On Snatching Defeat From The Jaws of Victory

[Gman]

Nothing Obama or Hillary does or says now will change anyone's minds about support. I've had about all the faux outrage from Obama people I can stand. Is there nothing that Hillary does or says that Obama people won't scream and faint over? Take for example Hillary's mortal sin of criticizing MoveOn. Oh, they say she will really lose a lot of votes over this because MoveOn is this omnipotent power that controls everything and all 3.2 million members now hate Hillary.

Gimme a break. For anyone at this point to actually make the claim that when Hillary does or says anything that gives Obama folks the vapors she will lose all this support is either 1) completely naive or 2) totally disingenuous. Anyone supporting Hillary right now is a rock hard Hillary supporter. Anyone supporting Obama right now is a rock hard Obama supporter except in the states that have not had primaries yet. And even in those states collectively, the breakdown is gravitating towards the national 50-50 lines. The fact is that this is a complete Democratic Party civil war. The party is now ripped right down the middle. Nothing can change that now, neither side will give an inch.

That being said, the superdelegates should do what they were originally intended to do. That is, they all need to now endorse Hillary and the adults need to take over the party and salvage what we can for November. It will be hard enough now for either candidate to win in November but Hillary is still the best choice for the voting public. Frankly, right now I think it's pretty likely McCain will be the next president regardless of who the Democratic nominee is. However, I think the American people will also likely give the Democrats another 20+ seats in the House and another 5+ seats in the Senate just to balance things out with McCain.

There are so many people that are supporting Obama that are completely clueless as to just what the American people want. Of course, Americans want out of Iraq. Americans want health care. Americans want gasoline to be affordable. But Americans that vote also want a lower capital gains tax. Americans want business investment because Americans want jobs (something foreign to Obama supporters that still live with Mom and Dad). Americans don't want the corporate run government we have now, but they do want a pro-business agenda because they want to work. Americans want a plan for bringing jobs back to the US. In fact, Americans want a pro-business agenda, that encourages investment and creates jobs here. Americans want concrete answers and not some "hope" rhetoric that has now worn out and carries no value. Too many Obama people haven't a clue what Americans really want.

The vast majority of these Americans don't read the blogs every day, they don't read the obscure "news" sources that report faux outrages by Hillary. Only that small percentage of Americans that even care to look, read these things and become caught up in this swirling mass of sentiment that becomes more bitter by the moment, caught up in the centrifugal force of the like minded.

I am reminded of being here at DU in November 2002. We were online, we were doing things and we were saying the right things. We were so absolutely confident that by November of 2002 people would be so absolutely outraged with the Bush "administration" that we would win back Congress and we could start to turn things around. There was no doubt in our minds whatsoever. Then the returns started coming in, we were shocked at what was unfolding before our eyes. We just could not understand how we could have lost. After all, we were here, we were doing and saying what we needed to be. But we were losing. How could that be? It just couldn't be.

The fact is that we were all caught up in our own world here at DU. We were in this microcosm that was disconnected from the real world. We had posted all this stuff why Democrats needed to be elected and no one read it! How could that be?

It's no different now. People are now caught up in the microcosm of this online world and they read their own posts and nod with agreement or flame away on behalf of their candidate.

Democrats are now doing what they do best. That is snatching defeat from the formidable jaws of victory. Good job, all.

[Liberal Gramma]

1. Nice Republican talking points

The best pro-business agenda is an economy which pays a living wage to workers who then can afford to buy. Increasing demand drives up supply. Increasing supply drives down demand. The two have to be balanced for the economy to prosper. Giving tax breaks to high-income people and keeping the minimum wage low are Republican solutions to a poor economy, and they do nothing to increase demand.
Trickle-down economics has been proven in the past 25 years to be ineffective.

[Gman]

2. Middle class working people need a capital gains tax cut

because they have investments too. And, the capital gains tax hits the middle class disproportionately to the rich. There seems to be complete ignorance to this on the part of Obama supporters. THey think the capital gains tax hits the rich. Most likely, middle class working people that own a house and some investments are rich to these Obama supporters, therefore they don't want to give them a break either. These days, total annual income of $50K - $100K is the middle of the middle class (note that this can even be a husband and wife both making $35K a year). But of course, Obama supporters will throw out the national Obama campaign meme of "republican talking points" as if anything that helps the middle class is Republican.

No one disagrees with the rest of your post about a living wage, increasing supply, etc.

[Liberal Gramma]

3. Capital gains tax cut across the board affects middle-class and rich unequally

I'd be for a graduated capital gains tax, one that taxes smaller gains at a lower rate than higher ones. Gains to the middle class from across the board capital gains tax cuts are incidental, the real gains are made by those in the highest income levels.

[bain_sidhe]

26. Um...

[Gman]

30. So you're saying that since

the middle class has a much smaller share of total investments that they should be taxed more on their investments given that the capital gains tax is regressive?

Typical Obamabot position.

BTW, that $1,030 to the lowest 20% is a helluva lot of money to them. But wait... they don't get $1,030. They only get $875.50. I guess you would rather have them only have $741.60. Maybe less?

Thanks for making my point graphically.

[bain_sidhe]

39. I'm saying that reducing taxes on wages

would net 80% of the population much more than reducing taxes on capital gains does.

2% reduction in wage taxes on a $10,000 income made entirely from wages would net that taxpayer $200, compared to the $134, you use in your example. But if you compare apples to apples (using the same reduction for wages as for capital gains), 2% of their 1,030 investment income is about 21 dollars.

If you take the median income for 2007, $49,100, subtract the $3,510 listed as the average investment income for that quintile (arguable, because those are 2004 numbers, but reasonable for illustration), that leaves a wage income of $45,590. Two percent of that is (rounding) $912. Two percent of their 3,510 investment income is $70.

THAT'S what I'm saying. If you feel my graphic makes your point, feel free to distribute it. I don't think you'll get the response you're expecting, though.

[bain_sidhe]

43. Ooops. I made a mistake...

I said that "reducing taxes on wages would net 80% of the population much more than reducing taxes on capital gains does"...but I was misreading my own chart. Actually, reducing taxes on wages would net 99% of the population more than reducing taxes on capital gains. That last bar in the "percent of income from investments" is for just the top 1%. You don't get a net benefit from capital gains tax cuts until your income from investments is more than 50% of your total income.

[Gman]

46. Fair enough

Reducing the tax burden on wages is also an excellent idea and you make the point well as to why it should be done.

My point is that people who are not the 1% rich but are inclined to vote Democrat, especially this year, think about the capital gains tax. They don't pay as much money as the rich do in capital gains tax, but 15% of a profit can be a lot to some folks.

I had three separate conversations this week with people that make $100K per year or more and who have investments and they're getting nervous. That's what got me on the capital gains tax kick this week. They agree with Democrats on a great many issues. But when it comes to them paying more taxes they draw the line. They'd rather send a more Democratic Congress to Washington than Obama to the White House. They're not comfortable with Hillary, but they feel she's a known. And they're getting nervous about what they are hearing from Obama about raising the capital gains tax. I didn't discuss with them lowering taxes on wages but it's a given they would agree.

[TrogL]

61. I don't know anybody who makes $100,000 a year

I certainly don't. Neither do any of my friends or colleagues.

Those people who you are talking to have no interest in the working wage.

[thoughtcrime1984]

41. That's a DEMOCRATIC position, bud

Earned income should be taxed at a lower rate than unearned income. Why in the hell should the rich make all of their money taxed at only 15%??? You are obviously much better to do than most of DU, and might want to consider your party affiliation.

[eridani]

71. How fucking stupid do you have to be to think that people live on either $1030 or $875 a year?

My own investments are irrelevant to my survival. Salary is what most people live on, even the minority of us with a few investments.

[roguevalley]

57. This OP is something. Everyone is dumb, especially the American

people. What a crock of shit this OP post is.

[JoFerret]

69. Forget all that claptrap

This is about destroying the Clintons. And they don't care if they take the party down with it and lose the election.

Its the revenge of the old white men - Daschle, Nunn, Kennedy, Kerry. too cowardly to take on Bush and impeach him they turn on Hillary. School yard bullies.

[lojasmo]

4. Beam before mote, please. EOM

[Armstead]

5. The "adults" should take over and nominate Hillary and rescue us?

Do you really think Hillary has been acting like the "adult" in her campaign?

Well, I guess as a 56 year old Obama supprter I should accept it as a compliment they we are still youthful.

[Gman]

6. As a 54 year old Hillary supporter I say

yes we are! And we need to take control from the kids.

[texastoast]

22. We've done SUCH a good job with the power we've had over the years

And as a 53-year-old Obama supporter (yep, this is my first time to come out on DU), I say hell no to Hillary and the status quo she will bring. Had she not wanted the office so bad that she was willing to act like Karl Rove is her main guiding force in attempting to Swiftboat Obama and behave like a Republican, my mind would still be open, but uh-uh, she showed her true right-wing colors.

It has nothing to do with being "adult" or "grownup"--it has to do with being wise. And she has proven to me that she certainly is not.

[Tesha]

51. Well, this 55 year old grandma says anyone from the DLC can bite me.

I've been sick of the DLC since about 1993 and this year,
I'm acting on that sickness.

Tesha

[blm]

55. The Clinton KIDS protected BushInc throughout the 90s. I'll stand with Kerry and Kennedy

and Obama. You know - the OPEN GOVERNMENT Democrats.

The Closed Government Democrats are the COWARDS who fear BushInc's powerful elite and who will side with them every time as they undermine the Democratic party.

[anonymous171]

7. One Problem: Only Democrats can be given the Democratic Nomination

[ulysses]

8. "But Americans that vote also want a lower capital gains tax." interesting distinction.

"Americans that vote...", whereas it was just "Americans" before. Of course, the poor, having been shown for so long that they don't count in the political process - and who don't give two shits about the capital gains tax - don't vote in representative numbers. Wouldn't it be better to give them a reason to vote?

[Gman]

11. They have the reason right in front of them to

vote for someone that will encourage investment through tax incentives and breaks for the middle class that will create more jobs. They can also vote for the candidate that will drive better education funding with federal dollars for inner city school districts rather than send that money to Iraq or Halliburton or big oil. Better educations for the poor makes them better qualified for the better jobs. The poor don't have to vote for a nebulous "hope" that isn't defined.

[ulysses]

15. I would suspect that, if you are having trouble making ends meet

right now, today, that hearing about encouraging investment through tax incentives isn't going to exactly light a fire under you to get involved for November. "Hope" may be a nebulous concept, but tax cuts for the wealthy don't exactly scream "I know you're about to get kicked out of your apartment and help is on the way".

[Gman]

35. Be clear about one thing

Obama will cost a lot of middle class folks a lot of money to taxes if he raises that capital gains tax. I don't care what he does to the rich. I'm concerned about me, my investments and other folks like me. I am concerned about people that are having to sell their stock, their coin collections, their stamp collections, and any other capital investment they have in order to keep their house or pay for chemotherapy for the Mrs.

[ulysses]

36. ok, I'll be clear:

You pay captial gains tax when you come into a lot of money. If you have to pay a capital gains tax, the likelihood that you'll be selling your stamp collection to pay for fucking chemotherapy is awfully small.

side note: as a cancer survivor, I hope to see the day when we no longer use irrational fear of "the big C" to push conservative ideas, but that's me.

[PatGund]

9. Wow....patronizing much??

"That is, they all need to now endorse Hillary and the adults need to take over the party and salvage what we can for November."

Sorry, this 42 year old adult is sticking with Sen. Obama. The one who's been acting more adult than Sen. Clinton has.

[Gman]

12. If you want to be one of the kids

that's up to you. If you want to join the adults, come over and support Hillary.

[PatGund]

21. I AM an adult....

An adult raising a six year old child. A 42 year old parent who believes in setting a good example for their daughter, and believes rewarding good ethics, good behaviour, and the truth.

Which is why I don't support Sen. Clinton. Her ethics, lies, and kitchen sink campaigning reminds me of a spoiled child who throws a tantrum until they get their way. "If I don't get the nomination I'm going to take my supporters and go home and YOU'LL BE SORRY!!"

You know what turned me off from Sen. Clinton at the start? Her sense of entitlement. The feeling from her that she was entitled to the nomination and presidency, and that the election was a mere formality. That she was anointed and the will of the people was a minor technicality.

And certain of her followers don't help that feeling at all. The comments that it's "her turn" and that Sen. Obama "needs to wait his turn". And the incredible dismissal of the people his campaign has brought into the Democratic Party as "kids" who need to "shut up and sit down" if they're not going to vote for Sen. Clinton.

Congrats on showing that attitude yet again. And people wonder why Sen. Clinton has such high negatives? You do your side no favours with your snarky dismissal of Sen. Obama's supporters as "kids".

If you want to blindly support the person who's undermining herself and the Democratic party by acting like a spoiled child, do so. If you want to help your side - and the Democratic party - by telling Sen. Clinton to run a campaign based on truth and issues, not stupid gotchas and lies about dodging sniper fire, then you would do yourself and your side far more good though.

Meanwhile, I'll go back to being an adult that bases his opinions on facts, issues, and research, not blind faith.

[thoughtcrime1984]

42. Hillary is the biggest spoiled brat I've seen in quite some time.

Take a break from your undying devotion to her, and see what she's been up to.

[jbm]

10. great post, thanks for writing it...n/t

.

[Window]

13. ..

:rofl:

[ruggerson]

14. I agree, but it's not going to happen

Clinton will finish this strongly, but the SD's will not give it to her.

[TML]

16. zzzzzzZZZZZZ

You put me to sleep after the first paragraph.

[azmouse]

17. I was pleased that no HRC people made a big deal over the word bitter.

And then there was 'finger-gate' for a few days....
Oh brother, if this is the way the 'adults' are behaving, no thanks. :eyes:
HRC will never have my vote. Ever.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

18. ...

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[GoldieAZ49]

19. lower taxes increase the revenue generated

a concept that Obama doesn't understand even when presented with the historical facts

Obama's plan would completely wipe out the middle class, not that he cares.

Good post, but those that need to hear it cannot understand.

[eridani]

72. The historical facts say that everyone but the top 1% has been badly fucked over for 30 years

--following just the policies you recommend here.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

76. No shit.

:thumbsup:

The OP could've been written by Grover Nordquist.

[grantcart]

20. The use of the tactic of 'guilt by association' which she fully embraced in the

last debate is the classic strategy used by the most reactionary forces in America to discredit the progressive movement.


There is my friend absolutely no faux outrage on my part about Clinton's resort of the most despicable tactics ever used in American political history. I think that you are seriously underestimating how destructive it is to find people guilty or to impune their patriotism by simply bringing up associations to people.

This is what McCarthyism is. It is un American. It is un democratic and it is against the principles of the Democratic party.

It is a chilling reminder of the past.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5575573

[dana_b]

23. It's NOT just about Moveon!!

She insulted activists and activism. That includes a lot of people on this board who have been putting their heart and souls into this election. Is it wrong to actively campaign for your chosen candidate? That's how her comments came across to me.

[Hugin]

24. And with this Thread, I hang up my hat.... Thanks, Mr. Gman.

You've, in a nutshell, expressed my concerns, sentiments, and experiences exactly.

(Except for the 'lower Capital Gains tax' part, I feel there needs to be a better definition of 'Capital
Gains' Which gains come from 'Investment' and which from 'Speculation' and taxes for those things which are gained from speculation; Hedge Funds, Derivatives, and the like should be taxed out of existence... Bring back the Sin Taxes!)

Thanks again, bub... See you in Jan '09 when I'll begin my rants about the McCain Administration.

[Gman]

29. Me and you both...

but I'll be here for a while longer. I'll ignore GD: P for a while until I just can't take the complete group stupidity and have to say something again.

Right now, unless something drastic changes things, we're looking at President McCain. McCain may well win 40 states and the pundits won't understand why the GOP could carry 40 states for the presidency and still lose 20+ House seats and 5+ Senate seats. And the Obamabots will whine and faint.

[Hugin]

33. Instead of unloading on McCain like a fire hose and making him own Bush...

It's been this constant nattering.

Been here before, so many times.

Of course, I realize that much of this is Media driven, but, they should be unloading on that too.

...

and then, then there's the inevitable Republican Election Shenanigans. Which are starting even now,
there's no way McCain has the backing he's shown to have on say, Faux Noise.

[Willo]

25. You're implying that you know the mind of the entire U.S better than anyone.

This statement alone is astounding:

There are so many people that are supporting Obama that are completely clueless as to just what the American people want

But, maybe you should consider changing your way of thinking in 2008, from the know-it-all mindset you seemed to have in 2002:

I am reminded of being here at DU in November 2002. We were online, we were doing things and we were saying the right things. We were so absolutely confident that by November of 2002 people would be so absolutely outraged with the Bush "administration" that we would win back Congress and we could start to turn things around. There was no doubt in our minds whatsoever. Then the returns started coming in, we were shocked at what was unfolding before our eyes. We just could not understand how we could have lost. After all, we were here, we were doing and saying what we needed to be. But we were losing. How could that be? It just couldn't be.

And start with the basic question: "who are the american people?"

[Gman]

34. I don't expect you to understand. You just joined DU last month

you had to be there.

[TrogL]

27. Can you be any more condescending?

I've had about all the faux outrage from Obama people I can stand. Is there nothing that Hillary does or says that Obama people won't scream and faint over? Take for example Hillary's mortal sin of criticizing MoveOn. Oh, they say she will really lose a lot of votes over this because MoveOn is this omnipotent power that controls everything and all 3.2 million members now hate Hillary.

Nice use of hyperbole. Straw man at its best.

... 1) completely naive or 2) totally disingenuous

More hyperbole and a couple of insults thrown in for good measure.

That being said, the superdelegates should do what they were originally intended to do.

OK....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegate

By contrast, the unpledged PLEO delegates are seated without regard to their presidential preferences, just by virtue of being current or former elected officeholders and party officials. Many of them have chosen to announce endorsements, but they are not bound in any way. They may support any candidate they wish, including one who has dropped out of the presidential race.<3> The unpledged add-on delegates, who need not be PLEOs, are selected by the state parties after some of the pledged delegates are chosen,<1> but they resemble the unpledged PLEO delegates in being free to vote as they wish.

...

State-level unpledged delegates tend to vote for the candidate who received the most votes from their state. But they are not required to do so, and some state parties give them more leeway than others).

That seems fairly clear.


That is, they all need to now endorse Hillary

Errr...that's not what it says up there.


and the adults need to take over the party

You mean the authoritarians like yourself.

...and salvage what we can for November.

More purple prose.

It will be hard enough now for either candidate to win in November

...because???? Oh, but you never actually address that.

but Hillary is still the best choice for the voting public.

...because???? Oh, but you never actually address that.

Frankly, right now I think it's pretty likely McCain will be the next president regardless of who the Democratic nominee is.

...because???? Oh, but you never actually address that.

However, I think the American people will also likely give the Democrats another 20+ seats in the House and another 5+ seats in the Senate just to balance things out with McCain.

I thought we were talking about the Presidential race. Non sequiter.

But Americans that vote also want a lower capital gains tax.

Americans want someone to vote for who actually support their values. If given a choice between fascism and more fascism, they'll stay home. Given the current economic climate most people have long since cashed in their investments to "put food on their family". They no longer care about capital gains tax. They do care about bridges falling down, undriveable streets, the power going off. They would like government money spent at home, not in Iraq.

Americans want business investment because Americans want jobs

Lower capital gains tax does not lead to business investment. It leads to more greenbacks off shore. "Trickle down economics" does not work. It does not trickle down, it trickles away offshore.

(something foreign to Obama supporters that still live with Mom and Dad).

Insult. Great debating tactic.

Americans don't want the corporate run government we have now, but they do want a pro-business agenda because they want to work.

So other than tax cuts to the rich, what are you proposing?

Americans want a plan for bringing jobs back to the US.

They're gone. Get over it. The only way of bringing them back is isolationism, which didn't work last time and won't work now.

In fact, Americans want a pro-business agenda, that encourages investment and creates jobs here.

You're repeating yourself. Say something new.

[Hugin]

28. ...

Nice vivisection there, TrogL.

I guess I can't leave quite yet, eh?

[Gman]

32. If you need smelling salts we can have some sent over

BTW, that Wikipedia definition of Superdelegate leaves a whole lot to be desired. It sounds like it was written by an Obamabot. Then, there's those of us that know and remember why superdelegates were created in the first place and this year is a perfect example why.

[stillcool]

31. I'm liking the microcosm of PA

[Awsi Dooger]

37. 2002 is not a valid comparison

I was new here and remember that night on DU, definitely the most stunning day in DU history. A midterm historically favors the out party. In 2004 any sensible analysis was a tight race with an edge to the incumbent, but one that could be reversed if his favorable number was low on election day, and undecideds rejected him by huge margin. Unfortunately, Bush was inching closer to 50/50 and Kerry not charismatic enough to win on his own, minus very low approval numbers for Bush.

But there were signs late in '02. I remember a banner headline in the USA Today on Monday, the day before the election, emphasizing a sharp late turn toward the GOP. We tried to dismiss it, but the roots were valid. Democratic internals revealed the same thing, we were later told. 9/11 had spurned national security fear and the slime campaign worked. Plus, the major senate battles were primarily in red states, like Georgia and North Carolina and Missouri. Also New Hampshire, which was red at that point. The one disastrous break was Wellstone's death in Minnesota. No way Coleman prevails against Wellstone.

I was focusing more on gov than senate, which is my tendency. Even there, we expected +8 to +10 and ended up with a net of +4, winning the early high profile races like Rendell and Granholm and Blago, but dropping the swing contests.

My belief is Democrats were still stunned and bitter regarding 2000. Instead of spawning energy it led to resignation and distrust, at least on the fringes.

In '08 nothing tilts toward the GOP, no underlying rescue boat after 8 years of failure and disgust. I completely agree we're caught up in our own world and reality often is elsewhere. But in this case it's a polarized electorate shaped by situational advantage that narrowly favors our side in an open race, and Obama is rightfully favored to win a squeaker over McCain.

[Gman]

44. Good analysis. Good points. But here's the thing

we are now starting to miss a lot of what the electorate is seeing and thinking while we are caught up in a "he thinks people are bitter" and "she's a republican and a fucking whore" (to quote Randi Rhodes) mindset. VOting middle class folks do look at the capital gains tax. Hell, they are starting to look at the alternative minimum tax too. People are starting to believe everything that is being said about Hillary and about Obama. And these people don't post on DU or Daily Kos or anywhere else. But if people know you are active, if people know you're have been an outspoken Democrat in the past like myself, people you have known, and whose opinions you have respected for a long time will point out to you when they see you that they don't like what they are hearing about Hillary and about Obama and that McCain is looking better and better to them all the time. IT's times like these that will make people elect more Democrats to Congress and elect a Republican president.

WHile the events of 02 and now are worlds different, my point is not to compare the mood of the electorate but to point out that people get lost in this little microcosm called the Internet. That's what happened to us in 02 despite the warning signs that we refused to believe. That's what's happening now despite the warning signs we continue to disbelieve. If we were taking heed, there would be no need to be able to block GD: P from the Latest page.

[thoughtcrime1984]

38. You can't be taken seriously

The SD's NEED to give Hillary the nomination? C'mon now. I know she'll give you lower Capital Gains Tax, but she is losing to Obama for a reason. People believe he is more likely to deliver on promises to truly help the masses than she is. It's that simple. So good job to you, for missing the big picture, when you are so certain that you are the only one who can see it.

[cooolandrew]

40. *scream* *faint* ow I hurt my hed.

[Gman]

47. That's what I'm talking about!

:-)

[BattyDem]

45. Hmmmm...

"There are so many people that are supporting Obama that are completely clueless as to just what the American people want."

So ... the American people who have given Obama the lead in the popular vote, the pledged delegate count and the number of states won are completely clueless to what the American people want? :shrug: :eyes:

[Gman]

49. I knew someone would bring that up

I had an Obama national campaign asshat tell me those three things last month. That is nothing but BS that compares apples to oranges to pears.

1) Popular vote? From the Huffington Post:
Late Update: There are some discrepancies between the figures for the popular vote between different news sites, and would alter my calculations substantially depending on who you believe. For example, in Kansas, CNN claims that 36,887 STATE DELEGATES represented the Kansas voters, whereas Real Clear Politics claims that 36,887 VOTERS represent the total. In contrast, CNN claims 406 STATE DELEGATES represented Alaska, whereas Real Clear Politics claims that 8,868 VOTERS represent the total. This, of course, is the reason to pursue the truth in these matters, and if Real Clear Politics says that only 36,887 'actual voters' came out to vote in Kansas, as opposed to, say, the 302,612 voters who came out to vote in Arkansas, which has virtually the same population, then I stand corrected. But it shouldn't stop the DNC from making a clear attempt to make sure these turnout numbers are correct.

Many DNC insiders fear that if Hillary Clinton manages to lose the pledged delegates, she may still take the lead in the popular vote, thereby causing the superdelegates to make a hard decision as to which candidate they should choose come August. Their fears are rooted in the notion that Clinton is only behind by roughly 800,000 votes, and that she could feasibly catch up with a big win in Pennsylvania.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/shawn-christensen/dont-be-fooled-obama-is-a_b_96118.html

2) Pledged Delegates?? What? 150 delegates makes a mandate?

3) Number of states??? Ha! That reminds me of the RW'ers that claim Bush had an overwhelming mandate because he won more counties in the country. Check this out:



That's a helluva lot of red. If this was the measurement, 100,000 votes in Ohio didn't amount to a hill of beans. To argue that Obama won more states and therefore should be the nominee is as laughable as that map.

[thoughtcrime1984]

50. Hillary's argument for being the nom is what now?

That she's behind? That she's older? That she's Bill's wife? Huh?

[BattyDem]

52. But the people who voted for him are Americans ...

and you said his supporters don't know what the American people want. That doesn't make sense. It's bad enough that HRC thinks the states she lost (and their voters) are irrelevant. Now you're taking that point even further: they're not American people ... or did you mean they're not "real" Americans or the "right kind" of Americans? HRC supporters believe any person who doesn't vote for her is too stupid to know what they want or need, so the Super-Delegates need to save them from themselves! :eyes:


About the discrepancies ...
What a surprise: an HRC supporter coming up with yet another way the system is supposedly rigged against her. Well, like it or not, THIS is the system the Democratic party uses to choose a candidate. Caucuses, primaries and proportional delegates. No one ever had a problem with this until Hillary Clinton. Never mind the party rules, this is Primary 2008 and suddenly...

* Caucuses are unfair because not enough people are represented.

* The delegate system is unfair and we should use the popular vote or the electoral vote to decide the nominee.

* Late primaries are unfair because voters will be "disenfranchised" if a candidate drops out before every state gets to vote. (Funny how that's never been in issue before this election. No one gave a shit if the late states had a say in choosing the nominee or not.)

However, having Super-Delegates undermine the will of the people is just fine ... even though that would mean the entire primary process was not only a complete waste of time and money, but a total sham!

By the way, Republican voters crossed-over in many states and voted for Hillary Clinton at the suggestion of Rush Limbaugh. I seriously doubt that those people will be voting for her in the GE. Why isn't that fact included in your "discrepancy" report.

Yes, I know Republicans voted for Obama, too - but much of the support for him appears to be genuine.

http://www.republicansforobama.org
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/01/AR2008020102663.html
http://www.newsweek.com/id/107476
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article1752381.ece


Google "Republicans for Clinton" - good luck finding genuine support. The first three pages of links (I didn't bother looking any further) talk about how much the Republicans WANT to run against HRC.

[Gman]

53. You say the system is what it is but

still fear and loathe the superdelegates who hold the key to this primary and are as much a part of this system as a caucus or a voting booth.

[BattyDem]

62. You're right. The Super-Delegates are part of the system,

but should they be the part that puts the leader over the top or should they be the part that turns the race upside down so the loser will come out on top? They have the right to do it either way, but if they turn the race upside down, they will be robbing victory from the man who may very well be the first black president of the US. I honestly don't think the party will survive a stunt like that. It will split and there won't be another Dem in the WH for a long time.

[Gman]

75. "won't be another Dem in the WH for a long time"

typical Obama I-won't-vote-for-a-Democrat-if-it-ain't-Obama response

[girl gone mad]

54. Interesting.

You're the first "Democrat" I've ever encountered who shares the Republican belief that blades of grass should count more than people.

[girl gone mad]

48. I couldn't agree less.

Most of the folks that I spoke with here knew that defeating push was going to be an uphill battle. We knew the media was against us. We knew Bush and Rove were going to use every dirty trick they could. We spoke to regular people on a regular basis and were aware of how unaware most of them were.

I thought Kerry was the worst choice we had in the Primary because of his war vote, his waffling, his tendency to create bad photo ops, his privileged background and Theresa, who repelled many. I was actually surprised by how close he came (and maybe he even won).

Yes, many die hard Kerry supporters didn't want to own up to his flaws, but they were covered extensively around here. Kerry also had many strengths, which is why he did as well as he did against a wartime president, popular with the media and regular Joes.

I think Obama is the best candidate we've had in decades. Better than Bill Clinton, who probably would have lost were it not for Perot. Definitely better than Hillary, who is almost universally loathed by my family, neighbors and co-workers.

[Sparkly]

56. I think that's largely true.

Which is why it's important to motivate people to get out, beyond DU, and affect others to vote against McCain. (= voting for our Democratic candidate.)

Meanwhile, if/when we have a winner (and some say we do), it's important to persuade others to unite -- and attacking them generally doesn't work toward that end.

I think DU can be a great forum for activism as well as debate -- for motivation, strategies, organization, etc. I really hope it can serve that purpose. That's going to require some honey, and much less vinegar.

[Left coast liberal]

58. got hope?

[washingdem]

59. Obama is special and he will win this thing.

It's gonna be a thrill to watch Bush turn over the reins to Obama.

[izquierdista]

60. Out of Iraq and health care

Well, there's two strikes against Hillary right there.

How much longer do we have to watch her hit fouls until she's out??

[oasis]

63. Kick and recommend for the weekend crowd.

[boppers]

64. Patronize much?

Oh, and this is rich:
"Americans that vote also want a lower capital gains tax"... yeah right, aside from most americans never having to pay for it, or knowing what it is.

[2rth2pwr]

65. Peoples minds are changing

[whatchamacallit]

66. Total fucking nonsense.

:crazy:

[Stinky The Clown]

67. Not so fast with those superdelegates, Hoss

If they really want to do their jobs, give the nod to someone other than the two candidates we have now.

Maybe Gore.

Yeah .... I know ..... wishful thinking.

Hey .... its all I got. Your candidate gives me hives.

[JoFerret]

68. Bloody tragedy is what it is

Obama narcissistic willingness to go along with the complete erasing and destruction of the Clintons disgusts me.

The Obama campaign is putting his personality before the party and the country. We are on a crazy train ride about to veer off the tracks.

[AngryOldDem]

70. Thanks for calling me clueless.

Hill -- one of your campaign shills is missing.

[foo_bar]

73. "the adults" sounded familiar

It continues to look as if the adults are in charge, and Mr. Bush is looking like a young man who's up to it and maybe more than up to it.

- Peggy Freakin Noonan, http://opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=85000738

[NashVegas]

74. Mr. Charles Gibson - About That Capital Gains Tax

People who are sweating the capital gains tax are people who are looking for short term rewards. With all due respect, they aren't people whom I would want to give that much influence to our government.

The appeasement of that demo is hurting America, regardless of which candidate you're talking about.

[eridani]

77. More on the Gibson bullshit--

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5599399&mesg_id=5599399