pBills Posted April 24, 2008 Share Posted April 24, 2008 Thank god I never said it was all Bush's fault. Wheew. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted April 24, 2008 Share Posted April 24, 2008 Spoken like a true Clinton supporter. She has NO CHANCE of winning the nomination unless she steals it. Yeah, and you're right if Clinton loses, it will be the death of Democracy and the end of life as we know it. It's such a pathetic argument. Hillary was all but given the nomination at the start. She then went on to lose something like 11 states in a row and has no chance of winning the nomination anymore. But now it's all about trying to right a wrong by giving her the nomination because...well...just because. I just wish she and her supporters would STFU. That's my thoughts. Spoken like a true Obama supporter. How can Clinton steal something that nobody has won? Obama hasn't reached 2025, and won't with pledged delegates. The rules don't say the person with the most pledged delegates wins, it's the one who gets 2025. Otherwise it's up to the candidates to convince the superdelegates that they're the best candidate. And don't whine about how it's disinfranchising the voters unless you're willing to count Florida and Michigan or let them revote, neither of which Obama was willing to do. Obama supporters just keep wishing Hillary would quit so Obama could be given the nomination before his rope-a-dope strategy fails. Sorry, but until somebody gets 2025, it has to be earned. Worry less about Hillary and more about how Obama is going to convince blue collar white voters that he better represents their interests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted April 24, 2008 Share Posted April 24, 2008 Hypothetical question: It will be stunning if the Democrats manage to lose this election - they have absolutely everything in there favor. And yet... Suppose they manage to blow it. What happens to the party afterwards? I'm thinking it depends on the candidate. If Clinton gets the nomination and loses, it will be the usual sort of recriminations: she was too divisive, the democrats have bad luck, we'll get it next time. Maybe the lesson is you don't tick off an important constituincy (the african-american vote), and you work harder to register the hispanic vote. In other words, same as the last few elections, no real change in course. But if Obama gets the nomination and loses, it would likely be due to the defection of the moderate and conservative Clinton supporters. The perceived shift to the left could signal to the remaining moderates there's no future to the Democratic Party - they may see it's loss as the inevitable result of being taken over by a narrow alliance of intellectuals and minorities not interested in representing mainstream values. It could spell the end of the party, bringing to finality the trend started in the 70's. Thoughts? The end of the Democratic party?? You mean the party that in all probablity will increase its majorities in both houses of congress? I think the Democrats are in a much better position to accept a loss in November for the presidential race than the Republicans are. If the Republicans lose they will be out of power and heading towards rump status in the country after November if all the Democratic cards fall into place. God have mercy on the Republicans if the Democrats actually manage the country well, using "mainstream values" to do it, or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted April 24, 2008 Share Posted April 24, 2008 what an angry post !!!... did your wife leave you to live with a leftist or what?!! He's bitter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted April 24, 2008 Share Posted April 24, 2008 Spoken like a true Obama supporter. How can Clinton steal something that nobody has won? Obama hasn't reached 2025, and won't with pledged delegates. The rules don't say the person with the most pledged delegates wins, it's the one who gets 2025. Otherwise it's up to the candidates to convince the superdelegates that they're the best candidate. And don't whine about how it's disinfranchising the voters unless you're willing to count Florida and Michigan or let them revote, neither of which Obama was willing to do. Obama supporters just keep wishing Hillary would quit so Obama could be given the nomination before his rope-a-dope strategy fails. Sorry, but until somebody gets 2025, it has to be earned. Worry less about Hillary and more about how Obama is going to convince blue collar white voters that he better represents their interests. No time to revote. They missed that opportunity. And with that being said they can't simply give Hillary the delegates - in no way would that be fair to Obama. So one would think to somewhat please the masses that screwed up their own fate - split the delegates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted April 24, 2008 Share Posted April 24, 2008 Hypothetical question: It will be stunning if the Democrats manage to lose this election - they have absolutely everything in there favor. And yet... Suppose they manage to blow it. What happens to the party afterwards? I'm thinking it depends on the candidate. If Clinton gets the nomination and loses, it will be the usual sort of recriminations: she was too divisive, the democrats have bad luck, we'll get it next time. Maybe the lesson is you don't tick off an important constituincy (the african-american vote), and you work harder to register the hispanic vote. In other words, same as the last few elections, no real change in course. But if Obama gets the nomination and loses, it would likely be due to the defection of the moderate and conservative Clinton supporters. The perceived shift to the left could signal to the remaining moderates there's no future to the Democratic Party - they may see it's loss as the inevitable result of being taken over by a narrow alliance of intellectuals and minorities not interested in representing mainstream values. It could spell the end of the party, bringing to finality the trend started in the 70's. Thoughts? Both parties cover way more people than they should, because of the incentives of the system. Without another party successfully grabbing a huge chunk of the Democratic base, they aren't going to dissolve or anything else. Despite what people claim, (that they won't vote for the other candidate in the general election), they likely will. The only ones I could see not doing so would be some Obama supporters who normally wouldn't vote anyway. It is easy to perceive a candidates success in the primary system as a shift of the whole party to the left. Research shows that, while the candidates themselves are becoming further to one side, the actual electorate is becoming more centered. I don't think much, if any, happens to the Dems if they lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted April 24, 2008 Share Posted April 24, 2008 I hope they don't lose. McCain scares me. :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted April 24, 2008 Author Share Posted April 24, 2008 The end of the Democratic party?? You mean the party that in all probablity will increase its majorities in both houses of congress? I think the Democrats are in a much better position to accept a loss in November for the presidential race than the Republicans are. If the Republicans lose they will be out of power and heading towards rump status in the country after November if all the Democratic cards fall into place. God have mercy on the Republicans if the Democrats actually manage the country well, using "mainstream values" to do it, or not. No, I think the Republican's are pretty much resigned to losing the Whitehouse in November - they aren't delusional. That's why fund-raising was so down in the primaries. I take it you believe that if - despite everything going for them - the democratic candidate loses the general election, it will be viewed as their own fault and in no significant shift in the party dynamics and alignment will result? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted April 24, 2008 Share Posted April 24, 2008 No, I think the Republican's are pretty much resigned to losing the Whitehouse in November - they aren't delusional. That's why fund-raising was so down in the primaries. I take it you believe that if - despite everything going for them - the democratic candidate loses the general election, it will be viewed as their own fault and in no significant shift in the party dynamics and alignment will result? If it's Hillary it will be said and viewed as her fault--and Bill's--and Obama will play the race card saying America wasn't ready for a black man. Maybe we are not. Are you saying this: The older Americans, the "Reagan Democrats," will go Republican and the religious right will be ignored by the Republicans? The Democrats will lose what remaining working class votes--white working class really--and the Republicans will become the moderate party of protecting the welfare state but also strong on defense, low taxes etc. Maybe McCain is moderate enough to address many issues Bush would not, global warming, conservation, alternative energy, all while winding down the Iraq fiasco....McCain becomes the model Republican others seek to immitate and the Republicans are set for years to come following his script. If that is what you are saying, then I suppose that could happen. I just wonder how McCain handles the deficit and taxes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted April 24, 2008 Share Posted April 24, 2008 Both parties cover way more people than they should, because of the incentives of the system. Without another party successfully grabbing a huge chunk of the Democratic base, they aren't going to dissolve or anything else. Despite what people claim, (that they won't vote for the other candidate in the general election), they likely will. The only ones I could see not doing so would be some Obama supporters who normally wouldn't vote anyway. It is easy to perceive a candidates success in the primary system as a shift of the whole party to the left. Research shows that, while the candidates themselves are becoming further to one side, the actual electorate is becoming more centered. I don't think much, if any, happens to the Dems if they lose. How about Hillary supporters voting for McCain? I could see some of that happening Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted April 24, 2008 Share Posted April 24, 2008 How about Hillary supporters voting for McCain? I could see some of that happening Democrats historically have a high defection rate, averaging around 11% (compared to around 5% or so for the Republicans). I'd venture to guess most of the group that defects are typically part of that 11% anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted April 24, 2008 Share Posted April 24, 2008 I don't believe Obama will blame race if he loses now or in the general. Doesn't seem to be his style. If anything he would blame is inability to connect with some blue collar workers and the elderly who love Hillary. I do wonder about Hillary's supporters though. Will they actually vote for McCain over Obama? One poll that I have seen stated something like 52% said that they would not vote for Obama. That is just sad, and compares to the 20% of Obama supporters who would not vote for her. McCain = lower taxes, avoid balancing the budget. Remember economy not his strong suit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted April 24, 2008 Share Posted April 24, 2008 Remember economy not his strong suit. He'd never put any economic advisers on his staff, never. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted April 24, 2008 Share Posted April 24, 2008 He'd never put any economic advisers on his staff, never. Well understood, thanks for telling me that though. One would like their President to know at least to know/understand the bare minimum on his own. Advisers are doing wonders right now for Bush right? Doesn't always work out well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted April 24, 2008 Share Posted April 24, 2008 He'd never put any economic advisers on his staff, never. Well, he already has economic advisers on his campaign staff, and we still get this from him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted April 24, 2008 Share Posted April 24, 2008 Well understood, thanks for telling me that though. One would like their President to know at least to know/understand the bare minimum on his own. Advisers are doing wonders right now for Bush right? Doesn't always work out well. Yeah. Its all Bush's fault I knew you'd say that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted April 24, 2008 Share Posted April 24, 2008 Well, he already has economic advisers on his campaign staff, and we still get this from him. Tax hikes are better? Free Health care isnt free. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted April 24, 2008 Share Posted April 24, 2008 Yeah. Its all Bush's fault I knew you'd say that. Where did I state that? I said that his advisers are not doing so well right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted April 24, 2008 Share Posted April 24, 2008 Where did I state that? I said that his advisers are not doing so well right now. Advisers are doing wonders right now for Bush right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted April 24, 2008 Share Posted April 24, 2008 Democrats historically have a high defection rate, averaging around 11% (compared to around 5% or so for the Republicans). I'd venture to guess most of the group that defects are typically part of that 11% anyway. I've never heard that. Link? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts