vote. I'm not as concerned with voting for the winner as I am with voting for the person I think is best for the job.

Indeed. Considering the fact that I have been helping my Fiance study the book it has become quite clear that Clinton would have been given a red card a long time ago.

She wants to be a ref? o_O

Simply put. Clinton won the popular vote,
Again, are we using the Clinton alternative reality popular vote where caucuses don't count because Clinton couldn't caucus even on the other side of the looking glass and then counting the states where the other candidates, who played by the rules, stayed out of.

Simply put. Clinton won the popular vote, but is going to lose the nomination. I find the idea to be reprehensible. Odious. Scandalous. I intend to resist his candidacy regardless of the temporary cost to my own beliefs and values.

No she didn't, unless you don't count some states.

Yellow cards=paper work (alright, just writing in my little book, but thats still paperwork) and whistles and penalty kicks and bitching parents. I was an older teenager and it was youth soccer, I could just look at the flopper and say, "Dude, c'mon..." and they'd get embarrassed and move on. (my favorite moment was when a dad tried to dispute my clock. "My watch says we have three more minutes." "My watch is the game watch.")

Those are always so much fun. Listening to the parents bitch and listening to the Coaches moan as well. :D

Sounds like the Clinton supporters in this election though don't it?

...Clinton won the popular vote...

It would be awesome to get an entire page stating the error here.

regardless of the temporary cost to my own beliefs and values.

i.e, you aren't actually that concerned about democratic values being upheld?

Simply put. Clinton won the popular vote, but is going to lose the nomination.

This isn't true. I suppose it might be after tomorrow, but I doubt it. The only way you can make this statement is if Obama either gets no votes from Michigan or you don't count the caucus states at all.

Incidentally, there are no popular vote totals for caucus states. They are estimates at best. And if popular vote were the metric, there wouldn't be a single state that would hold a caucus, as that would reduce their say in the outcome.

I find the idea to be reprehensible. Odious. Scandalous. I intend to resist his candidacy regardless of the temporary cost to my own beliefs and values.

A lot of people find the idea of Obama losing the candidacy when he has won the most delegates were be equally reprehensible.

What would you say to someone who vowed to throw away their own beliefs and values to vote for the Republican side against Clinton if that happened? Would you say, "Well, that makes sense"?

Inaddition to not understanding electoral politics, you people also cannot understand statistics apparently.

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Shal? I got a bachelors degree in Political Science. Come back to me when you actually have evidence.

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Shal? I got a bachelors degree in Political Science. Come back to me when you actually have evidence.

[sidebar]
What kind of employment does a B.A. in Poly Sci qualify one for these days?

I have no intentions of unifying behind a party that is going to ignore the popular vote total and nominate a candidate just because he has a feel-good fairy tale story propelling his candidacy.

So you want people to go against the popular vote count because your pet candidate failed to actually win the primary race? How stupid do you want us to be?

I intend to vigorously oppose Barack Obama's candidacy in November, and I hope that many Clinton supporters will follow me into outright revolt against our party.

You really are a sad person aren't you? You want the democratic party to be hurt?

Stuff like this is going to be why the name of "Clinton" will be mud if Obama loses the election.

Sad but true.

You really are a sad person aren't you? You want the democratic party to be hurt?

I was picturing a more flipping cars and setting them on fire scenario.

[sidebar]
What kind of employment does a B.A. in Poly Sci qualify one for these days?

grad school!

You are just pulling that out of nowhere. You have no real idea how many deaths will be caused if we stay or if we go. I CAN tell you that violence in Iraq is on a trajectory downwards, which suggests you're quite wrong in that regard.

First correct thing you said in this entire thread.

First correct thing you said in this entire thread.

Read my response.

grad school!
What does a M.A. in Poly Sci qualify one for? More grad school? After you do your post-doc work and still can't find a teaching job -- what then?

Simply put. Clinton won the popular vote, but is going to lose the nomination. I find the idea to be reprehensible. Odious. Scandalous. I intend to resist his candidacy regardless of the temporary cost to my own beliefs and values.

Which shows you have no use for intellectual debate.

She wants to be a ref? o_O

Yep :) In fact, I'm leaving in a couple of minutes to take her to take the test.

[sidebar]
What kind of employment does a B.A. in Poly Sci qualify one for these days?

Not much. Right now though, I'm working on my masters for History. Another degree that I earned at the same time as my poly sci degree.

hey look, poblano made a popular vote calculator (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/06/popular-vote-scenario-tester.html) that includes a whole host of possibly relevant options. like using the michigan exit polls, or excluding the non-voting territories.

i love the internet

According to this source, Clinton has an electoral edge here. 291 to 271 for Obama. In other words, Clinton can afford to do worse than expected and still win. Obama can't. He has to run the table.

Yep :) In fact, I'm leaving in a couple of minutes to take her to take the test.

Good luck with that.

Some hard thinking coming up for those superdelegates. Obama is not finishing strongly (http://news.sympatico.msn.ctv.ca/abc/home/contentposting.aspx?isfa=1&feedname=CTV-TOPSTORIES_V3&showbyline=True&newsitemid=CTVNews%2f20080601%2fClinton_obama_080602).



Fears grow that Obama can't win (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/01/barackobama.uselections2008)

Um, I thought you two were arguing that she's a stronger candidate than McCain, particularly among moderate voters and democrats. Doesn't it make sense Obama would struggle with her? What does that have to do with the general? Obama struggles with the white working class AGAINST Clinton. Obama struggles with the latinos AGAINST Clinton. Obama struggles with the elderly AGAINST Clinton. Okay, that one probably holds true with McCain. But in general that Obama is struggling with Clinton has no bearing on the general unless you admit that Hillary is a weaker candidate than McCain. According to you and Shal, Clinton is the strongest candidate in the race. Obama just beat the strongest candidate in the race. That he "barely" did it isn't as relevant that he did it.

Meanwhile, if Obama is weaker than McCain as you claim, what does that mean about Clinton running against McCain?

Additionally, so would you agree that since Clinton struggled with black voters against Obama that it means she would struggle for those same votes against McCain (assuming she fairly won the election)?

According to this source, Clinton has an electoral edge here. 291 to 271 for Obama. In other words, Clinton can afford to do worse than expected and still win. Obama can't. He has to run the table.

Again, for the nth time: As it is, with Republicans praising her and both sides attacking him.

Alright, since clearly our two resident Clinton supporters seem to be blatantly ignoring any fair and/or valid points levied against them and are reducing this "debate" to nothing more than constant repititions of indefensible positions, I am going to attempt to play Devil's Advocate.

*ahem*

Here are some reasons that Hillary Clinton should be the nominee:

-While it is true that popular vote cannot be completely relied upon as such, and it is clear that the rules of the DNC do not use such a metric to officially decide the nominee for the Democratic party, the popular vote count can still serve some purpose. As this race is currently very close, and has been close throughout, the popular vote can at the very least say that support for either candidate in the race has been extremely significant. Given the remaining number of superdelegates, they need to decide which candidate to support, but cannot do it simply on delegate count. Neither candidate has enough delegates to completely wrap up the nomination. So how do the supers decide whom they should support? While popular vote may not necessarily put Clinton over the top in that regard, it should at least even things up so that the amount of support for each candidate cancels out the other. In other words, neither candidate has a significant lead over the other in the most general metric, that of garnered support. Given this fact, the supers have a right to vote for whichever candidate they feel will be the strongest in November, and which candidate they feel represents their values most strongly. In many cases, this will be Hillary Clinton. Perhaps it will not be the case enough for her to win, but it at least makes the case that she should stay in.

-Hillary Clinton represents not only Democrats, not even only her supporters, but the struggle of women in these United States. A case could be made that women's rights is the least, or at least one of the least, heralded cause in the US. Just think how easy it is to label someone who stands up for women as a "feminazi" or a "militant feminist." It happens all the time. It is simply assumed in many cases that the status quo is fine, and when a women's right activist speaks out for a cause, he/she is a "radical left winger." Having a female nominee, and eventually female President, would do wonders to ease the ills, obvious or not, that are still so prevalent in our society.

-Of the two candidates still in the race, Hillary Clinton is the stronger one. Think about how she would fare against John McCain. He runs on experience. She's got it. He runs on being the nice guy, something which the US has clearly indicated that they are not interested in. She's the strong candidate. He runs on being tough on our enemies. So does she. On top of all this, Hillary wants to give everyone health care, improve our education, and reform our economy. In almost every aspect, she sees McCain and raises him. Add to this the amount of racism that works against Obama, and you have what could be a clear winner in November.

I welcome your dissent, and only ask that it remain friendly and civil while we hash out the remainder of this primary process.

the popular vote count can still serve some purpose.

Except that, largely considering caucuses, it fails to exist.

-Hillary Clinton represents not only Democrats, not even only her supporters, but the struggle of women in these United States. A case could be made that women's rights is the least, or at least one of the least, heralded cause in the US. Just think how easy it is to label someone who stands up for women as a "feminazi" or a "militant feminist." It happens all the time. It is simply assumed in many cases that the status quo is fine, and when a women's right activist speaks out for a cause, he/she is a "radical left winger." Having a female nominee, and eventually female President, would do wonders to ease the ills, obvious or not, that are still so prevalent in our society.

uh...cough black person cough?

I was nice in this thread - ONCE. Long-run, I have a 2 by my name and two guys that STILL have a victim complex. So yeah.

YOU got modded. I don't give a flying monkey crap why YOU think YOU got modded, I can tell you with absolute certainty it was YOUR fault. It does not excuse YOUR continued behavior, YOUR continued victim complex and that YOU are preventing meaningful conversation. Take responsibility for YOURSELF and stop wasting everyone else's time. Physician, heal thyself.

Sorry bout separating these, but I think it might work out.
-Of the two candidates still in the race, Hillary Clinton is the stronger one. Think about how she would fare against John McCain. He runs on experience. She's got it. He runs on being the nice guy, something which the US has clearly indicated that they are not interested in. She's the strong candidate. He runs on being tough on our enemies. So does she. On top of all this, Hillary wants to give everyone health care, improve our education, and reform our economy. In almost every aspect, she sees McCain and raises him. Add to this the amount of racism that works against Obama, and you have what could be a clear winner in November.

Except for a general, ah, failure to campaign? In that regard, we can see Obama's strength, at least?

Except that, largely considering caucuses, it fails to exist.

While I do recognize that the figures are not going to be entirely accurate (as I indicated), that is not to say that supers should completely disregard the amount of votes that each candidate garnered. What's clear is that popular vote is close, and that neither candidate completely ran away with it-- evidence that Clinton still has a case to make to the supers.

Sorry bout separating these, but I think it might work out.


Except for a general, ah, failure to campaign? In that regard, we can see Obama's strength, at least?

Obama certainly is a good campaigner, and one that gives a very inspirational speech, but do you think the same tactics will work against McCain, or against a populace that is not nearly so forgiving? He is going to need much more substance in November. Of course, this is not to say that he doesn't have it. It is only an indication that his ability to run a strong campaign based on rhetoric very well may not translate in the general election.

YOU got modded. I don't give a flying monkey crap why YOU think YOU got modded, I can tell you with absolute certainty it was YOUR fault. It does not excuse YOUR continued behavior, YOUR continued victim complex and that YOU are preventing meaningful conversation. Take responsibility for YOURSELF and stop wasting everyone else's time. Physician, heal thyself.

Well, right now I'm acting within the rules. I have to be civil, I don't have to be nice. As for meaningful conversation (a concept that's relative), do you think if I weren't here Shal or CH would start having it?

While I do recognize that the figures are not going to be entirely accurate (as I indicated), that is not to say that supers should completely disregard the amount of votes that each candidate garnered. What's clear is that popular vote is close, and that neither candidate completely ran away with it-- evidence that Clinton still has a case to make to the supers.

But if it's so close and that inaccurate, I don't think it's a good place to go at all. So, what, do you recommend dividing the supers evenly to represent the 'garnered support' or what not? Sure. There's no way you could support a significant skew towards Clinton.

What would you say to someone who vowed to throw away their own beliefs and values to vote for the Republican side against Clinton if that happened? Would you say, "Well, that makes sense"?

I want a response to this from Shal or CH or some other Clinton supporter who vows to vote McSame.

Alright, since clearly our two resident Clinton supporters seem to be blatantly ignoring any fair and/or valid points levied against them and are reducing this "debate" to nothing more than constant repititions of indefensible positions, I am going to attempt to play Devil's Advocate.

Fun!

-Hillary Clinton represents not only Democrats, not even only her supporters, but the struggle of women in these United States. A case could be made that women's rights is the least, or at least one of the least, heralded cause in the US. Just think how easy it is to label someone who stands up for women as a "feminazi" or a "militant feminist." It happens all the time. It is simply assumed in many cases that the status quo is fine, and when a women's right activist speaks out for a cause, he/she is a "radical left winger." Having a female nominee, and eventually female President, would do wonders to ease the ills, obvious or not, that are still so prevalent in our society.

That position is nothing but sexism itself. Shall we combat sexism with sexism?

Voting for Clinton because she is a woman is fundamentally no different from refusing to vote for her on the basis that she is a woman. In either case, you are voting based on what genitalia she has, rather than whether or not she would do a good job.

-Of the two candidates still in the race, Hillary Clinton is the stronger one. Think about how she would fare against John McCain. He runs on experience. She's got it.

Not against him. This was part of the problem with her bringing in experience in the primaries. Sure, she might be able to say she's got more political experience than Obama, if we count being First Lady as her own experience. But more than McCain? How long has he been in politics?

He runs on being the nice guy, something which the US has clearly indicated that they are not interested in. She's the strong candidate.

Hehe

He runs on being tough on our enemies. So does she.

So does Obama....except that "tough" for him doesn't mean "mindless saber-rattling." It doesn't mean singing "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" or saying you would "obliterate Iran."

On top of all this, Hillary wants to give everyone health care, improve our education, and reform our economy. In almost every aspect, she sees McCain and raises him.

She wants to force everyone into having health insurance and fine them if they cannot or will not. In a country that values independence, I don't see that going over well. Granted, McCain's proposal isn't any better, but I don't think she has a significant advantage on healthcare. Obama, on the other hand, might. He plans on making sure everyone can get healthcare, without forcing it on them. Some may say that isn't a significant difference, but I, for one, disagree. And I think a lot of people - often Independent voters - do.

Education, she might. But I think Obama would have him topped there as well.

Economy, it's a difference of opinions on which would be better. She'd probably have the leg-up on him in that she's not planning more of the same. But then again, so would Obama.

Add to this the amount of racism that works against Obama, and you have what could be a clear winner in November.

I'm always leery of picking a candidate based on racism - even someone else's.

I welcome your dissent, and only ask that it remain friendly and civil while we hash out the remainder of this primary process.

=)

uh...cough black person cough?

This is a fair point. Obama certainly does represent a demographic of his own, but one that is significantly smaller in number to the one which Clinton represents. At worst, these cancel each other out. At best, it gives Clinton the edge.

Obama certainly is a good campaigner, and one that gives a very inspirational speech, but do you think the same tactics will work against McCain, or against a populace that is not nearly so forgiving? He is going to need much more substance in November. Of course, this is not to say that he doesn't have it. It is only an indication that his ability to run a strong campaign based on rhetoric very well may not translate in the general election.

It think he's going to have more trouble from the fact that the general election comes with a large number of people who care a great deal less about the entire process. Lack of substance has rarely been of issue, from what I remember.

Obama certainly is a good campaigner, and one that gives a very inspirational speech, but do you think the same tactics will work against McCain, or against a populace that is not nearly so forgiving? He is going to need much more substance in November. Of course, this is not to say that he doesn't have it. It is only an indication that his ability to run a strong campaign based on rhetoric very well may not translate in the general election.

In my mind, the rhetoric is that Obama hasn't put forth substance.

You never see substance in the sound bites on the news and you never get much in the debates - especially not primary debates - from any candidate.

But it doesn't take much research to get to the substance. And I've heard enough of the town hall meetings to know that Obama will definitely get into the details - sometimes probably more detail than the questioner really wanted. And while I'm sure that the big rallies helped, I think it's Obama's smaller appearances (and his grassroots support who can put that substance out there as well) that really helped him come from behind in many of the races during the primary. I see no reason to believe it wouldn't continue in the general.

Obama certainly is a good campaigner, and one that gives a very inspirational speech, but do you think the same tactics will work against McCain, or against a populace that is not nearly so forgiving? He is going to need much more substance in November. Of course, this is not to say that he doesn't have it. It is only an indication that his ability to run a strong campaign based on rhetoric very well may not translate in the general election.

if she cant win the nomination, how is she gong to win the election?

Fun!



That position is nothing but sexism itself. Shall we combat sexism with sexism?

Voting for Clinton because she is a woman is fundamentally no different from refusing to vote for her on the basis that she is a woman. In either case, you are voting based on what genitalia she has, rather than whether or not she would do a good job.

But I don't think there's a question of whether or not she would do a good job. Most of us can agree that she would. Voting for her based on gender makes a symbolic statement-- one that says that we recognize the plight of women, regardless of its being downplayed pretty often. This is about recognizing the rights of women. It's about recognizing that they have a say in politics, and that it is no longer a "man's world." Now should someone vote for her solely based on her gender? No. But given the fact that she is also a strong candidate, it can get this country moving in the right direction.

Not against him. This was part of the problem with her bringing in experience in the primaries. Sure, she might be able to say she's got more political experience than Obama, if we count being First Lady as her own experience. But more than McCain? How long has he been in politics?

True, he does have quite a bit of experience, but this experience is largely mired by his recent trend of going from maverick to lapdog. In addition, Obama's complete lack of experience will get him written off right from the bat in the minds of a lot of voters.

So does Obama....except that "tough" for him doesn't mean "mindless saber-rattling." It doesn't mean singing "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" or saying you would "obliterate Iran."

Whether Obama's stance is actually tough or not is largely irrelevant; it all comes down to whether or not people will perceive it as tough. And people won't.

She wants to force everyone into having health insurance and fine them if they cannot or will not. In a country that values independence, I don't see that going over well. Granted, McCain's proposal isn't any better, but I don't think she has a significant advantage on healthcare. Obama, on the other hand, might. He plans on making sure everyone can get healthcare, without forcing it on them. Some may say that isn't a significant difference, but I, for one, disagree. And I think a lot of people - often Independent voters - do.

Well, I'm not particularly well versed on the specifics of either health care plan. So let's take this as a draw in that they would both have the upper hand on McCain.

I'm always leery of picking a candidate based on racism - even someone else's.

I'm not particularly fond of it either, but if given the choice between healing one societal ill and another, and the only difference is which one is more likely to succeed, I'll take the more likely one.

Just think how easy it is to label someone who stands up for women as a "feminazi" or a "militant feminist."
Alot of those women are...

Having a female nominee, and eventually female President, would do wonders to ease the ills, obvious or not, that are still so prevalent in our society.
As would a minority president. When a woman who deserves the position earns it, not just one with a name facing off against a minority who would have won ages ago were he not a minority, then a female can be president.

-Of the two candidates still in the race, Hillary Clinton is the stronger one. Think about how she would fare against John McCain. He runs on experience. She's got it. He runs on being the nice guy, something which the US has clearly indicated that they are not interested in. She's the strong candidate. He runs on being tough on our enemies. So does she. On top of all this, Hillary wants to give everyone health care, improve our education, and reform our economy. In almost every aspect, she sees McCain and raises him. Add to this the amount of racism that works against Obama, and you have what could be a clear winner in November.
And Clinton is a polarizing figure. No one hears that now, but look at back before Obama became the front runner and Clinton covertly started playing the sexism card, people threatened to vote Republican if Clinton won. Obama attracts swing voters, Clinton doesn't. McCain isn't the same McCain he was 8 years ago, but I bet if he sells enough bull, he will get back some of his middle of the road cred. Clinton has no more experience than Obama in relation to how McCain is hawking it. The primary is a little pond that Clinton is fighting to drown the entire Democratic party in by throwing hissy fits and poking at her supporters to toss out the sexism card. Go out into the real game of the general election and people will be back to hating Clinton, even more so if she overthrows Obama because she whined and cried enough.

if she cant win the nomination, how is she gong to win the election?

Clearly, both candidates are stronger than McCain, so it's just a matter of picking the better of two goods.

:)

...and that it is no longer a "man's world."

I believe the general consensus here is that it's a white Protestant male's world, to be specific.

You know, I just got home, checked this thread, and had to look twice to make sure I was on the last page.

Shal, and CH are rehashing the same shit so much I couldn't tell.

It think he's going to have more trouble from the fact that the general election comes with a large number of people who care a great deal less about the entire process. Lack of substance has rarely been of issue, from what I remember.

This year may change that, though. People that are sick of 8 years of W want to make sure that they're not getting more of it. They're going to care more about issues this year than in 2000 or 2004.

*snip*

Then MI is in the MoE for both. VA is up for grabs for Obama. Clinton is in the MoE in FL and not "winning" it as you claimed earlier. IA is in play for Clinton and Obama is winning it. Obama is doing statisically better in WI. Add in CO. Give Arkansas to Clinton. Washinton and Oregon to Obama.

See, we can do this all day, but it'll never address that no one is running against Clinton right now.

This year may change that, though. People that are sick of 8 years of W want to make sure that they're not getting more of it. They're going to care more about issues this year than in 2000 or 2004.

People were sick of W in 04. That's not enough to win quite clearly. Fortunately we have a strong candidate who campaigns well.

Well, for one, my local McCain supporters have asked for it, while my local Obama supporters have taken an arrogant, elitist tone and lorded their wins over me. I think if you were in my position, you'd feel a little differently.

Alright, you know what? I'm game.

Shal, I'm asking you to vote for Obama. This is an important election coming up, and the Democratic party has started to make serious gains to reverse the the backslide of the last eight years. A Democratic presidency would solidify that, and a Republican presidency would be a roadblock to it.

I'll start, however, with Obama because I firmly believe you should vote for a candidate rather than against one.

Obama's record, as stated is 95% identical to Sen. Clintons. In speaking to the core values of the party you say you represent, he is in near lockstep with your preferred candidate. In addition, the two things that have characterized the last eight years is a lack of transparency and a lack of diplomacy. These are two lynch pins in Obama's candidacy.

First, transparency. He advocates an open source, so to speak, method of seeing what the legislature sees and who supports it, including lobbyists and donors. His solution for the influence of insiders is to shine the light on them This is in contrast to closed door meetings with energy insiders who won't even be named. While the Republican party paints the Democratic platform as 'Daddy knows best,' this is a chance to see the decisions made and all the players involved.

He makes a lot about a the 'gathering of rivals' or however that is phrased. What has characterized more than just these eight years has been shutting out the other side and digging trenches. Just because an (R) is next to a name does not mean that they have no good ideas, and like it or not, half the populace agrees at least in part with them. Surely at this juncture you can appreciate the idea that an electorate should not be completely ignored simply because they lost.

Second, diplomacy. We have all but dismantled our diplomatic ability in the last eight years. McCain will point out that we didn't win WWII or the Cold War by negotiating. I argue that in essence we have not won either of those wars because we are still cleaning up the mess caused by digging in. (I do not think Hitler should be placated, negotiating does not mean giving in and sometimes it just won't work-but it certainly won't work if never attempted.) We need to talk, and not just to our friends. Will it be a magic wand that solves the worlds ills? No. Will it work every time? No. But it will have an effect, a positive one.

Now, again, I don't think you should vote against a candidate, but that does not mean that there are not reasons to not want one to win. I've said this before, the reason Republican's should not win this election is Harriet Meyers. She was defeated for the Supreme Court not because of Democratic dissaproval, but because she wasn't conservative enough. Bush was so beholden to his base that he could not get a more moderate appointment through. This is a disproportional influence for the far religious right to have in our politics. If they lose the presidency this time around it may well be because that base did not support McCain. Two reactions can happen, they can run to that base and try and float a Romney next time and lose even worse, or realize they are too beholden to the fringe and correct themselves. In that regard it is important that whoever has the (R) next to their name lose the presidency this time around.

I have defended Clinton on this board, I have scolded people who have relied heavily on insulting, I have stated that Clinton deserves to pick the conditions of her withdrawl including what place she has in the party. I am asking you, Shal, in this important general election to vote for Sen. Obama.

This year may change that, though. People that are sick of 8 years of W want to make sure that they're not getting more of it. They're going to care more about issues this year than in 2000 or 2004.

If what you say is true, then it really doesn't matter what democrat gets put up there, so long as they can avoid the 'four more years' that the old guy whose name I can't capitalize properly would bring.

Alot of those women are...


As would a minority president. When a woman who deserves the position earns it, not just one with a name facing off against a minority who would have won ages ago were he not a minority, then a female can be president.


And Clinton is a polarizing figure. No one hears that now, but look at back before Obama became the front runner and Clinton covertly started playing the sexism card, people threatened to vote Republican if Clinton won. Obama attracts swing voters, Clinton doesn't. McCain isn't the same McCain he was 8 years ago, but I bet if he sells enough bull, he will get back some of his middle of the road cred. Clinton has no more experience than Obama in relation to how McCain is hawking it. The primary is a little pond that Clinton is fighting to drown the entire Democratic party in by throwing hissy fits and poking at her supporters to toss out the sexism card. Go out into the real game of the general election and people will be back to hating Clinton, even more so if she overthrows Obama because she whined and cried enough.

Careful, you're getting a bit inflammatory here. ;)

If you look at the recent polls that have Clinton heavily (or at the very least, slightly) favored over McCain, you can see that she can't be that polarizing. She is apparently winning some swing votes, and with all of McCain's backtracking and his swiftly losing independents, she has a good chance at winning a lot of them. She could not be posting the kind of numbers that she is, regardless of the campaign situation, if she had no appeal to Republicans or Independents.

Clearly, both candidates are stronger than McCain, so it's just a matter of picking the better of two goods.

:)

which is why the party membership has been given a chance to decide and they have decided that obama is the better candidate.

mrs clinton for all her excellence blew a lock on the nomination. back in november she was unbeatable. a pretty much unknown newbie to the national scene out did her. its so amazing that it restores my faith in american democracy--that its not just run by fat cats and big money interests (or doesnt have to be).

The moment she withdraws, I'm endorsing McCain and moving to the other side of the aisle. Furthermore, I'm calling on all Clinton backers to revolt and fight Obama's candidacy.

In other words, your claims about liberal values were all lipservice. I question whether you ever held them in esteem. Obama and Hillary were very similar in voting history and if one examines the differences in their plans generally Hillary is a bit MORE liberal (with a plan to make health insurance mandatory versus Obama's only mandatory for kids and more affordable for all).

At this point, I question if it's liberal values you support or "white" values. Because every request that you explain exactly what it is that you like about McCain over Obama that doesn't also criticize Hillary has been avoided. Every request for an explanation of what Obama did that turned you has been avoided. Every direct question for reason, you've avoided.

If what you say is true, then it really doesn't matter what democrat gets put up there, so long as they can avoid the 'four more years' that the old guy whose name I can't capitalize properly would bring.

Hopefully this is true, as Obama would be better than McCain. But, as we've been over, I believe Clinton to be the better candidate. It may not take the best candidate to beat McCain in November, but we should put the stronger candidate (Clinton) out there, just in case.

I have no intentions of unifying behind a party that is going to ignore the popular vote total and nominate a candidate just because he has a feel-good fairy tale story propelling his candidacy. I intend to vigorously oppose Barack Obama's candidacy in November, and I hope that many Clinton supporters will follow me into outright revolt against our party.

There is NO popular vote total that is accurate. Some states don't have popular primaries. Why? Because popular vote is not used to determine outcome. If it was, they would use a different system. You punish them for following the rules.

Meanwhile, it's been pointed out repeatedly that only if one counts Clinton in 50 states and Obama in 45 does Clinton win.

Hopefully this is true, as Obama would be better than McCain. But, as we've been over, I believe Clinton to be the better candidate. It may not take the best candidate to beat McCain in November, but we should put the stronger candidate (Clinton) out there, just in case.

Mm. Then, of course, we delve into defining a candidate's strength.

which is why the party membership has been given a chance to decide and they have decided that obama is the better candidate.

mrs clinton for all her excellence blew a lock on the nomination. back in november she was unbeatable. a pretty much unknown newbie to the national scene out did her. its so amazing that it restores my faith in american democracy--that its not just run by fat cats and big money interests (or doesnt have to be).

Don't get me wrong; what Obama has done has certainly been noteworthy, and he has run a fine campaign. But don't let the fact that Clinton is backed by a lot of the "fat cats and big money interests" define what kind of candidate she is. Obama would most likely be supported by the Black Panthers, but that should certainly not define his candidacy. Obama is a very strong candidate-- not the strongest, but very strong. I think that Hillary was probably not quite prepared for him. But we can all be sure that she will not make the same mistake with McCain in the general election.

But we can all be sure that she will not make the same mistake with McCain in the general election.

Can we?

Mm. Then, of course, we delve into defining a candidate's strength.

So we do. And my first post laid out, quite clearly, I think, why I believe Clinton to be the stronger candidate. I believe she will fare better against McCain, and I believe she will be a great President and Commander-in-Chief.

Hopefully this is true, as Obama would be better than McCain. But, as we've been over, I believe Clinton to be the better candidate. It may not take the best candidate to beat McCain in November, but we should put the stronger candidate (Clinton) out there, just in case.

i can accept the idea that she might have been the better PRESIDENT. she and her husband know everyone and have lots of the most important people in the US and the world on their side. (not that im worried about obama not being up to the task, just that i can accept it as an idea)

but she has an amazing load of baggage to deal with that has NOT been dealt with in this campaign because obama didnt want to go that way. the republicans would hammer her with it so hard that it would make the swiftboating of kerry look like a school yard prank.

she would be a terrible, divisive candidate.

So we do. And my first post laid out, quite clearly, I think, why I believe Clinton to be the stronger candidate. I believe she will fare better against McCain, and I believe she will be a great President and Commander-in-Chief.

Okay, assuming you're doing a devil's-advocate job, good work.

Assuming you aren't, finally someone I can talk to, not at.

Defining strength in numbers, Obama fares better than Clinton against McCain in most polls and, also in most polls, puts more states in play.

So we do. And my first post laid out, quite clearly, I think, why I believe Clinton to be the stronger candidate. I believe she will fare better against McCain, and I believe she will be a great President and Commander-in-Chief.

On the other hand, I think Obama is equal in most and improved in a certain few areas as President, and has demonstrated an ability to fare well in an election.

Can we?

We can.

Truth be told, Obama blind-sided everybody except Illinoisans (?). It's no surprise that Clinton didn't know what to expect from him, especially given his lack of experience politically in general. After the initial momentum that he picked up, things calmed down for him quite a bit. Hillary was caught off guard at the beginning, and she probably shouldn't have been, but we all know what we can expect from McCain, and Hillary has proven that she can run an effective campaign even after being put in an early hole by a relative unknown.

We should not make the mistake of attributing Obama's rise to prominence to a defect in Hillary Clinton. Instead, we should see it for what it was, which is a particular strength of Obama's, namely rhetoric.

I believe he's been saying Nader as of late. Not sure.

Of course he also complains that the 'radical left' has hijacked the party, so I'm not sure how a vote for Nader will 'show them.' But, you know, thats a whole other...thing...there...

No, actually he said that the radical left hijacked the party and then that he wasn't confident that Obama would stand up for democratic values (note: both of these started popping up as arguments from him long before Clinton was anywhere near a popular vote lead by even the most obnoxiously ridiculous form of count). He has contradicted himself repeatedly in his vitriol for Obama.

At one point he plainly said that it was time for a woman and that it's simply unfair to not give it to Clinton this year. If this isn't sour grapes (and it does appear he's trying to shoehorn his reasons into an excuse to vote McCain) then it's racism. Either way, it's obvious his support for McCain is not rational nor is his vitriol toward Obama.

i can accept the idea that she might have been the better PRESIDENT. she and her husband know everyone and have lots of the most important people in the US and the world on their side. (not that im worried about obama not being up to the task, just that i can accept it as an idea)

but she has an amazing load of baggage to deal with that has NOT been dealt with in this campaign because obama didnt want to go that way. the republicans would hammer her with it so hard that it would make the swiftboating of kerry look like a school yard prank.

she would be a terrible, divisive candidate.

I think you're speculating a bit too much. It's a given that the Republicans will bring out new attacks against Clinton, just as they will against Obama. There is nothing to indicate that she could not handle such attacks. Obama has run a pretty clean campaign; I'll give him that. But let's not pretend that there were no attack ads run by his side. Hillary has so far done well enough to stay in it, and even to overcome to some extent the lead that Obama built up right off the bat.

On the other hand, Obama has not handled his criticisms very well, taking relatively significant hits in popularity after some of his failings were aired. This should go in Clinton's column, if you ask me.

So we do. And my first post laid out, quite clearly, I think, why I believe Clinton to be the stronger candidate. I believe she will fare better against McCain, and I believe she will be a great President and Commander-in-Chief.

She only fares KIND OF well against him without a single attack aimed her way from Republicans or Obama's camp. She only fares KIND of well when Obama's people are admitting they would reluctantly support her if they had to, which wouldn't happen if suddenly they wrenched the nomination away at this point, particularly if it was done by changing the rules after the last contest.

On the other hand, with Clinton's camp threatening to leave the party and to not vote or vote against Obama, he is still faring well in the general. He is currently being attacked by half of his own party and he fares well. For him, things are about to get better. If she got the nomination, things would get FAR worse.

On the other hand, Obama has not handled his criticisms very well, taking relatively significant hits in popularity after some of his failings were aired. This should go in Clinton's column, if you ask me.

I think he managed to do well against Wright, for instance, and he did resist a very dirty campaign.

I think you're speculating a bit too much. It's a given that the Republicans will bring out new attacks against Clinton, just as they ALREADY HAVE against Obama. There is nothing to indicate that she could not handle such attacks. Obama has run a pretty clean campaign; I'll give him that. But let's not pretend that there were no attack ads run by his side. Hillary has so far done well enough to stay in it, and even to overcome to some extent the lead that Obama built up right off the bat.

On the other hand, Obama has not handled his criticisms very well, taking relatively significant hits in popularity after some of his failings were aired. This should go in Clinton's column, if you ask me.

Fixed.

And so not handling them well is making them virtually not matter? He essentially did better than expect in nearly every state. He generally improved his position despite the attacks. The only attack that really had an effect was in Ohio and it was exposed as a lie shortly thereafter. It was only the nearness to the election that played badly for him.

She only fares KIND OF well against him without a single attack aimed her way from Republicans or Obama's camp. She only fares KIND of well when Obama's people are admitting they would reluctantly support her if they had to, which wouldn't happen if suddenly they wrenched the nomination away at this point, particularly if it was done by changing the rules after the last contest.

On the other hand, with Clinton's camp threatening to leave the party and to not vote or vote against Obama, he is still faring well in the general. He is currently being attacked by half of his own party and he fares well. For him, things are about to get better. If she got the nomination, things would get FAR worse.

Let's not pretend that her campaign is focused on McCain; it's not. It's not as if she's going to completely stop putting up a fight once the general begins. Given the circumstances of the campaigns right now, I'd say it should be expected that Hillary would be leading by a bit, and Obama would be behind by a bit. But once Hillary starts focusing on issues and on McCain specifically, her numbers against him will go up as well.

Also, as everyone has rightly pointed out, the polls right now are probably not the best indicator of what will happen in November. It's still anyone's game, so we shouldn't rule out either candidate or place too much emphasis on the polls right now.

Don't you think that ignoring the primary results will hurt the Dems?

Simply put. Clinton won the popular vote, but is going to lose the nomination. I find the idea to be reprehensible. Odious. Scandalous. I intend to resist his candidacy regardless of the temporary cost to my own beliefs and values.

But she didn't. And when challenged on it, you refuse to reply. In fact, you refuse to offer any rationale for your claims whatsoever.

Now we can list all sorts of words for how "reprehensible" that is, however, it's not a slight on Clinton that you aren't approaching this rationally. It's a slight on you.

Fixed.

And so not handling them well is making them virtually not matter? He essentially did better than expect in nearly every state. He generally improved his position despite the attacks. The only attack that really had an effect was in Ohio and it was exposed as a lie shortly thereafter. It was only the nearness to the election that played badly for him.

So you think the Republicans aren't going to ratchet it up in the general election agains Obama? You think this is all they can muster? Regardless of which nominee wins the candidacy, the Republicans are going to put up more of a fight.

Secondly, if it was nearness to the election that hurt Obama, how is he going to fare well in the general? That's going to be a constant stream of attacks, many of which will happen right before the election. If nearness to the election is a weakness for Obama, he has some serious concerns.

Don't you think that ignoring the primary results will hurt the Dems?

Nobody is going to be ignoring primary results. Obama clearly has the delegate lead; however, he has not sealed it. This leaves the door open for the superdelegates to vote as they see fit. I'm making the case that what they should see fit is to vote for Hillary. There is still a chance for either candidate to win this contest fairly, even though the odds do certainly favor Obama right now.

So you think the Republicans aren't going to ratchet it up in the general election agains Obama? You think this is all they can muster? Regardless of which nominee wins the candidacy, the Republicans are going to put up more of a fight.

Secondly, if it was nearness to the election that hurt Obama, how is he going to fare well in the general? That's going to be a constant stream of attacks, many of which will happen right before the election. If nearness to the election is a weakness for Obama, he has some serious concerns.

I think they're beginning the fight in full swing. Given that the consider Obama such a danger that they are supporting Hillary Clinton of all people, I'd say if they could make her case stronger by hitting him hard now, they'd do so. Republicans aren't known for going gentle.

That worked in one case where the attack seemed valid. It cost him ONE state on an issue McCain does much worse on. Clinton lost all sorts of states because she couldn't hold onto a lead. Obama fared worse in ONE for a spurious reason. I'd hardly call that a point for Clinton.

I have no intentions of unifying behind a party that is going to ignore the popular vote total and nominate a candidate just because he has a feel-good fairy tale story propelling his candidacy. I intend to vigorously oppose Barack Obama's candidacy in November, and I hope that many Clinton supporters will follow me into outright revolt against our party.

I find it very sad that you value your own pride more than your fellow countrymen. You would actually subject your country to continued GOP mismanagement out of spite? If the situation were reversed, although I would have been unhappy about it, I'd have gritted my teeth, held my nose and voted for Clinton in the general election. I would much prefer to take a chance that she were sincere in what she says she wants to do then to vote for someone who I know for a fact supports things that I do not. You would see continued death in an Iraq under indefinite occupation, confrontation with Iran, Roe v. Wade overturned, DOMA enacted, climate change ignored, and the disintegration of the middle class because you didn't get the outcome in a primary you wanted? I find that truly appalling. What kind of person does that?

But I don't think there's a question of whether or not she would do a good job. Most of us can agree that she would.

Not me. I don't see her as a good candidate.

Voting for her based on gender makes a symbolic statement-- one that says that we recognize the plight of women, regardless of its being downplayed pretty often.

I don't see it that way. I just see it as more sexism - and incredibly counter-productive to the cause of those of us who actually fight for equality.

Equality doesn't mean "give it to the woman because women have been oppressed in the past." It means "give it to the best candidate, whoever that is. Sex doesn't matter."

As a woman and a feminist, I find the "Vote for Hillary because it will further feminism" line to be both insulting and counter-productive.

This is about recognizing the rights of women. It's about recognizing that they have a say in politics, and that it is no longer a "man's world." Now should someone vote for her solely based on her gender? No. But given the fact that she is also a strong candidate, it can get this country moving in the right direction.

I disagree that she is a strong candidate.

I also believe that, even if this were a good argument, the exact same argument could be made in favor of a black man. So it doesn't help her. Maybe if she were a black, atheist lesbian. =)

True, he does have quite a bit of experience, but this experience is largely mired by his recent trend of going from maverick to lapdog. In addition, Obama's complete lack of experience will get him written off right from the bat in the minds of a lot of voters.

Complete lack of experience? More rhetoric. He's been pretty good at turning that argument around thus far. I think he'll continue.

Whether Obama's stance is actually tough or not is largely irrelevant; it all comes down to whether or not people will perceive it as tough. And people won't.

This is certainly a possibility. I try to be optimistic, but voters often make that difficult.

Of course, personally, I'll vote for the person who I believe has the best stance. People who can't be bothered to actually think about it depress me, but there's not a whole lot I can do about them. I don't think voting for the same basic strategy dressed up with a D next to her name is really a good idea.

Well, I'm not particularly well versed on the specifics of either health care plan. So let's take this as a draw in that they would both have the upper hand on McCain.

Like I said, I'm not sure of that with Clinton. The authoritarian aspect of her plan might turn enough people off that it wouldn't give her an edge at all.

I'm not particularly fond of it either, but if given the choice between healing one societal ill and another, and the only difference is which one is more likely to succeed, I'll take the more likely one.

I honestly don't think a Clinton presidency would do much to further feminism, particularly if people feel that voters chose her because of her vagina.

Nobody is going to be ignoring primary results. Obama clearly has the delegate lead; however, he has not sealed it. This leaves the door open for the superdelegates to vote as they see fit. I'm making the case that what they should see fit is to vote for Hillary. There is still a chance for either candidate to win this contest fairly, even though the odds do certainly favor Obama right now.

Hillary is ONLY still in it because of a rule change. Absent that, many supers admitted they would have already declared.

Meanwhile, you are making a case, but you're not making a good case. Obama ran better than Hillary. Your case seems to be that all of Obama's mistakes will be repeated but none of Hillary's will be and that we should not consider that Republicans AND Clinton are attacking Obama nor that NEITHER Republicans NOR Obama are attacking Clinton.

It's true. Hillary seems to be favored in the general provided she runs unopposed. Obama seems to have a tough road to hoe provided Dems don't back him.

Simply put. Clinton won the popular vote, but is going to lose the nomination. I find the idea to be reprehensible. Odious. Scandalous. I intend to resist his candidacy regardless of the temporary cost to my own beliefs and values.
I want to go back to this:
it won't be all that temporary a cost to your beliefs and values. It's probable that there will be a Supreme court vacancy within the next president's term. If McCain is that president, Roe v. Wade will be overturned, the impact of which could last several decades.
This is just one example of how this year it would not be a short-term sacrifice.
Further, I must ask why you keep ignoring the fact that even using the popular vote as a metric disenfranchises every citizen of a caucus state. Do those people not matter?

We can.

Truth be told, Obama blind-sided everybody except Illinoisans (?). It's no surprise that Clinton didn't know what to expect from him, especially given his lack of experience politically in general. After the initial momentum that he picked up, things calmed down for him quite a bit. Hillary was caught off guard at the beginning, and she probably shouldn't have been, but we all know what we can expect from McCain, and Hillary has proven that she can run an effective campaign even after being put in an early hole by a relative unknown.

We should not make the mistake of attributing Obama's rise to prominence to a defect in Hillary Clinton. Instead, we should see it for what it was, which is a particular strength of Obama's, namely rhetoric.

You know what? People keep saying this, and I think it's bullshit. I wasn't blindsided by this. I supported Obama before he officially declared his presidency. And then once he announced, but before Iowa and all his other wins, when Clinton was supposedly "inevitable," I was campaigning. I was helping run events; I was attending rallies; I was registering voters. I knew it could be done long before the first contest.

Now, as most posters here would probably tell you, I'm not that bright. I'm not particularly insightful or anything. So if I could see it happening, then the Clinton campaign, with teams upon teams of experts should have been able to, also.

Let's not pretend that her campaign is focused on McCain; it's not. It's not as if she's going to completely stop putting up a fight once the general begins. Given the circumstances of the campaigns right now, I'd say it should be expected that Hillary would be leading by a bit, and Obama would be behind by a bit. But once Hillary starts focusing on issues and on McCain specifically, her numbers against him will go up as well.

The dems are already attacking McCain. So is she to some degree. There is no reason to believe her attacks would be significantly more effective than those already being made. You've made a non-argument.

Also, as everyone has rightly pointed out, the polls right now are probably not the best indicator of what will happen in November. It's still anyone's game, so we shouldn't rule out either candidate or place too much emphasis on the polls right now.

Yet you suggest the supers should use the polls, while ignoring their context, in order to override the results of all of the contests so far.

I think they're beginning the fight in full swing. Given that the consider Obama such a danger that they are supporting Hillary Clinton of all people, I'd say if they could make her case stronger by hitting him hard now, they'd do so. Republicans aren't known for going gentle.

That worked in one case where the attack seemed valid. It cost him ONE state on an issue McCain does much worse on. Clinton lost all sorts of states because she couldn't hold onto a lead. Obama fared worse in ONE for a spurious reason. I'd hardly call that a point for Clinton.

Whatever's happening right now in the GOP, I would certainly hesitate to call it "full swing." If I had to venture a guess, I'd say that right now they're in the research phase, where they're digging up dirt, only to use it once they have a clear opponent. They probably (and this is only speculation) don't want to go negative too early, as this will surely put them in a more negative light.

As to your second point, sure Clinton lost some leads. Who cares? So what if she had leads months ahead of time, or even weeks, and ended up winning by only a slim margin? We've all acknowledged that early polls are sporadically reliabe at best. Things change as races get closer. You know that. I know that. Elections 101. What matters is how we think they would perform in November, and unfortunately, the polls now can't give us a great picture of that. Cliton's losing leads against Obama, leads that she often had well in advance, has little or nothing to do with a race against McCain.

Whatever's happening right now in the GOP, I would certainly hesitate to call it "full swing." If I had to venture a guess, I'd say that right now they're in the research phase, where they're digging up dirt, only to use it once they have a clear opponent. They probably (and this is only speculation) don't want to go negative too early, as this will surely put them in a more negative light.

Don't be confused. Their opponent is clear to everyone paying attention. They have been attacking Obama because they know they aren't going to be running against Clinton. They have been supporting Clinton only to keep her in as long as she can damage Obama. That's also why they've been voting for her. It's a rather genius strategy that unfortunately for them will be done in about 3 days.


As to your second point, sure Clinton lost some leads. Who cares? So what if she had leads months ahead of time, or even weeks, and ended up winning by only a slim margin? We've all acknowledged that early polls are sporadically reliabe at best. Things change as races get closer. You know that. I know that. Elections 101. What matters is how we think they would perform in November, and unfortunately, the polls now can't give us a great picture of that. Cliton's losing leads against Obama, leads that she often had well in advance, has little or nothing to do with a race against McCain.

You know you treat arguments like each is in a vacuum. You were just attacking Obama for losing a lead. He's shown a remarkable resistance to criticism in every race save one. The first one where he really got hit. There is STRONG evidence he learned that lesson. Hillary seems to have gotten it right in the last few contests or so, but it clearly helps that Obama has largely ignored her and the GOP has supported her.

Why does Clinton losing leads have no relevance and Obama losing leads IS relevant? If you want to have this argument, you're going to have shore up yours on the consistency front because right now you're blowing in whatever wind I muster up.

Hillary is ONLY still in it because of a rule change. Absent that, many supers admitted they would have already declared.

Meanwhile, you are making a case, but you're not making a good case. Obama ran better than Hillary. Your case seems to be that all of Obama's mistakes will be repeated but none of Hillary's will be and that we should not consider that Republicans AND Clinton are attacking Obama nor that NEITHER Republicans NOR Obama are attacking Clinton.

It's true. Hillary seems to be favored in the general provided she runs unopposed. Obama seems to have a tough road to hoe provided Dems don't back him.

Hillary's only mistake (well, not only, but you know what I mean) was underestimating Obama. She paid for it pretty harshly right in the beginning. This is not a mistake that I think she would repeat. On the other hand, Obama has been running full tilt this whole campaign, and things are still pretty even. Like I said, after the initial burst, Clinton has done better than Obama and had more momentum.

As to the Clinton lead in the polls, I think I addressed that, though it may not have been clear enough. Let me know if you'd like me to reiterate.



To Pirated Corsairs:

Perhaps you weren't blindsided by Obama, but a lot of people were. I agree that the Clinton camp should have been prepared, but they were not. As I've stated, this is not a mistake I think they will make twice.