Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

Hillary's "Democratic" support

dmd76's picture

After months of being told Obama supporters aren't true Democrats and progressives, that the Obama campaign is only about him, we finally have the numbers to prove, once and for all, that if any campaign is a cult of personality, it is Hillary Clinton's:

A sizable proportion of Democrats would vote for John McCain next November if he is matched against the candidate they do not support for the Democratic nomination. This is particularly true for Hillary Clinton supporters, more than a quarter of whom currently say they would vote for McCain if Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee.

28% of Sen. Clinton's supporters would vote for McCain over Obama in the GE: the John McCain that voted for the Bankruptcy Bill, that supports the Surge and wants to bomb Iran, that would appoint judges like Alito and Scalia to the Supreme Court. That's a hell of a progressive movement Sen. Clinton's building. Undoubtedly, this is all Obama's fault.

0
No votes yet

Comments

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

Like the venom that has been spewed at Hillary and her supporters by some (very vocal) Obama supporters?

I have said for months that my biggest problem with Obama is his supporters.

ribonucleic's picture
Submitted by ribonucleic on

Specifically, the chair of her fundraising committee who called Obama an affirmative action case.

And her would-be de facto Vice President who said Obama doesn't love his country.

Nope, didn't care for that at all.

"Mr. Lazio pledged to release his tax returns soon after entering the Senate race in May, but had not done so... his Democratic opponent, Hillary Rodham Clinton, criticized the delay, asking whether he was hiding something."

dmd76's picture
Submitted by dmd76 on

So to get back at mean Obama supporters, 28% of HRC's supporters are going to vote for four more years of the same shit we've endured for the past eight? How mature! How enlightened! How progressive!

whaleshaman's picture
Submitted by whaleshaman on

So to get back at mean Obama supporters, 28% of HRC’s supporters are going to vote for four more years of the same shit we’ve endured for the past eight? How mature! How enlightened! How progressive!

As you've incorrectly assumed, to spite the OFB is not why I vote. It's not about you but about me. But can you not see that a remark like yours feels like the same shit we've endured for the past 8 years? I don't care to be abused by the right or the so-called progressive left.

I don't honestly think I could vote for BO if it were today, any more than I could ever vote for McCain. I don't like the guy.

You could have done better by responding, for instance: "Wow! I had no idea this was that big a problem, how can we -- you and & I together -- solve it, what needs to happen or what can be said to make you feel better about who I think Obama really is, what he can do for this country?" Beyond a vague bring-us-together, that is.

[I'm 61 years old and believe by now that I know some bullshit when I hear it. I also realize that nobody gets to the top of the BS pile that is US politics without being able to shovel some of it. But I'll leave the party altogether if it continues to abuse or berate me any further, and that includes expecting me to be around for them later when they aren't for me now. I get it.]

But instead you sarcastically belittle and talk down to me much like George Bush when he said to a guy at a 4th of July church picnic: "Who cares what you think?" To refresh your memory, http://dir.salon.com/story/opinion/featu...

It doesn't work. It pushes me away. Why would you do that when Obama's unity position must appeal to you at least a little?

They're blind and they're blind
Blind, blind, blind, blind, blind
Blind, blind
Blind, blind, blind, blind, blind
Blind, blind
Blind, blind, blind, blind, blind
Blind, blind
Blind, blind, blind, blind, blind

dmd76's picture
Submitted by dmd76 on

I was responding to the comment directly above mine, where myiq2xu excused Hillary supporters for claiming to support McCain in the GE because Obama supporters were mean (in your words, "to spite the OFB"). It's a ridiculous, immature attitude, and I mocked it accordingly. I agree with you 100%, your vote should be about you, not me. Why you took my comment personally, I'm not sure.

whaleshaman's picture
Submitted by whaleshaman on

you wrote: Why you took my comment personally, I’m not sure.

Because I'm an idiot?

My full apologies offered to you, I misunderstood.

manahmanah's picture
Submitted by manahmanah on

Like the venom that has been spewed at Hillary and her supporters by some (very vocal) Obama supporters?

Says someone who posts on www.hillaryis44.com?

Davidson's picture
Submitted by Davidson on

Those Clinton supporters--overwhelmingly working class whites (i.e. Reagan Democrats)and Latinos, I believe--would vote for McCain over Obama not out of loyalty to Clinton, but because they honestly believe McCain would be better (Latinos have reason to vote for McCain due to his stand on immigration reform). They have no idea how bad he really is since the media has created this "maverick" myth.

Regarding Obama supporters: Listen, the vast majority of supporters take their cues from their respective candidates. If Obama is truly about hope and change, then why does he inspire so much bullying? If Obama can truly move the masses, why doesn't he speak out against his supporters who are going batshit against anyone who dissents? Why does he remain silent?

Even if one discount his supporters (Burn down Denver if he's not the nominee!), there's still plenty to dislike about the candidate himself. For me, the OFB bullies are secondary, but obnoxious (at best).

Davidson's picture
Submitted by Davidson on

Bill Clinton never said that. He was commenting on a HRC v. McCain race, just as Obama regularly does. Clinton doesn't attack Obama for not including her in those remarks, which could be interpreted (i.e. distorted) as a slight in itself. Bill Clinton said it'd be nice to have two people who loved their countrr so they can focus on the issues--not distractions.

The only way one can interpret that as a slam--especially a call against Obama's supposed lack of patriotism--is to assume that if Obama is not being praised on equal terms as Hillary Clinton by her supporters/surrogates, then it's an attack, which is preposterous. And if Obama is so vulnerable to "attacks" on his patriotism, perhaps he shouldn't make himself so damn vulnerable by, I don't know, having a long, close friendship with a mentor who spews tirades that many consider to be...anti-American. Perhaps he could use some of that magical "judgment" of his to protect his own ass or, at least, not shoot himself in the foot.

And who called Obama an "affirmative action case" (in those words)? If you want to be outraged, how about that supporter who said to vote for Obama because he's black or that other supporter who said Obama was the first black leader not to present himself as a victim? Oh, right. That'd be Kerry and MacCaskill, respectively--Obama's supporters. Right.

We won't even get to the Obama supporters who spew casual misogyny (e.g., McPeak), because as we all know all bigotries are not made equal: racism is bad; misogyny is fine.

dmd76's picture
Submitted by dmd76 on

Davidson, since you give the "burn down Denver" example, I assume you are asking why the Obama campaign doesn't speak out about comments on a blog left by some guy on the internet. I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader.

By the way, I'd love to hear why you think working class whites will vote for McCain over Obama.

manahmanah's picture
Submitted by manahmanah on

dmd: why you think working class whites will vote for McCain over Obama.

Davidson: the vast majority of supporters take their cues from their respective candidates.

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

Clinton has always held onto more democratic voters than Obama, that's been true since at least January. See here - http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archive... - where Clinton held onto 83% of Democrats and Obama only 74%.

Obama has based his campaign on appealing to independents and Republicans, on promising "unity" and so it is not surprising that some Democrats don't feel any particular partisan loyalty to him. Add to that the idea that when some Clinton voters say experience is important to them, they aren't kidding.

I suspect that's particularly true for older voters. When I've done voter outreach on behalf of Clinton, older voters - and this goes back to New Hampshire - had almost disdain for Obama, seeing him as someone who hasn't done anything. Now, that may be unfair, but after all of these months if you look at exit polls, he hasn't really improved his standing with these voters. He needs to deal with this issue beyond simply reciting his Iraq War speech and he hasn't.

And I suspect Obama has added to these problems with Wright and in the states of Florida and Michigan. Those two things are self-inflicted wounds, IMO.

Generally, I don't think dems who are indicating they won't vote for Obama are driven by loyalty to Clinton, other than the extent to which Obama has pissed off some women but that's a bigger issue than Clinton and goes more to their feelings about Obama. So his polling weaknesses has to do with Obama's weaknesses as a candidate. Just as I don't believe democrats won't vote for Clinton in November out of some loyalty to Obama and that includes African Americans.

To the extent Obama is being hurt in current polls by loyalty to Clinton, might I suggest it may not be the best electoral strategy to constantly indicate that Clinton's voters don't matter - that the idea that she should quit because the male establishment, led by the Blogger Boyz, says so, that Obama can take her votes for granted (I'll get her votes, she might not get mine), and the constant inferences that Clinton voters are racist might not exactly be helping Obama? Insulting voters rarely makes them feel more inclined to vote for you.

ribonucleic's picture
Submitted by ribonucleic on

I'm sure Senator Obama would have (charismatically!) asked me to knock it off - for purely selfish reasons, if nothing else. I'm doing my best to play nice now.

I think we've all known people who somehow manage to bring out the worst in us. Hillary seems to have that effect on a lot of people - including Democrats.

I won't deny there's a sizable component of misogyny in it. There's just something Nurse Ratched-y in her voice and demeanor that many men find simply unbearable. I freely admit it's our problem, not hers - and has no place in political debate among adults.

But there remains the larger problem of what, for the sake of convenience, we may call her Clinton-hood. Bill sold just about all of us down the river [i.e. "don't ask, don't tell", NAFTA, Glass-Steagall, etc.] without ever losing that aw-shucks grin we originally found so endearing. And now Hillary - who claimed to be the policy-wise antidote to the last 7 years of our national nightmare - is running on racial smears, hypocrisy [see signature below], and preposterous lies about foreign policy experience.

We are now very desperate for change - a change that we perceive (fairly or not) Hillary as laboring day and night to take away from us. Desperate people are not always well-mannered.

"Mr. Lazio pledged to release his tax returns soon after entering the Senate race in May, but had not done so... his Democratic opponent, Hillary Rodham Clinton, criticized the delay, asking whether he was hiding something."

joc's picture
Submitted by joc on

Obama really is better than Hillary at getting Democrats to unite with Republicans.

tom's picture
Submitted by tom on

in early polls like this. Anyone who does is risking making a fool out of themselves. I suspect, all ugliness aside, the supporters of the two candidates will unify behind the nominee, whoever it is, by November. Now, unfortunately, because of the disfranchisement of voters in Florida or Michigan, whoever the nominee is may have trouble winning the general. I still can't believe Obama's political gurus can't see that for the problem that it is. If I were him I'd have been working hard to get a re-vote in those two states. It can only help him, right?

I mean, come on folks, what Democrat is going to vote for McCain the Doddering Fool after the media has actually paid some attention to him? And we've all had to watch a few of those trainwreck campaign stops of his?

Personally, I think McPeak should be fired from his position for his intemperate and silly remarks myself but that's my opinion. Obama doesn't have to take my advice.

However, I suspect McPeak will start embarrassing Obama fairly often if they keep him out on the campaign trail. Then, of course, he'll suddenly decide he needs to spend more time with his family and that will be that.

I also think it's about time for everyone on both sides of the blogosphere to take a chill pill. You should've read the absolute silliness I got back in an e-mail exchange from the nimrod running Buzzflash these days. It was as hateful as anything I'd ever read by a crazy right-winger. Judging from the hysterical things I'm seeing written over at Buzzflash these days I suspect he's losing readers and in financial trouble. (Hmmmm. I wonder why that would be? Hmmmm.) However, that's just my suspicion. I stopped reading Buzzflash a few weeks ago and it's becoming a sad state of affairs in the lefty blogosphere.

Between Markos, Josh, and Buzzflash being absolutely in the tank for Obama, this campaign is clearly taking its toll on the folks I considered reasonable and even intellectual comrades-in-arms.

dmd76's picture
Submitted by dmd76 on

there it is. It's Obama's fault that Hillary supporters flock to McCain, and a credit to Hillary that Obama supporters can look past the candidate and support the party.

it is not surprising that some Democrats don’t feel any particular partisan loyalty to him

Actually, it is 28% of Hillary supporters (and not just "some Democrats") that don't feel any particular partisan loyalty to Obama. You'll see that each candidate has the exact same percentage of Democratic support among current supporters in the GE against McCain (96% to 3%).
In other words, Clinton's Democratic supporters are comparatively more loyal to their candidate than Obama supporters, and Obama's Democratic supporters are comparatively more loyal to the party than Clinton's.

chicago dyke's picture
Submitted by chicago dyke on

polls polls polls. months away. before the conventions. nope, not really grabbing my attention, these polls.

look, this is going to be an "historic" election no matter what. it's gonna be nigger/white guy or ballbuster-dyke/white guy or even something really "funky" like nigger/spic or cunt-dyke/spic.* no one can predict what a majority of white americans will do with such a choice. forget party. seriously. there are so many ways that this could be a completely off-the-charts/prediction models election it's not even funny.

i'm starting to get annoyed and i'm going to express it now. let's have less "this poll says...." posting, shall we? they're really boring, for those of us not deeply invested in "proving" one of them is better than the other. now that this nation lives in a controlled, corrupted, unfree media environment, one in which cheating and lying are standards for most gov't and media leadership, and in which there is no more reliable exit polling, and the gov't and media corporations work together, openly and actively, to manipulate the perception of what public opinion "is," well, i hope you get my drift. polls are far down my list of things that "matter," and i wish i could read about fewer of them. the only one happens in the fall, and we're still not sure that's going to be counted correctly. if we have to talk about the comparison of numbers, isn't that a better focus?

*and just because i don't want there to be confusion, i am using these terms ironically, to highlight how it is that i feel too many americans really think as they consider the candidates. obviously these words do not sum up my view of the candidates.

rootless's picture
Submitted by rootless on

How dare those Hillary supporters
new
Submitted by OxyCon on Wed, 2008-03-26 14:57.

…refuse to vote for our beloved Obama after we shat all over them for the past six months.
The nerve!

The most dispiriting this about this campaign is the endless self-concern of "citizens" who worry only about their own feelings, perceived slights, and grievances. My concern is that the US stop killing children in Iraq. Whether a candidate or his or her supporters are "mean" to me, does not enter into my calculations. Grow up.

intranets's picture
Submitted by intranets on

Sorry you can't experience the OFB as normal humans do. It's quite a unique thing to see the kool-aid drinkers all chanting in unison about ponies.



Kind of turns you off on this Obama guy.


I submit the following as creepy evidence:

leah's picture
Submitted by leah on

Damnit!

Why are any of you taking the time to discuss a poll like this.

It means NOTHING!

Especially, here at Corrente. There isn't anyone among the Senior Fellows who haven't said repeatedly that they will vote for and work for Democratic success in both the congressional and the presidential general election in November no matter who appears at the top of the ticket.

ribonucleic, I appreciate your humor and intelligence, and I hope you come back often to comment here. Although Edwards was my guy until he suspended his campaign, I voted for Obama on Super Tuesday, (you can check my personal blog here to see my stated reasons),but what seems absent from your analysis is the possibility that people can disagree about whether or not Clinton has been running a racist campaign, or that she deliberately "lied" about her foreign policy experience, or that she is Rovian, or a hypocrite, and I'm not happy with her campaign, mind you, but there are answers to each of the instances you bring up. Nor do I agree with your analysis of the Clinton presidency, even in the brief form you present it. I don't have time now or I'd be more specific.

None of that means I would choose Clinton over Obama, but I also reject the notion that only one campaign is responsible for the mounting concern we are all feeling about whether or not Democratic chances are being negatively affected by the increasing negativity of both campaigns.

dmd76's picture
Submitted by dmd76 on

When Paul Lukasiak writes a treatise on how Republibamacrats are hijacking the Democratic nomination process, there aren't enough accolades in the English language to shower on him. When I write one post showing that Sen. Clinton's Democratic supporters are not (today) all that loyal to the Democratic party, everyone gets all exasperated: "enough with the polls! won't anyone think of the children?!?!"

I never made any claims about electability, mainly because I agree that a poll 8 months out is meaningless. If you want to keep battling that strawman, though, go right ahead. The point I did make was that the narrative that's been enthusiastically endorsed here (not by everyone, but by a majority), that Obama supporters don't care about the Democratic party, that they only want Obama to get elected, is more correctly applicable to Sen. Clinton's supporters. I'm quite certain that far fewer than 28% of her Democratic voters would actually vote for McCain if it came down to it, but today (the only time polls such as these are worth anything), they claim to support the Republican candidate over another Democrat.

chicago dyke's picture
Submitted by chicago dyke on

i am commenting about polling frenzy in general.

i appreciate your efforts, such that i think they are important. and paul's. and everyone who posts on polls. i said how much that is above. i have had these thoughts for a while now, and they are not directed at any one person. just the Legion of you who think that "Today's Polling Results by So and So!!1!!" are attenting-getting. they're aren't, not to people like me. what else can you share with me, that you think is important in the political process today? i already know what you think about the dem candidates; we'll see in the fall if you're right. i can wait until then and would love to hear your opinion on something else.

RedSox04's picture
Submitted by RedSox04 on

The Obama train is going off the rails, eh?

The simplest explanation for this poll:

Obama and his supporters appear to be a coalition of black voters and elitist free-market Ivory Tower types. The latter group has been with Obama since before Iowa, while the former group joined Obama's campaign either after Iowa or after the "Hillary is racist" coverage began to break.

Regardless, to an average, down-and-out person voting first on economic interests, and second on other issues, I gotta imagine that Obama, who is proposing a shitty health care plan and a shitty subprime mortgage plan, and who generally just pooh-poohs all over the Clintons' legacy, which is generally thought of as Monica and a good economy, comes off as a tad removed from the problems they face.

Add to that that your average Obama supporter will tell you that the number 1 reason they support Obama is a "change" away from the Clinton and Bush years, when most people, especially lower income Clinton supporters, actually look somewhat fondly back on the Clinton years, and you kinda have a strong reinforcement of the view that Obama is the candidate of the Ivy League types, and you know what that means for the average person.

ribonucleic's picture
Submitted by ribonucleic on

... to the candidate who finishes ahead in pledged delegates, popular vote, states won, fundraising, grassroots support, viral videos, and suave-aliciousness, I would suggest that the Party's idea of democracy and mine no longer coincide.

Yes, the superdelegates are going to have to give the nomination to somebody - and the other side will be very angry and disappointed.

But Obama actually won, you see. Unlike Hillary's, his people will actually have just cause to get pissed off.

"Mr. Lazio pledged to release his tax returns soon after entering the Senate race in May, but had not done so... his Democratic opponent, Hillary Rodham Clinton, criticized the delay, asking whether he was hiding something."

dmd76's picture
Submitted by dmd76 on

The straw that broke the camels back, huh? How unfortunate for me. I think a poll that belies the million and one posts about obots and such might be of interest, at least to some.

RedSox04, care to clarify your remarks? How does any of what you said explain the poll? Maybe you just needed an excuse for a little anti-intellectualism. Because you know, we haven't had enough of that these last eight years.

manahmanah's picture
Submitted by manahmanah on

This gallup poll in particular. Head to head polls by state are marginally more insightful if the goal is a Dem victory in November.

States in which BO leads JM but JM leads HRC:
CO, IA, MI, NH, NM, NV, WI

States in which HRC leads JM but JM leads BO:
AR, OH (slight)

OxyCon's picture
Submitted by OxyCon on

How dare those Hillary supporters

Submitted by OxyCon on Wed, 2008-03-26 14:57.

…refuse to vote for our beloved Obama after we shat all over them for the past six months.
The nerve!

Submitted by rootless on Wed, 2008-03-26 15:03.

The most dispiriting this about this campaign is the endless self-concern of “citizens” who worry only about their own feelings, perceived slights, and grievances. My concern is that the US stop killing children in Iraq. Whether a candidate or his or her supporters are “mean” to me, does not enter into my calculations. Grow up.

McCain is moderate on stem cell research, global warming, immigration and other issues important to me.
His resume is his own, he didn't pilfer and pad it the way Obama, the fraud did.
In my opinion, McCain would make a far better President than Obama ever could.
Just because you have so much emotionally invested in a fraud, doesn't mean others have to see things your way.
You grow up.
This whole post is all about Obama supporters feeling like victims again. You could actually call the whole Obama movement a cult of those who feel perpetually victimized.
Like immature brats, they taunt and do endzone celebrations everytime Obama wins some outpost state like Wyoming, then have the gall to tell Hillary to bow out of the race even though it is nowhere near over yet.
If Obama would have manned up at the beginning of the campaign and made his association with Rev Wright known, he wouldn't have made it past Iowa. But he concealed this fatal problem in a selfish act, hoping he could sweet talk his way out of it when he was finally forced to confront it.
Obama arrogantly said that Hillary starts the campaign with 47% of the country against her. Well, now that Americans know all about Obama's poor judgment in his personal associations, he has 52% of the country against him, per Rasmussen polls.
Obama also arrogantly said his supporters wouldn't vote for Hillary, but now we see the opposite is true.
Obama's chickens have come home to roost.
Sorry if this fact ruins you day.

ribonucleic's picture
Submitted by ribonucleic on

How can you begrudge Obama's supporters a little endzone dance after managing to win with such an awful candidate?

But more to the point, may I respectfully ask why Hillary - despite being so clearly superior - wasn't able to prevail there?

Did Obama's legions infiltrate some mind-clouding voodoo juice into the water supply?

Or was campaigning amidst the tumbleweeds and John Deere hats beneath the notice of such an august personage as Hillary Rodham Clinton?

"Mr. Lazio pledged to release his tax returns soon after entering the Senate race in May, but had not done so... his Democratic opponent, Hillary Rodham Clinton, criticized the delay, asking whether he was hiding something."

kelley b's picture
Submitted by kelley b on

That Rethuglican liar McCain couldn't talk straight if tried.

He couldn't formulate a policy, or remember a fact, if he wanted to.

He's a shill for the fourth branch of goverment, and owned body and soul.

I would say mind, but you have to have at least a couple of brain cells of your own to have a mind.

Any Democrat who jumps party if their own favorite doesn't make it is a traitor to the Nation and the World, because McCain will lay waste to America and the entire planet.

No Hell below us
Above us, only sky

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

"maverick" who's not like other Repubs, and some post-party "unity" nonsense, i'm not surprised at all.

and there's really not that big a number diff in the people who will go McCain from both Hillary and Obama--20 and 28 percent?

Submitted by lambert on

Glad we could put that censorship thing to rest. Even at the cost of a group haka by the usual suspects.

Yeah, WDTSBQ?

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

dmd76's picture
Submitted by dmd76 on

Thank you for the apology. I'm relatively new at this and need to be clearer when I'm responding to a particular comment. I'll try to do so in the future.

scarshapedstar's picture
Submitted by scarshapedstar on

Blown up so many asses. There's no way in hell any registered Democrat is going to cross over in November. It would be Naderism without the cloak of morality.

People are very invested in this primary, but as the old Hebrew saying goes, "This too shall pass."

But I still believe
And I will rise up with fists!!

dmd76's picture
Submitted by dmd76 on

How very Bushian of you: you feel you are being criticized, but instead of addressing the criticism, you pat yourself on the back for allowing free speech. Way to add absolutely nothing to the conversation.

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

While I understand the need Obama has to try to dampen enthusiasm for the Clinton years, I can't help but wonder if he runs a risk of bashing Bill Clinton too much. I say this based solely on the worst kind of evidence, anecdotal, but a common refrain among the white working class voters I canvassed in New Hampshire was that the Clintons were the only politicians who cared about people like them. Given that some of these people's adult lives had occurred over a span of time when the presidents have been Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, that's not a crazy belief for them to have, especially given the brutal recession that took up the last part of Carter's admininstration. There was a personal connection these folks had with the Clintons and I wonder if Obama hasn't been hurt by his personal attacks (as opposed to policy disagreements) on the Clintons. It's one thing to tell these people that Hillary was wrong about Iraq, it's another thing to tell them that Bill Clinton - the only president in recent memory who did try to better their lives - is a racist Joe McCarthy.

I honestly don't worry about supporters of either Dem voting for McCain out of loyalty to their democratic candidate. Clinton will support Obama. Obama will support Clinton (I don't care what he's hinted at). That will mollify most people driven solely by their support of the other candidate. But I do worry that candidates will say or do things that will turn people off of them, not out of loyalty to the other dem, but because it makes the voters dislike them.

The key to the election, IMO, is exposing McCain for the crazy, economically inept, hypocritical warmonger that he is. That should help solidify Dem support for either candidate. There's no reason why 527s and others can't start that now and, in fact, have started that now (and good on Jane Hamsher for her FEC complaint). With strong outside hammering of McCain, the candidate should be fine even if chosen at the convention. Nobody pays any attention to politics over the summer anyway.

cenobite's picture
Submitted by cenobite on

But [if Obama has the most delegates when the convention starts then] Obama actually won, you see. Unlike Hillary’s, his people will actually have just cause to get pissed off.

No sir.

Victory conditions for the Dem nomination are 2025 delegates, not leading in delegates when the convention starts. If neither candidate has that, then the primary election part of the race was a tie, and the superdelegates will be necessary to break the tie.

That's how it works, unless you have enough votes to change the rules on the floor of the convention.

ribonucleic's picture
Submitted by ribonucleic on

And neither candidate will reach it with pledged delegates alone. On this we can all agree.

I simply ask you on what basis you would ask an uncommitted superdelegate to vote for Hillary despite Obama finishing ahead - as he is all but mathematically certain to - in pledged delegates, popular vote, states won, etc, etc.

You can get back to me on that.

"Mr. Lazio pledged to release his tax returns soon after entering the Senate race in May, but had not done so... his Democratic opponent, Hillary Rodham Clinton, criticized the delay, asking whether he was hiding something."

cenobite's picture
Submitted by cenobite on

The superdelegates are under no obligation to vote according to any algorithm anyone comes up with. They are not machines.

I expect they will do something similar to what we all did: make a decision as to which delegate they think is best based on everything they know about the delegates, including things like electability, fidelity to the party platform, trust, downticket effects, experience... and yes, personal loyalty and any deals they may have made (this is politics).

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

Wins big in PA

Wins big in W Va.

Wins in Indiana, Kentucky

Obama starts to fall in the national polls.

Remaining superautomaticwhatever delegates announce for Clinton; Clinton immediately invites Obama to be VP.

Obama declines, pledges support to Clinton thereby defusing AfAm anger.

Odds of this happening? 3:1 against, maybe lower, but much more than zero. She should keep going because half the Party still wants her, because she may still pull it out, because Obama can use the exercise, because anything he gets called on now he can get some practice in handling. If he can’t handle it now we should find that out; it will be much worse from the Republicans.

Voodoo Chile's picture
Submitted by Voodoo Chile on

Well any Democrat who votes Republican is an asshole, or barely a Democrat to begin with.

With that aside, how can the OFB believe Obama can unite Democrats and Republicans when he can't even unite Democrats?

Submitted by lambert on

Turn it around:

And is there any doubt that Hillary is a fighter, tough as nails, and works like a dog? And not a quitter?

I don't think so. Cue the Hillary Hate. Whatever.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Voodoo Chile's picture
Submitted by Voodoo Chile on

Remember when bashing John Kerry for giving up so easily in '04 was all the rage? All those lefty bloggers calling for Fighting Dems? Yeah, now not so much...

dmd76's picture
Submitted by dmd76 on

How can Hillary supporters claim she is the True Choice of Democrats when they have less loyalty to the party than Obama's? Are they (the fickle HRC supporters) Democrats or assholes?

Pages

Turlock