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 »

The gas tax holiday issue may have just changed my allegiance in the democratic race. Obama is doing exactly what we don't expect from politicians, taking a politically unpopular stance that is actually good for this counry. Hilary may have just lost another supporter for her backing of a ridiculous proposal to suspend the federal tax on gas during the summer months.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/29/u...29campaign.html

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 The gas tax holiday issue may have just changed my allegiance in the democratic race. Obama is doing exactly what we don't expect from politicians, taking a politically unpopular stance that is actually good for this counry. Hilary may have just lost another supporter for her backing of a ridiculous proposal to suspend the federal tax on gas during the summer months. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/29/u...29campaign.html

Yeah, that's one of the few clean breaks on issues in the race, and it was interesting to see her come down on McCain's side. I've read a few op-eds by economists saying the McCain/Clinton position is just bad policy.

I have a feeling it won't affect Joe Voter too much though.

It is, however, worth mentioning that Obama won 5 superdelegates yesterday and Hillary won 4 - not a terrible day for her on the face of it, but it does increase the percentage of delegates she needs to win from here on out to catch up.

!

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Yeah, that's one of the few clean breaks on issues in the race, and it was interesting to see her come down on McCain's side. I've read a few op-eds by economists saying the McCain/Clinton position is just bad policy. I have a feeling it won't affect Joe Voter too much though. It is, however, worth mentioning that Obama won 5 superdelegates yesterday and Hillary won 4 - not a terrible day for her on the face of it, but it does increase the percentage of delegates she needs to win from here on out to catch up.

you are correct that it will not (but it does affect mine). unfortunately, most americans are very short-sighted and don't factor long term consequences in their decision making processes. not only is just bad policy, but it's absolutely horrible policy. Mike Bloomberg (my first choice for president) summed up the bad policy nicely: the last thing we need to do is encourage people to drive.

Edit: i don't know, maybe like obama, i'm out of touch with the middle class. well, that is since the definition of middle class became the same as the definition for being poor. i don't get why the middle class people in this country are always living paycheck-by-paycheck. i thought that was how poor people lived.

Re: !

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 you are correct that it will not (but it does affect mine). unfortunately, most americans are very short-sighted and don't factor long term consequences in their decision making processes. not only is just bad policy, but it's absolutely horrible policy. Mike Bloomberg (my first choice for president) summed up the bad policy nicely: the last thing we need to do is encourage people to drive. Edit: i don't know, maybe like obama, i'm out of touch with the middle class. well, that is since the definition of middle class became the same as the definition for being poor. i don't get why the middle class people in this country are always living paycheck-by-paycheck. i thought that was how poor people lived.

I don't necessarily think the middle class is short-sighted... but I do think many are too lazy or apathetic to take the time to understand the actual policy.

If anything is evident by this race, it is that the average American voter is more interested in the he-said, she-said political maneuvering of the candidates than anything substantive.

Too often political discourse in this country goes along the following vein:
"I could never vote for Hillary, she seems like a bitch!"
"I could never vote for Obama, his pastor offended me!"

Instead of:
"I can't bring myself to vote for Hillary because her economic policy seems misguided."
"I won't vote for Obama because his healthcare plan doesn't go far enough for Americans who can't afford it."

Re: Re: !

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov I don't necessarily think the middle class is short-sighted... but I do think many are too lazy or apathetic to take the time to understand the actual policy. If anything is evident by this race, it is that the average American voter is more interested in the he-said, she-said political maneuvering of the candidates than anything substantive. Too often political discourse in this country goes along the following vein: "I could never vote for Hillary, she seems like a bitch!" "I could never vote for Obama, his pastor offended me!" Instead of: "I can't bring myself to vote for Hillary because her economic policy seems misguided." "I won't vote for Obama because his healthcare plan doesn't go far enough for Americans who can't afford it."

i didn't say that middle class were short-sighted, but i do see how you could infer that from my post. while i don't disagree that americans may be too lazy to understand the actual policies, i also think americans make short-sighted decisions on a daily basis (ie., supporting the recent tax rebate, supporting low taxes with high government spending, etc...) i have too many complaints about the average american, i could go on an on for days.

quote:

Clinton Tries Party's Patience, As Race Reaches Crossroads By RICK KLEIN with MIKE ELMORE May 2, 2008 Either something is beginning to rumble in the Democratic race . . . or the race is already over (and someone just forgot to tell the superdelegates). Either the Clintons have the pull to keep the race alive for another month . . . or they've long since worn out their welcome. Either Joe Andrew captured a critical moment with his switch . . . or he shut himself out of gainful employment for the foreseeable future. Either the Sunday morning TV face-off between Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton will redefine the race . . . or it won't. Either math is math . . . or message is message (and if so, it won't be enough to wait out the clock -- and you might blame the Rev. Jeremiah Wright for that). Speaking of math -- the Obama campaign rolls out another former DNC chairman's endorsement on Friday: Paul Kirk, a superdelegate who led the party from 1985-1989, is coming out for Obama -- a day after Andrew's switch, an Obama campaign official tells The Note. (And don't count on that being it for the day, as the dribble continues.) From Kirk's statement Friday morning: "It is with a great sense of pride and confidence in his leadership that I am delighted to publicly endorse Senator Barack Obama and pledge my support to him as former National Democratic Chairman and as a superdelegate. Senator Obama is the one candidate who has and will continue to expand the electorate beyond the traditional Democratic party base and bring young and new and Independent voters to the Democratic banner in November, an essential ingredient to a Democratic victory." If Clinton, D-N.Y., can make this is a race yet, we're about to find out just how patient Democrats can be with a race that's showing signs of shredding the party. Notwithstanding moves by Andrew, Kirk, and the like, Clinton needs superdelegates to wait for her case to play out -- and then she needs an utter and total rejection of the Democratic frontrunner. "Despite a series of trials that have put Mr. Obama on the defensive and illustrated the burdens he might carry in a fall campaign, the Obama campaign is rolling along, leaving Mrs. Clinton with dwindling options," Adam Nagourney and Carl Hulse write in The New York Times. "By and large, the group that matters most at this point -- the uncommitted superdelegates, who are likely to hold the balance of power -- still seem to view their decision the way the Obama campaign would like them to see it." Obama is clearly still leading -- but Clinton has a bounce in her step to match her bounce in the polls. "The Democratic nomination race is murkier than ever," USA Today's Jill Lawrence writes. "Hillary Rodham Clinton is rising in the polls while Barack Obama is gaining ground among superdelegates who will decide the winner." Says Charlie Cook: "The delegate math couldn't look much worse for Clinton, but the current political dynamics are just horrific for Obama." The AP's take: "Despite the momentum building behind Clinton after her win in Pennsylvania, it still appeared mathematically impossible for her to overcome Obama's delegate lead for the party nomination. . . . Regardless, Clinton appeared to be gaining strength among voters, especially the white working-class which has reacted negatively Obama's association with Rev. Jeremiah Wright." Clinton brought a defiant tone to her answers Thursday, her rejection by Andrew and slippage among supers notwithstanding. "I think this has been good for the Democratic Party," Clinton told Cynthia McFadden on ABC's "Nightline" (offering what may be becoming a minority opinion). "I think that this is such a close election, why would any of us think that it shouldn't go to the end?" She also said that her husband won't have a West Wing office in her administration, and flatly rejected any comparison between Obama '08 and Clinton '92. "No. No, not at all," she said. "I give [Obama] great credit for running a really successful campaign and doing a wonderful job, and inspiring people. But when Bill ran in '92, he was the longest-serving governor in America. He'd actually solved a lot of problems. He had immersed himself in the issues and had very specific ideas about what he would do as president. So he wasn't just giving speeches; he was offering very specific solutions to the problems that he thought America faced." Clinton campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe debated Andrew on what should happen next on Friday's "Good Morning America," with McAuliffe telling ABC's Robin Roberts that it's important to remember that neither candidate can win without the support of superdelegates. He urged them to wait for the "morning of June 4" to make up their minds, by which time, McAuliffe said, "We will be ahead in the popular vote. It will be very close in the delegates." Andrew countered that Obama will be ahead in votes, delegates, and states won: "We know that result today, we know what the result is going to be at the end of this process as well," he said. "What we need to do is make sure that we don't do the Republicans' work for them, and that's exactly what's happening right now." The Andrew switch matters less for the votes he controls than the sentiments he speaks to. "I have been inspired," he said in announcing his support for Obama, and urging his fellow superdelegates to end the campaign. What does this say about the Clintons' reputation? Andrew told ABC's Jake Tapper that he anticipates the Clinton campaign "will use the same words and the same language to attack me that Republicans used to attack me when I was DNC chair and I was defending Bill Clinton." Per the Chicago Tribune's Rick Pearson and John McCormick, Andrew is now "a leading voice among top Democrats who have expressed fears that the longer the nominating process continues, the more divisive it will become." One must marvel at the Obama campaign's ability to shape the storyline with just a peppering of endorsements, as the candidate moves beyond Part Two of the Wright affair, even as polls show the story taking its toll. "His poll margins may be shrinking, but Barack Obama maintained his delegate momentum Thursday as former Democratic National Committee chairman Joe Andrew abandoned Hillary Clinton," Thomas M. DeFrank writes in the New York Daily News. "The Andrew defection was particularly embarrassing to Clinton, whom he had enthusiastically endorsed, because he was tapped to run the DNC by then-President Bill Clinton in 1999." New polls again show it tight -- with Obama slipping: CNN/Opinion Research has it Obama 46, Clinton 45; Pew has it Obama 47, Clinton 45. "Clinton has widened her lead in Indiana, cut Obama's edge in North Carolina down to 7 points and lurched ahead in a major national poll, following a week of wall-to-wall coverage of controversial remarks by Obama's ex-pastor," Newsday's Glenn Thrush writes. Another Indiana boost for Clinton on Friday: She grabs the endorsement of the Indianapolis Star. "As impressive as Obama appears, he is still in his first term in the U.S. Senate, and only four years ago was serving as an Illinois state senator. His inexperience in high office is a liability," the endorsement reads. "Clinton, in contrast, is well prepared for the rigors of the White House. She is tough, experienced and realistic about what can and cannot be accomplished on the world stage." And there's only one Evan Bayh in Indiana (just like there was only one Ted Strickland in Ohio, and one Ed Rendell in Pennsylvania): "It is now Bayh's turn to play kingmaker," Scott Helman writes in The Boston Globe. "And though it is unclear whether he can deliver as successfully, in public and behind the scenes, he has been using his name, his political muscle, and his instantly recognizable face to draw Hoosiers to Clinton's cause." But Bayh is taking hits -- with Democrats including Andrew and Rep. Baron Hill, D-Ind., taking part in the "Stick-It-To-Evan-Bayh tour," Matthew Tully writes in the Indianapolis Tribune. The scramble in the polls scrambles the expectations game in the next states up -- and expect the unexpected. "Determining the victor in Tuesday's presidential nominating contest in Indiana could very well be left to that most elusive of Democratic primary voter: the Republican," Christopher Cooper writes in The Wall Street Journal. "A confluence of unusual political events has Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton looking for traction in districts often ignored by Democrats in this deep red state." The push is on in North Carolina, with both candidates addressing the Jefferson-Jackson Dinner Friday night in Raleigh. "The candidates' statewide organizations are working at a frenzied pace, deploying surrogates, holding community meetings, and working to get voters to the polls in the final days of early voting, which ends Saturday," James Romoser write in the Winston-Salem Journal. They're fighting it out over the gas tax -- and arguing over polls. "Clinton advisers also argued that, while hypothetical general-election polls may shift, the new findings reflect an important change in the campaign, namely that the economy is now a far more important issue than it was at the beginning of the race and is likely to remain so," Dan Balz and Peter Slevin write in The Washington Post. "Clinton, they said, has demonstrated repeatedly that she does better than Obama among voters who cite the economy as the nation's most important issue." Don't forget about the other side of the Bill factor: "While Bill Clinton's gaffes have been frequently spotlighted in the national media, he appears to be building good will among rural voters, who are vital to keeping his wife's campaign alive," Susan Milligan writes in The Boston Globe. "And although Clinton's rock star appeal may have faded since his own candidate days, the 11 small communities he visited in North Carolina this week were thrilled to have a political celebrity in their midst." Worth considering if you're a super-d? "Many black voters are making it very clear: They're concerned that Barack Obama is going to be denied the Democratic presidential nomination that they see as rightfully his, and if that happens, a lot of them may stay home in November," McClatchy's David Lightman writes. It's a hushed version of Obama on the trail: "As he tries to navigate beyond one of his roughest patches in the long Democratic nominating fight, Mr. Obama did not retreat to the comforts of super-size rallies that have defined his presidential bid, with their lofty oratory," The New York Times' Jeff Zeleny writes. "Mr. Obama's appearances resembled the early days of a campaign for the White House, unfolding throughout the day as a rolling introductory tour, absent much presidential glamour." Yet -- there's a remarkable consistency in the Obama campaign, as a Washington Post profile of David Axelrod makes clear. Says Axelrod (not gloating, but close): "Seven months ago I was spending a lot of time talking to guys like you who basically would tell me you're 30 points behind in the national polls, she seems almost unbeatable," he says. "Mark Penn [then Clinton's chief strategist] was declaring victory. And we placed our bet on the American people. And now we've won twice as many primaries and caucuses, and I think we're in a very strong position. That's because there is a hunger for something different, and I think Barack represents that." Politico's John F. Harris and Jim VandeHei have the read-out on what Obama won't say to win: "Thrown off his game by the Rev. Jeremiah Wright uproar, Barack Obama's strongest answer to Hillary Rodham Clinton is one he won't give: Senator, do you really want to get in a contest with me over who has more unsavory personal associations?" It's not Lincoln-Douglas, but we can't recall a showdown quite like this. Obama claims the full hour on NBC's "Meet the Press," while Clinton will be on for the full hour on ABC's "This Week," with George Stephanopoulos live with audience participation in Indianapolis Sunday morning. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said Thursday that he thought the "Mission Accomplished" banner "was wrong at the time." But in June 2003, he had a different answer, ABC's Teddy Davis and Talal Al-Khatib report: "McCain pointed to the banner to bolster his contention that major conflict had ended in Iraq and that it was appropriate for the Senate Armed Services Committee to hold post-conflict hearings," they write. Said McCain, when told by an interviewer that "many argue the conflict isn't over": "Then why was there a banner that said 'mission accomplished' on the aircraft carrier?" McCain got into a bit of a sparring session with a potential running mate, Gov. Tim Pawlenty, R-Minn. Pawlenty "distanced himself" from McCain's contention that the deadly bridge collapse in Minnesota was the result of wasteful spending elsewhere, per the Los Angeles Times' Maeve Reston. McCain, on Thursday: "Do I know specifically whether it would have replaced that bridge in Minneapolis? No, but I know that funding would have been available for higher-priority projects." McCain is looking to his right, USA Today's David Jackson reports. "After courting traditionally Democratic voters, Republican John McCain will tend to his conservative roots for a new round of voter outreach," Jackson writes. "The presumptive Republican presidential nominee has scheduled speeches on judges and gun rights -- two issues that have fueled the success of conservative candidates going back to Ronald Reagan." Or maybe it's the moderates that matter: "Faced with a crumbling Republican Party image, Sen. John McCain is gambling on a general-election strategy that relies on winning over conservative Democrats and independents, breaking with President Bush's 2000 and 2004 game plan of focusing on the party's core voters," Ralph Z. Hallow and Stephen Dinan report in the Washington Times. Obama starts his day with a 9:10 am ET press conference in Indianapolis -- with an opening statement on the economy, and then campaigns in Indiana and North Carolina. Clinton spends her day in North Carolina -- where both she and Obama do the J-J dinner Friday night. They get to do it all over again Sunday night in Indianapolis, for Indiana's J-J. McCain campaigns in Denver, while President Bush talks about the economy in Missouri.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/TheN...=3105288&page=1

A second former DNC chair endorsed Obama today. I think it's also fairly clear where Dean sits on the issue.

I think Hillary has really fucked herself here by dragging this out. Every day she remains in the race is another day that the divide between Clinton democrats and Obama democrats widens. I have heard from more than a few people that if their candidate doesn't win the nomination they will not vote at all in the election. Obama will get the nomination eventually, but if Hillary drags this out to the convention I think she will have killed any chance Obama had at winning the election by then. Democrats will be divided by months of infighting for the candidate they favored and while I don't see Clinton backers running off to vote for McCain but I can see the scenario where they just flat out refuse to vote (as a few people have already indicated to me) which is going to hurt Obama just as much.

When it was clear she wasn't going to win the nomination she had two choices of action:

1. Withdraw and endorse Obama, uniting democrats and allowing his campaign to focus on McCain. If Obama looses the election Hillary has a good chance at getting the nomination in 2012 because Obama won't get a second chance and her withdrawal would have built her up in the party because she did what was right for the democratic party in 2008. If he wins, she is on point in 2016.

2. Refuse to admit defeat and drag things out till the convention hoping for some superdelegate miracle. Even if she got the nomination at this point she would lose the election because Obama democrats would feel robbed and at least some woudln't support her, not to mention that Republicans would come out in droves to vote against her. When Obama gets the nod at the convention but then loses the election Hillary is up shit creek without a paddle in 2012 because her party isn't going to forget what she did to them in 2008 and won't even think about giving her the nomination.

Whoever her advisers are, they pointed her in the direction of the wrong choice

quote:

Originally posted by XaNaX I think Hillary has really fucked herself here by dragging this out. Every day she remains in the race is another day that the divide between Clinton democrats and Obama democrats widens. I have heard from more than a few people that if their candidate doesn't win the nomination they will not vote at all in the election.

if that's true, those people are in the very small minority. if the party is so envigorated because of the mismanagement of the past, why would people not vote in the future?

quote:

Originally posted by XaNaX Whoever her advisers are, they pointed her in the direction of the wrong choice

Just another reason my assertion that Mark Penn is a complete and utter douche is pretty much unrefutable.

quote:

Originally posted by XaNaX Withdraw and endorse Obama, uniting democrats and allowing his campaign to focus on McCain.

What you're failing to realize is what the source of this big "divide" you are mentioning is. The 47% of people who have voted for Hillary are being pushed away further and further everytime an Obama supporter says she should step down (which in their view, is prematurely). I've said it several times and so have many other people, I don't see how uniting with Obama is necessarily the "democratic" thing to do or, "what's good for the party" according to you. Of course I can't prove this, but if the tables were turned and Obama were in Hillary's place, I don't think the supporters of this "hope" and "change" candidate would be like, "Well, we still have a chance of winning (though small), but the right thing for the party is to unite behind Hillary." The system that we have now was put in for a situation like this, and we should let it play out. I don't see any irrationality in this position, to be honest. I think her pulling out right now would make this "divide" you mentioned even wider, but we have differeng opinions and neither of us can prove them, so we'll see how it plays out!

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Eco What you're failing to realize is what the source of this big "divide" you are mentioning is. The 47% of people who have voted for Hillary are being pushed away further and further everytime an Obama supporter says she should step down (which in their view, is prematurely). I've said it several times and so have many other people, I don't see how uniting with Obama is necessarily the "democratic" thing to do or, "what's good for the party" according to you. Of course I can't prove this, but if the tables were turned and Obama were in Hillary's place, I don't think the supporters of this "hope" and "change" candidate would be like, "Well, we still have a chance of winning (though small), but the right thing for the party is to unite behind Hillary." The system that we have now was put in for a situation like this, and we should let it play out. I don't see any irrationality in this position, to be honest. I think her pulling out right now would make this "divide" you mentioned even wider, but we have differeng opinions and neither of us can prove them, so we'll see how it plays out!

25% of the Democrats that don't like Obama think that he's a Muslim according to a stat in this week's Rolling Stone "Threat Assessment.

It's not the calls for the stepdown that are the problem as much as you might want to blame that.

quote:

Originally posted by Groundhog Boy 25% of the Democrats that don't like Obama think that he's a Muslim according to a stat in this week's Rolling Stone "Threat Assessment. It's not the calls for the stepdown that are the problem as much as you might want to blame that.

he didn't say anything about people not liking obama, he said that the constant calls for her to step down are not uniting the party. If people were telling you that your cause was useless, when there was still a small sliver of hope, wouldn't you be a little frustrated as well?

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 he didn't say anything about people not liking obama, he said that the constant calls for her to step down are not uniting the party. If people were telling you that your cause was useless, when there was still a small sliver of hope, wouldn't you be a little frustrated as well?

I'd be pissed that my choice was a mathematical impossibility. If my loyalties were more to the party, I'd choose to support the other member. If they weren't, I'd evaluate the other candidate to choose whether I'd support him/her.

I'm the latter and have evaluated the other candidate. There is no way I'm voting for Hillary Clinton, but at least it's not for stupid reasons like she's a terrorist or that she's a woman. It's because she's completely untrustworthy, pandering, manipulative of the uneducated and supports much more stringent censorship standards. Just look at her views on GTA in 2005 as an example. Didn't she also really support Tipper in the 90s on the music issues?

Obama takes more of a "persuade and entice you" approach into supporting many of his ideas, whereas Hillary takes a "lie, scare and impose" sort of approach.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Eco Of course I can't prove this, but if the tables were turned and Obama were in Hillary's place, I don't think the supporters of this "hope" and "change" candidate would be like, "Well, we still have a chance of winning (though small), but the right thing for the party is to unite behind Hillary."

I'm 100% certain I would say "fuck, Obama lost - looks like I'm voting for Clinton in November."

Just as I said after the SC Primary: "Fuck, looks like Edwards lost. Guess I'll be voting for Obama on Feb. 5."

quote:

Originally posted by Groundhog Boy I'd be pissed that my choice was a mathematical impossibility. If my loyalties were more to the party, I'd choose to support the other member. If they weren't, I'd evaluate the other candidate to choose whether I'd support him/her.

first, if anything, allegiance to political parties has proven to be a very bad thing for this country. i for one hold no allegiance to the democratic party. unfortunately, there are no better choices at the moment. i vote democrat by default.

second, hilary is not a mathematic impossibility, she's a mathematical improbability. more miraculous things have happened. As the inevitable becomes more evident, you will see the party come together. if people are truly that unhappy about the republican leadership of the past 8 years i wouldn't worry too much about damage at this point. I don't see how americans could be unhappy with that leadership and then turn their backs when they have the opportunity to make that change. i will be truly surprised and disappointed if that occurs.

quote:

Originally posted by Groundhog Boy I'd be pissed that my choice was a mathematical impossibility.

Well, Obama and his people want to "play by the rules" and neither count Michigan or Florida nor get a revote. Fair enough, that's "playing by the rules." But as long as they're still this close, the superdelegates could go the other way. According to "the rules", the superdelegates are supposed to pledge their support at the Convention in August. Why change the rules now (Dean), and say that they're supposed to pledge their support asap? What happened to "playing by the rules?" I'll tell you what happened; Obama, like Hillary, will say and do anything to win.

For the record, there's not one intelligent and unbiased person who will tell you this is a mathematical impossibility. The fact that you added "mathematical" in there makes your point even more ironic and untrue. If it were impossible, Obama wouldn't have been fighting for Guam lol. Sorry man.

quote:

Originally posted by Groundhog Boy 25% of the Democrats that don't like Obama think that he's a Muslim according to a stat in this week's Rolling Stone "Threat Assessment. It's not the calls for the stepdown that are the problem as much as you might want to blame that.

Even if that were true, which it isn't, isn't at the very least 25% of this country a bunch of ignorant idiots anyway (at LEAST)? What's so new about the elections now, now that Obama's involved? That's of course, if that 25% is accurate. But think about the wording and series of questions it took to finally get to that stat. First, they asked people who they voted for, then asked people who didn't vote for him if he liked him or not. That's already a fraction of a fraction, and I'm sure as the questions went on, another few fractions of a fraction until they could come up with a 25% figure that think he's Muslim. I don't think it's too far of a gamble to say 25% of people who don't like Hillary because she's a dyke. Add all of that on top of the idea that I think all polls are flawed, even the ones that came out this week saying Hillary would beat McCain while Obama would only tie him (if the elections were this week). I don't get what your point is.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Eco Well, Obama and his people want to "play by the rules" and neither count Michigan or Florida nor get a revote. Fair enough, that's "playing by the rules." But as long as they're still this close, the superdelegates could go the other way. According to "the rules", the superdelegates are supposed to pledge their support at the Convention in August. Why change the rules now (Dean), and say that they're supposed to pledge their support asap? What happened to "playing by the rules?" I'll tell you what happened; Obama, like Hillary, will say and do anything to win. For the record, there's not one intelligent and unbiased person who will tell you this is a mathematical impossibility. The fact that you added "mathematical" in there makes your point even more ironic and untrue. If it were impossible, Obama wouldn't have been fighting for Guam lol. Sorry man.

Lol, dude, you're bent on demonizing the Obama campaign. They never once said they don't want to see the Michigan and Florida delegates seated. That was the DNC.

I think Opus covered this pretty well earlier, but it was the Republicans in Michigan that blocked a re-vote, not either campaign. The campaigns do differ on how a re-vote should be conducted (Obama's campaign wants provisional ballots to count, Clinton simply wants polls opened for one day, etc.)

But don't mischaracterize the situation by saying the Obama campaign will say anything to keep those delegates unseated.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Eco Even if that were true, which it isn't, isn't at the very least 25% of this country a bunch of ignorant idiots anyway (at LEAST)? What's so new about the elections now, now that Obama's involved? That's of course, if that 25% is accurate. But think about the wording and series of questions it took to finally get to that stat. First, they asked people who they voted for, then asked people who didn't vote for him if he liked him or not. That's already a fraction of a fraction, and I'm sure as the questions went on, another few fractions of a fraction until they could come up with a 25% figure that think he's Muslim. I don't think it's too far of a gamble to say 25% of people who don't like Hillary because she's a dyke. Add all of that on top of the idea that I think all polls are flawed, even the ones that came out this week saying Hillary would beat McCain while Obama would only tie him (if the elections were this week). I don't get what your point is.

25% OF DEMOCRATS first of all (though the article says "white Democrats, so that does lower the number for this statistic). I did research and found that the figure is from Pew Research (which I'd argue is one of the more reputable polling organizations, though I'd entertain arguments to the contrary) - http://people-press.org/reports/dis...p3?ReportID=407

Here's the relevant paragraph:

quote:

In particular, white Democrats who hold unfavorable views of Obama are much more likely than those who have favorable opinions of him to say that equal rights for minorities have been pushed too far; they also are more likely to disapprove of interracial dating, and are more concerned about the threat that immigrants may pose to American values. In addition, nearly a quarter of white Democrats (23%) who hold a negative view of Obama believe he is a Muslim.

Secondly, I do partially blame Hillary's campaign for this problem. She's had an entire campaign to set the record straight, but instead, she's the one out there saying "He's not a Muslim, AS FAR AS I KNOW." It's a prime example of how she'd throw her party under the bus if she thought she'd win. Add to that comment the fact that her campaign staffers were found to be circulating these bullshit stories (with access to campaign email lists of Democrats), and you've got yourself another fine example of why I won't vote for her.

With regard to your other post, Obama has not called for her to drop out. In fact, he's repeatedly said that she should stay as long as she wants. The difference is that his supporters don't necessarily agree with him on this topic.

Also, you pointed out that you disagree with the assertion that it's a mathematical impossibility. I asked last week for you to present a mathematical scenario that allows her to win, since we've seen so many showing how she can't. I'm still waiting for a response to that challenge.

quote:

Originally posted by Groundhog Boy 25% OF DEMOCRATS first of all (though the article says "white Democrats, so that does lower the number for this statistic). I did research and found that the figure is from Pew Research (which I'd argue is one of the more reputable polling organizations, though I'd entertain arguments to the contrary) - http://people-press.org/reports/dis...p3?ReportID=407

I won't question the pollster company itself, as I've never heard of it and know nothing about it. But it's very significant to say that these numbers are from a month and a half ago. It's a totally different ballgame now, as the Wright situation is still over Obama as a darker cloud than ever. This was also before the Pennsylvania victor, which, agree or disagree, was a boost of momentum. There are a lot of numbers now that I could pull out (if I cared enough, but like I've said many times, I don't trust these polls whether they support my candidate or not) to show how some of those views have changed.

I don't know what your point is with the Muslim thing, please explain? Ask the entire country who the Vice President is, and I'm sure you can find 25% that don't know it's Dick Cheney. I don't see this Muslim issue as relevant. If you're insinuating that they're uninformed, you may just be right. But I don't think there's ever been an election in this country where even a majority of the country has been well-informed. For godsakes, we barely reach the 50% of voter turnout, you really expect people everyone to know everything? If you're insinuating that the average Hillary supporter is a racist or ignorant, well I don't know what to tell you. I can find just as many people who view Hillary as unfavorable for no other reason than "she's a bitch," not like they have anything to go by, facts, figures, or anything she's done in the past. Because you have an opinion of her based on past actions she's made, doesn't mean everyone does.

quote:

she's the one out there saying "He's not a Muslim, AS FAR AS I KNOW."

They're both constantly taking subtle jabs at each other, it's nothing new. An Obama supporter can view that as a slap in the face, while a non-Obama supporter can view that as her making light of the issue, like that's the most important issue in the presidential race, like she should have been doing months-long research on his background. It's all about perception. For example, when Michelle Obama was asked if she would vote for Hillary if Obama were not the candidate, she answered, "I would have to think about supporting Clinton if she were the nominee." Or the time she alluded to Clinton when she said that if a woman couldn't control her household, then she can't control the White House. C'mon, there's so many subtle things said by both campaigns, this should be nothing new to you. By all characteristics, this has been a very clean race. Please look several years ago when the Bush campaign brought out the whole "McCain's illegitimate black child" issue, THAT was something that thros the party under the bus. Man up.

quote:

Originally posted by Groundhog Boy Also, you pointed out that you disagree with the assertion that it's a mathematical impossibility. I asked last week for you to present a mathematical scenario that allows her to win, since we've seen so many showing how she can't. I'm still waiting for a response to that challenge.

The fact that she can win with superdelegates throws your "impossibility" idea out the window. Forget this whole "pledged superdelegates" business, they can change their minds. As we get closer to the electioni, the superdelegates will take more into account who is more electable against McCain and you can see some of those change.

quote:

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is making a stealth play for Oregon, where a primary win next month � combined with her two strongest remaining states, West Virginia and Kentucky � may open up a pathway to the Democratic ticket by convincing superdelegates that she deserves the nomination. http://washingtontimes.com/article/...9679173/0/METRO

You're failing to see that a smaller margin than expected in N. Carolina, and a win in some of the states mentioned in the above article, that alone is capable of convincing a good number of superdelegates who the winner could be in November. Nothing can be "proven" on either side of the argument, as the idea of superdelegates fucks up any mathematical analysis of the situation. That, alone, means it's not impossible. And you may say "well, superdelegates would have to go against the voice of the people," but that's what they're there for, "those are the rules" (like Michigan and Florida).

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Eco I won't question the pollster company itself, as I've never heard of it and know nothing about it. But it's very significant to say that these numbers are from a month and a half ago. It's a totally different ballgame now, as the Wright situation is still over Obama as a darker cloud than ever. This was also before the Pennsylvania victor, which, agree or disagree, was a boost of momentum. There are a lot of numbers now that I could pull out (if I cared enough, but like I've said many times, I don't trust these polls whether they support my candidate or not) to show how some of those views have changed. I don't know what your point is with the Muslim thing, please explain? Ask the entire country who the Vice President is, and I'm sure you can find 25% that don't know it's Dick Cheney. I don't see this Muslim issue as relevant. If you're insinuating that they're uninformed, you may just be right. But I don't think there's ever been an election in this country where even a majority of the country has been well-informed. For godsakes, we barely reach the 50% of voter turnout, you really expect people everyone to know everything? If you're insinuating that the average Hillary supporter is a racist or ignorant, well I don't know what to tell you. I can find just as many people who view Hillary as unfavorable for no other reason than "she's a bitch," not like they have anything to go by, facts, figures, or anything she's done in the past. Because you have an opinion of her based on past actions she's made, doesn't mean everyone does. They're both constantly taking subtle jabs at each other, it's nothing new. An Obama supporter can view that as a slap in the face, while a non-Obama supporter can view that as her making light of the issue, like that's the most important issue in the presidential race, like she should have been doing months-long research on his background. It's all about perception. For example, when Michelle Obama was asked if she would vote for Hillary if Obama were not the candidate, she answered, "I would have to think about supporting Clinton if she were the nominee." Or the time she alluded to Clinton when she said that if a woman couldn't control her household, then she can't control the White House. C'mon, there's so many subtle things said by both campaigns, this should be nothing new to you. By all characteristics, this has been a very clean race. Please look several years ago when the Bush campaign brought out the whole "McCain's illegitimate black child" issue, THAT was something that thros the party under the bus. Man up.

Two comments:

1. I fail to see how blind intuition is a better support for an argument than polling data. Whether you trust them or not, aggregate data has a strong correlation with how things turn out (one of the main reasons polls are still relevant in political discourse).

2. What attacks by Obama against Clinton? Pointing to things Michelle Obama says are akin to pointing to things that Bill Clinton has said, and that's a can of worms I'm sure you do not want to open. Strictly speaking about the candidates themselves and not the people that support them, when has Barack Obama said anything negative about the character of Hillary Clinton? You're fooling yourself if you think her campaign has been as clean as his has.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Eco The fact that she can win with superdelegates throws your "impossibility" idea out the window. Forget this whole "pledged superdelegates" business, they can change their minds. As we get closer to the electioni, the superdelegates will take more into account who is more electable against McCain and you can see some of those change. You're failing to see that a smaller margin than expected in N. Carolina, and a win in some of the states mentioned in the above article, that alone is capable of convincing a good number of superdelegates who the winner could be in November. Nothing can be "proven" on either side of the argument, as the idea of superdelegates fucks up any mathematical analysis of the situation. That, alone, means it's not impossible. And you may say "well, superdelegates would have to go against the voice of the people," but that's what they're there for, "those are the rules" (like Michigan and Florida).

Two more comments:

1. Hillary has herself pledged that they are not going to try and recruit superdelegates that have already pledged for Obama.

2. Do you have any conception of how many of those superdelegates would actually have to switch in order to make her candidacy viable again?

quote:

Originally posted by Groundhog Boy Also, you pointed out that you disagree with the assertion that it's a mathematical impossibility. I asked last week for you to present a mathematical scenario that allows her to win, since we've seen so many showing how she can't. I'm still waiting for a response to that challenge.

he has addressed that several times. if CNN is correct about delegate counts, here's a scenario: hilary gets the 428 delegates and obama gets 270. Maybe that is improbable, but it's certainly not impossible.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Eco I won't question the pollster company itself, as I've never heard of it and know nothing about it.

How can you even claim to be remotely knowledgeable of US politics, but have never heard of Pew?

quote:

But it's very significant to say that these numbers are from a month and a half ago. It's a totally different ballgame now, as the Wright situation is still over Obama as a darker cloud than ever. This was also before the Pennsylvania victor, which, agree or disagree, was a boost of momentum. There are a lot of numbers now that I could pull out (if I cared enough, but like I've said many times, I don't trust these polls whether they support my candidate or not) to show how some of those views have changed.

The Wright situation, with the links to Farrakhan, have not helped this number.

quote:

I don't know what your point is with the Muslim thing, please explain? Ask the entire country who the Vice President is, and I'm sure you can find 25% that don't know it's Dick Cheney. I don't see this Muslim issue as relevant.

This isn't "the entire country," it's "Democrats who do not like Obama." Please read the actual argument and stop distorting it.

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