That’s purely speculation at this point (yes, I’ve seen the polls. They are meaningless this far out). It seems that your objection to the SD is that they might create an outcome that you personally don’t like.
Oh my. Counting their votes flies in the face of “the will of the people”. There’s that phrase again. Any response to the fact that currently Hillary has more votes than Obama, surely that’s of paramount importance if the yardstick is “the will of the people”.
Yes. Yes, he is.
As a middle of the road Republican, I find these arguments amusing. The Democratic party bosses ran things unfettered until '68 when changes were made to let the nomination process more accurately reflect “the will of the people”. That was OK for the next 14 years, until the party bosses decided that they had to have more authority, and created the stupordelegates.
Hillary has more inside pull, and is gonna use every trick in the book to screw Obama. Piss on “the will of the people”. She doesn’t give a shit about it, and never will.
How about stupid cunt? That’s how strongly I feel about her bullshit but I wouldn’t call her that to her face so why use it here?
I wish I knew why, too. It’s quite easy to gripe about Hillary without calling her names period, let alone sexist slurs, so it baffles me when I see otherwise socially conscious people stupidly incorporating her gender into their attacks of her. The OP is so blatant with this that I seriously thought it was a parody at first and thought some of yall were being whooshed big time.
And if I hear Hillary called shrill one more time…come on! I suspect it’s the unoriginality that gets to me the most. Same way with “bitch”. It’s so daring and clever to call a female presidential candidate a bitch, you know? Like, hardly any woman explaining the hurdles she has to jump in the workplace ever complains that when she is assertive and strong she’s called a bitch, right? So why don’t we just go and use “bitch” as our invective of choice because obviously we want to show the world that our hate of Hillary has nothing to do with her gender and “bitch” says that spectacularly well. And while we’re at it, let’s go for a two-fer and call her “shrill bitch”. Nothing says I have no problems with a strong female running the country better than that. :rolleyes:
I don’t necessarily agree with the OP but please spare us this goody two shoes shit- maybe the OP would call her all of this to her face, for all you know, and who cares if he wouldn’t. Some people enjoy cursing, you don’t, so deal with it or don’t read threads in a forum pretty much made specifically for calling people names, or didn’t you know that?
ETA: gender neutral words like asshole jsut don’t have the same effect for women as cunt and bitch do, let’s face it.
Obama definitely is not the sort of unelectable candidate the superdelegates are there to put a check on. That much is fact. And it seems like common sense to me that he’s more electable than Hillary, but that’s really irrelevant.
Come on now. Hillary has a few more votes if you include FL and MI. Two states that DON’T COUNT in this election. If you take those states away and just rely on the states that were fairly contested, Obama has WAY more votes. The people have spoken.
Or “white trash” to reference indigent trailer park dwellers or “fundies” to reference people who think the Bible is inerrant, right?
I do enjoy cursing-- I just have the balls to do it to somebodys face. Generally I treat women and men with the respect due all human beings. My choice of the word harpie is a word I would feel free to use with any woman who runs off at the hole like Monicas boyfriends wife. You fucking dickstain.
Seems to me that an argument could be made that he’s exactly the type of candidate the SD were designed to weed out: One who performs very well in states that are securely Democrat but not very well in so-called “battleground” states, particularly lately as battleground states decide the general election. If the election in November is going to be decided in Ohio and Florida, and the SD honestly believe that Hillary can win those states but Obama can not, then they would be failing at their assigned task if they voted for Obama.
No, in fact, “the people” have not spoken. Anytime your argument begins “If you exclude XXXXX”, you might as well save your breath, you’ve already lost. I know Obama’s your candidate, and personally I think he’ll win, but stop whining and complaining that some people object to your assuming the mantle of the anointed when you haven’t earned it yet. I give you this free piece of advice: the canonization of Barak Obama is just as annoying as Hillary’s old guard smugness, I don’t think Obama’s supporters are doing him any favors with their zealous evangelism on his behalf.
Calling her names does nothing to flesh out arguments. It only reveals the immaturity of those who rely on it. She deserves a lot more respect. She is a serious politician running for president. Talk about her stances . Do not think name calling will add to your argument. It does not.
The ‘say it to their face’ crap is dim, and anyway only works if you could reasonably say something to the persons face. HRC doesn’t post here I assume, and if the OP wanted to actually call her a cunt to her face, how would he go about doing so, exactly, without incurring a huge expense and face possible arrest? Because he doesn’t fly to whatever city she’s in and stalk her hotel to call her a cunt, then he’s wrong for doing so here if he chooses? Oh yeah, cursing is a sign of a poor vocabulary. whatever.
The primary is almost nothing like the general election. Those people in Ohio will mostly all vote for whoever the Democrats nominate. (Unless they are upset with one of them for stealing the nomination.) There might be a difference in the number of people who like one candidate but wouldn’t vote another, but a primary is no way to measure that. If that’s what the superdelegates are for, then they should commission a poll to find out that statistic. (Maybe some of them do.)
I’m not excluding anything. Florida and Michigan don’t count in this primary. You stated that Hillary had received more votes, which is only true if you include two states that aren’t really part of the election.
Under the rules of this election, Obama will end up with a sizable delegate lead (most likely well over 100) among the regular delegates. Democratic primary voters clearly prefer Barack Obama, and I think it would be a travesty if Hillary schemed her way to the nomination. If it were really close in the delegate count, like single digits, I could see it being reasonable to play the superdelegate card. But definitely not when it’s over 100. That is a real difference. I also think she’s hurting Obama’s chances at the presidency by continuing to campaign when she has virtually no shot of catching him.
As an Obama supporter, I have to interject that the OP is NOT constructive. Personal insults only turn people off, and we can’t afford that. I therefore repudiate and reject Aeschines help on this one. Chill out, dude…attack her policies, attack her politics, attack her methods, but leave her personally the hell alone. The politics of personal destruction is her schtick in this campaign, not Obama’s.
100 out of 3200 isn’t a very big difference.
“The will of the people” is not the deciding factor. What matters is the will of the Democratic Party, which is expressed through the rules that the Democratic Party has established for itself. If they wanted the candidate to be chosen purely by popular vote they would have made that the selection criteria, but they did not. The Democratic Party is entitled to nominate its candidate in whatever fashion it likes
How is keeping Obama at the top of the news ticket hurting him? How could that possibly hurt a Presidential candidate? “Obama Winning” is about the best press you could possibly get.
I mean, it’s awfully nice of Obama’s supporters to decide that nobody should contest his nomination, but maybe some people aren’t Obama supporters, and should be able to have their say in accordance with party rules.
Superdelegates thwarting the will of the Democratic primary voters would be VERY bad for the party. It would disillusion a lot of people, no matter which candidate was the victim. Hillary should not encourage that.
Look at what Mitt Romney did. He dropped out when there will still lots of state to chase, both for his own good and for the good of his party. Hillary should follow his lead, and let Obama save money and effort for the general election.
I hear Clinton’s way ahead in terms of votes from actual, you know, Democrats.
It’s all these Johnny come lately ‘independents’ and ‘republicans’ that have helped Obama’s vote margin.
Do you somehow think that the Democratic candidate can win the general election with only Democrats?
Of course not. Because at the end of the day, not only is the insultee a jerk or stupid or whatever, she’s in a permanent state of degradation because of what’s between her legs.
Sure, there are more Democrats than Republicans. If the independents all stay home, the Dems win.
That’s not to say that the party shouldn’t open its doors to independents, and even Republicans that have had a ‘scales falling from eyes’ experience, but the superdelegates would be justified in taking into account the preference of the party core when they cast their votes.
BTW, I’d prefer Obama to win the nomination outright.
I just won’t be all that upset if he doesn’t.