| Author |
|
Thom Price
Byrne Robotics Member
L’Homme Diabolique
Joined: 29 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 7592
|
| Posted: 13 March 2008 at 5:18pm | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
I guess my math was off on that one - it was a gut-reaction post - but even by your math, if you remove the black voters, it's not like he's suddenly way behind
****
I've never said he would be. Everything doesn't have to be so extreme. Saying he wouldn't be "in the same position" is not the same as saying he would be "way behind."
Earlier in the season, I would probably have shifted my vote -- if not my loyalty -- to Obama if Clinton had dropped out of the race. Now, if it came down to Obama vs McCain, I would vote for McCain -- and I've never voted Republican before, in any election. It's not Obama himself that drove me away; at worst, I think he's harmless. It's his followers that are pushing me. Earlier in the thread, someone made a comparison between Obama's followers and a cult. That comparison is too harsh ... and yet, I get the same vibe from Obama's more ardent supporters that I do from Scientologists: the same condescending certainty that only they know the secrets to the universe and everyone else is an ignoramus, and the same overzealousness not backed up by facts.
No matter how hard Obama's followers try to shape it, the outcome of this race is far from determined. Obama has less than a 3% lead over Clinton in the Popular Vote; with Pennsylvania coming up, that could easily shift (in either direction!) In the Pledged Delegates, his lead is more decisive (approximately 13%) but at this point it's obviously not going to come down to Pledge Votes to make the determination. With Super Delegates counted, his lead drops to 8% -- and, again, that could shift in either direction. Clinton's supporters are dismissed as a "small band" (12.6 million people!) while Obama 13.3 million is presented as an overwhelming tidal wave of support.
We have people in this thread insisting that only Obama has a chance to defeat McCain in the general election; that's nothing more than a personal bias masquerading as an informed theory. Polls indicate that either Clinton or Obama would defeat McCain if the election were held now; Obama usually has a slightly larger margin than Clinton, but that lead is negligible.
Clinton's followers are told were should fall in behind Obama for "the good of the party," while Obama's supporters are making it clear they'll go on a rampage and leave the party in a huff if their candidate doesn't win. Why the double standard?
None of this is to disparage Obama's success; he has performed an amazingly impressive feat. From being a virtual unknown, he has grown to command the support of half the Democratic Party. But that's all it is: half. The fat lady hasn't sung yet.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
Mike O'Brien
Byrne Robotics Member
Official JB Historian
Joined: 18 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 10927
|
| Posted: 13 March 2008 at 5:51pm | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
"Why the double standard?"
Over time, political parties evolve and change - what passes for Democrat and Republican today aren't what they were known for a generation before, nor the generation before that.
Now, having said that, let me seque for a moment - at election time, there's always someone who smugly points out that they are above voting for the party, that it's foolish to stick with the party and not the candidate, but the problem with that is, by and large, your views are probably in line with one party or the other, and thus, that is why you support that ticket. I support the Democratic ticket because I believe, basically, in government from the bottom up as opposed to top down. There are various minor twists in the road - I don't agree with everything the Democrats stand for, and I do agree with some things the Republicans support, and the extreme fringes on both sides are things I want nothing to do with, but by and large, the basic tennants of the party are things I agree with.
Having said that, Hillary Clinton's voting record shows that she does not hold with the beliefs of what I look for in the Democratic party. Not only does she fall in line with Republicans on most of her votes, she (& her husband) seem to follow the idea of government from the top down, as opposed to bottom up.
When I say that I can't vote for Hillary because she's a Republican, it's not some blind loyalty to the Democratic ticket or blind hatred for Republicans, it's that, based on her voting record and experience, I can not bring myself to support her.
It seems that slightly less than half my fellow Democrats see this the way I do - I don't know why anyone would support Hillary, but many do. I would like to think they would vote in the best interest of the nation and support Obama, but I'd like to think all Americans would do that, not just Hillary supporters.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Horace Austin
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 03 November 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 634
|
| Posted: 13 March 2008 at 6:04pm | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
Republicans for Hillary?
http://www.blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/03/1 3/mississippi-republicans-for-hillary-what-gives.aspx
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Mike O'Brien
Byrne Robotics Member
Official JB Historian
Joined: 18 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 10927
|
| Posted: 13 March 2008 at 6:16pm | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
That brings up something I've been debating - I didn't want to post it here because this has been an oddly civil election thread - and this could be kind of snarky, but...
Yeah, there's been this push from a lot of the right wing media personalities supporting Clinton - Rush and Coulter have full on told people to vote for her, Hannity still refers to her as the candidate, etc - and the logic is that they're playing the part of spioler - that it's some Rovian plan to put the Democrats in dissaray, but... I have other thoughts....
Now, I've been curious about why the right hates the Clintons so much, considering how much the Clintons are basically right wingers - that's never made sense to me and still doesn't. Maybe they just don't like them personally - that would make sesne, but none of their policies or votes are ever what you'd call Democratic party votes or policies. So, that's been odd - but I don't think the right is supporting Clinton because she votes in their best interest... I think it's more bizarre than that...
I think the right - at least the media right - support Clinton because - and I know this sounds simplistic, but it's still cooking in my head, so stick with me here - because Clinton was SUPPOSED to be the next President, and that's how they want it. The Corporate Media has been talking about the Hillary Clinton Presidency since the 90's like it's a done deal - I'm not suggesting some Masonic Cabal (well, I can personally vouch for that one - my brothers have nothing to do with this) - but it's been in the media for years, and I think people have just basically planned for it - I suspect that whole arcs for radio shows and whole years worth of columns will have to be re-written now by the Rush's and Coulter's and Hannity's out there. I think they were banking on this happening, and were really caught off-gaurd by Obama doing so well.
Just a thought...
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Horace Austin
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 03 November 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 634
|
| Posted: 13 March 2008 at 6:46pm | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
Now, I've been curious about why the right hates the Clintons so much, considering how much the Clintons are basically right wingers - that's never made sense to me and still doesn't.
***
My two cents:
Remember the speech Pat Buchanan gave at the 1992 GOP Convetion in Houston when he talked about a culture war in the country? Buchanan compared Clinton (the Oxford guy who inhaled and didn't serve in Vietnam) to Bush, Sr. (who was shot down in WWII). He said that Clinton didn't have the moral authority to be Commander-in-Chief. Buchanan also went on about Hillary Clinton and feminism. I think to some extent the tone was set there.
http://www.buchanan.org/pa-92-0817-rnc.html
I think The Right is pissed that (a) Clinton was elected twice (the 2nd time, in a landslide over Dole, another WWII veteran) and that (b) a majority of the American people didn't demand that he resign after the Lewinsky scandal.
New Democrats. As far as policies go, the Clintons come out of the DLC (Democractic Leadership Council), a moderate arm of the Democratic Party. Pres. Clinton did support welfare reform which nearly all Republicans supported and which many, if not most Dems, opposed. Pres. Clinton also pushed through NAFTA with an odd coalition of more Republican support than Dem support in Congress.
Ronald Reagan is a symbol of the modern Republican Party. I think the Clintons are seen as a symbol of the modern Democratic Party, even though their policies are not always liberal.
Edited by Horace Austin on 13 March 2008 at 7:08pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Neil Lindholm
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 12 January 2005
Location: China
Posts: 4943
|
| Posted: 13 March 2008 at 7:04pm | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
Ah, but are you privy to the upper echelon's ultimate secrets and grand plan, the overall subjugation of the world? What would the Knight Kadosh or the Sublime Prince of the Royal Secret have to say about that?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Christopher Alan Miller
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 26 October 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 2787
|
| Posted: 13 March 2008 at 7:08pm | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
Clinton had a comfortable win over Dole but it was hardly a landslide. Reagan/Mondale was a landslide.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Horace Austin
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 03 November 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 634
|
| Posted: 13 March 2008 at 7:12pm | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
I'll concede that.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Jason Czeskleba
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 30 April 2004
Posts: 4638
|
| Posted: 13 March 2008 at 7:14pm | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
Thom Price wrote:
| Earlier in the season, I would probably have shifted my vote -- if not
my loyalty -- to Obama if Clinton had dropped out of the race. Now, if
it came down to Obama vs McCain, I would vote for McCain -- and I've
never voted Republican before, in any election. |
|
|
I really don't understand this line of thinking. Ultimately, it's the policies that matter, not the personalities. And in this case it's not even Obama's personality you find objectionable, but that of his supporters. You would really vote for someone whose policies you disagree with more, simply because you don't like the attitude of Obama's supporters? That's incomprehensible to me.
If Clinton wins the nomination I will be disappointed. Primarily because I want a Democrat to win and I am skeptical she can. I also have not liked the way she has conducted her campaign in many ways. At the same time, I will certainly vote for her. She would be the candidate most likely to pursue an agenda I support, and that matters much more than her personality or that of her more strident and dislikeable supporters.
The things you find fault with Obama supporters for... condescension, entitlement, certainty only their candidate can win... I have seen the same attitudes from a great many Clinton supporters. I don't think there is that huge a disparity in degree of those attitudes between each camp. The campaign has become heated and both sides have followers that display ugly attitudes.
QUOTE:
| Clinton's followers are told were should
fall in behind Obama for "the good of the party," while Obama's
supporters are making it clear they'll go on a rampage and leave the
party in a huff if their candidate doesn't win. Why the double
standard? |
|
|
Yet ironically, you (a Clinton supporter) are the one saying you will leave the party in a huff if your preferred candidate does not win. Whereas I (an Obama supporter) am not.
For what it's worth, according to this survey, it is Clinton supporters who are more likely to vote Republican if Hillary does not win (25% say they will, whereas only 10% of Obama supporters say they will). I don't know how much stock I'd put in such surveys at this point anyway... I think the heatedness of the primary contest is causing people to express those kind of threats in surveys but I'd question whether they will really carry them out. It's cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Edited by Jason Czeskleba on 13 March 2008 at 7:27pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Thom Price
Byrne Robotics Member
L’Homme Diabolique
Joined: 29 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 7592
|
| Posted: 13 March 2008 at 7:46pm | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
QUOTE:
| You would really vote for someone whose policies you disagree with, simply because you don't like the attitude of Obama's supporters? |
|
|
You're reading an awful lot between the lines. For one, who says I disagree with McCain's policies? Far as I can tell, he's a pretty moderate Republican and I consider myself very much middle-of-the road. If the election were held right now, I would give McCain more than a passing glance even if he were up against Clinton. My fear with McCain is that he will, like almost every other Republican, have to sell his soul to the Religious Right; that would preclude me from casting a vote for him. Since that hasn't happened, as far as I know, I would vote for McCain over Obama if the election were held now.
Nothing about Obama particularly impresses me. I'm not impressed by his experience, I'm not swayed by his charisma, and I find him promises of change to be vague at best. Combine that with a general unease with his followers, and I am indeed very disinclined to vote for him.
QUOTE:
| Yet ironically, you (a Clinton supporter) are the one saying you will leave the party in a huff if your preferred candidate does not win. |
|
|
I wasn't aware that a one-time vote for another candidate was akin to leaving the party; did I sign some kind of agreement to never, under any circumstamce, vote for a Republican when I registered as a Democrat? Mike (I believe) stated quite strongly that he will leave the party if Obama is not the candidate; that, to me, is a huff. I don't see voting for Republican, one time, as a being in the same league.
My continued involvement in this thread is somewhat amusing to me; I don't regard myself as being a particularly politically inclined person. I'm just weary of seeing the drastic overstatements of Obama's success that are presented in this thread regularly. In some vague, selfish way, I wish Clinton would drop out -- then I could tune this election out completely, and focus my attention and funds somewhere else.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
Lance Edwards
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 12 March 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 2
|
| Posted: 13 March 2008 at 7:47pm | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
First, let me apologize for the length of this message. I'm a long time lurker, but this threat made me come out of hiding. I wanted to respond yesterday, but there's a 24 hour waiting period, so I've responded to quite a few things.
To claim that Barack doesn't have the black vote at the moment would be to deny reality. But to claim that if one "took away the black vote he wouldn't be in the same position" is a bit disingenuous.
Below are a list of 21 states with low to nonexistent black populations (or winning percentages that would outweigh all or the majority of the black population shifting sides).
State Margain of Victory
Alaska 50%
Colorado 35%
Connecticut 04%
Delaware 10%
Hawaii 52%
Delaware 10%
Idaho 62%
Illinois 32%
Iowa 9%
Kansas 48%
Maine 19%
Maryland 23%
Minnesota 34%
Nebraska 36%
North Dakota 24%
Utah 18%
Vermont 20%
Virgina 29%
Washington &n bsp; 37%
Wisconsin 17%
Wyoming 23%
Do you really think blacks carried him to victory in these states?
Also, wasn't it just 4 months ago that people were asking if Barack was black enough? According to this article, Clinton had the advantage amoung black voters by 24% (57- 33) in October. This demographic started to favor Obama once the new year began, dramatically so after Super Tuesday, but the number only reached 90% most likely due to Ferraro's comments.
Thom Price wrote:
Earlier in the season, I would probably have shifted my vote -- if not
my loyalty -- to Obama if Clinton had dropped out of the race. Now, if
it came down to Obama vs McCain, I would vote for McCain -- and I've
never voted Republican before, in any election. It's not Obama himself
that drove me away; at worst, I think he's harmless. It's his
followers that are pushing me. Earlier in the thread, someone made a
comparison between Obama's followers and a cult. That comparison is
too harsh ... and yet, I get the same vibe from Obama's more ardent
supporters that I do from Scientologists: the same condescending
certainty that only they know the secrets to the universe and everyone
else is an ignoramus, and the same overzealousness not backed up by
facts.
|
|
|
Please don't let Obama's followers push you towards McCain. I won't try to argue why he has such ardent followers, I'll just say that if you have liberal views and opinions, then you should vote for either Democratic nominee. Not out of loyalty to the party (i'm an independent) but because this is a very important election. Think about Iraq. Think about the Supreme Court. Stevens is 87! Ginsburg is 74! Kennedy is 71. Breyer is 69. Souter is 68. These individuals will be replaced in the next 4-8 years and I can guarantee the type of judge McCain will choose. You won't like them.
Thom Price wrote:
We have people in this thread insisting that only Obama has a chance to
defeat McCain in the general election; that's nothing more than a
personal bias masquerading as an informed theory. Polls indicate that
either Clinton or Obama would defeat McCain if the election were held
now; Obama usually has a slightly larger margin than Clinton, but that
lead is negligible.
|
|
|
Most followers of Obama aren't going to rampage if Clinton gets the nomination. I think individuals (me along with them) will be upset if Clinton gets the nomination despite having lost more states, the popular vote and among pledged delegates. If the supers hand her the election at that point I will be very upset with the democratic party. As I described earlier, this election is too important for me to vote for McCain, but such an occurrence would taint any future democratic candidates for me.
Thom Price wrote:
Clinton's followers are told were should fall in behind Obama for "the
good of the party," while Obama's supporters are making it clear
they'll go on a rampage and leave the party in a huff if their
candidate doesn't win. Why the double standard?
|
|
|
I think Obama supporters were calling for Clinton to withdraw before Ohio because, honestly, if the circumstances had been reversed and he was ~140 pledged delegates behind and on a 11 state losing streak, most everyone would've been asking him to bow out.
And I know she'll make the "she's won the big states" argument. But in what universe do you anticipate California, Massachusetts, New Jersey or New York going Republican? The states she's won are important, but they're also givens in the election. With Obama there's a definite possibility of the midwest and some of the southern states switching sides.
If you've you've ever seen CNN on an election night, they love to pull up a map and show you various delegate scenarios. Basically, to overcome Obama in pledged delegates Clinton will have to win almost every contest and by large margins 65-35. These are the kind of margins that Obama does occasionally (again, see above), but that Clinton's only really managed in Arkansas. So, come August, he'll have this in his favor.
There are ten contests remaining. Even if Clinton wins all of the remaining contests, Obama will still have won the most states/territories.
That leaves the popular vote. According to this he's up by about 700k. Clinton will win Pa. It's a done deal. The only question is, by how much? Even if Penn is a disaster, I don't think she'll win by a large enough margin to overtake him there. Her greatest wins - as far as pop vote - have been in New York and California (317k and 427k respectively). If he doesn't take all the other remaining contests, he'll do well enough to maintain at least a 200k lead.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Lance Edwards
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 12 March 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 2
|
| Posted: 13 March 2008 at 8:03pm | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
Thom Price wrote:
My fear with
McCain is that he will, like almost every other Republican, have to
sell his soul to the Religious Right; that would preclude me from
casting a vote for him. Since that hasn't happened, as far as I know,
I would vote for McCain over Obama if the election were held now.
|
|
|
I think the radical/moderate McCain is already gone.
A few issues:
Abortion
1999-“in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support
repeal of Roe v. Wade.” because it would force “women in America to
[undergo] illegal and dangerous operations.”
Now- For a constitutional amendment banning abortion except in the case
of "Rape, incest and the life of the mother." As well as saying
"Supreme Court should — could overturn Roe v. Wade" which he supports.
Taxes
2001- Bush's tax plan- "I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut
in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us, at
the expense of middle class Americans who most need tax relief."
2003- the acceleration and continuation of those tax cuts- McCain [paraphrased]- taxes should not be cut in a time of war.
2005- switched his vote to extend the tax cuts, as not doing so would "amount to a tax increase."
While running in the primary, promises to cut taxes and escalate the
war. From his website- "...there are simply not enough American forces
in Iraq." "John McCain will repeal this onerous tax [ Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)]" and "...make it harder to raise taxes, requiring a 3/5 majority to do so."
Religious Right
2000- Jerry Falwell is “an agent of intolerance.” (for those who do not
remember, Falwell is the man who claimed that the US "deserved" the 9/11
attacks for having ACLU, abortionists, feminists, gays, and the People
For the American Way in our country.)
2006- Gives commencement speech at Liberty University (Falwell's school) and in general acts chummy towards him.
Torture
2005- "We've sent a message to the world that the United States is not
like the terrorists. We have no grief for them, but what we are is a
nation that upholds values and standards of behavior and treatment of
all people, no matter how evil or bad they are," McCain
said. "I think that this will help us enormously in winning the war for
the hearts and minds of people throughout the world in the war on
terror."
In October 2007, John McCain stated of waterboarding that, "They [other
presidential candidates] should know what it is. It is not a
complicated procedure. It is torture."
Feb 13 2007- McCain voted against an intelligence bill that would have banned the CIA from waterboarding suspects.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
|
|
Topic Closed)
