<p>^ So? Who cares? Those are not the rules. The primaries are not winner take all. It is the Democratic party that has established those rules. Everyone knows the rules before the game!</p>
<p>If every 3 point shot in basketball only counted for 1 point, many in the NCAA would whine too! There is a reason that rules exist in every competition. One doesn’t have to agree, but a rule is a rule.</p>
<p>I agree 1SM. That’s why I get a little bent out of shape when people complain of what the SD’s might do. Rules are rules, you knew them before the primary…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s not so much a matter of the rules as interesting hypotheticals. Obama and company are all going on about how Hillary should drop out for the good of the party, because he has the higher delegate count; yet in many ways it is so close as for that argument to be not at all persuasive, and if delegate counts are considered alongside other measurements (popular vote, states won, etc.) a populist argument to the superdelegates could work out in Hillary’s favor.</p>
<p>I think Obama supporters need to stop pining for Hillary to drop out. It’s clearly not happening, and it’s not proven to be a strong line of attack for them.</p>
<p>sokkermom I know that. This was just for people who want to know NOW who their candidate should be.</p>
<p>Re post #64.</p>
<p>I agree. However, the same holds true for the ardent “never say die” Clinton obsessed.</p>
<p>I personally do not think that the Clinton machine should try to strong arm Obama into any sort of premature concession through the employment of fear tactics, negative smear, or back room deals, either.</p>
<p>Many voters still believe that Hillary has a lot more skeletons to explain than he does. She needs to think about that. Either way, any future negativity will surely be fodder for McCain to use against either candidate. :eek:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Agree. ^ I think doing so is actually making them look like bad sports.</p>
<p>sokkermom: Congratulations. Is he sad about leaving?</p>
<p>“Take soccer.”</p>
<p>In that case why not select the player by a coin toss before the game. In politics randomly select a state and winner of that state is the nominee.</p>
<p>Hillary has a great argument for the super delegates should she be behind in delegate count at the time of the convention. The majority of states that Obama has won are more Red states. Come general election, most of those states will mean nothing. They will probably go to the republicans. So the question then is; can he pull off Ohio from the Republicans. Same with Texas, Florida, California, etc… Personally, I think Hillary has a better chance of beating McCain. Even then, I think it’s going to be close.</p>
<p>In the next few months, McCain has the luxury of doing fund raisers and staying out of the arguments and only getting in the news and public forums when he wants to. Clinton and Obama are going to continue beating on each other. They could appear to be quite divided. McCain could definitely benefit from all of this. However; if Obama and Clinton can stop beating on each other and come up with a back room deal; let the chips fall where they may without fighting each other, and making it a team ticket with the 2 of them as Pres/VP come election time. Under this scenario, I believe that there would be no stopping them. McCain wouldn’t have a chance. But if the 2 of them fight it out and then grab a different VP when the primary winner emerges; I think McCain may very well win the general election.</p>
<p>^ I tend to agree. A “deal” between the two would be the best outcome for Dems at this point. Even if some voting Dems will feel disfranchised by lack of “say” in the next primaries, at least the party as a whole would benefit. The longer the campaign goes, more dirt will be unveiled and more negativity pumped into the race. That will not make it easier for any final candidate to confront the Reps. And a P/VP deal between the two would unite the Dems.</p>
<p>Did he kiss’m on the head again? :)</p>
<p>Just a few random comments:</p>
<p>I sincerely believe the clintons will say and do most anything to win this nomination. If they have to destroy Obama and the party in the process they will do so w/o hesitation. This is all about them and their perceived destiny.</p>
<p>It’s pretty well established the clinton camp released the photo of Obama in African garb. When given the chance to put the Muslim rumors vis-a-vis Obama to rest she did not do so (yet chastised him re: his “rejection” of Farakhan not being clear enough). She agreed to the rules re: Michigan and Florida going in but now wants those rules changed.</p>
<p>The clintons are about power for the sake of acheiving power, a rather republican stance and worst of all is her repeated rant of being a fighter. All that translates to is she will do and say whatever it takes. But it also tells me she is a choose up sides, us vs. them, old school politician and it is that style that prevented her from acheiving any health care reform when she was first lady.</p>
<p>In the end, I see her getting the nomination. The youth vote and many others who have been inspired by Obama will vanish just as they did in 68 when Humphrey triumphed and all those that had supported McCarthy and RFK sat out the election.</p>
<p>McCain, who is just Bush III, is your next president unless somehow Obama can hang in there and defeat the clinton machine and the hideous spector of racism that is raising its ugly head, along with a touch of xenophobia being fanned by Billary (and that’s not a typo). </p>
<p>And don’t forget ol’ Bill’s comment, well, uh, ya know Jesse Jackson won South Carolina, yuck yuck.</p>
<p>Hillary is proposing a joint ticket but is quick to point out that she would be at the top of that ticket. I do not see her agreeing to be his VP. </p>
<p>The “big and blue state” argument is hollow. By and large the only people who vote in the primary are Democrats. If they had a Clinton/Obama contest in these states where <em>all</em> voters including Republicans had to choose between these two candidates, Obama would win each and every one of them. Obama appeals to Republicans and Independents a lot more than Clinton does.</p>
<p>bullwinkle, I’m afraid you are right on. Obama’s organization has increased Dem. voter participation to record levels and that will dry up and go away if he’s not on the ticket. Welcome President McCain in the fall. Hillary will position herself for another run in 2012… not sure what Obama will do but I doubt he’ll run again. The Mayans predicted the end of the world by then anyhow. Oh well.</p>
<p>Wow.</p>
<p>Duke, Politics, AND soccer all in one thread. What more could one ask? :D</p>
<p>Thanks angelica, I liked the soccer analogy.</p>
<p>janie, I think he is ready to move on. He wants to be a “Patriot” now. Ugh. That’s what we get for sending him to school in the conservative south. (And to top it off, it was a school with a bunch of “liberal” professors (his view) who inflated the whole lacrosse fiasco that probably contributed to his current more conservative thinking.)</p>
<p>He heads off to Officer training in Washington State after graduation. So you see, I have a dilemma. I really should vote for someone against war for my own sanity. Yet, I should also consider someone sympathetic to the needs of the military…:o
Good Grief. McCain wants the war to last another 100 years. Even if S joins the National Guard, and decides not to go active, his chances of deployment would be pretty high under that scenario. </p>
<p>And people wonder why parents get gray hair ! 
(I’d much rather only be concerned about Duke and UNC. It would be a lot easier.)</p>
<p>momof2inca: >>>The Mayans predicted the end of the world by then anyhow.>>></p>
<p>Yeah, but what does the Inca predict?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not to nitpick but this is false. </p>
<p>1) McCain doesn’t WANT the war to last another years</p>
<p>2) McCain says we may have to maintain a PRESENCE in Iraq for 100 years, just as we have done in Japan/Germany. </p>
<p>Nobody is running around saying the War in Japan/German is still going on from the 1940’s :rolleyes:</p>
<p>re #67 “But the Democratic Party is the main team. Supporters are her towel boys and water girls.”</p>
<p>Interesting perspective on supporters…I have never felt that way about my role in the process. It sounds like the supporters are servants. Rather I think the supporters are those whose preferences, interests, and beliefs are being represented and will be furthered. I am not anyones servant, though I am not unwilling to be helpful, but I look at my candidate as my conduit into the process of government. I am not a supporter just to watch the game (those are the media exuberants), but rather to further my own priorities. </p>
<p>And, that is where the whole thing gets personal, because my beliefs and values are affirmed if my candidate wins. If (s)he loses, what I value has been disregarded, and that hurts.</p>
<p>angelica, I did not feel disrespected at all. I was just pondering the difference in our takes on the analogy, the roles different “players” and staff play. It is fascinating to me to find a perspective from different arenas, it makes it easier to be less emotionally invested, but rather more analytical. </p>
<p>I do “gym” stuff, but have never played on a team. However, I am a voice teacher, and I scour the realm for analogies to put my points across to my students. They laugh, but we explore each together to find the ones which help them take the next step and progress in their thinking and doing.</p>
<p>If you like sports’ analogies, here is another one:</p>
<p>Obama is leading 21-14 with 40 seconds in the game. He scored seven field goals. Clinton scored two touchdowns that were bombs of 40 and 68 yards. Clinton has no timeouts and is at her own 40 yard line. She sends a message to Obama that says" look I will throw three more passes in the end zone and look at my friends who happen to wear a zebra uniform to get a penalty on you. Then I will score a touchdown. Then I’ll decide to go for two points, or you can concede and we’ll draw the game. We will share the honors but I will be declared the winner." </p>
<p>Wouldn’t Obama look at the clock and at the field position … and laugh at the “Indecent Proposal.” </p>
<p>This said, a proposal for a joint ticket is not surprising from a camp that would claim, “Look how far we have come! So far that a Black person can run for a Vice Presidential ticket.”</p>
<p>I doubt Obama takes the VP. Obama is going to be beating Clinton in delegates all the way to the convention, and if he decides to become her VP he is going to look like he is “giving in” to pressure and isn’t any different from any other Washington insider. Obama is a young man, he can afford to take this all the way to the convention and lose cuz he can run again in the future. If he takes the VP position with Clinton he destroys alot of the aura that he has built for himself. If it goes to convention, and the SD’s override his delegate lead, then he can come back later (cuz he’s young) and say he was robbed, that he’s back for more, and it will make him look even more different than all the other politicians.</p>