Obama supporters! - A positive place to talk about his campaign

[NewJersey]

So is the losing side in any election automatically disenfranchised? If so, should we be concerned since one side will always be disenfranchised, right?

I don't think the losing side is disenfranchised but they may be disappointed. However, in this primary if the superdelegates overturn the voters choice in Denver, then I think some will actually be disenfranchised.

 

[chobie]

I don't think the losing side is disenfranchised but they may be disappointed. However, in this primary if the superdelegates overturn the voters choice in Denver, then I think some will actually be disenfranchised.

And, ironically, the same people crying about being "disenfranchised" because of Michigan and Fla would have no problem with this kind of "disenfranchisment."

 

[Reflection]

Yeah, but Buchanan's an idiot.

There's a lot of talk this morning that some people in the Obama camp are ready to take the gloves off and stop playing nice. There seems to be a division in the campaign at this point, with about half wanting to really hammer Hillary on things like her NAFTA flip-flop, her Iraq war vote and Iran war-mongering, and everything else, and the other half wanting to continue as they have and stay above it with only minor counter-punching.

Along with the campaign, I'm of two minds about it. I like that he has tried to remain above it all. The question is, will he get credit for that effort if he now goes negative, or will they just call him a hypocrite instead of someone forced into that strategy by another candidate who is obviously more than willing to get down in the slime? At the same time, I almost wish that his creative campaign staff would get to work putting Hillary out of her (and our) misery. ....

This is my busy time of year and I'm trying to keep up with this thread. Re what I bolded above. I think Obama is d***ed if he does and d***ed if he doesn't. He should get credit for not going negative but then he will be criticized for 'not closing the deal' and/or giving 'HRC the knockout punch.' Also, if he continues to take the highroad, his critics and naysayers will peg him as being evasive and not answering questions. And of course, if he goes negative, these folks will be jumping all over him saying he is a flip-flopper and/or a hyprocrite.

I hope he keeps the focus on the issues and not follow HRC into the slime and kitchen sink politics. Lastly, I think the campaign ad suggestion is spot on wvrevy.

 

[Reflection]

Terry McAwful is at the top of the list of sleazy, slimeball public figures - I don't want him anywhere near the White House.

And, I agree the double S (sleazy and slimy) come to mind when reading about him.

 

[Reflection]

In all fairness, this not voting for the other candidate really took off when Hillary started comparing herself to McCain and basically saying if you can't have me, McCain is your next best choice. Obama has done/said anything close to that. And the result is that Hillary supporters are much more likley say they will vote for McCain.

But of course, she then later said she did not say that.

 

[chris1gill]

Why isn't anyone talking about fact that 7 out of 10 white Clinton voters in PA said Race was an issue?

That, according to CNN exit polls.

I'd like to know how many Obama voters said gender was an issue? Just curious... It would seem like Rendell was right....

 

[aplejax76]

So is the losing side in any election automatically disenfranchised? If so, should we be concerned since one side will always be disenfranchised, right?

You are missing my point completely. She is not winning.

In order for her to win, the SD would have to tell voters that their vote doesn't count. We know better than you.

You think if that happens people won't be outraged?

That is what she is asking the SDs to do.

Like I said before, it may not be politically correct to say but it is the truth.

 

[aplejax76]

I don't think the losing side is disenfranchised but they may be disappointed. However, in this primary if the superdelegates overturn the voters choice in Denver, then I think some will actually be disenfranchised.

Thank you. This is what I am trying to say.

 

[Reflection]

Tim, the MSM is rounding the numbers, I prefer to get mine of the PA State website.... they show an 8.6% win... I'm pretty happy with that. That was a huge gap in a territory that was tailor made as they say, for Clinton....

http://www.electionreturns.state.pa...n.aspx?FunctionID=13&ElectionID=27&OfficeID=1

To reduce HRC's lead from 20% to under 10% (based on the number above from the PA election site) suggests the 2 to 1 spending in PA by Obama's campaign was money well spent.

 

[okeydokey]

Why isn't anyone talking about fact that 7 out of 10 white Clinton voters in PA said Race was an issue?

That, according to CNN exit polls.

I'd like to know how many Obama voters said gender was an issue? Just curious... It would seem like Rendell was right....

Wow. What a shame. You'd think we would be so far past that in this country by now.

 

[Honu]

To reduce HRC's lead from 20% to under 10% (based on the number above from the PA election site) suggests the 2 to 1 spending in PA by Obama's campaign was money well spent.

ITA. And I'm going to send him some more money right now.

 

[Reflection]

Exactly and let's not forget "Operation Chaos".
The right to vote has been paid for in American blood but some drugged out radio gasbag uses that vote to skew Democratic results and his dittoheads think it's wonderful.

Tells you what kind of people you're dealing with and how much respect they have for this country's institutions.

And I'm sure they are all wearing flag pins in their lapels because that is so extremely critical.

 

[Honu]

Why isn't anyone talking about fact that 7 out of 10 white Clinton voters in PA said Race was an issue?

That, according to CNN exit polls.

I'd like to know how many Obama voters said gender was an issue? Just curious... It would seem like Rendell was right....

I had not seen that. Wow, that's disgusting.

 

[Reflection]

I'm an Independent and always will be. If we had a Libertarian party, I'd probably fit there more.

I won't vote for Hillary. If it comes down to it, I'll write in Obama.

Just because the Clintons have been around for a while doesn't mean she gets a free pass on my vote. This type of good old boys politics needs to be broken. Just my opinion.

My thoughts exactly re the bloded statement. I'm also reminded of a line from the comedian, Chris Rock: America is ready for the first female president, just not that woman.

 

[MassJester]

I don't think the losing side is disenfranchised but they may be disappointed. However, in this primary if the superdelegates overturn the voters choice in Denver, then I think some will actually be disenfranchised.

The super delegates can only overturn the voters choice if one candidate receives a clear majority--I like our guy's current position, but I wouldn't declare his status as "clear majority".

We can argue all we like that FL and MI delegates should not be seated, and perhaps they should not, but the existence of that mess makes "clear majority" tough to claim with intellectual honesty.

At the end of the day, I hope the SDs will do what is best for the party. I think that would be to support Obama--but then I'm biased.

 

[Reflection]

You are missing my point completely. She is not winning.

In order for her to win, the SD would have to tell voters that their vote doesn't count. We know better than you.

You think if that happens people won't be outraged?

That is what she is asking the SDs to do.

Like I said before, it may not be politically correct to say but it is the truth.

Isn't HRC also maintaining with the seating of MI and FL delegates she moves ahead in the popular vote? My math is fuzzy and I have no trust in Clintonian math.

 

[NewJersey]

The super delegates can only overturn the voters choice if one candidate receives a clear majority--I like our guy's current position, but I wouldn't declare his status as "clear majority".

We can argue all we like that FL and MI delegates should not be seated, and perhaps they should not, but the existence of that mess makes "clear majority" tough to claim with intellectual honesty.

At the end of the day, I hope the SDs will do what is best for the party. I think that would be to support Obama--but then I'm biased.

I can't see how anyone would think MI's votes should be included in Clinton's total popular vote or in her delegate total - she was the only major candidate on the ballot. It certainly is humorous to watch the spin coming from Clinton land regarding those votes. I hope something is worked out with MI and FL, but there is no way those delegates should be seated as is, especially Michigan.

Even after Hillary's "blowout" win, Obama is up by 500K votes and 140ish delegates. Given the remaining races splitting between the two, most likely, there's no way she is going to make anymore of a dent in that.

 

[Laura]

Updated delegate counter on CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/29/delegate.counter/index.html

I like playing with this. You'll see Hillary has to win ALL upcoming contests 66-34% to be able to take the lead in pledged delegates. If she wins them all by 55-45% (last night's PA results), and gets the same % of remaining superdelegates, Obama still wins the nomination.

 

[Fitswimmer]

I don't think she's even trying for the delegates anymore. It seems like the new answer is "popular vote" to sway the supers.

 

[Laura]

I don't think she's even trying for the delegates anymore. It seems like the new answer is "popular vote" to sway the supers.

She has to get something like 70% of the undecided superdelegates if she wins by only 10% margins in all upcoming contests. She has about 55% or so of the ones who've decided. Maybe she can get Huckabee to ask God for a miracle?