Who will (not should) be the Democratic presidential nominee in 2008?

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Why not hold out for a deal in a brokered convention (such as giving her Senate Majority Leader) rather than just back out now?

Why not broker the deal NOW if that's what you want to do?

It's funny that yesterday I'm on here stating all of the reasons a fight to the convention are bad: 1) Money, 2) bloodbath not good for the party 3) Reps. have their candidate decided which means a better intrastructure.

Those points were brushed aside by a lot of people. Then I hear one of the democratic leaders on my local news show today and he states that the longer this goes it's bad for the dems because: 1) Money, 2) bloodbath not good for the party, 3) McCain is already working on his intrastructure.

Then he added that the one good thing is that Obama would get a lot of tough questions out of the way now.

I'm happy he found the needle of hope in the haystack of misery at the end, but the end will not justify the means. Her going to convention is going to be brutal for the dems come November.

Here is the thing IS, she doesn't want the dem chair. She wants the presidency and she's going to do whatever it takes to get it. She knows damned well she isn't going to win the delegate count now. She's not getting out because she wants to broker a backroom deal with the superdelegates to beat out Obama. That would be nightmare central for the democratic party. There is a very real chance it would spell the end of the party as we currently see it.

[ISiddiqui]

Well of course she wants the Presidency and will do whatever it takes... but as far as consolation prizes go, she'll get far better ones the more scared Howard Dean gets.

[Malificent]

Originally Posted by TroyF

Why not broker the deal NOW if that's what you want to do?

It's funny that yesterday I'm on here stating all of the reasons a fight to the convention are bad: 1) Money, 2) bloodbath not good for the party 3) Reps. have their candidate decided which means a better intrastructure.

Those points were brushed aside by a lot of people. Then I hear one of the democratic leaders on my local news show today and he states that the longer this goes it's bad for the dems because: 1) Money, 2) bloodbath not good for the party, 3) McCain is already working on his intrastructure.

Then he added that the one good thing is that Obama would get a lot of tough questions out of the way now.

I'm happy he found the needle of hope in the haystack of misery at the end, but the end will not justify the means. Her going to convention is going to be brutal for the dems come November.

Here is the thing IS, she doesn't want the dem chair. She wants the presidency and she's going to do whatever it takes to get it. She knows damned well she isn't going to win the delegate count now. She's not getting out because she wants to broker a backroom deal with the superdelegates to beat out Obama. That would be nightmare central for the democratic party. There is a very real chance it would spell the end of the party as we currently see it.

Why should she back out now? If she goes to the convention and manages to wrangle the nom via back room dealings, she's happy. If she doesn't, but the protracted fight ruins Obama's chances, then in 4 years she can run again, saying "you should've elected me last time." If you're Hillary, and all you care about is winning the Presidency, party be damned, then fighting to the convention is a no lose situation for you.

[cartman]

It appears that Obama is going to offset the delegates gained by Hillary in the Texas primary with a strong showing in the caucus. That would tend to support the theory that there were a lot of crossover voters for Hillary, as these voters more than likely aren't going to return in the evening to attend the caucus.

[mrsimperless]

When will we know the full delegate count?

[chesapeake]

People predicting some kind of "bloodbath" need to relax. You're buying into the media's penchant for hyperventilation. I've been involved in elective politics professionally now for almost 20 years. This primary race doesn't even qualify as rough. The Bush campaign's infamous push-polling in the SC primary in 2000, where they alleged that McCain had an out-of-wedlock black child -- that was rough. Questioning Obama's ability to lead in a crisis is, frankly, a good question to ask. You can be sure McCain will ask it again and again and again and again and again.

Democratic superdelegates will be asking the same question, too. And they should.

[Cringer]

I say they offer Hillary a deal that she fades away into obscurity.

I heard a rumor though that if McCain wins he is working out to be adopted by the Bush's or the Clinton's so the royal families can continue.

[SuperGrover]

Originally Posted by cartman

It appears that Obama is going to offset the delegates gained by Hillary in the Texas primary with a strong showing in the caucus. That would tend to support the theory that there were a lot of crossover voters for Hillary, as these voters more than likely aren't going to return in the evening to attend the caucus.

Not that I have a pony in this fight, but CNN exit poll data indicates that Republicans voted more for Obama. The data could be corrupted of course, but it's a pretty significant edge (7%).

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/pri.../epolls/#TXDEM

[Cringer]

I say people care about polls too much.

A poll on our local paper's website had Ron Paul getting more votes then anyone down here. I was 1 of 264 people down here to vote for him.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Hmmm. I wonder why people don't seem to like Hilary (or the Clintons in general)?

I'll just state for the record that I don't really have a horse in the race at this point. I'll probably vote for McCain in the GE, but honestly, I don't think it matters which of these three get in. I don't think any of them are going to give us some monsterous improvement or catastrophy. I could actually be swayed against McCain fairly easily.

I'm just finding this a fascinating thing to watch. The media is making this seem like it's anyones ballgame now. It isn't. If Hillary didn't gain 70 or more delegates last night, this is over as far as the delegate count in concerned. Over. Done. Finito. She has no chance of winning. Go ahead and revote Michigan and Florida. She's not going to get 60+ percent of the remaining delegates.

So she's staying in the race to try and sway the super delegates and broker a deal of some sort. She has every right to do it. I'm not for an instant saying she doesn't. I'm just wondering why die hard dems aren't coming out more against it. I think the biggest thing is that most them don't understand how delegates work and exactly what she has to do to catch up. If CNN came on tomorrow and said "Hillary needs to take the next 16 states at over 63% to catch Obama in delegates," I think the uproar would be heard around this country.

I'm reading newspaper articles this morning talking about how Hillary has now switched the momentum, how her attacks have worked and are acting as though this is coming back to her somehow. Guess what boys and girls, it isn't. In the delegate battle, she's done. Last night was not a victory for her, it was a complete and total disaster. It was like being down on away goals 4-0 and getting a 1-0 win at home in the second leg. Sorry. You aren't close.

As for her in four years? I think her windown will have closed. This is her chance. She knows she's lost the delegate count. It's all about backroom brokering now.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by mrsimperless

When will we know the full delegate count?

In Texas, they've counted all of the primary votes. The caucus tally probably won't be final until this evening. Most districts are only between 20 and 40% completed.

http://precinctconventionresults.txd...tion08district

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by chesapeake

People predicting some kind of "bloodbath" need to relax. You're buying into the media's penchant for hyperventilation. I've been involved in elective politics professionally now for almost 20 years. This primary race doesn't even qualify as rough. The Bush campaign's infamous push-polling in the SC primary in 2000, where they alleged that McCain had an out-of-wedlock black child -- that was rough. Questioning Obama's ability to lead in a crisis is, frankly, a good question to ask. You can be sure McCain will ask it again and again and again and again and again.

Democratic superdelegates will be asking the same question, too. And they should.

20 years? 5 elections? So you've went through the elder Bush election, the Clinton elections and the Bush2 elections?

Hate to break it to you, there hasn't been a battle that went to the convention for awhile now. Actually, the last time was 1976. Reagan and Ford went to the Republican convention with the race still to be decided. Ford won and then lost to Jimmy Carter. Think about that for a second. It's not the only time tight primary races that went to the convention floor has ended up in a loss for the party. Quite the opposite, it's what happen a majority of the time. The party in turmoil gets beat in the general election.


Oh, and if the super delegates give this to Hillary in a back room deal? You really think the African American voter base stays democratic at that point? You think that'd be a good thing for the democratic party? I can assure you it wouldn't end well. It wouldn't end well at all.

But you're the experienced one, you should know that. . .

[Toddzilla]

Right now, things don't look so rosy for the Democrats - no matter who wins the nomination, 49% of the democratic electorate is going to be bitter that their candidate is cooked. Which is sad, since the winner and often even the loser of the democratic primary has been getting more votes than the entire GOP field.

So the two democratic candidates need to start "playing nice" and make it easy for the supporters of the losing candidate to support the winner.

IMO, however, it isn't going to matter, because once the campaign against McCain starts, that guy is history. No way McCain can survive that - there is just way way too much baggage to use against him, as if "100 more years in Iraq" isn't enough by itself.

[SuperGrover]

Originally Posted by Cringer

I say people care about polls too much.

A poll on our local paper's website had Ron Paul getting more votes then anyone down here. I was 1 of 264 people down here to vote for him.

That's the thing with politics though. Many on this board are saying the Republicans are voting for Clinton to prolong the race, but the polls show otherwise. However, it will almost certainly be ignored as inaccurate. Funny how that works when the data doesn't support your argument.

Everyone needs to realize that not only can Clinton not win without super delegates, but Obama almost certainly cannot either. Using CNN's Delegate Counter Game, there are 613 unassigned delegates, with Obama having 1321 and Clinton 1186 pledged delegates before factoring the Texas caucus. Assuming a 37-30 caucus win for Obama, that leaves the counts at 1358 and 1216, respectively. By my math, that means neither can win the delegation without superdelegates, and, in fact, neither will be all that close (even at 66% of the remaining delegates for Obama, the total count is 1762 to 1424).

In other words, no matter the outcomes of Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Indiana and Puerto Rico (the 4 largest votes remaining by delegation), the 800 superdelegates WILL decide the Democratic nominee. Consequently, I'm not really understanding why everyone thinks Clinton should bow out. Why shouldn't Obama bow out? Neither is going to win without some type of deal mongering (superdelegates, FL/MI, a brokered settlement).

I agree with many who say the DNC is screwed. You give the election to Obama and you most certainly disenfranchise the Latino vote and possibly FL/MI and white women. You give it to Clinton you lose the black vote and the young vote. It is a lose-lose situation unless one of them gives in and I don't think either will.

[st.cronin]

Anybody pretending this race isn't a nightmare for the Democratic party is either delusional or a spinner.

[TroyF]

Super Grover,

Agreed, but the key at this point is who has more "regular" delegates. Let's face it, the democratic party is the "blue collar" party. The Republicans are supposed to be the ones who disenfranchise voters, make backroom deals and go against the will of the people.

If the super delegates win the election for Hillary after she's lost the regular delegate count by 150 to 200? It's a bigtime nightmare for the party. It's something they can't recover from. I think they could recover if they give it to Obama at that point, especially if Hillary gives a nice concession speech and says it's the best thing for the party.

OK, now I'm the dillusional one.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Anybody pretending this race isn't a nightmare for the Democratic party is either delusional or a spinner.

Anyone saying this race is a nightmare for the Democratic party is rubbing their hands together on the sidelines, hoping they will fail anyway.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

Anyone saying this race is a nightmare for the Democratic party is rubbing their hands together on the sidelines, hoping they will fail anyway.

100% false.

Some are, sure. But you don't have to be a democratic hater to see what is happening here. Explain to me why it's a good thing to have a nasty race that encompassing two of your largest favorable voter groups.

You can't. It's not a good thing. If this goes to the convention floor, the dems will lose the race to The White House. Book it now.

[SuperGrover]

Originally Posted by TroyF

Super Grover,

Agreed, but the key at this point is who has more "regular" delegates. Let's face it, the democratic party is the "blue collar" party. The Republicans are supposed to be the ones who disenfranchise voters, make backroom deals and go against the will of the people.

If the super delegates win the election for Hillary after she's lost the regular delegate count by 150 to 200? It's a bigtime nightmare for the party. It's something they can't recover from. I think they could recover if they give it to Obama at that point, especially if Hillary gives a nice concession speech and says it's the best thing for the party.

OK, now I'm the dillusional one.

Certainly if one of them concedes gracefully then everything will be fine, but neither is going to concede. They are simply too close for either to give up.

My point is that the prevailing theme on this board is that Clinton should bow out because she can't win the delegate count. Since Obama cannot either, I don't see the point. There is going to be shady politics involved by the nature of the Democratic primary system. You think Clinton supporters are going to sit idly by and acquiesce because Obama 5% more of the regular delegation? You don't think that Latinos are gonna be pissed that their voices weren't heard? What about Florida and Michigan? You don't think there is gonna be disenfranchisement either way?

[SuperGrover]

Originally Posted by TroyF

100% false.

Some are, sure. But you don't have to be a democratic hater to see what is happening here. Explain to me why it's a good thing to have a nasty race that encompassing two of your largest favorable voter groups.

You can't. It's not a good thing. If this goes to the convention floor, the dems will lose the race to The White House. Book it now.

I am a democrat and think this race and the most liberal Republican candidate in years will ultimately cost us the election in November.

[Kodos]

Something tells me that Clinton isn't exactly a "take one for the team" kinda gal.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by TroyF

100% false.

Some are, sure. But you don't have to be a democratic hater to see what is happening here. Explain to me why it's a good thing to have a nasty race that encompassing two of your largest favorable voter groups.

You can't. It's not a good thing. If this goes to the convention floor, the dems will lose the race to The White House. Book it now.

You are assuming it will go to the convention floor. Even if it does, you are assuming the Republicans have a candidate that will be able to capitalize on any possible lingering bad blood. He can't. He is the worst candidate they could possibly have come up with. He is alienating the party loyal, and will be exposed as a panderer on a scale 4x worse than Bill Clinton in the general election.

If the race continues on for a couple more months, Obama and Clinton get a chance to get all of their warts in front of the public months earlier than normal. By November, they will have been forgotten or forgiven. Most Democrats will vote for the party nominee. Self-described independents will continue to not vote, as usual. Meanwhile, nobody will be talking about McCain. Except Fox News and the occasional blurb in mainstream media talking about how he doesn't know who to campaign against yet.

I love it when you get all worked up about something, Troy. You will be in this thread from now until June arguing this point if you had to. Which is fine. But that doesn't make your or my statement of opinion any more "100% false". They are simply 2 competing opinions.

[SuperGrover]

Originally Posted by Kodos

Something tells me that Clinton isn't exactly a "take one for the team" kinda gal.

As someone mentioned before she benefits by fighting to the bitter end. If Obama wins the nomination and loses the General, she can run again in four years and still be a viable candidate (she'd be 64). If he wins the GE, she can know that she gave it her all. if she wins the nomination, she got what she wanted. It's a win-win situation for her personally.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

You are assuming it will go to the convention floor. Even if it does, you are assuming the Republicans have a candidate that will be able to capitalize on any possible lingering bad blood. He can't. He is the worst candidate they could possibly have come up with. He is alienating the party loyal, and will be exposed as a panderer on a scale 4x worse than Bill Clinton in the general election.

If the race continues on for a couple more months, Obama and Clinton get a chance to get all of their warts in front of the public months earlier than normal. By November, they will have been forgotten or forgiven. Most Democrats will vote for the party nominee. Self-described independents will continue to not vote, as usual. Meanwhile, nobody will be talking about McCain. Except Fox News and the occasional blurb in mainstream media talking about how he doesn't know who to campaign against yet.

I love it when you get all worked up about something, Troy. You will be in this thread from now until June arguing this point if you had to. Which is fine. But that doesn't make your or my statement of opinion any more "100% false". They are simply 2 competing opinions.

Actually it is 100% false. Super Grover is a dem and stated he thinks they'll lose because of it. I don't think he's excited to lose the election or see the dems fail. Therefore your assertion in your first post is 100% false.

I like how I get called out for making widespread generalizations in your post, yet you are the one who stated the biggest one.

[rkmsuf]

can something be "100% false"?

I mean it's either true or false.

Unless you are telling me there is such a thing as big and little coincidences as well.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by TroyF

Actually it is 100% false. Super Grover is a dem and stated he thinks they'll lose because of it. I don't think he's excited to lose the election or see the dems fail. Therefore your assertion in your first post is 100% false.

Actually, you're right. That first blanket statement I made is 100% false. I was just trying to out-hyperbole saint cronin.

[Cringer]

I think none of you really know what you are talking about, and you all have a 50-50 chance of being right.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by SuperGrover

Certainly if one of them concedes gracefully then everything will be fine, but neither is going to concede. They are simply too close for either to give up.

My point is that the prevailing theme on this board is that Clinton should bow out because she can't win the delegate count. Since Obama cannot either, I don't see the point. There is going to be shady politics involved by the nature of the Democratic primary system. You think Clinton supporters are going to sit idly by and acquiesce because Obama 5% more of the regular delegation? You don't think that Latinos are gonna be pissed that their voices weren't heard? What about Florida and Michigan? You don't think there is gonna be disenfranchisement either way?

1) They should redo Michigan and Florida. It won't matter in the overall delegate count, but they need to do it for those voters. Anything else is a black eye for the democratic party from the word go. The same people who accused the Reps of screwing over Florida in the last two elections are going to do it now? No way. I think they'll have a redo on both of those states.

2) I think Obama is going to get about 55% of the total delegates in the end and carry around 34-36 of the primaries even after MI and FL are added in. That's enough of a majority to give the nod to him. If the back door dealings get done to give Hillary the nomination, I don't think there is any hope of the dems winning the election.


3) If Obama is given it, it's still going to piss people off. I do think more Hillary people will move to Obama than the other way. Just an opinion on that one, but I think he's less divisive and more people will move to him. Then I think the dems have a chance. But I don't think this can go to the floor. If it does (and unless one candidate backs down, it will end up being decided there) will cause a loss for the democratic party.

4) I really don't think Hillary gets it in four years. I think this is her best shot and if she doesn't win here, it's going to have a long term impact on her as a viable candidate down the road.

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by Cringer

I think none of you really know what you are talking about, and you all have a 50-50 chance of being right.

Yes, but there's only a 10% chance of that.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by cartman

Looks like I was way off in Texas and Ohio. She's +16 in Ohio and +4 in Texas (primary only, no caucus). So net gain of 20.

Nope, you weren't. The latest count has her picking up 12, with Obama gettting much of what Clinton gained back from the caucus. So, your less than half of 30 looks to be 100% true.

[cartman]

Now it is looking like Obama will win the delegate count in Texas. He stands to pick up 7 delegates more than Hillary in the caucus, giving him a net gain of 3 in the state.

[JPhillips]

The only thing I agree with Troy on is that a floor fight will be bad for the party. How bad? It's hard to tell. Remember that in 1968 after an assassination, a failed President, and a truly ugly primary and convention, Humphrey only lost the popular vote by less than 1%. A few hundred thousand votes changing in CA and the election would have gone to the House of Representatives.

All the talk of the Democratic Party dissolving is way overblown. Even if McCain wins there will still be pickups in both the House and Senate and a majority of Governors will still have a D. A floor fight will be bad, but I fully expect things to be settled one way or the other by the end of May.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by TroyF

1) They should redo Michigan and Florida. It won't matter in the overall delegate count, but they need to do it for those voters. Anything else is a black eye for the democratic party from the word go. The same people who accused the Reps of screwing over Florida in the last two elections are going to do it now? No way. I think they'll have a redo on both of those states.

For the most part, I agree. Though as a Democrat voting in the state of Michigan, I am not too upset at the whole thing. For whatever reason, I don't feel that terribly disenfranchised by the whole affair. Actually at this point, I have reached campaign fatigue. I am really getting tired of this whole thing and the idea of a "redo" in Michigan is a bit nauseating at the moment.

Originally Posted by TroyF

2) If the back door dealings get done to give Hillary the nomination, I don't think there is any hope of the dems winning the election.

I agree wholeheartedly. If it comes down to the super delegates and they end up, despite the "will of the people of the Democratic party", nominating Hillary over Obama, I think that could be a devastating to the party. I can't imagine they'd be that stupid, though based on how the party's been run the last 8 years or so, I wouldn't put it pass them. I think it would seal the deal for a McCain presidency and disenfranchise a lot of folks, including me most likely.

Originally Posted by TroyF

3) If Obama is given it, it's still going to piss people off. I do think more Hillary people will move to Obama than the other way. Just an opinion on that one, but I think he's less divisive and more people will move to him. Then I think the dems have a chance. But I don't think this can go to the floor. If it does (and unless one candidate backs down, it will end up being decided there) will cause a loss for the democratic party.

I agree, people will be pissed, but the reaction wont be nearly as harsh. Not only is Obama less divisive, but he's sort of the "newcommer" to whole thing and the Clintons are like the royalty of the Democratic insiders.

If Hillary does this, it'll be considered the result of slick, back door dealings with the established liberal elite. If Obama pulls it off, it will be because the Democratic party has sensed the desire for "change" and is moving forward in an exciting, new direction.

[chesapeake]

Originally Posted by TroyF

20 years? 5 elections? So you've went through the elder Bush election, the Clinton elections and the Bush2 elections?

Hate to break it to you, there hasn't been a battle that went to the convention for awhile now. Actually, the last time was 1976. Reagan and Ford went to the Republican convention with the race still to be decided. Ford won and then lost to Jimmy Carter. Think about that for a second. It's not the only time tight primary races that went to the convention floor has ended up in a loss for the party. Quite the opposite, it's what happen a majority of the time. The party in turmoil gets beat in the general election.

Oh, and if the super delegates give this to Hillary in a back room deal? You really think the African American voter base stays democratic at that point? You think that'd be a good thing for the democratic party? I can assure you it wouldn't end well. It wouldn't end well at all.

But you're the experienced one, you should know that. . .

What are you talking about? The word "convention" didn't even appear in my post. If you're going to insult me, at least do me the courtesy of reading my post first.

But since you called me out, let's talk.

Bringing up the 1976 convention is your first mistake. In 1976, brokered conventions were nothing unusual. Barely even half the states had a primary at that time. A huge portion of delegates were either selected at conventions (ala WV GOP today) or by party elders in the back room you worry about so much.

Ford lost that election because his last boss had resigned and because of dissatisfaction among his base because of Viet Nam. The convention had little to do with it. Actually, the 33 point gap after the Dem convention closed a bit after the Republicans held their's.

The back room superdelegate thing is a joke you've bought into. You'd need at least 200 of the remaining unpledged superdelegate Democrats (many of whom are elected and accountable to their constituencies) to 1) get into a room, 2) decide on a course of action, and, 3) go do it. If you had any experience in Democratic politics, you'd know how ridiculous this is. Just accomplishing #1 is would be a herculian effort.

Now if it gets down to a 10-20 superdelegate lift, that might be possible for HRC. Then it would be up to Obama to either take one for the team or blow it all up. But, still, that seems very unlikely.

The point I actually made, which seemed to escape you, is that by any realistic measurement, this is hardly a "bloodbath." The Gantt/Helms campaign I worked on in 1990 -- that was nasty. This primary race is a walk in the park.

[st.cronin]

I agree with chesapeake's point that this has been a fairly civil campaign for the Dems.

[Swaggs]

I don't see the Democratic primary as a negative right now, either. The party has its rules and procedures for its nomination and the media is overplaying its dissatisfaction that it is still going on, rather than wrapped up. I think most normal folks (that are not overly obsessed with politics and are looking on something to have outrage over) recognize that the primary can be/is a process and that process is still not over.

It is certainly nothing approaching a bloodbath at present. In my opinion, this is actually good for Obama. One of my fears over supporting him (I am sort of in a toss-up between Obama and Clinton right now, sort of lightly leaning Obama) is that he will get railroaded by the Republicans while he tries to stay "above the fray." Essentially, will he be the type of candidate that brings a knife to a gunfight. We know that the Clintons know how to and will fight, so this going to either strengthen or expose Obama, in my opinion.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

I don't see the Democratic primary as a negative right now, either. The party has its rules and procedures for its nomination and the media is overplaying its dissatisfaction that it is still going on, rather than wrapped up. I think most normal folks (that are not overly obsessed with politics and are looking on something to have outrage over) recognize that the primary can be/is a process and that process is still not over.

It is certainly nothing approaching a bloodbath at present. In my opinion, this is actually good for Obama. One of my fears over supporting him (I am sort of in a toss-up between Obama and Clinton right now, sort of lightly leaning Obama) is that he will get railroaded by the Republicans while he tries to stay "above the fray." Essentially, will he be the type of candidate that brings a knife to a gunfight. We know that the Clintons know how to and will fight, so this going to either strengthen or expose Obama, in my opinion.

+1

good points Swaggs

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I agree with chesapeake's point that this has been a fairly civil campaign for the Dems.

It's starting to get more bitter by the day. Look at the ads in Texas and Ohio for proof. Hillary has just started with the attacks. Trust me, it's getting ugly and will end in a bloodbath.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

If there's one thing I've learned on this board, its that Troy loves to argue, the facts be damned.

The only "facts" I've brought up are proven. Anyone can look at the delegate count and anyone can grab a delegate count calculator and figure up what it's going to take for Hillary to overtake Obama. (Hint: it aint happening in terms of the normal delegates, that ship has sailed)

The rest is opinion. That's opinion on both sides, not just me. The people who say this isn't going to be bad for the democratic party are no more right than I am. We are all voicing an opinion based off of history, how we view the current events and what we think will happen in the near future.

Mine may end up being spectacularly wrong. Obviously, I don't think they will or I wouldn't voice them. Doesn't mean I'll be correct. But it doesn't mean I'm wrong either. And as far as facts go, I have my facts straight. If you can find something factually wrong in the numbers I've given, feel free to show where those are and how you came up with them.

If not, it may be time to sit this one out and let the grown ups have a discussion.

[Vegas Vic]

I’m somewhat surprised that so many people think super delegates have some written code that they’re supposed to abide by, such as voting proportionally to the popular vote, or voting for the candidate who won their congressional district. If that was the case, they wouldn’t have created super delegates to begin with. The fact of the matter is that they can vote for whoever the hell they want to. Those are the rules that everyone agreed to participate under.

Is it fair? Who knows? Is it fair to have 1% of the registered voters (with an excess of free time on their hands) pick their state's delegates, instead of opening it up to the entire electorate? Is that an accurate representation of "the people's will"?

[cartman]

Originally Posted by TroyF

It's starting to get more bitter by the day. Look at the ads in Texas and Ohio for proof. Hillary has just started with the attacks. Trust me, it's getting ugly and will end in a bloodbath.

I didn't see or hear any bitter ads from her in Texas

*shurg*

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

I don't see the Democratic primary as a negative right now, either. The party has its rules and procedures for its nomination and the media is overplaying its dissatisfaction that it is still going on, rather than wrapped up. I think most normal folks (that are not overly obsessed with politics and are looking on something to have outrage over) recognize that the primary can be/is a process and that process is still not over.

It is certainly nothing approaching a bloodbath at present. In my opinion, this is actually good for Obama. One of my fears over supporting him (I am sort of in a toss-up between Obama and Clinton right now, sort of lightly leaning Obama) is that he will get railroaded by the Republicans while he tries to stay "above the fray." Essentially, will he be the type of candidate that brings a knife to a gunfight. We know that the Clintons know how to and will fight, so this going to either strengthen or expose Obama, in my opinion.

1) I don't think the media is overplaying the dissatisfaction angle. Many of my democratic friends are sitting in either the Hillary camp or the Obama camp and all of them have said it'll be difficult to vote for the other candidate. The people who don't like Hillary, HATE Hillary. I mean, truly despise her. Many of the people who don't like Obama think he's simply not experienced enough to be president. Those people will fly to McCain.

2) I agree with you on Obama geting a challenge. It's good that he's getting a stiff challenge and is having to go into the fray. The problem is he's getting this after he's already all but clinched the delegate battle. If the Super Delegates give this thing to Hillary, it WILL get ugly for the dems. In other words, I wish he'd have had these attacks about a month ago before he started his huge run.

3) My bloodbath comments come from what I see in these next six to eight weeks. (not to mention how this gets when it hits the floor, I believe that's where this will end) Hillary went in complete attack mode this past week and she'll be doing more of it. The 3AM phone ads were powerful and she's going to hammer those home in PA. She isn't going to get NICER now that she's won Texas and Ohio and still not made up any ground in the delegates. She's going to get meaner and nastier before this next two months are over. (especially after she gets hammered in WY and MS, which I think happens over the next week)

All a prediction, nothing more, nothing less. We'll see how it plays out.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by cartman

I didn't see or hear any bitter ads from her in Texas

*shurg*

In the 3AM ad and the press conferences around it she stated that both her and McCain had the experience to answer the phone and he didn't. She actually stated that the republican running was better prepared for that eventuality than Obama. You don't think that's nasty or bitter?

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

I’m somewhat surprised that so many people think super delegates have some written code that they’re supposed to abide by, such as voting proportionally to the popular vote, or voting for the candidate who won their congressional district. If that was the case, they wouldn’t have created super delegates to begin with. The fact of the matter is that they can vote for whoever the hell they want to. Those are the rules that everyone agreed to participate under.

Is it fair? Who knows? Is it fair to have 1% of the registered voters (with an excess of free time on their hands) pick their state's delegates, instead of opening it up to the entire electorate? Is that an accurate representation of "the people's will"?

Vic,

I'm not saying the super delegates are required to do anything. They aren't. They have the vote and can do whatever they want with it.

I am saying that if they go against the popular vote or the standard delegate count, the Obama voters are going to be majorly aggravated. And that the democratic party will lose a vast majority of those voters. Again, my opinion, nothing more. (I have to keep saying that now so people don't think I'm acting as though I know it all. I don't. This is fun to me and I'm fascinated to see how this plays out)

I don't think the dems have any chance in hell of winning the general election if the Obama voters think Hillary engineered a backroom deal to become the candidate.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by TroyF

In the 3AM ad and the press conferences around it she stated that both her and McCain had the experience to answer the phone and he didn't. She actually stated that the republican running was better prepared for that eventuality than Obama. You don't think that's nasty or bitter?

No, not really. I thought the ad was kind of silly, it really doesn't matter when the call comes in, does it?

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by TroyF

In the 3AM ad and the press conferences around it she stated that both her and McCain had the experience to answer the phone and he didn't. She actually stated that the republican running was better prepared for that eventuality than Obama. You don't think that's nasty or bitter?

No question she's FOS on this issue. She has the same three years of experience that Obama has, compared to McCain's 25 years.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

No question she's FOS on this issue. She has the same three years of experience that Obama has, compared to McCain's 25 years.

I'll have to take a shower after this but...

I think the perception that she is playing on by saying she has "more experience" is the eight years she spent in the White House. Remember, many still think of her as the Co-president during her husbands terms, which is where she gets most of her support (IMHO).

[Swaggs]

By the sound of your friends, it sounds as if their minds are made up and the primary process means very little to them. The Democratic primary lasting six or ten weeks longer does not appear as if it will have much of an impact on them. In the end, I suspect the Republican or Democrat candidate that can get the most of these type of folks that are deciding whether it is better to sit it out or hold their nose while voting for someone who is not their ideal candidate but most closely matches their opinions on key issues will probably be our next president. If your friends literally hate Hillary or absolutely think Obama is not qualified to be president, whatever happens in the primary over the next month or two is not likely to have much of an affect on them.

I think you are "handing" the bid to Obama a little bit prematurely (even though I think he will eventually win--both delegate-wise and superdelegate-wise). I get the impression that you do not like the concept of the superdelegates and how they may be swayed and/or won over by the candidates, which I can understand. The race is still very, very close. Still, the DNC set up the (flawed?) system and, if Hillary remains close, why wouldn't she try to appeal to the superdelegates to get them to swing it to her? She obviously thinks she is the best candidate for the job, has been leading/organizing thousands of loyal supporters for nearly a year to try to reach the presidency, and is trying to win the nomination. It would be extremely gracious of her to concede at this point, but there is still some life in her campaign, so I don't mind her continuing on at this point. Again, in the end, I think too many of the superdelegates will be held accountable and, more importantly, I don't think there is any indication that enough super delegates would side with Hillary over Obama (I would suspect it will be pretty close to 50-50 if a deal is not brokered before the convention).

I think Hillary's ads were effective because they raised a legitimate point AND because they coincided with her very effective criticism of the media giving Obama a free pass, which lead the media to consider her point and act (overact?) upon it. The PAC ads in the general election are going to be 100x more cutting and negative than the most negative criticisms we have seen in the Democratic primary. As I mentioned, I think it is going to be good for Obama's campaign for him to take a few shots now to harden him, as well as getting some of his warts out now, rather than closer to election day when they may be impactful. I also think it will force him to sharpen his message on some of the areas where his views are not well known and/or still undefined.

I can understand your vantage point, but I think you are assuming the worst-case scenario much too early. I definitely agree that, should Hillary somehow get a tremendously unbalanced amount of the super delegates to swing things to her after Obama has won a majority of the states and their delegates, then the Democratic party will suffer major damage--most notably disenfranchising a lot of African-American voters that have traditionally been very loyal to the party (which would change the face of the party significantly). But, I honestly think too many of the superdelegates will be held accountable and that their voting will likely reflect that of the actual voters (where it will be very close to 50-50).

Originally Posted by TroyF

1) I don't think the media is overplaying the dissatisfaction angle. Many of my democratic friends are sitting in either the Hillary camp or the Obama camp and all of them have said it'll be difficult to vote for the other candidate. The people who don't like Hillary, HATE Hillary. I mean, truly despise her. Many of the people who don't like Obama think he's simply not experienced enough to be president. Those people will fly to McCain.

2) I agree with you on Obama geting a challenge. It's good that he's getting a stiff challenge and is having to go into the fray. The problem is he's getting this after he's already all but clinched the delegate battle. If the Super Delegates give this thing to Hillary, it WILL get ugly for the dems. In other words, I wish he'd have had these attacks about a month ago before he started his huge run.

3) My bloodbath comments come from what I see in these next six to eight weeks. (not to mention how this gets when it hits the floor, I believe that's where this will end) Hillary went in complete attack mode this past week and she'll be doing more of it. The 3AM phone ads were powerful and she's going to hammer those home in PA. She isn't going to get NICER now that she's won Texas and Ohio and still not made up any ground in the delegates. She's going to get meaner and nastier before this next two months are over. (especially after she gets hammered in WY and MS, which I think happens over the next week)

All a prediction, nothing more, nothing less. We'll see how it plays out.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

You're right, it was a cheap shot, and I shouldn't have made it.

However, your characterization of the primary as "getting ugly" is what I, along with others here, don't agree with. Whether that's fact or opinion I would say is debatable, I suppose.

Perhaps I should have said "... a reasonable characterization of the facts be damned."


Yes, Hilary is going after Obama. That's going to happen. I don't think she's doing it in a nasty or ugly way. As others have said, she asking real questions that Obama needs to be comfortable answering. She's not swiftboatting him, or talking about an affair he's had. Perhaps it has the potential to get nasty - I've heard some things went down in Ohio - but I don't forsee things going that way. I don't feel we're headed down that road, or there is any reasonable fact-based reason to see it that way.

Did you not hear the audio of the conference call from Team Hillary last night? The one where the Obama campaign jumped in? Hell, the fact that Obama called McCain last night and said he was looking forward to the general election in the fall (and then let the media know about it). That's a nasty little dig at Hillary.

[Vegas Vic]

I have a question for those of you who are outraged over the super delegate process.

Where is your outrage over Iowa, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Minnesota, North Dakota, Alaska, Nebraska, Nevada, Washington, Maine and Hawaii holding caucus systems that tend to favor affluent people with a lot of free time on their hands, and where in some states 1% of the party’s registered voters select the state’s delegates. How is that any different than some of the “banana republics” that we sit back and excoriate? So, where is your outrage over suppressing the will of the people in those states that don’t hold primaries?

Also, where is your outrage in disenfranchising millions of voters in Michigan and Florida, who will have no say in their party’s nominee?

Or is your outrage selective, depending on whether or not your candidate benefits in these situations?