Letters to the Editor
-
Comforting
least a dozen of those people have already threatened to go to Denver and start throwing bricks if the supers break against the pledged delegate vote.
Thanks. It's nice to know there are those will start another Watts riot if they don't have this handed to them. Not unsurprising though considering what I've seen of their behavior on this very message board.
However, don't expect to get it. Mrs. Clinton's already won the popular vote - by double digits in every big electoral state save for Illinois.
Catering to mob intimidation is the worst thing to do, particularly when the mob is incapable in any way of an electoral victory over the GOP.
-
ShawnWM.
I was referring to white people, actually. Ivy Leaguers, in fact. So it'd be more akin to the Brooks Brothers Riot than Watts. But, easy for you to make that mistake -- you're one of the worst race-baiters around here. (And didn't you say you were taking a break? Please do.)
As for popular vote, Obama's up actually, by around 600,000. But, who cares? As Mark Penn has reminded us, this is a delegate race. Talking about the popular vote is akin to the New England Patriots saying they should get the Super Bowl trophy because they happened to get more yards. You don't change the rules in mid-stream.
The race is mathematically over, and Sen. Obama is our nominee. Rage against that fact all you'd like, but you might as well rail against gravity.
-
@lolcait...I'll give you the benefit of the doubt
Many fierce Clinton / Obama partisans are in the "In Love" or Infatation stage at this point, with all of the emotional attachments associated with its real life counterpart...ie. "How dare you talk about my boyfriend/girlfriend that way!"
So understandable emotion is very much in play and I don't begrudge you that. But if she loses which is very likely, it will be time to get out of love and get in line with the party. Clinton will support Obama fiercely at that point (unless she is a total sociopath, which I doubt). I would expect you to follow her example, and if you don't, you are not a Democrat and we don't need you anymore at that point.
Threats and such from you and your ilk are understandable at this point, just don't get carried away, your not doing yourself and your candidate any good if you keep escalating the rhetoric.
-
Who would the GOP rather face?
This is all wishful thinking on someone's behalf in regards to McCain's strategists looking with glee as Clinton tries to make a comeback. Obama is an unknown at this point with the majority of his support coming from blacks and young people. Hard core Democrats have not gotten behind Obama and a recent poll has a percentage switching to McCain. Lastly when the Republican smear machine gets through with Obama with comment like our enemies will be dancing in arab world. Those comments will not sit well with the American people and will make them think twice about supporting Obama. Do not fall for the Republican tricks at this point because I can assure you they are licking their chops to run against Obama.
-
The Wide Middle
Those who chastize Democrats who say they won't vote for A if B is the nominee may have a point -- against Democrats. It does seem to me inconsistent to identify with a party and then say that you won't vote for its nominee. This is why I'm indie; I can't promise to vote for a party's nominee as if my own judgement of his/her character and ability do not matter.
Many Americans -- perhaps a majority -- wear their party ID lightly, if it all. Many are turned off by both parties, but could be attracted to a given candidate. The GE can be swayed by these voters. McCain competes effectively for them. Which Dem can best win over this wide middle of voters? That's the one who stands to do best in the general.
Thus, projecting GE potential based only on traditionally Dem states is short-sighted. (Who really thinks Massachusetts will go Republican?) Fussing at some Dems for refusing to vote for the guy or gal they don't like also fails to take that wide middle into account. And the Republican slime machine is a universal constant, so I'm not convinced that a given candidate will draw more slime than the other. A longstanding, high negative rating, though, is a drawback in the general.
-
Coals to Newcastle
The RNC, meanwhile, will handle the nastier end of things -- making sure that voters have at least some negative associations in their minds with whoever emerges with the Democratic nomination, whenever the race ends.
They won't have to. I'm pretty sure that no matter who wins, there'll be plenty of negative associations no matter what the Republicans do. Just look at the last few weeks of commenst in the War Room section if you doubt me.
-
Democrats DESERVE to Lose
Too many people who dare to call themselves "liberal", "progressive" or a "Democrat" say they would vote for go-to-war Johnnie McCain if their Favored Candidate doesn't get the nomination on the Democratic side.
Too many of these fair weather Democrats would actively work against the nominee of their party, whose policies are near identical to the other guy/gal's, out of a personal sense of pique.
Too many so-called progressives would take the Nadir outlet.
The Democratic "base" is too much a bunch of roaring egos, focusing on petty slights and purist tests of ideology. It doesn't understand the concept of compromise, of politics.
That's why, regardless of vast popular support for Democratic positions, the odds are good that the far right wack jobs will get another 4 to 8 years to destroy this nation. Because we, in the "net roots", would rather sit back and enable that disaster than settle for what we, personally, feel is the second-best Democrat.
After all, that's what St. Ralph is doing.
-
Obama for the time being...
“If Clinton loses the popular vote and the delegate count from the voters (and MI and FL are able to weigh in some way), will you oppose a Clinton effort to grab the nomination just as you would an Obama effort?”
I think that either candidate should have the ability to fight for the nomination if the other doesn’t win by reaching the 2,024 delegates. That’s just the Democratic Party rule, letting the super delegates decide the nomination. It annoys me when some Obama supporters go off on how it isn’t fair that after winning the majority of elected delegates, that a candidate could still lose the nomination. The Democratic Party is free to make whatever rules they want and if you don’t like them, try to change them, or find a different party. If the Democrats awarded their delegates on a winner-take-all basis, like the Republicans, Hillary would have already won the nomination.
Newsweek currently has Hillary wining by 2 points over McCain and Obama with 1. I would think with Hillary’s recent success with using the experience argument against Obama, they would find him an easier target than Hillary. November is still a long way off, giving any of the candidates time to say something stupid, but I would put my money on McCain or Obama’s campaign staff.