TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Why should Hillary leave the race?
Pages (11): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11]

Constitutional Republic. gooood.
Democratic Republic. baaaad

"Democratic Republic" is just blatant false advertizing.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 wrong. if you want to be technical, its actually a constitutional federal republic.

Sounds like something right off of wiki...

Thanks for the correction, though my point was that whatever adjective you used, it still boils down to the basics.

Cheers

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Shibby Sounds like something right off of wiki...

...or a 2nd year law textbook.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo ...or a 2nd year law textbook.

1L text.

Seems more like from a middle school history text than a 1L but whatever.

quote:

Originally posted by Zild Seems more like from a middle school history text than a 1L but whatever.

it's a been much longer since middle school than 1L (and i vaguely remember that), so i'll go with 1L.

Should be middle school.

quote:

Originally posted by Zild Should be middle school.

ok then, middle school it is, although the only thing i remember about middle school is my hot spanish teacher.

There is no more democracy. We are slaves to our corporate masters. All hail Diebold!


Diebold Accidentally Leaks Results Of 2008 Election Early

Leb, are you worried about Obama and the more conservative white male democrat voters now? i hate to say i told you so, but it was glaringly obvious. i just hope he can find a way to close that gap. as of now, it looks like these voters will jump to mccain.

quote:

Hillary Clinton is the winner of the Democratic primary in West Virginia today. She pulled together pretty much the same coalition that she rode to victory in last week in Indiana and before that in Pennsylvania and Ohio -- benefiting greatly from the demographic profile of the state. The exit polls asked Democratic primary voters in West Virginia what issue was most important to their vote today. As was the case WV Pennsylvania and Ohio, the Democratic primary electorate in West Virginia is predominately white. The overwhelming majority of West Virginia Democratic primary voters today were white and 4% were African American. Clinton won the white vote by 68% to 28% While Barack Obama did narrow his margins in West Virginia among more affluent and better-educated white voters, this state was all about working-class whites again delivering their votes for Hillary Clinton. Working-class whites earning less than $50,000 backed Clinton 72% to 24% for Obama. White women have been an important Clinton constituency, and she did win this group in West Virginia today. She won white women by 74% to 24%, and most white men by, 63% to 33%. This heavily white, older, and less well-educated electorate also felt a stronger personal connection with Hillary Clinton than they did with Barack Obama. We asked voters in the Mountain State if they believed each candidate shared their values. Seven-in-10 think Clinton shares their core values, while less than half feel the same about Obama. West Virginia Democratic primary voters clearly prefer Hillary Clinton, but with Obama closing in on the nomination, do they find him an acceptable alternative? We asked the voters how they would feel if Obama is the Democratic Party�s nominee this year -- 44% say they would be satisfied with him, 54% would be dissatisfied.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/arch...13/1017500.aspx

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 Leb, are you worried about Obama and the more conservative white male democrat voters now? i hate to say i told you so, but it was glaringly obvious. i just hope he can find a way to close that gap. as of now, it looks like these voters will jump to mccain. http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/arch...13/1017500.aspx

Doubt it, this is basically an unwinnable election for republicans. People will vote for anyone who is not Bush, and the further they are from Bush, the better.

Then again, never underestimate the ability of goevrnment to fail.

Or the fickle ability of people to smash into their own Darwinism. =P

Jer, I don't think there's an "issue" with white male voters - after all, that was the key constituency that carried Obama in most states he won on Feb. 5.

quote:

Upcountry 05.13.08 -- 10:00PM By Josh Marshall If the exit polls (and the pre-election polls) are accurate, Hillary Clinton is set to win West Virginia by roughly a 2 to 1 margin over Barack Obama. Oregon, next Tuesday, favors Obama. But Kentucky, which votes the same day, seems likely to yield a similar margin for Sen. Clinton. So what is it about these two states that makes them so favorable to Hillary Clinton? There's been a lot of talk in this campaign about Barack Obama's problem with working class white voters or rural voters. But these claims are both inaccurate because they are incomplete. You can look at states like Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania and other states and see the different numbers and they are all explained by one basic fact. Obama's problem isn't with white working class voters or rural voters. It's Appalachia. That explains why Obama had a difficult time in Ohio and Pennsylvania and why he's getting crushed in West Virginia and Kentucky. If it were just a matter of rural voters or the white working class, the pattern would show up in other regions. But by and large it does not. In so many words, Pennsylvania and Ohio have big chunks of Appalachia within their borders. But those regions are heavily offset by non-Appalachian sections that are cultural and demographically distinct. West Virginia is 100% Appalachian. If you look at southeastern Ohio or the middle chunk of Pennsylvania, Obama did about the same as he's doing tonight in West Virginia. Below is a map of the Appalachian counties stretching from New York down into Mississippi. Below that is a map of counties that Hillary Clinton has won by more than 65%. As you can see match up quite closely -- the grey gaps are Kentucky and West Virginia which hadn't voted yet. So what is it about this region? Let me offer a series of overlapping explanations. First, some basic demographics. It's widely accepted that Hillary Clinton does better with older voters, less educated voters and white voters. These demographics perfectly match West Virginia -- and, more loosely, the entire Appalachian region. A few key points from tonight's exit polls demonstrate the point: 4 out of 10 voters were over 60 years of age. 7 out of 10 lacked a college degree -- the highest proportion of any electorate in the country. And 95% of the electorate was white. Basically you have a state that is made up almost exclusively of Clinton's voters. But there's a deeper historical explanation that we have to apply as well -- one nicely illustrated by the origins of West Virginia itself. During the 18th and 19th centuries, in the middle Atlantic and particularly in the Southern states, there was a long-standing cleavage between the coastal and 'piedmont' regions on the one hand and the upcountry areas to the west on the other. It's really the coastal lowlands and the Appalachian districts. On the other side of the Appalachian mountain range the pattern is flipped, with the Appalachians in the east and the lowlands in the west. These regions were settled disproportionately by Scots-Irish immigrants who pushed into the hill country to the west in part because that's where the affordable land was but also because they wanted to get away from the more stratified and inegalitarian society of the east which was built by English settlers and their African slaves. Crucially, slavery never really took root in these areas. And this is why during the Civil War, Unionism (as in support for the federal union and opposition to the treason of secession) ran strong through the Appalachian upcountry, even into Deep South states like Alabama and Mississippi. As I alluded to earlier, this was the origin of West Virginia, which was originally the westernmost part of Virginia. The anti-slavery, anti-slaveholding upcountry seceded from Virginia to remain in the Union after Virginia seceded from the Union. Each of these regions was fiercely anti-Slavery. And most ended up raising regiments that fought in the Union Army. But they were as anti-slave as they were anti-slavery, both of which they viewed as the lynchpins of the aristocratic and inegalitarian society they loathed. It was a society that was both more violent and more self-reliant. This is history. But it shapes the region. It's overwhelmingly white, economically underdeveloped (another legacy of the pre-civil war pattern) and arguably because of that underdevelopment has very low education rates and disproportionately old populations. For all these reasons, if you're familiar with the history, it's really no surprise that Barack Obama would have a very hard time running in this region.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/194870.php

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Jer, I don't think there's an "issue" with white male voters - after all, that was the key constituency that carried Obama in most states he won on Feb. 5. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/194870.php

you should read more carefully what i have been saying. i was not saying he can't get white men to vote for him; no person can win without white males. the male white is the key constituency for every president, and he certainly has support from many white males. from the very beginning of this thread i was specifically referring to the conservative male whites democrats (ie., poor and uneducated - borderline republicans). I would love to hear how you think he will get those votes in the general election. in my opinion, and that of anyone who has seen the results in Appalachia, he has a huge issue with that subgroup of white males. just because those people fall within hillary's core demographic doesn't hide the fact that obama can't get their support. These are people who will probably vote for mccain since clinton is not in the race. you certainly must agree he has a huge issue with that subgroup of white males, right?

There is NO way he will win Ohio or Pennsylvania without those votes, and he's not making that up with Mississippi and Alabama. like i said before, i hope he can find a way to connect with those people.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 you should read more carefully what i have been saying. i was not saying he can't get white men to vote for him; no person can win without white males. the male white is the key constituency for every president, and he certainly has support from many white males. from the very beginning of this thread i was specifically referring to the conservative male whites democrats (ie., poor and uneducated - borderline republicans). I would love to hear how you think he will get those votes in the general election. in my opinion, and that of anyone who has seen the results in Appalachia, he has a huge issue with that subgroup of white males. just because those people fall within hillary's core demographic doesn't hide the fact that obama can't get their support. These are people who will probably vote for mccain since clinton is not in the race. you certainly must agree he has a huge issue with that subgroup of white males, right? There is NO way he will win Ohio or Pennsylvania without those votes, and he's not making that up with Mississippi and Alabama. like i said before, i hope he can find a way to connect with those people.

He may not, but really, should we reward these people for being racists by giving them the white candidate that they want rather than the one that's actually ahead in the delegate process? If these people are willing to vote for McCain and keep their children and grandchildren at war and their bank accounts suffering when they're looking at retirement, rather than vote for the black guy, they deserve everything they'll receive from the next 4 years of Republican rule.

Also, it's the white women from Appalachia that are more of a problem than the white men from the same locale.

quote:

Originally posted by Groundhog Boy He may not, but really, should we reward these people for being racists by giving them the white candidate that they want rather than the one that's actually ahead in the delegate process? If these people are willing to vote for McCain and keep their children and grandchildren at war and their bank accounts suffering when they're looking at retirement, rather than vote for the black guy, they deserve everything they'll receive from the next 4 years of Republican rule. Also, it's the white women from Appalachia that are more of a problem than the white men from the same locale.

If people who would have voted for hillary actually now will vote for McCain based on issues of racism/etc, then I think perhaps our society has run its course and will come to the fitting scenario it deserves.

However, I like to think it's people throwing tantrums; I doubt the mass majority of people who would have voted democrat will actually vote republican even if they don't get their way in the early stages. We've just been crafted by the media and our own zealous roots to embrace exact dualities, and divide over the most inane of issues. It's the American way.

Why should she leave when she can still stay in the spotlight to bitch about how her campaign is being ruined by sexism, meanwhile failing to mention that she won by 35-40 points in West Virginia and Kentucky because they don't believe in black people in positions of power? Or that she's been reaping the benefits of old women who want to see a female president in their lifetimes? Now she's organizing a whole horde of women to descend on the DNC Rules Committee meeting next week because we all know that rules shouldn't matter.

Or this latest one, which to be honest, really has my blood boiling

quote:

Originally stated by Hillary Clinton My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don't understand it."

First off, let me state that I own guns that reside at my parents' home. My dad is an NRA member, who is also a Democrat. I called him last weekend to bitch about Huckabee's comment at the NRA convention, urging him to call the NRA to complain that they should be distancing. He agreed with me, but hadn't heard about it.

Now Hillary Clinton, a member of his own party, comes out and makes an even worse statement as a justification for why she's staying in the race. Before you say "well, she's just stating fact," consider the fact that this comment hasn't, to my knowledge, been made by a competitor for the nomination since RFK was shot. Under this mindset, NO ONE SHOULD EVER DROP OUT UNTIL THE CONVENTION, because they're all targets to those who oppose their views. To be honest, if her and Gerry Ferraro's sexism comments were correct, shouldn't she be worried about bullets,too, especially since everyone hates her so much (just look at unfavorable ratings).

And her supporters want her to be asked to be the VP if Obama gets the nomination. Are they fucking serious? Would you put this lying, manipulative, ambitious (to a dangerous level) person within a heartbeat (or gunshot) from the Presidency if you were Obama? To be honest, I hate her so much that I won't vote for Obama if he caves to this psychotic bitch and puts her on the ticket.

BTW, I know I stated earlier in this thread that her only chance was Obama catching a bullet. I was being serious, but apparently she's now banking on it. Fuck her an her fear-mongering bullshit that I've had enough of in the past 7.5 years.

Sorry if that's a bit too "stream of consciousness," but I'm outright offended by what she's doing to the Democratic Party and this process.

When I heard the Bobby Kennedy comment this afternoon, my jaw literally hit the floor.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov When I heard the Bobby Kennedy comment this afternoon, my jaw literally hit the floor.

fuck that bitch....

Chelsea in 2012!

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov When I heard the Bobby Kennedy comment this afternoon, my jaw literally hit the floor.

wow...unbelievable. i don't know what to say.

The sad thing is if the tables were turned (delegate count wise) and Obama made that comment about Hillary it would be all over the media 24/7 for a week.

quote:

Originally posted by Swamper The sad thing is if the tables were turned (delegate count wise) and Obama made that comment about Hillary it would be all over the media 24/7 for a week.

Oh, but Swamper, didn't you get the memo - The media's against Hillary and their sexist ways are what kept her from being the nominee. Not comments like this, lies like Bosnia, pandering like the gas tax, etc...

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.