I don’t vote- I’m talking about average white middle Americans- are they really going to vote for someone who they think is chummy with someone who says all white people are devils? Add to that McCain is as moderate as a Republican can be, has no ties to the current regime and actually has some liberal views- amnesty for Mexican illegals for example. And of course the Bradley effect.
Also telling is Obama recent comments on his mentor- he went on a spiel about- has he said fierce things? Yes. Has he had controversial things? yes. But he didn’t say has he said racist things? Yes.
Are they more likely to vote for a guy who is “chummy” with someone who claims that Catholicism is the Whore of Babylon? Perhaps. Those who aren’t actually Catholic themselves. I suppose.
I just think Gore would give the party the best chance of winning the Preisdency, which is the whole point, not feeling good about nominating a woman or black and them having their negatives cause them to lose to McCain.
Sean Hannity would love to see this happen, that is why he had that particular pollster on. He would love to see the Democratic party destroy themselves. Sean Hannity is a concern troll.
This is doubly true now that Hillary’s only possible roads to the nomination lead down some skeevy path (changing the rules after the fact to get the FL/MI delegates in, convincing the superdelegates to overrule the wishes of a majority of voters).
Obama is dropping in the polls? Can I see a cite for that?
According to this poll, his numbers against McCain have stayed steadily within the margin of error all month. McCain’s numbers have risen slightly, but still within the margin of error.
No kidding. Why anybody should take at all seriously any suggestions originating from that corporate establishment whore’s grubhole that are ostensibly for the good of the Democrats is utterly mystifying.
Why? That’s an honest question. He’s still well liked by all the people who voted for him 8 years ago, but that wasn’t enough (or was barely enough) the last time around, and some of those people have died. The new voters that replaced them–those that have come of age in the last 8 years–are aware of him only as a dim figure in a green cloak.
Also, if Obama wins the popular vote AND the delegate count AND the total number of states and still some how loses the nomination, a lot of the African Americans who voted for Gore the first time are going to stay the hell home in disgust.
But the only real role the super-delegates have is to change the tide in an election with a razor-thin margin when their judgment tells them they should. In elections where the nomination is decided is February, the superdelegates are non-entities. It is exactly in elections like these that the superdelegate’s influence was contemplated. The delegate count is not sacred to the Democratic party. If it were, it would decide the election, period. No need for superdelegates. But the rules at the start of this election, the ones everyone agreed to, said no such thing.
Obama does not have the mandate some of his supporters like to suggest. If he did, there would be no discussion. He’d have the 2025 delegates his party decided is the prerequisite for a nomination. He doesn’t. “Obama has won twice as many states” has a nice ring to it. So does, “Hillary will likely win (or would have won) the states with the greatest number of electoral votes.”
No do-overs for Fla and MI might be the perfect scenario for Hillary, actually. If I were a superdelegate, I would factor them into my mental arithmetic as best I could, despite the clusterfuck the party leaders in each state created. If Clinton wins PA decisively, I’d factor in how I best believed MI and FL would come out. It’s neither Obama’s nor Clinton’s fault that those delegates won’t be seated. But guess what? The people in those states WILL vote in the general election. You know, the one the Dems are ultimately trying to win.
Narrow margin, Obama’s poll numbers plummet, Hillary takes every big state but IL–there’s definitely a scenario where if I were a superdelegate I’d consider it my duty to nominate Hillary. It’s the very reason superdelegates exist, to stem the tide of an election “gone wrong,” as their judgment sees it. They have no other role.
Personally, if it came to three hours of Sean Hannity or static, I’d take the static every time, but whatever.
While we’re at it, could I have a cite demonstrating the OP’s assertion that Obama “refuses to denounce his mentor”? AFAIK, in the past week, Obama has repeatedly denounced Wright’s more extreme comments, in fact basing an entire major speech around this subject. Or did I hear wrong?
Wow I started a thread on a possible compromise candidate before pre-preacher comments. Can’t find it right now since search is off. Pretty much the concensus was that there would not be a third person - it’s either HRC or Obama.
Maybe we should ressurect that zombie in case some people want to change their opinion.
Usually when someone says that Obama hasn’t denounced Wright, they don’t mean “hasn’t denounced Wright’s opinions as expressed in the three minutes of sermon (out of twenty years on the pulpit) that are repeated ad nauseam on Faux Snooze”, but that he hasn’t actually physically picked Wright up and thrown him under a crosstown bus for the crime of being, at one point in his life, a (justifiably) angry black man and possibly having kooky ideas about the origin of HIV.
He said just the opposite in his famous speech, in fact, that he can no more renounce Wright personally than he can renounce the black community. He did, however, renounce those of his hate sermons that have become public, along with some condescension toward Wright about his still living in the past.
That’s all you’re likely to get from Obama before you make your decision.