What Everyone But The Media Seems To Understand...
Listen folks, Obama supporters (and Obama himself) knew that Clinton was going to take PA.
I am just surprised that some people still think this means she has a shot at the nomination.
Let's look at this logically - unless Obama has such an offense in his background (or makes such offense between now and the convention) that instantly drops 80+% of his support, he will continue to maintain his lead. There aren't enough states left to give Clinton the edge. It's done.
(For the love of god don't start talking about Michigan and Florida - the candidates agreed to the rules, the states wanted to make themselves more newsworthy by holding their elections early, and the voters paid the price. Sorry they held them early but that's not Obama's fault.)
Back on track... so we have two talented candidates, only one of whom will get the nomination.
Should it be the one who has more delegates? Or the one who claims to be more electable in the general election?
Let's say for the sake of argument that the one who has more delegates is chosen. While it may not make the supporters of the losing candidate entirely happy, I would guess that the vast majority of supporters would rather vote for the Democrat rather than be so incensed as to vote for the Republican in the fall. Yes I am sure there will be some people that do that, but by and large there's no reason to expect a mass exodus of dems.
Now let's say for the sake of argument that despite having won the majority of delegates, the nomination goes to the other candidate. The only reason for this would be that the superdelegates didn't believe the other candidate would win in a general election. I predict that the supporters of that candidate will not sit down and accept this explanation. While I, like many others, may still feel obligated to go with whomever is the nominated candidate, there is a bitter aftertaste. Should that candidate become President, the Republicans will already be adversarial, but now there is a disenfranchised group of Dems as well.
Here's hoping that this whole business is put to rest soon, so we can vigorously work on general election campaigning. This country hurts, and we need to change that.
I am just surprised that some people still think this means she has a shot at the nomination.
Let's look at this logically - unless Obama has such an offense in his background (or makes such offense between now and the convention) that instantly drops 80+% of his support, he will continue to maintain his lead. There aren't enough states left to give Clinton the edge. It's done.
(For the love of god don't start talking about Michigan and Florida - the candidates agreed to the rules, the states wanted to make themselves more newsworthy by holding their elections early, and the voters paid the price. Sorry they held them early but that's not Obama's fault.)
Back on track... so we have two talented candidates, only one of whom will get the nomination.
Should it be the one who has more delegates? Or the one who claims to be more electable in the general election?
Let's say for the sake of argument that the one who has more delegates is chosen. While it may not make the supporters of the losing candidate entirely happy, I would guess that the vast majority of supporters would rather vote for the Democrat rather than be so incensed as to vote for the Republican in the fall. Yes I am sure there will be some people that do that, but by and large there's no reason to expect a mass exodus of dems.
Now let's say for the sake of argument that despite having won the majority of delegates, the nomination goes to the other candidate. The only reason for this would be that the superdelegates didn't believe the other candidate would win in a general election. I predict that the supporters of that candidate will not sit down and accept this explanation. While I, like many others, may still feel obligated to go with whomever is the nominated candidate, there is a bitter aftertaste. Should that candidate become President, the Republicans will already be adversarial, but now there is a disenfranchised group of Dems as well.
Here's hoping that this whole business is put to rest soon, so we can vigorously work on general election campaigning. This country hurts, and we need to change that.
by MG at 7:48 AM
6 Comments:
Well put, but I never thought the winning margin would be as large as it was. Let's just hope for big wins in the future to push the super-delegates.
Moxie,
I apologize if you find this offensive, but you seem to want constantly to move the goalposts to favour Obama: the rules say nothing about giving the nomination to the nominee who winds up with the majority of delegates or popular vote. Instead, the winner must win by having a specific number of delegates - which, it appears, neither candidate will be able to achieve. Hillary's star appears to be ascending while Barack's balloon's sinking badly (chiefly, because he's a one-note political lightweight who really hasn't a clue how many Americans feel; he may say the words, but there's no real empathy behind them.)
Why not sit back and let the voters decide, instead of constantly being so negative about one candidate, and pollyannish about the other?
Gaia
Well Gaia,I think you're being a little negative about one candidate yourself- "chiefly, because he's a one-note political lightweight who really hasn't a clue how many Americans feel; he may say the words, but there's no real empathy behind them".
But I wholeheartedly agree that Moxie (and others) should sit back and let the voters decide. Everyone seems to be an expert these days.
I'm not offended, but I don't see how I am moving any goalposts. I never said he would take PA, nor have I ever said he would meet the 2K+ to automatically get the nomination. I also don't see how Clinton's star is ascending when most polls indicate that her negative campaigning is actually hurting her.
How would you propose that voters decide this? By having a nationwide election just for democrats to choose one or the other once and for all? After the candidates have spent months and months focusing on campaigning in smaller areas of the country, they will now how to make rounds of the entire country at once?
As for Michigan and Florida, they moved their OWN goalposts (which violated the party's rules, rules agreed upon by the nominees), especially since one of them didn't even have Obama's name on the ballot. Do we have a special do-over for those states? Quite frankly that would irritate me to no end, simply because I am sick and tired of people getting away with breaking the rules. And the DNC apparently agrees, which is why they are not seating those delegates.
I am negative about Clinton because every time I turn around she does something else that rankles my fur. Her actions and words echo that of Republican talking heads - exaggerations, outright and ADMITTED LIES, negativeness. I won't apologize for finding Obama to be the better choice for me. Calling me Pollyanna is unfounded - I would never say any political figure is 100% perfect all the time every time, but I prefer his ideals, I prefer that he doesn't take special interest money...
I'm very sorry that I don't like Clinton anymore. I would love to belong to the "sisterhood" and be all excited that she's running. But I can't. She's shown me time and time again that she is too much like all those politicians I have been pissed off at for the past 5 years.
WFTN: Oh darlin', I NEVER claimed to be an expert! ;p
But seriously, if there's a huge flaw in my logic, which is based on the current trends and the fact that the DNC hasn't announced any special elections, then let me know. I'm just spelling it out as I see it.
I think we have two good candidates here. But in the words of Bill Clinton during the 2006 campaign, "When one candidate tries to scare you, and the other tries to inspire you, go with the one that tries to inspire you" (I think I got that quote mostly right).
Post a Comment
<< Home