DC Area Voters

[vansmack]

Originally posted by -kat-:
  and the dems are fucked if whomever gets nominated doesn't pick Edwards as a runningmate.

To steal a quote from my friend  Venerable, "Good lord."  
 
 I'm going to regret asking this, but on what basis?

[Sage 703]

Originally posted by vansmack:
     

Originally posted by -kat-:
  and the dems are fucked if whomever gets nominated doesn't pick Edwards as a runningmate.

To steal a quote from my friend  Venerable, "Good lord."  
 
 I'm going to regret asking this, but on what basis? [/b]

I agree - I think that's crazy talk.
 
 I've been thinking the past few days about the superdelegate scenario.  From the analysis that I've read, it seems virtually certain - minus ENORMOUS gains by Clinton - that Obama is going to go into the convention with a lead in the delegate count, and most likely, the popular vote.  I've also seen analysis that indicates that it is virtually impossible for either of them to clinch the nomination before the convention.  The question is whether or not Clinton can wrap up enough primaries to make it close, and thus sway the superdelegates to support her as a more surefire candidate.
 
 I don't think that is going to happen - I would estimate that Obama is going to extend his delegate lead and compete in Ohio and Texas.  That would mean he is approaching the convention with a definitive lead.
 
 That said - what if the superdelegates give it to Hillary Clinton?  There have been a few stories on this of late - but personally?  I think it would absolutely destroy the Democratic Party.  I don't know that I'd vote for a Democrat again if the superdelegates overturned what appears to be the popular opinion (even if, I'd note, it went in my favor as an Obama supporter and the roles were reversed).
 
 Now here is my hypothetical: let's say that the superdelegates give it to Hillary Clinton, despite Obama's lead in the popular vote and in the delegate count.  If that happens, does Obama split from the party and run as an independent?  I think there would be an overwhelming push for this coming out of his organization and support base.  And if so, does he immediately create a viable third party?

[Charlie Nakatestes, Japanese Golfer]

If the superdelegates end up overturning the voice of the people, I too will not vote for a Democrat in the general election.
 
 No, I don't think Barack would run as an independent. Though I have nothing to base that on other than my gut.

[manimtired]

get ready not to vote for a democrat again then...

[Charlie Nakatestes, Japanese Golfer]

I've voted Dukakis, Clinton, Nader, Nader, and Kerry. I'm accustomed to not having voted for the winner. I think I may have even voted for Jesse Jackson in a primary, but was probably really drunk at the time.
 
   

Originally posted by manimtired:
  get ready not to vote for a democrat again then...

[vansmack]

Callat, the scenario you've laid out has been worrying me for some time.  I too would feel very disenfranchised by the party if they did this.  It would go against everything I've been warning the Dems about this entire Primary season.  Right now, I'm going by the assumption that the Dems in charge (not least of which, the Clinton's) wouldn't let that happen.
 
 If it did, I too would leave the party, but I'm still 95% convinced it won't happen.  It will make '68 look like a tea party.

[Sage 703]

Originally posted by vansmack:
  Callat, the scenario you've laid out has been worrying me for some time.  I too would feel very disenfranchised by the party if they did this.  It would go against everything I've been warning the Dems about this entire Primary season.  Right now, I'm going by the assumption that the Dems in charge (not least of which, the Clinton's) wouldn't let that happen.
 
 If it did, I too would leave the party, but I'm still 95% convinced it won't happen.  It will make '68 look like a tea party.

Agreed.  I don't think it is going to happen - the party brass MUST recognize what it would do to them.  But I still think it is possible.

[ggw]

Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
  Obama is just creaming Hillary. You know, all these primaries, you know. And Hillary says itâ??s not fair, because theyâ??re being held in February, and February is Black History Month. And unfortunately for Hillary, thereâ??s no White Bitch Month.

Somebody either watches Penn Jilette's stand-up routine or reads Maureen Dowd's column.

[ggw]

Originally posted by edbert:
  So, is Hillary gonna play the crying card again a day or two before Texas/Ohio primaries?  Or is that one spent?

The crying card is shot.  Now she is having her lackeys break out the "America won't elect a black man" card.
 
 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23134717/?GT1=10856
 
 Note that Rendell's statement was released 15 minutes after Obama was declared the big winner of the Virginia primary.
 
 The reemergence of the assassination card can't be far behind.

[ggw]

Originally posted by callat703:
  Now here is my hypothetical: let's say that the superdelegates give it to Hillary Clinton, despite Obama's lead in the popular vote and in the delegate count.  If that happens, does Obama split from the party and run as an independent?  I think there would be an overwhelming push for this coming out of his organization and support base.  And if so, does he immediately create a viable third party?

Obama probably would not jump to a third party because it would burn all his bridges to the Democrat's establishment.  He is young enough to take the hit and come back in four or eight years.
 
 
 There was a movement to create a viable third party in the works.  www.Unity08.org  It got shut down (for all intents and purposes) by the FEC and the two major parties.
 
 I heard the pitch from a couple of the founders and it was an impressive (and not too unrealistic) idea.  It had legs for a while, but the other parties made ballot access impossible and then the FEC cut off their start up money.
 
 Ain't politics grand?

[ratioci nation]

Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
  Obama probably would not jump to a third party because it would burn all his bridges to the Democrat's establishment.  He is young enough to take the hit and come back in four or eight years.
 

Take it for what its worth, but Michelle Obama insists that if Barack loses he will not run again.

[Mobius]

Obama is a new paradigm and his momentum feels (to a DC dem sheltered from 'the real world') like a tidal wave wiping out all that came before it - similar to Clinton in '92 who represented a fresh new paradigm that obliterated the Nixon-Reagan-Bush era (which amazingly returned stronger than ever when he left office).  Now, the Clintons (and of course McCain) are the old guard and everything they represent just seems so tired (to me at least).
 
 Meanwhile, Obama really does embody the best of America.  Also, its not emphasized that he taught Constitutional Law at Chicago . . . what better experience do we need than a preeminent expert on the foundation of our country?
 
 No matter what happens in the election, its awesome to see his message expressed, because people are listening and getting inspired and that is a very powerful result even if the old guard retains the White House.

[godsshoeshine]

Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
   

Originally posted by edbert:
  So, is Hillary gonna play the crying card again a day or two before Texas/Ohio primaries?  Or is that one spent?

The crying card is shot.  Now she is having her lackeys break out the "America won't elect a black man" card.
 
  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23134717/?GT1=10856
 
 Note that Rendell's statement was released 15 minutes after Obama was declared the big winner of the Virginia primary.
 
 The reemergence of the assassination card can't be far behind. [/b]

rendell should just stick to dinner: impossible

[manimtired]

Originally posted by Mobius:
  Obama is a new paradigm and his momentum feels (to a DC dem sheltered from 'the real world') like a tidal wave wiping out all that came before it - similar to Clinton in '92 who represented a fresh new paradigm that obliterated the Nixon-Reagan-Bush era (which amazingly returned stronger than ever when he left office).  Now, the Clintons (and of course McCain) are the old guard and everything they represent just seems so tired (to me at least).
 
 Meanwhile, Obama really does embody the best of America.  Also, its not emphasized that he taught Constitutional Law at Chicago . . . what better experience do we need than a preeminent expert on the foundation of our country?
 
 No matter what happens in the election, its awesome to see his message expressed, because people are listening and getting inspired and that is a very powerful result even if the old guard retains the White House.

god i hope youre joking..the man is a bloated bag of empty rhetoric.

[vansmack]

Originally posted by manimtired:
  god i hope youre joking..the man is a bloated bag of empty rhetoric.

I hope the Republicans underestimate him the same way that you are.
 
 If worked well for the Clinton team...