Fork Hillary - The Wooden Stake

Great Debates
161

[QUOTE=DrDeth]
Because, he figured he had nothing to lose.
[/QUOTE]
Withdrawing because the race was invalid anyway and so there was no reason to validate the results with your name is a bit different from being afraid of a loss.

Perhaps yours wasn’t the best quote to springboard from but it just put the question in my mind. Other posts I’ve read (perhaps elsewhere although it’s been a common thing for me to come across) are much more explicit in stating that Obama was actively afraid of a loss, not just that he wanted to remove any credibility from the primary.

I can agree with, and even support, removing credibility from an invalid primary. I don’t buy into the “He was afraid to lose it” scenario.

162

While I hate to rehash what is, by now, ancient history, didn’t the candidates all agree to not campaign there? He had every possibility to be competitive in states that he competed in, but no possibility of becoming competitive from behind in a state that he couldn’t compete in. That would have been true with name on ballot or not but you are right, why give the opposition more braggin rights than you need to?

DrDeth, I doubt Gore is running now. Obama, imperfect as he may be, or McCain (and yes, Barr and Nader, I guess) are now your options. Or staying home.

I’ve spent most elections not being able to vote for my first choice as they dropped before the primaries even got to my state. I’ve had to vote for who I concluded was best of who was left.

Between those options left, who do you think is the best to assume the mantle of the presidency?

163

[QUOTE=DSeid]

DrDeth, I doubt Gore is running now. Obama, imperfect as he may be, or McCain (and yes, Barr and Nader, I guess) are now your options. Or staying home.
Between those options left, who do you think is the best to assume the mantle of the presidency?
[/QUOTE]

Yes, I know. :frowning:

I’ll probably vote for Obama. But he’s going to win CA anyway I vote.

164

[QUOTE=DrDeth]
And, dude? I am not HRC’s fanboy (and I have only said this like a dozen times). I am a Gore fan, big time. Hillary is just OK, along with Obama.
[/QUOTE]
SNL had a skit many years ago about a straight guy who just happened to have all the ‘gay’ mannerisms. :smiley:

165

[QUOTE=DrDeth]
So, even if MI is not counted at all, Obama won by 1/10th of 1%
Yep, that’s a Landslide worthy of Lyndon Johnson.

Boy oh boy, “trashed” indeed. 1/10th of 1%.
[/QUOTE]
Who said it was a landslide?

Kick out the one-sided MI primary, and three out of three counts that you gave add up to Obama wins in the popular vote. That’s only a ‘virtual’ tie in your head.

JFTR, the term ‘virtual tie’ generally applies to polls and samples, and it means ‘the difference is within the (usually 95%) sampling error.’

Once the vote’s been taken, there’s nothing virtual about it. That isn’t a sample, it ain’t virtual reality, that’s the real thing, that’s the entire vote, that’s the 100% sample with zero sampling error.

And was the popular vote close? Yes, it was, and it was as close as it was because Hillary closed the gap considerably in that metric in what a sports fan might describe as ‘garbage time.’

It’s like the RB for a losing team who gains a whole bunch of yards on the ground when his team’s down by 4 TDs late in the game, and the other team’s going, “fine, run all you want.” The RB might even be able to equalize the yards gained by the two teams. So what? Run, baby, run!

The popular vote wasn’t close while the outcome was still in doubt. Obama basically punted WV, KY, and PR because he’d effectively won already. The popular vote was never close in any way that mattered.

Especially by the standard of the two reasons I gave above for the popular vote to matter. If you don’t think those should be the standard, say why you think that is.