• 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?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
0
Originally posted by: QED
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...
What I mean is the only thing holding Obama back from what should be an easy victory is the lack of party unity behind him. Why is the party not united? What made the DNC being more about Obama appeasing the Clintons than focusing on the GE?

Edit: quotes again :eek:
 

BeauJangles

Lifer
Aug 26, 2001
13,941
1
0
Jonks,

It defies logic that these people would vote for a man who is nearly the polar opposite of their viewpoints just because their candidate didn't win.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
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.
Wow, that's so warped I'm getting a brain cramp.

Firstly, you can't *block* a rubber stamp.

Secondly, the lack of any block is referred to as a rubber stamp.

Thirdly, the Repubs are NOT in control of Congress; so there's nothing for him to rubber stamp anyway.

Boy, that's a weird remark.

Fern
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
I don't think a lot of these people are serious about voting for McCain. Makes no sense from an ideological/policy standpoint. It would be devastating to their core beliefs, unless the single and only reason they voted for Hildog in the first place was due to her "experience".
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
0
Originally posted by: QED
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.
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?
The truth is it was a very close race and maybe Hillary wanted something. Who knows what went on behind the scenes? All I'm basing my opinion on is what I saw and IMO their speeches for party unity were moving and inspiring and I took them as genuine. Maybe I'm wrong but I suspect a vast majority of Obama supporters are like me - I liked Bill. I would have liked Hillary. I just like Obama better.

 

Mursilis

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2001
7,756
11
81
Originally posted by: BeauJangles
Jonks,

It defies logic that these people would vote for a man who is nearly the polar opposite of their viewpoints just because their candidate didn't win.
Voters defy logic all the time. Why are you surprised?
 

BeauJangles

Lifer
Aug 26, 2001
13,941
1
0
Originally posted by: Mursilis
Originally posted by: BeauJangles
Jonks,

It defies logic that these people would vote for a man who is nearly the polar opposite of their viewpoints just because their candidate didn't win.
Voters defy logic all the time. Why are you surprised?
Because this election was incredibly important to liberals in this country. Too much Bush, too many Republicans, too many wars, too much debt, etc, etc. Now, all of that has gone by the wayside in favor of a stupid spat.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
345
126
Originally posted by: Fern
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.
Wow, that's so warped I'm getting a brain cramp.

Firstly, you can't *block* a rubber stamp.
Sure you can. You grab the guy's arm before the stamp can stamp the paper.

Or in this case, you prevent there from being a rubber stamp Congress for Bush.

Secondly, the lack of any block is referred to as a rubber stamp.
Yes, and you can block the congress from being one that provides no block to the president.

Thirdly, the Repubs are NOT in control of Congress; so there's nothing for him to rubber stamp anyway.
You don't understand that much of the legislative agenda is initiated by the White House. Technically, they have the leadership of friendly legislators introduce it.

Boy, that's a weird remark.

Fern
Nope.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
72,583
23,665
136
Know what's interesting, I just saw an analysis of polling trends and Obama is actually attracting a higher percentage of Democrats then Kerry did. Sure Kerry lost, but you didn't hear about a fractured party back then did you? Something tells me some talking heads are just in need of something to talking-head about.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
345
126
Originally posted by: bamacre
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:
Well, I was referring to blocking Bush from having a rubber stamp congress, not to Bush being the rubber stamp of Congress' bills.

And actually, the democrats are not doing a 'great job' at not beig a rubber stamp; they're avoiding some of the worse bills, but still appoving too much of his agenda.
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
0
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Know what's interesting, I just saw an analysis of polling trends and Obama is actually attracting a higher percentage of Democrats then Kerry did. Sure Kerry lost, but you didn't hear about a fractured party back then did you? Something tells me some talking heads are just in need of something to talking-head about.
I can't believe you would accuse them of creating a story? No way! They wouldn't do that, would they? :p
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
2
0
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
While I agree with Craigt234, I add the following point.

Even with perfect democratic unity, it was the almost perfect GOP unity that prevented anything from going through the Senate. As the filibuster the GOP wanted to repeal suddenly became the GOP way to gridlock.

And while the democrats had the numbers in the house to force a show down with GWB by stopping all military appropriations, they did not resort to that draconian measure that would have hurt the entire country.

And now we are a little more than 2 months from an election that will determine a new congress and a new President.
 

RY62

Senior member
Mar 13, 2005
773
32
91
Originally posted by: jonks
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.
Originally posted by: BeauJangles
Jonks,

It defies logic that these people would vote for a man who is nearly the polar opposite of their viewpoints just because their candidate didn't win.

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
I don't think a lot of these people are serious about voting for McCain. Makes no sense from an ideological/policy standpoint. It would be devastating to their core beliefs, unless the single and only reason they voted for Hildog in the first place was due to her "experience".
The point you all seem to be missing is that these people don't see McCain as the polar opposite to their "viewpoints" or "core beliefs". The people who see McCain that way will be in line behind Obama.

Most of these voters aren't hard left Dems. They agree with some issues on both sides and could just as easily go in either direction. Unless there is a specific issue that really drives it home, it's pretty much just a popularity contest for these voters.

Many of these voters leaned right in the last 2 elections, giving Bush the edge. Most were unhappy with the results and were willing to lean left for Clinton but maybe not for Obama.

Senator McCain seems to have an edge with these voters and it's not going to be easy for Obama to win them. He should probably forget them and concentrate on making sure the youth vote shows up this time.

 

QED

Diamond Member
Dec 16, 2005
3,428
3
0
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Know what's interesting, I just saw an analysis of polling trends and Obama is actually attracting a higher percentage of Democrats then Kerry did. Sure Kerry lost, but you didn't hear about a fractured party back then did you? Something tells me some talking heads are just in need of something to talking-head about.
I can't believe you would accuse them of creating a story? No way! They wouldn't do that, would they? :p
Too bad it's not true...

Kerry got 91% of the Democratic vote in 2004.

Obama is currently just getting 78%. Even worse, his support among women is relatively weak (just a point or two above John McCain)-- victorious Democrats usually enjoy a 10 to 15% point advantage with women.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY