I don't really see any reason why the remaining suppers should go for Obama. He's been getting his clocked clean the last three months. He polls weaker in the general election in the key swing states. He will lose more of HIllary's voters to McCain than Hillary would lose his voters to McCain. Hillary can and would win the general election. Obama probably wouldn't.
So why, exactly, should a self-respecting superdelegate, who wants to see the party win and not go down to defeat, go for Obama?
The original Obama narrative had him sweeping to the nomination with win after win. But he reached a brick wall in Texas and Ohio and has hardly been the same sense. He might not even win South Dakota and Montana. Daschle today on Meet the Press didn't sound at all confident of victory.
Suppose that Obama is beaten twice on Tuesday. What exactly is the argument that the remaining supers should go with him?
My guess is that his post super Tuesday string of victories really impressed he supers and kind of keyed them up to go for him. But that's a LONG time ago. The supers need to take a fresh look at this guy and where this race stands. Almost all of his earlier claims to fame have been undercut.
If they do give him the nomination, it's because they aren't willing to open their eyes and take a fresh look. That way lies defeat!
Lots and lots of evidence that Hillary is by far the stronger of the two candidates. Now that Obama's "entitlement" meme has been undercut and now that his wave has crested, there isn't really much current rationale for the superdelegates handing this thing to an almost sure loser.
18. I have evidence, the supers have evidence......
the only person who doesn't have evidence is you and Hillary and her camp, obviously.
Considering that the GOP kept Hillary afloat since Texas by voting for her, and she still couldn't catch up, meanwhile Hillary throws the kitchen sink, racism and whatever else she can lay her hands on at Obama, and yet she still lags behind......it means that she won't win under normal GOP circumstances when it will be a kitchen sink thrown at her....while voters that she has offended with her stupid shit will be sitting it out while sitting on their hands.
24. Hillary can't strategize her way out of a paper bag.
Health Care, Iraq War, Presidential Nomination, she has been singularly unimpressive in her planning and execution.
Obama carefully planned and masterfully executed a win against an entrenched machine. He correctly foresaw what a debacle the Iraq War would be. He routed her at the RBC committee with the help of her own supporters, while being gracious and magnanimous.
Obama is a much stronger candidate than Hillary is simply because he is the nominee, but more importantly, he will be a stronger President.
Clinton's inability to win a majority of delegates in the contest raises great questions about her viability come Nov. If she can't win against Obama, how is she going to win against McCain and GOP machine?
7. Actually the "original Obama narrative" had him far behind
the popular Clinton brand name. But as Operation "fat, drugged, and full of shit" kicked off, many southern voters - those who listen to the hateful gasbag himself - opted to lengthen the Democratic primary by voting for the person who was then trailing behind.
But sure, keep telling yourself that the votes which propelled her in Texas, West Virginia, and Kentucky were all Democrats who weren't part of Limbaugh's plan. You keep telling yourself that while we go ahead and vote for the Democratic nominee against the Republican. Have fun.
9. K and R. On to Denver! STILL almost THREE LONG MONTHS AWAY --
and isn't a week supposed to be a lifetime in politics? So what's a whole quarter of a year?
These SuperDs have an inalienable right to change their minds. Given time, they just might do that and go with the ELECTABLE candidate in the interests of the party and of the people who need a President.
is banking on supers falling into herd mentality like the press has. They are also banking on the supers being taken in by Obama's implicit claim to some kind of "entitlement" to the nomination. But if the supers take a cold hard political look, they will see that the rationale for Obama's campaign has essentially collapsed. It's really been running on fumes - well-funded fumes, to be sure. The problem is there has been no second act. They had nothing going for them but the vague rhetoric of hope and change, plus Obama's personal narrative.
But the rhetoric got completely stale and the personal narrative was complicated by Wright and Pfleger.
23. The only entitlement that Obama claims is that he has more delegates
That's all that is needed.
Before Voting Begins, Clinton Leads Survey: Before Votes, Clinton Leads Delegate Chase By KAREN TRAVERS Dec. 28, 2007
With only six days left before the Iowa caucuses and the race to the Democratic nomination well under way, New York Sen. Hillary Clinton is leading in the important battle for the so-called "Super Delegates"
Throughout the year states jockeyed fiercely to position their primaries and caucuses earlier in the year to play a more significant role in the nominating process.
But even with a bunched-up early primary season, a candidate still needs to accumulate delegates to win the Democratic nomination.
As of today, Clinton has amassed 69 more delegates than her nearest competitor, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, according to an ABC News survey of Democratic super delegates.
45. Based on the fact he won more delegates and states?
Yeah, the supers should distance themselves from a guy who has won the primary based on the rules of the primary. Clearly that would be the best choice.
Similarly the electoral college should always grant the presidency to the candidate with the least won electoral votes. And only those players receiving the least amount of votes to the MLB All Star game should play. And of course only teams with losing records should play in championship series/games in every sport. After all, they're the ones best poised to win the big one, right?
Considering that Axelrod works for Obama, then I guess I "own" the Change to Win Coalition inasmuch as I work for them. It's an interesting concept, one I'll be sure to bring up to my boss (or my "property" as you'd argue) come raise time!!! Can't wait! Thanks!
It's curious though that some of you never seemed to mind George Soros until he backed a candidate you don't like even though that candidate is in our party.
31. dude, those are some rose colored glasses you have on
Hillary has been under-performing and losing key states since her delegate loss in TX!
She lost her 20 point lead in PA down to single digits, her 12 point lead in IN reduced to a tie, and got BLOWN OUT in NC and OR the last few months. MT and SD will be big wins for Obama to close it out.
She held her leads in TRADITION RED STATES where her narrow / one-issue "base" is concentrated.
Obama has blown her away in $$$ and every other demographic. You should get out more.
34. Don't forget the "Operation Chaos" votes that helped come as far
as she has. They were key to wins in all states starting in Texas. Had she lost Texas, as she finally did but too late for it to matter to OBama, she would have been in a different situation altogether.
33. Dream on. Tuesday will be like Oregon. Obama will clean Hill's clock twice
Why do you think she's barely set foot in either state? Why do you think she's not going there today or tomorrow? Hillykins is a loser. She lost more states than Obama. He leads in every metric including the so-called popular vote. He has an excellent chance of winning over McCain. Judging from the past, better than that loser Hilly.
Why on earth would the SDs go for that ugly, disruptive, lying, broke, loser, Hilly?
40. She cannot win unless the Rush Voters do what they did again....
and they will not.
Plus, she's down further than Obama will ever go.
Just because his supporters have been "patient" simply because he has been winning, don't think that we won't get crazy if some fucked up shit happens and Hillary's camp is at the bottom of it.
When Obama asked that his supporters stay calm and not protest on Saturday, don't think it didn't happen because it couldn't....because it could have very easily. Meanwhile, Hillary was able to scour up 300 rag tag supporters who didnt even know how to act.
43. Becasue he has proved himself the stronger candidate
who'se more in touch with the voters and the base of the Democratic party and the mood of the nation.
If Clinton was any of those things, she would be the front runner and the presumptive nominee, but she's not. Having failed to win in her own party, after being far 'ahead in the polls' - her ability to win a GE must be seriously questioned.
47. He didn't hit a brick wall in Texas, he WON the most Delegates here
Edited on Mon Jun-02-08 05:04 AM by MagickMuffin
and only lost the popular vote by 3%.
I think he can WIN the GE. He has brought new voters to the process. He has energized a lot of people. I'm sorry you refuse to open your eyes and acknowledge the fact he has won over people of ALL races. I watch every rally he has held that C-SPAN airs, and the crowds are amazing.
Maybe you need to take a fresh look, without your blinders.
51. Because Billary has run a disgusting, devisive campaign of "identity politics."
They have divided white women against blacks. Latinos/hispanics against blacks. Jews against black and po' white folk against blacks. Their evil deeds should not be rewarded. They should be forever shunned by every decent Democrat.
of stupid things like the Texas two-step, undemocratic caucuses, and stiff-arming the voters of Florida and Michigan. The supposedly presumptive nominee the self-declared messiah of a new politics gets his clocked cleaned regularly in the past month by the candidate that everybody in the media says has no chance. He loses by 35 here, 40, there and then another 36. Real impressive.
And the supers should just hand this divisive loser the nomination because of what, now?
The next couple of days should be interesting but I wish it was already Friday, Obama had a solid 50 or so lead, and we can stop with all this BS already. I don't particularly care what somebody says on a message board, but the problem is that the "official" Clinton camp, some of them at least (a big thank you Gov. Vilsack for the sanity) are spouting the same Alice in Wonderland absurdities, making assumptions and claiming them as facts (remember Bill's "she IS WINNING" the general election?), or are plain distorting facts. I'VE HAD IT!!:banghead:
I do not understand this mentality that allows one to think that whatever number of remaining superdelegates there are there is a potential for that group to break 100% one way or the other. This "winner-take-all" mindset is exactly what burned Clinton in the first place, and it will continue to do so. There are good solid arguments for both candidates to make to superdelegates to try and win over their support. These arguments are really not that much different than arguments made to voters during the primaries. Looking at how the pledged delegates have split, and the rate at which the superdelegates are splitting, you have to really reach to see a way for Clinton to get more than say 60% of the remaining superdelegates. Clinton could win this or a greater number, "winning" the remaining superdelegates significantly, and she will still lose the nomination. Right now there are 21 add-on superdelegates from Obama states, and he is likely to win at least 16 delegates tomorrow. The current number to win for him is 44, so with those 37 delegates that are basically assured to him, he only needs 7 more superdelegates. Without getting some Edwards delegates, which are far more likely to break for Obama, there is no way for Clinton to overtake Obama even if she gets all the other superdelegates. Obama does not need to make an argument to win all or even most of the superdelegates, he only needs to make an argument to 10 or so and he has the nomination.
78. They haven't been flocking to him because they want the process to
continue until all the primaries have completed and the voters have their say. It's out of respect for Senator Clinton, and despite the lie that Obama has asked her to drop out, he has stated repeatedly that she has the right to stay in the race as long as she wants...even to the convention. She reserves that right.
But I ask again, if Hillary's case that she is the stronger, better candidate were convincing, then shouldn't the supers forget about the "herd mentality" and support her. Why aren't they. The "herd mentality" doesn't work here. Why? Because the supers in WV--Rockefeller and Byrd--went for Obama, not Hillary. They are risking their political careers because they are doing what they feel is right for the party, not Hillary and Bill Clinton.
Perhaps The Enablers should get on board, too, and stop putting their love and affection for their candidate above the best interests of the party...and the country!
70. If so many voters had buyers' remorse, why does Obama continue to lead in tracking polls?
If his support had collapsed since February and a lot of people who voted for him had buyers' remorse, wouldn't he be significantly behind in national tracking polls? And would 2 different polls show that if California voters had it to do over again they'd go for Obama by double digits?
102. Obama is NOT a loser. He has a much better chance of winning the GE than Hillary!
Hillary will bring out the R/W Clinton haters just to knock her down. They don't care about the USA, all they care about is hating the Clintons. The future of the USA can't afford having another republican in office. Senator Obama is our best choice at this point. Hopefully he'll have the foresight to name John Edwards as his VP!
# The bipartisan George Washington University "Battleground Poll" conducted May 11 through May 14 showed McCain trouncing Clinton 51 to 43. Obama did better, leading McCain 49 to 47.
# The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll had Clinton exactly tied with McCain for 10 of the last 16 days, and leading on only 5 days. Furthermore her lead was never more than 4 points, while the poll's statistical margin of error is plus or minus 4 points. The poll had McCain leading 47 to 44 on May 22.
# The Reuters/Zogby Poll released May 21 showed Clinton and McCain "essentially tied." Clinton led by 41 to 40, but that one-point lead was well within the poll's three-point margin of error.
A year and a half ago, Hillary was the nominee. Everyone said she was sure to win the nomination. Obama came into the picture and quickly caught up to her and passed her. So the Clinton campaign started to sling the mud and slowed him down some, but he maintained his lead. Then came the manipulations and goalpost moving from the Clinton campaign. Obama still ahead. Anyone with brain enough to follow the sequence can see that Clinton's campaign was playing catch up and was financially unprepared. All (including superdelegates) can see their manipulations and Obama's measured responses. The only time I think he was unprepared was for the Wright controversy, but then he handled it beautifully. Clinton pissed off a lot of voters with some of her statements. Obama pissed off a lot of voters because of his blackness and his audacity to run against a woman. They're about even there. In the GE Obama will pull in those newly registered young voters, most of the independents, and a few disgruntled Republicans. Clinton would pull in her base for sure and most Democrats, but many fewer independents, and she will bring out the GOP like nobody's business.
Supers can pick whoever they want. There will be a hit with them picking Clinton or Obama. The hit they would take over-turning the delegate total would be much greater though (picking Clinton).
I wouldn't mind it having worked out that it was a Clinton/Obama ticket. As that would be unbeatable by the Repub's and it would be a serious shot at 16 years of Dem Executive rule. Didn't work out that way though.
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion
board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules
page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the
opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent
the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.