I have a hypothesis. I base this only off of direct conversations with friends, family and co-workers who were Obama supporters and are now Hilldog supporters.
The detraction from Obama is not necessarily a direct result of the Wright controversy, or any other scandal or limitation of the candidate, but more of a result of people being driven away by "Rabid Supporters" offering fanatical wild-eyed adoration of the candidate (I think we have some of those on this forum).
My next-door neighbor says she is in support of Hillary now even though she liked Obama first. She no longer feels Obama is a viable candidate, because she thinks his supporters have become too fanatical and that frightens her.
Not a very scientific study, but it's the vibe I'm getting from many other folks that I am stupid enough to get into political discussion with.
When I look at posts on this forum and others, I see meaningful debate and discussion coming from the Hillary side (even though I disagree with their philosophy). . . But from the Obama supporters I see anger, name calling, wild and bizarre conspiracy theories, and a flair for dramatic, frightening worship of the candidate. Most cannot even give a clear description of his platform without resorting to "just change."
When challenged, they would rather raise their voices than strengthen their arguments. I almost guarantee this is frightening away many potential supporters.
Watching the coverage today, I noticed that the Obama supporters interviewed are almost angry, while the Hillary supporters seem very civil and thoughtful. Of course this may just be the atmosphere during this snap-shot in time, or the media playing on the emerging vibe, but there is a strong negative flavor emerging in the Obama campaign. No more talk of "hope" and "change."
RM may be a better handicapper than I anticipated.
Fauxturd should print the above out wad it up and eat it for brain food.....
Yet, when you look at exit polling (not that I put that much stock in exit polling), its the majority of Clinton supporters who say they will stay home or vote for McCain if Obama gets the nomination.
I hope that you don't lump me in with some of the crazy Obama supporters. I have said many times that I will vote for Hillary if she gets the nomination. But I have also been very clear about the things I don't like about her. And her recent pandering regarding the tax holiday just adds to that.
You might be right that some of the Obama supporter, particularly the younger ones, are a bit extreme. I think its because for many voters who choose Clinton, they are simply choosing a political candidate. For those who support Obama, they see it more as supporting a new type of politics, more of supporting a movement. Its a battle between idealism and pragmatism. There is nothing that makes young people more angry than being dismissed as being "too idealistic." It's human nature for young people to think they know better than their parents, and for parents to dismiss their kids. I think its funny to see how history repeats itself--the older generation that is dismissing the younger voters is the same generation that fought with their parents in the 1960s.
I am not trying to be conspiracy minded, but I do think that there is justified anger at Hillary for trying to change the rules once she started losing. And I know that there is a lot of finger pointing back and forth, but Hillary's negative attacks really angered more Obama supporters.
Some of Obama's recent losses may be due to neither Wright nor his extreme supporters, but just that some of the newness has worn off. When you base a campaign on a set of ideas and principals, it is hard to maintain cohesion and enthusiasm. I think of it as sort of like a marriage--after a few years, when you get into the day to day living, things aren't as exciting, and sometimes you might question whether you made the right decision.
Still, I have confidence that he will prevail--people just need to be reminded of why they supported him in the first place. I don't want a fighter--I am sick of all the fighting. I want a president who will move the entire country forward.
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
Yet, when you look at exit polling (not that I put that much stock in exit polling), its the majority of Clinton supporters who say they will stay home or vote for McCain if Obama gets the nomination.
I hope that you don't lump me in with some of the crazy Obama supporters. I have said many times that I will vote for Hillary if she gets the nomination. But I have also been very clear about the things I don't like about her. And her recent pandering regarding the tax holiday just adds to that.
You might be right that some of the Obama supporter, particularly the younger ones, are a bit extreme. I think its because for many voters who choose Clinton, they are simply choosing a political candidate. For those who support Obama, they see it more as supporting a new type of politics, more of supporting a movement. Its a battle between idealism and pragmatism. There is nothing that makes young people more angry than being dismissed as being "too idealistic." It's human nature for young people to think they know better than their parents, and for parents to dismiss their kids. I think its funny to see how history repeats itself--the older generation that is dismissing the younger voters is the same generation that fought with their parents in the 1960s.
I am not trying to be conspiracy minded, but I do think that there is justified anger at Hillary for trying to change the rules once she started losing. And I know that there is a lot of finger pointing back and forth, but Hillary's negative attacks really angered more Obama supporters.
Some of Obama's recent losses may be due to neither Wright nor his extreme supporters, but just that some of the newness has worn off. When you base a campaign on a set of ideas and principals, it is hard to maintain cohesion and enthusiasm. I think of it as sort of like a marriage--after a few years, when you get into the day to day living, things aren't as exciting, and sometimes you might question whether you made the right decision.
Still, I have confidence that he will prevail--people just need to be reminded of why they supported him in the first place. I don't want a fighter--I am sick of all the fighting. I want a president who will move the entire country forward.
That's a good analysis of the situation with some exceptions. Hillary comes across as a brilliant woman, then she proposes penalty taxes on the Oil companies to lower prices!
Anyone with basic elementary school economic education can understand that taxes levied on big businesses decrease supply and increase consumer costs. Exxon made record profits last quarter and she is playing off that, but Exxon made pathetic earnings last quarter because they had to pay $100+ a barrel oil, and their refining costs have increased by 25%.
She knows that, she's not stupid! She is taking advantage of the weak-minded for political gains (Clinton family trait).
Obama has not said a single thing, except "Change." He has no firm platform, and the amazing thing is that he can talk about it all day long without saying a single thing. The changes he has proposed result in around $480 billion in additional small programs, but he hasn't discussed any of the big issues with any degree of detail.
After the primary, this election will come down to debates, and Hillary has already done enough pandering to the stupid to ensure she will lose when confronted with logic, math, and her past. If Obama gets the nomination he will need to step up and propose some real ideas that work, and I don't think he has any! If he does they will have to be fiscally responsible, and therefore piss off his base.
These are interesting points Gaspar.
The staunch Obama supporters are in love with his personality, his speaking ability, his message of "change". Well really, there's no substance to the message, but "change" sounds great in 30 sec. sound bites.
So they get upset when his personality and character are impugned. It's only fair that if they are basing their vote on percieved character and personality, those two things should be closely examined and fully vetted.
No one seems to give two ****s about Hillarity's character when it is taken to task. She is married and spent 8 years in the White House with a sociopath. People are primarily focused on issues with her.
Republicans won't vote for her because of what she has said she wants to do in the White House, what her policies will be. Republicans won't vote for Obama because they don't have a clue what this guy is going to do. His associates seem more well-known now than he is.
I find it hilarious when people call Obama "an empty suit," yet they haven't bothered to even look up his rather lengthy platform. Talk about being truly vacuous. Or at least lazy.
Back to topic ... this notion that these folks won't vote for the Democratic candidate in November won't hold water. There will be enough of a difference between Obama and McCain that the Dems will come around.
Remember, a huge majority of people think the United States is seriously off-track. You think those same people are going to vote for the old guy, or a fellow with who's not bound by the same tired generational constraints?
Obama did a bang-up job defeating a prohibitive favorite who had tons of name recognition and prestige. I see no reason why he won't go after McCain with the same sort of laserlike focus.
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
RM may be a better handicapper than I anticipated.
Actually...My wife and I had a political party in our home the week before the first primary in Iowa. In front of many witnesses, I predicted Obama and McCain would be the nominees. At the time, everybody said Guiliani, Edwards or Hillary would win.
I had spent the holidays studying the campaigns and just had a feeling that McCain would be a break from the far right and could already see the excitement build behind Obama.
I spent the last 30 minutes on his website looking at his proposals for what he would do if elected. Here is the condensed version:
Bigger government/more regulation + more government spending + tax more = Barack Obama
Nowhere in his "Blueprint" does he ever mention the words balancing the budget, deficits, or fiscal responsibility, and from the non-stop chatter around here about W spending like a drunk sailor on shore leave (which is true), why are you Democrats not asking WHERE all this money is going to come from to pay for all these government programs?
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
I spent the last 30 minutes on his website looking at his proposals for what he would do if elected. Here is the condensed version:
Bigger government/more regulation + more government spending + tax more = Barack Obama
Nowhere in his "Blueprint" does he ever mention the words balancing the budget, deficits, or fiscal responsibility, and from the non-stop chatter around here about W spending like a drunk sailor on shore leave (which is true), why are you Democrats not asking WHERE all this money is going to come from to pay for all these government programs?
Maybe we could use the 500 billion dollars that the republicans wasted on the war in Iraq?
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
I find it hilarious when people call Obama "an empty suit," yet they haven't bothered to even look up his rather lengthy platform. Talk about being truly vacuous. Or at least lazy.
Back to topic ... this notion that these folks won't vote for the Democratic candidate in November won't hold water. There will be enough of a difference between Obama and McCain that the Dems will come around.
Remember, a huge majority of people think the United States is seriously off-track. You think those same people are going to vote for the old guy, or a fellow with who's not bound by the same tired generational constraints?
Obama did a bang-up job defeating a prohibitive favorite who had tons of name recognition and prestige. I see no reason why he won't go after McCain with the same sort of laserlike focus.
RW, that's a possible scenario, but there's also the scenario that these times call for *gasp* old-guard experience to lead us back on track, and Obama's lack thereof on the national scene may prove crippling to his campaign by November.
Democrats did well with Kennedy and Clinton- youth and enthusiasm. It's a proven formula for them and might just work again, or might not if there's enough redneck hill jacks who would be mobilized to vote against America's first black president.
Sure Obama can point to controversial votes McCain has made over the years and he can run for cover because he's only been voting in the Senate since 2004. "I didn't vote for this war". Well no ****.
I'm really curious what the outcome on the Democrat Party nominee would have been if every state had closed primaries and a winner-take-all format on delegates. That would pretty much end it at Super Tuesday right there and both parties can rally behind one candidate instead of the gorey spectacle Hillarity has made out of the primaries since then.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
I spent the last 30 minutes on his website looking at his proposals for what he would do if elected. Here is the condensed version:
Bigger government/more regulation + more government spending + tax more = Barack Obama
Nowhere in his "Blueprint" does he ever mention the words balancing the budget, deficits, or fiscal responsibility, and from the non-stop chatter around here about W spending like a drunk sailor on shore leave (which is true), why are you Democrats not asking WHERE all this money is going to come from to pay for all these government programs?
Maybe we could use the 500 billion dollars that the republicans wasted on the war in Iraq?
I forgot that the Republicans were the only ones that authorized the use of force in Iraq, and the Republicans are the only ones approving more funds for the war as we speak.
I find the notion that many democrats will abandon the party similar to the issue McCain has rallying the Republican base. Most of the loyalists will probably show up as they always do when the times comes. Some won't, but some new voters will (independents for McCain, young voters for Obama).
The Clinton/Obama fight will be a factor, but there are enough differences on issues between McCain and Obama that most voters will differentiate on them. At least, IMHO.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
I find the notion that many democrats will abandon the party similar to the issue McCain has rallying the Republican base. Most of the loyalists will probably show up as they always do when the times comes. Some won't, but some new voters will (independents for McCain, young voters for Obama).
The Clinton/Obama fight will be a factor, but there are enough differences on issues between McCain and Obama that most voters will differentiate on them. At least, IMHO.
I have said since day one that this election is going to look exactly like the last one, a near 50/50 split with a handful of states deciding the outcome like Ohio.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
I'm really curious what the outcome on the Democrat Party nominee would have been if every state had closed primaries and a winner-take-all format on delegates. That would pretty much end it at Super Tuesday right there and both parties can rally behind one candidate instead of the gorey spectacle Hillarity has made out of the primaries since then.
That's a pointless exercise. All the Dem candidates knew that the rules were in winning delegates.
We're dealing with reality, not fantasy.
Even if it had been winner-take-all, then you can bet the strategies of all the candidates would have been radically changed to reflect that.
And, yes, ending or scaling back the Iraq war would indeed free up a lot of money. There is, after all, some financial prudence in cutting spending on an operation that is producing meager results.
Speaking of the primary process, if the Democrats actually had a system that resembled the Republican's, they would have had a nominee months ago, but like with everything else, they overcomplicated what should be a simple exercise.
The Democratic primary system and their addition of "superdelegates" is a perfect microcosm of how they deal with EVERYTHING, just add more complexity, oversight and regulation and everything will all be better! If they only raised taxes on their superdelegates it would be indistinguishable.
I'm OK with the percentage voting of delegates.
But I agree ... superdelegates I could do without.
If a nominee-in-waiting truly goes apesh*t before the convention, there's nothing preventing the pledged delegates from changing their minds if the situation is grave enough.
Yeah. It's just weird to me. I think the party will rethink the whole process after this year, especially if Clinton has anything to do with it for 2012.
Honestly, I think we should have one friggin super tuesday, that's it. Every state votes on the same day. The current draw-out system is not only annoying, but makes the presidential cycle unnecessarily long.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
I'm really curious what the outcome on the Democrat Party nominee would have been if every state had closed primaries and a winner-take-all format on delegates. That would pretty much end it at Super Tuesday right there and both parties can rally behind one candidate instead of the gorey spectacle Hillarity has made out of the primaries since then.
That's a pointless exercise. All the Dem candidates knew that the rules were in winning delegates.
We're dealing with reality, not fantasy.
Even if it had been winner-take-all, then you can bet the strategies of all the candidates would have been radically changed to reflect that.
And, yes, ending or scaling back the Iraq war would indeed free up a lot of money. There is, after all, some financial prudence in cutting spending on an operation that is producing meager results.
Hardly pointless, unless you simply didn't understand what I was getting at.
I would have rather seen this settled three months ago instead of the circus it's become. I'm partial to a closed primary system partly because I've grown up with it in Oklahoma and partly because I really don't see the point in allowing Ind and Rep to vote in a Dem primary and vice versa. I think the parties should keep the nomination process to themselves.
The "super-delegate" system is just ripe for corruption.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Hardly pointless, unless you simply didn't understand what I was getting at.
I would have rather seen this settled three months ago instead of the circus it's become. I'm partial to a closed primary system partly because I've grown up with it in Oklahoma and partly because I really don't see the point in allowing Ind and Rep to vote in a Dem primary and vice versa. I think the parties should keep the nomination process to themselves.
The "super-delegate" system is just ripe for corruption.
I agree with knocking the superdelegate system. But even then, the superdelegates have been flocking to Obama by a 2-to-1 or 3-to-1 ratio in recent weeks. Superdelegates do read the newspapers, see the money-raising stats and see the voting totals. They are reflecting the will of the voters.
But, again, the rules were out there for everyone to see before the primaries started. If the party wants to change it bad enough, it can before 2012.
And the Republicans held several open primaries, too. A lot of hardcore wingers blame Democrats and independents voting for McCain in New Hampshire for McCain's big surge. I don't buy it; I simply think a decisive number of Republican voters wanted a more moderate candidate.
Remember, if the GOP field hadn't become so weak so quickly, that primary season could have gone well into May, also. When the GOP picture was so unsettled in January, many were predicting this. Few counted on McCain consolidating his position so quickly. I'm not sure I credit McCain so much as attrition by his more-flawed rivals.
Sounds a few here are a bit disappointed she did not do well yesterday despite the fact they also can't stand her. Interesting.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Speaking of the primary process, if the Democrats actually had a system that resembled the Republican's, they would have had a nominee months ago, but like with everything else, they overcomplicated what should be a simple exercise.
The Democratic primary system and their addition of "superdelegates" is a perfect microcosm of how they deal with EVERYTHING, just add more complexity, oversight and regulation and everything will all be better! If they only raised taxes on their superdelegates it would be indistinguishable.
Actually the Democrat primary system has been very carefully constructed to control the nomination process, and make people think that they have a vote, unfortunately they did not foresee a powerful force like the Clintons waging a PR war against the process.
Howard Dean still has 23 super-delegates to name, giving him some control over the selection. He is leaning for Obama, Hillary will win West Virgina, Kentucky and Puerto Rico, but Obama has Oregon, North Dakota and Montana sewed up. She can win at most 10 additional delegates leaving her behind by 110 (including supers).
At this point, even if the sky opens up and God commands the party to count Florida and Michigan, she will only net an additional 47.
So. . . She is out of the race, but she must continue to divide. Her next move when it is all said and done will be to make Obama so politically crippled that he cannot pose any challenge to McCain. She will then make a plea on the convention floor. It's unheard of, but it's what she plans to do none the less. She has nothing to lose at this point.
I can't believe the level of rhetoric aimed at Hillary. She is just running for President. The primary season is not over. Obama does not have the number of delegates he needs to win.
She is not "destroying" or "ruining" the party. Anything she has said about Obama was going to be said about him by the republicans. She didn't uncover the Preacher, the Chicago mobster or the creepy 60s radical. If anything, the coverage of these things in the spring gives Obama the time to get past them if he is the candidate in the fall.
Hillary is running a good campaign against all odds. The media and the republicans have been attacking her for years. Her opponent is wonderfully spoke and has brought millions of new people to the process. Yet, she still won in Indiana yesterday, depite being outspent two to one by him. She will win big next week in West Virginia.
Hillary has overcome tremendous odds to get to this point. She should be respected for that, instead she is blamed and called names because she won't quit soon enough for the Obama people.
Maybe I am just naive. I think the republicans cannot win in November, partly because their candidate is far from their base. I also think he is too old for many to support and his past scandal with the Keating five is very damaging.
quote:
Hillary is running a good campaign against all odds
She was a 4:1 favorite to win the nomination going into the thing. She was a 2:1 favorite to win in Indiana and favored in the majority of polls (Obama max +2, Clinton max + 16 in Indiana polls, odds are off of trading sites with actually currency, basically Vegas lines). She didn't even cover the spread in Indiana (Clinton +3.5). How is that "against all odds?" She is losing in spite of the odds.
And why does it matter how much he spent? She outspent him in Iowa, yet he won. The reason he has more to spend, in spite of Clinton tapping her personal fortune, is that he has a higher level of support. She held on to the very end in Indiana in spite of his spending, but still fought to a statistical tie.
and yes, she will "win big" in West Virginia. But it won't be enough to change the pledged delegates nor the popular vote even if she got 100%. So really that's like running through first base in spite of your line drive being caught by the 2nd basemen.
quote:
Hillary has overcome tremendous odds to get to this point.
Yes she has. The odds said she would walk away with it, she over came them to be in her current position.
- - -
Not being mean, just wondering when the time comes to stop trying to spin it. For the sake of discussion,
please outline for me the scenario that sees Hillary winning the nomination. Barring an act of the gods (who, everyone knows, love Republicans).
Ah yes, West Virginia, home of that ageless old prankster, Robert Byrd:
(http://lonestartimes.com/images/Bramanti/byrd_kkk.jpg)
He looks smashing in white.
quote:
Barring an act of the gods (who, everyone knows, love Republicans).
Didn't the superdelegates sign a contract with a Force Maejure provision in it before they were selected? Acts of god aren't an excuse anymore.