PDA

View Full Version : If, by improbability, Clinton wins the Nom': will there be anything to fight for?


Steffica Greles
Apr 23rd, 2008, 04:46 AM
There's two ways of looking at this, it seems:

Firstly, Clinton is less favoured among swing voters than Obama. She's said to be more divisive. We can go on about whether the reasons are fair, but the fact is that she is - judging by the polls. Women might want a woman president and begrudge Obama snatching it away, but their rights and concerns would be much better represented under Obama's presidency than McCain's.

What is more, black voters are mostly core Democrat supporters. If Clinton takes this to the death and wrests victory from Obama, she is going to have an uphill struggle to then galvanise those same voters to support her at the ballot box in November. Losing swathes of the black vote would be disastrous to the Democrat campaign in key states like Florida, Ohio and PA. Of course, blacks are represented far better by the Dems than by the Republicans, and Bill Clinton was popular among black Americans, but you could understand why black voters who keenly anticipated Obama becoming the first black president would be embittered and could never forgive Clinton if she received the nomination. After all, she is behind in the national vote, she cannot catch Obama's delegate count, most states have plumped for Obama, and therefore she has, in many eyes, a weak case for becoming the Democrat candidate. If the required amount of superdelegates supported Hillary, then to many fervent Obama supporters, but also to swing voters and the generally apathetic electorate who Clinton will seek to mobilise, the decision would whiff of political skull duggery acting against the will of the people.

But there's another side to all of this:

Clinton has built her campaign largely on an image of being tough-talking and resilient. Most recently she has used the card of being the underdog in order to garner support. There is no question that for the last couple of months, Clinton has been the underdog, and at times has been written off.

If Clinton took this to the wire, and finally won the nomination, then while some would begrudge her, surely as many would commend her for refusing to give up in the face adversity both on a campaign and on a financial level. She has even dipped into her personal funds to bolster her at times flagging effort. Nobody will ever be able to doubt Clinton's ambition to become the first woman President again, nor that her motives are laudable and heartfelt.

She would then take that image to the voters, as the sturdy, wily, indomitable leader who would not -- and you can hear the soundbites now -- give up on America, just as she did not give up on her campaign.

And she'd also have a strong case when trying to persuade superdelegates that she has won comfortable margins over Obama in most of the key states, and it is those states in which she is clearly popular, and on which the last two general elections have hinged. Obama has won big in states which almost never go blue: would CLinton be more likely to tip the key states in favour of the Democrats?


By the way...does anybody have the actual total vote count at this stage, or before today, of Clinton against Obama, taking all the primaries into account?

Natalicious
Apr 23rd, 2008, 05:51 AM
you mean smth like this?
http://edition.cnn.com/POLITICS/

samsung101
Apr 29th, 2008, 04:25 PM
Isn't it silly that in late April, after most of the Democratic primary state elections, the Democratic Party
is still worrying about super delegate counts, and the fact not one delegate is obligated to vote for anyone
in particular.

So, your votes earlier, don't really count?
Or do we count all the real votes?
Or do we just count the super delegate votes?

Anyway........Hillary and Obama agree on 99 and 9/10ths' of everything.

They are the same thing on all major issues.

The only difference is their appearance and personality, one has been around
for nearly 30 years in politics, the other for about 20 years.

That's it.


If you believe in Obama, blame him if he loses the nomination. He should have
been able to put her away a long time ago. They're playing by the same rules.
He has lots more money and has had tons more since the fall. Hillary is almost
out of cash. The media loves Obama, not Hillary and Bill right now. How can he lose?
With his own mistakes and arrogance. He should have stopped the Wright scandal a long
time ago. Instead, he fuled the fire by trying to paint him as a crazy old pastor
uncle figure, one Obama barely has any connection to. In reality, not true.

If you're a liberal Democrat, or liberal independent, vote Obama or Hillary. They're
the same thing. Either one will deliver the same stuff.

The party knew the rules when the campaign began.
No time to whine because your guy may not win by the rules afterall.

CJ07
Apr 29th, 2008, 05:15 PM
Obama currently leads by 1.7% in the popular vote, .7% w/ Florida and Clinton is ahead by a similar margin w/ Michigan.

Her only hope is to win Indiana big, keep a narrow loss in North Carolina and then blow out Obama in Kentucky, West Virginia, Puerto Rico. Then, pull off an upset in Montana/South Dakota and keep a loss in Oregon.

Basically, she has to win the popular vote with at most Florida. If she can manage that, she has an argument, if not she doesn't.

Its just too bad she couldn't made this comeback about 2 months ago.

Pureracket
Apr 29th, 2008, 05:18 PM
Again, read this carefully, popular votes are NOT going to factor into the decision making. Even if Obama wins them, that is not going to be a viable argument.

Like I said earlier, if popular votes mattered all that much Obama would've spent more time in NY instead of camping out in Iowa winning the caucuses there.

It comes down to the delegates. Words like "momentum" and "electability" are words people use when they are asking for lawsuits.

kwilliams
Apr 29th, 2008, 05:27 PM
Many African Americans may be disappointed if Obama loses the candidacy but I doubt many would switch allegiances to the Republican party because of it. Clinton may seem an unfavourable compared to Obama but I would guess she would be quite favourable compared to McCain.

CJ07
Apr 29th, 2008, 05:29 PM
Again, read this carefully, popular votes are NOT going to factor into the decision making. Even if Obama wins them, that is not going to be a viable argument.

Like I said earlier, if popular votes mattered all that much Obama would've spent more time in NY instead of camping out in Iowa winning the caucuses there.

It comes down to the delegates. Words like "momentum" and "electability" are words people use when they are asking for lawsuits.
I understand, but if she is within 100 delegates and wins the popular vote by winning the end of the contests, then her supporters will be up and arms.

And although Obama has the African-American vote, they're the least likely to defect.
Clinton is winning Reagan Democrats to stay in thing - and they're called Reagan Democrats for a reason.

CJ07
Apr 29th, 2008, 05:29 PM
Many African Americans may be disappointed if Obama loses the candidacy but I doubt many would switch allegiances to the Republican party because of it. Clinton may seem an unfavourable compared to Obama but I would guess she would be quite favourable compared to McCain.
Right. African Americans vote Democratic by a 90% margin I think almost. I highly doubt they're going to defect. Plus, she'd have to offer the VP slot to Obama.

And there would probably be a lot of pressure on him to take it to save the party.

In The Zone
Apr 29th, 2008, 05:34 PM
It's funny. This is not the GENERAL ELECTION. This is our party nominating a leader to run for President. So basically, if more than half our party wants one person, we should without consequence or worry, pick the other?

This is unprecedented. It speaks more about the system being flawed. And not the popular vote being meaningless.

kwilliams
Apr 29th, 2008, 05:35 PM
Right. African Americans vote Democratic by a 90% margin I think almost. I highly doubt they're going to defect. Plus, she'd have to offer the VP slot to Obama.
And there would probably be a lot of pressure on him to take it to save the party.

I'd like to think he would take it too but I'm not sure that he would.

I can't believe 10% of African American vote Republican! I thought it was more like 3%, though that was just an impression I had.

Pureracket
Apr 29th, 2008, 05:39 PM
It's funny. This is not the GENERAL ELECTION. This is our party nominating a leader to run for President. So basically, if more than half our party wants one person, we should without consequence or worry, pick the other?

This is unprecedented. It speaks more about the system being flawed. And not the popular vote being meaningless.This has been in place for years and years. Gore and Kerry both won the popular vote(CA & NY), but the assignments of delegates is what counts.

In The Zone
Apr 29th, 2008, 06:02 PM
This has been in place for years and years. Gore and Kerry both won the popular vote(CA & NY), but the assignments of delegates is what counts.

We'll see. I think the Texas debacle already shows you that the delegate assignment isn't what simply counts.

CJ07
Apr 29th, 2008, 06:09 PM
I'd like to think he would take it too but I'm not sure that he would.

I can't believe 10% of African American vote Republican! I thought it was more like 3%, though that was just an impression I had.
I think it might be 5% actually. I dunno I'm one of them :p

Pureracket
Apr 29th, 2008, 06:29 PM
We'll see. I think the Texas debacle already shows you that the delegate assignment isn't what simply counts.There wasn't a Texas debacle. Obama got more delegates after his supporters followed the process.

Why do you call it a debacle?

BigB08822
Apr 29th, 2008, 06:46 PM
I don't know if I would call it a debacle but it is certainly a weird process. They hold the primary and then a caucus but the catch is that only people who voted in the primary can caucus. So what is the point of having a do over? It is almost like it is a contest to see whose supporters are willing to go the extra mile. Unfortunately, life doesn't allow everyone to devote the time to caucus. You have all day to get in your primary vote but to caucus you have to be there at a certain time AND be able to stay for a certain length of time. Doesn't work for everyone. Why not do something fun next election and see what candidate can get the most supporters to cut off a finger, the winner gets 10 extra delegates.

Pureracket
Apr 29th, 2008, 07:09 PM
I don't know if I would call it a debacle but it is certainly a weird process. They hold the primary and then a caucus but the catch is that only people who voted in the primary can caucus. So what is the point of having a do over? It is almost like it is a contest to see whose supporters are willing to go the extra mile. Unfortunately, life doesn't allow everyone to devote the time to caucus. You have all day to get in your primary vote but to caucus you have to be there at a certain time AND be able to stay for a certain length of time. Doesn't work for everyone. Why not do something fun next election and see what candidate can get the most supporters to cut off a finger, the winner gets 10 extra delegates.
Make sure you let me read the letter you write to the TexasDNC....should be good.

Steffica Greles
Apr 29th, 2008, 08:05 PM
Many African Americans may be disappointed if Obama loses the candidacy but I doubt many would switch allegiances to the Republican party because of it. Clinton may seem an unfavourable compared to Obama but I would guess she would be quite favourable compared to McCain.

That's not the issue. Most black voters would never switch to the Republican party, but they might abstain from voting full stop. That is often the pattern when supporters of a party don't like a leader or candidate.

Abstention of your core vote is as much an election loser as being voted against.

In The Zone
Apr 29th, 2008, 08:10 PM
If the nomination is given to her wrongly, I would even find it wrong to vote for her. But if she has a legitimate reason, which she will based upon the popular vote and the will of the people, they are not being "robbed" since neither will get to 2024 anyway. That actually IS a rule ( the 2024 delegates ).

Obama would be her VP, anyway. And I think the recent events show she is stronger and ready to fight the Republicans.

Pureracket
Apr 29th, 2008, 08:14 PM
If the nomination is given to her wrongly, I would even find it wrong to vote for her. But if she has a legitimate reason, which she will based upon the popular vote and the will of the people, they are not being "robbed" since neither will get to 2024 anyway. That actually IS a rule ( the 2024 delegates ).

Obama would be her VP, anyway. And I think the recent events show she is stronger and ready to fight the Republicans.Lemme get this straight: You're honestly going to bed @ night thinking popular vote is going to effect the outcome of this campaign?

BigB08822
Apr 29th, 2008, 08:33 PM
Lemme get this straight: You're honestly going to bed @ night thinking popular vote is going to effect the outcome of this campaign?
I agree. Strike me dead, lol

LeonHart
Apr 29th, 2008, 10:03 PM
I agree. Strike me dead, lol

:lol:

I agree.

The whole delegate system is wack. It was created by our founding fathers because they mistrust the "regular uneducated folks" so they put elite figures on top of the popular vote to make sure nothing dumb happens. Times have changed and most of us are educated knowledgable individuals I believe :)

In The Zone
Apr 29th, 2008, 10:05 PM
Lemme get this straight: You're honestly going to bed @ night thinking popular vote is going to effect the outcome of this campaign?

What should be better, the electoral college? I have no qualms with that one. :)

Texas, California, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Should I keep going? :angel:

The will of the people. Isn't that a phrase Obama has loved to use? Didn't you guys vehemently defend Wright? Weird how the tide is changing and words are being eaten.

Donny
Apr 29th, 2008, 10:07 PM
We'll see. I think the Texas debacle already shows you that the delegate assignment isn't what simply counts.

Yes, it is, to put it bluntly. You can change it in the future, but it is what it is.

You see, the entire point of the primaries is to reach the magic number of 2,024 (not sure about the exact number) pledged delegates. Any reasonable strategy would've been based on getting these delegates. No intellectually honest person would've expected either Clinton or Obama to go after the national popular vote, when that strategy could've cost them the nomination.

Another thing: The delegate system is favored because it rewards the base of the Democratic party. Delegates are allocated amongst congressional districts based on number of votes for Democratic candidates. Therefore, the more Dem voters you have, the more delegates you have. In most places, save the deep south, blue votes are concentrated in certain districts (Black districts and urban areas), resulting in huge amounts of allocated delegates.

That's why Obama's wiping the floor with Clinton delegate wise: He's winning the bluest of the blue districts. Discarding the delegate system is literally getting rid of the "reward" for being consistently blue. Why the hell would they do that? To piss off their base?

Donny
Apr 29th, 2008, 10:09 PM
What should be better, the electoral college? I have no qualms with that one. :)

Texas, California, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Should I keep going? :angel:

The will of the people. Isn't that a phrase Obama has loved to use? Didn't you guys vehemently defend Wright? Weird how the tide is changing and words are being eaten.

Um, Obama got more votes in Texas. And Florida wasn't a real election.

In The Zone
Apr 29th, 2008, 10:10 PM
I don't disagree with some sort of allotment based on districts, etc. But I believe a certain number of delegates should immediately go to the victor, etc. So instances like Nevada, Alabama, and Texas don't ruin the spirit of the state.

Look at Alabama! Obama embarrassed Hillary there. And delegate count? 27-25. Barely a victory.

In The Zone
Apr 29th, 2008, 10:11 PM
Um, Obama got more votes in Texas. And Florida wasn't a real election.

Actually, Hillary got more votes. Caucuses where old people can't go and a certain excited, young few get to vote twice would not correlate to an electoral college. And whether you like it or not, because I know you Obamaniacs love to argue, Hillary would trounce Obama in Florida -- whether it was an acceptable date or not.

Pureracket
Apr 29th, 2008, 10:12 PM
What should be better, the electoral college? I have no qualms with that one. :)

Texas, California, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Should I keep going? :angel:

The will of the people. Isn't that a phrase Obama has loved to use? Didn't you guys vehemently defend Wright? Weird how the tide is changing and words are being eaten.Again, you can look fondly upon the popular vote all you want(which HRC does not have, btw), but the fact still remains that we count delegates in teh Democratic party.

You're really going to use Florida, eh? :haha:

P.S. Very few, if any, defended Wright. Obama supporters defended Obama and forwarded the fact to the Clinton/McCain team that Rev. Wright was Obama's former pastor.

Pureracket
Apr 29th, 2008, 10:15 PM
Actually, Hillary got more votes. Caucuses where old people can't go and a certain excited, young few get to vote twice would not correlate to an electoral college. And whether you like it or not, because I know you Obamaniacs love to argue, Hillary would trounce Obama in Florida -- whether it was an acceptable date or not.That's spin, ITZ. You don't know how Hillary would've done in Florida with a fair campaign.

I hope she helps us win it in November, though. We're going to need all of you all's help. Every one of you Hillary supporters. I hope you remember why you got so heavily involved in this process in the first place.

Donny
Apr 29th, 2008, 10:18 PM
Actually, Hillary got more votes. Caucuses where old people can't go and a certain excited, young few get to vote twice would not correlate to an electoral college.

But primaries where only Democrats can vote *would* correlate?

And whether you like it or not, because I know you Obamaniacs love to argue, Hillary would trounce Obama in Florida -- whether it was an acceptable date or not.

If a ten percent win= a trouncing, then sure.

In The Zone
Apr 29th, 2008, 10:20 PM
That's spin, ITZ. You don't know how Hillary would've done in Florida with a fair campaign.

I hope she helps us win it in November, though. We're going to need all of you all's help. Every one of you Hillary supporters. I hope you remember why you got so heavily involved in this process in the first place.

I hope you do too once Clinton is the nominee. :)

Donny
Apr 29th, 2008, 10:21 PM
I don't disagree with some sort of allotment based on districts, etc. But I believe a certain number of delegates should immediately go to the victor, etc. So instances like Nevada, Alabama, and Texas don't ruin the spirit of the state.

Look at Alabama! Obama embarrassed Hillary there. And delegate count? 27-25. Barely a victory.

The delegate system is based entirely off of congressional districting. Do you think the House of Representatives is inherently unfair?

In The Zone
Apr 29th, 2008, 10:23 PM
The delegate system is based entirely off of congressional districting. Do you think the House of Representatives is inherently unfair?

No. But we're talking about our PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE. Not our congressionally approved Presidential Candidate.

Donny
Apr 29th, 2008, 10:30 PM
No. But we're talking about our PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE. Not our congressionally approved Presidential Candidate.

Indeed. This, to me, is the best system. Certainly no worse than state by state winner take all. And there is exactly zero possibility of either party going to a popular vote system.

Pureracket
Apr 29th, 2008, 10:38 PM
ITZ, lemme break it down like this: HRC needed to win 70% of the remaining delegates going into PA. She needed to win PA by 20%. She won by 8.6%(almost double digits but not quite).

We don't have a system of popular voting. We have a mixed system of primaries and caucuses and you cannot accurate account for the popular vote of the caucusstates. In Iowa Obama looked like he had 38% of the results on caucus night but in fact he is going to end up with 70% of the delegates.

wikipedia(which isn't always reliable) gives us a popular vote count:

with FL
Barrack Obama 14,954,773 47.7%
Hillary Clinton 14,748,533 47.1%
Obama Spread +206,240 +0.6%

Keep counting popular votes if you'd like, ITZ. You're actually making the point for Obama.

In The Zone
Apr 29th, 2008, 10:38 PM
Indeed. This, to me, is the best system. Certainly no worse than state by state winner take all. And there is exactly zero possibility of either party going to a popular vote system.

I believe in a middleground between the two of the proportionate and winner-take-all. The winner should be granted an automatic number. Alabama, Texas, and Nevada are clear examples why. It's almost saying your vote doesn't count if you don't live in the right place.

Donny
Apr 29th, 2008, 11:05 PM
I believe in a middleground between the two of the proportionate and winner-take-all. The winner should be granted an automatic number. Alabama, Texas, and Nevada are clear examples why. It's almost saying your vote doesn't count if you don't live in the right place.

You mean, at large delegates?

StarDuvallGrant
Apr 29th, 2008, 11:06 PM
And although Obama has the African-American vote, they're the least likely to defect.
Clinton is winning Reagan Democrats to stay in thing - and they're called Reagan Democrats for a reason.

After all that has been said and put forth by Clinton, her husband and surrogates, defection may not be in the cards, but sitting out could be an option. What would Hillary have to offer people that would make voters who have almost unanimously gone in Obama's favor? This includes all Obama voters.

Wannabeknowitall
Apr 29th, 2008, 11:36 PM
After all that has been said and put forth by Clinton, her husband and surrogates, defection may not be in the cards, but sitting out could be an option. What would Hillary have to offer people that would make voters who have almost unanimously gone in Obama's favor? This includes all Obama voters.

You keep bringing up this idea and I say Hillary won PA without the majority of first time voters.
She doesn't need them. She can win this election with Kerry's numbers when it comes to democrats and the edge with hispanics and independents right now.
First time voters are the ones likely to sit out.
And if they do just because their nominee wasn't picked we never needed them in the first place.

In The Zone
Apr 29th, 2008, 11:43 PM
Oh and by the way. Superdelegate endorsements do not mean they will vote for that candidate in August. :)

StarDuvallGrant
Apr 29th, 2008, 11:45 PM
You keep bringing up this idea and I say Hillary won PA without the majority of first time voters.
She doesn't need them. She can win this election with Kerry's numbers when it comes to democrats.
Those are the ones likely to sit out.
And if they do just because their nominee wasn't picked we never needed them in the first place.

This is such a condescending attitude to take coming from people who were calling Obama an elitist. So Hillary doesn't need Obama's majority, his half? As you put it a little bit ago, "To have an elitist attitude when it comes to them, doesn't really help anyone in the end" I'm not surprised you've chosen to forget your own words. It's disturbing, yet not surprising.

Will those Republicans who voted for Hillary at the behest of Rush Limbaugh put her over the edge? Hillary's campaign isn't exactly the campaign of "We" and inclusion so how is she going to win if her attitude is just like her supporters and people suddenly don't matter anymore and aren't needed?

In The Zone
Apr 29th, 2008, 11:46 PM
This is such a condescending attitude to take coming from people who were calling Obama an elitist. So Hillary doesn't need Obama's majority, his half? As you put it a little bit ago, "To have an elitist attitude when it comes to them, doesn't really help anyone in the end" I'm not surprised you've chosen to forget your own words. Will those Republicans who voted for Hillary at the behest of Rush Limbaugh put her over the edge?

Obama doesn't need Hillary's half? :confused:

StarDuvallGrant
Apr 29th, 2008, 11:50 PM
Obama doesn't need Hillary's half? :confused:

I haven't read a post where an Obama supporter has disregarded Clinton voters - already we've seen Clinton supporters take Obama supporter's votes for granted, point to them as if they are a given, and yet state that they aren't needed. You guys need to make up your minds and come to common ground because the confusion is on your end.

Donny
Apr 29th, 2008, 11:51 PM
Oh and by the way. Superdelegate endorsements do not mean they will vote for that candidate in August. :)

Indeed; Hillary's endorsements will all switch to Obama by then.

In The Zone
Apr 29th, 2008, 11:51 PM
I haven't read a post where an Obama supporter has disregarded Clinton voters - already we've seen Clinton supporters take Obama supporter's votes for granted, point to them as if they are a given, and yet state that they aren't needed.

:spit: Sorry, I nearly stopped breathing. We want Obama to be our VP. Obamaniacs on this board do not want Hill, which is disregarding her voters.

In The Zone
Apr 29th, 2008, 11:52 PM
Indeed; Hillary's endorsements will all switch to Obama by then.

Or Obama's go to Hillary when she has the popular vote and Wright makes 45 more ridiculous speeches. :)

Donny
Apr 29th, 2008, 11:55 PM
:spit: Sorry, I nearly stopped breathing. We want Obama to be our VP. Obamaniacs on this board do not want Hill, which is disregarding her voters.

You're conflating nepotism and outright blackmail with compromise. As well as prop up a strawman: No serious Obama supporter wants him as Clinton's VP.

In The Zone
Apr 29th, 2008, 11:57 PM
You're conflating nepotism and outright blackmail with compromise. As well as prop up a strawman: No serious Obama supporter wants him as Clinton's VP.

And no serious Clinton supporter wants Obama. It's about the best interests of the party. And that would mean acknowledging things that don't always go your way. Sorry donnyhatero, :(

Wannabeknowitall
Apr 29th, 2008, 11:58 PM
This is such a condescending attitude to take coming from people who were calling Obama an elitist. So Hillary doesn't need Obama's majority, his half? As you put it a little bit ago, "To have an elitist attitude when it comes to them, doesn't really help anyone in the end" I'm not surprised you've chosen to forget your own words. It's disturbing, yet not surprising.

Will those Republicans who voted for Hillary at the behest of Rush Limbaugh put her over the edge?

I never called him an elitist.
I've been consistent with this idea for months now.
If you had an issue with it then you should have brought it up Super Tuesday when I brought this up for strategic purposes.

I never said Hillary didn't need some of Obama's votes but the fact remains that at least a 1/5of them will consider other options when it comes to voting if Hillary gets the nomination.
So if they do then ok. We can deal with that lost.
I haven't said their votes count less, I am saying though that if they sit out then she can still win this race.

I don't have an elitist attitude. I have a real attitude.
Hillary can win against McCain with Kerry numbers.

She will have the same strategy that Obama had for many states but since she's already pandered to rural areas, she's a step up.
Hillary can get a 6:1 against McCain in my area.
No new young registered voters really came out to vote in my area.

With Obama on the other hand he has to pander to small town people to win a state like Ohio, New Jersey, and PA.
And I don't think he has enough to organize in medium size states with big rural areas.

It's easier to ogranize and attack a city.
And if you know what you're doing you can do it in a month, which is what she'll need after the convention.

Donny
Apr 29th, 2008, 11:58 PM
Or Obama's go to Hillary when she has the popular vote and Wright makes 45 more ridiculous speeches. :)

One: No realistic way Hillary overtakes him in popular vote.

Two: The pledged delegate leader is the nominee. Hillary has the options of preparing herself for a run in 2012 by bringing down Obama with her, or bowing out gracefully. Neither option will change the result.

StarDuvallGrant
Apr 30th, 2008, 12:02 AM
:spit: Sorry, I nearly stopped breathing. We want Obama to be our VP. Obamaniacs on this board do not want Hill, which is disregarding her voters.

You guys want Obama as your VP? The same Obama you guys find elitist? The same Obama that hasn't passed the threshold? The same Obama whose middle name you guys can't seem to stress enough? This is the person you guys want as your VP. Forgive me as I try to stop my fit of giggles :rolleyes:

You know, I don't understand you Hillary supporters. I really don't. How is it in your mind that using 'Obamaniacs' sets good feelings? You aren't using it in friendship. We're Obama supporters as you are Hillary supporters - at least pretend you know what consideration or respect mean.

Giving Hillary as spot she didn't earn on a ticket is stupid - it's not about appeasing supporters if she didn't earn the spot. Affirmative Action isn't the way to go. And why would you accept a spot as VP from your candidate who has gone about her way in destroying Obama? She's deemed McCain and herself as the two fit for President, not Obama, how would her supporters think being VP disregards those harsh words that she'd have to swallow and tell you she lied about? She's gone about her way to destroy not just her fellow Democrat but to prop up the Republican nominee - at this point I'm not sure why she hasn't shed her wolf's clothing and thrown on the red suit that fits her perfectly.

Donny
Apr 30th, 2008, 12:02 AM
:spit: Sorry, I nearly stopped breathing. We want Obama to be our VP. Obamaniacs on this board do not want Hill, which is disregarding her voters.

And no serious Clinton supporter wants Obama. It's about the best interests of the party. And that would mean acknowledging things that don't always go your way. Sorry donnyhatero, :(

Are you getting enough sleep? You seem to be having a Bosnia moment.

Wannabeknowitall
Apr 30th, 2008, 12:06 AM
And no serious Clinton supporter wants Obama. It's about the best interests of the party. And that would mean acknowledging things that don't always go your way. Sorry donnyhatero, :(

You know what I find interesting?

That the words used for Hillary when it comes to this nomination is she's trying to "steal" it.

It's funny because stealing implies an action of ownership or property.

So supposedly Hillary acts as if she's entitled to this nomination, she has fought for it for over 2 months now, and she's stealing which implies that Obama owns or is entitled to this nomination.

That's fine though. :lol:
The hypocrasy.

Donny
Apr 30th, 2008, 12:10 AM
You know what I find interesting?

That the words used for Hillary when it comes to this nomination is she's trying to "steal" it.

It's funny because stealing implies an action of ownership or property.

So supposedly Hillary acts as if she's entitled to this nomination, she has fought for it for over 2 months now, and she's stealing which implies that Obama owns or is entitled to this nomination.

That's fine though. :lol:
The hypocrasy.

You know what I find interesting?

That the words used for Bush when it comes to this nomination is he's trying to "steal" it.

It's funny because stealing implies an action of ownership or property.

So supposedly Bush acts as if he's entitled to this nomination, he has fought for it for over a month now, and he's stealing which implies that Gore owns or is entitled to this election.

That's fine though. :lol:

StarDuvallGrant
Apr 30th, 2008, 12:12 AM
I never said Hillary didn't need some of Obama's votes but the fact remains that at least a 1/5of them will consider other options when it comes to voting if Hillary gets the nomination.
So if they do then ok. We can deal with that lost.
I haven't said their votes count less, I am saying though that if they sit out then she can still win this race.

I don't have an elitist attitude. I have a real attitude.
Hillary can win against McCain with Kerry numbers.

The attitude of Hillary supporters, of which you've been very vocal, is that if they aren't for Hillary, to hell with them. It's either disregard or dismiss with you people. I'm wondering why there isn't an outstretched hand even within the party. If McCain has his votes and the others come in by way of Hillary galvanizing them, I'm sitting here wondering just how Hillary is supposed to win with those she's lost when she's not making up ground in new territory, but if it's just the big states and the bitter rural folks in Pennsylvania you guys must be sitting pretty.

Wannabeknowitall
Apr 30th, 2008, 12:14 AM
You guys want Obama as your VP? The same Obama you guys find elitist? The same Obama that hasn't passed the threshold? The same Obama whose middle name you guys can't seem to stress enough? This is the person you guys want as your VP. Forgive me as I try to stop my fit of giggles :rolleyes:




Here's the deal.
I've always said that Richardson would be either of their VP candidate if he stayed neutral.
He didn't. I still think he has a nice shot still.

You need to keep that hispanic vote high.

I don't know if Hillary will do that now.
She had a great VP with Richardson but it's going to be hard to really go for him now.
Ed Rendell just won't work. I know, I've dealt with his bigotry for 15 years now.
Biden. No.
Edwards. Maybe.

So Obama, compared to some other known democrats out there, is not the worse thing that could happen.

In The Zone
Apr 30th, 2008, 12:22 AM
Are you getting enough sleep? You seem to be having a Bosnia moment.

I used the same word. But you know what I mean. In a perfect world, Hillary and I would be Pres and VP. Obama will do to keep the votes. :) We don't "WANT", "DESIRE" Obama to be the VP. But for the sake of the party, we'll have him. :angel:

StarDuvallGrant
Apr 30th, 2008, 12:26 AM
Here's the deal.
I've always sad that Richardson would be either of their VP candidate if he stayed neutral.
He didn't. I still think he has a nice shot still.

Oh, Richardson still has the opportunity to be de-Judased?

It's disturbing how little a person's word has value. There really shouldn't be any complaining about what a candidate says on the trail if some supporters are willing to forget all that just for a VP spot as a sign of 'peace'.

You need to keep that hispanic vote high.Hispanic, African-American, young, female, white male, Democratic vote needs to be high. Pandering shows a lack of respect.

I don't know if Hillary will do that now.
She had a great VP with Richardson but it's going to be hard to really go for him now.But it would somehow be easy to have Obama as her VP or Clinton as Obama's :lol:

Ed Rendell just won't work. I know, I've dealt with his bigotry for 15 years now.It's disturbing how much hatred and ignorance follows Hillary's campaign by way of her surrogates. Having a person stand by her and as her VP at that who without shame states his state has white people who wouldn't vote for Obama because he is black isn't a ticket I would be comfortable voting for.

So Obama compared to some other known democrats out there, is not the worse thing that could happen.As an Obama supporter I would hope he wouldn't set aside his beliefs and all that he's shown himself to be and take a VP spot from a campaign that has acted like a petulant child. He would be a reward to Clinton's hopes and that is more than she deserves. There is a difference between what's best for the nation and what's best for one's personal gains, and Hillary hasn't shown me anything about 'We'. No deal.

In The Zone
Apr 30th, 2008, 12:30 AM
As an Obama supporter I would hope he wouldn't set aside his beliefs and all that he's shown himself to be and take a VP spot from a campaign that has acted like a petulant child. He would be a reward to Clinton's hopes and that is more than she deserves. There is a difference between what's best for the nation and what's best for one's personal gains, and Hillary hasn't shown me anything about 'We'. No deal.

These same beliefs that come and go depending on the situation? If he has to take the VP bid, I think he would. Let's worry about this later, though. He is still "winning". Although not so sure if he is the frontrunner anymore. It's basically a tie.

Wannabeknowitall
Apr 30th, 2008, 12:31 AM
The attitude of Hillary supporters, of which you've been very vocal, is that if they aren't for Hillary, to hell with them. It's either disregard or dismiss with you people. I'm wondering why there isn't an outstretched hand even within the party. If McCain has his votes and the others come in by way of Hillary galvanizing them, I'm sitting here wondering just how Hillary is supposed to win with those she's lost when she's not making up ground in new territory, but if it's just the big states and the bitter rural folks in Pennsylvania you guys must be sitting pretty.

No. That's actually Obama supporters.
We would like many of you to vote for Hillary come general election time.
We don't feel insulted that you root for him and we understand what you see in him.

There's a outstretched hand more in the Terminator 2 "Come With Me If You Wamt To Live" style. :lol:

She won California without a majority of black voters, when they realize that McCain is Dubya II, I doubt that apathy will be the typical response.

It's not that Hillary has to win new territory, it's that McCain has to.
Does he really think he can go into the rust belt country and have people believe that NAFTA is fine after 30 years and that the jobs will come back if nothing is done now?

And they're not bitter rural folks.
You just don't seem to understand them and if you or Obama can't and he gets the nomination and he doesn't pander to them, he will lose this election.
You are underestimating their power.
Do that and Obama will be in the same boat aa Gore and Kerry.

Obama and McCain both have work to do with small town America.

StarDuvallGrant
Apr 30th, 2008, 12:35 AM
These same beliefs that come and go depending on the situation?

This would be?

If he has to take the VP bid, I think he would. Let's worry about this later, though. He is still "winning". Although not so sure if he is the frontrunner anymore. It's basically a tie.

Has to take the VP spot? Please explain this because I don't see a need to do anything on his part but continue running his campaign in the successful manner he has been, continue raising money with the over 1 million donors, and continue reaching people with an inclusive message towards nomination.

Wannabeknowitall
Apr 30th, 2008, 12:45 AM
Oh, Richardson still has the opportunity to be de-Judased?

It's disturbing how little a person's word has value. There really shouldn't be any complaining about what a candidate says on the trail if some supporters are willing to forget all that just for a VP spot as a sign of 'peace'.

Hispanic, African-American, young, female, white male, Democratic vote needs to be high. Pandering shows a lack of respect.

But it would somehow be easy to have Obama as her VP or Clinton as Obama's :lol:

It's disturbing how much hatred and ignorance follows Hillary's campaign by way of her surrogates. Having a person stand by her and as her VP at that who without shame states his state has white people who wouldn't vote for Obama because he is black isn't a ticket I would be comfortable voting for.

As an Obama supporter I would hope he wouldn't set aside his beliefs and all that he's shown himself to be and take a VP spot from a campaign that has acted like a petulant child. He would be a reward to Clinton's hopes and that is more than she deserves. There is a difference between what's best for the nation and what's best for one's personal gains, and Hillary hasn't shown me anything about 'We'. No deal.

African-American voters aren't going anywhere.
Did you see the bumbling fool Dubya today.
We're in a recession, our option from his dumbass mouth is take the rebate check and spend it fast.

OR
With his goofy laugh, spend it on gas. :eek:
With some SUVs today, that's two full tanks?

Pandering wins elections. Some of you democrats live in this fantasy world.
Obama can win because he's nice and let's have a fair election.
Yeah that worked so well for Gore and Kerry when the Republicans used that against them to make them look weak which is already happening to Obama right now.

You can blame Hillary for that but if he can't take a little shove now a flagrent foul from McCain will have him out of this race.

Obama's option is still Richardson. He needs the hispanic vote and they're not going to go for Obama without a push.

If Obama chooses not to be the VP if Clinton finds a way to win this nomination then fine.
I'm with Pelosi. I have never thought that a Obama/Clinton, Clinton/Obama ticket is good for this race.
If both of them agree to it then there's nothing I can do.
Unlike you though I'm open to the slim possibility of it happening though.

StarDuvallGrant
Apr 30th, 2008, 12:46 AM
No. That's actually Obama supporters.
We would like many of you to vote for Hillary come general election time.

ITZ and you have both stated you want Obama and his supporters with a condition, or that you don't want them at all. I frankly don't care to be used. My vote and those of others is just as important and meaningful as yours and that of Hillary supporters. Too often your side puts itself up high as if it's Obama who needs to make a gesture or it's Obama supporters who need to be softer in their tone when in reality it's your side that needs to realize you should take your own advice.

We don't feel insulted that you root for him and we understand what you see in him.

This is as much a lie as Hillary and Chelsea fleeing from sniper fire. Because if this were true, you wouldn't feel the need to refer to his supporters as cultists, or Obamaniacs, simply as Obama supporters. Perhaps you've told yourselves this lie enough that you believe it, but it's simply not reality.



She won California without a majority of black voters, when they realize that McCain is Dubya II, I doubt that apathy will be the typical response.

The problem she has is that many within the Democratic party didn't like her to begin with. As she's shown her face even more, some have had a hard time seeing any difference between her and McCain - it's even harder when she's complimented McCain more than her own party member. If she's made it so that there isn't much of a difference between herself and McCain, who as you've dubbed, is Bush part two, there isn't much difference between Hillary and Bush either, so it's a toss up.

It's not that Hillary has to win new territory, it's that McCain has to.
Does he really think he can go into the rust belt country and have people believe that NAFTA is fine after 30 years and that the jobs will come back if nothing is done now?

McCain has his ready made base. He hasn't spent this primary tearing it down the way Hillary has. Let us say she does receive the nomination, what words will she use to heal wounds she, her husband have opened? What gestures does she have to make in old ground that will have turned into new ground all in the name of her nomination? With her lack of funds on top of this, how will she have enough time to kiss, make up, and at the same time define McCain and beat the Republicans? Hillary has to do a lot.

And they're not bitter rural folks.

That's what she had people believe Pennsylvania was all about.

You just don't seem to understand them and if you or Obama can't and he gets the nomination and he doesn't pander to them, he will lose this election.

Pandering shows a lack of respect and it's showing a false face to someone who should be your equal - Obama doesn't pander, but he tries to understand. It's unfortunate that Hillary pounced upon differences that some people in Pennsylvania aren't willing to let go of. But if that's her pandering base, good luck against McCain's pandering base.

You are underestimating their power.

They must be poor rural folks only in big states, because the ones in small states don't matter a la Hillary.


Obama and McCain both have work to do with small town America.

As Hillary does in her own party.

In The Zone
Apr 30th, 2008, 12:50 AM
You're not being used. You would be using us more. You guys want nothing to do with Hillary. But you want us to vote for Obama.

Don't just point the finger without listening to what has to be said.

And we do respect for you liking Obama, we just think you're wrong :p

Donny
Apr 30th, 2008, 12:58 AM
You're not being used. You would be using us more. You guys want nothing to do with Hillary. But you want us to vote for Obama.

Don't just point the finger without listening to what has to be said.

And we do respect for you liking Obama, we just think you're wrong :p

I will say this, in case you aren't aware: YOU AND HILLARY ARE NOT THE SAME PERSON. You voting for Obama or McCain has nothing to do with Hillary. You're supposed to like Hillary because of the positions she holds, and what you think she will do in office. You then vote for the candidate (if there is one) that you think will be close to Hillary in values, words, and actions. You act as if Hillary's the Golden Calf. And yet *we're* the cultists. Hilarious.

Wannabeknowitall
Apr 30th, 2008, 01:21 AM
ITZ and you have both stated you want Obama and his supporters with a condition, or that you don't want them at all. I frankly don't care to be used. My vote and those of others is just as important and meaningful as yours and that of Hillary supporters. Too often your side puts itself up high as if it's Obama who needs to make a gesture or it's Obama supporters who need to be softer in their tone when in reality it's your side that needs to realize you should take your own advice.



This is as much a lie as Hillary and Chelsea fleeing from sniper fire. Because if this were true, you wouldn't feel the need to refer to his supporters as cultists, or Obamaniacs, simply as Obama supporters. Perhaps you've told yourselves this lie enough that you believe it, but it's simply not reality.



The problem she has is that many within the Democratic party didn't like her to begin with. As she's shown her face even more, some have had a hard time seeing any difference between her and McCain - it's even harder when she's complimented McCain more than her own party member. If she's made it so that there isn't much of a difference between herself and McCain, who as you've dubbed, is Bush part two, there isn't much difference between Hillary and Bush either, so it's a toss up.



McCain has his ready made base. He hasn't spent this primary tearing it down the way Hillary has. Let us say she does receive the nomination, what words will she use to heal wounds she, her husband have opened? What gestures does she have to make in old ground that will have turned into new ground all in the name of her nomination? With her lack of funds on top of this, how will she have enough time to kiss, make up, and at the same time define McCain and beat the Republicans? Hillary has to do a lot.



That's what she had people believe Pennsylvania was all about.



Pandering shows a lack of respect and it's showing a false face to someone who should be your equal - Obama doesn't pander, but he tries to understand. It's unfortunate that Hillary pounced upon differences that some people in Pennsylvania aren't willing to let go of. But if that's her pandering base, good luck against McCain's pandering base.



They must be poor rural folks only in big states, because the ones in small states don't matter a la Hillary.




As Hillary does in her own party.

He does need to make a gesture towards small town voters in these states.
If Obama loses Indiana then his comments about bitterness are more far reaching than just PA and that's an issue.

Just because I don't respect the extremist of Obama supporters does not mean I don't respect the average Obama supporter who can hold a convo in real life without raising their voice.
As I've mentioned before I had a nice calm conversation with an Obama supporter in their car just earlier this month.
He wasn't obcessed about Obama. He didn't act as if Obama is some type of infallible god like some of Obama supporters on here who have put me on ignore and who think my message will lose power like Obama thinks of the special interest groups.

On the issues, McCain and Hillary are totally different if you for one minute think I'm going to allow you to just say that lie and get away with it, you have another thing coming.

Conservatives still don't trust McCain.
As I said before, if she's aggressive in the urban areas in which she's lost some voters, she can make up that demographic compared to Obama who has to make up with people who didn't trust him in the first place, not because he's black but because he's never reached out to them on the east coast.

He didn't reach out to South Jersey, he didn't reach out to central PA, and he didn't reach out to rural Ohio.
There's no excuse for some of it.
South Jersey has a high hispanic demographic and has a lot of former south philadelphian people who moved to jersey for "better lives".
He could have won that area and it didn't take pandering.
It just would have took some effort something that oddly Bill took time the to invest in.

It's not a false face if you actually want to help and have ideas for how to but you have more policies towards for example inner cities or vice versa.

Former Governor Ridge of PA pandered to urban voters who put their kids in parochial schools.
He tried to get school vochers thru the state senate, it didn't go thru.
Not his fault. He attempted.
But he had a policy that caught some democrats eyes and they actually decided this is something they would like to be involved in and they voted for the Republican.

Calling people bitter doesn't make them feel equal either.

In The Zone
Apr 30th, 2008, 01:34 AM
I will say this, in case you aren't aware: YOU AND HILLARY ARE NOT THE SAME PERSON. You voting for Obama or McCain has nothing to do with Hillary. You're supposed to like Hillary because of the positions she holds, and what you think she will do in office. You then vote for the candidate (if there is one) that you think will be close to Hillary in values, words, and actions. You act as if Hillary's the Golden Calf. And yet *we're* the cultists. Hilarious.

Huh? ... I do. I don't think you've realized how sarcastic my posts have been.

I need someone who brings results and I need to trust someone. I'm sorry, I don't trust him and I more than trust her. :)

mykarma
Apr 30th, 2008, 04:32 AM
Actually, Hillary got more votes. Caucuses where old people can't go and a certain excited, young few get to vote twice would not correlate to an electoral college. And whether you like it or not, because I know you Obamaniacs love to argue, Hillary would trounce Obama in Florida -- whether it was an acceptable date or not.
:haha::haha::haha:

mykarma
Apr 30th, 2008, 04:36 AM
Indeed. This, to me, is the best system. Certainly no worse than state by state winner take all. And there is exactly zero possibility of either party going to a popular vote system.
You know how all the rules change when it has to do with Hillary. We didn't hear anything about any of this when Hillary was winning. The bar moves everyday.

mykarma
Apr 30th, 2008, 04:43 AM
You guys want Obama as your VP? The same Obama you guys find elitist? The same Obama that hasn't passed the threshold? The same Obama whose middle name you guys can't seem to stress enough? This is the person you guys want as your VP. Forgive me as I try to stop my fit of giggles :rolleyes:

You know, I don't understand you Hillary supporters. I really don't. How is it in your mind that using 'Obamaniacs' sets good feelings? You aren't using it in friendship. We're Obama supporters as you are Hillary supporters - at least pretend you know what consideration or respect mean.

Giving Hillary as spot she didn't earn on a ticket is stupid - it's not about appeasing supporters if she didn't earn the spot. Affirmative Action isn't the way to go. And why would you accept a spot as VP from your candidate who has gone about her way in destroying Obama? She's deemed McCain and herself as the two fit for President, not Obama, how would her supporters think being VP disregards those harsh words that she'd have to swallow and tell you she lied about? She's gone about her way to destroy not just her fellow Democrat but to prop up the Republican nominee - at this point I'm not sure why she hasn't shed her wolf's clothing and thrown on the red suit that fits her perfectly.
:worship::worship::worship:

mykarma
Apr 30th, 2008, 04:45 AM
Are you getting enough sleep? You seem to be having a Bosnia moment.
Oh boy. :lol:

mykarma
Apr 30th, 2008, 04:52 AM
Oh, Richardson still has the opportunity to be de-Judased?

It's disturbing how little a person's word has value. There really shouldn't be any complaining about what a candidate says on the trail if some supporters are willing to forget all that just for a VP spot as a sign of 'peace'.

Hispanic, African-American, young, female, white male, Democratic vote needs to be high. Pandering shows a lack of respect.

But it would somehow be easy to have Obama as her VP or Clinton as Obama's :lol:

It's disturbing how much hatred and ignorance follows Hillary's campaign by way of her surrogates. Having a person stand by her and as her VP at that who without shame states his state has white people who wouldn't vote for Obama because he is black isn't a ticket I would be comfortable voting for.

As an Obama supporter I would hope he wouldn't set aside his beliefs and all that he's shown himself to be and take a VP spot from a campaign that has acted like a petulant child. He would be a reward to Clinton's hopes and that is more than she deserves. There is a difference between what's best for the nation and what's best for one's personal gains, and Hillary hasn't shown me anything about 'We'. No deal.
You're on a roll, boo.

abercrombieguy23
Apr 30th, 2008, 05:33 AM
I bet Clinton creams her granny panties every time she sees Wright on Tv

He's better than TV ads for her campaign

Olórin
Apr 30th, 2008, 01:12 PM
You know, I don't understand you Hillary supporters. I really don't. How is it in your mind that using 'Obamaniacs' sets good feelings? You aren't using it in friendship. We're Obama supporters as you are Hillary supporters - at least pretend you know what consideration or respect mean.


I think this is the first post of yours I've read that I haven't agreed with.

I think words like Obamaniacs are being used because there are some prolific Barack Obama supporters on this board who seem to relish any opportunity to argue and debate, and not always in the most amenable of spirits. There is now a history between the two groups on this board. I see these types of phrases which stereotype various political posters too much. However, when certain posters who are blatantly pro-Obama in as much that they have an intense personal dislike of Hillary, it becomes a very difficult situation to deal with. Suffice to say there is a lot of tension and blame to go around, and it's certainly not all on the shoulders of the Hillary supporters.