• 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."

We thought they'd go away...will they?

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
18
81
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_United_Means_Action

In light of recent polls indicating 25% of Hillary supporters will not vote for Obama and their seeming omnipresence, is this enough to sink the dems? TDS had John Oliver interview one of these insane women the other night outside the convention. They are really nutcases. They'd rather have a republican who will appoint conservative judges to the SC whose effect will be felt for decades, cut all the funding for programs that they and Hillary support, fail to remedy the US position in the world by turning over a new leaf, all because their first choice didn't make it.

What a bunch of fucking crybabies.

That said, I feel the same about all the people who said they'd vote McCain instead of Hillary had she won.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,007
571
126
Seems like a poor reason to vote, but elections have been decided by stranger coincidence.

I have a question about this, tho.

Isn't this the Obama campaign's fault? You might be able to call these voters irrational, stubborn, or whatever else, but that's the nature of people. And you don't see this kind of division from the republicans. Can you blame this on the strength or weakness of Obama's candidacy?
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
199
101
If the end result is a better vote, then I don't care about the reason behind the vote ;)
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
0
Originally posted by: jonks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_United_Means_Action

In light of recent polls indicating 25% of Hillary supporters will not vote for Obama and their seeming omnipresence, is this enough to sink the dems? TDS had John Oliver interview one of these insane women the other night outside the convention. They are really nutcases. They'd rather have a republican who will appoint conservative judges to the SC whose effect will be felt for decades, cut all the funding for programs that they and Hillary support, fail to remedy the US position in the world by turning over a new leaf, all because their first choice didn't make it.

What a bunch of fucking crybabies.

That said, I feel the same about all the people who said they'd vote McCain instead of Hillary had she won.
I saw that show. While I was disgusted I enjoyed that TDS treated them like children and crybabies because that's exactly what they are. One thing those Hillary supporters should consider is if they are the deciding factor to swing the election in favor of McCain it will likely be the end of their beloved queen's political career. I know I would not forget.
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
0
Originally posted by: PokerGuy
If the end result is a better vote, then I don't care about the reason behind the vote ;)
Says the guy supporting the candidate from the party that doesn't have 1 good candidate let alone 2! Romney? Thompson? Gu9/11ani? A confused 72 year old guy who campaigned in a bus beat them! :laugh:
 

mxyzptlk

Golden Member
Apr 18, 2008
1,893
0
0
Wait wait wait... on the daily show, someone said it was "Party Unity My Ass"

Sounds better imo.

 

QED

Diamond Member
Dec 16, 2005
3,428
3
0
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: jonks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_United_Means_Action

In light of recent polls indicating 25% of Hillary supporters will not vote for Obama and their seeming omnipresence, is this enough to sink the dems? TDS had John Oliver interview one of these insane women the other night outside the convention. They are really nutcases. They'd rather have a republican who will appoint conservative judges to the SC whose effect will be felt for decades, cut all the funding for programs that they and Hillary support, fail to remedy the US position in the world by turning over a new leaf, all because their first choice didn't make it.

What a bunch of fucking crybabies.

That said, I feel the same about all the people who said they'd vote McCain instead of Hillary had she won.
I saw that show. While I was disgusted I enjoyed that TDS treated them like children and crybabies because that's exactly what they are. One thing those Hillary supporters should consider is if they are the deciding factor to swing the election in favor of McCain it will likely be the end of their beloved queen's political career. I know I would not forget.
Wat?

A McCain victory (or, more specifically an Obama loss) is in the best interest of the Clintons.

If Obama wins, the Clintons have no shot at moving back into the White House for at least 8 years-- by then, they'll won't represent the "Old Guard" of the Democratic Party, but the "Very Old Guard". How could a 68-year old Hillary presidency compare well to a 40-something year-old Obama presidency? It won't.

The Clintons realize their window of opportunity is closing. 2012 is their year, but it can't be if Obama is in the White House. If McCain wins, and the economy continues to falter, and we're still in Iraq in 2012, the Clintons get a chance to ride in and save the day. Who cares if McCain has appointed a Supreme Court justice or two? The Clintons will be back in power, able to build on their legacy of being the biggest powerbroking duo the world has ever seen.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,061
494
126
Originally posted by: QED
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: jonks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_United_Means_Action

In light of recent polls indicating 25% of Hillary supporters will not vote for Obama and their seeming omnipresence, is this enough to sink the dems? TDS had John Oliver interview one of these insane women the other night outside the convention. They are really nutcases. They'd rather have a republican who will appoint conservative judges to the SC whose effect will be felt for decades, cut all the funding for programs that they and Hillary support, fail to remedy the US position in the world by turning over a new leaf, all because their first choice didn't make it.

What a bunch of fucking crybabies.

That said, I feel the same about all the people who said they'd vote McCain instead of Hillary had she won.
I saw that show. While I was disgusted I enjoyed that TDS treated them like children and crybabies because that's exactly what they are. One thing those Hillary supporters should consider is if they are the deciding factor to swing the election in favor of McCain it will likely be the end of their beloved queen's political career. I know I would not forget.
Wat?

A McCain victory (or, more specifically an Obama loss) is in the best interest of the Clintons.

If Obama wins, the Clintons have no shot at moving back into the White House for at least 8 years-- by then, they'll won't represent the "Old Guard" of the Democratic Party, but the "Very Old Guard". How could a 68-year old Hillary presidency compare well to a 40-something year-old Obama presidency? It won't.

The Clintons realize their window of opportunity is closing. 2012 is their year, but it can't be if Obama is in the White House. If McCain wins, and the economy continues to falter, and we're still in Iraq in 2012, the Clintons get a chance to ride in and save the day. Who cares if McCain has appointed a Supreme Court justice or two? The Clintons will be back in power, able to build on their legacy of being the biggest powerbroking duo the world has ever seen.

If McCain wins we will be mostly out of Iraq. At least in terms of what we have been doing. Reduced to a force like Germany. Economy will probably recover just fine in 18-24 months. By 2012 we should be in the middle of good growth.

McCain cant appoint any kind of Alito with a near super majority democrat congress. The best he can do is nominate a moderate that passes the democrat litmus test.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,894
46
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: QED
A McCain victory (or, more specifically an Obama loss) is in the best interest of the Clintons.

If Obama wins, the Clintons have no shot at moving back into the White House for at least 8 years-- by then, they'll won't represent the "Old Guard" of the Democratic Party, but the "Very Old Guard". How could a 68-year old Hillary presidency compare well to a 40-something year-old Obama presidency? It won't.

The Clintons realize their window of opportunity is closing. 2012 is their year, but it can't be if Obama is in the White House. If McCain wins, and the economy continues to falter, and we're still in Iraq in 2012, the Clintons get a chance to ride in and save the day. Who cares if McCain has appointed a Supreme Court justice or two? The Clintons will be back in power, able to build on their legacy of being the biggest powerbroking duo the world has ever seen.
I somewhat agree.

The sun has set on Hillary however Chelsea is another story.
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,030
1
61
I can't help but laugh. With Barr getting 6% of the votes, this election was the Dem's to win.

But look at the Dem's voting record in Congress. The party is anything but united. Their majority in Congress is worthless without unity.
 

RY62

Senior member
Mar 13, 2005
773
32
91
The majority of Senator Clinton's supporters switched support to Obama right away. These people were solid Democrats and their party loyalty was stronger than their loyalty to a candidate.

Many more of her supporters have come back or will be soon coming back due, in no small part, to the recent, persuasive speaches given by Bill and Hillary. These people had a stronger loyalty to the Clintons and, without their persuasion, could've gone either way.

The third group is probably not coming back. The former Clinton supporters who now support McCain are mostly from the center of American politics, where they agree with Clinton on some issues and McCain on other issues. It's not shocking that these people would vote more for the person than the party.

 
Oct 30, 2004
11,429
20
81
Perhaps the PUMAs (Party Unity My Ass) feel that the entire Democratic party and its voter base as a whole deserve to be punished? Also, if Obama loses, Hillary could run again in 2012. Some of these people are fanatical and just want to have a woman president in their lifetime. In fact, I'm surprised they haven't tried to assassinate Obama yet.

The Democrats should win the election by a landslide after the Republicans' performance, but then again, we are talking about the Democrats here. They should have won in 2004 too, but they have a knack for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
18
81
Originally posted by: RY62
The majority of Senator Clinton's supporters switched support to Obama right away. These people were solid Democrats and their party loyalty was stronger than their loyalty to a candidate.

Many more of her supporters have come back or will be soon coming back due, in no small part, to the recent, persuasive speaches given by Bill and Hillary. These people had a stronger loyalty to the Clintons and, without their persuasion, could've gone either way.

The third group is probably not coming back. The former Clinton supporters who now support McCain are mostly from the center of American politics, where they agree with Clinton on some issues and McCain on other issues. It's not shocking that these people would vote more for the person than the party.
PUMA is the third group, and they are not centrists.
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
0
Originally posted by: QED
Originally posted by: Robor
I saw that show. While I was disgusted I enjoyed that TDS treated them like children and crybabies because that's exactly what they are. One thing those Hillary supporters should consider is if they are the deciding factor to swing the election in favor of McCain it will likely be the end of their beloved queen's political career. I know I would not forget.
Wat?

A McCain victory (or, more specifically an Obama loss) is in the best interest of the Clintons.

If Obama wins, the Clintons have no shot at moving back into the White House for at least 8 years-- by then, they'll won't represent the "Old Guard" of the Democratic Party, but the "Very Old Guard". How could a 68-year old Hillary presidency compare well to a 40-something year-old Obama presidency? It won't.

The Clintons realize their window of opportunity is closing. 2012 is their year, but it can't be if Obama is in the White House. If McCain wins, and the economy continues to falter, and we're still in Iraq in 2012, the Clintons get a chance to ride in and save the day. Who cares if McCain has appointed a Supreme Court justice or two? The Clintons will be back in power, able to build on their legacy of being the biggest powerbroking duo the world has ever seen.
I disagree. Obama is up against a guy who is (IMO) a weak candidate. McCain is old, uninspiring, and he's the (R) candidate following what has been called the worst administration in history. Given that alone this election should be a slam dunk for the (D)'s. But of course they have to screw it up. Not only does Obama not have a big lead the idiot (D)'s are battling amongst themselves. Just look at the main topic of the DNC. I didn't watch the entire DNC but much of the coverage I did see was focused on what the Clintons would do. I wonder if they'll be talking about what Romney, Thompson, Giuliani, Paul, etc are going to do at the RNC? I'm guessing not.
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
0
Originally posted by: RY62
The majority of Senator Clinton's supporters switched support to Obama right away. These people were solid Democrats and their party loyalty was stronger than their loyalty to a candidate.

Many more of her supporters have come back or will be soon coming back due, in no small part, to the recent, persuasive speaches given by Bill and Hillary. These people had a stronger loyalty to the Clintons and, without their persuasion, could've gone either way.

The third group is probably not coming back. The former Clinton supporters who now support McCain are mostly from the center of American politics, where they agree with Clinton on some issues and McCain on other issues. It's not shocking that these people would vote more for the person than the party.
I hope you're right regarding the supporters being back or coming back soon. Hillary and Bill gave great speeches and IMO they were genuine in their pleas for party unity.

As far as those refusing to vote Obama, do you think 25% (based on the OP) of the Hillary's supporters fall into that category?
 

QED

Diamond Member
Dec 16, 2005
3,428
3
0
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: QED
Originally posted by: Robor
I saw that show. While I was disgusted I enjoyed that TDS treated them like children and crybabies because that's exactly what they are. One thing those Hillary supporters should consider is if they are the deciding factor to swing the election in favor of McCain it will likely be the end of their beloved queen's political career. I know I would not forget.
Wat?

A McCain victory (or, more specifically an Obama loss) is in the best interest of the Clintons.

If Obama wins, the Clintons have no shot at moving back into the White House for at least 8 years-- by then, they'll won't represent the "Old Guard" of the Democratic Party, but the "Very Old Guard". How could a 68-year old Hillary presidency compare well to a 40-something year-old Obama presidency? It won't.

The Clintons realize their window of opportunity is closing. 2012 is their year, but it can't be if Obama is in the White House. If McCain wins, and the economy continues to falter, and we're still in Iraq in 2012, the Clintons get a chance to ride in and save the day. Who cares if McCain has appointed a Supreme Court justice or two? The Clintons will be back in power, able to build on their legacy of being the biggest powerbroking duo the world has ever seen.
I disagree. Obama is up against a guy who is (IMO) a weak candidate. McCain is old, uninspiring, and he's the (R) candidate following what has been called the worst administration in history. Given that alone this election should be a slam dunk for the (D)'s. But of course they have to screw it up. Not only does Obama not have a big lead the idiot (D)'s are battling amongst themselves. Just look at the main topic of the DNC. I didn't watch the entire DNC but much of the coverage I did see was focused on what the Clintons would do. I wonder if they'll be talking about what Romney, Thompson, Giuliani, Paul, etc are going to do at the RNC? I'm guessing not.

What part of what I said do you disagree with? I agree with just about everything you just said but none of it countered my belief that the Clintons are (not-so) secretly hoping for an Obama loss...

And back to what you did just say, you're right: with the economy and the war in Iraq not going the way people would like, with an administration with an historically low approval rating, with a candidate who is old, uninspiring, and objectionable to those even in his own party, and facing a young, fresh, history-making candidate who speaks well and talks of new ideas and trancending partisan politics-- the Democrats shouldn't have even had to bother campaigning at all this year in the general election. The fact that McCain isn't losing by 20% in spite of his age, his party, his rock-star opponent (and resultant fawning media coverage), and the 2-ton anchor around his neck (named George W. Bush) is a friggin' miracle-- I don't even know what to call the election being this close so far.
 

QED

Diamond Member
Dec 16, 2005
3,428
3
0
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: RY62
The majority of Senator Clinton's supporters switched support to Obama right away. These people were solid Democrats and their party loyalty was stronger than their loyalty to a candidate.

Many more of her supporters have come back or will be soon coming back due, in no small part, to the recent, persuasive speaches given by Bill and Hillary. These people had a stronger loyalty to the Clintons and, without their persuasion, could've gone either way.

The third group is probably not coming back. The former Clinton supporters who now support McCain are mostly from the center of American politics, where they agree with Clinton on some issues and McCain on other issues. It's not shocking that these people would vote more for the person than the party.
I hope you're right regarding the supporters being back or coming back soon. Hillary and Bill gave great speeches and IMO they were genuine in their pleas for party unity.

As far as those refusing to vote Obama, do you think 25% (based on the OP) of the Hillary's supporters fall into that category?

How can you honestly believe the Clintons were being genuine when just 48 hours ago, Bill Clinton was still questioning Obama's leadership ability, and Hillary released her delegates to Obama only after some tense behind-the-scenes negotiations with the Obama camp?
 

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
Originally posted by: bamacre
I can't help but laugh. With Barr getting 6% of the votes, this election was the Dem's to win.

But look at the Dem's voting record in Congress. The party is anything but united. Their majority in Congress is worthless without unity.
This is what annoys me. Why are they criticized and condemned for being able to vote the way they feel is best instead of lockstep like the Repubs?

I would have thought that someone with your posting history would respect the fact that they seem to put their personal views ahead of the party views (especially being the diehard Libertarian you claim to be).

I know that they've gotten less "accomplished" than when the Repubs held control (and we saw what going lockstep with the party can actually do when what you are accomplishing is total disaster), but isn't that really better that you can debate within your own party and ultimately within Congress as a whole to reach conclusions/concessions that work for the most people and not just the most people that voted for our party?
 

lupi

Lifer
Apr 8, 2001
32,539
260
126
I was listening to one of the big pollsters detail the process behind these numbers and said that a victory for the bho campaign would be if they could get that number down to 15%. That's still a lot of people in such a tight race.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
345
126
Originally posted by: bamacre
I can't help but laugh. With Barr getting 6% of the votes, this election was the Dem's to win.

But look at the Dem's voting record in Congress. The party is anything but united. Their majority in Congress is worthless without unity.
No, it still does the most important thing of blocking Bush's rubber stamp.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
345
126
Originally posted by: QED

The Clintons realize their window of opportunity is closing. 2012 is their year, but it can't be if Obama is in the White House. If McCain wins, and the economy continues to falter, and we're still in Iraq in 2012, the Clintons get a chance to ride in and save the day. Who cares if McCain has appointed a Supreme Court justice or two? The Clintons will be back in power, able to build on their legacy of being the biggest powerbroking duo the world has ever seen.
You seem to think the Clintons place their desire for the White House above the national interest of Obama winning. We disagree. You must have some blind hate for them.
 

RY62

Senior member
Mar 13, 2005
773
32
91
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: RY62
The majority of Senator Clinton's supporters switched support to Obama right away. These people were solid Democrats and their party loyalty was stronger than their loyalty to a candidate.

Many more of her supporters have come back or will be soon coming back due, in no small part, to the recent, persuasive speaches given by Bill and Hillary. These people had a stronger loyalty to the Clintons and, without their persuasion, could've gone either way.

The third group is probably not coming back. The former Clinton supporters who now support McCain are mostly from the center of American politics, where they agree with Clinton on some issues and McCain on other issues. It's not shocking that these people would vote more for the person than the party.
PUMA is the third group, and they are not centrists.
PUMA is made up of all types and, from what I've seen, most really are centrist. Some of us are just whacked out nutjobs. :)

Originally posted by: Robor
I hope you're right regarding the supporters being back or coming back soon. Hillary and Bill gave great speeches and IMO they were genuine in their pleas for party unity.

As far as those refusing to vote Obama, do you think 25% (based on the OP) of the Hillary's supporters fall into that category?
Right now, I'd say that's pretty close. If I had to guess I'd say that, in November, it will be somewhere around 15% of her total support base. I'm sure it'll still be a significant number.

Originally posted by: QED
How can you honestly believe the Clintons were being genuine when just 48 hours ago, Bill Clinton was still questioning Obama's leadership ability, and Hillary released her delegates to Obama only after some tense behind-the-scenes negotiations with the Obama camp?
Most of what you think was happening was actually just media hype. The drama was good for the convention with the whole unity and coming together thing. There was never any doubt that the Clintons would fully back Obama. The Clintons are first and foremost Democrats. If they hadn't backed Obama, Senator Clinton wouldn't have stood a chance in 2012.
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,030
1
61
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: bamacre
I can't help but laugh. With Barr getting 6% of the votes, this election was the Dem's to win.

But look at the Dem's voting record in Congress. The party is anything but united. Their majority in Congress is worthless without unity.
No, it still does the most important thing of blocking Bush's rubber stamp.
LOL, Bush can't rubber stamp bills that don't get to him. ;)

But sure, if it makes you feel better, the Democrats are doing a great job, but the evil Bush is raining on their parade.

:laugh:
 

QED

Diamond Member
Dec 16, 2005
3,428
3
0
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: QED

The Clintons realize their window of opportunity is closing. 2012 is their year, but it can't be if Obama is in the White House. If McCain wins, and the economy continues to falter, and we're still in Iraq in 2012, the Clintons get a chance to ride in and save the day. Who cares if McCain has appointed a Supreme Court justice or two? The Clintons will be back in power, able to build on their legacy of being the biggest powerbroking duo the world has ever seen.
You seem to think the Clintons place their desire for the White House above the national interest of Obama winning. We disagree. You must have some blind hate for them.
I think you underestimate the Clinton's desires. I think they believe (and perhaps justifiably so) that the means of an Obama loss now is worth the means of a future Hillary Clinton presidency-- and not just for themselves, but they probably believe it would be in the best interest of the nation. I've heard some conservative poster here say just today that "it took the Jimmy Carter presidency to bring us Ronald Reagan". I don't think it's farfetched for the Clintons to now be thinking "it will take a John McCain presidency to bring us a Hillary Clinton presidency".

If the Clintons first interest was truly electing Barack Obama, there wouldn't have to have been tense negotions for Hillary to release her delegates, and Bill Clinton wouldn't be rhetorically asking just the other day about whether you should vote for Candidate X who agrees with you on every policy issue but due to inexperience cannot deliver on any one them, or Candidate Y who agrees with you on only half the issues but can deliver on every one of them.

If the Clintons first interest was truly electing a Democrat, Hillary would have given up her campaign as soon as it was apparent Obama was going to have enough delegates to win the nomination. Instead, Hillary pressed on for weeks, and instead of Obama being able to take aim at McCain he found himself having to defend himself from Hillary's friendly-fire attacks.

If the Clintons first interest was truly electing Barack Obama, Bill Clinton would've offered a ringing endorsement of Obama's qualifications when specifically asked Tuesday if Obama was prepared enough to be President. Instead, Clinton hesitated, then dodged the question by simply saying "well... you could really say noone is ever prepared enough to be President".
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
18
81
Originally posted by: RY62
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: RY62
The majority of Senator Clinton's supporters switched support to Obama right away. These people were solid Democrats and their party loyalty was stronger than their loyalty to a candidate.

Many more of her supporters have come back or will be soon coming back due, in no small part, to the recent, persuasive speaches given by Bill and Hillary. These people had a stronger loyalty to the Clintons and, without their persuasion, could've gone either way.

The third group is probably not coming back. The former Clinton supporters who now support McCain are mostly from the center of American politics, where they agree with Clinton on some issues and McCain on other issues. It's not shocking that these people would vote more for the person than the party.
PUMA is the third group, and they are not centrists.
PUMA is made up of all types and, from what I've seen, most really are centrist. Some of us are just whacked out nutjobs. :)
So which non-centrist policies that Obama espouses are at such odds with Clinton's that would motivate voting for a member of the opposition party with POLAR oppositve views on almost ALL positions/issues/policies?

Mostly I'm offended by the rationale. A almost = B, but isn't exactly B, so I'll vote for C who is nothing remotely similar to either A or B.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY