What I find interesting is the hard left democratic insistence that people vote Clinton over McCain just because, well, she’s left. No. If after eight years of Republican misrule the Dems can’t produce a candidate worth voting for on his or her own merits, then they don’t deserve to win, and they shouldn’t.
It’s always the way, huh? Every candidate that the Democrats put forward somehow ends up being someone who shouldn’t be voted for. Odd, isn’t it? I wonder how that happens?
Are you sure that is what he said? I read it instead as Obama is worth voting for but Hillary is not.
I don’t agree but I understand. I want Obama to win, but I will vote for Hillary who I do not really like. Hell, I voted for Kerry and he was worse than Hillary IMHO.
Jim
Well that’s pretty obviously not what I said, since this thread is about Obama voters, and by posting in it earlier I identified myself as one of those. But if you’re having problems getting moderates to vote for your candidates, maybe it’s because your party is a disaster and has no concept of what motivates people to choose a leader. Based on your appeals to reason and knowledge, I’m guessing you don’t either.
Grossbottom clearly that is not what is being said. What is being said is that we (who amusingly attempt to label “the hard left”) recognize that, in this very hypothetical case, we would still have an obligation to vote for the person who was the better of the choices left to us. That would for some be an automatic choice of Party loyalty and for others a reasoned analysis. Each of us have our own reasons and early on I could have seen voting for McCain over Hillary in a hypothetical match-up but statements that he’s made since have changed my mind. That’s all.
I don’t like Hillary Clinton much but the country would be better off with her as President than with McCain.
I think that the ability of the right to dominate and control the message and framing of the narratives over the past decade has led to the result that any Democrat running in the general would be portrayed as unsatisfactory. In reality, John Kerry would have been a fine president - he certainly would have represented my views much better than the president in office during the last four years. However, take a picture of him windsurfing and he becomes an out of touch elitist.
Al Gore would have been a fine president as well, but, well, you know the rest of that story.
By the time of the General Election, Obama will be an out of touch elitist who cannot bowl, chooses orange juice and demands time to eat his waffles. You can already see the ground being laid for this right now, if you pay attention.
(I cannot wait to read “Great American Hypocrites” by Glenn Greenwald. Based on the excerpts I’ve read from it on this very topic, I recommend it to anyone interested in the matter.)
Hillary Clinton is fighting hard to be elected. I hate some of the things she is saying, like “I’ve won more of the votes of the people who voted (meaning in FL and MI)”, but she’s actually a fine candidate for president.
Yes, it is. Appeals to party loyalty are all over this thread. Appeals to be reasonable, appeals to accept the lesser of two evils, appeals to take a lesser leader for the good of the country. And after 8 years of murderous Republican incompetence, I think it’s pathetic. How much easier does it have to be?
Since California will go Democrat no matter what, I would abstain.
Wait, I don’t understand your point. Are you saying that Clinton would be the lesser leader than McCain, despite also recognizing the past 8 years of murderous Republican incompetence? McCain gives every impression of continuing with more of the same, so how would he be the better choice for a voter than Clinton?
I think you’re missing that the OP is a hypothetical. The given assumption is that Obama gets tossed aside for some bullshit reason or another. The thread responses have been honoring that hypothetical. Just about every Obama voter in here is still supporting him completely, we’re just acknowledging the what-if scenario.
You know, I’ve probably written ten answers to this and deleted them all? Look, I’m sorry if you don’t understand that leadership isn’t an easily defined thing. It’s not a list of decisions made and positions taken and promises made. It’s charisma, and the ability to motivate people towards a common goal. And yes, in that regard, McCain is a better leader than Clinton.
What do I care? I’m not a McCain campaigner, call his headquarters.
No, I’m aware the actual election isn’t going on yet. I’m responding to the people trying to browbeat compliance rather than taking it upon themselves and their party to provide more electable candidates.
Umm… How? What has he actually shown leadership on that he hasn’t reversed course on? He’s been trying to skirt his own campaign finance law and has reversed course on his originally proposed immigration bill. What as he shown consistent leadership on? What movements has he started and followed through on? How are you surmising that he’s a better manager and leader?
A common goal? You think the goals of McCain are common to those of Clinton or Obama? Why is that? This isn’t like selecting the manager of a store; these are candidates and political parties with very different goals in mind.
Why should I do that? I’m talking to Democratic voters who are thinking of voting Republican, apparently in part out of ignorance for what they are voting for.
I go back to my original point that “electability” is not an empirical quality. It is very subjective, and candidates who are clearly both “electable” and likely to be “good leaders” are, recently anyway, subjected to a national spin machine that would turn the best Democratic candidate into a lying, wimpy, latte drinking French president peering out of a turret window upon the lowly rabble below.
I hope people begin to reject this nonsense ASAP.
Well we certainly wouldn’t want to vote for the lesser of two lessers.
First of let’s be realistic. It is unlikely that I’ll ever get to vote for any candidate who I am 100% thrilled with. Obama? He’s good. Very good. But he’s also got his faults to my read. 100% thrilled I aint. Still he’s the best I’ve seen in my, what 30 years of voting? I am always deciding between two realities and deciding who has the best balance of strengths and weaknesses. In reality I expect to be able to vote Obama, but in this hypothetical I have concluded that even Hillary would be better than McCain. And Hentor will witness that such was not always the case.
Secondly, what you think that all of you in the hard Right (well if I’m hard Left, then …) are thrilled with McCain? Be real. Many/most Republicans will vote for him out of “the lesser” sort of analysis. Historically Republicans have been much more partisan loyalists than us fickle Democrats and more than likely will be this time as well. They may hold their nose when they do it but push come to shove they’ll vote for him. Rush and company may have bitched and moaned but they will loyally Swiftboat Obama mercilessly on McCain’s behalf - because he is, to them, “the lesser.”
Leadership? Him? What has he actually accomplished in his long Senate career? What positions has he not flip flopped on by now? Okay, the war. He still thinks that was a good idea and believes we should stay there until we achieve a “victory” that cannot even be defined. He does NOT inspire, he can barely read his speeches off the teleprompter. Charisma? You looking at the same man as I am? I hear none. Zero.
I’ll agree with you on one thing though: if the Democrats lose this time then they are really a sad party indeed. And there will be plenty of blame to go around if that occurs.
Well that’s easy now isn’t it? He’s got the Republican electorate ready to go for him. Does Hillary? No. So, there we go. His team is ready and yours isn’t. I didn’t even have to talk about charisma or any of that tough stuff.
No I don’t, and that’s got nothing to do with anything I said and you’re well aware of it. Now I’m done with you.
No, you were talking to a moderate Florida voter with no party allegiance. Good work.
I agree with this, but it won’t be because we chose a bad candidate, especially presuming that Obama does end up as the Democratic candidate in the general election. Obama is a great candidate, despite my earlier reservations about him. Just don’t hesitate to stamp out the attempts to put the usual frame around him in any way you possibly can.
Oh noes, not another one of these “undecided” voters who will now make their choice for president simply to spite some anonymous person from the internets!
There was nothing “outlandish” about what I said. You just didn’t agree with it.
How many ways do I have to say this? NO. Nein. Non. Nee. Na. Nej. Neen. No Fucking Way.
I can do whatever the hell I want, whether you like or approve of it or not. I happen to think Hillary Clinton would be exactly as horrifying and bad as you think McCain would be. Exactly. If you think “obliterating” Iran, shoving mandatory health insurance down poor people’s throats, an egregious liar who can’t be trusted about anything, and petulant blustering and so on and so forth is best for America, your choice is clearly not one I’m willing to make.
If you take a look at vote counts - she’s still received more than McCain even though she’s losing and McCain has won in his primary battle. She consistently has had a greater percentage of support from democrats than McCain has had from republicans. He was winning some contests with less than 40% of the vote ffs. McCain having already won his nomination says more about his competition than it does about him being a better leader vs her.
Waitaminnit . . . how is this
-
A fair characterization of HRC’s health-care policy?
-
A bad thing?
-
Different from BHO’s policy?