So basically a Scooby Doo episode 
Oh I know you are not a Clintonite - Darth Clinton has convinced a lot of people, but she’s not going to convince enough. Your math is correct, but the probability of it happening is near zero. I’m a little rusty on my chi-squared calculations but it’s highly unlikely she will pull the nod. 
If it’s generally agreed any new numbers would hurt Hillary, it makes you wonder why she wants to rehold the primary. A lot of expense and trouble for nothing. Do we really want someone this clueless for president? Despite the age issue, I really may have to vote McCain in the unlikely event Hillary gets the nod.
I’m continously surprised by how many people say that completely support Obama and completely oppose Clinton. The reality is that the two candidates are 99% in agreement on the issues. I can’t understand how people can hold such diverse opinions on two people who are so close to being identical.*
But then I remember how many people completely ignore the issues. They pick their choice based on things like who they want to have a beer with or who they’d buy a used car from or who has better hair.
*For those who care, I based my choice on the belief that Clinton would be more able to turn those opinions they both share into actual laws (which I still believe is true).
I think she’s realizing that she’s not going to win by any conventional means. If things keep on going the way they’re going now, Obama will get the nomination. So she has to try desperate moves like offering Obama the vice-presidency - or pushing for a Florida/Michigan do-over. She knows the delegates she got from the early primaries are not going to be counted and she can’t win with the delegates she’s got from other states. So she has to agree to a do-over in Florida and Michigan and hope that by some miracle she pulls off a major win and gets the legitimate delegates.
You sure about that? The Obama hate is virulent. If you aren’t looking outside the SD, or outside your immediate acquaintances, you aren’t looking far enough. Some examples:
And those are just some of the ones who come right out and say they’ll never vote for Obama, but you can tell by the hateful invective of many of the other posts, that those people wouldn’t vote for him under any circumstances, either.
Contrary to what others believe, at least on this board, I think a Florida re-do would benefit Hillary much more than Obama. Does anyone really believe the millions of alta kachers in Florida won’t come out in droves for Hillary? What about Cuban voters? How many of those who are not already republican will go for Obama? I’d wager very few. Add to this the sizeable population of I’d-never-vote-for-a-black-man-under-any-circumstances DINOs and I think you have the makings of a Hillary rout in Ponce’s paradise.
I don’t see any change in dynamic in this election over the past month or so having a negative impact on the numbers of those who are simply predisposed to vote for Hillary. In fact, I think the surrogate race-baiting of late helps her shore-up the blue collar surface-thinking demographic while keeping her hands clean…relatively.
You explain your own paradox in your footnote. Many Obama people think Hillary’s health care plan will fail, like last time. They feel she will be divisive and therefore get little done. So even if they agree with her policies, they want action, not talk. McCain also shares a lot with Obama and Clinton–key among which is a cap-and-trade program to battle climate change. If you care deeply about that issue, that would be an argument for McCain over Clinton if you think he can get it done and she can’t.
You’re also ignoring process issues. Many of us feel that changing the process–fewer lobbyist, less partisan rhetoric, etc.–is actually important.
I personally wouldn’t vote for McCain over Clinton, but I don’t think such people are irrational, as you think.
Intentional or not, I think it’s belittling to compare Obama supporters who wouldn’t vote for Clinton with people who vote for “Who they’d want to have a beer with”.
Yeah, they’re close on the issues. But there’s more than that and it’s not simply style over substance. I’ve watched Hillary run what is – in my opinion – a laughably bad campaign. Fiscal mismanagement, appointing long-time friends to positions they proved inept at, making terrible campaign judgements, etc. None of the candidates has run an executive office and their campaigns represent the largest organizations they’ve had executive control over. Hillary has seriously screwed her’s up. If she was running a business the way she ran a campaign, she’d be either fired or bankrupt.
I’ve been against the rhetoric of her campaign. The barely veiled racism has turned me off. No, I don’t believe that Clinton is “racist” but I think the campaign has shown that she’s all too happy to use racism as a tool to help her get elected. Repeated instances of racist remarks coming from her campaign followed up by a weak and belated “Gee, sorry 'bout that” after the remarks have had a couple days to simmer in the media. I’m turned off by her continual belittlement of every state she hasn’t won in. I’m turned off by the fact that she openly mocks my decision to vote for Obama by telling me it’s time to “get real” and comparing me to some brainwashed cultist waiting for the heavens to open. Why on earth would I cast a vote for a woman who so obviously holds me in contempt for my decision?
I think that on her hallmark issue, health care, Hillary doesn’t stand a chance. She claims that her mandate is non-negotiable. To abandon the mandate would be akin to making social security optional. She says that it has to be all or nothing because the insurance companies would pick it apart. What she doesn’t say is what her plan is for the inevitable Republican filibuster in the Senate and how she can guarantee the “all” so we don’t wind up with “nothing”. I think Obama has a much better chance of getting his opt-in health care plan through Congress than Clinton has for her mandated HillaryCare. But even ignoring Obama, I think her ideas of a mandated healthcare will prove to be dreams and vapor with her in office and I’ll continue to think so unless she addresses the filibuster issue.
I resent the fact that she flat-out lied to me when she said that she couldn’t release her taxes because she’s just too busy. Does she think I’m retarded? Then again, go back to the part where she says I need to get real and stop being brainwashed.
Basically, Clinton strikes me as a nasty, divisive woman who shows terrible management skills and worse public relations skills. She’s done nothing to earn my vote and has, in fact, often worked in the opposite direction by insulting me and my intelligence. If she can manage to make people in her own party (who agree on 99% of the issues) actively dislike her, I find it hard to imagine her as an effective negotiator with the Republicans in Congress and world leaders abroad. I couldn’t possibly vote for her in good conscious and it has nothing to do with being mad that “my guy” lost. It has everything to do with her and how she has composed herself and run her campaign.
I care, but I’d also like to know what you base your belief on. I personally don’t see her getting a thing done as president. There’s such vitriol against her (warranted or not) and what she stands for in many Republican’s minds I don’t think she has a chance in Hell of passing anything. She’s already thrown down the gauntlet by saying she’s strong enough to fight the republican’s and win. Well, that’s certainly the right attitude to have with folks you’re going to have to work with to get legislation passed…in bizarro world.
When they’re identical on the issues, then yes, it does more or less come down to personality, and Obama wipes the floor with Clinton.
I’m bemused by the number of people who think he’ll be ineffective at getting things done. He certainly seems to be well-liked, both among the people and the politicos. If they’re 99% identical on issues, and we assume that roughly the same bills and such will be introduced (from past discussion on this board that’s a poor assumption, but never mind), I’d put my money on the smooth talker getting more done than the less likable, divisive person who can’t even reliably manage the people who want to help her win her campaign.
You mean that if people were selective rather than blind in their voting choices, they might actually have to run candidates that most people actually liked? The horror!
And you play a substantial role in a system where we’re given the choice between two bad presidents every year, because you’ll sustain the system happily regardless of the unsuitability of both candidates, perpetuating a system in which we lose either way.
But feel free to feel good about your support for the current system, and continue to browbeat those who vote their conscience.
She said she wouldn’t vote for Clinton because she would make a bad president. That’s a responsible voting position, not spite. If more people actually considered the canditates they were voting for, rather than simply following the little [R] or [D] next to their name, this country would be a better place.
I think she’d not do quite as well delegate-wise, but not by much - but the publicity/legitimacy boost would make it a net gain for Hillary.
If the party were to accept the FL results from January 29, the count would be Hillary 105, Obama 67, Edwards 13. It’s hard to win even a big state like FL by >30 delegates, so I’d expect Hillary to win a redo by 25 +/- 5.
The question for Obama’s campaign is: is the net gain of a dozen or so delegates (by a redo, v. accepting the FL results as is) worth the trouble, given the possibility of giving Hillary the opportunity for a solid win in a big state, with the publicity splash that would go along with that?
I think that in their position, I’d use FL as a bargaining chip: be willing to trade an acceptance of FL as is, in exchange for whatever the best deal is that they think they can get on Michigan.
I’ve been thinking that a complete revote of both Michigan and Florida could be done.
But only pledged delegates count. Superdelegates do not get seated anyway, anyhow. For the most part, they’re the ones that voted for moving the primaries in the first place and as such, are very much responsible for the position in which they’ve placed the party and their voters.
For the lesser part, it seems to me that these are the ones Clinton wants seated most of all. She knows she can’t make up for it in pledged delegates and will be pushing for as many supers as she can.
Tain’t fair! You edited out the states I specifically referenced: Arkansas and West Virginia.
Though now that I think about it, some of my Pennsylvania ancestors were Primative Baptists - a sect that apparently took a dim view of anyone “marrying out of meeting.” Whatever the case, there’s one feller who’s alleged to be three of my ancestors. :eek: And a lot of his “clones” eventually moved to Indiana. So I guess you’re at least two for three.
Anyway.
I’m under the impression that Obama could take Michigan, but I may well be wrong.
Is there any chance the DNC would allow Michigan and Florida to send unpledged delegations to the convention in the absence of a kosher revote?
Both need SuperDelegates to win. Hillary just needs more of them.
Maybe you guys should make up bumper stickers: “I’m better than you. I voted for Obama.”
The funny thing is that there’s a lot of people who say Clinton’s problem is that she’s too likely to give too much to the Republicans. For every person who says she’s hopelessly too far to the left there’s another one saying she’s hopelessly too far to the right.
Politics doesn’t reward likeability. People like Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Dick Cheney got more done because people were a little scared of them.
I have no intention of voting for Obama. I don’t support (most of) his politics.
See how that works?
To add: the assumption that I’m an Obama-ite because I supported someone else’s decision to be thoughtful and discriminating in their voting, rather than blindly supporting along party lines, is an interesting example of the political mindset in the US.
Yep. I’m one of them. And I STILL don’t see her getting anything passed. On the one hand, Republicans hate Hillary so irrationally that no matter what she does, short of offering herself up on a spit, there would be never ending attempts to destroy her during her very unlikely term as President. On the other hand, Hillary’s confrontational, bridge-burning, win at all costs rhetoric is helping to doom her chances without the Republicans laying a glove on her, or to be more precise, despite their attempts to help her win the nomination…so they can then destroy her.
But you didn’t answer my question. What is it about Hillary that causes you to believe she’d have a better chance at getting legislation passed than Obama if she were President? I simply don’t see it.
I think Obama’s toughest time will be the onslaught of attacks he will be forced to withstand once he’s the nominee. I believe, once he’s President, Republicans will work with him as he will have proven that he has the strength to withstand and emerge victorious from the destructive force of the inevitable Conservative firestorm and, I believe, will have garnered enough respect from all sides that Congress will readily work with him.