Obama wins the democratic nomination

[joyfulgirl]

Yeah, I see more similarities with 1980 here.

Kennedy wasn't even close to Carter, and still stayed in it all the way to the convention.

Obama and Clinton are within 100 delegates still.

I'm really torn on this. Clinton was always my first choice, with Obama being a comfortable fallback position. Over the last month, I pretty much resigned myself to the fact that Obama was going to win it. Now yesterday happens.

I think it is too little, too late for Clinton. Yes, she's still very close to Obama in the delegate count, but the truth is, I don't see her overtaking him - not with the way the delegates are always split in the Democratic primaries. It's just not going to happen, even if Florida and Michigan are thrown into the mix (and I believe those two states should be allowed to vote again and include the new results). Sure, Clinton would most likely win in Florida and possibly Michigan, but realistically, how much ground will she cover with the delegates? I just don't see it happening.

But, I can't blame her for continuing right now. You don't win three out of four states in one day and give up. However, if the primary season ends and she still has less delegates than Obama, the right thing to do would be to concede.

Personally, I'd be happy with either one being President. People who hate Clinton for things that she has said or who she is really need to think of the bigger picture here. Her views are nearly identical to Obama's! Let's not go crazy over stupid things, as it seems Obama has done some questionable things himself. I'm not going to give it much thought, and people should do the same regarding Clinton. We need either one of them, and desperately.

I will say, though, that I think this setback might be good for Obama in the long run. He's getting a bit bloodied by Clinton now, and he needs to strike a blow at her if he wants to win outright, because this is nothing compared to what the Republicans will do to him. I'm scared that he isn't challenging her enough, and he'll need to do a hell of a lot more against McCain.

great post

 

[U2DMfan]

your anti-Obama zeal hasn't struck me as particularly rational.

(which is out of character for you)

speaking of out-of-character overzealous anti-thoughts

how exactly do you predict the Clintons will steal the election?

and if it were an outright stolen election, wouldn't the white vote be turned off as well? Wouldn't all voters be turned off?

Are you talking about it appearing to be a stolen election to only some. I dunno, like the disenfranchised monolithic black vote, who just can't figure out the rules? Why else would THEY need to be singled out as turned off in particular?

I'll assume that neither you or diamond were intending to stereotype the black vote as not only being monolithic but not bright enough to figure out how the rules are set up.

So you're talking about an outright stolen election?

Criminal activity?

Let's hear a good theory of how this will work.

 

[Bluer White]

All of the Democratic African Americans I know have always been big supporters of Bill Clinton. Some are supporting Hillary this election season. I would hope that African Americans wouldn't vote for Obama simply because he shares their ethnicity.

Very few are supporting Hillary. Exit polls show that Obama is consistently winning 80-85% of the black vote. That is a complete landslide for two candidates will similar policies.

To a lesser extent, Hillary is winning the Latino vote big. Look at the data state by state here:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21226009

 

[U2isthebest]

Very few are supporting Hillary. Exit polls show that Obama is consistently winning 80-85% of the black vote. That is a complete landslide for two candidates will similar policies.

To a lesser extent, Hillary is winning the Latino vote big. Look at the data state by state here:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21226009

True, but that's not 100% of African-Americans, is it? I think it's a big generalization to assume that the 80-85% who are supporting Obama are automatically doing so because they share an ethnicity. As I posted elsewhere, by that argument, I, as a woman, should be supporting Hillary. As you very rightly pointed out, their differences in position on the issues are quite minimal. I have multiple reasons for choosing Obama over Hillary, though, and I've stated them in different threads.

 

[verte76]

Yeah, I see more similarities with 1980 here.

Kennedy wasn't even close to Carter, and still stayed in it all the way to the convention.

Obama and Clinton are within 100 delegates still.

I'm really torn on this. Clinton was always my first choice, with Obama being a comfortable fallback position. Over the last month, I pretty much resigned myself to the fact that Obama was going to win it. Now yesterday happens.

I think it is too little, too late for Clinton. Yes, she's still very close to Obama in the delegate count, but the truth is, I don't see her overtaking him - not with the way the delegates are always split in the Democratic primaries. It's just not going to happen, even if Florida and Michigan are thrown into the mix (and I believe those two states should be allowed to vote again and include the new results). Sure, Clinton would most likely win in Florida and possibly Michigan, but realistically, how much ground will she cover with the delegates? I just don't see it happening.

But, I can't blame her for continuing right now. You don't win three out of four states in one day and give up. However, if the primary season ends and she still has less delegates than Obama, the right thing to do would be to concede.

Personally, I'd be happy with either one being President. People who hate Clinton for things that she has said or who she is really need to think of the bigger picture here. Her views are nearly identical to Obama's! Let's not go crazy over stupid things, as it seems Obama has done some questionable things himself. I'm not going to give it much thought, and people should do the same regarding Clinton. We need either one of them, and desperately.

I will say, though, that I think this setback might be good for Obama in the long run. He's getting a bit bloodied by Clinton now, and he needs to strike a blow at her if he wants to win outright, because this is nothing compared to what the Republicans will do to him. I'm scared that he isn't challenging her enough, and he'll need to do a hell of a lot more against McCain.

Yes, he will.

 

[Irvine511]

[q]how exactly do you predict the Clintons will steal the election?[/q]


Florida.


[q]and if it were an outright stolen election, wouldn't the white vote be turned off as well? Wouldn't all voters be turned off?[/q]

absolutely.

[q]Are you talking about it appearing to be a stolen election to only some. I dunno, like the disenfranchised monolithic black vote, who just can't figure out the rules? Why else would THEY need to be singled out as turned off in particular?[/q]

other than Jewish women, african-americans are the most reliable democratic voters. and, at last, they have a candidate who actually is african-american, and they are voting for him in massive (80-90%) numbers, which is particularly significant because he's running against a woman who is tremendously popular in the african-american community, and who's husband was termed the first african-american president by toni morrison. this is no small feet. were the Clintons to destroy the first viable black candidate, just how do you think black voters would react?



[q]I'll assume that neither you or diamond were intending to stereotype the black vote as not only being monolithic but not bright enough to figure out how the rules are set up.[/q]

when one speaks about a "vote" one is speaking in generalities and stereotypes. gays tend to vote democratic. blacks tend to vote democratic. jews tend to vote democratic. white men of a certain income level tend to vote republican. such is the nature of the beast. are individuals shrewed enough to discern what is going on? of course. might the Clintons have an appeal with the black community that would endure the lynching of Barack Obama? sure.

as for th eblack vote being monolithic, when you have 80-90% of any group going for a candidate, that's pretty much a monolith. we're dealing with politics here. that is how it works.

how do you think Mormons would vote were Romney still in the race?



[q]So you're talking about an outright stolen election?[/q]

i'm talking about the perception of having an election stolen, of these "do-overs" in FL and MI, of the Clintons being pretty much mathematically out of it but feeling as if they must soldier on to honor those that have voted for them yet it's always only about their own power.

Let's hear a good theory of how this will work. [/B]

i think you've been thinking a bit literally about this.

 

[LarryMullen's POPAngel]

Yeah, I see more similarities with 1980 here.

Kennedy wasn't even close to Carter, and still stayed in it all the way to the convention.

Obama and Clinton are within 100 delegates still.

I'm really torn on this. Clinton was always my first choice, with Obama being a comfortable fallback position. Over the last month, I pretty much resigned myself to the fact that Obama was going to win it. Now yesterday happens.

I think it is too little, too late for Clinton. Yes, she's still very close to Obama in the delegate count, but the truth is, I don't see her overtaking him - not with the way the delegates are always split in the Democratic primaries. It's just not going to happen, even if Florida and Michigan are thrown into the mix (and I believe those two states should be allowed to vote again and include the new results). Sure, Clinton would most likely win in Florida and possibly Michigan, but realistically, how much ground will she cover with the delegates? I just don't see it happening.

But, I can't blame her for continuing right now. You don't win three out of four states in one day and give up. However, if the primary season ends and she still has less delegates than Obama, the right thing to do would be to concede.

Personally, I'd be happy with either one being President. People who hate Clinton for things that she has said or who she is really need to think of the bigger picture here. Her views are nearly identical to Obama's! Let's not go crazy over stupid things, as it seems Obama has done some questionable things himself. I'm not going to give it much thought, and people should do the same regarding Clinton. We need either one of them, and desperately.

I will say, though, that I think this setback might be good for Obama in the long run. He's getting a bit bloodied by Clinton now, and he needs to strike a blow at her if he wants to win outright, because this is nothing compared to what the Republicans will do to him. I'm scared that he isn't challenging her enough, and he'll need to do a hell of a lot more against McCain.

Excellent post.

Off topic, Irvine's sig ftw.

 

[diamond]

[q].






[q]?



[q]

how do you think Mormons would vote were Romney still in the race?



.

it was a hard decision for some of us

 

[Harry Vest]

So, because of half of Texas and half of Ohio, all of America is getting what they deserve?

Hence, why I asked what the hell you were talking about.

O.K., maybe not ALL of America. I'm just so upset that Hillary always manages to bounce back. I wish she would just disappear from the political landscape. It has nothing to do with her gender. I'm the first guy who would love to see a woman President...just NOT another Clinton. I'm just so sick of this "monarchy" that has been the Presidency since 1988 ie. BUSH/CLINTON/BUSH/CLINTON
It has to stop for the good of everyone!!!

 

[U2DMfan]

i'm talking about the perception of having an election stolen, of these "do-overs" in FL and MI, of the Clintons being pretty much mathematically out of it but feeling as if they must soldier on to honor those that have voted for them yet it's always only about their own power.

I was asking the questions literally as to not accuse you of something you didn't say, knowing in all likelihood you were talking about a perception rather than actual illegal activity.

I don't think Obama is driven by or suffers from the same paranoia and manufactured distress that certain segments of the left and media are. (Bill Maher said this on MSNBC a few days ago, I agree). I think he'd easily clear the perception of wrongdoing if there were no wrongdoing. That is to say, unless something illegal goes down, he'll be obligated by his own conscience to clear the air. Unless he allows the "re-do" primaries and agrees that the rules are bullshit, he's obligated by the rules themselves.

The same rules that the Obama camp do not want to see violated (do-overs), the ones established beforehand, also allow that superdelegates can choose whomever they want.

Hillary Clinton is not mathematically elminated the way the rules are set up. The same rules that Obama seems to be sticking by.

And if he is of the position (as I think he's stated) that the rules are and should be the same rules we started with, how could he allow that perception by the black voters to grow if he has any integrity at all?

Nah. There is no chance of this happening.
He's going to win the nomination anyways.

But it sure does make for some good old fashioned anti-Clinton bashing. Never let agreeing with diamond make you second guess your new found hobby, Irvine.