Why the superdelegates would be foolish to pick Obama...

It doesn't matter to you that the voters have chosen Obama?

5-1-2008 5:19 PM

Perhaps as the voters become better informed, they will do the right thing for this country. Sort of akin to being misled into a war on false information, or before knowing the true facts, once the truth is known, then people need to make up their minds.

5-1-2008 6:00 PM

Obama supporters want a fascistic, socialist, man-of-action, mobilizer as president. They know what they want and they still want Obama. Just because the person you would rather have win didn't, it appears you and eg want an over-ride. That is fine with me. If you think Obama would have a difficult time beating McCain, then wait until the Country sees the Left's disdain for the ballot box when it doesn't give them the results they want.

5-1-2008 7:09 PM

I think it is a tough call for the delegates. If you go with Obama, you are choosing the weaker candidate against McCain and his numbers are still going down. There is also the fact that far more Clinton supporters would vote for McCain than Obama supporters.

On the other hand, if Obama has more delegates it won't matter who has the most votes to his supporters, they will feel cheated if Clinton gets the nod. They may not vote for McCain, but then again, they may not vote at all.

I have made it known that I don't like any of the candidates. If I had to put them in order of who I would vote for if there was a gun put to my head, it would be McCain, Clinton, Nader, Obama. Heck, you can proba...

5-1-2008 8:30 PM

ratilfar

Considering how predictive (not) polls have been this political season, saying that Obama can not win, based on spread well within the margins of error is an exaggeration.

If Hillary steals the nomination, not only will many Dems stay home, but the McBush machine will go Rovian of them and energize the deflated Republican base that fears "losing" in Iraq above all else.

5-1-2008 9:32 PM

The republicans haven't begun to attack Hillary and Obama has restrained himself to stooping to Hillary's level.

End of story.

5-1-2008 9:53 PM

Last 3 polls out of Minnesota - McCain beats Hillary but losses to Obama.
Ditto for Washington.
Ditto for Michigan (Obama won the last polling).
Ditto for Wisconsin.

And Obama killed McCain in that Pennsylvania Quinnipac poll so is that even an issue for that state?

Obama destroys McCain in Oregon - Hillary tied
Obama destroys McCain in Iowa. Hillary tied.
Obama ties McCain - North Carolina. Hillary destroyed
Obama leads in Colorado - Hillary loses.

This represents 88 electoral votes that Hillary doesn't get. This is much more than the roughly 50 out of Florida and Ohio.

5-2-2008 10:40 AM

wiccantexan

To choose him at this point would be to deny or ignore the reality of the current circumstances.

You mean the reality that he is the overall frontrunner, and Hillary has consistently tried to change the rules to her advantage? That her sense of entitlement is overruling the damage being done to her party? That even though Obama's numbers are down and margins narrowed, he's basically STILL ahead in so many areas even with everything that's been thrown his way recently? That reality?

5-2-2008 1:00 PM

egoldstein

My personal "reality" is that Hillary has won NY, CA, NJ, MA, OH, TX, PA - all states the democrats must win if they are to win in November.. My further reality is that the excitement about Obama peaked months ago, prior to the entire Rev Wright situation. So, to look at the current landscape and suggest that Hillary is the strategically wise choice at this point is, in my opinion, a fair, objective perspective on reality.

5-2-2008 1:09 PM

While ending this thing early might have seemed advantageous to the dems a few short weeks ago, at this point I don't think they should be so eager to just pick someone for the sake of picking someone. If they were smart they would want this to ride out for a while longer now. They would want to see how this Wright controversy plays out. And if the dust settles and Obama rebounds, then it would make the most sense to choose him in my opinion (although there will be some serious pain in either choice). But if he continues to tank, if this Wright thing doesn't go away, then Hillary may be the smarter choice for them.

I'm still hoping for a mysterious disappearance of all the candidates at a debate in the Bermuda Triangle myself.

5-2-2008 2:12 PM

Here's a guideline every Democrat should follow:
whatever the republicans and conservatives are telling you is the right course of action -> do the opposite.

There is a reason williehelm and n2sooners are pushing for extending the nomination or supporting Hillary. She is the candidate that republicans are salivating to run against.

I could sit here and do like the Clintonistas and run through every unsavory event of the Clinton family skeleton closet and it would not be pretty.

People are being very foolish if they think that current polling reflects the damage the republicans will heap upon Hillary if she somehow miraculously was "chosen" to be the nominee.

5-2-2008 2:38 PM

By all means, cut off the voting right this second and appoint Obama to the position. Fine by me. You will not only alienate Michigan and Florida voters, but those in states which have yet to vote. You also alienate women. And in the process you choose a candidate who is tanking nationally in the polls. Seriously, McCain couldn't hope for more.

5-2-2008 3:30 PM

That would be fine by me. I am basing more of my comments on actual information instead of feelings.

In the Michigan polls currently McCain beats Hillary but loses to Obama.

The republican nominee must really suck to be losing against a tanking opponent.

I don't need to listen to your analysis. The actual republican nominees actions tell me all I need to know. They don't attack Hillary, that's the candidate the want to run against. They have been praying for her all along.

5-2-2008 4:34 PM

It isn't because they want to run against Hillary. They know she is behind and extremely unlikely to win the nomination. They want to prolong he process and keep the pressure on the democrats and off McCain. Heck, Rush was thinking about calling off Operation Chaos for fear Hillary might win, but as that still seems extremely unlikely he changed his mind. Those cheering for McCain want Obama to win the democrat primary, they just don't want him to win it easily.

5-2-2008 5:03 PM

I'm not talking about Rush and pundits. I am talking about actual politicians who make up the elected representation of the republican party.

If they wanted Obama to win they wouldn't be attacking Obama and silent on Clinton.

Common sense.

5-2-2008 5:33 PM

There is a reason williehelm and n2sooners are pushing for extending
the nomination or supporting Hillary. She is the candidate that
republicans are salivating to run against.

You are an moron. I have said a dozen times and believe earnestly that McCain will lose to Hillary Clinton and beat Obama rather easily.

whatever the republicans and conservatives are telling you is the right course of action -> do the opposite.

And thus is the height of your feeble intellect. You might as well exterminate the politically and ideologically opposed.

5-2-2008 5:37 PM

Rest assured they'll start on Hillary
Obama was the Democrat's assumed candidate
Now it seems Clinton has made some strides.

Politics are like that
Always focus on the front runner
Usually there is a clearer choice, however
Less was known about Obama before.

5-2-2008 5:38 PM

Also, if you believe your own lunacy you would be supporting Hillary because I , for one, think the votes should count and Hillary should drop out.

5-3-2008 4:30 AM

Ha, willy get that hemorrhoid of yours lanced, have some sits baths, and when you've recovered, come on back and try to interact with the adults.

Okay, show me the dozen times you have said that Hillary will beat McCain. I went through about 700 of your comments and never found them, Google doesn't find them. Doesn't mean they aren't there I guess, but how about you show them.

Personally, I believe that you despise Eric and are just willing to take a position for argument sake when you believe he has a weak point.

I did see several times where you have said that the math doesn't work for Hillary and even referred people to the delegate calculator but until now you never suggested that she...

5-3-2008 11:27 AM

It doesn't matter to you that the voters have chosen Obama?

I , for one, think the votes should count

@ Will. Just let me be clear on this, based on the assertions you have made here, it would be logical to assume that you believe Al Gore should have been president in 2000. Correct?

Also, for the democrats who are saying that Obama should be the candidate and Hillary should drop out, you should keep in mind the 2000 elections as well, understand that the points eg have made are extremely valid based on this premise.

5-3-2008 11:47 AM

Just for clarification

The rules of the Democratic party nomination process stipulate a delegate race.

5-3-2008 12:22 PM

But if you look at the process of the actual election, the electoral votes, the majority of which come from CA (55), TX (34), NY(31), FL (27), PA (21) and IL (21), is the key to winning. "While many people believe they are voting for a particular candidate on Election Day in November, they are, in fact, casting their vote for that candidate's electors." (To cite wikipedia, which in this case is exactly on point) "given the 2000 allocation of electors, a candidate could have won with only the support of the 11 largest states."

5-3-2008 1:50 PM

That is true. Our electoral process does allow for someone to win an election without securing the popular vote. It has happened a couple of times. My contention is that in 2000 the popular vote in Florida is not representative of the intent of the majority of people in the state.

And I would be willing to switch to popular vote. I see no reason for the Democrats to spot the republicans 35 to 40 electoral votes right of the bat just because they do well in smaller states, since each state being given 2 electoral votes automatically regardless of their population.

Hillary's plan is a remake of the failed Kerry 17 state plan while Obama's campaign has pledged to run a 50 state campaign that ...

5-4-2008 1:19 AM

Personally, I believe that you despise Eric and are just willing to
take a position for argument sake when you believe he has a weak point.

See? You are a moron. I do not "despise" eric. He has just made it a point to single me out based on his own biases and I resent that. So, whatever else you imagine is your usual pure delirium.

Just let me be clear on this, based on the assertions you have made
here, it would be logical to assume that you believe Al Gore should
have been president in 2000.

Based on the votes? NO. You see, you cannot have states like California and New York ( states where Bush did not even campaign ) pull more weight than other states in...

5-4-2008 2:42 AM

You are a moron to believe you can split semantical hairs when we have already witnessed months of your spitefulness.

The delirium evident through these comments seems to be your claims of what you have said, of which there is no proof.

As far as your pretentious political expertise we don't have to look further than your latest comment about Bush not campaigning in California in 2000.

From 2000:

One thing is unmistakable: The Bush campaign is working hard. Overcoming his reluctance in February, Bush has been in the state no less than eight times since the primary -- the last time a three-day tour in June...

5-4-2008 3:07 AM

Sure, there is a lot of money to raise in California.

5-4-2008 3:07 AM

But raising it and spending it are 2 different things.

5-4-2008 3:19 AM

Personally, I believe that you despise Eric and are just willing to
take a position for argument sake when you believe he has a weak point.

You exude so much freudian bullcrap, it is amazing you. Hold up a mirror. Or better yet, why don't you and eric just have a gander at YOUR's and Ratilfar pitiful displays of contentiousness, ignorance, and abject illogic toward all MY comments, as if following me around and harrassing. Franky, the fact that someone researches and posts personal information about individual clippers is as egregious an act as has ever been committed at Clipmarks, so I have little respect for you personally and eric's objectivity. However, outside of that, I...

5-4-2008 4:11 AM

Hey dipstick, you make thousands of comments. I don't follow you around. You just can't be avoided. If you don't want people to express opinions on your comments then make yourself more scarce. Otherwise, everywhere you are you are fair game.

If you want to be treated respectfully treat others respectfully.

I didn't post anything about you that you didn't reveal about yourself here on clipmarks except a piece of public information that you had a miserable showing as a republican candidate in an election. Otherwise you mentioned everything I said.

Personally, I have zero respect for you. I'm glad you have respect for Eric because he is the one who said you are the most blocked clipper on clipmarks due to your rudeness.

5-4-2008 5:07 AM

TRYING TO MAKE THE CALIFORNIA CONNECTION BUSH, GORE TRY TO STRENGTHEN THEIR PARTIES BY PLAYING STATE'S HIGH-TECH, DIVERSITY THEMES

Source: MARY ANNE OSTROM, Mercury News

California has emerged as a surprise player in the presidential contest, with both Texas Gov. George W. Bush and Vice President Al Gore swinging through a week before the closest election in decades. Bush, heartened by Gore's shrinking lead, is making an aggressive final bid to win independent voters. Gore, criticized by some leading state Democrats for a lackluster effort in the state, is returning to energize Democrats and persuade progressives he's a better choice

Published on October 29, 2000, Page 3, San Jose Mercury News (CA)

5-6-2008 10:31 AM

wiccantexan

egoldstein, I see we'll have to agree to disagree on our mutual realities.

5-7-2008 1:16 AM