Hillary Supporters unite part 2; no bashing please

[akhenaten]

Tuesday night was about thanking the people of South Dakota. She did mention Obama. She said she wanted to take a couple days to "get this right" which I take to mean prepare an appropriate speech to congratulate, endorse and unify her supporters to getting behind Obama. What on earth is wrong with that? At least wait and see what she has to say on Saturday.

Do you all really think the Dems can win if the OS keep alienating Hillary's supporters? What is the goal here? It ISN'T just the disboard, it's on the KOS and others, this same nastiness and sniping. I posted nice things on your thread a couple of times and was ignored. I got the hint. I thought OS would want to attract supporters (HINT: voters), not chase them away.

I'm not saying it's you personally, but this makes no sense at all to me.

Mary

First I want to thank you for saying that your comments were not meant about me personally.... there have been way too many generalizations on both OS and HS boards in the past!

I am sorry if you posted on the other board and got no response.... sometimes they move fast and I don't always go back and read all of the previous posts!!

I came over here before (a month or so ago )trying to get along...but was told it was too soon.... like don't try and get together until Hillary leaves the race...
she has not left yet and it confused me....she has not done what most ( I won't say all because I do not know for a fact that all have) politicians do when a race is lost.... so maybe I am not sure how to react yet? ( this does not mean I am celebrating any less for obama or that i want hillarys head on a stick....as someone said OS want )
Do we try and unify...do we leave you all alone...
It seems OS are damned if they do and damned if they don't ...

If we comment ...remarks are made about this board being invaded....
if we don't notes are left for the OS lurkers

Some on both threads have said inflamitory and hurtful things....
but that only makes me think less of them ..not their candidate of choice...

 

["Got Disney"]

I am just amazed that super delegates continued to support Obama even though Hillary won the popular vote. The votes didn't seem to matter.
It just doesn't seem fair. How can I trust their judgement and blindly support their choice when they used poor judgement in the first place?

the popular vote never has seemed to matter ever......They have the SD to make sure that the voters dont make a mistake for the party...and the Delegated to be awarded by the number of people in a district that is won.

Seems the party trusts no one and wants to have who they want to have no matter what...it's called OLD POLITICS!....

 

[ammo]

I am just amazed that super delegates continued to support Obama even though Hillary won the popular vote. The votes didn't seem to matter.
It just doesn't seem fair. How can I trust their judgement and blindly support their choice when they used poor judgement in the first place?

First of all, go back and remember some of Hillary statements from the late winter, early spring -- at a time when Obama was clearly leading the popular vote. Hillary was the person who started saying that the superdelegates should not base their decision on the popular vote. Why isn't her logic good enough for you now (of course, she changed her tune later to suit her own needs)?

Also, the popular vote numbers are flawed. That is because Hillary was the only person on the ballot in Michigan. Hillary also likes to ignore the votes in the caucus states. In reality, all we can say about the popular vote is that it was close to 50/50. And Hillary is the one who argued that superdelegates should make up their own minds. She got just what she asked for.

 

[akhenaten]

I am just amazed that super delegates continued to support Obama even though Hillary won the popular vote. The votes didn't seem to matter.
It just doesn't seem fair. How can I trust their judgement and blindly support their choice when they used poor judgement in the first place?

"Hillary Clinton Did NOT Win the Popular Vote - Media Needs to Point This Out
by cscmm
Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 06:15:40 AM PDT
I would like to point out that Hillary Clinton did NOT win the popular vote during the Democratic race for a presidential nominee – according to RealPolitics.com.

Barack Obama without IA, NV, ME, WA caucuses and without Michigan, ended up with 33,916 more votes than Hillary Clinton.

Barack Obama with IA, NV, ME, WA caucuses and without Michigan, ended up with 144,138 more votes than Hillary Clinton.

RealPolitics

cscmm's diary :: ::
Even if you include Michigan and the caucuses of IA, NV, ME and WA (giving Obama the Uncommitted in Michigan – remember, his name wasn’t on the ballot for voters to choose from, Hillary’s was – the State vote wasn’t suppose to be counted), Barack Obama still leads by 53,997 votes. The only way Hillary can CLAIM the popular vote is if she is allowed to count the Michigan primary and nothing from that race is given to Obama.

Voters in Michigan were told their vote would not count, so thousands more might have voted if they knew it would have counted. Barack Obama’s name was not on the ballot. He like the other Democratic candidates, except Hillary, removed their names from the ballot.

Think about Michigan’s primary vote as a sport event. You have two basketball players competing to see who can get the most free throws. During the 'official timing’, player one gets 22 baskets and player two gets 18. During a practice session however, player two gets 12 more and player one gets none.

Player one is announced the winner – player two says, "Whoa wait a minute, I got a total of 30 baskets. I’m the winner!"

Hillary Clinton is of course, player two. She's demanding something that didn't officially count and refuses to give Obama the same sense of entitlement.

I'll give Hillary this -- she did make history during the primary to be the first woman to have come 'so close' to winning and getting almost 18 million votes.

But the fact remains, Barack Obama won 242 more delegates and he won the popular vote"

found this online....

 

[Buzz's Girl]

Welcome to the Boards & this thread!





This is your opinon not fact! Not matter how it is counted SHE did get more people to vote for her this Primary then he did.

Thanks. I'm really just going on the crowds we saw at their events and rallies. There was a significant difference in the level (and size) of support there.

And yes, more people did vote for her in elections, but we can't discount the states that held caucuses or the people that participated in them. Their voices are not included in that popular vote total.

 

[deelam]

[QUOTE="Got Disney";25526206]the popular vote never has seemed to matter ever......They have the SD to make sure that the voters dont make a mistake for the party...and the Delegated to be awarded by the number of people in a district that is won.

Seems the party trusts no one and wants to have who they want to have no matter what...it's called OLD POLITICS!....[/QUOTE]

It just doesn't seem right. Our reps shouldn't ignore the will of the people. It seems more like Odd politics.

But we will go on, without our canidate. The months ahead will be tough. We will have to find a canidate we can believe in. But for Hillary, its over. She can get back to her normal life and hopegully not be trashed in the media so often. I don't think she should except the VP slot. She is one to run the show, not take a backseat to another. Whoever gets elected will have a tough job. A wrong move could make the country much worse. Let this person sink or swim without Hillary.

 

[akhenaten]

It just doesn't seem right. Our reps shouldn't ignore the will of the people. It seems more like Odd politics.

But we will go on, without our canidate. The months ahead will be tough. We will have to find a canidate we can believe in. But for Hillary, its over. She can get back to her normal life and hopegully not be trashed in the media so often. I don't think she should except the VP slot. She is one to run the show, not take a backseat to another. Whoever gets elected will have a tough job. A wrong move could make the country much worse. Let this person sink or swim without Hillary.

I believe I heard that she did not win the popular vote....after the Montana voting was finalized.....

 

[deelam]

"Hillary Clinton Did NOT Win the Popular Vote - Media Needs to Point This Out
by cscmm
Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 06:15:40 AM PDT
I would like to point out that Hillary Clinton did NOT win the popular vote during the Democratic race for a presidential nominee – according to RealPolitics.com.

Barack Obama without IA, NV, ME, WA caucuses and without Michigan, ended up with 33,916 more votes than Hillary Clinton.

Barack Obama with IA, NV, ME, WA caucuses and without Michigan, ended up with 144,138 more votes than Hillary Clinton.

RealPolitics

cscmm's diary :: ::
Even if you include Michigan and the caucuses of IA, NV, ME and WA (giving Obama the Uncommitted in Michigan – remember, his name wasn’t on the ballot for voters to choose from, Hillary’s was – the State vote wasn’t suppose to be counted), Barack Obama still leads by 53,997 votes. The only way Hillary can CLAIM the popular vote is if she is allowed to count the Michigan primary and nothing from that race is given to Obama.

Voters in Michigan were told their vote would not count, so thousands more might have voted if they knew it would have counted. Barack Obama’s name was not on the ballot. He like the other Democratic candidates, except Hillary, removed their names from the ballot.

Think about Michigan’s primary vote as a sport event. You have two basketball players competing to see who can get the most free throws. During the 'official timing’, player one gets 22 baskets and player two gets 18. During a practice session however, player two gets 12 more and player one gets none.

Player one is announced the winner – player two says, "Whoa wait a minute, I got a total of 30 baskets. I’m the winner!"

Hillary Clinton is of course, player two. She's demanding something that didn't officially count and refuses to give Obama the same sense of entitlement.

I'll give Hillary this -- she did make history during the primary to be the first woman to have come 'so close' to winning and getting almost 18 million votes.

But the fact remains, Barack Obama won 242 more delegates and he won the popular vote"

found this online....

DISUNC, you have numbers on this, right? Did Hillary win the popular vote?

 

[ammo]

... And Hillary is the one who argued that superdelegates should make up their own minds. She got just what she asked for.

I probably stated that wrong. Hillary always wanted the superdelegates to vote for her. Early on, when Obama was clearly winning the popular vote she told superdelegates to ignore the popular vote.

When she started adding her Michigan votes (and giving Obama zero MI votes) and ignoring the caucus states in order to conjure up a popular vote lead, she told superdelegates that the popular vote mattered.

Hillary's logic: vote for me regardless!

But here's all that matters at this point -- do you really want four more years of a Republican administration?

 

[connorlevismom]

Yeah but you know McCain, he'll do what he wants anyway. He always does.

Huckabee seems so dull...lol!

mary

Hope you don't mind a republican's point of view on this one. If McCain picks Huckabee, the hair on the back of my neck will stand at attention. I do NOT want some bible thumper being a VP. I am a more moderate conservative and while I lean more to the right, I like the way McCain seems to be more in the middle.

Kristine

 

[Dolce27]

First of all, go back and remember some of Hillary statements from the late winter, early spring -- at a time when Obama was clearly leading the popular vote. Hillary was the person who started saying that the superdelegates should not base their decision on the popular vote. Why isn't her logic good enough for you now (of course, she changed her tune later to suit her own needs)?

Also, the popular vote numbers are flawed. That is because Hillary was the only person on the ballot in Michigan. Hillary also likes to ignore the votes in the caucus states. In reality, all we can say about the popular vote is that it was close to 50/50. And Hillary is the one who argued that superdelegates should make up their own minds. She got just what she asked for.

The MI argument is getting old. Obama and Edwards chose to take their names off the ballot, but technically they were still on the ballot. Obama had them put uncommitted on the ballot and it was publicized to vote for Obama or Edwards under 'uncommitted'. Polls going into the MI primary showed Obama doing horribly (believe me, had Obama been polling well, his name would still have been on that ballot!) and the polls also indicated that the majority of the 'uncommitted' votes were for Edwards, not Obama.

And I agree on the Hillary statement; she did say that. The SD's can go with whoever they want. Even if I think they're making a horrible decision.

 

[ammo]

DISUNC, you have numbers on this, right? Did Hillary win the popular vote?

Depends on how you define the popular vote (e.g., if you give Obama zero for MI and ignore the caucus states).

But the popular vote is irrelevant -- Hillary was the one who started the argument that superdelegates shouldn't have their hands tied by the popular vote.

 

[deelam]

Why isn't her logic good enough for you now (of course, she changed her tune later to suit her own needs)?

She got just what she asked for.

My views are that the popular vote should matter. I'm not talking about Hillary's or any other canidates views. I am losing faith in the system. It's about the will of the people.

 

[punkin]

Boy, go away for a couple of days and this thread is damn near unrecognizable.

And I agree on the Hillary statement; she did say that. The SD's can go with whoever they want. Even if I think they're making a horrible decision.

SDs were put in place precisely to overcome a stupid popular vote decision and select the person most likely to win in November.

In this case, however, the popular vote got it right and Obama just won the battle (with SD support) only to lose the war.

 

[ammo]

The MI argument is getting old. Obama and Edwards chose to take their names off the ballot, but technically they were still on the ballot. Obama had them put uncommitted on the ballot and it was publicized to vote for Obama or Edwards under 'uncommitted'. Polls going into the MI primary showed Obama doing horribly (believe me, had Obama been polling well, his name would still have been on that ballot!) and the polls also indicated that the majority of the 'uncommitted' votes were for Edwards, not Obama.

And I agree on the Hillary statement; she did say that. The SD's can go with whoever they want. Even if I think they're making a horrible decision.

The ballot in MI is a fact, old or not. Hillary originally agreed that MI's early primary should not count -- that is a fact. What is getting old is some people's unwillingness to admit that the popular vote in MI is irreparably flawed when trying to count popular votes.

This could have all been avoided if Hillary had inititally fought the decision to penalize MI and FL. But she was presumed to be the favorite at that time, and she was happy with any decision that would shorten the primary season and allow her to focus on November. She made a mistake, but then she wasn't willing to live with it.

 

[akhenaten]

The MI argument is getting old. Obama and Edwards chose to take their names off the ballot, but technically they were still on the ballot. Obama had them put uncommitted on the ballot and it was publicized to vote for Obama or Edwards under 'uncommitted'. Polls going into the MI primary showed Obama doing horribly (believe me, had Obama been polling well, his name would still have been on that ballot!) and the polls also indicated that the majority of the 'uncommitted' votes were for Edwards, not Obama.

And I agree on the Hillary statement; she did say that. The SD's can go with whoever they want. Even if I think they're making a horrible decision.

Polls are not votes!! Therefore it is ridiculous to claim to have won something that can not even be counted!! to act like something was taken away from hillary is silly...it was extremly close and she lost.....

It is a spin !!!

to act like something was taken away from hillary is silly...it was extremly close and she lost.....

 

[deelam]

Depends on how you define the popular vote (e.g., if you give Obama zero for MI and ignore the caucus states).

But the popular vote is irrelevant -- Hillary was the one who started the argument that superdelegates shouldn't have their hands tied by the popular vote.

We do differ on our views on the caucus states. I don't believe caucuses reflect the will of the people. Too many people don't attend caucuses.

 

[ammo]

My views are that the popular vote should matter. I'm not talking about Hillary's or any other canidates views. I am losing faith in the system. It's about the will of the people.

Then your complaint isn't with Obama or Hillary or any OS or HS. It is with the Democratic Party. If you think the rules should be changed, let them know. I have no doubt that this year's primaries will lead both parties to sit down and review their procedures.

 

[akhenaten]

We do differ on our views on the caucus states. I don't believe caucuses reflect the will of the people. Too many people don't attend caucuses.

so you just discount entire states and say she won???? That is funny

talk about disenfranchising citizens!!!

 

[deelam]

Boy, go away for a couple of days and this thread is damn near unrecognizable.



SDs were put in place precisely to overcome a stupid popular vote decision and select the person most likely to win in November.

In this case, however, the popular vote got it right and Obama just won the battle (with SD support) only to lose the war.

Why do you suppose the supper delegates jumped on the Obama bandwagon? Could they really believe he is the most likely to win in November? Even after all his weak showings in major cities.