[QUOTE=kunilou]
In the end Hubert Humphrey got the Democratic nomination. Logically, you might assume both Kennedy and Mccarthy supporters would have united behind Humphrey, who had impeccable civil rights credentials, strong ties to labor, a committment to blue-collar workers, and was at least more opposed to Vietnam than Richard Nixon and George Wallace.
It didn’t work out that way. The white Southern part of the Kennedy coalition voted for George Wallace, the antiwar voters sat on their hands and Richard Nixon scraped off enough of the rest of the blue-collar and labor vote to win.
[/QUOTE]
I was reading in the most recent issue of The Economist that Karl Rove attributed Bush’s win in 2004 mostly to them having 1.4 million volunteers working for them. Obama, according to The Economist, has 4x that many. As such I think there will be less sitting on their hands this time around.
[QUOTE=Whack-a-Mole]
I was reading in the most recent issue of The Economist that Karl Rove attributed Bush’s win in 2004 mostly to them having 1.4 million volunteers working for them. Obama, according to The Economist, has 4x that many. As such I think there will be less sitting on their hands this time around.
[/QUOTE]
The problem isn’t with Obama supporters sitting on their hands, it’s whether Hillary supporters will sit on their hands.
In 2004 Bush got 62 million votes.
In 2000 Gore got 51 million with Bush getting a few less.
In 1996 Clinton got 47 million votes.
In the 2008 primaries, Obama and Clinton combined received about 36 million votes. If all those people vote for Obama, he’ll still need millions more votes to win. If a large number of Clinton supporters (who, by voting in the primary can be considered committed Democrats) choose not to vote for Obama, his job will be significantly harder.
The same holds true for McCain of course, but Romney and Huckabee supporters aren’t so vocal in their opposition to McCain.
Wait, what? People who were going to vote for Kennedy, as in civil-rights-champion Kennedy, instead voted for Wallace, as in stand-in-the-doorway Wallace? That doesn’t sound right. You sure about that?
[QUOTE=Whack-a-Mole]
I was reading in the most recent issue of The Economist that Karl Rove attributed Bush’s win in 2004 mostly to them having 1.4 million volunteers working for them. Obama, according to The Economist, has 4x that many. As such I think there will be less sitting on their hands this time around.
[/QUOTE]
If that’s the case, then it should be a simple victory, but it’s not.
[QUOTE=Don’t Call Me Shirley]
Wait, what? People who were going to vote for Kennedy, as in civil-rights-champion Kennedy, instead voted for Wallace, as in stand-in-the-doorway Wallace? That doesn’t sound right. You sure about that?
[/QUOTE]
I’m positive. Weird, but true. There was a significant overlap of Wallace and Kennedy supporters.
My mom is a pretty hard-core Hillary supporter. She’s going to vote for Obama, but she’s not happy about it. For her, it was her dream of seeing a female president. She’s convinced that there won’t ever be any woman who will ever run for president again. Ever. She’s also convinced that the sexist male-dominated media had it in for Hillary and were instrumental in her defeat. There is no way I can reason her out of this. It would only take a nudge for her to sit out the election out of feminist rage.
[QUOTE=Larry Borgia]
My mom is a pretty hard-core Hillary supporter. She’s going to vote for Obama, but she’s not happy about it. For her, it was her dream of seeing a female president. She’s convinced that there won’t ever be any woman who will ever run for president again. Ever. She’s also convinced that the sexist male-dominated media had it in for Hillary and were instrumental in her defeat. There is no way I can reason her out of this. It would only take a nudge for her to sit out the election out of feminist rage.
[/QUOTE]
Having a mother of similar feminist tendencies, I’ll say there is one thing that would prevent my mother from sitting on her hands. McCain.
[QUOTE=Larry Borgia]
There is no way I can reason her out of this. It would only take a nudge for her to sit out the election out of feminist rage.
[/QUOTE]
I wonder what your mother would make of an argument substituting “black” for “woman”? If Barack had lost the nomination to HRC because of blatant racism, and his supporters angrily sat out the election, or supported McCain out of pure spite, how would she feel then?
Hillary gave a very good speech. She has accepted the defeat with grace and a grasp of reality. I wish her followers had that grip . The Democrats had a race between a black and a woman. The repubs are running an old white guy again. The owners and power brokers all look alike. It is time for the disappointed to face the cold truth of 4 more years.
Endless war, bank failures , 250 thousand foreclosures a month and dropping home values. Yet some dems petulantly might vote for McCain. Get over it.
[QUOTE=pseudotriton ruber ruber]
I’m positive. Weird, but true. There was a significant overlap of Wallace and Kennedy supporters.
[/QUOTE]
At or around the time, my very left wing father told me that Wallace’s anti-black rhetoric was more bark than bite, that he was supported by a surprising number of African Americans (who we called Negroes back then) who voted for him in Alabama. Mind you, this wasn’t enough to make him vote for Wallace, but he thought that Wallace was playing up to the racist south more than his policies over the years actually demonstrated. I don’t know whether or not that’s true.
[QUOTE=pseudotriton ruber ruber]
I wonder what your mother would make of an argument substituting “black” for “woman”? If Barack had lost the nomination to HRC because of blatant racism, and his supporters angrily sat out the election, or supported McCain out of pure spite, how would she feel then?
Does she respond to that sort of reasoning?
[/QUOTE]
No, she doesn’t. I’ve tried. She will vote for Obama, and actually likes him, but feels he should have “waited his turn.”
[QUOTE=Larry Borgia]
No, she doesn’t. I’ve tried. She will vote for Obama, and actually likes him, but feels he should have “waited his turn.”
[/QUOTE]
Well, I can understand her feeling, but this ain’t the playground.
[QUOTE=Larry Borgia]
No, she doesn’t. I’ve tried. She will vote for Obama, and actually likes him, but feels he should have “waited his turn.”
[/QUOTE]
Wow, do people like your mom piss me off!
So when Hillary declared her candidacy, all the other (male) candidates should have withdrawn because it was her turn? Does your mom have any idea how entitled her position is? “Cancel the primaries! Hillary says it’s her turn!! If anyone defeats her, none of us will vote!!!”
What’s impressed me about Senator Obama, as I said in Senator Obama, Quit Making This Hard For Me! - Great Debates - Straight Dope Message Board was the decision to “rise above it” and eschew traditional political campaigning. He’s only taken one serious hit to that armor; his decision with regard to finance was a politics-over-integrity call, but it wasn’t a serious one and I consider him still basically untainted. He hasn’t trashed his opponent or Republicans in general.
What irritates me about some Obama supporters here is NOT dew-eyed adoration of Obama, but unwillingness to follow his example in the precise area I admire him.
[QUOTE=pseudotriton ruber ruber]
Wow, do people like your mom piss me off!
So when Hillary declared her candidacy, all the other (male) candidates should have withdrawn because it was her turn? Does your mom have any idea how entitled her position is? “Cancel the primaries! Hillary says it’s her turn!! If anyone defeats her, none of us will vote!!!”
[/QUOTE]
Hey, his mom likes and is going to vote for Obama. Settle down.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
To be clear about a couple of things:
What’s impressed me about Senator Obama, as I said in Senator Obama, Quit Making This Hard For Me! - Great Debates - Straight Dope Message Board was the decision to “rise above it” and eschew traditional political campaigning. He’s only taken one serious hit to that armor; his decision with regard to finance was a politics-over-integrity call, but it wasn’t a serious one and I consider him still basically untainted. He hasn’t trashed his opponent or Republicans in general.
What irritates me about some Obama supporters here is NOT dew-eyed adoration of Obama, but unwillingness to follow his example in the precise area I admire him.
Do we need examples?
[/QUOTE]
You’re quite right, Bricker. Unfortunately, I have trouble remembering this morning, let alone a couple of weeks ago, so I didn’t remember that thread until a couple of people mentioned it and I went back and read it. I don’t think most of us were attacking John McCain on a personal level. We were attacking him on substance. It seems to me to be a legitimate criticism to say that the John McCain of today is not the John McCain of 2000, and that the apparent reason for it is that he wanted to win over the Republican base.
Bricker - I agree with you. However, the venues are so totally opposite that expecting his supporters to all act as he does is asking [sup]just a little[/sup] too much.
In my day to day activity do I talk about politics or Obama at all? No. Unless to my wife or someone who asks about the sticker on my car.
However, I can come in here and speak with ease about my feelings and adorations about the man.
Obama rises above the political fray because he chooses to conduct his life on the up and up. I do too. My professional career and personal life I try and rise above the fray of everyday monotany and live my philosophical beliefs. But on a message board, people can and often are more blunt and they can express their attitudes and aptitudes with impunity. Obama has a camera on him 24/7. He can’t afford a Dean moment, or a misstep at this point. If he’s going to win it all, he’s got to be squeeky clean.
I apologize for not emulating his behavior at all times, but then I’m human and he isn’t
[QUOTE=C3]
On another board I belong to, though, there are a bunch of Hillary supporters and I haven’t seen one comment from any of them that they were swayed by the speech last night. What they’re saying is that Hillary “drank the kool-aid”, that she did what she had to do (implying that she was forced to say what she did)
[/QUOTE]
So, they’re saying that Hillary is either a ventriloquist dummy for the party apparatchiks or else a weak-willed wimp. What wonderful “supporters”. :rolleyes:
