The Democratic Party's Only Hope for Change

[Farang]

To both of the responses--

It seems we are not in agreement on Clinton's chances. My argument is that she is making a choice as to her chances to win the nomination balanced with how harshly to attack Obama, and that the only reason her decision comes up "GO ALL OUT" is that her ambition weighs in excessively. It seems obvious to me that Obama has a very solid lead in this contest, and I think we can all agree that Clinton's last hope lies with the superdelegates. My assessment comes form the fact that those delegates have gone something like 46 to -6 in Obama's favor lately. Also from the fact that Obama has won 13/16 of the last primaries and caucuses, and that the remaining contests combined do not look to alter the race significantly.

So yes, Obama does have more of a right to cut Clinton off at the knees. This is because he is the (let's just throw an arbitrary number out for the sake of argument) 80% likely nominee who is trying to get rid of a candidate who stands little chance and merely serves to assist McCain in the general. He is acting in the interests of the party in which he is 80% likely to be representing.

Now what we disagree on here is the 80% bit. I hope you see my point aside from that so we know where we differ.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Farang
It seems obvious to me that Obama has a very solid lead in this contest, and I think we can all agree that Clinton's last hope lies with the superdelegates.

it's just as reasonable to say Obama's "last hope" lies with the superdelegates. he can't win without them as I understand it.

 

[Farang]

Hey let's stop trying to rebut one point and address the whole argument. If this makes it better for you, fine: Recently the trend has been something like 46 to -3, Obama, for superdelegates and 13 states Obama to 3 for Clinton. Not sure of the popular vote during this period, but I'm sure we can agree Obama has a decent lead post-Feb5. So trying to say Obama needs the supers just as much as Clinton doesn't really help your argument because he is dominating more among the supers lately than he is among the voters.

But again, we disagree on Clinton's chances. I was trying to explain my point by setting aside that argument so you could understand why there is no double standard and why many believe Clinton is wrong for staying in. My only goal here is to get you to see that 'Yes, if one believes Clinton's chances are slim (and that is a conclusion a reasonable person could possibly come to), then I see why she would be seen as wrong for staying in the race.'

edit: also you seem to bring up Pennsylvania like it'll be some kind of game-changer. It won't. North Carolina and Mississippi wipe it off the table, and after that there is basically nothing left to add any sort of significant impact to the race.

 

[TallBill]

I'm sorry, but the only hope for change in my book is from a new party. I'm sick of both the Democrats and Republicans. What a stupid idea to have two major parties that all candidates get funneled through.

 

[M0RPH]

Originally posted by: Farang

edit: also you seem to bring up Pennsylvania like it'll be some kind of game-changer. It won't. North Carolina and Mississippi wipe it off the table, and after that there is basically nothing left to add any sort of significant impact to the race.

And that's where you are misguided. You think that closing the delegate gap is the only "game-changer". Pledged delegate counts are only going to be one consideration in the minds of the super delegates. Another important consideration is which candidate has stronger support in the crucial states that are going to be needed to win the election, like PENNSYLVANIA.

AND you must be assuming that FL and MI are not going to come into play somehow. Wishful thinking on your part I guess, but I can assure you that the silencing of millions of voters in two of the largest states is not going to go down quietly.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: M0RPH

Originally posted by: Farang

It has nothing to do with a double standard. If Obama was cutting Clinton, a candidate he supposedly shares similar values and plans with, off at the knees and teaming up with McCain to disable her for the primary as well as the general, then he would be just as despicable for having undermined his supposed values for the sake of personal accomplishment.

By your own assertion, I guess Obama is despicable then, since he has criticized Clinton plenty in the last few weeks, including comparing her to McCain. You're ok with Obama criticizing his fellow democrat opponent, but as soon as Clinton says anything critical about Obama, she's tearing down the party. Hypocrite.

Please link the specifics where Obama says McCain is better than Clinton. I fear that rather than Obama supporters being hypocrites you just might be a liar.

 

[StageLeft]

I've never really seen anything in any of the people running for president that makes them remarkably different than previous presidents beyond the superficial.

Now, or ever? No differences between regan, carter, bill clinton, dubya?

I really hope that Obama can beat McCain, and if he's the candidate I will be voting for him. But I have a bad feeling he's gonna end up losing it because he loses those rust belt swing states that Clinton could have carried, as well as FL.

If Obama loses where Clinton could have won, there is something deeply flawed with those who would make it happen and the democratic party in general. In such a case, McCain should win so that the democrats can have yet another four years to lament their loss and try to figure out how to make themselves better. A party that would pick Hillary over Barack is not a party that deserves to be in power.

 

[nageov3t]

If Obama loses where Clinton could have won, there is something deeply flawed with those who would make it happen and the democratic party in general.

if (re: when) Obama wins the nomination, I think NJ and its senate seat that's up for reelection in '08 will instantly come into play, especially if the NJ republicans can find a moderate to run against Lautenberg, who would be like 90+ by the time his term ends if he won reelection.

I'm sure this is flipped around for Obama in other areas of the country, but I do my best to think about states that weren't part of the original 13 colonies as little as possible.

 

[Pliablemoose]

I can't believe how the Clinton campaign is working through the stages of losing.

Denial
Anger
Bargaining <--- Obama for VP & this BS argument fit here.
Depression
Acceptance

If I was a Democrat, I'd be emailing the hell outta the party officials telling them to make Hillary drop out for the good of the party.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
I can't believe how the Clinton campaign is working through the stages of losing.

Denial
Anger
Bargaining <--- Obama for VP & this BS argument fit here.
Depression
Acceptance

If I was a Democrat, I'd be emailing the hell outta the party officials telling them to make Hillary drop out for the good of the party.

I don't think P&N is a reflection of the feelings on the ground out there regarding this... the last poll I saw found widespread support among democrats for Clinton to stay in the race.

despite the Hillary hate on these forums, it seems like most voters see it as a choice between two good candidates, not the Satan v Jesus match-up some P&N'ers frame it as.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
I can't believe how the Clinton campaign is working through the stages of losing.

Denial
Anger
Bargaining <--- Obama for VP & this BS argument fit here.
Depression
Acceptance

If I was a Democrat, I'd be emailing the hell outta the party officials telling them to make Hillary drop out for the good of the party.

I don't think P&N is a reflection of the feelings on the ground out there regarding this... the last poll I saw found widespread support among democrats for Clinton to stay in the race.

despite the Hillary hate on these forums, it seems like most voters see it as a choice between two good candidates, not the Satan v Jesus match-up some P&N'ers frame it as.

The general public already abdicated credibility with things such as 1/3rd still approving of Bush, those who felt Saddam was involved in 911, etc.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
I can't believe how the Clinton campaign is working through the stages of losing.

Denial
Anger
Bargaining <--- Obama for VP & this BS argument fit here.
Depression
Acceptance

If I was a Democrat, I'd be emailing the hell outta the party officials telling them to make Hillary drop out for the good of the party.

I don't think P&N is a reflection of the feelings on the ground out there regarding this... the last poll I saw found widespread support among democrats for Clinton to stay in the race.

despite the Hillary hate on these forums, it seems like most voters see it as a choice between two good candidates, not the Satan v Jesus match-up some P&N'ers frame it as.

The general public already abdicated credibility with things such as 1/3rd still approving of Bush, those who felt Saddam was involved in 911, etc.

ah, so you do favor the super delegates picking whoever they want to regardless of the popular vote or delegate lead?

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: ShotgunSteven
They can fluff up the "It's Hillary's turn" argument with all of the flowery feel-good crap they want, but as an argument it still sucks. :thumbsdown:

QFT

Fern

 

[marincounty]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Let's see if I'm reading this right. Sounds to me like the author thinks it has to be Clinton now and Obama in eight years. So Clinton and Obama are the only two people in the Democrat party that are presidential material? Says a lot about the party.

The Democrats had a lot of good candidates for president. Have you looked at the Republican candidates? A couple of religious nuts, 911, and a pro-war old man.
Says a lot about the party- it's a sinking ship.

 

[Farang]

I'm done with you idiots. I go through the trouble of making an argument and all you do is take one sentence that is about something else and address that with some inane comment.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: marincounty

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Let's see if I'm reading this right. Sounds to me like the author thinks it has to be Clinton now and Obama in eight years. So Clinton and Obama are the only two people in the Democrat party that are presidential material? Says a lot about the party.

The Democrats had a lot of good candidates for president. Have you looked at the Republican candidates? A couple of religious nuts, 911, and a pro-war old man.
Says a lot about the party- it's a sinking ship.

Meh, I don't think any of them are real good candidates. Some had some good ideas, but were apparently unelectable. Obama's got charisma. All-in-all a weak field IMO.

Moreover, if you wanna look to future candidates for either party I suggest looking at current governors.

This year we're gonna buck the long-term habit of choosing governors as President. I wonder if we'll end up being being reminded why we shouldn't choose Senators.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

There's no reason not to choose senators, I just think that senators are generally at an electoral disadvantage compared to governors for reasons that aren't actually particularly important in a president long term.

I would say the Democrats this year had the strongest field of any party in my lifetime. They don't just have one candidate that will cream the opposition, they have two. I can't remember a time when a party pretty much got to choose the next president entirely within their own primary system.

(yes, yes, the election isn't as certain as all that... but most analysts and (more importantly) political futures markets put the Democrats at about a 70% chance for victory in this election. In American presidential politics that's about as close as you get to a sure thing)

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: marincounty

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Let's see if I'm reading this right. Sounds to me like the author thinks it has to be Clinton now and Obama in eight years. So Clinton and Obama are the only two people in the Democrat party that are presidential material? Says a lot about the party.

The Democrats had a lot of good candidates for president. Have you looked at the Republican candidates? A couple of religious nuts, 911, and a pro-war old man.
Says a lot about the party- it's a sinking ship.

Both parties are sinking. What we need is major party reform. Empower a unitary executive to steer the country through the rough period of tearing down both the Democratic and Republican parties, and form them together into a coalition party that represents all Americans, to which we can all belong.

 

[marincounty]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: marincounty

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Let's see if I'm reading this right. Sounds to me like the author thinks it has to be Clinton now and Obama in eight years. So Clinton and Obama are the only two people in the Democrat party that are presidential material? Says a lot about the party.

The Democrats had a lot of good candidates for president. Have you looked at the Republican candidates? A couple of religious nuts, 911, and a pro-war old man.
Says a lot about the party- it's a sinking ship.

Meh, I don't think any of them are real good candidates. Some had some good ideas, but were apparently unelectable. Obama's got charisma. All-in-all a weak field IMO.

Moreover, if you wanna look to future candidates for either party I suggest looking at current governors.

This year we're gonna buck the long-term habit of choosing governors as President. I wonder if we'll end up being being reminded why we shouldn't choose Senators.

Fern

I'm reminded every day why we shouldn't choose governors as president.
I don't know if its possible for a senator to screw up as bad as the former governor has.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: marincounty

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Let's see if I'm reading this right. Sounds to me like the author thinks it has to be Clinton now and Obama in eight years. So Clinton and Obama are the only two people in the Democrat party that are presidential material? Says a lot about the party.

The Democrats had a lot of good candidates for president. Have you looked at the Republican candidates? A couple of religious nuts, 911, and a pro-war old man.
Says a lot about the party- it's a sinking ship.

Both parties are sinking. What we need is major party reform. Empower a unitary executive to steer the country through the rough period of tearing down both the Democratic and Republican parties, and form them together into a coalition party that represents all Americans, to which we can all belong.

Look, I'm really really against people throwing Hitler and Nazi references around... seriously.

That being said, can anyone here tell me why that's not pretty much the Enabling Act, Nazi style? Give all the political power to a single executive authority to 'steer the country through the rough period'? Then use it to create one huge coalition party that represents us all? No thanks, a dictatorship/fascist one party state isn't really what I'm looking for. Thanks for the offer though.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: M0RPH

Originally posted by: Farang

edit: also you seem to bring up Pennsylvania like it'll be some kind of game-changer. It won't. North Carolina and Mississippi wipe it off the table, and after that there is basically nothing left to add any sort of significant impact to the race.

And that's where you are misguided. You think that closing the delegate gap is the only "game-changer". Pledged delegate counts are only going to be one consideration in the minds of the super delegates. Another important consideration is which candidate has stronger support in the crucial states that are going to be needed to win the election, like PENNSYLVANIA.

AND you must be assuming that FL and MI are not going to come into play somehow. Wishful thinking on your part I guess, but I can assure you that the silencing of millions of voters in two of the largest states is not going to go down quietly.

You must assume that most superdelegates are going to be very hesitant to go against the majority of the party.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: marincounty

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Let's see if I'm reading this right. Sounds to me like the author thinks it has to be Clinton now and Obama in eight years. So Clinton and Obama are the only two people in the Democrat party that are presidential material? Says a lot about the party.

The Democrats had a lot of good candidates for president. Have you looked at the Republican candidates? A couple of religious nuts, 911, and a pro-war old man.
Says a lot about the party- it's a sinking ship.

Both parties are sinking. What we need is major party reform. Empower a unitary executive to steer the country through the rough period of tearing down both the Democratic and Republican parties, and form them together into a coalition party that represents all Americans, to which we can all belong.

Look, I'm really really against people throwing Hitler and Nazi references around... seriously.

That being said, can anyone here tell me why that's not pretty much the Enabling Act, Nazi style? Give all the political power to a single executive authority to 'steer the country through the rough period'? Then use it to create one huge coalition party that represents us all? No thanks, a dictatorship/fascist one party state isn't really what I'm looking for. Thanks for the offer though.

Don't you want to feel safe?