A bad taste in my mouth...

Email Print posted by twalters0 03/20/2008 11:18:30 AM EST

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit
If you like this story, digg it!
Primaries

I heard Michael Shure [sp] state a couple of times that a Clinton win in the primaries via superdelegates overriding the pledged delegate numbers would be great (because he "really wants Clinton to win, and really doesn't want to see Obama win" and it could leave a "bad taste in the voters' mouths."  Well, you know who I don't want to see win?  John McCain.  And if by "bad taste" he means a big steaming freshly sauted pile of dog shit, then he's right on.  I can guarantee that a huge chunk of Obama supporters, both the new voters and the old, won't just fall in line and support Clinton if she "wins" the nomination in this fashion.  Many won't vote at all, some would vote for a third party (maybe this is why Ralph Nader is getting all excited), and some might even vote for McCain out of spite.

It's looking less and less like Florida and Michigan will hold new primaries.  I actually would like to see the people in those states get a chance to cast their vote, but there's a huge huge huge problem with holding an election now-The Limbaugh followers would turn out in droves to vote for Clinton.  If there was a fair way to let everyone who actuallly intends to vote for the Democratic candidate (be it Clinton, Obama, or Gravel) in the general election, then Hell Yeah we should let 'em vote, and there should be a nationwide effort to fund it.  But I haven't seen an option that precludes this sort of chicanery.

And there's been a lot of talk about the popular vote in the primaries.  If there wasn't a mixture of primary/caucus states, the tallies of the popular vote would be more meaningful.  As it is, Obama is ahead, despite the disadvantage of getting smaller populare vote numbers from all of the caucus states he did really well in.  Because of this mixture of voting methods, the delegate count reigns supreme over popular votes in any case (Pelosi stated this recently).  So any discussion of the "popular vote" in the nomination needs to be tempered with fact that the caucus votes have given Obama large percentage leads in most cases, but small numbers when compared to the total votes counted in other primaries.
< Obama on National Security and Iraq | EV Count Update for 3/20/08: 2 NEW STATES! 5 UPDATES! >
 Display:
A bad taste in my mouth... | 14 comments (14 topical, 0 hidden)
Hillary (none / 0)
She can't count on my support if she "somehow" wins the nomination.  I do think Cenk banged the gavel a little early.  If she were to KILL Obama in most of the remaining primaries, gets the overall popular vote lead, and is in a much closer position in terms of delegates (say fewer than 50) then I do think it's possible she gets the nomination.  I won't like it, but I can see it happening.  Obama has had repeated opportunities to drive the stake through her heart.  He has another opportunity in PA. 

Frankly, even if she wins it under the fairly legitimate circumstance that I outlined above, I really don't see a HUGE difference between her and McCain.  I guess I'd prefer Hillary.  Well, I know I would.  But I would have no joy in supporting her campaign and you are right that there are a lot of young people and old farts like me who would feel the same way.

It's another day in paradise...

by happyhominid on 03/20/2008 01:51:35 PM EST

Unfortunately, (none / 0)
Obama will not be able to just drive a stake in the Clinton campaign's heart. They do not know that they have lost already, so it will have to be the death of 1000 cuts. Clinton will win PA, but not by enough to make a difference. Nothing will change. So, she will keep going, in probably a covert effort to hurt Obama as much as possible so that she can come back in 4 years. It's time we heard from the Dem party poobahs that it's time to put a stop to this. We know where Speaker Pelosi standsand that's great. Dodd has endorsed Obama, but what about the other presidential candidates? I'm thinking that they are somehow not convinced that Obama is going to be the candidate. What about Gore? His input would be REALLY useful right about now. It's time to put an end to this bloodletting.

by mijoh on 03/20/2008 03:01:19 PM EST

Reasons for not wanting Obama to win? (none / 0)
I do not recall Michael specifically stringing together the statements that he "really doesn't want Obama to win" and the reasons why, but from what I can tell from his conversations overall, he believes that Obama will get into office, not know what to do, and be overwhelmed for some time while he figures it out.  He admits that Obama is smart and will have a hell of a steep learning curve, but his supposed inability on "day one" to start disassembling the Bush machinery is the statement I've heard him repeat a few times.  Maybe it's the "reassembly" of the Clinton machinery that he wants so much?  I guess Hillary would be better at doing that.  But I personally think that Obama will be ready day 1 take on the apparatus that Bush (see Rove and Cheney) has assembled.  I'm only worried that he might be too nice to his predecessors instead of metting out the justice they deserve.  Considering how Bill Clinton let the Iran-Contra folks walk free (and hence let an "honorable" Bush family member back in the White House eight years later), I'm pretty certain Hillary would play the same game of "putting those issues behind us."  It's very important that these criminals be made to pay for their crimes in a real way, behind bars.  Because if they don't, they WILL slither their way back into national politics in the future, just like all of the criminals in the Reagan/Bush Sr. admininstration did.

by twalters0 on 03/22/2008 01:42:24 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Someone explain this to me (none / 0)
What are Michael's stated reasons for being that strongly against Obama winning?

by jarett on 03/20/2008 03:13:33 PM EST

Popular vote (none / 0)
I don't see why popular vote even matters since the states that caucus contribute so little while the states with primaries would contribute a ton..

by acroso on 03/20/2008 05:31:10 PM EST

Condemn and Repudiate (none / 0)
Do you condemn and repudiate the comments of your favorite politician Tom Tancredo and apologize your support of him? ( Dont forget his associations with known racist groups)

by MRFred on 03/21/2008 11:26:44 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Amazing (none / 0)
If you want to have a bad taste in your mouth have it toward the DNC. Who have allowed this festering boil of a process to exist (especially after the 2000 election).

The process isn't over until someone has 2025 delegates (pledged and super) period.

Obama supporters want to stop the count at pledged delegates. (which benifits their candidate) anything else is a theft.

Hillary is a thief, cenk said so.

But if we force the Superdelegates to vote for the "pledged" delegate leader (instead of who their preference is) aren't YOU stealing the election?

It sorta a fundamental question of ethics

People like you help cost Gore the election.

The most important thing here is that the DEM wins in November

by LORD FOUL on 03/20/2008 08:00:26 PM EST

bad taste (none / 0)
I do have a bad taste in my mouth for the DNC setting up a heinous process that could potentially overturn the will of the voters.  We already have enough restrictions on the people's will in our "democracy" as it is.

The question isn't whether the superdelegates CAN chose to all side with Clinton (but this isn't the current trend anyway), but SHOULD they.  If they do decide to overturn the pledged delegates' choice, they will be committing electoral suicide in the general election.  That's my point.  "Bad taste in the mouth" is a huge understatement about the sentiment voters will feel.  Do you honestly believe that Clinton can win in the general election if she "wins" the primary in this fashion?  People have short memories, but not that short.

"People like you cost Gore the election."
How's this for an unsubstatiated aspersion:  People like you cost both Gore AND Kerry their elections.  And you helped Lieberman win his senate seat over Lamont.  BOOM.  Headshot.

Just to repeat what I already stated, I support a fair revote in Florida and Michigan that let's everyone who actually intends to vote for Clinton/Obama/Gravel in the general election participate.  You don't honestly think it would be legitimate to seat the delegates as is, considering that Obama wasn't on the ballot in Michigan, and Hillary was "campaigning" for a symbolic victory in Florida while heading into super-tuesday?  I'd also like to note that you may not get what you are wishing for (a landslide victory for Clinton in those states) even if they did do a revote, considering that people have had more time to assess the candidates.

The more I think about it, the more dismayed I am that nobody has come up with and pushed forward a workable revote solution for those states.

by twalters0 on 03/22/2008 02:04:33 PM EST

[ Parent ]
About the voters (none / 0)
I love these will of the people arguements, first of all I don't hear you complaining about the caucus states (less than 10,000 people decided wyoming). In fact when you get right down to it (and this applies to both candidates) only 30% of democratic voters actually vote in primaries. So who's will are we talking about?

So I guess Hillary supporters aren't going to be upset that you don't want the superdelegates to pick the best candidate ? I wonder how they will feel? I wonder how they will feel over the fact that Obama and his supporters painted her as a racist despite a career of supporting civil rights.


To clarify "people like you" Gore lost because many "idealists" decided to vote their feelings (Nader) instead of voting for the guy with the best chance of winning (Gore).


I have said repeatedly that the delegates (MI/FL) should not be counted as is. Because that would be unfair to Obama. (Note: it is the DNC's fault that outsiders can vote in our primaries)


The DNC should finance another primary (protecting the voters of those states) and later punish the idiots who caused this mess in ther first place.


I'll ask you like I ask all Obama supporters. If Clinton takes the lead in the popular vote will you support the "will of the people"?

by LORD FOUL on 03/22/2008 02:49:44 PM EST

[ Parent ]
will of the voters (none / 0)
You've totally refused to address my main point about why the superdelegates overriding the pledged delegates' will would be electoral suicide in the general election.  And I want the superdelegates to pick the best candidate:  Obama.  And by and large, they have been lately.

You seem to believe that Clinton winning the at ANY cost is worth it.  Then you complain about "idealists" ruining elections.  For the record, I voted for Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004.

And Clinton supporters could turn out for the caucuses.  Why don't they?  And isn't Wyoming the lowest population state in the union?  Your complaint about a 10,000 vote victory seems pretty meaningless considering both the population size and turn-outs for the caucus.  And this dovetails into the arguments about popular votes.  First off, Obama is ahead.  Get it out of your freaking head that Clinton leads in the popular vote.  Second, the combination of primary votes and caucuses make popular vote arguments inconclusive at best.  If you did some sort of complex extrapolation based on caucus turnout to some number (say 30% of the state's population) to give it a corrective factor to compare it to the numbers from primary states, then you *might* have a more legitimate argument based on "popular vote."

If Clinton wins in landslide victories in every state remaining (and I mean HUGE landslides) and takes the lead in pledged delegates (which most accurately represents the "will of the voters" considering the mixture of primaries and caucuses) then sure, I'll support her.

by twalters0 on 03/22/2008 07:37:40 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Point of view (none / 0)
How is it suicide because Obama supporters will stay home? Cry me a river.
In Tex, Obama won the Delegate count despite her popular vote victory is that fair? Caucuses only represent 10% of any states voters is that fair? ( and no everybody can't just show up) Is it fair to the voters of Mi & Fl that their votes don't count because of some DNC hack? None of it is fair but that's ok as long as Obama's ahead. The super delegates were created for just this situation  and now you want to cry?

I never said that Clinton was ahead in the popular vote, I said she could be at the end.

So let me get this right. It is not fair to count the popular vote (might favor Clinton), It is not fair to count-recount MI & Fl (might favor Clinton). and It is not fair for the Superdelegates to vote for their choice (might favor Clinton). It is only fair to count the pledged delegates because that benefits Obama.

And if Obama manages to lose in November it will somehow be Clintons fault right?

We disagree and we will not resolve this here. Can we agree on this. That our primary system is a clusterf" and that we should have a primary system where the voters decide who our candidate is (no Caucuses and no Superdelegates).

by LORD FOUL on 03/23/2008 09:50:56 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Not all (none / 0)

   A Dem win in November is important, but it does matter who wins.  The way Hillary is portraying herself, she would be no better than John McCain or anyother Republican.  She has taken up the cause of win at all costs and protect the legacy.  Sound familiar.  She's one or two steps from becoming "the decider."
  Democrats must take the legistlative branch and readjust the balance of power.  They also need to take the White House, but not with a Republican in sheeps clothing.
   The important thing in November is to restore this country to the status it held before the jackasses in power took it over.  I truely believe that the best way to do that is to put a Dem in the White House, but not at all costs.  That's wrong-headed and what led to the disaster we're in right now.

by crazylib49 on 03/20/2008 11:39:25 PM EST

Not buying it (none / 0)
"The way Hillary is portraying herself, she would be no better than John McCain or anyother Republican."

Do you really mean that, after seven years of Bush II?  She would be no better than that?  No better than the crappy Presidency of pretty much every Republican for over two decades?  I'm one of those despised "Obamabots" but damned if I'll go out on that limb.  Maybe it was just hyperbole?

"If you're not pumped up, then get the hell out, 'cause you don't belong here." -- Cenk Uygur

by Spinny on 03/21/2008 08:15:22 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I don't agree (none / 0)
I think the distance between Hillary and McCain will be quite large, and the distance between McCain and Bush will be quite small.

That being said, Clinton's decision to try to campaign using 3:00 AM fear-mongering is a terrible, horrible strategy, and definantly a losing one against the republicans.  She didn't even try to frame the issue in a way that would favor the eventual Democratic nominee.  Here's a wild idea I just had to discuss national security issues in a way that favors Democrats: discuss the Clinton's administration's handling of Serbia via international diplomacy, economic leverage, and intelligent use of military force (no combat deaths for Americans in that conflict).  I have no idea if Hillary was involved in that decision making process, but hell she could claim that she was, use it to attack the disasterous foreign strategies used by BushCo, and even help the eventually frame foreign policy issues for the Democratic nominee, whomever it may be.  See?  Was that hard?  Maybe I could be a campaign advisor.  And if Repubs bring up Somalia?  Point out the fact that Bush Sr. put our troops there (in the last month of his presidency) with no clear mission and no exit strategy, and it ended in disaster.  Sound familiar?

If I hear my suggestions in the Clinton's campaign, I want my student loans forgiven.  Make it happen.

by twalters0 on 03/22/2008 02:21:26 PM EST

[ Parent ]
A bad taste in my mouth... | 14 comments (14 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: