Of course. To think that any politician doesn’t is silly.
So then- an appeal to the credentials committee at the Democratic National Convention- which is part of the rules established by the DNC is something you are OK with? This doesn’t seem to be the case. :dubious:
And then, the SuperDelegates voting for whichever Candidate they think has the best chances of winning the General election- again, part of* the rules established by the DNC*- that is OK by you? Again, this doesn’t seem to meet “I have said, and I say again, if they were to do that, there would be a mass protest the likes of which have never been witnessed.” :dubious:
Of course, if either thing happened I would expect the Obama supporters to be unhappy. But if you wouldn’t snap out of it and vote the damn War-Party* out of the Oval Office come November, then well, you’re beyond my comprehension.
Sure, I want Gore. I’ll settle for Hillary but Obama is just fine too. Any of those three are hwaaaaay better than 8 more years of war. So, if Hillary (or even Gore) snags a miracle, will you join the rest of the Democratic party in voting out the War-party, or will you sulk and allow the uSA to have 8 more years of war and certain bankruptcy? If Obama gets the nod, as is likely, I’ll vote for him. Will you do the same no matter what Dem gets the nod?
- I think McCain is a decent guy, but he still wants more war, and I can’t support that.
Not surprised. The military HATES Clinton. Hates her. And not just because they lean right.
You know, I’m really sick and tired of you misrepresenting my positions by making wrong assumptions without any evidence to back it up.
I actually think the best thing to do is seat the MI and FL delegates as they currently stand.
So knock it off.
Again, as I have told you before, there is no contradiction between those two concepts. They are free to do whatever the hell they want. And if they do so in a way that overturns the voters, there will be consequences. This is the last time I’ll repeat myself to you.
Well your continued support of the utterly unqualified Hillary Clinton is beyond my comprehension, too.
No. And I don’t have to just because you think it’s the right thing to do.
I don’t support that either. But neither do I support Hillary Clinton, so she will also not be getting my vote. I’ll vote my conscience, thankyouverymuch.
Is there anything in the nominating rules to support your proposal to simply award the ‘uncommitted’ delegates to Obama? If I were a lawyer in Clinton’s campaign, I would be all over that.
And I think the Edwards delegates are pledged to him for the first vote, then they are free to vote their conscience. No way are they going to allow themselves to be awarded to either candidate against their will.
Not that I know of, although that’s what Hillary’s campaign is actually fighting to have happen. My point was, it’s utterly disingenuous for DrDeth to take that nasty, accusatory tone with me, imputing opinions I don’t hold.
Fair enough. Still, I’m not holding the position DrDeth ascribes to me. He’s done this several times in this thread and I want him to knock it off.
Explain your conscience, please. You profess to like Sen. Obama. Presumably, you like something other than the cut of his jib, or the fact he is African-American. Presumably, it’s his policies you like, or perhaps the type of people you think he’ll bring to the job of running the government.
If either of those is true, explain how you would prefer the policies or cronies of Sen. McCain to those of Sen. Clinton. I hope you realize that, as between Sen. Clinton and Sen. McCain, the one whose policies and cronies most resemble those of Sen. Obama is the junior senator from the Empire State.
So, what exactly is your thought process? You say you like Obama, you make it clear you dislike Clinton, but you’ve never, to my understanding, explained why you would VOTE for McCain, as opposed to simply sitting the contest out. :dubious:
And even if you intend to sit the contest out, are you truly content to have McCain win? If so, explain why, in light of the policies and cronies he’d be bringing to the job?
shayna said many times the reasons why she votes certain ways - also, this will be a moot topic in a few weeks. I think we are going to see a superdelegate push for Obama soon.
I wish you people would knock off that stupidass dubious smiley with me. You haven’t seen me explain why I would VOTE for McCain because I wouldn’t.
I’m content not to cast my vote for either of the candidates who I think would both be terrible Presidents. Last I knew, voting wasn’t an obligation in this country, so I’m free not to if I so please. I think I’ve been pretty clear in numerous threads on this board as to why I’m so opposed to Senator Clinton as President, and they’re as valid of reasons as any against Senator McCain. If you want any more specifics than that, look up my posts, because I’m not in the mood to repeat myself here.
:dubious:
Eyes on the prize, Shayna. We absolutely cannot afford to see another Pubbie prexy*. If Hillary is on the ballot in November, we’ll just have to bite the bullet and put her in the Oval Office.
*This is not a negotiable point.
ETA: and of course, in the meantime, we need to do everything in our power to put Obama on the ticket.
I am so immature and goofy. I know that humor like this shouldn’t crack me up, but it does every single time.
Now. I confess two things. One, I have not been following the Hillary/Obama thing much lately, and two, I haven’t read this thread.
So, someone have pity on me and just tell me…Is Hillary done or not?
Everybody says so, except for Hillary.
Here, in succinct poll-based form, is why Sen. Clinton’s argument about big states and electability is unsound:
Strategic Vision Poll
Pennsylvania Democratic Primary: Clinton +18
Pennsylvania: McCain vs. Clinton: McCain +6
Pennsylvania: McCain vs. Obama: McCain +3
This is the same sample group. Even though the Democrats in the group would today vote overwhelmingly for Clinton, the state overall is more favorable to Obama. This shouldn’t come as any kind of shock to anyone with a rudimentary understanding of politics. Of course, the same is also true to a lesser degree about Obama’s claims to Idaho, etc. His claims are slightly more legitimate because in those states his big victories are backed up by general election head-to-head polling; that makes sense since his base includes more independents and genuine cross-overs.
Massachusetts is sufficiently BLUE that I will not hesitate to write in Obama if Clinton’s the candidate, in full expectation that (a) she’ll carry the state without me, and (b) she’ll lose decisively to McCain, dragging the Congressional slate down with her.
Well, not quite. I believe I’ve indicated upthread that she isn’t quite done yet. However, you can probably go ahead and set the table.
Don’t count her out yet. What I think she must do is
-
win huge in PA. 10 points won’t do. maybe 15. Definitely 20.
-
get do-overs in MI and FL and win those handily
-
not lose enough elsewhere to erase any gains in PA, FL, and MI.
If this gets her within 100 delegates and close in the overall popular vote, she may very well pull this off. If Obama is >200 pledged delegates ahead in mid-June, kiss it goodbye.
There are far too many threads for me to keep track of this at this point, but someone someplace posted that Edwards supporters in Iowa will meet this weekend and decide what to do with his 14 delegates from that state.
And the Clinton News Network.
So are you saying that Pennsylvania, Indiana, and North Carolina are made up of a bunch of inbreds? :smack:
