• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Are Hillary voters willing to destroy this country for Hillary's pursuit of power?

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
23,003
770
126
http://andrewsullivan.theatlan...-clinton-rul.html#more

Even a conservative like Andrew Sullivan can articulate this to the rest of us. A whole generation of voters will be so disillusioned with politics that we may have no hope of saving this country.

The new meme is that politics has returned to normal and that this election will now be run by Clinton rules. Many are relieved by this. You could sense the palpable discomfort among many in Washington that their world might actually shift a little next year. But if elections are primarily about fear and mud, and who best operates in a street fight, Beltway comfort returns. This we know. This we understand. This we already have the language to describe. And, the feeling goes, the Clintons can win back the White House in this atmosphere. What she is doing to Obama she can try to do to McCain. Maybe Limbaugh will help her out again.

What I think this misses are the cultural and social consequences of beating Obama (or McCain) this way. I don't mean beating Obama because the Clintons' message is more persuasive, or because the Clintons' healthcare plan is better, or because she has a better approach to Iraq. I mean: beating him by a barrage of petty attacks, by impugning his clear ability to be commander-in-chief, by toying with questions about his "Muslim past", by subtle invocation of the race card, by intermittent reliance on gender identity politics, by taking faux offense to keep the news cycle busy ("shame on you, Barack Obama!") and so on. If the Clintons beat Obama this way, I have a simple prediction. It will mean a mass flight from the process. It will alter the political consciousness of an entire generation of young voters - against any positive interaction with the political process for the foreseeable future. I'm not sure that Washington yet understands the risk the Clintons are taking with their own party and the future of American politics.

The reason so many people have re-engaged with politics this year is because many sense their country is in a desperate state and because only one candidate has articulated a vision and a politics big enough to address it without dividing the country down the middle again. For the first time in decades, a candidate has emerged who seems able to address the country's and the world's needs with a message that does not rely on Clintonian parsing or Rovian sleaze. For the first time since the 1960s, we have a potential president able to transcend the victim-mongering identity politics so skillfully used by the Clintons. If this promise is eclipsed because the old political system conspires to strangle it at birth, the reaction from the new influx of voters will be severe. The Clintons will all but guarantee they will lose a hefty amount of it in the fall, as they richly deserve to. Some will gravitate to McCain; others will be so disillusioned they will withdraw from politics for another generation. If the Clintons grind up and kill the most promising young leader since Kennedy, and if they do it not on the strength of their arguments, but by the kind of politics we have seen them deploy, the backlash will be deep and severe and long. As it should be.

He has a million little donors. He has brought many, many Republicans and Independents to the brink of re-thinking their relationship with the Democratic party. And he has won the majority of primaries and caucuses and has a majority of the delegates and popular vote. This has been a staggering achievement - one that has already made campaign history. If the Clintons, after having already enjoyed presidential power for eight long years, destroy this movement in order to preserve their own grip on privilege and influence in Democratic circles, it will be more than old-fashioned politics. It will be a generational moment - as formative as 1968. Killing it will be remembered for a very, very long time. And everyone will remember who did it - and why./q]

http://andrewsullivan.theatlan...-clinton-rul.html#more
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,214
2
0
Why yes, yes they are. But you already knew this because I've seen you post elsewhere the observation that democrats have no interest in the white house. They merely like to lose and then bitch about it*

* does not include Obama supporters :D
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,926
18
81
Andrew Sullivan? Please. He's been an open, avid, and enthusiastic supporter for Obama for the last 6 months.

If Hillary wins we'll be disillusioned with politics that it will destroy the country? Take a cig break buddy.

My heart dropped out of my chest when Bush was reelected. My uncle who voted for him told me to calm down, that people I hated would get elected, but that the pendulum would swing back like it always does, and that the country would still be here when it was over.

8 years of Bush and we're still here. Keep prognosticating on the death of america, it's a popular sport.

Now just running a primary race makes you worthy of being hailed as a destroyer of nations. Perhaps you missed that 40% of Obama supporters want Hillary to keep running if she had only won ONE state on Tuesday? Get out of your bubble.

If Obama's the great one fortold in ancient legends, Clinton's minor swipes at him shouldn't forestall his road to victory. Because if he can't take the "Clinton machine" he'll be fodder, and easy fodder at that, for the republicans come GE season. Who want's someone in the general who can't handle the pressures and contrivances of the primary season? Whine Whine Whine.
 

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,567
3
0
Total votes so far:
Source Wiki

Hillary:
13,277,974

Obama:
13,568,983

(includes Florida but not Michigan)

without Florida:

Hillary:
12,406,988

Obama:
12,992,769

Its as close as can be. And Pennsylvania alone has 12.5 million voters and I am guessing at the least millions of Democrats who will be voting.
And the polls have Hillary up in Pennsylvania at least as much as she was in Ohio.
http://www.rasmussenreports.co...c_presidential_primary
An incredible 15 percentage points more than Obama as of yesterdays poll.
So on April 5th there is an excellent chance she will have more votes total than Obama.
Obama has a delegate lead disproportional to the wishes of the voters.
Hillary would not only be foolish to drop out, she stands a good chance of winning more votes than Obama.
It is imperative that Hillary prevent a minority of radical Democratic activists steal the election away from the will of the Democratic party voters.




 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,916
172
106
Originally posted by: techs
Obama has a delegate lead disproportional to the wishes of the voters.
Nope.

One word: "Caucuses"

That is all.

Fern
 

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,567
3
0
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: techs
Obama has a delegate lead disproportional to the wishes of the voters.
Nope.

One word: "Caucuses"

That is all.

Fern
So your saying a small minority of activist voters in the caucuses speaks for the Democratic party?
I say a small minority of ELECTED Democrats who are Super Delegates have just as much right to give the election to Hillary.
As should happen if she gets more votes than Obama.

 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
71,109
20,761
136
Originally posted by: techs
Total votes so far:
Source Wiki

Hillary:
13,277,974

Obama:
13,568,983

(includes Florida but not Michigan)

without Florida:

Hillary:
12,406,988

Obama:
12,992,769

Its as close as can be. And Pennsylvania alone has 12.5 million voters and I am guessing at the least millions of Democrats who will be voting.
And the polls have Hillary up in Pennsylvania at least as much as she was in Ohio.
http://www.rasmussenreports.co...c_presidential_primary
An incredible 15 percentage points more than Obama as of yesterdays poll.
So on April 5th there is an excellent chance she will have more votes total than Obama.
Obama has a delegate lead disproportional to the wishes of the voters.
Hillary would not only be foolish to drop out, she stands a good chance of winning more votes than Obama.
It is imperative that Hillary prevent a minority of radical Democratic activists steal the election away from the will of the Democratic party voters.
Even if she were to take the vote lead it would be something like 51-49%, or 52-48%. Tell me how 48% of voters or whatever would represent a 'radical minority'. Please.

As of this moment Obama's delegate percentage and vote percentage are almost identical. Things are exactly as they should be.

On the other hand, people should stop complaining because someone is running for president. Let her do what she wants, lots and lots of people support her.
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,826
83
91
I couldn't even get past the "a conservative like Andrew Sullivan" line.

he's been a shill for Obama for months.

edit: ok, I actually rtfa'd. it seems like a bunch of baseless assertions that ignores all of Obama's negatives and buys into the Obama mythos.
 

M0RPH

Diamond Member
Dec 7, 2003
3,305
1
0
Hey Phokus, we get the message, you made another post just like this the other day. If Clinton is the nominee, the country disintegrates into chaos, the sun does not rise, everything is despair and hopelessnes. If Obama is the candidate, we enter a golden age, everyone holds hands and is happy and hopeful, the country is saved.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,926
18
81
Originally posted by: M0RPH
Hey Phokus, we get the message, you made another post just like this the other day. If Clinton is the nominee, the country disintegrates into chaos, the sun does not rise, everything is despair and hopelessnes. If Obama is the candidate, we enter a golden age, everyone holds hands and is happy and hopeful, the country is saved.
No, that was what happened if RP didn't get elected.
 

RY62

Senior member
Mar 13, 2005
771
32
91
Are Hillary voters willing to destroy this country for Hillary's pursuit of power?

What kind of BS, childish question is this. The candidate you want doesn't always win. Contrary to what Obama wants you to believe, you don't get evrything you want just because you have hope.

I expect both candidates to fight as hard as they can, try their best to persuade the voters, use every means available, and when the process is over, join together for their common goals. Destroying the country is just way too much Obamadrama. Let the process work itself out, vote for the Democrat or Republican of your choice then go out and try to make the world a better place in your own ways, any way you can.
 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,834
1
0
Seriously, the Obamarama supporters remind me more and more each day of the former Bush supporters.... in fact many of them are the same people.

Now they're trying to say if you support Hillary your a traitor? GET THE FUCK OUT OF MY FACE YOU LYING A-HOLE BASTARDS!!

Ahhh... I feel better now.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,916
172
106
Originally posted by: techs
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: techs
Obama has a delegate lead disproportional to the wishes of the voters.
Nope.

One word: "Caucuses"

That is all.

Fern
So your saying a small minority of activist voters in the caucuses speaks for the Democratic party?
I say a small minority of ELECTED Democrats who are Super Delegates have just as much right to give the election to Hillary.
As should happen if she gets more votes than Obama.
Almost anybody interested enough can vote in a caucus. But they can't be a super delegate.

The assumption under a caucus is that the candidate winning there would also win a primary. To argue otherwise is to assert that states choosing the caucus menthod are doing so to deliberately choose a candidate that their voters don't want. Makes no sense. While a caucus can be more time consuming, it is far less expensive than holding a primary vote. I'll point out that caucus states also resolve other state "ballot" intiatives at the caucus. If it was producing unpopular results they would have changed by now.

And because these Obama states used a caucus, he gets very very little in the way of popular votes added to his column. If they had held primaries, his vote total would be much higher.

Fern
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,926
18
81
Originally posted by: Fern

And because these Obama states used a caucus, he gets very very little in the way of popular votes added to his column. If they had held primaries, his vote total would be much higher.

Fern
How do you figure? In TX, she won the primary by 4% and he won the caucuses we expect by about 10 or so. Which is the better indicator of the will of the people?
 

lupi

Lifer
Apr 8, 2001
32,542
260
126
Originally posted by: M0RPH
Hey Phokus, we get the message, you made another post just like this the an hour ago, and an hour before that, and... If Clinton is the nominee, the country disintegrates into chaos, the sun does not rise, everything is despair and hopelessnes. If Obama is the candidate, we enter a golden age, everyone holds hands and is happy and hopeful, the country is saved.
Fixed
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,916
172
106
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: Fern

And because these Obama states used a caucus, he gets very very little in the way of popular votes added to his column. If they had held primaries, his vote total would be much higher.

Fern
How do you figure? This was addressed in my post, the part you deleted In TX, she won the primary by 4% and he won the caucuses we expect by about 10 or so. Which is the better indicator of the will of the people?
TX is a wierd state. No need to use them as an example, plus since they DO have a primary the vote totals are in the numbers.

AFAIK, none of the other caucus states have primaries too. Go back and check the part about other ballot intiatives settled in caucus and/or how it should be rather obvious their system works to choose the popular candidate or it would have been changed by now.

Fern
 

M0RPH

Diamond Member
Dec 7, 2003
3,305
1
0
Originally posted by: Fern

And because these Obama states used a caucus, he gets very very little in the way of popular votes added to his column. If they had held primaries, his vote total would be much higher.

Fern
You're mistaken here. Caucus votes are still counted in the popular vote totals.
 

chowderhead

Platinum Member
Dec 7, 1999
2,607
209
106
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: Fern

And because these Obama states used a caucus, he gets very very little in the way of popular votes added to his column. If they had held primaries, his vote total would be much higher.

Fern
How do you figure? This was addressed in my post, the part you deleted In TX, she won the primary by 4% and he won the caucuses we expect by about 10 or so. Which is the better indicator of the will of the people?
TX is a wierd state. No need to use them as an example, plus since they DO have a primary the vote totals are in the numbers.

AFAIK, none of the other caucus states have primaries too. Go back and check the part about other ballot intiatives settled in caucus and/or how it should be rather obvious their system works to choose the popular candidate or it would have been changed by now.

Fern
Obama won the Washington caucus by 37 but he won the non-binding primary by only 5, ten days later.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,926
18
81
Originally posted by: M0RPH
Originally posted by: Fern

And because these Obama states used a caucus, he gets very very little in the way of popular votes added to his column. If they had held primaries, his vote total would be much higher.

Fern
You're mistaken here. Caucus votes are still counted in the popular vote totals.
Well yeah, but a win of 6000-4000 (caucus) nets you 2000 in the popular vote whereas winning 60,000 - 40,000 (primary) nets you 20,000 in the popular vote total, see? If you accept that the winner of a caucus would be the winner of a primary, Fern's right.
 

hellokeith

Golden Member
Nov 12, 2004
1,670
0
0
Give the Hillary people a break. She has a lot of support. And it's not like there's alot of candidates to choose from now. (All the decent ones have already dropped out of the race.)

The obamabots are almost reaching rpbot annoyance level in here..
 

M0RPH

Diamond Member
Dec 7, 2003
3,305
1
0
Originally posted by: chowderhead

Obama won the Washington caucus by 37 but he won the non-binding primary by only 5, ten days later.
Thank you. Second concrete piece of evidence of how skewed caucus voting is. I don't think there's much question that, had every state held a primary, Clinton would be winning this election right now.
 

M0RPH

Diamond Member
Dec 7, 2003
3,305
1
0
Originally posted by: sirjonk

Well yeah, but a win of 6000-4000 (caucus) nets you 2000 in the popular vote whereas winning 60,000 - 40,000 (primary) nets you 20,000 in the popular vote total, see? If you accept that the winner of a caucus would be the winner of a primary, Fern's right.
Yes, but that's clearly not how it plays out, when you expand the pool of voters you end up with much different results, so his point really isn't valid.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,712
3,518
126
Originally posted by: M0RPH
Originally posted by: chowderhead

Obama won the Washington caucus by 37 but he won the non-binding primary by only 5, ten days later.
Thank you. Second concrete piece of evidence of how skewed caucus voting is. I don't think there's much question that, had every state held a primary, Clinton would be winning this election right now.
There is good evidence to show that if a frog didn't have any hind legs it would bump it's ass off and if Grandma has whiskers she'd be Grandpa.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY