|
On April 24 2008 02:33 MYM.Testie wrote:
America can't be stupid enough to vote for a republican again.
If they are, I demand you invade yourself and take out the republican voters.
Focus on the evangelicals first.
Though it will be a tough battle, they are the ones with most of the guns and religious ferver, right?? el o el
If McCain wins the presidency, I'm moving to Canada.
|
On April 24 2008 02:39 oneofthem wrote:
hillary thinks that her winning the dem nomination and fall in the general is better an outcome for her than fading right now. her goal is not really to win, but to advance as far as she can. it is probably her last shot at the national stage, so she values each level she advances. it is rather nasty.
This whole 'me me me' attitude is why people hate her guts in the first place. Now, instead of her just being the loser, the whole party is gonan crash and burn with this bullshit.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
that's a major reason why this is her last chance. still, there are people who treat her sincerely, and that wont change in a short time. however, she alienates enough of the party establishment with her moves, and that doesn't bode well. she's on the downslope.
|
On April 24 2008 02:48 Hawk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2008 02:39 oneofthem wrote:
hillary thinks that her winning the dem nomination and fall in the general is better an outcome for her than fading right now. her goal is not really to win, but to advance as far as she can. it is probably her last shot at the national stage, so she values each level she advances. it is rather nasty. This whole 'me me me' attitude is why people hate her guts in the first place. Now, instead of her just being the loser, the whole party is gonan crash and burn with this bullshit.
This would be an acceptable opinion if one assumed party loyalty to be the higher value. Why this should be so is beyond me. This is the language of a partisan and not of a patriot. Through such opinions, the public allows two parties and two candidates to dominate the political dialogue and then complains about the lack of real choices.
Barring that, it is extremely unlikely that the extension of the democratic race will be terribly detrimental, since the coverage outweighs negative publicy, november is still a long time away, and the pre-election televised debates are more decisive for swing voters than early-year events.
It would be interesting to see as the country wades deeper into recession, whether the voodoo economics espoused by all three engages enough criticism to reverse the populist trend of both parties.
|
On April 24 2008 02:48 Hawk wrote:
This whole 'me me me' attitude is why people hate her guts in the first place.
About 50% of democrat voters still support her. Why do you say "people hate her" as if your opinion was shared by everyone? Dropping out now would be quite un-democratic. She doesn't have the exact same political platform as Obama, she's got every right to defend her position. I guess the reason she's got so many haters (in this thread for instance) is that she looks extremely ambitious. Obama may hide his own ambition/ego a little better, but for sure he's got as much as hillary. I don't think you would get there without it.
|
At this point, my gripe is it's a plain and simple numbers game. She can't win without having the super delegates turning over, and that in itself is a crock of shit. A bunch of yuppies overide the people? fuckkkkkkkk that.
And I never acted as if it's shared by everyone? But anyone who has followed the election at all knows that it's a divisive issue. Shit, my congressman here is supporting her, and his own goddamn sister said she's not sure that they'll support Obama if he gets the nod. THere's plenty of people--dems and indis alike- that are like this, for both sides.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
This would be an acceptable opinion if one assumed party loyalty to be the higher value. Why this should be so is beyond me. This is the language of a partisan and not of a patriot. Through such opinions, the public allows two parties and two candidates to dominate the political dialogue and then complains about the lack of real choices.
not really. party politics is only important because it exists, and the political reality does constraint practical maneuvering. hillary could realign the voting blocs in distasteful ways, by choosing to develop a certain wedge over another. it is the state of american politics that such people could have so much influence, but since this is the case, those who care about what politics could do must pay attention to it.
|
United States22883 Posts
On April 24 2008 08:30 JohnnyCash wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2008 02:48 Hawk wrote:
This whole 'me me me' attitude is why people hate her guts in the first place. About 50% of democrat voters still support her. Why do you say "people hate her" as if your opinion was shared by everyone? Dropping out now would be quite un-democratic. She doesn't have the exact same political platform as Obama, she's got every right to defend her position. I guess the reason she's got so many haters (in this thread for instance) is that she looks extremely ambitious. Obama may hide his own ambition/ego a little better, but for sure he's got as much as hillary. I don't think you would get there without it.
I believe the primary reason people dislike her, both republicans and democrats, is that like her husband, she will say/do anything for a vote. That means she doesn't really have convictions, she just sways to whomever she's trying to appeal to. Bill gets away with it because he's extremely personable, she is not.
|
That's the problem if she somehow does take this to the convention and wins, Obama supporters will vote McCain so fast that the Democratic party will FUBAR for the next 20 yrs. And it would pretty much shock the political scenario of the country to its' core. A candidate won by simply bullying delegates and job offers to get a chance at a White House bid. Although i don't see this happening, but she's a Clinton so anything is possible.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
hehe, that obama voters would even entertain voting for mccain is a big big strike against obama for me.
|
how's that a strike against him? o.o
if anything, id probably say fuck you to the whole party and just vote for ralph nader until he dies or something.
|
There are a couple other problems for Clinton in claiming the lead in the popular vote. Even using her criteria of counting Michigan and Florida, her lead may not last more than two weeks. That's because Obama is heavily favored to win the largest state left to vote, North Carolina, on May 6.
Obama also is likely to win South Dakota and Oregon. Even if Clinton won all the other contests left — Indiana, West Virginia, Kentucky, Montana, Puerto Rico and Guam — they are smaller contests that will make it difficult for her to catch back up.
The other problem with counting the popular vote is that states that held caucuses aren't included at all — Iowa, Nevada, Washington and Maine. Those four states don't have a popular vote total to include — instead they count the number of delegates elected for each candidate to determine who wins. And those states are relatively small, Obama won every one except Nevada.
She never stops.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080424/ap_on_el_pr/democrats_popular_vote
|
On April 24 2008 11:16 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +There are a couple other problems for Clinton in claiming the lead in the popular vote. Even using her criteria of counting Michigan and Florida, her lead may not last more than two weeks. That's because Obama is heavily favored to win the largest state left to vote, North Carolina, on May 6.
Obama also is likely to win South Dakota and Oregon. Even if Clinton won all the other contests left — Indiana, West Virginia, Kentucky, Montana, Puerto Rico and Guam — they are smaller contests that will make it difficult for her to catch back up.
The other problem with counting the popular vote is that states that held caucuses aren't included at all — Iowa, Nevada, Washington and Maine. Those four states don't have a popular vote total to include — instead they count the number of delegates elected for each candidate to determine who wins. And those states are relatively small, Obama won every one except Nevada. She never stops. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080424/ap_on_el_pr/democrats_popular_vote
ARRRGGGGGGG
It drives me insane that she counts Florida and Michigan as wins and boasts about them in her speeches.
|
This is priceless.
"I guess there have been a number of different formulations that the Clinton campaign has been trying to arrive at to suggest that somehow they're not behind," he told reporters traveling with him Wednesday. "I'll leave that up to you guys. If you want to count them for some abstract measure, you're free to do so."
|
On April 24 2008 07:28 MoltkeWarding wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2008 02:48 Hawk wrote:On April 24 2008 02:39 oneofthem wrote:
hillary thinks that her winning the dem nomination and fall in the general is better an outcome for her than fading right now. her goal is not really to win, but to advance as far as she can. it is probably her last shot at the national stage, so she values each level she advances. it is rather nasty. This whole 'me me me' attitude is why people hate her guts in the first place. Now, instead of her just being the loser, the whole party is gonan crash and burn with this bullshit. This would be an acceptable opinion if one assumed party loyalty to be the higher value. Why this should be so is beyond me. This is the language of a partisan and not of a patriot. Through such opinions, the public allows two parties and two candidates to dominate the political dialogue and then complains about the lack of real choices. Barring that, it is extremely unlikely that the extension of the democratic race will be terribly detrimental, since the coverage outweighs negative publicy, november is still a long time away, and the pre-election televised debates are more decisive for swing voters than early-year events. It would be interesting to see as the country wades deeper into recession, whether the voodoo economics espoused by all three engages enough criticism to reverse the populist trend of both parties.
I wasn't aware that Obama and Clinton were supply-siders.
|
United States22883 Posts
On April 24 2008 11:35 Tsagacity wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2008 11:16 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:There are a couple other problems for Clinton in claiming the lead in the popular vote. Even using her criteria of counting Michigan and Florida, her lead may not last more than two weeks. That's because Obama is heavily favored to win the largest state left to vote, North Carolina, on May 6.
Obama also is likely to win South Dakota and Oregon. Even if Clinton won all the other contests left — Indiana, West Virginia, Kentucky, Montana, Puerto Rico and Guam — they are smaller contests that will make it difficult for her to catch back up.
The other problem with counting the popular vote is that states that held caucuses aren't included at all — Iowa, Nevada, Washington and Maine. Those four states don't have a popular vote total to include — instead they count the number of delegates elected for each candidate to determine who wins. And those states are relatively small, Obama won every one except Nevada. She never stops. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080424/ap_on_el_pr/democrats_popular_vote ARRRGGGGGGG It drives me insane that she counts Florida and Michigan as wins and boasts about them in her speeches.
It really pisses me off as well. I don't understand why people didn't make a bigger deal out of her not pulling out of the elections, when every other candidate did.
|
On April 24 2008 10:29 oneofthem wrote:
hehe, that obama voters would even entertain voting for mccain is a big big strike against obama for me.
Actually, most polls show that Clinton voters are more likely to back McCain if their candidate isn't the nominee
http://www.gallup.com/poll/105691/McCain-vs-Obama-28-Clinton-Backers-McCain.aspx
The difference though, is that Obama's supporters would have a much better reason to be pissed at the party if Hillary gets the nomination, considering that the only way she can get it now (most likely) is by having the supers overturn both the popular vote and the pledged delegate vote. The fact that 80-90% of blacks support Obama would make a superdelegate appointment of Hillary even uglier. Seeing a bunch of rich, white, Democrat "elites" annul the near-unanimous black vote could rip open this country's racial wounds.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
i dont really care for the democrats either, to be honest. half of the party is not all that great, with some heavy populist tendencies and whatnot. they'll back republicans on specific issues if pushed hard enough.
how's that a strike against him? o.o
if anything, id probably say fuck you to the whole party and just vote for ralph nader until he dies or something.
this was my impression of things in the early going, about what type of crowd for change obama's rhetoric is appealing to. it may be different now, as he's taken more maneuvers to the left. but the fact of the matter is, the social democratic left in america is almost nonexistent, and we are pretty sensitive to any promises of change. will find any reason to be cynical basically. this is already conceding my earlier worries, and now, i'll give obama the benefit of sympathy because hillary is a trainwreck.
anyway, why people going to mccain is a problem is basically this, i cannot see any productive reason for going to mccain, so those who do must not want the same thing from politics as i do. while it is always good to absorb and buffer a portion of this crowd through party mechanics, it speaks to the message the candidates are putting forth, whether they appeal to the right crowd.
dont know if this is a recent thing, but i didn't know this. however, probably the hillary voters who would rather go mccain are just operating on anti-obama bias, worthless racists or whatnot. it speaks to hillary's political ruthlessness, rather than some flaw in her platform. cause i dont think the mccain guys would go to hillary for positive points in her platform.
Seeing a bunch of rich, white, Democrat "elites" annul the near-unanimous black vote could rip open this country's racial wounds. exactly. although some risk takers may glee at the revival of some rebel forces, so to speak, this probably will push back development of a productive coalition for quite some time. for this reason along, obama should be eased through.
|
On April 24 2008 08:35 Hawk wrote:
At this point, my gripe is it's a plain and simple numbers game. She can't win without having the super delegates turning over, and that in itself is a crock of shit. A bunch of yuppies overide the people? fuckkkkkkkk that.
And I never acted as if it's shared by everyone? But anyone who has followed the election at all knows that it's a divisive issue. Shit, my congressman here is supporting her, and his own goddamn sister said she's not sure that they'll support Obama if he gets the nod. THere's plenty of people--dems and indis alike- that are like this, for both sides.
There is not much wrong with the superdelegate system, remembering that the selection of candidates to stand for election is not a constitutionally mandated process, and parties have internal mechanisms to determine their candidate. Legally speaking, we vote for candidates and not for parties, party loyalism inherently undermines the system, and when one does not like the candidate of one party one ought to open his mind to the other candidates, including independents.
I wasn't aware that Obama and Clinton were supply-siders.
The thoughtless growth-serum endorsed by McCain is not the only way to achieve insolvency. Simply not dealing with the debt, spending, entitlements, or in any way expanding these things, as Clinton and Obama are proposing to do is sufficient to achieve it. Vote for McCain and you will have 1990's Japan. Vote for Clinton/Obama and you will have 1999 Argentina.
not really. party politics is only important because it exists, and the political reality does constraint practical maneuvering. hillary could realign the voting blocs in distasteful ways
I have no idea what you said in your first sentence. Perhaps you meant:
"The existence of party politics is a consequence of those political realities which contrain practical manoeuvring."
As for realigning voting blocs in distasteful ways, distasteful to whom? Democrats? Obama supporters? McCain supporters? I was not aware that the political process of the country has been taken hostage by political seers, Greek tragedians or impatient utopianists, that the boundaries between political analysis and political propaganda no longer maintained even the pretense of existence. I would have hoped that party membership would not condition the peoples' thinking, that these candidates could be seen standing in their own names and not that of the democratic party. If one follows this line of thinking, before we outlaw Clinton from the democratic primary, we ought to outlaw the Libertarian, constitution, green, communist and all other minor parties from the American election, and make those maligned by fortune even more unfortunate.
|
when are elections? In two years? tt
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
