ChiDy is Right, we do need to unite
Primary tabs
Edited and revised from a comment I left at the Confluence this morning.
Chicago Dyke is right to point out that sometimes when everyone in the room is in loud agreement, even if the points being made are valid and the emotions displayed are sincere and civil, the room can still start to sound like an echo chamber. It's not that dissent is unwelcome here at Corrente -- Leah, ChiDy, Xan, Xenophon and other top-shelf posters have written several vigorously discussed pieces recently. The danger to a site like this is that we become boring. We repeat ourselves. We get used to the sound of our own voices, and as virtual alliances and sympathies bond us together we begin to self-edit and become timid about being bold thinkers and commenters.
But I'm sure the motto here at the mighty corrente building is not "boldly shrill" for no reason. That's bold AND shrill, not just bold. So we do have a license to be partisan, to be passionate, and to be loud.
We really do need unity in the democratic party. A divided party with Clinton as the nominee will mean she will work like crazy and win new voters and become president. She will be required to win back the Obama base with her leadership, policies, and graciousness. Her supporters will have to follow suit so that we can make the party as strong as possible for the midterms in 2010. A divided party with Obama as the nominee will mean he will lose the White House by a landslide in November, and at that point the split will become permanent. Then all the good intentions and sincere calls for unity from the Obama base will be utterly worthless and impotent.
If the Obama faction forces him on the party as the nominee, the fauxgressives and the majority of democrats will not be getting back together this election cycle. If the fauxgressives hold their breaths and turn blue collectively enough for the DNC to hand them their cookie (Obama) they will lose in November, like spoiled bullies. If the DNC wakes up and allows Hillary to win fair and square, she will win in November.
Like it or not, Hillary supporters are the base of the democratic party and a huge part of the tri-partisan majority that puts presidents in office. The OFB are the fringe. Like a puffed up dragon, their shadow looms much larger than it really is because of the glare of the lights from the cameras pointed by a media that loves to film unfolding disasters. As many have pointed out, once the cameras start focusing in cruel detail on Obama’s every little pimple, then the show goes into full clinton-gore-kerry theater of the absurd mode.
To all the Obama supporters here, ask yourselves this, is Hillary Clinton such a horrible monster, would she be such a terrible democratic president that you will risk everything, every political principle you hold dear, to make sure she not be the nominee? Will you lose in a landslide even though you could have won easily? You claim to be high-information, educated voters. Read the polls and study them as if you had to take an exam on them. Look at the exit polls and electoral maps. Read the serious and substantive posts by Paul_L, Vastleft, Bringiton and many others here with an open mind and with the objective desire to see a democrat again in the White House clearly in mind as you read. Read the primary sources from the election cycles of 2000 and 2004. Ask yourselves how your deeply flawed and weakening candidate will be different from Al Gore and John Kerry, both of whom were 1000x stronger and more popular with democrats at this point in their campaigns.
It doesnt have to be this way. We can still win in November, but only if you let the process proceed fairly. Only if you have the political maturity to be pragmatic and keep your eyes on the real prize.
There are millions of people in this country, even if you and I are not among them, who will suffer real pain under another republican presidency. There are hundreds of millions in countries around the world who will face more disease, starvation, violent death, and oppression if another republican gains the White House. Only you have the power to stop this tantrum, to bring your ball back to the game, and let a democrat win in November.
We can win the White House for a democrat without your votes since you are such a small minority of the general electorate, but we can’t win it for you and the rest of the decent world if you wont let us play. If you force our team out with tricks and cheating and bullying.
Rally around Clinton and we'll be together in Washington in January. Circle the drain with Obama and we'll be together up shit's creek in November.
- murphy's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
Comments
Shitty Newbie Yells
Fuck a UNITY. Sideways.
No dissertation offered. :!
Arthur has more time on his hands than I do.
Also
Win or lose as long as it is fair.
I took the liberty to edit one sentence above.
If the DNC wakes up and allows Hillary to win OR LOSE fair and square, WE will win in November.
Sure I would be dissapointed if Hillary doesn't win in a fair contest, but that is part of the game. If you can't handle losing, don't play. The problem the referee (the DNC) has had one greasy, sweaty, doughy mitt on the Obama's side of the scale. That is where the objection and the anger and the indignation lies and if they had the guts to pull their hand away and let this play out fairly, that would go a long way to re-uniting the party.
Let the best candidate prevail, fairly (wow, what a concept). Otherwise the worst candidate will preFAIL!
-----------------------------
Good night and good riddance!
The problem...
of course, is that we all define "fairness" differently.
Clinton supporters take the principled stand of "one person, one vote" -- and that under a system that requires a supermajority of delegates that can be won through primaries and caucuses, merely winning more delegates than anyone else entitles you to nothing.
Obama supporters have a much more flexible "principled" position -- votes don't count, unless Obama gets more of them, in which case he gets to be the nominee. And DNC rules have to be followed to the letter -- except when its contrary to Obama's interests, in which case they can be ignored. And because Obama will have more delegates from primaries and caucuses than Clinton, the only "principle" that Obama supporters hold firm on is "Majority Rules" when it comes to pledged delegates.
In other words, its going to be really difficult for Clinton supporters to convince Obama supporters that she won "fair and square", because to them "fair" is an essentially meaningless conceit whose parameters change as circumstances do.
Adding
Margaret Kimberly
thank you Herb
Totally right, and an excellent point. If she loses Fairly then we're all grownups. We can take it.
And letting her lose fairly really would help unity.
Thanks.
And willjsimmons, now that's bold AND shrill. wow!
Silly murphy
"Unity" means "Obama gets the spoils."
It always has, always will.
and that's exactly what it means to Dubya/GOP
too --we have to join them entirely benefiting them-- or we get shut out.
"my way or the highway"--and Obama loses against GOP obstructionism before he even starts-- even if he ends up winning the WH.
Defining terms is a problem
You're right Paul. For two-way arguments to be productive and relationship-strengthening; for them to be successful in the sense that the opposing parties agree that a productive outcome has been achieved by the very process of arguing, a shared set of assumptions is absolutely crucial at the outset. And a shared sense of the meaning of terms like "fairness," and "facts," and "evidence" are every bit as important and necessary as a shared goal for the argument, such as "unity," or "winning the goddamned election."
But perhaps the whole "it depends on what the meaning of is is" is really just another rat-hole. This so-called dialogue between the democratic base and the OFB is really just a meta-dialectic. It is NOT a spirited and caring back-and-forth between two parties on the same team arguing with each other in good faith. We get caught up in theoretical discussions and distract ourselves with a wild goose chase for the meaning of words like "fair."
This isnt philosophy class; nor is it a social science symposium. This is party politics in action, not in theory.
The meaning of the word fair as defined by a few keyboard kommandos at kos is utterly irrelevant.
In the end, I put no faith in our ability as Clinton supporters to convince the OFB that she won fair and square because you are right -- they change the meaning of fair as it suits them. Hillary supporters will NOT be able to convince the OFB that they were wrong. Only President Clinton will be able to do that.
That's why I dont argue with them, and why I keep fighting for her chance to compete and her chance to win -- to win the election and to win them over.
What is it with this fetish over "Fair"?
There is no "fair."
Never has been. Never will be.
Accept that, and learn to deal with it.
Politics is about power. About getting it and keeping it. Some people in political power figure out that if they use the power to provide some comfort to the masses, then the masses will help keep them in power. FDR, for instance.
Most people with power, however, are no better at using it than your average two-year-old with a hammer. Great fun to pound on things, and no regard for the damage. No regard for the masses, who suffer until they can't take any more and then they rise up and take away the hammer - only to give it to another infant. Go figure.
Through it all, there is no "fair." Appealing to "fair" will get you exactly nowhere, and makes you sound like a little child who's been told they can't have dessert before eating their veggies. "THAT'S NOT FAIR!!!!" Oh, well.
How effective was "fair" in 2000? In 2004? That's how effective it is today. Waste breath, waste of energy, waste of time.
Find another refrain. If you want to appeal to voters, find an appeal based on pain or pleasure or food or shelter or something that everyday people, the masses, can relate to; something they truly value. Same with the superdelegates; personalize it. If you want them to nominate Clinton, explain to them why doing so helps them more than dumping Obama will hurt them. That's all they care about.
It isn't that they're bad people, most of them, but they sure as hell aren't going to tube their careers for your sense of what is "fair." Show them the political balance sheet; show them how to get out of this bind by doing what you want them to do, in a way that keeps their careers intact. If it helps the masses at the same time, bonus points, but first and foremost is what it does for them.
Fair doesn't enter into it.
exactly so, bringiton
Fair is a meaningless concept in a fight. It may have some purpose in a good-faith argument, but in a fight it is worthless as either a tool or a weapon or a technique. And this split between the democratic base and the OFB stopped being a good faith argument a loong time ago. It has been a real live political fight for a good while now, started by the misogyny, the class warfare, and the race-baiting of the other side. Fair doesn't enter into it anymore, as you say.
Individual participants can and will use or not use their own personal definitions of fair and decency as guides to their own personal actions and opinions. I know how I feel about the concepts of fairness, of decency, of good intentions. You are right that my principles can and will be irrelevant to most everyone else, and rightly so. My principles will win me some allies, lose me others. Your principles will do the same for you.
I think however you underestimate however the power of "no fair." Staying with you on the idea that politics is basically about power-building and even power-grabbing, there is POWER in the concept of No Fair. Political power can be gained when you rally behind people who feel they have been mistreated, have been treated UNfairly. If you do it right and smartly, those who have been treated unfairly will make you their champion.
And real power derives from that dynamic.
Self-indulgent cries for fairness are impotent, true. Using the unfair practices of your opponent to gain support and rally the troops behind you is a powerful ploy. Very cynical leaders have used the method. Less cynical leaders have also used it. Gauging the depths of cynicism of political leaders is an exercise for someone else. My goal is to get a democrat in the White House this year.
It's difficult to get people to fight for fairness, especially when they have nothing personal at stake -- almost impossible I think (Save Darfur anyone?). But people will most definitely fight against No Fair when they get screwed by it. If you stand for them, they will fight FOR you.
No Fair is the spark that has ignited every protest movement and every rebellion in history.
The DNC, the MSM, and the OFB were very, very unwise to try to stop Hillary by being No Fair.
yup-trying to end the contests
and force one competitor out when it's never happened before in primary seasons in the past, and it's so close = beyond unfair, and into "fixed" territory -- which also further weakens the one that this is being done to purportedly benefit.
there are standards even in dirty processes--
what's happening now is violating even those standards.
It's also very relevant because of 2000 and because of all the GOP's voting crimes. And that makes Obama seem even more weak and puppet-ish and Dubya-like, who needed his family, his cronies, the entire GOP, a stupid and pliant media, and previously emplaced GOP Supreme Ct. Justices to get into the WH--instead of actually winning--fair or dirty.
Well, as SpongeBob Squarepants often says:
"Good luck with that!"
the rules
merely winning more delegates than anyone else entitles you to nothing.
wow, just wow. for decades Democrats have determined the winner by who has the most delegates, selected under the systems of the state party rules. And now, it is determined that it should be one man one vote.
The truth is that our crazy nominating process gave Clinton all the advantages. She was the top money raiser in the beginning, a critical advantage in a front loaded system, and her base consisted of the older women Democratic precinct captains who are experienced an wise in the ways of a caucus system. Obama's supporters were disproportionately black, young, and newly activists, the sort of people you can usually run circles around in a caucus system and can't even be relied upon in a primary. Obama out organized Clinton under the rules as they were determined at the beginning of this process.
And now that he has won, now that, to be blunt, a black man has played by the whitey's rules, and out organized, and out delivered whitey, now we are informed that merely winning more delegates than anyone else entitles you to nothing.
Do you not see how that does not work? Do you not understand why no one would accept a nomination that was a result of a last minute rules change?
Obama won. He out organized Clinton and he won.
And as for Silber, what he is saying is that there was no difference between Bush and Gore. Surely enough blood has been spilled to end that myth.
this is absolutely not true--
"Obama’s supporters were disproportionately black, young, and newly activists, the sort of people you can usually run circles around in a caucus system and can’t even be relied upon in a primary."
Obama's supporters were overwhelmingly white, old, and Establishment politicians, moneymen, and players--both in DC and in IL and on Wall St.
That he focused on Red States and Caucuses was also entirely Axelrod's doing--they devoted and built up their ground resources in those places and not in Blue States, but he had no support in those places until the campaign decided to pour money and resources in.
Every single element of Obama's campaign has been top-down entirely and exclusively.
please don't discuss what you have no knowledge of....
wow, just wow. for decades Democrats have determined the winner by who has the most delegates, selected under the systems of the state party rules. And now, it is determined that it should be one man one vote.
for decades, the system has included superdelegates, and required a super-majority of available pledged delegates to lock in the nomination.
And the democratic party system is a variation on "one man, one vote". The allocation of delegates to the convention is based on one direct, and one indirect, "one man, one vote" criteria. The first/direct criteria is the number of votes for the Democratic Party candidate in the last three Presidential elections. The second/indirect criteria is the number of electoral college votes -- which of course are based on a state's population (with a minimum of 3 ECs per state).
And under the DNC rules, states are required to come up with a system that reflects the will of the Democratic party electorate in that state -- in the past, caucuses have proven adequate to that purpose because everyone played by the same set of assumptions, and concentrated on the states that Democrats needed to win in November when contesting the nomination.
I like the fact that Obama supporters show up here -- but when they start talking out their asses like Obots, they really need to find an Obot audience as ingorant as they are.
Thanks, I love SpongeBob!
Along with Grover from Sesame Street, he's my hero. His philosophy is friendship, teamwork, and love.
In the end, the outcome of this fight will be okay with me. My guiding principle of fairness may not help me win, but it sure as hell helps when I lose.
So let me get this straight...
1) The OFB are but a wee recalcitrant minority? Mere spoilers in a race that is otherwise clearly Hillary's to win?
2) Hell will continue to rein on earth if Barry is the nominee?
I'm getting overtones of Baghdad Bob here...
Look, I want Hillary to stay in this thing and allow it to be resolved "fairly". i.e. I'd like to see MI and FL resolved (the Edwards nomination makes that even more straight forward), and the DNC primary system reformed to prevent this craziness from happening in the future. I don't know why Barry is obfuscating the issue. Of course, that irks me because I expect better from him, but the fact that Hillary is wailing about MI and FL only when it suits her means I have little sympathy for her personally on the issue, only the voters of those two states.
That said, as far as the "one person one vote" argument goes, it is not the deciding metric of this primary system. And before I get flamed for being undemocratic, I broke ranks with my fellow wanking skinheads back when Hillary was arguing that the SDs and PDs can do what the hell they want (but then I'm British-born, and I've never had a major problem with parties choosing their own leaders; certainly cuts out a lot of this senseless sniping). The reason this is a delegate-based system is precisely to prevent this sort of deadlock, and to ensure that personality politics doesn't take precedence over substance. The relevance of the popular vote lies only in its use as a metric for swaying the delegates towards one candidate or another.
Electibility is the one and only criteria, and I've said before that Clinton has, and always has had, a solid case in that respect (swing states and at least 50% of the pop vote). However, the idea that Clinton is going to sail into the White House smacks of wishful thinking. It completely underestimates her spectacular ability to motivate Republicans, who would turn up to punch the hole for the ghost of Karl Marx rather than elect another Clinton, to be sure. The idea that she can sail into the WH without wooing Barry's voters is shear, bloodyminded ignorance.
Either way, we now have the current fabulous situation in which both sides are threatening to torpedo the other if they don't get their way. Right now, the only hope either candidate has of winning the GE without the other's support is if McCain's campaign continues on its present course towards utter self-destruction. Although, as they have shown repeatedly, Republicans have no problem at all rallying behind a buffoon, just so long as he's their buffoon.
Like it or not, unification is an absolute requirement for the Democrats' chances in the fall. And that's going to require sacrifices from both sides. The above post seems to be implying that only one side should be forced to make the sacrifice.
Good luck with that.
wrong
That said, as far as the “one person one vote” argument goes, it is not the deciding metric of this primary system.
in fact, as I have explained to an Obot above, it is designed to be the "deciding metric" -- it is the principle under which delegates are allocated to the states, and DNC rules require that the pledged delegates represent the will of the voters in the state. And, as i've noted above, in the past the caucus system has been adequate to achieve those ends.
you seem to be confusing "one person one vote" with "majority rules", which is an entirely different consideration.
Read it again
He didnt say that winning doesnt mean winning, as you are implying. He said that merely winning more delegates than your opponent doesnt mean that you have won.
No one can win until they have the magic number of delegates. Having more delegates than the other guy means nothing until the magic number has been reached.
Obama did not win. He hasnt lost yet, but he sure as hell has not won.
and cut the shit with the race-baiting.
Fine, all is fair
Everything is fair and nothing is unfair.
A win is legitimate simply by virtue of being a win. No matter what happens, it is a fair outcome.
Florida and Michigan will count or not count depending on who is more "powerful". Delegates will count or not count depending on the relative power of one group or another. There isn't anything unfair in any of that, it just is. 50% plus one is a win, and a W is a W is a W. Show me a good loser and I will show you a loser as the man said. Winning isn't everything, it is the ONLY thing.
This is all a very interesting concept, and I get it. Not terribly enlightened, original, or necessarily "Democratic" but certainly realpolitick. Crude, but effective you might say.
I should point out the "Good luck with that!" doesn't come in August, it comes in November.
-----------------------------
Good night and good riddance!
A minority in the general, not in the primary
obviously. The race is tied. His supporters in the primary elections are not a vast minority, they are millions of voters. Even with the twisted caucus system, Obama has won large blocs of support with many voters. Unfortunately, most of those democratic voters are stranded in dark red states. They are an insignificant minority in the general election, but they will lose the white house for the democrats if they insist on forcing their weak candidate on the majority of us democrats and the slim margin of independents and republicans who can and will put Hillary in the white house over McCain. That tri-partisan majority will take one big pass on Obama.
Buyer's Remorse, as decribed by Paul_L, compounded by the very real weaknesses of McCain in the eyes of millions of Republicans are two strong arguments for why Clinton would win and Obama would lose.
I have yet to hear from an Obama supporter with evidence of his electoral strength over Hillary. Until then, I am justified in calling the OFB a recalcitrant minority.
Donna Brazile can dream all she wants. Clinton can win without the OFB, but no way can Obama win without Hillary's base.
Wow, like, wow!
Quote DCBlogger:
"And now that he has won, now that, to be blunt, a black man has played by the whitey’s rules, and out organized, and out delivered whitey, now we are informed that merely winning more delegates than anyone else entitles you to nothing."
1.) No one has won until the convention in August.
2.) Obama doesn't yet have enough delegates to win even if you pull two swing states out of the picture.
3.) "Whitey's rules", that is pretty cute. Have you heard about proportional representation? Do you know who Donna Brazille is?
4.) "Out blah, blah whitey", that is also pretty cute. I got a link for you, you can take this up with this poster.
5.) "winning more delegates than anyone else entitles you to nothing". Depending on how you define delegates that is a true statement as it stands, you need to win the majority of ALL delegates both pledged and super-delegates. Apparently that is just one more of
"whitey's"the DNC's rules.*Originally posted before DCblogger's moonwalk*
-----------------------------
Good night and good riddance!
MI and FL
I have always said that ML and FL need to be seated in a way that reflects the primary vote, even if that means assigning all of MI's uncommitted delegates to Obama.
Even with that, Obama has more pledged delegates than Hillary, although Obama has not yet attained an outright majority of the delegates. Obama will win decisively win all the remaining primaries save PR. He will have more delegates than Hillary. Only by the SD's overturning all that can Hillary win, and they won't do that.
And I don't buy that Clinton can win without the OFB. The party is divided, and each needs at least some of the others support.
I hated the WWTSBQ rhetoric when it began, but now Hillary is just prolonging the inevitable.
Whoever wins, part of the party will walk, that much is clear. McSame is in such collapse that I don't think it will matter. I know McSame polls well, but he is now saying the crazy things that kill you politically. Blaming the military for Iraq, and all the other crazy things he is saying, it is signs of implosion. He is going to look like Alan Keyes before this is done.
Obama won. I don't like the way it played out, but the truth is he won.
Sees edge of cliff,
moonwalks back.
DCBlogger, I like your style!
-----------------------------
Good night and good riddance!
whitey
ok, that was more than a little race baity, but just how do you think black voters are going to see this? Whoever wins, some of the other's supporters are going to walk, but there is no way a Democrat can win a Presidential without at least 80% of the black vote with at least a 40% turnout. That is why we can't nominate Clinton. Had she won Indiana and PA by larger margins, if she had any chance of winning one of the remaining western primaries I would say different, but the fact is she didn't and doesn't.
xoxo to DCB and herb
Herb for walking it back, DBD for "race-baity."
Well done! Bring the shrill!
[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
how black voters will see it....
ok, that was more than a little race baity, but just how do you think black voters are going to see this?
black voters by and large won't have a problem if Clinton gets the nomination. They have always liked and admired both Bill and Hillary Clinton, and their support for Obama is more about "identity politics" than actual support for anything that Obama claims to stand for. No white guy who showed up with Obama's (lack of a) record and line of BS would be getting close to the support of the AA community that Obama is getting (ask John Edwards in 2004), and AA's know this, and know that the sole reason he is even competitive at this point is the support from the AA community that is based simply on his race.
Its the idiot white "elites" who will make a fuss over how horribly black voters have been treated... the "limosine liberals" who profess to care about economic and social justice while pigging out on jumbo cajun shrimp and sucking down $45/bottle pinot noir at Democratic party fundraisers.
There's an assumption here...
...that Clinton can represent Obama supporters but not vice versa, and hence all Obama supporters have to do is realize that Clinton is a fair substitute. If Obama's not a fair substitute for Clinton supporters (and he probably isn't), then I'm not sure why it should work the other way around.
The other assumption is that Clinton can win without some portion of the OFB. Not sure that that's the case. They aren't all living in Nowhere, Red State. They've got a lot of money, clearly, and they've got a lot of feet on the ground, and they've got a lot of infrastructure. Sure, it's primary infrastructure, but do you think that the party can easily afford to ignore its existence?
issues are what make a "fair substitute"
for Dems--even Obama voters know where Hillary stands on issues, and what she will do as Pres--the opposite is not at all true.
That's the big difference.
Clinton is not a fair substitute
....for some of Obama's support -- the nisogynistic "fauxgressives". Nor is she a fair substitute for "creative class" types, whose idea of belt-tightening in tough economic times is booking smaller rooms on their carribean cruises.
But for the rest of the people who supported Obama -- including most of those who voted for him on super Tuesday not having the faintest clue about his past -- Clinton is a more than acceptable substitute.
Thus, mandos, the 3% solution
A pox on both their houses.
Gore/Edwards '08
Can I have my dessert now?
Gravel!!!!!!!!
I will forever lament the liberal blogosphere's treatment of my dude.
Fuckers.
She would pick Obama as running mate without a second thought
him? Not so much.
As for fairness, if Obama wins the majority of the primary vote (all of it, including Michigan (a percentage of uncommitteds), Florida, and Puerto Rico) I would say he can legitimately claim to be the pick of the Dem party.
That is the starting point from where he can work for my vote.
-----------------------------
Good night and good riddance!
I guess the point I keep trying to make is that...
...the OFB is the OFB because not only because they hate Clinton, but also because they're getting something from Obama that they aren't getting from Clinton. What they're getting from Obama may ultimately stem from Clinton-hatred for all I know, but it isn't Clinton-hatred itself.
The Unity Pony is a cipher for some other desire.
She'll need some, he'll need more
She can't win without some of his supporters, of course you are right. His electoral college vulnerability compared to hers, however, means that he will need many, many more of her supporters than she will need of his.
Given that, she has two other advantages:
1. Her campaign, her supporters, and she herself, have alienated fewer blocs of democratic voters than Obama and his people have. I know there are loads and loads of people who hate Hillary Clinton. Most of them are republicans. Not all, of course, but most. She still has statistically significantly fewer numbers of likely democratic defectors than Obama does. If the OFB will stop race-baiting and call off the dogwhistlers for the sake of unity, Clinton can win back the majority of African American voters. This makes her a safer democratic nominee.
2. Dissatisfied republicans and moderate independents are MUCH more likely to support her over McCain than they are to support Obama over McCain. The polls all evidence this. Her wins in the big swing states evidence this. It is not wishful thinking or a temper tantrum to point this out. Crossover republicans and independents are like fragile, skittish butterflies. They will flit away from a weak and uninspiring candidate. They have already proved in primaries and exit polls that they are ready and willing to support Clinton.
She'll need some support from Obama's voters. He'll need an unrealistically huge number of her swing-state voters to win.
Boo hoo
DCblogger's red meat has disappeared. I feel like a kid who's balloon flew away!
-----------------------------
Good night and good riddance!
& his negatives will be very high after the GOP is
thru with him--by the fall, he'll have negatives as high as hers--and it'll hurt him more because they're defining him already and people are believing what they say.
Per Rasmussen, contrary to CW, their negatives are actually
identical... within a point or two, and have been for a long time: both the favorables and the unfavorables.
Oh, I see today is an exact match 48,48 v 48,49
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_c...
not making it easy for the Supers...
thanks, dotcom--
they're only gonna go up in the general.
The African American Community Was Perfectly Willing and Ready
to vote with their heads. Until Obama shamelessly baited them into voting with their hearts.
Clinton enjoyed comfortable and justified support in the black community until Axelrod revved up his hate machine. Obama probably would have won a majority of black primary voters because he is a native son, and fair enough. But it was hate-mongering that flipped his advantage into overdrive.
That alone is enough to turn my back on him permanently.
And, amberglow is exactly right. Don't try to pin Obama's colossal failure on black voters. They rallied to him when unscrupulous leaders manipulated their good natures.
Limousine liberals, having their buttons pushed frantically and repeatedly by axelrod's moneymen until they were haywire with incoherence, are the ones who got us into this mess.
again, not true....
Obama already had the support of 72% of African Americans in South Carolina before the whole race-boating stuff started. In fact, he probably would have wound up with more AA support had it not been for the race-boating (he wound up with only 78%.)
The reason for the race boating had nothing to do with AA support -- at the time it was launched, Obama had just lost in New Hampshire, was not looking good in Nevada -- but South Carolina was a lock because it would be a three way race and he had 3/4 of the AA vote. Obama needed to make it impossible for anyone to say that the only reason he won in SC was because of the black vote, because he wasn't "the black candidate", and supposedly transcended race.
Dunno about that either
I'm not African-American, but I'm not white myself either. I can see how it may be rational for the overwhelming majority of AAs to vote for a black (D) candidate regardless of the cost. You only get so many opportunities to have a black man in office, or even making a credible run for office, that it becomes necessary to vote for what you got.
Just like older women voting Clinton.
Again, it's the whole "someone tricked them into voting for Obama" that bothers me, both for AAs and for the "limousine liberals", which I'm not sure is the correct term either. It's the reverse of the Reagan Dems thing. It's quite possible that Obama voters and Clinton voters are both being somewhat rational relative to their interests, in the aggregate, and that the division actually represents another set of real issues that are not being discussed, whatever they may be.
Again, really?
See, Obama voters know where she stands on "issues" as Clinton voters define "issues", but the sense I get is that they don't trust Clinton on, well, "issues" as they define issues. Anglachel covered this territory a number of times, as I recall. Obama voters/pushers are less interested in the specifics of policy proposals as they are in party and cultural dynamics. Clinton does not satisfy them AT ALL in this regard, for some reason, so they have no incentive to support her.
but whether they trust her or not,
the opposite not being true is why there's not an equal likelihood of voters getting over this.
Whether Obama voters value issues and policy and specifics and practical stuff or not, Hillary voters absolutely demand that stuff--and historically all Democratic voters demand that stuff--it's what we as Democrats start with as a foundation in every election -- and it's what makes us not Republicans.
There's no reason for any Obama supporter to vote Dem is what i hear from you--or for him to even be a Dem--especially because the party and all the base knows what our priorities are--and they're not "dynamics" but issues and putting the power of govt to work for most of the people.
In fairness, I think they do consider Iraq an issue
and that she can never be forgiven for giving Bush the keys to the tank.
Other domestic policy, no. They do not care what he does, even select a Republican VP and they will be fine with that.
A case in point
My mother hardly counts because she's a Canadian living in Canada (as opposed to me, a Canuck living in Amurricah), but she favours Obama. She favours him for the sole reason that people mistakenly think he's a Muslim (as we are). She wants to hear "Barack Hussein Obama" sworn into office so she can rub Canadian right-wing radio hosts noses in it...
I have no doubt that there are You Ess Muslims who think the same way, especially since both candidates pander to AIPAC and MidEast issues are central to Muslim voters.
would your mom vote like that in CA
regardless of issues for the same sort of reason? (say a native guy running, or a woman, or whatever--for the statement it would make?) And would she jump parties to do so even if that party would hurt people?
like--would that be more important that saving, strengthening or privatizing national health?
Mandos, I hear you
I'm not trying to say that all, or even most, black voters were tricked into voting for Obama. Same thing for women supporting Hillary. All I'm saying is go look at the exit polls from January and early February. Obama had a real advantage over Hillary among african americans. But it was nothing like the 90% advantage he started hitting after jj junior and the other surrogates started dog-whistling. What could have been a fair and rigorously contested battle for african american votes by both candidates turned into rampage by unscrupulous and desperate surrogates. They realized they needed to crank the black vote up to eleven in order to stay competitive with Clinton and so they threw scruples to the wind and played the race card.
Same result, but with different causes, for women voters. In the early contests Clinton had a real, but smallish, advantage over Obama among women voters. That turned into a tidal wave of support when the MSM got crazy-assed misogynistic and the OFB amplified the sexist drumbeat for her to drop out for absolutely no reason except that it would benefit him. Women who had been lukewarm about Hillary or who had supported other candidates like Edwards (moi) stampeded to her side by the millions.
you're right, no one was tricked into voting for either Obama or Clinton. Many black voters were manipulated, in my opinion, into believing lies about the Clintons. Many women were incensed into supporting Hillary against the sexist onslaught.
There’s no reason for any
Not so. If you wander around the internet look at the (D) blogosphere even before the point in time that the Obama campaign was a sparkle in Axelrod's eye, you find that there were a very large proportion of the blogs (Pandagon, Pharyngula, etc, etc) that were extremely focused on what I'll call "cultural dynamics" issues, and believed that the Democratic Party was the vehicle by which the culture of, well, rubes and hicks could be well-reformed, to put it crudely.
There are good reasons to some people to feel that cultural reformation is their major issue, and that the very act of electing a liberal Wholefoodsitarian black man is itself a positive step. This kind of belief necessarily feeds back into an emphasis on campaign style, symbology, party procedure...
Pages