Fracturing of a Party Part II The Democrats

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
I keep hearing how disenfranchised the Floridians are - REALLY? I think martha is right - like they'll vote for McCain out of spite because their state legislature screwed them over? This sounds like mostly punditry to me.
 
anitram said:
I keep hearing how disenfranchised the Floridians are - REALLY? I think martha is right - like they'll vote for McCain out of spite because their state legislature screwed them over? This sounds like mostly punditry to me.


Nobody, not I anyway have said that they would vote for McCain and this is bigger than just Florida voters. It is about any African American person who may feel disenfranchised by a sudden changing of the rules.

But I do not believe that a majority of the African Americans who may feel disenfranchised - and that has NOTHING to do with FL. alone - it has to do with EVERY SINGLE person of African American heritage who believed they were playing under one set of rules, watches their guy, a guy in their wildest dreams they never thought would appear in their lifetime gets SCREWED by the system - they will not vote.

SO if you missed my point, there it is. Never did I say they would vote for MCCain. The Democratic Party cannot win the white house without the African American vote.
 
Last edited:
Maybe I am an irregular Joe.

I believe that any Obama supporter is paying attention. I believe that if there is a perception he got screwed out of the nomination because of a rules change that helps her win, then the Democratic Party is screwed.

As for Obama and McCain - they are fighting for the same group - independent voters. That was why Obama lost NH. McCain drew more when the press annointed Obama.

If Hillary wins due to the technicality - those independents are not necessarily going to stick with her.

You are right, tried and true Democrats are not going to jump to McCain.

Srewed African Americans will be less likely to vote. Independents will break for McCain over Hillary.

Game set match.

Let's hope she does not get those delegates. I want Obama VS McCain.
 
Dreadsox said:
SO if you missed my point, there it is. Never did I say they would vote for MCCain. The Democratic Party cannot win the white house without the African American vote.

No, I got your point just fine.

I was commenting on how all the media pundits are going on and on about disenfranchising the states of FL and MI by not including their votes and listening to them you'd think people down there were going to riot if Hillary's votes were not counted.
 
anitram said:


No, I got your point just fine.

I was commenting on how all the media pundits are going on and on about disenfranchising the states of FL and MI by not including their votes and listening to them you'd think people down there were going to riot if Hillary's votes were not counted.

Then it is I who missed it! :wink:
 
Dreadsox said:
I believe that if there is a perception he got screwed out of the nomination because of a rules change that helps her win, then the Democratic Party is screwed.
....
If Hillary wins due to the technicality - those independents are not necessarily going to stick with her.

......
Srewed African Americans will be less likely to vote. Independents will break for McCain over Hillary.

I think you're jumping to some pretty serious conclusions here. Has anyone else said this? Do you really think that independent black voters are going to stay home or vote for McCain just because they're pissed at Clinton? You don't think that eight years of Republican bullshit will be motivation enough for them to vote for the Democrat now matter what?
 
Ya, The Democratic Party is fractured because about half the Dems are too stupid to figure out that the obvious choice is Barack Obama...you guys cease to amaze me...you are the party that nominated Walter Mondale (boooring), Mike Dukakis (snooze), and John Kerry (Mr. Excitement himself) - thinking from that angle it wouldn't surprise me if you did end up nominating Hillary (Billary) and forever letting the Republicans run the country. I hope you are all smarter than that...if not, you'll get what you deserve.
 
I just am not seeing the evidence at this point that the DNC has any intention of seating MI's and FL's delegates simply because Hillary Clinton wants them to. In the event that she does better than expected in the remaining primaries and the two of them wind up in a dead heat, then I think most likely the DNC will either try to convince MI's and FL's Democratic parties to hold a caucus "redo" (a second primary isn't going to happen)--as the DNC recommended from the beginning--or else perhaps agree to seat their delegates on the condition that they be freed to vote for either candidate. I think the majority of the superdelegates will vote for whomever leads in the popular vote.

I do think it's regrettable that the DNC imposed such a harsh penalty on MI and FL for having bumped their primaries to begin with. I also think it's regrettable that all the Democratic candidates except Gravel signed the 'four-state pledge' not to "campaign or participate" in MI and FL in the first place, and that Obama, Richardson, Biden and Edwards made a last-minute decision a month later to interpret that to mean they should withdraw from the ballot in MI as well (withdrawal from FL was not possible). Most of all, it's regrettable that MI's and FL's voters got screwed over by the Democrats because their state legislatures rebelled against the national parties' calendar (and a caucus "redo" won't fix that, since caucuses mean much lower voter turnout). But those are all facts on the ground at this point, and the most reasonable way forward would seem to be for the DNC to stick to its guns.

While the situation is certainly a source of some strain within the Democratic Party at this point, I still don't see this as being analogous to the "fracturing" within the Republican Party BVS was referring to (although that, too, can and does get blown out of proportion, IMO). In that case it seems pretty clear to me that the intense distaste for McCain from some (Republican) quarters isn't so much about him in particular as it is about underlying tensions over ideology--social values, immigration, GWOT management, taxes etc.--that have been building up for awhile. By contrast, with the dueling supporters of Obama vs. Hillary, it seems to me to have very little to do with broader, underlying ideological ruptures, and everything to do with them in particular...who they're respectively perceived to be both as personalities, and as horses to bet on for a Democratic victory in November.
 
Last edited:
martha said:
You don't think that eight years of Republican bullshit will be motivation enough for them to vote for the Democrat now matter what?

That's barely enough motivation for me, a life long DEM to vote for her. That's how poloarizing she is and how much I dislike her.
Especially now when she is down again and using negative tactics because she is in a corner, which I guess you could argue is the nature of politics and that may be, but it just makes my disdain and mistrust of her and her husband even stronger. Plus all the Florida and Michigan flap and her not abiding by her SIGNED pledge to play by the rules.

I know lots of other Dems who feel the same way!
 
Jeannieco said:


That's barely enough motivation for me, a life long DEM to vote for her. That's how poloarizing she is and how much I dislike her.

See, this is why the Democrats always choke. A willingness to even entertain the idea of not voting for the nominee. We truly get the government we deserve.
 
^

Yes, the Republicans are much better at falling in line in the end.
 
martha said:


See, this is why the Democrats always choke. A willingness to even entertain the idea of not voting for the nominee. We truly get the government we deserve.

That may be. The funny thing is I have always been loyal to the Dems, but if the popular vote goes for Obama and the nominee ends up Hillary based on her protest and appeal for Fl and MI , how can you justify that ?
I don't want to be a part of a party that condones this. It's not right. We the people, ya right. :huh:
The system needs to be changed back to popular vote rules! It's only fair.
 
Our system was never "popular vote rules"--not for the general election and certainly not for the primaries, where there was no "popular vote" to speak of at all before the 20th century. In practice the superdelegates (like the Republicans' automatic and unpledged delegates) collectively favor whomever the popular vote favors.

I don't think Hillary's pressing to have MI's and FL's delegates seated violates the four-state pledge they all signed--that was drafted by the Democratic parties of IA, NH, SC and NV, not the DNC, and dealt specifically with not campaigning in FL and MI, whom the former four states wished to give an additional kick in the head to. However the point that anyone wishing to strenuously object to the DNC's having stripped FL and MI of all their delegates should have done so earlier is well taken.
 
I suspect that if the situation was reversed, many Obama supporters might very well want those delegations seated and would be fighting for the voices of those poor, disenfranchised voters. I'm not advocating that the delegates be seated because in all honesty I know I would not be advocating equally if Obama had won those states and I would be being disingenuous. If my motivations aren't pure, I'll tell you that.

This situation bears some similarity to Mr. Obama apparently pulling back on a pledge to use only public financing in the general election if the Republican nominee pledged the same, which McCain did. (in an article posted in the other thread). At the time he called for the pledge, the public financing route was advantageous to him. Now that he has taken in huge sums of money, it is not.

And bears similarity to many things the Clintons have done.

In politics and life, it is easy to have principles when you benefit from them. Let's see who has principles when it hurts or inconveniences them. You can make an argument perhaps on who is more pure or less pure but you can't present any of the candidates as a benchmark of pure.
 
Last edited:
BonosSaint said:
I suspect that if the situation was reversed, many Obama supporters might very well want those delegations seated and would be fighting for the voices of those poor, disenfranchised voters. I'm not advocating that the delegates be seated because in all honesty I know I would not be advocating equally if Obama had won those states and I would be being disingenuous. If my motivations aren't pure, I'll tell you that.

This situation bears some similarity to Mr. Obama apparently pulling back on a pledge to use only public financing in the general election if the Republican nominee pledged the same, which McCain did. (in an article posted in the other thread). At the time he called for the pledge, the public financing route was advantageous to him. Now that he has taken in huge sums of money, it is not.

And bears similarity to many things the Clintons have done.

In politics and life, it is easy to have principles when you benefit from them. Let's see who has principles when it hurts or inconveniences them. You can make an argument perhaps on who is more pure or less pure but you can't present any of the candidates as a benchmark of pure.

:up:
 
BonosSaint said:

This situation bears some similarity to Mr. Obama apparently pulling back on a pledge to use only public financing in the general election if the Republican nominee pledged the same, which McCain did.

He never made a pledge. He said he would be happy to discuss it if the other side did so as well.

He should most certainly not agree to it at this point, because Republican 527s are going to rip him apart and they have loads of storage $. Since McCain/Feingold doesn't address the inherent unfairness of 527s, there is no level playing field yet where public funds would be sufficient.

*I feel the same way about Hillary - if she is the nominee, she should agree to no such thing. It is not her problem that McCain can't fundraise.
 
anitram said:


It is not her problem that McCain can't fundraise.
:yes:

Dirty Money and convicts for Hillary:


url


dbs
 
If the New York Times article is correct:

"On Thursday, in an effort by the McCain campaign to speak with one voice and put the onus for abandoning the system on Mr. Obama, several McCain advisers called on him to make good on his pledge. Mr. Obama was the candidate who proposed the pledge in the first place, in February 2007, a time when he was not raising the prodigious sums he is now.

.....

“I’m concerned with the position the Obama campaign is taking,” Mr. Wertheimer said. “He is now saying this is an option. But they made a commitment in 2007 to do this. There were no conditions, no arguments, that ‘we’ll decide this when we get the nomination.’ I think it’s very important for Senator Obama to reaffirm the commitment that he made.”

Mr. Wertheimer also pointed to one of Mr. Obama’s responses to a questionnaire released in November by the Midwest Democracy Network, an alliance of 20 civic and public-interest groups in Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio and Wisconsin.

Asked if he would participate in the public-financing system if he was nominated for president and his major opponents agreed to do the same, Mr. Obama wrote yes. Then he added, also in writing, “If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.”

I didn't say this decision was the wrong decision. In fact, I think it is a pragmatic thing to do, a smart political move. However, the point I was making is that it was a principle he took a stand on when it would work to his advantage and one he thinks twice on when it is not. And certainly McCain is going to fight for it since it is now advantageous to him. And certainly a principle Hillary never championed.
 
Last edited:
He said he would aggressively "pursue agreement" - not that he'd accede to whatever whim McCain got up his ass now that he can't raise money. Let them agree on terms regarding 527s (will never happen, as the two of them can't dictate a free speech issue given that proper restrictions have not to date been placed on 527s).

McCain can say Obama is unprincipled if he wishes. But it is not principled to concede an election to swiftboat groups and others that have tens of millions of dollars waiting in the wings to attack Obama. Besides I am not really sure how much McCain wants to whine about this given that most of the Republican party and certainly the Republican money backers absolutely HATE his guts for campaign finance reform and are just waiting for the first opportunity to dismantle McCain-Feingold.
 
Jeannieco said:
That may be. The funny thing is I have always been loyal to the Dems, but if the popular vote goes for Obama and the nominee ends up Hillary based on her protest and appeal for Fl and MI , how can you justify that ?

I don't fucking care. If you're willing to not vote for Clinton in November just because of this, then go ahead and vote for McCain. There is no excuse that can be justified for a "loyal" Democrat to bail because of a delegate fight. It's ridiculous to think that a Republican may win because Democrats are pissed about something like this. :rolleyes:
 
I do think people need to pull themselves together here. I can see why someone would dislike the Clintons or their tactics (frankly some of them are a great turn off). But, the next two SCOTUS justices to retire will be liberal leaning justices. With McCain making nominations, it could take your country a generation to reverse the awful decisions that will be made. It's bad enough Alito is on there and will be on there for decades.
 
anitram said:
But, the next two SCOTUS justices to retire will be liberal leaning justices. With McCain making nominations, it could take your country a generation to reverse the awful decisions that will be made.

No. It's all about getting your favorite candidate to win. It has nothing to do with the future of our country.
 
anitram said:
I do think people need to pull themselves together here. I can see why someone would dislike the Clintons or their tactics (frankly some of them are a great turn off). But, the next two SCOTUS justices to retire will be liberal leaning justices. With McCain making nominations, it could take your country a generation to reverse the awful decisions that will be made. It's bad enough Alito is on there and will be on there for decades.

This is why Republicans are rallying around McCain.

Our country is still right of Center, regardless of how many posts are acumulated in FYM.

good day-

dbs
 
Compared to almost all of the Western world (if not all), you're way right of centre - sadly and unfortunately.

I'm not sure whether the US, by US standards is actually right of centre or if this is a diamondesque dream.
 
Back
Top Bottom