Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Originally posted by Brian Wallace:TLDR
[qb]Originally posted by callat703:
[qb]Originally posted by vansmack:
[qb]
.
DC Area Voters
Originally posted by vansmack:What happened? The voters of Ohio and Texas didn't listen to you! What's wrong with them? Maybe you should start a misguided "Things vansmack thinks voters should know" but would they listen? They didn't last night. You're losing your touch!
So I was all geared up to make a prediction, because, well, there's nothing better than having the balls to be publicly wrong. And godspeed to the rest of you if I'm correct.
But then I decided that a prediction is not what's needed today. Today requires a plea.
Stop.
Stop lowering expectations after calling Super Tuesday your "wrap up" day and today your firewall day. Win and you're welcome to stick around - the public has asked for it. But if you don't, do the right thing for the party.
Stop talking about superdelegates until you lock up the public vote. It didn't work for your opponent, and it won't work for you. If you really believe that you can win the popular vote, then stick with that message.
Stop talking about NAFTA and Health Care when you agree. Save it for the Republicans, who clearly don't agree.
Brian
P.S. Now Pennsylvania looms as the Death Star. What's going to kill Obama is that independents (like me) can't vote in the primaries. Only registered Dems will be able to choose between those two.
It's been brutal to be a Democrat for most of my lifetime. This is simply just a continuation. That was the worst possible scenario for the Democrats last night.
It was a Pyrrhic Victory at best last night for Hillary. She's going to gain single digit delegates at best against Obama's lead - more than likely less than 5 delegates total. But despite running out of time (and states to win more delegates) she's going to treat this as a mandate to fight on for the next 50 days, despite making little gain in her last big opportunity.
Over the next 50 days the Dems are going to spend somewhere between $50-$100 Million dollars bickering with each other, mostly over issues they agree on. That's money that won't be available to fight the real opponent, John McCain, who will then use the arguments made by the two potential Democratic Party nominees against them in the fall.
Now the Hill and Bill show will take the contenious campaigning that occurred over the weekend as a positive and step it up. Again, this is awful for the party. If that's really the only way she can squeek out victories, then they're really missing the point.
This says nothing about what's going to happen in August. Put this signs up now:
The Democratic Party: snatching defeat from the clutches of victory.
It was a Pyrrhic Victory at best last night for Hillary. She's going to gain single digit delegates at best against Obama's lead - more than likely less than 5 delegates total. But despite running out of time (and states to win more delegates) she's going to treat this as a mandate to fight on for the next 50 days, despite making little gain in her last big opportunity.
Over the next 50 days the Dems are going to spend somewhere between $50-$100 Million dollars bickering with each other, mostly over issues they agree on. That's money that won't be available to fight the real opponent, John McCain, who will then use the arguments made by the two potential Democratic Party nominees against them in the fall.
Now the Hill and Bill show will take the contenious campaigning that occurred over the weekend as a positive and step it up. Again, this is awful for the party. If that's really the only way she can squeek out victories, then they're really missing the point.
This says nothing about what's going to happen in August. Put this signs up now:
The Democratic Party: snatching defeat from the clutches of victory.
I fully agree. Very disheartening result last night.
I'm very torn as to what I think should happen. I don't know that I can realistically expect Hillary Clinton to walk away from this race given the strength of her base, the amount of money that she's raising, and that she can still win the nomination within the rules of the party. All that said, I stand by my assertion that if the superdelegates decide this and reverse the decision of the pledged delegates as decided by the voters, I don't think I could ever support the Democratic Party again.
At this point, my ideal scenario MIGHT be Obama taking the high road and acquiescing to Hillary's experience argument, accepting her nod as Vice President, and unifying the party now so that we don't have to deal with another two months of bitter infighting. Of course, this may alienate the Obama support base, but at the same time, I think they can portray this as a necessary step to display a united front against John McCain. And, of course, you could easily make the argument that this would lock up the White House for the Democrats for the next 16 years. Obama takes over as President of the Senate, and can use that platform to work on the legislative change and shift in politics that he's been advocating.
You could also make the argument that Clinton could take Obama's VP spot - but I see this as undercutting his change message, and obviously undercuts her experience argument against him. I see this as a far more difficult scenario to make happen realistically…
Ultimately, I just don't see a clean solution unless one of them is big enough to step aside for the other. The irony, of course, is that if either of them are willing to do that, it would likely cement their status as a hero in the Democratic Party and virtually ensure their future political success.
I'm very torn as to what I think should happen. I don't know that I can realistically expect Hillary Clinton to walk away from this race given the strength of her base, the amount of money that she's raising, and that she can still win the nomination within the rules of the party. All that said, I stand by my assertion that if the superdelegates decide this and reverse the decision of the pledged delegates as decided by the voters, I don't think I could ever support the Democratic Party again.
At this point, my ideal scenario MIGHT be Obama taking the high road and acquiescing to Hillary's experience argument, accepting her nod as Vice President, and unifying the party now so that we don't have to deal with another two months of bitter infighting. Of course, this may alienate the Obama support base, but at the same time, I think they can portray this as a necessary step to display a united front against John McCain. And, of course, you could easily make the argument that this would lock up the White House for the Democrats for the next 16 years. Obama takes over as President of the Senate, and can use that platform to work on the legislative change and shift in politics that he's been advocating.
You could also make the argument that Clinton could take Obama's VP spot - but I see this as undercutting his change message, and obviously undercuts her experience argument against him. I see this as a far more difficult scenario to make happen realistically…
Ultimately, I just don't see a clean solution unless one of them is big enough to step aside for the other. The irony, of course, is that if either of them are willing to do that, it would likely cement their status as a hero in the Democratic Party and virtually ensure their future political success.
Originally posted by callat703:Agreed. Barack Obama staying in this race is a farce.
At this point, my ideal scenario MIGHT be Obama taking the high road and acquiescing to Hillary's experience argument, accepting her nod as Vice President, and unifying the party now so that we don't have to deal with another two months of bitter infighting.
good post by callat703, although there's a ton of wishful thinking in there, unfortunately. i did have the same sort of fantasy vision last night of them agreeing to share the ticket with each other no matter what the outcome, but this ain't disney.
i'm still kind of alarmed by obama's lack of wins in states the dems traditionally carry in general elections. he sure has an easy time with caucuses in republican strongholds, but the blue states of the past few decades have largely been hillary victories.
not that it necessarily had any impact, but hillary really should place a thank you call to tina fey, dontcha think?
i'm still kind of alarmed by obama's lack of wins in states the dems traditionally carry in general elections. he sure has an easy time with caucuses in republican strongholds, but the blue states of the past few decades have largely been hillary victories.
not that it necessarily had any impact, but hillary really should place a thank you call to tina fey, dontcha think?
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:A "farce?" You're crazy if you actually think the person with a lead in the popular vote and pledged delegates shouldn't continue on.
Originally posted by callat703:Agreed. Barack Obama staying in this race is a farce.
At this point, my ideal scenario MIGHT be Obama taking the high road and acquiescing to Hillary's experience argument, accepting her nod as Vice President, and unifying the party now so that we don't have to deal with another two months of bitter infighting.
Originally posted by callat703:It's a farce because its built on winning caucuses (the only system even less democratic then superdelegates) in mostly Republican states. Its a farce because democratically held primaries in Michigan and Florida aren't going to count. Its a farce because if the primaries were actual winner-take-all events (and actual democratic primaries as opposed to caucuses) like the general election, Obama would've conceded a while ago.
A "farce?" You're crazy if you actually think the person with a lead in the popular vote and pledged delegates shouldn't continue on.
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:They knew the rules. Everybody knew and agreed to the rules, including the Clinton campaign (by now I'm sure you've seen the Sept 7 memo). Why should we now consider a redo when they knowingly broke the rules?
Its a farce because democratically held primaries in Michigan and Florida aren't going to count.
That being said, there's no doubt in my mind that the Clintons will file a law suit around the time of the PA primary.
The whole primary/caucus season is a farce. Call the whole thing off and take a nationwide populat vote now. It looks pretty even.
http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08dem.htm
http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08dem.htm
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:Caucauses are not a new conept for any poltical team. The Clinton's have just shown how bad they are at grass roots organizing, that's all. Her only gain from this weekend came from old school negative campainging.
It's a farce because its built on winning caucuses
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:oh ok, so you just want to change the rules to fit how you want them, gotcha
It's a farce because its built on winning caucuses (the only system even less democratic then superdelegates) in mostly Republican states. Its a farce because democratically held primaries in Michigan and Florida aren't going to count. Its a farce because if the primaries were actual winner-take-all events (and actual democratic primaries as opposed to caucuses) like the general election, Obama would've conceded a while ago.
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:So this is the new Clinton supporter tack?
Originally posted by callat703:It's a farce because its built on winning caucuses (the only system even less democratic then superdelegates) in mostly Republican states. Its a farce because democratically held primaries in Michigan and Florida aren't going to count. Its a farce because if the primaries were actual winner-take-all events (and actual democratic primaries as opposed to caucuses) like the general election, Obama would've conceded a while ago.
A "farce?" You're crazy if you actually think the person with a lead in the popular vote and pledged delegates shouldn't continue on.
"The rules that we all agreed upon and never had a problem with until now aren't fair."
Give me a break.
How about the fact that if Obama had lost 12 straight contests, he'd be completely ruled out as a potential candidate, as the superdelegates would have broken for Clinton a long time ago?
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:Why do you insist on changing the rules for everything just to suit your candidate? This is the way the Dems have done it for decades - it's not like the Clinton team didn't know this ahead of time. They just can't admit that a knew guy on the block did it better.
Its a farce because if the primaries were actual winner-take-all events (and actual democratic primaries as opposed to caucuses) like the general election,
I don't mind Clintonians fighting on the merits, but this rule change argument wreaks of desperation.
Originally posted by vansmack:I'm not proposing a redo. I'm proposing the results count. There's nothing more un-democratic then telling the people in two key states that their votes don't count because idiotic local leaders held their election too early. It's absolutely unconscionable to withhold millions of people's right to have a say in who the Democratic nominee is simply to punish their state. George W. Bush thinks that's messed up.
They knew the rules. Everybody knew and agreed to the rules, including the Clinton campaign (by now I'm sure you've seen the Sept 7 memo). Why should we now consider a redo when they knowingly broke the rules?
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:Despite there being only one candidate on one of the ballots? Even Hillary isn't arguing for that!
I'm proposing the results count.
Julien, do you actually believe what you're saying? Or are you so wrapped up with your candidate winning that you're willing to compromise whatever integrity or honor there is in having rules in the first place?
I'm not for leaving voters out either, but they knew LONG ago that this was the result of moving their primaries. They had plenty of time to rectify that situation in advance of the vote.
As for a redo…why not redo any other primary that doesn't suit us? Hell, I bet Obama would love a revote in California.
I'm not for leaving voters out either, but they knew LONG ago that this was the result of moving their primaries. They had plenty of time to rectify that situation in advance of the vote.
As for a redo…why not redo any other primary that doesn't suit us? Hell, I bet Obama would love a revote in California.
Originally posted by pdx pollard:
oh ok, so you just want to change the rules to fit how you want them, gotcha
Originally posted by callat703:
"The rules that we all agreed upon and never had a problem with until now aren't fair."
Originally posted by vansmack:Funny, I'd make the same argument about Team HopeChange's desire to keep the superdelegates out of it completely. If Obama goes into the convention with, let's say, a 75 pledged-delegate lead and the superdelegates break by 100 in favor of Clinton, all we'll hear from the HopeChange camp is how the system is unfair and the rules need changed to protect the will of the people. He's laying the seeds for that now.
Why do you insist on changing the rules for everything just to suit your candidate?
The entire democratic nominating system needs changed. Caucuses are ridiculous and out-dated and demand people stand around for 3 hours. That's not easy and open electioneering. The party nominating process should mirror the national election process, and I've maintained this since long before Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama ever ran for elected office.
Originally posted by vansmack:OK, good point, Michigan probably needs re-done out of fairness. But Florida's vote should still count.
Despite there being only one candidate on one of the ballots? Even Hillary isn't arguing for that!
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:The Obama campaign has NOT ONCE argued that the superdelegates shouldn't be included. They've argued that the superdelegates should respect the will of the people in the popular vote and in the pledged delegate count. That is COMPLETELY different than what you are talking about.
Originally posted by pdx pollard:
oh ok, so you just want to change the rules to fit how you want them, gotchaOriginally posted by callat703:
"The rules that we all agreed upon and never had a problem with until now aren't fair."
Originally posted by vansmack:Funny, I'd make the same argument about Team HopeChange's desire to keep the superdelegates out of it completely. If Obama goes into the convention with, let's say, a 75 pledged-delegate lead and the superdelegates break by 100 in favor of Clinton, all we'll hear from the HopeChange camp is how the system is unfair and the rules need changed to protect the will of the people. He's laying the seeds for that now.
Why do you insist on changing the rules for everything just to suit your candidate?
The entire democratic nominating system needs changed. Caucuses are ridiculous and out-dated and demand people stand around for 3 hours. That's not easy and open electioneering. The party nominating process should mirror the national election process, and I've maintained this since long before Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama ever ran for elected office.
If they argued that the superdelegates shouldn't have a say at all, that would be a change of the rules. You're grasping at straws.