Hillary must drop out: My Blue Town will turn Red, if she steals the nomination

[debbierlus]

I live in a blue town, in a blue county, in a blue state...

Massachusetts. And, this state is in PLAY this election season, and I am convinced it will turn red, if Hillary steals the nomination.

I voted for Hillary. A vote I now sorely regret. My vote occurred on Super Tuesday, and it was before Hillary saw that her
'for sure' Presidential bid was unraveling like frayed silk.

Everyone I know who voted for her wants her OUT of the race. Hillary is delusional if she thinks she will enjoy the continued support of her early voters after what we have witnessed in recent months. She is putting her own personal ambition above the
needs of the country, and that alone disqualifies her from the race. Anger is increasing by the day, the longer she stays in, the
more she is demolishing her reputation.

We DESPERATELY need to turn our sites to McCain. People are perceiving Bush the III as some kind of viable candidate as he receives
the main stream media's constant positive spin, and Obama stands in a no man's land, unable to focus all his energy on dismantling
McCain. The regular folk I see everyday at the local breakfast joint are starting to concede a McCain Presidency as inevitable.
They know absolutely nothing about this man, and are ready to walk off the same cliff all over again.

This can be stemmed off, but we have to get Hillary out now. She can not win the General election. The progressives I know
are willing to hedge their bets and let McCain win, hoping that in four years the damage will be so severe that people will
be SEEKING a progressive to turn the tide. They won't vote for him, but they won't vote for her either. (I will vote
for either, as much as I hate it, a Iran attack is too big a wager for me - and, I believe it is a certainty if McCain get in-
although they may launch it before the election anyway)...And, there is a very large group of people who just hate her for
all the wrong reasons.

If we are talking a red Massachusetts, we are talking a McCain win.

This has to stop. NOW.

[northzax]

1. Massachusetts? Red?

you're joking. You know she won the mass. Primary, right? If you think that mass. is filled with such faux liberals that they will vote for mccain, then you are an idiot. Seriously, an idiot. But be sure to point out how Hillary is destroying the party while threatening to vote for mccain. Makes you easier to take seriously.

Oh, and by the way. I keep hearing 'we need to focus on mccain' how do you figure obama will change tactics? He's running a post-political campaign, remember? Hope and change? Or is he actually targeting his message, and will say something else in the GE? He can't portray mccain as anything, he's not running that sort of campaign, remember? Anyone who says 'we need to focus on mccain' is basically admitting that their candidate will say different things in the general election, run a different campaign. I though obama was beyond that?

[Maddy McCall]

4. .

:thumbsup:

[alphafemale]

21. Remember 1984...anyone?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1984

Hillary. The nominee? The map will look like this.

Except you could write off Minn.

Mondale only won that because it was his home state.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

24. I'll See Your Ipse Dixit Argument And Raise You With A Fifty State Survey

http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/2008/03/06/electoral-math-as-of-030608-clinton-276-mccain-262/


Electoral Votes

Hillary Clinton-276

John McCain 262

[northzax]

25. you mean 1984, right?

when the dems ran a lesser known, dull, policy guy (hey, I love Fritz as much as the next guy) against a charismatic, popular incumbent? John mccain is no ronald Reagan.

And you didn't answer how you expect obama's campaign to change?

[alphafemale]

27. yeah. updated...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

31. 1984 Was Set Up For Reagan To Run The Table

Maybe another Democrat would have mitigated the damage but the political environment favored Reagan just as the political environment favored FDR in 32, 26, 40, and 44 and LBJ in 68 and Carter in 76 and Clinton in 92 and 96 and so on and so forth...

In recent history, the 00 election was the only election that defied conventional wisdom...

[northzax]

63. hell, we could have run a cloned combination

of Washington, Lincoln, Jesus and jfk and not won many states. The democratic party was on the ropes, there was no bench to speak of. The unholy alliance of the GOP and the Christian right was bearing fruit and the rest ofthe country hadn't caught on yet to the scam. Fritz was just the sacrifical lamb.

[otohara]

2. Hard to Imagine MA Red, But In My State CO

where there's a very good chance of going blue if Obama is the nominee.

[shifting_sands]

8. Colorado Blue/Red

In case you haven't noticed, Colorado more Blue than Red these days. The Gov. is a Democrate, both the House and Senate are controlled by Democrats, Salazar is a Democrat (a seeminging Blue Dog Dem, but a Dem none the less) and the state cannot wait to get rid of Allard. There are pockets of GOP strongholds, but they have been losing since the 2004 Election in this state.

[otohara]

13. Talking Prez Race Only

which hasn't gone blue since 92!

Salazar is barely a Democrat - he's voted more often than not with the GOP and I can't count the times I have phoned his office complaining. I won't vote for him again! He'll win, but without my help!

[ensho]

3. "steal" ? steal ! how would she pull off this 'crime'?

nt

[slinkerwink]

5. Last poll shows Hillary losing to McCain in Connecticut

and also, California as a tight race between Clinton and McCain.

[Yossariant]

6. The whole country will turn red if Obama is the nominee.

Obama fans need to get their egos out of the way --- for the good of the Party.

[ensho]

10. agree

a mostly racist country will not elect obama

I think the country is 70 to 80% racist

some have said 35%

what percent do you all think it is?

[stillcool]

19. Is that why Obama is ahead

in the popular vote, and in delegates? Is that why the 18-29 year olds have turned out to vote like never before? Is that why the Reverend Wright lynching has had no effect on Obama's support?

[ensho]

22. wait for the Nov. election

any other time in US life Obama would be just fine. but not now. america is in crisis.

[stillcool]

34. And that will be different why?

Those voting in the Democratic Party outnumber those in the Republican party by a huge margin. Obama's polling numbers against McCain are better than Clinton's. Where are you getting all your racists from?

[Liberal Gramma]

46. That is exactly why we need Obama to re-unite the country.

Anyone would do if the country were already doing alright. The situation Bush and co. have left is one of extreme partisanship, and I feel Clinton is too divisive to govern in these circumstances. Just my opinion.

[aquarius dawning]

51. you are smoking crack.

[Liberal Gramma]

57. Which part of that statement do you question?

That Obama might unite the country? or that Clinton is divisive? There is statistical evidence for both suggestions.

[roseBudd]

53. Haven't you heard the racists & homophobes are elderly, racists for the most part have been voting R

since Nixon. But the racists also hate McCain because he's not mean enough to Mexicans. Racists will have McCain or staying home.

[Cha]

55. Obama will win but it's hard for

some people, like yourself, to wrap their brain around that concept.

[stillcool]

20. I think that is your own personal bias...

and that you are projecting your attitudes on the entire country. I recall in the very beginning of this Campaign season posters saying their friends would never vote for a black candidate. Apparently they didn't have many friends. The fight for the Democratic Party is not being won by the 'third way'. I have no idea who will end up with the nomination but I am thrilled that the DLC has been exposed for what it is.

[ensho]

28. you don't think the US is 70, 80% racist?

you think racists have seen the light and will vote for obama?

what percent racist do you think america is?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

32. Racism Is As Such An Amorphous Concept

Even if you could conduct a survey to measure it I suspect a lot of folks would be less than candid in their responses...

[ensho]

40. as to the counting part, of course racists would cover up - as to

racism being amorphous - I doubt a black american would look at it that way.

[stillcool]

38. It depends on which part of the country..

you live in and how old you are. I certainly believe that there are those who live in small towns with small minds who are undoubtedly 90% racists. Fortunately my life experience, having lived in a variety of places leads me to conclude that the American people are not nearly as racist as those you know.

[roseBudd]

54. depends 50 Cent racism or hates Tiger Wood & Michael Jordan racists?

Hates Colin Powell racism?

[Life Long Dem]

7. I'll also turn red!

[ensho]

12. and do what re: the election?

nt

[Upton]

9. Ore. in danger of going red should Clinton be the nominee

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/oregon/oregon_2008_presidential_election

[ensho]

14. how did you come to that conclusion?

nt

[Upton]

47. This poll

Check out the link: Clinton trailing McCain by 6%, Obama leading McCain by 6%

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/oregon/oregon_2008_presidential_election

[elocs]

11. No Hillary supporter will ever, ever believe that you actually voted for her.

They will readily believe that an Obama supporter would switch sides, but I have not really read about that lately. Yes, things are going so well for them, what with their candidate being in second place with very little hope of ever surpassing Obama, pinning their hopes on the superdelegates while each week a prominent sd declares for Obama. Then whatever gain they realized from Ohio/Texas has since evaporated. You must admit, they are eternal optimists, although with a tenuous grasp of reality.

Say, didn't Massachusetts once have a Republican governor named "Romney"? Who exactly voted for him and how could such a thing ever happen in a blue state? So there is absolutely no chance that McCain would ever win that state?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

36. The Bay State Has A History Of Electing Republican Governors

But they haven't elected a Democratic senator in over thirty years, have only went Republican at the presidential level twice in the past forty eight years*, and their congressional delegation is all Democratic...

[mikekohr]

15. I Live In a Republican County in Downstate Illinois

Senator Obama is generating surprizing cross-over appeal here by many life long Republican, many who are disgusted by the last 7 years. I have heard over and over again from this crowd that they are going to vote Democrat for the first times in their lives to support Senator Obama, but the statement of support for Obama invaribly ends with,"...but if Clinton is your nominee...." and then a stream of bile and invective.

Obama inspires and energizes America. Hillary unites and energizes Republicans. Fairly or unfairly that is what I am seeing and hearing. I suspect this is consistant across much of rural America.

mike kohr

[Warren Stupidity]

16. Thank you for your concern.

Clinton isn't going to steal shit.

[proud2BlibKansan]

17. Kansas went overwhelmingly for Obama

Twice as many voters participated in the Democratic caucuses as the Republican ones. Obama won 3 to 1 over Hillary. In a red state.

[one800progress]

18. Well, I didn't vote for Hillary, but now I think she's more likely to win

Like it or not, the next President will be selected by vote of
the Electoral College, and the Party’s super-delegate
mechanism is partly an attempt to bias nominee selection to
reflect this reality.  “Blue state” / “red state” nomenclature
captures the fact that over three-quarters of the states
(including DC, of course) reliably vote one party or the other
except in unusual circumstances, leaving fewer than a quarter
in play.  Different handicappers may differ and the pattern
will change over time, but the Rasmussen organization, for
example, as of March 28 identifies just 12 states in marginal
– the famous “purple” – categories of “leans Democrat,” “leans
Republican,” or “toss-up” (their website describes variables
used in the methodology).  Now, assuming Hillary wins
Pennsylvania, she will have been the Democrats’ choice in 60%
of these “purple” contests; and these account for 66% of the
Electoral College votes potentially in-play.  That should give
the super-delegates pause before simply endorsing the popular
vote when deciding who to make the Party nominee.

In Rasmussen’s “toss-up” states – Ohio, Michigan, Nevada and
Colorado – Hillary’s advantage is sharper.  There, she’s
already won 3 out of the 4 contests, accounting for 82% of the
Electoral College votes in-play.  Was Ohio, at least,
“Operation Chaos-ed” by Limbaugh and company?  Maybe, but will
the super-delegates care to bet “the good of the Party” on
that?

Naturally someone will ask, “OK, but what about all those
primaries that Barack actually won? – weren’t there a lot of
them?”  The answer is, yes, indeed; Barack won 3 out of 4 of
those contests in states that the Rasmussen characterizes
“safely Democratic,” “likely Democratic,” “safely Republican,”
or “likely Republican.”  But so what?  The Electoral College
outcome from those states is likely or very likely going to be
the same, regardless of either party’s nominee.  (Those who
still insist that Barack’s 72% sweep of those contests must
signify something, might find themselves uncomfortably
reminded by Hillary’s partisans that that the “sweep” amounts
to a bare majority of just 55% of the possible Electoral
College votes from those states, so Hillary’s 45% also counts
for something, the contest between candidates is actually much
closer, etc.  But both positions imagine significance where
none exists, because in these states it unlikely to matter
whether Barack or Hillary is the party’s eventual nominee.)

That Michigan is a “toss-up” state and Florida a “leans
Republican” – both potentially in-play – incidentally
underscores the importance of resolving the disposition of
those states’ Party delegates.

Hillary’s got an argument to make.  

[DemocratSinceBirth]

23. People Are Free To Support Any Candidate They Want But They Are Not Free To Create Their Own Facts

Actually, Barack Obama and not Hillary Clinton puts Massachusetts in play. ergo:


http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportEmail.aspx?g=692c0281-9ce4-4c71-8e4f-b970d4ea8193


And , respectfully, the "everybody I know" argument would get you laughed out of your introductory political science course at your generic community college...

[AX10]

26. True.

HRC crushes McCain in MA. Obama is tied.
This is just more left wing propaganda to bash HRC with.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

37. It's Not A Left Or Right Wing Thing

I don't like when folks make stuff up.

[alphafemale]

30. From a site "John McCain for President?" and a survey of just 510?

Please.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

33. The Site Is Survey USA- They Sold The Banner

Ever own a website... That's how websites make money; by selling advertisements...


Here's Survey USA's track record:





alphademocrat

[DemocratSinceBirth]

29. Were Bay Staters As Mad At Ted Kennedy

Were Bay Staters as mad at Ted Kennedy who took his primary fight to the Convention Floor despite trailing by ONE THOUSAND delegates to a sitting president of his own party?


"Carter’s approval ratings jumped in the 60-percent range in some polls, due to a "rally ‘round the flag" effect<6> and an appreciation of Carter's calm handling of the crisis. Kennedy was suddenly left far behind. Carter beat Kennedy decisively in Iowa and New Hampshire. Carter decisively defeated Kennedy everywhere except Massachusetts, until impatience began to build with the President’s strategy on Iran. When the later primaries in New York, Pennsylvania, and Connecticut came around, it was Kennedy who won largely due to such impatience.

Carter was still able to maintain a substantial lead even after Kennedy swept the last batch of primaries in June. Despite this, Kennedy refused to drop out, and the 1980 Democratic National Convention was one of the nastiest on record. On the penultimate day, Kennedy conceded the nomination and called for a more liberal party platform in what many saw as the best speech of his career. On the platform on the final day, Kennedy for the most part ignored Carter.

The delegate tally at the convention was in part:

Jimmy Carter – 2,129.02
Ted Kennedy – 1,150.48
14 others – 66.5 "


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1980

[DemVet]

35. There is no such thing as "stealing the nomination."

There isn't.

Hillary doesn't have to win, she just needs to prevent Obama from winning before the convention.

Barack Obama won't get the required number of pledged delegates (2025) to win the nomination without the superdelegates, just as Hillary will.

He will then need to win WITH superdelegates, just as Hillary will.

Sorry, but if she wins this way, it's fair and square according to Democratic Party rules.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

41. It's Highly Unlikely She Will Win The Nomination

But arguments like "she can't win because nobody I know likes her" are pathetically stupid as are arguments that she will go down to a McGovern or Mondale size defeat...

[DemVet]

42. At this point,

it may be unlikely, but it is still POSSIBLE. That is something alot of Obama supporters need to realize.

Besides, I would count out the Clinton Political Machine just yet.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

43. I Want HRC...I'm A Stone Cold Realist Or Try To Be One

In order to wrest the nomination from Obama she needs to win PN,IN,KY, WV, and PR by substantial margins... Then she has to find a way to make FL and MI count or have do-overs where she wins by substantial margins which now seem unlikely...It's a long shot...

[still_one]

39. As an Obama supporter she should do what she wants to do

I think she also owes it to her supporters to stay in

However, I would appreciate it if her campaign would focus more of their attacks on mccain instead of elevating him as some kind of moderate, which he isn't

One look at his voting record should leave no doubt about that

[Cha]

56. Riiiiight, she owes it to her supporters to spend all her

money on attack ads and lying to the Americans..milk that money, hilary.

[still_one]

62. That tactic sure hasn't brought her dividends, and because of that

approach she most likely will lose the nomination

However, unless things run their natural course, and unless she freely decides that is the best thing to do, that is, drop out, her supporters will feel short changed, and that won't help anyone

[democrattotheend]

44. Don't polls show the opposite?

I've been surprised by a few polls showing Massachusetts close if Obama is the nominee. What's up with that? Clinton seems to lead handily in polls there against McCain. I'm glad to hear you say a lot of people regret voting for Hillary, but I'm actually a little concerned about why Obama is not polling well there. In the last poll, both Democrats were leading by less than what Gore won it by in 2000 (I'm not comparing it to 2004 for obvious reasons), but Obama's numbers were particularly troubling. Any idea why?

[depakid]

50. The ones I've seen do

and like you, I have no idea why.

[PM7nj]

59. Polls had Obama and McCain close in MA and NJ

I find it very very hard to believe that McCain will win in NJ or MA, two of the bluest states in the country. I think once we have a nominee and get into general election mode both MA and NJ will be sure to stay blue. That one SUSA poll may just have been a fluke.

[democrattotheend]

64. NJ has always been somewhat competitive

It went Republican in 6 presidential elections before 1992, and the media always treats it as competitive and Republicans always scare Dems into spending money there, but then they end up winning pretty comfortably. There was a time in 2004 when we were worried that Kerry would lose New Jersey...that's when I decided to vote for him instead of casting a write-in vote for Dean.

[mudesi]

45. It's what Hillary WANTS

Don't you all see it yet?

Hillary Clinton is not stupid. She knows she can't win. McCain must be the next president for her to run again in 2012.

[Seabiscuit]

48. Oh, FUCK OFF!!!

Welcome to my Ignore List.

[RestoreGore]

49. You don't believe in letting people vote?

Asking any candidate to drop out in the middle of a DEMOCRATIC process is undemocratic and selfish.

God how this forum has turned into such a joke.

[aquarius dawning]

52. fuck your town.

[GoneOffShore]

58. Nasty, nasty

You're a low post troll
Remember

[aquarius dawning]

61. and yours too.

[Beacool]

60. Massachusetts? The state where she ran over Obama

despite Kerry, Kennedy and the governor's support?????????????

Dream on!!!!!!!

You want a poll? How about people in MY state of NJ stating that if it's an Obama - McCain match-up it's a toss up who would win. While if it's a Hillary - McCain match-up she would win by 50% over 39%. Also, 25% of her supporters would rather vote for McCain plus others who would either stay home or vote for Nader.

Take them potaoes........

:eyes: