Election 2008

[Good Old Neon]

I think you hit on a key word there

[Moe_Syzlak]

Well that's the whole point. Did W deliver on "compassionate conservative"? Did W make people feel safer? Elections aren't administrations. He can get elected promising change because people will buy into it... they always do. Whether he can deliver that change once elected is largely irrelevant to the election process itself.

[Edie]

I think you hit on a key word there

[Gobias Industries]

[H-Bomb Henry]

I've really enjoyed how Hillary is trying to change the way the nomination process works this past week. She will stop at nothing to be elected.

 

I don't think that Obama will change as much as he hopes in office...but I do know that 20 of my 30 years have been ruled by either a Clinton or a Bush. Then after 8 years of Hillary we will probably be setup for Chelsey.

 

I hope my home state can right this ship.

[explodo]

This whole thing is absurd by this point. I particularly enjoyed Terry McAuliffe's endorsement of Fox News the other day. I am amazed that there isn't enough collective pressure on the media to have them seriously question the Clinton path to the nomination and her popular vote strategy. They just sit there and discuss this stuff, apparently assuming we are all stupid enough to buy the idea that popular vote is a plausible metric in a primary race. The candidates would have camped in three or four states if that was the case.

[MrRain422]

Indeed, her whole argument is based on the claim that she'd be winning if only the rules were different. Well they aren't different, they are what they are. And if the rules were different, then both candidates would have been running their campaigns differently, so we really have no idea what the result would be. Obama would have spent a lot more time in the larger states and less in the smaller ones if the system was set up to reward such a strategy, but it isn't.

[bjorn_skurj]

No, that's just part of her argument. The other part is that Obama can't carry states the Dems need to carry to beat McCain.

[MrRain422]

No, that's just part of her argument. The other part is that Obama can't carry states the Dems need to carry to beat McCain.

 

Yes, but that argument is predicated on the fact that he didn't beat her in certain states. But if those states were the only ones that counted, as she claims they should be, then he would have campaigned differently.

 

It's silly anyway though, because sure, she won California and New York, but whoever the Dems nominate will win California and New York in the general election. Ohio and Pennsylvania are a whole lot less certain, but Obama also brings a few other states into play that she wouldn't be able to.

[bjorn_skurj]

Yes, but that argument is predicated on the fact that he didn't beat her in certain states. But if those states were the only ones that counted, as she claims they should be, then he would have campaigned differently.

 

It's silly anyway though, because sure, she won California and New York, but whoever the Dems nominate will win California and New York in the general election. Ohio and Pennsylvania are a whole lot less certain, but Obama also brings a few other states into play that she wouldn't be able to.

Well, we shall see. My prediction is Hillary wins Indiana and Barack takes North Carolina and all this will have to be resolved at the convention, unless Hillary's money runs out. And I think Obama fought pretty hard in Pa.; outspent Hillary 2-1, it is said. He NEEDS to knock Hillary out of this race. His inability to do so is being used as a weapon against him.

[mountain bed]

Well, we shall see. My prediction is Hillary wins Indiana and Barack takes North Carolina and all this will have to be resolved at the convention, unless Hillary's money runs out. And I think Obama fought pretty hard in Pa.; outspent Hillary 2-1, it is said. He NEEDS to knock Hillary out of this race. His inability to do so is being used as a weapon against him.

Well, you know I hope you're wrong about IN - it's really going to be close!

 

I think the "why can't Barack close it?" argument is being used as a weapon by the media, for the most part. Lets face it - HRC is a very formidable opponent, and public taste is fickle and fleeting. The media perpetuates this in my opinion. I've heard so much spin in the last month I swear sometimes my head's gonna explode. But this thing IS fun, if you ask me...even if I do regularly check my blood pressure now.

[bjorn_skurj]

It's been a long time since a president nomination race went on this long. Plus, you have the added zest of the battle being between the first credible woman candidate and the first credible black candidate. It may sound trite, but it is true - we are witnessing capital-H History.

[mountain bed]

Doesn't sound trite to me at all. It sure beats the hell out of the history that was made between November and December of '00 - I really felt beat down after all of that. This stuff is energizing. As long as there is time to heal we WILL witness history in November. Won't we?

[MattZ]

Indeed, her whole argument is based on the claim that she'd be winning if only the rules were different.

 

If you truly believed that Obama was a candidate that (1) had peaked too early, (2) couldnt carry states like PA and OH against McCain in November, (3) would end up being painted as Kerry v2.0 in the general election, (4) was relying on a youth vote that might (or might not) be there when push comes to shove, and (5) would ultimately lose to McCain in November as a result, you'd be making the same strained arguments that she is making.

 

Obviously you dont believe that. And maybe this just proves all over again that I am drinking the KoolAid that she is selling, but if she really and truly believes each of those 5 premises above, I see her efforts to do something (anything) to win the nomination as completely reasonable. I also understand why so many Obama supporters and Republicans view this as an effort by a power hungry Clinton who cares more about power than the good of the country or the will of the people. But I really think that she thinks that she can beat McCain and he can't.

 

If you view a McCain victory in November as the ultimate disaster, maybe you feel like you to need to make arguments (forced or not) that do everything they can to prevent that.

[jff]

20 of my 30 years have been ruled by either a Clinton or a Bush.

 

 

If you count Bush Sr.'s years as Reagan's VP it'd be 28 years.

[MrRain422]

The whole idea that he can't "close it" is just a media storyline with not a whole lot of grounding in reality. No, he hasn't gotten the number of delegates required to officially clinch the nomination, but he long ago opened up the gap between them wide enough that there is no realistic way for her to catch him. The media declared McCain the presumptive nominee before he clinched it too once it became clear that Huckabee had no chance of catching him. Yeah, Clinton is technically closer than Huckabee was, but her chances of catching Obama are the same.

 

I'm not saying she should be forced out of the race -- she absolutely has the right to stay in it as long as she wants to. But that doesn't mean that the media has to report her campaign's spin on it, as if it were objective fact.

[MattZ]

Yeah, Clinton is technically closer than Huckabee was, but her chances of catching Obama are the same.

 

Not true. We are smack dab in the middle of a very possible scenario where neither candidate has the necessary majority of delegates. Yes, in that scenario, Obama would be ahead of her in both pledged delegates and popular vote, but that is not what it takes for the nomination. In that scenario, the superdelegates decide and/or we have a brokered convention where everyone (delegates and superdelegates) are free agents. At least, this is how I understand it...

 

You certainly can argue that superdelegates (or the free agents at a brokered covnention) should not go against the popular vote and/or pledged delegates, but they have every right to and I think there are at least reasonable arguments for them to do so. They may not be ultimately convincing arguments to some, but they are at least reasonable.

 

So I guess what I am saying is that, to your point above (1) she doesnt need to catch Obama (like Huckabee had to catch McCain); and (2) she certainly has a much better shot than Huckabee did of having the chips fall her way. It may not be a "good" shot, but it's certainly better than Huckabee.

 

And I agree that the whole "he hasn't closed her out" is silly and media driven.

[bjorn_skurj]

The whole idea that he can't "close it" is just a media storyline with not a whole lot of grounding in reality. No, he hasn't gotten the number of delegates required to officially clinch the nomination, but he long ago opened up the gap between them wide enough that there is no realistic way for her to catch him. The media declared McCain the presumptive nominee before he clinched it too once it became clear that Huckabee had no chance of catching him. Yeah, Clinton is technically closer than Huckabee was, but her chances of catching Obama are the same.

 

I'm not saying she should be forced out of the race -- she absolutely has the right to stay in it as long as she wants to. But that doesn't mean that the media has to report her campaign's spin on it, as if it were objective fact.

The reality is that Hillary has not suspended her campaign and is actively seeking the nomination. She has conceded nothing, ("NOTHING is over! NOTHING!!!), and that is why the media is reporting on it as if it is still a race. They only started calling McCain the presumptive nominee when Huckabee, McCain's last remaining serious rival, threw in the towel, if I recall correctly. Besides, it's too good of a story for the media to not be all over. Trust me - big media keeps very close watch on how people respond to the news they present. When people get sick of it and stop paying attention, the media will focus upon something else.

[bjorn_skurj]

And I agree that the whole "he hasn't closed her out" is silly and media driven.

If you are the messiah, you have to perform the miracles. Fact is, Obama v. Clinton highlights the divide between the '60s Democrats and the old FDR coalition Democrats. It's a real battle for the essence of the party - it does not surprise me that a chunk of people would rather vote for the other guy, or not vote, if their pick does not get in.

[MrRain422]

The reality is that Hillary has not suspended her campaign and is actively seeking the nomination. She has conceded nothing, ("NOTHING is over! NOTHING!!!), and that is why the media is reporting on it as if it is still a race. They only started calling McCain the presumptive nominee when Huckabee, McCain's last remaining serious rival, threw in the towel, if I recall correctly. Besides, it's too good of a story for the media to not be all over. Trust me - big media keeps very close watch on how people respond to the news they present. When people get sick of it and stop paying attention, the media will focus upon something else.

 

 

No, pretty much all of the mainstream media outlets started referring to McCain as the presumptive nominee in February, but Huckabee didn't withdraw until March 4th, when he lost Texas.

 

If you are the messiah, you have to perform the miracles. Fact is, Obama v. Clinton highlights the divide between the '60s Democrats and the old FDR coalition Democrats. It's a real battle for the essence of the party - it does not surprise me that a chunk of people would rather vote for the other guy, or not vote, if their pick does not get in.

 

But the idea of Obama as messiah is also media driven.

[bjorn_skurj]

No, pretty much all of the mainstream media outlets started referring to McCain as the presumptive nominee in February, but Huckabee didn't withdraw until March 4th, when he lost Texas.

 

 

 

But the idea of Obama as messiah is also media driven.

Sigh. Can I let you in on something? Everything that you know about that you didn't experience personally is media-driven.

[bobbob1313]

The Obama=Messiah thing is sort of media driven, but there's a lot of people who have very weird, creepy things to say about him. They talk about feeling his presence and being changed when he's in the room and stuff. It's not all the media.

[MrRain422]

Sigh. Can I let you in on something? Everything that you know about that you didn't experience personally is media-driven.

 

It's true.

 

The Obama=Messiah thing is sort of media driven, but there's a lot of people who have very weird, creepy things to say about him. They talk about feeling his presence and being changed when he's in the room and stuff. It's not all the media.

 

I guess, but I don't see why a small group of overly excited supporters means that Obama should be required to do anything different for the media to recognize his candidacy in the same way as they would anyone else in his position.

 

Also, as cynical as I am about politics, I have a hard time coming around to the notion that it's a bad thing for Obama to inspire people in a way that others can't. Isn't it good for people to be excited about politics? I know we're used to all politicians that we support being the lesser of two evils, but why is it creepy for people to be genuinely excited about a candidate?

[bobbob1313]

I guess, but I don't see why a small group of overly excited supporters means that Obama should be required to do anything different for the media to recognize his candidacy in the same way as they would anyone else in his position.

 

Also, as cynical as I am about politics, I have a hard time coming around to the notion that it's a bad thing for Obama to inspire people in a way that others can't. Isn't it good for people to be excited about politics? I know we're used to all politicians that we support being the lesser of two evils, but why is it creepy for people to be genuinely excited about a candidate?

 

It's creepy for people to talk about a candidate like he's the messiah, that's all. It's borderline cultish for some people.

 

Also, alot of his most fervent supporters that I might have really bought into the "change" thing, which really is a load of crap. I'm not saying he might not bring change, but they have no idea what this "Change" might be. They just eat it up and spit it back out. That's what is creepy to me. The blind support many have for him.

[MrRain422]

It's creepy for people to talk about a candidate like he's the messiah, that's all. It's borderline cultish for some people.

 

Can you give me some examples of people talking about a candidate like he's the messiah? Being inspired by a guy is not messianic, and saying that hearing him speak changed your life is often a figure of speech. Are there really many examples of people taking it beyond that? The only candidate running this time around that I think I really saw cultish behavior around was Ron Paul, and IMO even that wasn't as crazy as a lot of people framed it to be.

 

Also, alot of his most fervent supporters that I might have really bought into the "change" thing, which really is a load of crap. I'm not saying he might not bring change, but they have no idea what this "Change" might be. They just eat it up and spit it back out. That's what is creepy to me. The blind support many have for him.

 

Just because you don't know what that change is doesn't mean that a lot of his supporters don't. I know there's a meme out there that Obama hasn't really explained his positions, but it's not really true. He's said a lot and published a lot and it's not hard to find if you know how to use the internets.

 

Sure, there are some people who support him without really knowing much about what he stands for, but that's true for any candidate thats ever run for anything.