The percentage of Clinton voters who say they'd choose McCain over Obama in a general election is approaching 40% in Indiana. Put it another way: in North Carolina, less than HALF of folks who voted today for Hillary Clinton are ready to say today that they'd definitely vote for Obama in a general election.
I have a great deal of confidence that the entire country will have enough reason to fear a McCain presidency by November that there is NO WAY he could possibly win - regardless of who his opponent is.
The percentage of Clinton voters who say they'd choose McCain over Obama in a general election is approaching 40% in Indiana. Put it another way: in North Carolina, less than HALF of folks who voted today for Hillary Clinton are ready to say today that they'd definitely vote for Obama in a general election.
I have a great deal of confidence that the entire country will have enough reason to fear a McCain presidency by November that there is NO WAY he could possibly win - regardless of who his opponent is.
This election is officially over. McCain will lose by more than 8%. This is going to be one of the biggest wins in recent memory. You think Hillary's got money problems wait till you see what happens with McCain. Homie got nothing in the tank.
BTW - the real blame should be placed on the undeclared super delegates, like john edwards and al gore. what are you assholes waiting for? if those 2 guys alone came out for obama, the election would be over today!
I agree, but the superdelegates are probably loving the attention right now and storing up all kinds of political favors by holding out.
BTW - the real blame should be placed on the undeclared super delegates, like john edwards and al gore. what are you assholes waiting for? if those 2 guys alone came out for obama, the election would be over today!
I think this is spot-on. The race could be formally over today if the superdelegates, en masse, willed it so.
Clinton's "but what about FLorida and Michigan" gambit looks crazier the longer she sticks with it. It. Just. Won't. Happen.
Clinton's "but what about FLorida and Michigan" gambit looks crazier the longer she sticks with it. It. Just. Won't. Happen.
Dean has already said that Florida and Michigan will be seated, so the only thing crazy about Hillary's references to those states is the fact that the actual votes of those primaries will be meaningless. i dont know how they are going to figure out delegates, but it won't be by the primary votes, especially in Michigan where Obama wasn't on the ballot.
i think she should have bailed months ago, but i can SOMEWHAT understand the argument made by her after PA - which was - if you count Mich And Florida - i have more overall votes than Obama. Now she is wrong because those votes won't count, but if she would have won North Carolina and trounced in Indiana, maybe that argument would resonate with super delegates to some degree.
i don't agree with hillary staying in the race because its bad for the democratic party. however, i can see why hillary is staying in the race for hillary, despite the fact that she has no shot of winning. first - she has depicted herself as a fighter, and if the clinton legacy has turned to crap, she could still salvage something as the "toughest" candidate, which i think most people wouldn't argue with. however, if she drops out while there is still the slightest glimmer of hope, is she still a fighter?
Dude, she doesn't seem "tough" or like a brawler.
She just seems insane and pathetic.
The Clintons are now like those figures from the sixties who who were still lingering around during my childhood embarassing themselves.
Even if Obama were white, his not-long-out-of-short-pants look would see him trounced by an old ugly war dude like McCain. The Repugs could run a Log Cabin Yankee against Obama and it will still be a landslide.
the super delegates haven't closed the door on her, so she's not delusional or insane, she is going for hers. not sure why that is so hard to understand.
dean has asked that the super delegates make up their minds by june 3rd. if obama seals it with their commitments, yet hillary wants to hold out for the convention, then i think the pathetic/insane characterization holds true. until then, she's just not helping the party.
the super delegates haven't closed the door on her, so she's not delusional or insane, she is going for hers. not sure why that is so hard to understand.
Lingering around in the hopes that the superdelegates will award you the nomination in defiance of the electorate is insane and pathetic. And it's hardly "going for yours," since that scenario would totally preclude a victory in the general.
why would it preclude a victory in the general? hillary is polling better against mccain....which is not to say obama won't trounce mccain, the polls show that too....and as dean says - we haven't even gotten started yet.
its not insane and pathetic (at the moment), just selfish. the dem party has super delegates for a reason. just like they use an electoral system and not a winner take all like republicans. you can't say - oh, the super delegates should be a non factor. then you are lending credence to hillary saying - well if we used the republican system- i'd be winning right now.
either dems are okay with the system and they blame the super delegates for not committing (which i agree with), or we say - this system is wrong - in which case hillary actually has a strong argument.
Come on, they are both terrible candidates for different reasons. At least Hillary wouldn't have to spend the first year in office getting blind-sided by right-wing induced shit storms... only because she's already down on their level.
why would it preclude a victory in the general? hillary is polling better against mccain.
Because a large number of Democratic voters would simply stay home. It would be a nomination wholly lacking in legitimacy. Do you really not understand this?
The only word that could come to mind as I watched Hillary's "victory" speech last night was "delusional".
I caught two words from the speech: Gas prices, gas prices. Uh, gas prices. They are pretty high. Hillary was reeling and rambling.
But Obama provided an out, and she took it. Let the healing begin. This thing is going to be officially official on May 20 (or earlier).
I loved when Obama had this to say about the thought of Hillary's supporters voting McCain: We don't believe you.
Meanwhile, Karl Rove on FOX News pulled out an general election map that, he said, "will look much like the one in '04." They all had nothing to say about Fuckabee grabbing 10% of Indiana, or that McCain picked up less than half of Obama's Indiana take.
PLEASE. democrats are not going to stay home and let Mccain get elected. mike gravel could be appointed the nominee at the convention and you will still have a record turnout ofr dems in '08.
PLEASE. democrats are not going to stay home and let Mccain get elected. mike gravel could be appointed the nominee at the convention and you will still have a record turnout ofr dems in '08.
LOL, dude--your partisan fervor blinds you.
What you say may be true of "Democrats," but many voters who would be inclined to vote for the democratic candidate are not "Democrats". I'm certainly not and I doubt many people on this board are.
there are more registered dems than republicans. and the turnout of dems in the primaries this year has dwarfed that of republicans. ANd...bush has a 20% approval rating.
mccain isn't winning. i'd bet my life savings for it in a second.
there are more registered dems than republicans. and the turnout of dems in the primaries this year has dwarfed that of republicans. ANd...bush has a 20% approval rating.
mccain isn't winning. i'd bet my life savings for it in a second.
did you say you're not a democrat? why?
Because the party is very far to the right of me.
Party registration is meaningless here--it doesn't confirm that a person will vote for a candidate that has been selected by the party in defiance of the electorate. When I say "Democrat," I mean people like you, who have some abstract allegience to the party--I don't think you realize what a minority you are.
Many voters would find installation of Hillary as the candidate incredibly alienating. I'd vote for her, but I'd have to hold my nose to do it, and would then consider devoting a substantial amount of my time and money over the next four years to working to develop a viable third party candidacy.
Hillary is done. Even if you give her FLA and MI she cannot win the popular or delegate vote count without 70% wins in all of the remaining primaries. It's simple mathematics. Most importantly, her donors can do the math. She has no money left, no real legitimate path to the nomination and very little good will amongst the remaining super delegates who have been not committed to her at this point because they know that she has very little chance. I agree she will be out after Oregon. The question is does what does she want for her pains? I think she will ask for the VP slot. Thoughts?
that doesn't make any sense. what non-democrat candidates have you voted for that are to the left of whoever was running as a dem?
also, by not registering as a dem, aren't you foregoing the right to vote in primaries? i dont know what state you vote in, but when that isn't the rule, it opens up primaries for things like Rush Limbaughs push to have registered republicans vote for hillary in Indiana.
i'm far from being in the minority as a democrat who is loyal to the party. please enlighten me as to the great republican or green party candidates i've been missing out on. when i think "independent", the names that come to mind - joe lieberman, jesse ventura, and john mccain (in spirit as of 2004), don't give me a good opinion of them, or of even the idea, considering the principles of the democratic party.
that doesn't make any sense. what non-democrat candidates have you voted for that are to the left of whoever was running as a dem?
also, by not registering as a dem, aren't you foregoing the right to vote in primaries? i dont know what state you vote in, but when that isn't the rule, it opens up primaries for things like Rush Limbaughs push to have registered republicans vote for hillary in Indiana.
i'm far from being in the minority as a democrat who is loyal to the party. please enlighten me as to the great republican or green party candidates i've been missing out on. when i think "independent", the names that come to mind - joe lieberman, jesse ventura, and john mccain (in spirit as of 2004), don't give me a good opinion of them, or of even the idea, considering the principles of the democratic party.
In Massachusetts, an Independent can vote in either primary. I heartily endorse the entirety of Faux's previous post.
if you are a liberal, you should be a registered democrat, end of story. whether you are left of the present democratic politicans - thats not the point.
nobody runs as an independent who would be more liberal than a democrat.
you'd have to invent a new party in order to accomplish your stated goal. ridiculous.
that doesn't make any sense. what non-democrat candidates have you voted for that are to the left of whoever was running as a dem?
also, by not registering as a dem, aren't you foregoing the right to vote in primaries? i dont know what state you vote in, but when that isn't the rule, it opens up primaries for things like Rush Limbaughs push to have registered republicans vote for hillary in Indiana.
i'm far from being in the minority as a democrat who is loyal to the party. please enlighten me as to the great republican or green party candidates i've been missing out on. when i think "independent", the names that come to mind - joe lieberman, jesse ventura, and john mccain (in spirit as of 2004), don't give me a good opinion of them, or of even the idea, considering the principles of the democratic party.
I would never vote for any of those candidates. I did vote for Nader in 2000.
Comments
I have a great deal of confidence that the entire country will have enough reason to fear a McCain presidency by November that there is NO WAY he could possibly win - regardless of who his opponent is.
fear politics?
I agree, but the superdelegates are probably loving the attention right now and storing up all kinds of political favors by holding out.
Hillary won's bow out for one of the following reasons.....
1) She's incredibly stupid and egotistical.
2) She's holding out hope for another Wright-like incident.
3) She is holding the cards to play another Wright-like incident.
None of the three would shock me.
I think this is spot-on. The race could be formally over today if the superdelegates, en masse, willed it so.
Clinton's "but what about FLorida and Michigan" gambit looks crazier the longer she sticks with it. It. Just. Won't. Happen.
"easy there boy..."
McCain is the Bob Dole of 2008
a crusty 'war hero' who is going to fail to excite the 'publican base
Dean has already said that Florida and Michigan will be seated, so the only thing crazy about Hillary's references to those states is the fact that the actual votes of those primaries will be meaningless. i dont know how they are going to figure out delegates, but it won't be by the primary votes, especially in Michigan where Obama wasn't on the ballot.
i think she should have bailed months ago, but i can SOMEWHAT understand the argument made by her after PA - which was - if you count Mich And Florida - i have more overall votes than Obama. Now she is wrong because those votes won't count, but if she would have won North Carolina and trounced in Indiana, maybe that argument would resonate with super delegates to some degree.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080507/ap_on_el_pr/mcgovern_clinton
Dude, she doesn't seem "tough" or like a brawler.
She just seems insane and pathetic.
The Clintons are now like those figures from the sixties who who were still lingering around during my childhood embarassing themselves.
GO BACK TO THE NINETIES
Even if Obama were white, his not-long-out-of-short-pants look would see him trounced by an old ugly war dude like McCain. The Repugs could run a Log Cabin Yankee against Obama and it will still be a landslide.
dean has asked that the super delegates make up their minds by june 3rd. if obama seals it with their commitments, yet hillary wants to hold out for the convention, then i think the pathetic/insane characterization holds true. until then, she's just not helping the party.
SportCasual - we shall see. your grizzled cynicism is the stuff of pinner hash joints and cracked funk 45s!
Lingering around in the hopes that the superdelegates will award you the nomination in defiance of the electorate is insane and pathetic. And it's hardly "going for yours," since that scenario would totally preclude a victory in the general.
its not insane and pathetic (at the moment), just selfish. the dem party has super delegates for a reason. just like they use an electoral system and not a winner take all like republicans. you can't say - oh, the super delegates should be a non factor. then you are lending credence to hillary saying - well if we used the republican system- i'd be winning right now.
either dems are okay with the system and they blame the super delegates for not committing (which i agree with), or we say - this system is wrong - in which case hillary actually has a strong argument.
Come on, they are both terrible candidates for different reasons. At least Hillary wouldn't have to spend the first year in office getting blind-sided by right-wing induced shit storms... only because she's already down on their level.
Because a large number of Democratic voters would simply stay home. It would be a nomination wholly lacking in legitimacy. Do you really not understand this?
I caught two words from the speech: Gas prices, gas prices. Uh, gas prices. They are pretty high. Hillary was reeling and rambling.
But Obama provided an out, and she took it. Let the healing begin. This thing is going to be officially official on May 20 (or earlier).
I loved when Obama had this to say about the thought of Hillary's supporters voting McCain: We don't believe you.
Meanwhile, Karl Rove on FOX News pulled out an general election map that, he said, "will look much like the one in '04." They all had nothing to say about Fuckabee grabbing 10% of Indiana, or that McCain picked up less than half of Obama's Indiana take.
LOL, dude--your partisan fervor blinds you.
What you say may be true of "Democrats," but many voters who would be inclined to vote for the democratic candidate are not "Democrats". I'm certainly not and I doubt many people on this board are.
mccain isn't winning. i'd bet my life savings for it in a second.
did you say you're not a democrat? why?
Because the party is very far to the right of me.
Party registration is meaningless here--it doesn't confirm that a person will vote for a candidate that has been selected by the party in defiance of the electorate. When I say "Democrat," I mean people like you, who have some abstract allegience to the party--I don't think you realize what a minority you are.
Many voters would find installation of Hillary as the candidate incredibly alienating. I'd vote for her, but I'd have to hold my nose to do it, and would then consider devoting a substantial amount of my time and money over the next four years to working to develop a viable third party candidacy.
also, by not registering as a dem, aren't you foregoing the right to vote in primaries? i dont know what state you vote in, but when that isn't the rule, it opens up primaries for things like Rush Limbaughs push to have registered republicans vote for hillary in Indiana.
i'm far from being in the minority as a democrat who is loyal to the party. please enlighten me as to the great republican or green party candidates i've been missing out on. when i think "independent", the names that come to mind - joe lieberman, jesse ventura, and john mccain (in spirit as of 2004), don't give me a good opinion of them, or of even the idea, considering the principles of the democratic party.
In Massachusetts, an Independent can vote in either primary. I heartily endorse the entirety of Faux's previous post.
nobody runs as an independent who would be more liberal than a democrat.
you'd have to invent a new party in order to accomplish your stated goal. ridiculous.
I would never vote for any of those candidates. I did vote for Nader in 2000.