MyDD :: A sobering question for Hillary supporters.

A sobering question for Hillary supporters.

by Drewid, Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:40:27 AM EST

Alright, ready, here we go.
"Do ya'll really think Clinton can win the general election if she wins the nomination through super delegates after having lost in pledged delegates and most probably the popular vote?"
Just wonderin.

Tags: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, primary 2008 (all tags)

Permalink :: 42 Comments :: Post a Comment

Not a diary (2.00 / 1)

This is not a diary. It is a note without any real substance.

by reggie44pride on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:49:42 AM EST

Re: A sobering question for Hillary supporters. (2.00 / 0)

Also, if you think Obama's not electable, do you believe Hillary was incorrect or lying when she said that Obama could beat McCain during the last debate?

Maybe if you're lucky TD will call this a plagiarized diary and take official action.

John McCain: Healthcare for Kids? In America? No way

by bosdcla14 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:52:16 AM EST

Ah. The "Yes Yes Yes" dilemma. (2.00 / 0)

Logically, this simple 3 word statement kills the electability argument dead. Full stop.

But then again, logic is often the first victim of a heated argument.

You haven't seen impatient until you've seen a monkey waiting for a donut.

by bjones on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:02:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ah. The "Yes Yes Yes" dilemma. (2.00 / 0)

Ah...

Well if she can't beat a skinny freshman senator with a funny name from Il, how does that make her more electable than a more experienced than her war hero and media darling who will actually attack her?

Please, what make you "electable" is winning elections. He has won more of them.

by IowaMike on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:08:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ah. The "Yes Yes Yes" dilemma. (2.00 / 0)

Yes, Mike. That's why I said that Clinton's electability argument is a bunch of crap.

Because even Clinton thinks so.

You haven't seen impatient until you've seen a monkey waiting for a donut.

by bjones on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:14:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ah. The "Yes Yes Yes" dilemma. (2.00 / 0)

Agreed!

by IowaMike on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:16:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A sobering question for Hillary supporters. (2.00 / 0)

"Do ya'll really think Clinton can win the general election if she wins the nomination through super delegates after having lost in pledged delegates and most probably the popular vote?"

Hillary and her fans don't have the luxury of thinking that far ahead. They're preoccupied in the present with destoying Obama so the Clintons can regain their hegemony over the ashes of the party.

Face it, Hillary. It's over.

by dback on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:59:14 AM EST

Do you really think Obama could win after (none / 0)

his lackluster performances in MANY 2non-caucus states and his various issues?

Perhaps thats a better question to be asking!

Universal healthcare IS a core Democratic value
Without a REAL committment to it, we WON'T win in November.

by architek on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:21:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do you really think Obama could win after (2.00 / 0)

DO you really think she can win against a media darling vastly more experienced war hero who will go after her when she can't beat a freshman senator from Il with a funny name that has been really too nice?

by IowaMike on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:24:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do you really think Obama could win after (2.00 / 1)

Did you really think a senile movie B movie actor could get elected twice?

Did you really think a governor from Arkansas could beat an incumbent president who had just driven the Iraqi army from Kuwait? After revelations that he'd been having an affair with a woman named Jennifer Flowers?

And did you really think an illiterate moron who can barely string 5 words together could get enough votes to steal an election -- twice?

So please spare us the idiotic canard of "electability." Anybody can get elected president and Obama is better than Hillary, McInsane, and most others who have run for it in my lifetime.

Face it, Hillary. It's over.

by dback on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:39:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A sobering question for Hillary supporters. (2.00 / 1)

When MI and FL are counted (which they not only should be, but they need to be for the fall) HRC is already ahead in the popular vote. From now until June there is still a lot of gaming to be done, and even once the contests are over, we will most likely have two months of Superdelegate battles for both candidates.

If Barack Obama wants this primary to end, then it is his responsibility to do it for himself. Not Hillary Clinton's responsibility, not Superdelegates who remain undecided. It is Barack Obama's duty to acquire the number of pledged delegates and Superdelegates, as he has been unable to seal the deal on pledeged delegates alone, in order for this contest to be over and in favor of Barack Obama.

The Superdelegates are a process of the Democratic nomination. Barack Obama's campaign likes to tout "following the rules" in the nomination process. Hillary Clinton's win, even if decided by the Superdelegates, may be reflective of her clearly running a better campaign than Barack Obama in the closing months of the contests (as I believe she demonstrated in Pennsylvania this week). If Barack Obama wins the Superdelegates, the opposite may well be true.

The simple fact of the matter is that the game is not over, and HRC's circumstances for winning are really no less legitimate than Barack Obama's. Neither of them acquired the number of pledged delegates to win the nomination, and in this circumstance, it goes to the Superdelegates. This process is certainly no less Democratic than a caucus, and I do believe that whoever is the nominee will be rallied around by the base of the Democratic Party--the truth is that the substantive difference between HRC and BO is so small, it would be irresponsible for conscionable Democrats to do otherwise in an election so important. And yes, I believe that people will change their tone, even with all of the tough talking that goes on around here.

Unfortunately, the kind of people we need to win versus John McCain aren't those kinds of Democrats.

No candidacy is more important than the right to vote.

by hornplayer on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:12:16 AM EST

Re: A sobering question for Hillary supporters. (2.00 / 2)

Of course we should count everyone that voted, unless they were in sanctioned caucuses, I mean so what if they showed up and they followed the rules of democratically recognized legitimate and agreed on by everyone nomination processes. Those people shouldn't be counted because they didn't think Hillary was the greatest and if you counted those people she would be behind and that's undemocratic.

And of course we should count Michigan, because they couldn't even vote for Obama if they wanted to, and those people shouldn't count because they aren't swing voters just an active African-American base.

And then Florida, just because Obama closes the lead in every state that he actually campaigns in doesn't mean he would have done it here. I mean, an uncontested election has been working in Iraq, we should recognize it here!

by IowaMike on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:23:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A sobering question for Hillary supporters. (2.00 / 1)

The truth is, though, we can't do a re-vote in Florida. To say that it is completely null and void because of the lack of a campaign just doesn't cut it. Yes, your guy may have bumped up a few notches if he had the chance to get in more face time in FL--and at the same time, something tells me that he could not have squeezed that much more out of a state that favors HRC. Most Floridians who votes want their votes counted, and feel that would be far more of a slight than the lack of campaigning in the state.

There are no circumstances under which Barack Obama would have or will win Florida. Not in the primary, not in the general.

In Michigan, Obama voluntarily took himself of the ballot. If he wanted to get votes in Michigan, maybe he should have kept his name on the ballot, instead of taking it off to appease Iowa politicians and cut his losses in the state. Besides, 45% of Michigan's pledged delegates would be going to the convention as uncommitted--maybe he should try and pick some of those up if he wants delegates from Michigan, no?

Nowhere did I say African-Americans shouldn't count, either. The argument to the Superdelegates is about electability. It's pretty cut and dry. If African-Americans are going to stay home because of the decision going a certain way, they need to take that into account, as well.

The fact is that these elections have been tabulated, they're state-certified, and they're the only ones we're going to get. The Democratic Party can ultimately decide whether Floridians and Michiganders count as Americans, or whether we live in Obamistan.

I really don't appreciate your mocking tone. It's very unbecoming. If you aren't capable of intelligent discourse, I would appreciate it if you stopped wasting my time.

No candidacy is more important than the right to vote.

by hornplayer on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:18:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A sobering question for Hillary supporters. (none / 0)

Saying that you should change the rules halfway through because you are losing deserves mocking. Are we not the party that believes in the rule of law. That the only way you can have fair elections that they follow the rules. MI and FL are not fair elections because they broke the rules and they were not contested. You demanding that they be is just as unfair (and more unfair to you not counting caucus attendees toward the popular vote) as the mockery that utilized.

Making up rule to make sure you get the power is what the do in places like Cuba, and the former USSR. But I get it, the first stage of mourning is denial.

by IowaMike on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:48:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A sobering question for Hillary supporters. (2.00 / 0)

Hornplayer, re: Popular Vote

Let us assume that Senator Clinton actually does win the popular vote. With that in mind, many have looked at that is the clincher. Winning the popular vote while still trailing in the pledged delegates means only one thing: this is an "argument" to be used with the super delegates. So winning the popular vote is only half the battle. Even less than half. Then you gotta take it to the super delegates and explain to them why they should give their votes to the candidate with less pledged delegates. Not only that, you have to convince a little bit more than few of them (all of whom are mature adults) that it's quite fair and alright to allocate the popular vote and delegates from MI to Senator Clinton even though she ran unopposed.

The metrics will change. The goal posts will be moved. The results will remain the same for this primary contest. The only thing that will definitely change is our chance as Democrats to win the WH in November. I blame our decreasing chances on Senator Clinton and her campaign.

_____________
changiness

by lizardbox on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:28:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A sobering question for Hillary supporters. (2.00 / 1)

Obama took his name off of the ballot in Michigan voluntarily. If he wanted to get votes in Michigan's contest, he might have considered running in it. Barack Obama bears responsibility for that; not HRC, and not the people of Michigan who deserve to have their voices heard, including those who voted uncommitted.

Your blame is misplaced. Although Hillary Clinton is behind in pledged delegates, it is questionable whether these delegates are an appropriate representative of the will of the people. As I said earlier, it is Barack Obama's responsibility to knock out Hillary Clinton if he so desperately needs this race to end. Personally, I like to think he's a strong enough candidate to weather the primary, else I wouldn't think he'd have much business running for President in the first place. This primary has gone through many states, revitalizing and re-energizing Democrats across the country. We will be hugely thankful for all of the gains made by the primary process when we can take advantage of these networks leading into November.

If the Barack Obama campaign believes in the rules enough to advocate quashing the voices of Florida and Michigan, surely they believe in the rules enough to let this process play out to its conclusion in the manner it was designed for, yes?

No candidacy is more important than the right to vote.

by hornplayer on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:26:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A sobering question for Hillary supporters. (none / 0)

How do I report ratings abuse? This is clearly not a troll post.

No candidacy is more important than the right to vote.

by hornplayer on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:39:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A sobering question for Hillary supporters. (none / 0)

it happens to all of us. I wouldn't worry about it. Some folks think that they get to troll-rate you if they disagree with you. Ignorati.

_____________
changiness

by lizardbox on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:42:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A sobering question for Hillary supporters. (2.00 / 1)

It's just a little frustrating that a post with that much substance in a diary with so little gets troll-rated.

It's very, very small of pinback.

No candidacy is more important than the right to vote.

by hornplayer on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:47:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A sobering question for Hillary supporters. (none / 0)

pinback, or pinhead?
You decide.

;)

by Kysen on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:23:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A sobering question for Hillary supporters. (none / 0)

I will say it once, I will say it a million times. I have absolutely no problem with Senator Clinton remaining in the race. I will even give her the courtesy of admitting that a probability exists that she wins the nomination. However, to draw first blood by using Bin Laden in a political ad, even before the Republicans do so, is nothing short of disgraceful.

There has been much discussion and disagreement about the drinking of the Kool-Aid, however, the only people have have drunk the Kook-Aid are those who remain silent when a Democrat employs such tactics.

_____________
changiness

by lizardbox on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:40:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A sobering question for Hillary supporters. (2.00 / 1)

Bin Laden hiking for two seconds isn't really the kind of fear mongering it's been made out to be. He clearly wasn't the focus of that ad; the focus was on leadership and responding to disasters. Hurricane Katrina was there, too, but no one makes mention of that.

I'm sorry, I just don't think that it's irresponsible to ask Americans to think about who they want handling disasters and emergencies. I think it's irresponsible not to.

No candidacy is more important than the right to vote.

by hornplayer on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:46:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A sobering question for Hillary supporters. (none / 0)

so, had the same ad been produced by Obama, you would've been absolutely fine with it? Be honest please. Do you think the Mydd collective would've been fine with it?

I truly think he would've been torn to pieces on here.

But then to add insult to injury, to the Democratic cry for calmer heads to prevail, to "restore our moral standing in the world", what does Senator Clinton do? She threatens to obliterate Iran. Have you felt the pinch at the gas pump? Yup. That's what usually does it.

_____________
changiness

by lizardbox on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:03:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A sobering question for Hillary supporters. (none / 0)

I honestly wouldn't mind. The "Clinton Collective," as it were, may feel differently, that I'll concede ;-). OBL is present in the American consciousness--and furthermore, this hypothetical makes an interesting point in that I do believe Barack Obama would have been far superior in managing the tasks at hand that GWB has been since 9/11. It's difficult to see how bringing him up would really help him against HRC or McCain in an ad, however.

No candidacy is more important than the right to vote.

by hornplayer on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:31:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A sobering question for Hillary supporters. (none / 0)

Your blame should be with the legislatures of MI and FL.

Your logic is flawed.

And again, you ignore caucus attendees.

You want to change the rules after the Clinton campaign voted to enforce them because now they are losing. If the situation was reversed they would be the first to point out that the rules were agreed upon before hand. They only care about them now because THEY ARE LOSING!

by IowaMike on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:52:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A sobering question for Hillary supporters. (none / 0)

The response does not warrant a troll rating, even if the tagline kind of sucks.

But most partisian taglines suck.

by reggie44pride on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:15:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A sobering question for Hillary supporters. (none / 0)

Well, if it's any defense, I was thinking more along the lines of Uzbekistan and Tajikistan and other former Soviet Republics than anything else ;-).

No candidacy is more important than the right to vote.

by hornplayer on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:38:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A sobering question for Hillary supporters. (none / 0)

Yeah, where the people in charge change the rules if they might lose power.

by IowaMike on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:53:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I don't see Hillary securing (2.00 / 0)

The nomination before the convention, so to answer your question, in a word, "NO!"
Every Clinton path to the nomination relies on 2 things; Florida and Michigan being seated as is, and the super delegates ruling against the pledge delegate leader, both of which can only be done at a contested convention.
If this nomination is not settled prior the Denver Convention, then neither candidate could possibly beat McCain.
A lot of people here at mydd talk about a path to a Clinton nomination, but never a path to a Clinton victory over McCain, because they know that is not going to happen.
Either Obama secures the nomination before the convention (something no one thinks Clinton can do), or we get President McCain.
Hillary is thoroughly unelectable, and if this nomination process gets dragged out any longer, then Obama will also be unelectable.

My thoughts on McCain: I have no desire to let that idiot fulfill his desire to "Bomb Iran"

by Otaku Saru on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:26:12 AM EST

Most Definitely (none / 0)

The General Election will take place in the same manner that Republicans hold their primaries: when a candidate wins a state, she/he wins ALL the delegates. Had we run our Democratic primaries in that fashion, Hillary Clinton would be AHEAD of Obama in the delegate count.

Thanks for asking!

by izarradar on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:55:02 AM EST

Well (2.00 / 0)

If you want to go state by state, then it doesn't look good for either Democrat, and it will get worse if the Democrats have a contested convention.

My thoughts on McCain: I have no desire to let that idiot fulfill his desire to "Bomb Iran"

by Otaku Saru on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:04:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Too bad (none / 0)

We've never had a winner take all primary system, well at least not in my lifetime.

Because I wont trade humanity for patriotism!

by Drewid on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:25:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Most Definitely (none / 0)

Then become a Republican! You are using their talking points anyway.