| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
 Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 7:56 am Post subject: If you think Clinton is dragging out the primaries . . . |
 |
|
. . . you are ergo an Obama supporter.
Clinton may compete until she is defeated. Obama could still make a mistake and alienate the electorate. Many states still have not voted. Polls are not fate; they are indicators of election results if the election were to be held on the day of the poll.
Will Obama be damaged by the primary? Stillnotking explains why any possible damage would not be substantial or decisive for the General Elections.
That is all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Funkdafied
Joined: 04 Nov 2007
Location: In Da House
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 7:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I dissagree with your opening sentence. One could easily be a Hillary supporter who nevertheless feels that for Hillary to go on is hurting the party more than it is worth. After all, a Hillary supporter is still a democrat, and wants what's best for the party. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 8:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Funkdafied wrote: |
| One could easily be a Hillary supporter who nevertheless feels that for Hillary to go on is hurting the party more than it is worth. After all, a Hillary supporter is still a democrat, and wants what's best for the party. |
Then that person would support Obama on the theory of electability, becoming an Obama supporter. Why vote for Hillary if you're a Democrat first and foremost and you think she is hurting the party? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Funkdafied
Joined: 04 Nov 2007
Location: In Da House
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 8:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| This is becoming semantics. But one could easily chose to vote for Obama, while still in thier heart feeling loyalty for Hillary. This would make one not so much "an Obama supporter" as a "Hillary supporter who also happens to be a true democrat and good patriot". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 8:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Funkdafied wrote: |
| One could easily chose to vote for Obama, while still in thier heart feeling loyalty for Hillary. This would make one not so much "an Obama supporter" as a "Hillary supporter who also happens to be a true democrat and good patriot". |
So a Hillary supporter who votes Obama is a true democrat and a good patriot?
Again, there's no evidence to support that. It's Obama spin. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stillnotking
Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Location: Oregon, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 8:46 am Post subject: Re: If you think Clinton is dragging out the primaries . . . |
|
|
Yeah, but then again I could be wrong. I certainly don't think it helps to have a dragged-out, bitter primary where one candidate is deliberately attempting to undermine the other candidate's chances in the general election.
Sure, I don't think she can do it. That doesn't mean I think it's OK for her to try. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 9:01 am Post subject: Re: If you think Clinton is dragging out the primaries . . . |
|
|
| stillnotking wrote: |
Yeah, but then again I could be wrong. I certainly don't think it helps to have a dragged-out, bitter primary where one candidate is deliberately attempting to undermine the other candidate's chances in the general election.
|
The Obama spin par excellence: polls are fate and Clinton has no chance, therefore her campaign is destructive.
Why doesn't Obama use his new politics to make the campaign magically un-devisive? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stillnotking
Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Location: Oregon, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 9:12 am Post subject: Re: If you think Clinton is dragging out the primaries . . . |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| stillnotking wrote: |
Yeah, but then again I could be wrong. I certainly don't think it helps to have a dragged-out, bitter primary where one candidate is deliberately attempting to undermine the other candidate's chances in the general election.
|
The Obama spin par excellence: polls are fate and Clinton has no chance, therefore her campaign is destructive. |
Polls? Who's talking about polls? This is an election, and the decisive majority of the votes have already been cast.
I wouldn't say she has no chance. Obama could fall afoul of some massive scandal that would precipitate his withdrawal from the race. In that case, though, Clinton would be the obvious choice for nominee whether she had formally withdrawn her own candidacy or not.
| Quote: |
| Why doesn't Obama use his new politics to make the campaign magically un-devisive? |
He's doing his best. Sadly he is not actually magical; perhaps you have confused his supporters with Rush Limbaugh? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 9:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I just did a personal projection into an alternate reality where the date is the same and the situation is reversed - Obama's down 120 delegates after pledged and superdelegates are added up, and there are only 10 states left. Rush Limbaugh is telling people to register Democrat for a day to vote for Obama and McCain is sneaking up in the polls as a result of the sniping. In this situation I would definitely be writing here that it's time for Obama to give up for the good of the party even though he's my preferred candidate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 9:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mithridates wrote: |
| In this situation I would definitely be writing here that it's time for Obama to give up for the good of the party even though he's my preferred candidate. |
| SNK wrote: |
| the decisive majority of the votes have already been cast |
Mith,
Obama doesn't have enough pledged delegates to win yet.
This 'good of the party' argument is such crap.
SNK,
The decisive majority hasn't been decisive, which is why we still have an election. Obama doesn't have enough pledged delegates to win yet.
The superdelegates can end this at any time. They don't seem to agree with Camp Obama's meme that having PA, NC, IN, OR, KY, etc vote would destroy the party. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stillnotking
Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Location: Oregon, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 9:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| mithridates wrote: |
| In this situation I would definitely be writing here that it's time for Obama to give up for the good of the party even though he's my preferred candidate. |
| SNK wrote: |
| the decisive majority of the votes have already been cast |
Mith,
Obama doesn't have enough pledged delegates to win yet.
This 'good of the party' argument is such crap.
SNK,
The decisive majority hasn't been decisive, which is why we still have an election. Obama doesn't have enough pledged delegates to win yet.
The superdelegates can end this at any time. They don't seem to agree with Camp Obama's meme that having PA, NC, IN, OR, KY, etc vote would destroy the party. |
Camp Obama said that having Oregon vote would destroy the party? I live in Oregon! Those bastards! Give me the link and Obama loses my support for good!
Seriously, you're just being silly at this point. Clinton cannot overcome Obama's lead in pledged delegates. She would need to win more than sixty percent of the pledged delegates from every remaining state. So far she has done this in exactly one state. Arkansas.
Nobody, not even the Clinton campaign or the hardest of hard-core Clinton supporters, thinks that she can have the lead in elected delegates at the convention. That being the case, yes, it's time for her to withdraw. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 9:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| mithridates wrote: |
| In this situation I would definitely be writing here that it's time for Obama to give up for the good of the party even though he's my preferred candidate. |
| SNK wrote: |
| the decisive majority of the votes have already been cast |
Mith,
Obama doesn't have enough pledged delegates to win yet.
This 'good of the party' argument is such crap. |
That's Richardson's argument, your favorite dem, and someone who knows the Clintons far better than you or I ever will. How is it that your judgment is superior? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 10:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mithridates wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| mithridates wrote: |
| In this situation I would definitely be writing here that it's time for Obama to give up for the good of the party even though he's my preferred candidate. |
| SNK wrote: |
| the decisive majority of the votes have already been cast |
Mith,
Obama doesn't have enough pledged delegates to win yet.
This 'good of the party' argument is such crap. |
That's Richardson's argument, your favorite dem, and someone who knows the Clintons far better than you or I ever will. How is it that your judgment is superior? |
Fallacy of argument by authority. Richardson is but one superdelegate, among many who have waited to endorse.
| SNK wrote: |
| Seriously, you're just being silly at this point. Clinton cannot overcome Obama's lead in pledged delegates. She would need to win more than sixty percent of the pledged delegates from every remaining state. So far she has done this in exactly one state. Arkansas. |
I'm being silly.
None of this changes the fact that Obama does not have an automatic mandate. With a 52-47 lead in the popular vote, Obama does not have a clear lead.
Clinton's popularity is not blameworthy, no matter how much Obama's surrogates would want to make it so. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 10:04 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
A couple of things:
1) The superdelegates aren't supposed to vote until the convention. All of their declaring/promising and whatnot is an abuse of the role they are supposed to play. People were concerned about their choices, and now their choices are influencing the outcome before the voters have finished.
2) I still think this is providing free advertising while McCain sits off to the side.
3) I kind of want it to continue just for the sake of history and we can all see how the primary process works from beginning to end.
4) If you don't want this dragged out further, then the problem is with the primary process more than it is with the candidates. In addition to changing the primary order, should primary dates be changed? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 10:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| mithridates wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| mithridates wrote: |
| In this situation I would definitely be writing here that it's time for Obama to give up for the good of the party even though he's my preferred candidate. |
| SNK wrote: |
| the decisive majority of the votes have already been cast |
Mith,
Obama doesn't have enough pledged delegates to win yet.
This 'good of the party' argument is such crap. |
That's Richardson's argument, your favorite dem, and someone who knows the Clintons far better than you or I ever will. How is it that your judgment is superior? |
Fallacy of argument by authority. Richardson is but one superdelegate, among many who have waited to endorse. |
I'll see your fallacy of argument by authority and raise you one cherry picking. What I'm asking you is why you've suddenly decided that Richardson doesn't know what he's talking about after pining away for him for so long here on the forums. How is he qualified in your mind to lead the country as commander in chief for the next four years, but not qualified to comment on the democratic race to the extent that his view is 'such crap'? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
