Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Mar 5, 2008 16:20:09 GMT -5
Hillary to me is like Syracuse. Even if it benefits McCain for her to win against another opponent, I can never bring myself to actually want it to happen.
I understand the enthusiasm for the continued confusion, but I'm just not so sure.
As a noted conservative wrote recently, "If there is a chance to kill the devil, you don't root for the devil to survive." (that's a paraphrase, but you get the gist).
And, as I mentioned in a previous primary thread, unless the Republicans can get a little more enthusiasm behind McCain, it's moot anyway. I understand the lack of turnout last night, it was all but wrapped up (and it seems that a lot of Republicans actually did listen to Rush Limbaugh and went in to vote for Hillary). But the Democratic primaries have consistently hammered the Republicans in turnout. Call Karl Rove evil if you want to (and I bet McCain thinks he's evil too), but he got out the vote in a big way.
McCain's got plenty of time to build up that support and enthusiasm, but he's got a lot of work to do.
|
|
GIGAFAN99
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,487
|
Post by GIGAFAN99 on Mar 5, 2008 16:22:47 GMT -5
Do I think Michigan and Florida are important states for Dems? Absolutely Do I also think the primary system and almost everything else with the way Americans select a President is totally broken? 100% Given that the system is already set up and well more than 50% down the tracks, do I believe Hillary's desire to include Michigan and Florida, when she knew they did not count from the beginning, comes across as more of the same political gamesmanship than makes people hate her and hate politics in general? Yes That said, if they can figure out some way for a do-over in Florida and Michigan, I won't mind a bit, but it won't really change my opinion on the SDs. I don't think anyone can assume Hillary would win either one of those states, and I imagine they would both be about as close as Texas and Ohio were, thus netting precious few delegates for either side and leaving us with status quo. The original roll of the SDs, as I understand it, was to prevent the primary voters from selecting a candidate who could not win a general election. True, the original thought was that such a candidate would be a grass roots outsider with radical ideas. It turns out, in this election, that the grass roots outsider also happens to be the one with a chance to win, whereas the insider is abhorrent to a large section of the country. Problem is, too many SDs are beholden to the party machinery and not able to see the broader picture of who will best carry the flag. A few things: 1. Why is it gamesmanship if she wants a do-over or for these to count and not gamesmanship for Obama to want the opposite? 2. Why is it assumed that Obama truly is the best candidate by such a wide margin when that margin can't even translate into winning a state larger than Georgia in a primary? I'm finding the cult of Obama a little over the top. The guy's a charismatic guy, very bright, and a fantastic speaker. But he's losing every large state and is going to get destroyed on experience. Hope is cool, but not a strategy. I at least know how Clinton could win a general. She'd likely pull Ohio or Florida because she does well with the industrial workers, olds, and latinos. Do I like her? Of course not, but I don't have to. A guy told me Obama would get NM and Iowa (probably true for both him and HC) and then could get Nevada, VA or Georgia. Virginia hasn't voted Democrat since Truman I believe. Don't know if I buy it. That sounds like "He'll win by being magical and I likey magic." I just think this thing is a lot closer than Obama supporters think and the party might be right in making a decision on Clinton based on electability. It's gone from "we believe" to "if we keep saying we believe, it will still hold true and that momentum will carry us for 8 more months, yes it will, no doubt about it, the will of all Dems is Obama, 100%" protests. Let's slow down here. The party that bought "Clinton fatigue" and "Dean is crazy and can't win" might be walking into a mine field while the Republicans are circling the wagons as only they can. I'm writing in Jon Wallace myself.
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Mar 5, 2008 16:29:28 GMT -5
Giga:
1. Virginia has elected two Democratic governors. The increasing population centers of Loudoun and Fairfax are both increasingly Democratic. Virginia is turning bluer than it was.
2. It's gamesmanship because the original rules were clear that both states lost their delegates. Hillary did some minor campaigning there, in violation of the rules, but didn't get her knuckles rapped for it. Changing the rules post facto to make foul shots worth ten points each isn't cool.
Opposing a do-over on Obama's side would amount to disenfranchisement of an electorate that didn't try to screw New Hampshire, but I don't think it's there yet.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Mar 5, 2008 16:34:35 GMT -5
Boz has it right in how things shape up.
As a conservative (surprise!) I will not vote Democratic no matter which one wins. But, I have so much distaste for the Clintons, I hope Barack wins the nomination and we can put the Clintons to bed (pun intended) for good.
|
|
GIGAFAN99
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,487
|
Post by GIGAFAN99 on Mar 5, 2008 16:40:04 GMT -5
Giga: 1. Virginia has elected two Democratic governors. The increasing population centers of Loudoun and Fairfax are both increasingly Democratic. Virginia is turning bluer than it was. 2. It's gamesmanship because the original rules were clear that both states lost their delegates. Hillary did some minor campaigning there, in violation of the rules, but didn't get her knuckles rapped for it. Changing the rules post facto to make foul shots worth ten points each isn't cool. Opposing a do-over on Obama's side would amount to disenfranchisement of an electorate that didn't try to screw New Hampshire, but I don't think it's there yet. Thanks. I've heard the "bluer" argument for VA but I'm just saying it's not a sure thing by any stretch. Obama also ran ads in Florida. Also not cool. And I thought this was about the "will of the people.?" Shouldn't Obama not only not oppose but demand a do-over? I'm guessing he won't though. Hmmm, that sounds like something a politician would do. Weird. I'm always a little skeptical when people are deified or demonized.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Mar 5, 2008 17:22:37 GMT -5
Several things:
1. I'm not sure I buy all this primary stuff anyway. Why do we need to drage this out over 3 months? Why should New Hampshire and Iowa go first? Why shouldn't other states have an opportunity to feature their electorate when the nominations are still strongly in doubt? How come the Giuliani's, Romney's and Huckabee's for example, don't get to have a real shot in Texas for example? I'm not blaming them for pulling out, just pointing out that if you change the order of the states, you could easily change which candidates are leading and which have fallen behind and therefore pull out of the race. I just don't see the real benefit.
2. I am just scared to death that Obama will win. I think he would be a total disaster. He hasn't said a whole lot, but what he has said is bad and dangerous. Don't get me wrong, I am not enamored with Bush, or with McCain, but an Obama administration would be catastrophic. It would change the world forever and not for the better. Clinton might win as well, but even if she does, she would not be as bad as Obama. But more importantly, I don't think she would win the general election anyway.
3. As much as McCain has irritated me with some of his positions, I think it might be good in the long run to have a true moderate in charge. It just stinks that the dems don't have a viable moderate candidate right now.
4. As for the democratic convention rules, I just don't see the legitimacy to disregarding the will of all the people in Michigan and Florida. We saw how up in arms people got when the issue was a dimpled chad or a confusing butterfly ballot, but this is far worse. What they have done is essentially and entirely disregard the wills of millions of voters. I just don't think that is right, and I would say the same thing regardless of who it the decision benefitted.
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Mar 5, 2008 17:42:04 GMT -5
Several things: 1. I'm not sure I buy all this primary stuff anyway. Why do we need to drage this out over 3 months? Why should New Hampshire and Iowa go first? Why shouldn't other states have an opportunity to feature their electorate when the nominations are still strongly in doubt? How come the Giuliani's, Romney's and Huckabee's for example, don't get to have a real shot in Texas for example? I'm not blaming them for pulling out, just pointing out that if you change the order of the states, you could easily change which candidates are leading and which have fallen behind and therefore pull out of the race. I just don't see the real benefit. 2. I am just scared to death that Obama will win. I think he would be a total disaster. He hasn't said a whole lot, but what he has said is bad and dangerous. Don't get me wrong, I am not enamored with Bush, or with McCain, but an Obama administration would be catastrophic. It would change the world forever and not for the better. Clinton might win as well, but even if she does, she would not be as bad as Obama. But more importantly, I don't think she would win the general election anyway. 3. As much as McCain has irritated me with some of his positions, I think it might be good in the long run to have a true moderate in charge. It just stinks that the dems don't have a viable moderate candidate right now. 4. As for the democratic convention rules, I just don't see the legitimacy to disregarding the will of all the people in Michigan and Florida. We saw how up in arms people got when the issue was a dimpled chad or a confusing butterfly ballot, but this is far worse. What they have done is essentially and entirely disregard the wills of millions of voters. I just don't think that is right, and I would say the same thing regardless of who it the decision benefitted. 1. I wholeheartedly agree. 2. What's so terrible about Obama? Can you elaborate? (If you say "He's a Muslim", I'm going to slap you) 3. I really don't see how McCain is a moderate. He's to Bush's right on foreign policy, and he's consistently pro-life, anti-tax, and now amazingly pro-torture. His disagreements with the GOP base are mostly tactical and aesthetic rather than prodded by real disagreement (with campaign finance reform being the obvious exception). Additionally, I don't see how you could put either Obama or Clinton anywhere but center-left (I'll give you Edwards and obviously Kucinich). Promoting universal health insurance through the private system doesn't strike me as a symptom of socialized medicine. 4. The problem is that Clinton is trying to change the rules in the middle of the game. Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan, so I'm not sure how you could call that "the will of the people". She only won with 55% percent of the vote there, so many voters voted for "uncommitted" rather than her. It would be patently unfair to seat delegates based on that vote. Florida is different since they were both on the ballot. You could buy ads there (and both did), but neither directly campaigned. Still, Clinton agreed at the outset that these states wouldn't count. If she wants to them to now, there should be a new vote. Also, it's worth noting that the GOP also punished Florida and Michigan, but they only stripped half their delegates.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Mar 5, 2008 20:20:55 GMT -5
Giga: Obama also ran ads in Florida. Also not cool. And I thought this was about the "will of the people.?" Shouldn't Obama not only not oppose but demand a do-over? I'm guessing he won't though. Hmmm, that sounds like something a politician would do. Weird. I'm always a little skeptical when people are deified or demonized. Obama ads ran in Florida, but he did not make a Florida-specific ad buy. The ads that ran were part of a national package from which Florida could not be removed. Hillary fundraised in Florida on the eve of their primary and publicized it so as to generate some free media.
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,912
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Mar 5, 2008 21:33:03 GMT -5
Dallas County went 61% for Obama, so it did their part. For a lot of reasons, (some good-intentioned, but others skirting the curb of prejudice), South Texas filled the ballot boxes for HRC. Strange as it may seem, however, Obama may net more delegates when the caucuses are all settled.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Mar 5, 2008 22:40:05 GMT -5
2. I am just scared to death that Obama will win. I think he would be a total disaster. He hasn't said a whole lot, but what he has said is bad and dangerous. Don't get me wrong, I am not enamored with Bush, or with McCain, but an Obama administration would be catastrophic. It would change the world forever and not for the better. Clinton might win as well, but even if she does, she would not be as bad as Obama. But more importantly, I don't think she would win the general election anyway. Do you have specific policy positions in mind in the midst of this hyperbole? I think many of HRC's attacks (particularly on the foreign leader issue) to be historically irresponsible.
|
|
GIGAFAN99
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,487
|
Post by GIGAFAN99 on Mar 6, 2008 0:09:56 GMT -5
I think the better question is for Obama supporters. What policies do you have in mind that he can enact?
He agreed with Clinton on NAFTA reform (to kiss up to Ohio but other states are positively impacted as we know). He has seemingly untenable credit and economic policies (at least if the goal is a stronger economy). His Iraq policy will get skewered for me being "withdraw first, analyze later" just the inverse of the policy that got us into this mess, not anything that sounds very well thought out.
He sounds good saying it and I'm not saying he's worse than Bush, McCain, or Clinton. I just want to know why I should believe he's more than eloquent hot air. Change is good. But is he more than a cosmetic one?
|
|
|
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on Mar 6, 2008 0:17:17 GMT -5
At the end of the day I think that the Democratic nomination will be decided in late April by Dean in some sort of pre-brokering. Obama's biggest concern is that the campaign narrative was getting away from him in the final days before Texas and Ohio - switching from coalition-building/hope to national security/who can be commander-in-chief. The good news for Obama is that there are almost 2 months for that narrative to change and the caucus in Wyoming and primary in Mississippi before Pennsylvania are likely chances for Obama to make up the 5 to 10 delegates he lost to Clinton on Tuesday, stop the bleeding, and build momentum. Also, 7 weeks on the ground can really benefit a campaign that's shown that it has a well-run and well-funded ground game.
Seven weeks is also a lot of time for intervening events. The Rezko trial will be over by the time Pennsylvania rolls around, Clinton will likely have released her tax returns and daily schedule from her days as first lady. The other major x-factors are the war in Iraq - if it gets worse that benefits Obama and the economy - if the recession deepens then that will likely benefit Clinton as voters who are dependent or likely to be dependent on government services and more exposed to economic downturns (older voters, blue collar workers) are voting blocks that Hillary's message appeals to.
One thing that I don't think is going to happen - the race is not going to get more bloody. If Obama is going to learn from his loses its going to be that he responded to Hillary late and responded in a way that was not consistent with his message - Hillary has tried this strategy in March 4th and before the South Carolina primary. In South Carolina Obama had significant demographic advantages and managed to get back to his message after a catty debate with Clinton. For her own part, Clinton has already thrown the kitchen sink at Obama and only got a 5 to 10 delegate net out of it - there's little else she can do in terms of negative campaigning that she hasn't already done.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Mar 6, 2008 9:58:04 GMT -5
One thing that I don't think is going to happen - the race is not going to get more bloody. If Obama is going to learn from his loses its going to be that he responded to Hillary late and responded in a way that was not consistent with his message - Hillary has tried this strategy in March 4th and before the South Carolina primary. In South Carolina Obama had significant demographic advantages and managed to get back to his message after a catty debate with Clinton. For her own part, Clinton has already thrown the kitchen sink at Obama and only got a 5 to 10 delegate net out of it - there's little else she can do in terms of negative campaigning that she hasn't already done. Yeah. My response to the first and - particularly - last sentence is, "Don't count on it." And I don't think Obama will find it so easy to go back "above the fray." They don't seem to be on their way back yet, with Plouffe taking snarky pot shot after snarky pot shot. The Dems need to be really careful about the other point you mentioned, that I didn't quote, about the war and the economy. Not that I think you're wrong in terms of who it benefits, but they really can't make it seem like it benefits them. Big turnoff that. Other than the Muslim stuff, which is completely ridiculous and not even close to being the slighest hint of an issue, I'm not really sure that Hillary has gone all that negative. I think some of what's happened, Obama did to himself (NAFTA), some is an unfortunate confluence of events (Rezco), and some is Hillary just basically outperforming him (taking advantage of the media bias, taking advantage of softball venues like SNL and TDS, playing the victim so very, very well). 99.9% of the time, Hillary makes me cringe. I will give her credit (God, did I just say that?) for one of the funniest moments I've seen in the campaign, when Jon Stewart gave his long setup in introducing her and she responded, "Yeah, it's pretty pathetic." I'm sure that was scripted in advance, but funny is funny, and that was straight out of the Huckabee playbook that served him so well.
|
|
rosslynhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,595
|
Post by rosslynhoya on Mar 6, 2008 13:08:49 GMT -5
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Mar 6, 2008 13:56:10 GMT -5
Holy flurking schnitt. Where exactly does anything say that people from Obama's campaign wanted to meet with FARC? All it says is that people vaguely related with FARC wanted to meet with each other about Obama. Is Obama responsible for every single person in the world who wants to bring him up in conversation? You know, to more effectively lie next time, you shouldn't include a link to your source material. Also another tip, "as reported by Free Republic" has about as much cache as "as reported by Pravda".
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Mar 6, 2008 14:15:33 GMT -5
Did you know that Barack Obama is really an anagram for "Abba, Rack, Mao."?
Clearly, we see this candidate's hidden agenda.
He plans to use 70's Swedish pop music to torture his opponents into an embrace of communist and socialist philosophy.
Hope and change? Sure. Just another way of saying "Great Leap Forward."
;D
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Mar 6, 2008 16:38:49 GMT -5
Did you know that Barack Obama is really an anagram for "Abba, Rack, Mao."? Clearly, we see this candidate's hidden agenda. He plans to use 70's Swedish pop music to torture his opponents into an embrace of communist and socialist philosophy. Hope and change? Sure. Just another way of saying "Great Leap Forward." ;D Oh my God, he's the Manchurian Candidate. Someone call Frank Sinatra, quick! Arrest Angela Lansbury as a precaution!
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Mar 7, 2008 12:14:33 GMT -5
Nah. It's not getting ugly at all.
|
|