You’re welcome. While I doubt there’s anything at this point that could sway my opinion that Obama would be a better president, I also value debating on the merits, whatever they might be. As a non-Republican, I honestly believe that we, the American voting public, are better than what we get fed as political debate. Or, paradoxically, engage in on our own.
As to Thurmond’s statement – yes, I mostly take it seriously. Without further information, I feel that I have to take it at face value. However, as I said, it’s not clear to me how the opinions of those “thousands of people” were gotten. If from a public, open forum, then ISTM that it may be a fair representation of public view. However, if I found out that Thurmond was an Obama supporter, her statement would become suspect in my eyes. Essentially, given more information, my opinion could be swayed either way; but at the very least, ISTM that it’s the best (if not only) gauge we have.
I don’t usually enter into this particular aspect of the debate, as it takes too much time and effort for me to mount what I consider adequate responses (being concise/terse is not, unfortunately, a gift of mine). Also, I tire quickly of the spin. But, since it was a response to me, I feel an obligation to follow up.
I think you’re being slightly disingenuous here – or at least overstating your case. No doubt there are people who both “shrug off” not counting FL/MI while also making the “civil war” claim. But honestly, I find the existence of a substantial and identifiable group here at the SDMB a delusion.
Many people think there should have been a re-vote, myself included. Others feel that “the rules”, as agreed to months ago (specifically, that once FL/MI moved their primaries up, their delegates would not be counted) should be followed, not all of whom “shrug off” the issue, but think that it’s the appropriate course of action to a distressing situation. Yet others call for an entirely different solution. Whatever; the point here is that there are a large number of varying opinions, few of whom fall into your categorization.
Now take the claims of “civil war” resulting from “overturning the will of the people”. In no case that I can remember has anyone claimed that position without qualification (at least, when asked). As I recall, when asked, “the will of the people” has been stated as something like: the difference in pledged delegates is larger than 100. (I’m not going near the popular vote, as it really bugs me that my caucus participation almost always gets excluded from consideration, which is ironic in discussions of disenfranchising voters.) Yes, a universal definition of that qualification is likely impossible – like pornography, it’s more of a “know it when you see it” thing. The point here is that, by my perception, only a small number of people hold the unqualified position.
So, I think it’s fair to say that you’ve set up a conjuntion of people who “shrug off” disenfranchisment AND claim a “civil war” if Obama is not the nominee. Combine the two points I’ve laid out above and it seems to me that you’re talking about a vanishingly small number of people, if not the empty set. I don’t necessarily expect you to agree, which is totally acceptable. And perhaps you’re talking about the general public, in which case I’m sure you can find some counter-examples. But there’s my reasoning on the matter, FWIW.
. Now I understand.