Obama trying his hardest to lose rust belt vote

Parent Cafe
201

<p>Tyler09; you need to read in context, and not only select words. My entire reference was to the effect that the dem convention should come and NEITHER Obama or Clinton had the 2025 delegates required to win the nomination. See, the DNC came up with the process. They are the ones who decided on have partial delegate wins depending on the percentage of total votes you received from a state. Their rules, while out there in left field, are quite simple. Obtain 2025 delegate votes to win the nomination. </p>

<p>My comments were based on the likely scenario if neither candidate has the 2025 delegates required. Sorry Tyler, but saying; “I have the most popular vote and the most delegates” is NOT a good argument. Sorry if that bothers you, but that’s the truth. If that that was a GOOD ARGUMENT for winning the nomination, then the DNC could simply state in their rules; “to win the nomination, you need to receive 2025 delegates; or the most if all parties are under the 2025 amount.” Trying to say that “I have the most popular votes and delegates, I should win” is no different than was I said about leading in a baseball game 10-0 after 3 innings. Sorry, but if it starts to rain and the game is called because of rain, YOU DO NOT WIN!!! How hard is that to understand??? You need a certain number of innings to win. According to the DNC, you need a certain number of delegates to win. It isn’t rocket science. If you don’t like the rules, then get the DNC to change them.</p>

<p>I think it’s funny that when the rules work for some people, they like them. When they don’t work for them, they don’t like them. Democrats had no major problem with the concept of the electoral college for centuries. They and republicans understood the concept of allowing all states some say in the political process. They understood that under a strict popular vote concept, the candidates would spend their entire time and money in places like New York, California, Texas, and florida. That the majority of the country would never see the candidates. Yes, they all understood and agreed. (Those who understand the rules of government). Of course, one Al Gore lost in 2000 to Bush with the Electoral college, then they all started screaming that the process was broken. No, it wasn’t broken. They just didn’t like the outcome. Nothing in life is perfect, but the popular vote has many more negatives than the electoral vote concept. The same exact thing is happening now with the delegate count. People already believe that if neither candidate reaches 2025 votes, that Obama should automatically win because he has the most popular vote and the most delegates currently. Sorry, but that isn’t the rule and that isn’t the purpose. The purpose of the 2025 is to give a candidate the majority of the country. Not just popular vote. Just like the electoral college, if you did it on popular vote instead of delegates, the candidates would never leave California, New York, Florida, texas, etc… The delegate count forces them all over the country. If neither reaches the magic number, then it’s a tie. They have to decide who to select. Yes, there will still be those who argue that Obama had the most popular votes and most delegates. That is lame, but they will believe it’s good. That simply could have been put into the rules that way. Then there’s the clinton side believing that she can actually carry the democratic states. Obama didn’t win a lot of those. She has a point. On the other hand, the rules say THAT NEITHER OBAMA OR CLINTON HAS TO GET THE NOMINATION. The DNC and convention could nominate a totally different individual. Someone like Al Gore. You just never know.</p>

202

<p>^^^2025 is a simply majority. The only reason neither has that right now is a lot of the superdelegates are playing “wait and see”. It would be hypocrisy for democrats to declare the electoral college should be eliminated and then not give their nomination to the person who won the popular vote. </p>

<p>So yes, having the majority of the people vote for you IS a good argument for why you should receive the nomination in a democracy.</p>

203

<p>Well, the argument didn’t work for Al Gore in 2000. Nor should it have. The rules say it is the most electoral college votes. The same here. It doesn’t say the most popular votes. It says the simple majority of delegates. Now; if Obama gets the delegates he needs, then he wins. If he doesn’t, then having the popular vote doesn’t mean anything. If it did, that would be in the rules.</p>

204

<p>The Obama argument is simply that the superdelegates should not exercise their right to override the will of the people. If the superdelegates do exercise that right, well, of course, it <em>is</em> their right and Clinton will be the nominee. Right now, it looks like the superdelegates agree with Obama. </p>

<p>Mini, I agree, it really looks like Clinton is positioning herself to get the nomination in 2012. If you accept that most politicians are ultimately going to watch out for their own interests, then you can’t really blame her. </p>

<p>I expect she will lose this year’s nomination, endorse Obama and ‘campaign’ on his behalf this fall. Nobody will be able to question her ‘loyalty’ to the party. When Obama loses, she will be perfectly positioned for 2012. </p>

<p>In fact, I suspect that the strongest Clinton argument to superdelegates now would be “if you support me this year I’ll remember you in 2012. If you oppose me I will remember that too”.</p>

205

<p>Digmedia, I respectfully submit that the quotes you printed are quotes of righteous anger from a man of God, but some of the quotes of the Rev Wright whether read in context or out of context are different - they are hate speech. It is a fine line, and it is only one person’s opinion, but these two men are responding to similar outrages in ways that are subtlely different but important differences.</p>

206

<p>Some random (or not) thoughts: </p>

<p>It is too bad that the superdelegates feel that they must criticize instead just advocating. If it were all positive, it would not be divisive. </p>

<p>The media is responsible for backing candidates into corners, pinning them for absolute answers and recall, and then crucifying them later. It is not quite the same thing as when we as parents nod or seem accommodating when cornered by our kids while busy with something else. Later, it is “but, MOM, you promised!” But the reaction is certainly similar. </p>

<p>What would have been so bad about the candidates responding to the question about whether the other could be elected with “Well, I do not think he/she can or will, but folks get to vote, and it will be the way it will be. You are asking me to predict the future, and I have no crystal ball, just my best judgment of how thing are”? Would it have been detrimental to the party for the candidates to express their own personal doubt? I am not understanding this…</p>

207

<p>lorelei - i sent you a pm.</p>

208

<p>

</p>

<p>I still expect that Hillary will somehow pull the nomination out of the fire. But if she does loss to Obama, any endorsement she gives his candidacy will be lukewarm at best. And sorry, I just don’t see her campaigning for the man. She’d probably sooner submit to an ice water enema. Neither Clinton campaigned for Al Gore when he ran, either.</p>

209

<p>

I assumed it was because Gore was trying to distance himself from them and did not want them to do so.</p>

210

<p>“Still doesn’ matter. She’s finished. Kaput.”</p>

<p>That may be correct, but Obama is also done in Nov. You can’t win electoral college just on black or ultra liberal or circus votes.</p>

<p>Obama can’t win in November.</p>

211

<p>I think Obama should not count his chickens before they are hatched. As simba pointed out, the demographic that supports him is very narrow. This demographic make up a small block of people who actually vote. The superdelegates should really take a look at this before they vote.</p>

<p>For anyone who remembers the Colts and Tampa game a couple of years ago, it’s not over until is over. </p>

<p>A lot of the members of the Democratic party are not of the dailykos, moveon, and huffintingpost variety. Most are your average hard working people who are trying to make a decent living, and are not really concerned about the latest course of the ultra liberal wing of the party. </p>

<p>Huffington, a former neo-con, has all of a sudden banded with the left wingers to destroy the Democratic party. I don’t trust her one bit. How can one change from being a neo-con to the other extreme end of the political spectrum? Call me a conspiracy theorist, for some reason, I can’t shake this feeling that she is probably popping up the champagne with her neo-con friends and laughing at the expense of the Democratic party. </p>

<p>I guess the joke is on us.</p>

212

<p>That very narrow demographic has him leading in the democratic popular vote, and in the national polls. </p>

<p>And currently the national polls are skewed in FAVOR of the republicans because often clinton supporters don’t want to make their candidate look bad by answering that they’d support Obama over McCain.</p>

<p>Every poll refutes what you say simba, where is YOUR evidence. Or is it just speculation and wishful thinking.</p>

213

<p>Wonder if delegates/superdelegates ever publicly endorse someone then privately vote another way.</p>

<p>Are their actual votes public or private?</p>

214

<p>What is a circus vote ?</p>

215

<p>Simba calls the Texas caucus process a circus. That’s what he means. The Texas Primary/Caucus process is rather strange and confusing—at least to us outsiders</p>

216

<p>Obama was at a rally of 35,000 supporters in Philadelphia. He may not win the Pennsylvania primary, but he still seems to be getting a lot of attention and enthusiasm. </p>

<p>Could this be “bitter” sweet for him? ;)</p>

217

<p>I wonder, if he wins the nomination, how much the republicans are going to use this against him.<br>
59,000,000 gun owners and 159,000,000 christians are pretty big numbers, rather nicely grouped by Obama. I’m sure the republicans would love to use the controversy to try to bring in a majority of those groups.</p>

218

<p>^^^</p>

<p>I wonder too, but I don’t think a lot of these controversies are going to be as effective as they could of been, when the general election rolls around.</p>

<p>While people are tired of seeing Hillary, she has her uses. She is trying to bash these things into peoples head so much and so hard that a lot of people are tired of hearing about it. They’ve already made their decisions on where they stand on the issues. If its brought up in the general election, it will seem like its been re-re-rehashed already, and it will put a lot of people off. </p>

<p>There are only so many questions you can ask or re-ask about something until it doesn’t seem like that big of a deal anymore. And the more people bring it up the more trivial it starts to seem.</p>

219

<p>I don’t think those issues will be as useful when the two candidates people are deciding between actually have substantive differences to talk about.</p>

220

<p>

</p>

<p>Typical misrepresentation by Clinton supporters.</p>

<p>Uhh, Huffington - while leaning right-wing during the 90’s was NEVER a neo-con. Plus, Huffington was first known as a left-winger when she dated former CA gov. Jerry Brown and by all account today is a progressive populist.</p>

<p>Otoh, Richard Mellon Scaife IS and ALWAYS has been an uber right-winger - who financed much of the attack against Clintons during Bill’s 8 years in the White House.</p>

<p>Guess which candidate the right-wing Pittsburgh Tribune-Review (owned by Scaife) endorsed?</p>

<p>Hillary went as so far to meet w/ Scaife (once again she treats her enemies better than her friends who just happen to differ from time to time).</p>

<p>Plus watch all the conservative talking heads on CNN, MSNBC, Fox (almost) News, talk radio, etc. - from Buchanan to Rush to Scarborough - they all are much harder on Obama than Clinton.</p>

<p>Gee, I wonder why? </p>

<p>Hillary has become Cheney-lite (and I’m saying this as a life-long Republican who can’t stand the neo-cons).</p>