You mean like Virginia? And Missouri? And Wisconsin? And North Carolina?
DrDeth, Elvis, and any others who support Hillary. In case there is a need for any evidence of the harm that the ongoing process is causing -
Meanwhile McCain is increasingly viewed favorably. Obama and Clinton supporters are too busy trying to make each other’s preferred candidate unelectable to cohesively build a case against him. Who needs Swiftboaters when the Dems will do it to themselves?
Will there be enough time to resolve the bitterness increasingly being felt by both sides? Or will this divisive process result in a lower turn-out of Democrats in November with reprecussions in Congressional elections as well as at the top of the ticket? BobLib may be right, an Obama candidacy that loses may be the next best thing for her personal ambitions to her getting the nod, but the harm to the Party (and I believe the country) grows the longer this goes on.
I understand holding out hope for a Clinton blow-out in PA (despite the polling that shows that Obama has maintained his numbers when all is said and done) but surely there is some hypothetical point at which her chances of getting the nom are so small that the good of the party and the country calls for her plug to be pulled?
Obama could have helped avoid that by not avoiding the MI and FL revote efforts, instead letting them die without his support hoping “The Monster” would go away and die. He’d have a bunch more delegates and might have wrapped this thing up already, huh?
But I do realize that, for you, everything is always her fault anyway.
Take a look at the daily Rasmussens for a less-filtered perspective on “the will of the people”, btw.
Gotta love a CIC who’s unaware of what “landing under sniper fire” and “there was no greeting ceremony, and we basically were told to run to our cars. Now, that is what happened,” really mean.
Yep, no doubt she’s prepared “from day one” to answer the “three AM call.” In her distorted and danger-filled dreams, obviously.
:rolleyes:
According to you, not at all. Even if you still can’t make yourself acknowledge it, we both know why you think so, though, and I’ve already put it into plain words for the rest of us.
Toss the mess and revote, as has been said here often enough that you should have grasped it by now. But he’d have to support doing that, actually providing some uniting leadership, instead of stalling and rationalizing with the same sort of pseudo-helpless handwringing we see so enthusiastically endorse here by so many of his supporters here.
Now maybe someday you can accept that the possibility that your guy just might lose does not make a course of action the wrong thing for the country. You hated Bush’s doing that in Florida in 2000, didn’t you? Was that in fact based on any higher principle than winning?
:rolleyes: Dude. We *both * know your asinine little comment had only one possible meaning. You may not have thought it through first, but it’s still there in this thread, and you do need to accept responsibility for it instead of playing this petulant little game of projection, m’kay? :dubious:
Would you prefer a guy who has a bulletproof vest and a heavily-armed Marine escort with him to prove it’s safe to stroll through a Baghdad street market?
Is there a reason why this question is addressed to me?
You thought that was great? Wait till you see his encore performance in Tehran.
IOW, an approach you don’t like. Sorry.
DSYoung, Esquire, the arbiter of good taste.
The weekend esquire just came out to say, “get off my lawn!” 
This is a lot of pop-psych in lieu of a rebuttal.
You see, I’m not complaining about your whining. AFAIAC, you’re welcome to whine all you want; you’ve paid your money to post here, same as I have.
But thanks for switching back to looking down your nose. Variety is the spice of life. 
No, I’d be perfectly happy to count it per the plan I offered.
The problem is getting the rest of the world to agree on it.
Let’s see: you can explain why I do think the things I *don’t *think.
That’s one hell of a talent. Can you also explain why lead is lighter than helium?
Grasped it? I was proposing that several weeks back, before it was cool. Back when today was a long way off, I was proposing that FL revote today, and that MI revote in two weeks.
At no point have I been against a revote.
Can I ask one simple question: WTF are you talking about?
Seriously, I can’t rebut this because I have no fucking idea what you’re saying. You’re not making any sense whatsoever that I can figure out.
This must be related so something. How it connects with anything I’ve said, any position I’m defending, is something I’m missing.
Thanks, but I meant what I said I meant, and I backed it up with statistics. You’ve not bothered to rebut, preferring to play word games instead.
Oh
My
God!
FOR THE FOURTH TIME IN THIS THREAD ALONE. . .
FLORIDA VOTERS DON’T WANT A RE-VOTE.
Now has it been said often enough that you have grasped it by now?
Shayna, you’re a dear, sweet person and no one is on your side more than I am…but you should catch your breath and try to let your blood pressure go down.
Emulate Senator Obama.
Umm Elvis, if you had bothered to check my link was from Rasmussen. :rolleyes:
Anyway, debating the blame for the debacle that is Florida and Michigan, and the appropriate response that is leadership, has been done. We have each expressed our POVs and suffice it to say we differ.
Let us live within your version of reality for a minute and explore where we go from here. Assume for this discussion that Obama could have and should have made real votes happen and count but that he manipulated events so that they would not. Bad Obama. Nevertheless there are now facts on the ground as they say. Florida and Michigan will only get their delegates seated after a presumptive nominee requests it and not before. Bad Obama and bad Dean will not allow it any other way. A brokered convention keeps them unseated. And resentful. Hillary’s chances to get a sliver ahead in the popular vote, even counting FL, is very small, requires a blow-out in PA with solid wins thereafter, and her chance to get the pledged delegate count under 100 is well nigh impossible. Without both of those her chance of getting the supers to go to her by two to one either before or during a convetion is a virtual impossibility. Thank bad Pelosi for that if you must. And the facts on the ground are as they are. Obama isn’t being hurt much but he is being hurt. The divisiveness will increasingly hurt the party’s overall prospects. The longer it goes the more McCain and all Republicans benefit. Best case for them is a brokered convention, but any prolongation at all is gravy.
Is your reality such that Obama is so bad that most likely helping assure a McCain victory and a less Democratic Congress is preferable?
Do you agree with DrDeth that the race should go on no matter how unlikely a Hillary victory becomes and no matter how much harm it risks to the party overall until it is literally impossible for her to prevail?
Shayna. He’s a Hillary supporter. And, it seems that like her, he doesn’t care what the voters want, he just wants her to win. If a vote can be brought before the people of Florida, she will have a chance to win it. Therefore, he will beat this horse until it’s dead, and then again some.
It also gives him something to hang his hat on in order to argue that all is not lost.
You would probably be well served not take him so seriously.
It does *not * suffice. It is a matter of fact, not opinion. One cannot merely “differ”, in the way Bush “differs” with the facts about Iraq. Yet that’s what you’re reduced to.
I have a “fuck off” loaded, cocked, and aimed after that one. But yes, let’s see where you’re headed, if only for amusement …
Oh yes, it’s all about your guy winning, at whatever cost, isn’t it? Nothing in there about uniting, or leading, or not being an old-style pol, or anything of the sort. Just counting his own votes and not counting the other candidate’s. Got it.
That’s real inspirational. Must make your chest swell with pride.
Remember that “fuck off” I had ready? :rolleyes:
When come back, be serious.
Starving Artist, you’d do better to try to explain to her yourself about the difference between “party leadership” and “voters”. She’s quite badly confused about it. Or are you as well?
And that’s where this “leadership” stuff that’s all the rage these days comes in. Or doesn’t, in this case.
You said what you said, and have provided no alternative meanings other than the one I already explained. But at least you’ve given up that extraordinarily silly claim that I said it.
But at no point have you been willing to support the efforts it would take to get one, either, or critical of those in a position to do so who have not done so. What should one believe of you, then?
Then take a moment to think.
It’s called “communication”. It’s what we *do * here. Well, maybe this *is * your level of communication after all.
TWEEEET!
All right.
Not one more characterizartion of what any poster thinks of another poster’s logic, grasp of the facts, or personal ability to conduct themselves.
We are about to ban all discussion of the election until after the conventions if you people cannot behave in a rational manner. (Then we’‘ll have to do it over for the election, but we’ll have a few days’ peace before you each get wound up, again.) Go fight about whether god exists or something.
Yeeesh!
[ /Moderating ]
Well Elvis for the sake of the attempt at communication, let us pretend to agree that what you say is fact is indeed fact, and that my disputing that is Bushian.
What parts of the offered up “facts on the ground” do you think are inaccurate?
Do you think that an Obama who has manipulated events to block the voters of Florida and Michigan from having any say, and Dean (who together are assured of dominating the Rules committee) will allow the delegates to be seated in a brokered convention?
Do you think that there is a math error? Have you done calculations that get Hillary to a popular vote lead (counting Florida and the caucus states) without a PA blow-out and solid wins in most sates from there? My playing with the CNN delegate counter and giving her 15% wins in several states including PA and keeping her to a narrow loss in North Carolina still has her down by over one hundred pledged delegates. Do you come up with different numbers? Do you believe that the supers will break for Hillary by a two to one margin in the face of an over 100 pledged delegate deficit and a loss in the popular vote however narrow? Do you disagree that protracted bitter divisiveness risks serious harm to the prospects for the party overall?
So accepting for the sake of the question that Hillary is a better candidate and would be a better President and that Obama played nasty politics and disenfranchised Florida and Michigan - the nasty political gamesmanship worked - it is nearly impossible for her to pull this off and if he’s able to keep PA under a 15% loss then it becomes even more improbable. Do you believe that Obama would be a lesser evil than McCain? Do you want to see Congressional races go Democratic? Is there no point at which her chances become so improbable and the risk to the party so great that she should quit? Again, I readily accept an answer that there is no such point. If Obama is that objectionable to you then that is a fair conclusion for you to make.
Or is it all to be dismissed solely because I am biased in my desired outcome? Well, to bastardize a great line, right now reality has an Obama bias.
Why should they want a RE-vote? They voted, but your candidate is making sure their votes aren’t counted. Why should they need to revote? Why not just use the vote they already cast?
:dubious:
Are we allowed to fight over whether Clinton or Obama is a false prophet?