Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The problem the Democratic party faces is that Obama's so called victories in primaries and caucus states are for the most part meaningless, other than to let him take a nomination he probably doesn't deserve. Most of his victories have come in states no Democrat can hope to win, for example, several Southern states where the black vote put Obama over the top, and in places like Wyoming where Democrats are scarcer than intelligent Obama supporters. Then you look at the caucus states where the poor and disadvantaged--Clinton's strength--were effectively disenfranchised. Our own caucus in Colorado was dominated by the politically naivie and the liberal chic--as opposed to real liberals--who showed up for their first (and probably last) caucus. They're the sunshine soldiers and the summer patriots of this election year, much like that mythical youth vote that will put Obama over the top--anyone who has ever followed politics knows that the youth vote never materializes but everyone sees a bunch of college students jumping up and down and figures it is there. So, in the end, we're stuck with a candidate who has much less real support than his supporters think, who desperately needed to put eight years in as vice president not only to gain at least some experience--he has practically none--but also to get more people used to the idea of a black as a future president. This election is about gender and race to the degree that we need to elect a woman and we need to elect a black. It's also about the only real chance we have of pushing through national health. With Clinton we've got a fighting chance, with Obama we've got none. He's against mandates. Imagine how well social security would have worked had FDr taken that kind of weak-assed position. But of course Obama has to stay away from health care. His supporters are mostly well-to-do people who have insurance. Many blacks don't have insurnace but they'll support him--and they should--on racial grounds. Many Hispanics also don't have insurance and he knows he can't get their votes, just as he probably can't get the votes of the lower income whites without health insurance. Like just about everything he's done in this election, he's taken this position on health care for political reasons, not for reasons of principle. But we're told he's inspriational. Just remember that some guys with a smooth line can get you out of your panties but will he be there for breakfast?
Did Bill or Hillary write this? It sounds just like the garbage they have selling in their stump speeches. EEK!
As mentioned a while back, the Clintons have about 11 million reasons ($) to keep the campaign active. Even to the Clintons that is a lot of spare change.
And Hillary has 16.4 million reasons (votes) to stay in the race until the end.
She's has gotten 16,451,376 votes to Obama's 17,020,025 votes and that's without FL or MI. So that's only 586,649 votes between then and he's only ahead by a mere 1.6%. Even though she's not going to win in delegates, at least it was a very close race. And I also think that the long primary process has been good for getting more voters involved in caring about the election process.
I don't consider at all Hillary pathetic and I think that she ran a great race against the Obama money and marketing machine and she got great voting numbers. Actually, she got more votes per campaign dollar spent. Obama outspent her by several times and he still couldn't hit a slam dunk with the primary results. So if the campaign funds had been more equal between them, it seems to me that Hillary would have easily won. Obama success is more because of his amazing $200 million campaign chest, the talents of David Axelrod and his caucusing techniques, and less because he is a worthy candidate. He's all packaging and little substance.
And Hillary has 16.4 million reasons (votes) to stay in the race until the end.
She's has gotten 16,451,376 votes to Obama's 17,020,025 votes and that's without FL or MI. So that's only 586,649 votes between then and he's only ahead by a mere 1.6%. Even though she's not going to win in delegates, at least it was a very close race. And I also think that the long primary process has been good for getting more voters involved in caring about the election process.
I don't consider at all Hillary pathetic and I think that she ran a great race against the Obama money and marketing machine and she got great voting numbers. Actually, she got more votes per campaign dollar spent. Obama outspent her by several times and he still couldn't hit a slam dunk with the primary results. So if the campaign funds had been more equal between them, it seems to me that Hillary would have easily won. Obama success is more because of his amazing $200 million campaign chest, the talents of David Axelrod and his caucusing techniques, and less because he is a worthy candidate. He's all packaging and little substance.
I agree. It always seems to be one excuse after another excuse why Hillary is losing and Obama is winning. IF IF IF IF. SHE RAN A CRAP CAMPAIGN Period, end of story!
The usual Obama hating lines, caucus states don't count, Obama's only supporters are black, he doesn't have enough experience, doesn't deserve the nomination., he won't get the white vote etc. and on and on and on.
The real facts are, Obama won not only more caucus states but more primary states. He just won Ore. which has a black population of 1.9%. To say he doesn't deserve the nomination is ludicrous, according to DemCon Watch he currently leads in delegates 1977-1779, sound like he deserves it to me.
You'd better recheck your maps and figures. And you do realize that you can win a majority of states with small populations and lose the election to the candidate that carries states in which people actually live. The electoral college is a mess and so, unfortunately, is the Democratic party line. I don't hate Obama. In fact, the two things I most want in politics is for a woman and a black president. Obama just might not be the right black candidate. And politicos don't count Oregon, since it loves to vote for general election losers--the only state Bobby Kennedy lost to Eugene McCarthy, another inspiring leader who, as it turns out, was nearly a complete flake.
You'd better recheck your maps and figures. And you do realize that you can win a majority of states with small populations and lose the election to the candidate that carries states in which people actually live. The electoral college is a mess and so, unfortunately, is the Democratic party line. I don't hate Obama. In fact, the two things I most want in politics is for a woman and a black president. Obama just might not be the right black candidate. And politicos don't count Oregon, since it loves to vote for general election losers--the only state Bobby Kennedy lost to Eugene McCarthy, another inspiring leader who, as it turns out, was nearly a complete flake.
Speaking of maps and figures, the Republicans have been winning the Presidency with all those little states (except Texas and Florida). The states where "people actually live" have primarily gone Democratic. Hillary never had a chance to win a general election. 47-48% of Americans hate her and would never vote for her for POTUS.
While I think it would be nice to move on and finalize the Democratic candidate, I have to say that I'm not particularly pleased that some of the delegates switching are apparently not Superdelegates, but rather Pledged ones. Seems to me that they should put their support behind the way the votes were made.
Ken
I too have a problem with pledged delegates switching sides. You trust a delegate to vote as you voted--or which ever way the popular vote went in your state. If some of them do this--they should not be delegates again.
How about SD's like Kerry and Kennedy? They endorsed Obama even though Hill&Bill won MA.
My opinion is SD should be free to do as they wish. That's the difference between them and Pledged Delegates - and clearly that's the way the DNC intended it - otherwise they would simply have assigned more Pledged Delegates to the various states.
Ken
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Pledged delegates
