Fracturing of a Party Part II The Democrats - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-14-2008, 09:15 AM   #16
Vocal parasite
 
Axver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: 1853
Posts: 151,024
Local Time: 01:18 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by CTU2fan
here in FL
So, when's the username change coming?
__________________

__________________
"Mediocrity is never so dangerous as when it is dressed up as sincerity." - Søren Kierkegaard

Ian McCulloch the U2 fan:
"Who buys U2 records anyway? It's just music for plumbers and bricklayers. Bono, what a slob. You'd think with all that climbing about he does, he'd look real fit and that. But he's real fat, y'know. Reminds me of a soddin' mountain goat."
"And as for Bono, he needs a colostomy bag for his mouth."

U2gigs: The most comprehensive U2 setlist database!
Gig pictures | Blog
Axver is online now  
Old 02-14-2008, 12:31 PM   #17
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,475
Local Time: 09:18 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by MaxFisher


I agree. Hillary will fight tooth and nail to the very end. She'll pull out all the stops. Florida/Michigan 2008 will make Florida 2000 look like a tea party.


this is the Republican fantasy of "Hitlery."

we'll see if it's true or not.

i can see her going both ways.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 02-14-2008, 12:47 PM   #18
Blue Crack Supplier
 
kellyahern's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: 8 years and I still can't think of anything witty to put here
Posts: 34,698
Local Time: 10:18 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by CTU2fan
Wow I generally agree with Al but not this time. Votes in MI and here in FL ought to count, and most of the talk surrounding this issue was that in the end the party would cave and the MI & FL delegates would end up being seated. While it's possible that some voters stayed home under the assumption that their votes wouldn't count it's pretty silly to think that only potential Obama voters would feel this way.

In the end hopefully it doesn't matter, you'd like to see one of these 2 candidates accept defeat so the other can move on to campaigning for November.
Why should votes in Michigan count if only her name was on the ballot?
__________________
kellyahern is offline  
Old 02-14-2008, 12:54 PM   #19
ONE
love, blood, life
 
indra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,689
Local Time: 10:18 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by kellyahern


Why should votes in Michigan count if only her name was on the ballot?
Didn't the others choose not to have their names on the ballot? I know they were under pressure from the party not to participate in any way, but I understood they still could have had their names on the ballot if they wanted.
__________________
indra is offline  
Old 02-14-2008, 12:56 PM   #20
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
CTU2fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 5,366
Local Time: 10:18 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Axver


So, when's the username change coming?
If FLU2fan votes for Lemon in U2 Survivor I don't know anything about it

Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




this is the Republican fantasy of "Hitlery."

we'll see if it's true or not.

i can see her going both ways.
Me too actually, and I'm really curious how this all plays out. I know I'll vote for whichever one of them wins in November anyway.
__________________
CTU2fan is offline  
Old 02-14-2008, 01:14 PM   #21
War Child
 
MaxFisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 776
Local Time: 02:18 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




this is the Republican fantasy of "Hitlery."

we'll see if it's true or not.

i can see her going both ways.
The Clintons look out for the Clintons. The overall good of the DNC or anyone/anything else comes in at a very far 2nd. Hillary believes she's OWED the nomination. She has endured too many pride swallowing years of riding the coattails of her husband/multiple affairs to lose to some freshman senator.
__________________
MaxFisher is offline  
Old 02-14-2008, 01:49 PM   #22
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,334
Local Time: 06:18 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by CTU2fan
I know I'll vote for whichever one of them wins in November anyway.
Which is what every single Democrat I know has said. So much for a fractured party.

Have any Democratic commentators gone on TV and urged people to stay home or vote for McCain if their candidate doesn't get the nomination?
__________________
martha is online now  
Old 02-14-2008, 02:09 PM   #23
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,475
Local Time: 09:18 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by MaxFisher


The Clintons look out for the Clintons. The overall good of the DNC or anyone/anything else comes in at a very far 2nd. Hillary believes she's OWED the nomination. She has endured too many pride swallowing years of riding the coattails of her husband/multiple affairs to lose to some freshman senator.


i think that's a bit extreme -- i do think the Clintons put the Clintons first, yes, but they also have a global brand to protect.

bowing out gracefully would enable them to continue.

first and foremost, they are very, very shrewd people.

which speaks volumes about Obama's prowess. the Republicans could never beat the Clintons, but yes he can.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 02-14-2008, 02:16 PM   #24
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Jeannieco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: A HEART THAT IS BROKEN IS A HEART THAT IS OPEN
Posts: 4,954
Local Time: 06:18 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by indra


Didn't the others choose not to have their names on the ballot? I know they were under pressure from the party not to participate in any way, but I understood they still could have had their names on the ballot if they wanted.
The thing that really peeves me about the whole Florida and Michigan issue is that Hillary signed a pledge just like all the other candidates, and now she wants to go back on that pledge.
That's not right, and if anything, there should be a do over in those two states. That's the only fair thing to do IMO if it comes down to it that is.
__________________
Jeannieco is offline  
Old 02-14-2008, 02:19 PM   #25
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 06:18 PM
There is a reasonable case that the Florida delegates should be seated

both Obama and Hillary were on the ballot and neither campaigned
and Democratic voter turn out was good

to disenfranchise the will of the Florida voters may make Obama supporters happy, but would taint any legitimacy if this is how he comes to the nomination

and would be a big boost to McCain in the November election


Now, Michigan is a different story. Obama's name was not on the ballot

only Hillary's was

Yes, there was a concentrated effort by the Obama people to get his supporters to the polls, and vote "none of the above"

but that is not the same

there is a good case to be made for holding a vote, perhaps a caucus like they did in New Mexico, (but better planned)

the caucus have voting places open for a specified time where voters could go in a drop a ballot in a box for their candidate

that system if much better than having groups of people in different parts of the room cheering and yelling at each other
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 02-14-2008, 02:41 PM   #26
War Child
 
MaxFisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 776
Local Time: 02:18 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
i think that's a bit extreme -- i do think the Clintons put the Clintons first, yes, but they also have a global brand to protect.
http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2...496/337/456290

When the Clintons rescued the Democratic Party from its electoral coma in 1992, they never sought to cure the patient by revitalizing it at the cellular level. Instead, the Clintons and the Democratic establishment at the time only sought to keep the patient barely alive and breathing, so as to suit the very narrow and vain electoral success of one man. There was never any effort to build the party. To use the capital of the Clinton's electoral success in 1992 and 1996 to reach new voters and bring them into the Democratic fold for good. There was never any effort to build the party at the local level.

It is clear now why the Clintons never did that. For if they gave voice to new Democrats, they would lose control over that voice. They would lose control over the message. Thus, the Democratic Party, and more specifically, the DNC, existed only to serve the electoral prospects of the Clintons during the 1990's, and not to serve the future of the Democratic Party. Indeed, it did not even serve the present of the Democratic Party, for the Party, through this neglect, suffered worse electoral losses nationwide than it ever suffered under the Reagan Revolution, which, ironically, was the disease the Clintons were brought in to cure.

No, the Clintons kept the Party alive to serve them, and in the process, the Party grew weaker. No attention was paid to the smaller states. No attention was paid to the local level. No resources were spend unless they advanced the interests of the Clintons.
__________________
MaxFisher is offline  
Old 02-14-2008, 02:56 PM   #27
ONE
love, blood, life
 
namkcuR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Kettering, Ohio
Posts: 10,288
Local Time: 09:18 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by MaxFisher


http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2...496/337/456290

When the Clintons rescued the Democratic Party from its electoral coma in 1992, they never sought to cure the patient by revitalizing it at the cellular level. Instead, the Clintons and the Democratic establishment at the time only sought to keep the patient barely alive and breathing, so as to suit the very narrow and vain electoral success of one man. There was never any effort to build the party. To use the capital of the Clinton's electoral success in 1992 and 1996 to reach new voters and bring them into the Democratic fold for good. There was never any effort to build the party at the local level.

It is clear now why the Clintons never did that. For if they gave voice to new Democrats, they would lose control over that voice. They would lose control over the message. Thus, the Democratic Party, and more specifically, the DNC, existed only to serve the electoral prospects of the Clintons during the 1990's, and not to serve the future of the Democratic Party. Indeed, it did not even serve the present of the Democratic Party, for the Party, through this neglect, suffered worse electoral losses nationwide than it ever suffered under the Reagan Revolution, which, ironically, was the disease the Clintons were brought in to cure.

No, the Clintons kept the Party alive to serve them, and in the process, the Party grew weaker. No attention was paid to the smaller states. No attention was paid to the local level. No resources were spend unless they advanced the interests of the Clintons.
Do you get a kick of out of spewing your Clinton hatred here? I am supporting Obama but I certainly don't feel this much hatred towards the Clintons.

You are representative of why Hilary shouldn't get the nomination - because many conservatives just cannot let this vendetta against the Clintons go.

You feel about the name 'Clinton' the way we(liberals) feel about the name 'Bush'.
__________________
namkcuR is offline  
Old 02-14-2008, 03:36 PM   #28
War Child
 
MaxFisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 776
Local Time: 02:18 AM
I'm not spewing Clinton hatred. My point is that Hillary is not going to bow out gracefully.

The title of this thread is "The Fracturing of a Party Part II The Democrats". I'm offering evidence of what I see is an impending all out war by Hillary to stay in the race. The Clintons are in this to win and they aren't going to go down easy.

Also, Democrats have been on a soapbox regarding voter disenfranchisement for the past 7 years...is the same party really going to throw out all those FL and MI primary votes?
__________________
MaxFisher is offline  
Old 02-14-2008, 03:48 PM   #29
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 09:18 PM
I think in looking at the big picture, the Republicans should be worried about the voter turnout for the Democrats far outnumbers the voters turning out for Republicans.

That should scare the party more than who is the candidate.

If the Florida/Michigan issue is not handled correctly that turnout could change.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-14-2008, 03:51 PM   #30
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,334
Local Time: 06:18 PM
Are regular joes really paying all that much attention to a delegate fight? So much so that they'll vote Republican in the fall? I doubt it.
__________________

__________________
martha is online now  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:18 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com