DC Area Voters

[ggw]

This "debate" illustrates exactly why Rush Limbaugh urged Republicnas to go out and vote for Hillary yesterday.  Why try to beat the Democrats in the general election when the Democrats can beat themselves before September.

[xneverwherex]

This is merely a question of curiosity for Obama supporters (ie most of us on here).
 
 But can you honestly say you'd vote for Hillary at this point in time if Obama stepped down? The longer this goes on, the more Hillary is going to tear him apart. Personally, Ill throw a vote to Nader (or not vote) before supporting her. Im really disgusted with how we are attacking our own nominees in our party. Shouldnt we be saving this vitriol for McCain??
 
 im amazed how democrats seem to fuck it all up every year. even when something should go so smoothly, it never does.

[ratioci nation]

Originally posted by xneverwherex:
  This is merely a question of curiosity for Obama supporters (ie most of us on here).
 
 But can you honestly say you'd vote for Hillary at this point in time if Obama stepped down? The longer this goes on, the more Hillary is going to tear him apart. Personally, Ill throw a vote to Nader (or not vote) before supporting her. Im really disgusted with how we are attacking our own nominees in our party. Shouldnt we be saving this vitriol for McCain??
 
 im amazed how democrats seem to fuck it all up every year. even when something should go so smoothly, it never does.

I wish both parties would splinter and we could have
 
 Huckabee - The Evangelical Party
 McCain - Republican
 Clinton - The DLC
 Obama - Progressive Party (not left enough for me, but better than the options)
 
 I really don't see much to support in the current dem leadership.  If I thought that enough people staying home would send a message and be good for the party in the long run I am all for it.
 
 The fact that the Clinton campaign seems so opposed to a 50 state strategy is probably the most frustrating thing about them.  They seem to ignore the good it can do down-ballot.  If she had wrapped up the nomination early, apparently they were planning on circumventing the DNC and Dean's 50 state strategy by building their own DLC centric party infrastructure.  Why should Dems be loyal to her.

[Sage 703]

Originally posted by xneverwherex:
  This is merely a question of curiosity for Obama supporters (ie most of us on here).
 
 But can you honestly say you'd vote for Hillary at this point in time if Obama stepped down? The longer this goes on, the more Hillary is going to tear him apart. Personally, Ill throw a vote to Nader (or not vote) before supporting her. Im really disgusted with how we are attacking our own nominees in our party. Shouldnt we be saving this vitriol for McCain??
 
 im amazed how democrats seem to fuck it all up every year. even when something should go so smoothly, it never does.

If she gets the nomination, it'll mean the superdelegates upended the pledged delegates and (most likely) the popular vote.  If the Democratic Party allows that to happen, as I've said before on here, I'll not support the party again.
 
 However, if Obama were to step down voluntarily, I'd vote for Hillary Clinton...I think.

[Charlie Nakatestes, Japanese Golfer]

I'm waiting for Doctor Doom to prescribe you to an afterlife in hell for making these comments.
 
 

Originally posted by xneverwherex:
  This is merely a question of curiosity for Obama supporters (ie most of us on here).
 
 But can you honestly say you'd vote for Hillary at this point in time if Obama stepped down? The longer this goes on, the more Hillary is going to tear him apart. Personally, Ill throw a vote to Nader (or not vote) before supporting her. Im really disgusted with how we are attacking our own nominees in our party. Shouldnt we be saving this vitriol for McCain??
 
 im amazed how democrats seem to fuck it all up every year. even when something should go so smoothly, it never does.

[Julian, Alleged Computer F**kface]

Originally posted by vansmack:
   

Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
   It's absolutely unconscionable to withhold millions of people's right to have a say in who the Democratic nominee is simply to punish their state. George W. Bush thinks that's messed up.

I missed this while I was in transit.  Did you  site GWB to back your argument?  And he has absolutely no outside interests.  You're becoming laughable. [/b]

I think you misunderstood. I was not citing GWB or anything he said. I was exaggerating and using sarcasm to illustrate that the idea of stripping two states of their right to vote because of a minor infraction by state party leaders is so offensive an idea that even GWB, who "won" in 2000 despite getting less overall votes and less votes in Florida, would find it objectionable.

[BookerT]

Interesting result from a recent survey conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press: If their favored candidate is not the Democratic nominee, a quarter of Hillary Clinton's primary supporters would defect and vote for John McCain in November, while only 10 percent of Barack Obama's supporters would do the same.
  from salon
 
 now that doesn't take into account those who would vote for nader or not vote at all, but i thought it was interesting.

[ggw]

Hillary is counting on the famously short American attention span.  She has more than two months between the time the superdelegates coronate her and the time the voting public goes to the polls.  By that time, most people will be like, "Obama who?"

[Sage 703]

The thing that keeps getting left out when the "who is more electable" discussion comes up is the fact that Democrats are outvoting Republicans by 2 to 1 margins in the primaries.  If that holds true, then both Clinton and Obama are more electable than McCain.
 
 That's also what annoys me about Clinton's "I've won the battleground states" argument.  It is a distortion of reality - she's won the battleground states among Democrats.  But if twice as many Democrats turn out than Republicans in the general election in the battleground states, then it doesn't matter which of them gets the nomination - even if the Salon poll (which is interesting) is accurate.
 
 The question to ask would be is if a Democratic candidate can pull a traditionally Republican state away - and Obama has done much, much better in those states.  Who is more apt to make Virginia go blue, for example?  If the primaries indicate anything, it is that Obama has a greater potential to win both the battleground states (due to overwhelming Democratic turnout) and some of the blue-leaning red states.

[Charlie Nakatestes, Japanese Golfer]

But doesn't that simply reflect that independents who can vote in either primary are voting in the Democrat primary because that's the one their vote can make a difference in?
 
 Also, many Republicans probably haven't been going to the polls simply because the outcome has been decided for awhile now.
 
 

Originally posted by callat703:
  The thing that keeps getting left out when the "who is more electable" discussion comes up is the fact that Democrats are outvoting Republicans by 2 to 1 margins in the primaries.  If that holds true, then both Clinton and Obama are more electable than McCain.
 
 

[Julian, Alleged Computer F**kface]

Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
  But doesn't that simply reflect that independents who can vote in either primary are voting in the Democrat primary because that's the one their vote can make a difference in?
 
 Also, many Republicans probably haven't been going to the polls simply because the outcome has been decided for awhile now.
 

This is true. If we had a sitting Democratic president and two Republican upstarts battling it out, you'd have much higher Republican turnout (although it'd be slightly lower since I don't believe Republicans allow independents to vote in most states' primaries).

[Venerable Bede]

Originally posted by callat703:
  The question to ask would be is if a Democratic candidate can pull a traditionally Republican state away - and Obama has done much, much better in those states.  Who is more apt to make Virginia go blue, for example?  If the primaries indicate anything, it is that Obama has a greater potential to win both the battleground states (due to overwhelming Democratic turnout) and some of the blue-leaning red states.

but, hasn't mccain done the same thing on the republican side?  why is obama winning "red" states proof that he can get republicans, yet mccain winning "blue" states means nothing?  dems talk like they can somehow win midwest and mountain west republican states that obama won in caucuses as proof that he can do well in those states, yet mccain winning new england democrat states (in primaries) is shrugged off.

[Sage 703]

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
     

Originally posted by callat703:
  The question to ask would be is if a Democratic candidate can pull a traditionally Republican state away - and Obama has done much, much better in those states.  Who is more apt to make Virginia go blue, for example?  If the primaries indicate anything, it is that Obama has a greater potential to win both the battleground states (due to overwhelming Democratic turnout) and some of the blue-leaning red states.

but, hasn't mccain done the same thing on the republican side?  why is obama winning "red" states proof that he can get republicans, yet mccain winning "blue" states means nothing?  dems talk like they can somehow win midwest and mountain west republican states that obama won in caucuses as proof that he can do well in those states, yet mccain winning new england democrat states (in primaries) is shrugged off. [/b]

What blue states has McCain won with overwhelming majorities in which he had serious competition from a single candidate?  This isn't a viable comparison for a lot of reasons - but perhaps most importantly, the Obama camp has proven that they can mobilize members of the electorate that don't typically vote.  McCain simply proved that he could appeal to more moderate Republicans and some of the base.
 
 Not only that, name a blue state that McCain is going to put in play that wasn't in play in 2004.
 
 Red states that Obama can put in play that Hillary likely cannot: Virginia, South Carolina, Georgia, Louisiana, etc...

[Venerable Bede]

Originally posted by callat703:
  What blue states has McCain won with overwhelming majorities in which he had serious competition from a single candidate?  This isn't a viable comparison for a lot of reasons - but perhaps most importantly, the Obama camp has proven that they can mobilize members of the electorate that don't typically vote.  McCain simply proved that he could appeal to more moderate Republicans and some of the base.

oh please. . .here are the states in the midwest and mountain west:
 
 iowa- caucus (obama)
 nevada- caucus (clinton)
 alaska- caucus (obama)
 idaho- caucus (obama)
 kansas- caucus (obama)
 colorado- caucus (obama)
 minnesota- caucus (obama)
 new mexico- caucus (basically a tie)
 north dakota- caucus (obama)
 utah- primary (obama)
 nebraska- caucus (obama)
 washington- caucus (obama)
 arizona- primary (clinton)
 wyoming- caucus (tbd- presumably obama)
 south dakota- primary (tbd- presumably obama)
 
 how does a caucus reveal anything about the state.  great, he got people out to a caucus that does not have secret ballots. . .i think julian has already made comments on the usefulness of caucuses, plus, could not the caucus results also show how poor the clinton campaign is at grass roots and on-the-ground organization?  the only primary he won was utah, and there's no way he will win utah in the general election.  just to help you out, obama also won wisconsin (primary)- by the same amount as utah (17%).
 
 i'm not saying that mccain will carry new england (other than new hampshire), i'm just wondering why the supposed ability to cross-over is treated differently when both have potentially the same ability (see pew report on obama and clinton supporters willing to support mccain in the general).

[Mobius]

Its time for Obama to fight.  Which makes last night's result a potential positive if he eventually goes against McCain b/c he will become a much more seasoned fighter and have a stronger sense of what needs to be done.  Ditto for Hilary, although I'm just not a fan.