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, 12:14 PM   #21
War Child
 
MaxFisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 776
Local Time: 01:33 PM
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, 12:49 PM   #22
Blue Crack Supplier
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,555
Local Time: 06:33 AM
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 offline  
Old 02-14-2008, 01:09 PM   #23
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,720
Local Time: 09:33 AM
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, 01:16 PM   #24
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Jeannieco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: If the moonlight caught you crying on Killiney Bay oh sing your song let your song be sung
Posts: 4,992
Local Time: 06:33 AM
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, 01:19 PM   #25
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,601
Local Time: 05:33 AM
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, 01:41 PM   #26
War Child
 
MaxFisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 776
Local Time: 01:33 PM
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, 01:56 PM   #27
ONE
love, blood, life
 
namkcuR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Kettering, Ohio
Posts: 10,753
Local Time: 09:33 AM
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, 02:36 PM   #28
War Child
 
MaxFisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 776
Local Time: 01:33 PM
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, 02:48 PM   #29
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 08:33 AM
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, 02:51 PM   #30
Blue Crack Supplier
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,555
Local Time: 06:33 AM
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 offline  
Old 02-14-2008, 04:05 PM   #31
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,918
Local Time: 09:33 AM
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 is offline  
Old 02-14-2008, 09:25 PM   #32
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 08:33 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram
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.
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-14-2008, 09:32 PM   #33
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 08:33 AM
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 is offline  
Old 02-14-2008, 09:36 PM   #34
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,918
Local Time: 09:33 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
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 is offline  
Old 02-14-2008, 09:44 PM   #35
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 08:33 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram


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!
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-14-2008, 10:01 PM   #36
Blue Crack Supplier
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,555
Local Time: 06:33 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
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?
martha is offline  
Old 02-14-2008, 10:45 PM   #37
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Winnipeg, Canada
Posts: 2,455
Local Time: 08:33 AM
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.
Harry Vest is offline  
Old 02-15-2008, 02:31 PM   #38
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 02:33 PM
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.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 02-15-2008, 09:28 PM   #39
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Jeannieco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: If the moonlight caught you crying on Killiney Bay oh sing your song let your song be sung
Posts: 4,992
Local Time: 06:33 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by martha
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 is offline  
Old 02-15-2008, 09:38 PM   #40
Blue Crack Supplier
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,555
Local Time: 06:33 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Jeannieco


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.
__________________

martha is offline  
 

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 08:33 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×