Clear all "New" markers Turn on extra data

Thread View Frames View Board View

Forum: LiquidLounge
Re: If the media had vetted Obama from the beginning the way they should have, and had they given Clinton the love they've GRITS New
Re: <No Subject> Oci-One.Kanubi New
Date: May 11 2008, 23:05 GMT
From: GRITS

	Richard said: "Jill, you cite "a slight lead in pledged superdelegates over Obama".  This to me, means that she is more adept at "gaming the system".  It means that too many party insiders owe her favors or expect to receive favors from a President Clinton that they could not receive from a reform candidate.  It stinks of back rooms and cigar smoke.  It is a device set up by the Democratic Party to allow the cigar-chewers to over-ride the results of the primary elections and caucuses.  I'm not a registered Democrat, so I can do nothing more than express an outsider's opinion about this matter... and refuse to vote for Clinton if she steals the nomination this way." I'm not a registered Dem either, but I know that we've had 8 years of being screwed vs 8 great years under Bill Clinton. Maybe I'm wrong, and there is the fact that Hillary would have a LOT more problems to inherit than Bill did, but I doubt a Presidency with her in the white house would look appreciably different in terms of goals than when Bill was in. Outcomes remain to be seen (whether with Obama or Clinton.) And as for "gaming the system", several people who should have paid her back with their support becuase they "owed her" have supported Obama. That's fine, everyone should vote their conscience, but most politicians will back the horse they think is going to win. Maybe those delegates pledged to her noticed that she carries the large states necessary to win the general election? Richard said: "You say "before anyone objects that FL and MI 'don't count,' those votes will certainly count in the general election", but you overlook the fact that Clinton put her name on one of those ballots when every other Democratic candidate was honorable enough not to.  Consequently, she won delegates in that state." No she didn't. The delegates don't count, it's the popular vote I was referring to. And Obama could have put his name on MI's ballot, is that actually against the rules? Maybe I'm wrong but I thought he *did* put it on FL's ballot and lost. But in any case, so far the Dem party is not seating delegates from either FL or MI. Richard said: "You say: "[i]n the popular vote, Obama has a slight lead".  That tells me that the majority of Democrats and Independents (like me) who voted in the Democratic primaries and caucuses want Obama to be the Democratic candidate."   Or maybe it was Repubs voting in the Dem primaries in states where that is allowed, because they think Obama will be easier for McCain to beat. Richard said: "I want to be able to vote for someone who will attempt to do something about the way we do politics in America.  If we blow this opportunity now, we may be stuck with party hacks like Clinton and dumshits like McCain while America continues to slide down the tubes.  I won't vote for Clinton if she is the nominee.  I believe she would be a far better President than McCain, but I am too stiff-necked to vote for someone who steals the nomination through the superdelegate process." Like Obama will suddenly be able to make sweeping changes on Capitol Hill? Hardly likely. I hope that if he's nominated that he will win and that he can do that, but I doubt it. And after saying that you believe Clinton would be a far better president than McCain, why would you cut off your nose to spite your own face by not voting if she is the nominee? That's something I just can't understand. I may think Clinton would be the better Dem nominee and I will be disappointed if she isn't, but I'm certainly not going to throw away a chance to get the Dems back in the white house. I like Obama, but even if I didn't, I'd pretty much vote for Satan before voting for another Republican. Richard said: "You spit back the Clinton cool-aid when you say: "Clinton has won all the large states that are necessary to beat the Repubs in the general election".  Try a thought experiment: image big state BS that consists of 80% Repubs and 20% Dems.  The Dem primary went 60/40 to Clinton.  In the general election she would pick up, say, half the Obama supporters, giving her 80% of the Democratic 20%, and lose with 16% of the total vote.  Now look at large state LS:, which consists of 80% Dems and 20% Repubs.  Here, too, the Dem Primary went 60/40 to Clinton.  In the general election Obama would pick up, say, half the Clinton supporters, giving him 70% of that Democratic 80%, or 56% of the total vote, to win that state.  These are exaggerated examples, of course, to show that a slight edge in the primary simply does not tell you that the other candidate cannot win the General Election.  In a heavily Republican state, a win in the Democratic primary does not translate to a win in the General.  In a heavily Democratic state, a loss in the Primary does not translate to a loss in the General.  It is a bullshit talking point that the Clinton campaign keeps spouting.  This is called the Technique of the Big Lie, where, if you shout loudly enough something that seems to make sense, people fail to stop and examine whether it actually makes sense.  You gotta move up from 3rd Grade arithmatic before you can begin calculating percentages of percentages like this, though.  Maybe 7th Grade?" Can Obama carry the large states necessary to win the election? No one can know unless and until that happens, but why have primaries if not to use them as an indication as to who would be the better candidate in the general election? We might as well just draw names from a hat (actually, in this particular election, that might have been better - people are so sick of Bush and his cronies we'd probably be better off just voting for some unknown but Dem quantity!) Richard said: "Finally, you totally disregard Obama's ~150-delegate lead in elected delegates.  You don't mention it.  You act as if it doesn't exist." That's because the percentage of his lead in delegates is very small. Richard said: "But this should be the only one that really counts. "   But it's not. The Dem party, for better or worse (probably worse) has the Superdelegate system as well. Richard said: "This is how our system of representative deomcracy works.  We elect delegates, or we elect congresscritters, to represent us.  By that metric, the only metric you "forgot" to mention, Obama has, probably, an insurmountable lead.  And by that metric (giving the Democratic Party credit by assuming that they will not allow the back-room Superdelegate system to contradict the votes of the rank and file) Obama is unquestionably the presumpive candidate.  "Big State wins" is a bogus concept.  "Superdelegates" is a devious construct.  "Popular vote" is always a near thing (in 2000 we allowed the Electiral College to over-ride the popular vote for President).  But by "elected delegates" (equivalent to the electoral college), Obama is, hands-down, the presumptive nominee.  So, could the fact that Obama is winning, probably unbeatably, the only metric that really counts, elected delegates, not a good reason for the pundits to be calling Obama the presumpive nominee?  Well, not if you pretend this metric doesn't exist, I s'pose." Well, personally I'm in favor of scrapping the whole delegate system entirely and using ONLY the popular vote - have been for years, because we have the technology to make that happen now. You say I'm ignoring numbers in Obama's favor, but you cannot ignore the fact that whoever runs against McCain MUST carry certain large states or he/she cannot win. That's it. And that *is* becuase of the electoral college in teh general election, which should also be scrapped. IMO. Richard said: "THEN you go on to say "[c}learly she has more of a chance of beating McCain in the general," to which I reply that this is only clear to die-hard Clinton supporters.  It is something that is shouted loud and shouted often by the Clinton campaign, and so many people assume there must be some valid basis for the opinion.  And, to a certain extent there may well be, and that is this: if Clinton gets the nomination, Obama, who has invariably comported himself as a gentleman in this campaign, will throw his support behind her 100%.  The question is whether she would do the same for him.  I was a Hillary Clinton defender when she was First Lady, and a Hillary Clinton defender when the Repubs were calling her "carpet-bagger" in New York, and a Hillary Clinton supporter until I learned the issues and approach that Obama (sez) he will take as President.  On issues, their policies are nearly identical.  On effectiveness, she has the political clout (and deviousness, maybe) to possibly get more of her policies passed.  But on vision for the long term philosophical basis of  America (for a country governed by the people, rather than by the Corporations, PACs, and unions) he has a dream, and she ain't got nothin'." Why is everyone so convinced that the Clintons don't love this country? They have worked hard for a very long time in public service, and they also have a vision of what this country should be, and it isn't that different from Obama's. Hillary has dreams too, only she has executable plans to support them. Richard said: "It is purely speculative that Obama could not prevail in the general election." Of course it is, the whole outcome is speculative until it happens. Hillary is more *likely* to win over McCain; that doesn't mean it's impossible for Obama to do so. Richard said: Certainly he would lose some dumshit Dems who have not watched McCain's pinball positions bounce all over the map, heard McCain's manifestly substance-free policy positions and proposals, or realized that McCain is one more Bush-type "think poorly and wave that big stick around" kind of "statesman".  But he would also gain some thinking Republicans.  Most Republicans are not bad people, you know, they're just misguided, or single-issue voters, or rich and greedy.  And of that "misguided" contingent, a lot have realized that our country has taken a wrong turn and that McCain wants to keep on driving in the same direction.  I think Obama will pick up more thinking Republicans that lose dumshit Democrats.  Never forget, there is a huge number of Republicans who carry a baseless but uncompromising hate-on for Hillary Clinton, even to the point of contradicting their own best judgement wrt a third Bush term.  Many of these people who would never vote for Clinton would vote for Obama. Yep, and the same thing would happen if Hillary gets it. That's too bad, it just makes it more likely to get another Repub in office. Richard said: "You say "Obama is a ONE TERM SENATOR with no other relevant government experience" (as if she is an elder statesman with her whopping two terms)  I say: as a practical matter, Clinton will probably be more effective (though, really, her only Executive experience was her dismal failure in her '92 healthcare initiative), but I don't care.  That just doesn't make any sense - you say she'll probably be more effective but you don't care about that? I thought that's why we were electing a president, to be effective in office and solve some problems? Richard said: "All of our immediate problems will work their way out over the next 20 years, but only if we take control of our gubmint back from the major-player campaign contributors and lobbyists, which are corporate entities that have never been legally enfranchised in the United States.  Let our gubmint continue to be dominated by corporations, PACs, and unions, and these issues will never be resolved to the satisfaction of the average citizen (you know, those of us who are enfrachised!)  And Obama is the only one addressing that, the only real and lasting problem in America today.  He may not be able to fix it by himself, but as long as he keeps our attention focused on that real problem, we have a chance of fixing it." Absolutely agree we need to stop big business from running the country, I just don't think Obama would be any more effective at doing that than Hillary. Richard said: You ask: "So here's my question: the race is neck and neck if you look at numbers. Why does the media continue to insist on trying to push Obama as the nominee?"  To which I answer: he is winning that elected-delegate count that you did not mention, which is the only one that should matter in a system of representative democracy such as ours.  All those other "issues" are smoke being blown by the Clinton campaign, which is unwilling to admit that the delegates selected by the voters actually matter. You say [h]ad they treated Hillary and Obama equally, Obama wouldn't have lasted a New York minute in this race," but I say that is pure, unfounded speculation.  I wonder this: if he has managed to overcome these issues (Reverend Wright, disgruntled Christians and gun-owners, etc.) now, while he is in the limelight, why would he not have been able to overcome them if the press had brought them to light earlier, when he was deemed inconsequential and no-one woulda much carred about any peccadillos?  I mean, gee-Zeus, Jill, of course Clinton has been under intense scrutiny from the get-go.  She was the highest-profile candidate and he was the dark horse.  Don't, please don't scream "media bias" like a dam' Republican, when all it was was human nature: focus on the celebrity and ignore the newcomer. Yes, I do think that if these things had come to light, he woulnd't have gained the momentum he has, and he might not be in the race now, or if he was, at least he would have been treated fairly rather than as the favorite son. Richard said: Finally, you say "Hillary's people could make the same claim, that she is the presumptive nominee and Obama should drop out for the good of the party, with equal substance."  I say to that: he has run a positive campaign and behaved as a gentleman.  She has run a negative campaign.  Hers is the campaign that has been potentially damaging to an Obama candidacy; his campaign has not been damaging to a potentially Clinton candidacy."   He has been straightforward, honest, and honorable, and by so doing has won the majority of elected delegates.  Crying "unfair" and spewing any of the Clinton campaign's bogus talking points is what is potentially damaging to the possibility of a Democratic win in November.  If Obama had not come along I would be a Clinton supporter today, and I would never have known how low the Clintons could go.  But Obama did come along, Clinton is being beaten by a more attractive (policy and philosophy-wise) candidate, and she won't shut up, accept the elected-delegate count and work to enhance Obama's chances of winning for the Democrats (for all Americans, really) in November.  She is hanging on, hoping that a vaguely corrupt process like the Superdelegates can negate the straightforward process of voters electing delegates, allowing dissention to continue to fester within the party in hope of getting the nomination out of the smoke-filled-room process, and as a result I cannot admire her nearly as much as I used to. He has made negative comments about Hillary - he's not the knight in shining armor everyone thinks he is, he's a politician trying to get elected president just like the other candidates. I think it'd be just as fair to ask him to step aside. We just disagree here. Richard said: All that aside, were I to exert my wizardly powers to their fullest, a Clinton/Obama ticket would be elected for eight years of fixing the near-term practical problems of the war, the ecomony, education, infrastructure, and health-care that the First Fuckhead is leaving us with, and then an Obama/Someone ticket would be elected to deal with the long-term philisophical matter of the cracks and flaws in our democratic process. That's what I would like to see too, and Hillary has already made it clear that would be acceptable to her, but Obama seems to be not thrilled about that possibility. Meanwhile, Edwards is on the sidelines combing his hair, waiting to see who wins before throwing his support to anyone because he doesn't want to ruin his chances of getting a VP shot. At least Bill Richardson had some integrity and voted his conscience even though he "owed" the Clintons (he didn't owe them anything.) Richard said: But shucks, I ain't no flunkin' pundit; what do I know?  I'm just another sheeple with no knowlege, no ideas, and no opinions. Yep me too. And if McCain wins, I'll be thinking real hard about what country to move to. :-(

Add Message

Well, you asked! Oci-One.Kanubi New

Last I checked, Obama had like a 10% lead in pledge delegates, with many more delegates undecided. GRITS New

But it isn't neck-and-neck.  No how, no way.  Consider: Oci-One.Kanubi New

He has a lead of 171 pledged delegates with 217 pledged delegates to go. otto New

Dang numbers.  I thought numbers weren't ever s'posed to change? Oci-One.Kanubi New

Add Message