2008 Presidential Primaries

[slayer81]

Apparently, I can't go. Dangit!

(Forbidden

You don't have permission to access / on this server.)

LMAO, are you serious? You actually got that message?

 

[_Noone_]

It's a conspiracy, I tell you!

 

[Sanguinius]

Just updating here with the news that Clinton has won Pennsylvania by ten points.

http://www.economist.com/daily/news/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11079243&top_story=1

 

[CnC]

Just updating here with the news that Clinton has won Pennsylvania by ten points.

http://www.economist.com/daily/news/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11079243&top_story=1

yup. Looks like we're in for another 3-6 months of this shit.

 

[Griffith]

It's much more a story than a news item though, since everyone knew she was going to win Pennsylvania like this for months, right down to the 10 point margin in most cases.

Even somethingawful called out the headlines on this weeks ago:
http://www.somethingawful.com/d/news/hillary-attack-obama.php?page=2

 

[Vampire_Hunter_Bob]

Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama, who has called for withdrawing U.S. combat troops from Iraq, said on Sunday he will vote to confirm the top commander there for a new job as head of the military's Central Command.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080427/pl_nm/usa_politics_obama_iraq_dc

At least Obama wants someone competent and isn't going to just ask for a bunch of yes men like Bush. Another good thing is he recognizes good military leaders when he sees it.

 

[Griffith]

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/mccain_declines_secret_service



This is actually somewhat based on a true story in that McCain has actually said shit like this about the Secret Service and until recently, had declined their protection.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/04/03/mccain_has_not_requested_secre.html

"It's my intention, if we win this nomination, to reject Secret Service. ... Why do I need it?"

 

[CnC]

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/mccain_declines_secret_service



This is actually somewhat based on a true story in that McCain has actually said shit like this about the Secret Service and until recently, had declined their protection.

 

[Griffith]

Well, Obama won NC as everyone knew he would, but it's literally 51/49 in Indiana in favor of Hillary right now.

Also interesting, if nonsensical:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/cq/20080507/pl_cq_politics/politics2717881

So much for Hillary's "I'm strengthening the party, not selfishly destroying it" rationale.

 

[SMZKAH]

Well, Obama won NC as everyone knew he would, but it's literally 51/49 in Indiana in favor of Hillary right now.

Also interesting, if nonsensical:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/cq/20080507/pl_cq_politics/politics2717881

So much for Hillary's "I'm strengthening the party, not selfishly destroying it" rationale.

Yep, we're loving every minute of this. The longer this death match continues, the better it is for us.

 

[CnC]

Yep, we're loving every minute of this. The longer this death match continues, the better it is for us.

I'm not really sure I buy into the presumption this is going to tear the democratic party in two, or hamper it enough to make an impact. The time between August and November (not to mention June and November- when everyone thinks this is going to be over) is a political lifetime.
I wouldn't underestimate the short-term memory of the American public. We... um... sorry lost my train of thought - where was I?

 

[Griffith]

Yes, but people are morons, so even though Hillary and Obama are basically identical, there's all the people caught up in the team sports aspect of "their guy" and then you've got the other morons who voted or didn't for each of them because of their race/gender. I'm not so worried about these bozos voting McCain or staying home out of spite so much as just feeling defeated and not being motivated to go vote at all, we've already seen it with supporters of niche and fad candidates, "MY candidate already lost, I hate the whole process!" Plus, I think some of these people voting for Hillary from her powerful stupid old white people base might not even think Obama should be allowed to drink from the same fountain as them, let alone be President under any circumstances.[/troll] =)

In any case, Hillary is going to have to make a good faith effort to campaign for Obama, the question is whether she actually will or is just going to give some token support that will undermine him.

 

[Vampire_Hunter_Bob]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080508/pl_politico/10184

According to aids, Obama plans on declaring victory on may 20th.

 

[CnC]

According to aids, Obama plans on declaring victory on may 20th.

Gotta say the Clinton advisors drawing parallels to the "mission accomplished" banner is very clever.

 

[Griffith]

This is a bad idea, dredging up Michigan and Florida again and riling up the Clinton Cult they eventually need to deprogram, but hopefully it won't matter much. I'm surprised the Clinton campaign isn't countering by declaring victory on May 19th with some of their "legitimate numbers," like the ones that show Hillary wins the popular vote if you discount all the caucuses. =)

 

[SMZKAH]

Yeah, that Michigan and Florida thing is a mess. Apparently though, Michigan determined how they would seat their pledge delegates (can't remember exact numbers) and the DNC just needs to approve it. Can you really just leave two states out of it though?

No matter what happens at the end, someone is going to be upset. I'm not sure which one of the two deserves it. On the one hand, Barack has the popular vote, but 2000 showed that popular vote means nothing. Barack has also won more states, but a large portion of those are red states that will stay red in November. Hillary has won the big states and the important swing states from the past elections. I won't attempt an experience argument here.

I think the party really needs to consider electability on a grand scale before they make a decision.

 

[Vampire_Hunter_Bob]

I think the party really needs to consider electability on a grand scale before they make a decision.

John Kerry was electable.

Edit: Lets not forget about the highly electable George McGovern, since his electability won him the election against Nixon.

 

[Griffith]

Yeah, that Michigan and Florida thing is a mess. Apparently though, Michigan determined how they would seat their pledge delegates (can't remember exact numbers) and the DNC just needs to approve it. Can you really just leave two states out of it though?

They've gotta do something not to totally alienate those states, but they'd rather do it as a token when things are already decided.

No matter what happens at the end, someone is going to be upset. I'm not sure which one of the two deserves it.

Well, we heard it said yesterday, Obama has won by every practical measure.

On the one hand, Barack has the popular vote, but 2000 showed that popular vote means nothing. Barack has also won more states, but a large portion of those are red states that will stay red in November.

He also has more delegates, which is what matters, the argument for states and popular vote is what the Clinton's are trying to shift it to because it makes the argument more intangeable, but even then her arguments are specious and without merit. This is the only election I can recall where winning in every conceivable way was made out to be a liability to the winner.

Hillary has won the big states and the important swing states from the past elections. I won't attempt an experience argument here.

She's won big blue states which any democrat will carry come election time, let alone a charismatic figure like Obama. She's won swing states with a hardline/sympathy campaign and even the support of republican voters. I think she's really the author of her own legend in these regards, being more electable, making big comebacks, it's really just demographics, timing, and spin.

I think the party really needs to consider electability on a grand scale before they make a decision.

I think the best ticket could be Clinton/Obama, but there's no way to justify it. The only one they have to have is Obama because of current status, he's won, and it would be outrageous to shove him out. Also, he's the right choice for the very reasons he's ahead. People forget, but Obama was anything but a frontrunner coming in, a rising star yes, but he had to emerge from the pack, and that includes Hillary, who came into this with a HUGE advantage. She's been down so long, people have forgotten that she should have won this going away and aren't questioning why she lost anymore (have we forgotten her huge negatives that we're going to be an issue in the general even if she won, let alone after failing to even win the dems!?). This whole primary has swirled around Obama, his campaign effort, his connection to youth, his movement, and in many ways, Hillary is actually riding his wave. All this turnout has been either in response, reaction, or opposition to him, he's the one generating interest, new people, new volunteers, new money, and new voters. If you'd have told me before the primary he was going to have success like this over Hillary freaking Clinton, I wouldn't have believed you. The only reason he hasn't finished her off is he's peaked as far as the primary goes, it's gone on too long, and the youth movement he had has lost interest. But, he hasn't peaked for the general election, and then that movement will come back again, and in starker contrast with John McCain. Hillary won't bring that movement back, she isn't going to generate anything new, she was already a face, a known, and she lost, and she's not going to peak anymore or build the party like Obama has and still can. Basically, Obama's a fad, and he hasn't peaked yet as a fad, which he can do in the general election, and fads win elections.

 

[Vampire_Hunter_Bob]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080520/pl_afp/usvoteclintonwomen_080520135356

"Hillary's voice is OUR voice, and she's speaking for all of us," said the ad, purchased by a group not affiliated with the Clinton campaign called WomenCount.

"We want Hillary to stay in this race until every vote is cast, every vote is counted, and we know that our voices are heard."

Since she's not winning it's OBVIOUSLY sexism in their point of view. Regardless of her being proclaimed the winner when she originally announced her bid a year ago. The reason why she's losing like she is [which she didn't lose that bad to begin with] because she just couldn't reach out to younger voters, independents and former republicans.

On several occasions she's insulted all three groups above to the point they wouldn't want to vote for her. Honestly I liked hillary better then obama, it's not like they really differed that much on real issues, but it was her willingness to bash anyone that she viewed as being the reason that Kerry lost the 2004 election was a problem for me.

 

[SMZKAH]

There's already been too much racism, sexism, and ageism in this election season. People won't vote for senator Obama because he's black. People won't vote for senator Clinton because she's a women. People won't vote for senator McCain because he's old. Then you have the people who will vote for senator Obama just because he's a younger black man, or senator Clinton just because she's a white woman, or senator McCain just because he's a white man.

I don't like it, but it seems to be reality in this country. It will take quite a philosophical revolution to change that mindset in this country.

But back to other things.

Consider what happened yesterday in Kentucky. I know that senator Clinton was tailor made to appeal to KY democrats, but isn't there something more going on? For the past week, every major media corporation has been describing Obama as the likely candidate (with many proclaiming him to be the democratic candidate). He has even began campaigning for the general election, and senator McCain has started treating Obama as the candidate. Even after being painted as the candidate, senator Obama could only muster the votes of 25% of KY democrats. I don't think Kentucky democrats are blind to the realities in this presidential race. Isn't senator Clinton's landslide victory, when it seems that now more than ever she's beaten, indicative of some sort of divide?

Feel free to correct me if I'm reading into this too much.

And another thing I've been thinking about that warrants discussion. Obama really has a huge following when it comes to young voters. However, voters ages 18-25 have never really turned out in significant numbers and had an impact on the general election. Despite all of the "rock the vote" sorts of campaigns and programs to try to get young voters to the polls, younger people just don't vote in large numbers. Will this change with the 2008 election, or will we see more of the same trends?

 

[Griffith]

There's already been too much racism, sexism, and ageism in this election season. People won't vote for senator Obama because he's black. People won't vote for senator Clinton because she's a women. People won't vote for senator McCain because he's old. Then you have the people who will vote for senator Obama just because he's a younger black man, or senator Clinton just because she's a white woman, or senator McCain just because he's a white man.

I don't like it, but it seems to be reality in this country. It will take quite a philosophical revolution to change that mindset in this country.

Ironically, I think the election of Obama would go a long way towards that change, and obviously with Clinton to a different degree, with McCain representing the old guard and status quo. =)

Consider what happened yesterday in Kentucky. I know that senator Clinton was tailor made to appeal to KY democrats, but isn't there something more going on? For the past week, every major media corporation has been describing Obama as the likely candidate (with many proclaiming him to be the democratic candidate). He has even began campaigning for the general election, and senator McCain has started treating Obama as the candidate. Even after being painted as the candidate, senator Obama could only muster the votes of 25% of KY democrats. I don't think Kentucky democrats are blind to the realities in this presidential race. Isn't senator Clinton's landslide victory, when it seems that now more than ever she's beaten, indicative of some sort of divide?

I agree, but there's other factors to take into consideration. For example, Hillary is behind, she's the underdog, so her supporters, either hardcore or on the fringe, are a lot more motivated than people who might've voted for Obama, plus a natural backlash and rooting for the underdog. Basically, some people that would have voted Obama stayed home, and even people that may have voted for him if it were still a toss up, went out and voted for Clinton because she needs it more. So, it may not be totally as bad as it looks for those people, but rather than them swarming to Obama because he's winning, they're going with the person that's behind and who they liked anyway. She actually did him a favor staying in here, imagine if he lost to someone like in such grand fashion who wasn't even in the race any longer? Not good PR.

And another thing I've been thinking about that warrants discussion. Obama really has a huge following when it comes to young voters. However, voters ages 18-25 have never really turned out in significant numbers and had an impact on the general election. Despite all of the "rock the vote" sorts of campaigns and programs to try to get young voters to the polls, younger people just don't vote in large numbers. Will this change with the 2008 election, or will we see more of the same trends?

Definite concern there, but like I said, Obama had to be an incredible fad to get to this position against someone like Hillary, and he owes a lot this to his connection and support of young voters, and well as voters of all ages that he brought out who'd never been involved before. There's really never been anything like this election. Anyway, the fad is dead now because this has dragged on, but if he can get that mojo back in a general election, with the climate being in favor of change and the Democrats like it is, he could crush McCain in a landslide. On the other hand... how many non-old white guy Presidents have we had? There's always that twinge of doubt and you wonder what's in some people's hearts when their alone in that booth.

That's why his election would confirm and define a change like you're calling for in itself, much like his Iowa win changed the dynamic of this election.

 

[Vampire_Hunter_Bob]

That's why his election would confirm and define a change like you're calling for in itself, much like his Iowa win changed the dynamic of this election.

Well here's a question, do you think he'll be able to sway congress and the senate in his favor in order to effectively make the changes he has been talking about?

 

[Griffith]

Well here's a question, do you think he'll be able to sway congress and the senate in his favor in order to effectively make the changes he has been talking about?

Only time will tell, I think he'd have a much better shot at it than Hillary, but McCain could possibly be effective as well. Obama's charisma, especially as President, is an X-factor there. Anyway, I was talking more about what he represents metaphorically than anything practical he could or couldn't do, although I think that effects what he can do practically in his favor. Bill Clinton said it himself, "this is the biggest fairytale I've ever seen."

Obama is the real life Griffith.

 

[SMZKAH]

Obama is the real life Griffith.

I'm not so sure I like how that ends though...

 

[Griffith]