Do Hillary fans really want her to win like this?

[galaxy21]

The fact is, Hillary cannot take the nomination from Obama without looking like the bad guy.


By the convention Obama may or may not be electable, but Hillary cannot get the nomination without rendering herself unelectable i.e young people and other Obama supports will sit home in protest.And, if she's does, she's probably be remembered in Nixonian standards by history. By several accounts, she's done herself serious damage already and her senate seat may be in jeopardy.


I think, Obama's race probably will help him: If he were white, taking the nomination and giving it to Hillary would look bad anyway. But denying it from the first black man...everyone has to understand how appalling that would look? And it would do serious damage to the democrats, not just in this election but in years to come.


The fact is there is no plausable scenario Hillary can get the nomination without looking like the villain, unless Obama gets either a) caught with a hooker or b) something bad happens to him health wise and he can't run.


Most of young voters, blacks, and other die hard supporters will not 'fall in line' come Novemeber, if Hillary steals it, they'll be too appalled with the democratic party. So, how is she supposed to win?

[bigtree]

1. do you folks think at all about the little less than half of the voters between these two

. . . who've cast their vote for Hillary Clinton?

Blacks, whites, young, old, male, female . . . all voted for Hillary Clinton. Where do you get off complaining that YOU"LL be the only ones disenfranchised by the advancement of your opponent in this contest? Why should we 'fall in line'?

And the 'stealing' crap is clearly delusional. If the SDs pick Obama he's the nominee. If they pick Clinton, she's the victor. That's the future. That's the process.

[galaxy21]

2. If Obama walks in with more delegates, and more of the popular vote

then yes, giving it to Hillary is stealing.


Actually, I do feel at this point Hillary might have been the smarter choice after all. However, the fact is, she cannot win the nomination now without making herself unelectable.

[bigtree]

7. who's stealing? the delegates who are free to choose who they want?

was it stealing in the past when SDs gave the nom to Humphrey?

[otohara]

Our Own Supreme Court

so to speak?

[galaxy21]

14. Yes, but overturning the will of the people looks bad

[2rth2pwr]

42. Where were you when Obama was silencing the voices of the people in FL and MI?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

20. There were no SDs in 1968, so obviously they couldn't have voted for Humphrey.

Humphrey didn't participate in any of the primaries, but he still controlled enough delegates to win the nomination through the old party boss system then in place. You could argue that Humphrey did steal the nomination because he didn't win it by means of the primary system, that is, by people voting for him.

The parallels between then and now are there, though. Humphrey (like Hillary) was the "establishment" candidate, and he got himself nominated by back-room politics. If Hillary strong-arms the SDs to vote for her despite the clear will of the majority of the people who voted for Obama in primaries and caucuses, wouldn't that be stealing, too?

The 1968 convention didn't go too well, as I recall.

[Pawel K]

34. Humphrey? What a silly comparission

He won the nomination because of totally unforeseeable circumstances/ And as someone already point out to you there were no SDs back then.

[Usrename]

36. If Hillary were winning, would it be OK to give the nod to Obama?

I mean, if she had outperformed him throughout this whole contest, and if she had built up an insurmountable lead among the pledged delegates, do you think it would be wise, or fair, to nominate Obama instead?

[guyanakoolaid]

45. And of course Rev. Wright's worst words should be given heavy consideration, too. Right?

:eyes:

There is no possible way superdelegates overturn elected delegates. It would permanently split the party in two. Which although I don't think is such a bad idea, but there's no way Dean and party leaders would let that happen, and Clinton supporters don't look evil suggesting it, just foolish.

[BlackVelvet04]

40. No, it's not stealing....

it's the rules and how the process is set up.

[RiverStone]

19. The pledged delegates have already given Obama the victory

Whereas that is the big difference bigtree.

Your candidate can only win if the SD's go against them.

My candidate can only win if the SD's go with them.

That nuance is HUGE to many of us, and is minimized by others.

Call it a process if you want, but if she wins by a coup - many Dems will call it a theft. It matters not if it is legal, perception would = Hillary stole the nomination.

[bigtree]

21. If she gets more of the popular vote in the end

. . . that would reflect the will of the voters more than the allocation of delegates.

[RiverStone]

29. Agreed - that would make it a more rational decision

And may I assume if Obama has both the pledged delegate lead and the popular vote (after all the primaries) - you would see it as a more rational decision (or at least most fair) to go with Obama?

[bigtree]

46. yes, I would

and, I'm certain the SDs would see it that way too

[BlackVelvet04]

41. he doesn't have the 2025 pledged delegates

and can't get them....get over it.

[roguevalley]

35. I would have voted for Edwards if he had lasted but he didn't.

He got out. If she wasn't a Clinton, she would be out. Period.

[melody]

3. Apparently, they want her to win at any costs

Shock and Awe on a national scale.

[AllentownJake]

4. It isn't going to happen

So why are we worrying. Seriously at the end of this if the current polls (I hate polls! even taking into account 35% wins in KY and WV) It will essentially be Obama by 120 delegates. He needs 35% she'll need 66% of the remaining supers.

[bunnies]

5. The Hillary fans I know dont really care how she wins.

They all think shes entitled.

[newmajority]

6. It's not about winning.

Hillary and the DLC know she has no legitimate path to the nomination, and absolutely no chance in Hell of beating McLoon in the general, especially if she alienates millions of Democrats.

But she doesn't care. Because the purpose of the DLC from day one has been to undermine the Democratic party and destroy it from within. And she's doing a far better job of that right now than she could do even if she did manage to get in office, and then bomb Iran and/or whatever else her string-pullers commanded her to do.

If this election is stolen, either in the primary, or in November, there will be Hell to pay.

The only good news in all of this, is that enough of the superdelegates will be concerned about their own political futures (if nothing else) and will prevent Hillary from stealing the nomination.

Whether she pulls a Zell/Lieberman and openly supports McLoony at that point, is another question entirely. Some would argue, justifiably, that she has already done so.

[melody]

15. exactly -- as we see by the polls her ONLY aim is to undermine and damage Obama in the GE

She's trying to get McCain elected. She knows she won't win.

[HooptieWagon]

27. Ding, ding, ding!!! To Hilliary and the DLC

the enemy is not the republicans, but rather the populists and progressives within the Democratic Party. If the P/P manage to take back the Party, then destroying the Party is more important to HRC/DLC than defeating the repukes.

[BzaDem]

8. or c) Obama loses the popular vote

[galaxy21]

10. even then she still looks bad

Not AS bad....but a lot of people will be insisting the rules are the rules and they should stick with them. Pelosi said that.

[BzaDem]

16. But the rules allow superdelegates to pay attention to the popular vote.

I think if she lost the popular vote, then it would look bad (even though she should still get the nomination through the rules), but if she won the popular vote, the media would be making it look like we would be saving the principles of democracy like we couldn't for Gore.

[otohara]

18. There Aren't Enough People

in Puerto Rico to do that.

[BlooInBloo]

9. We're undergoing party realignment - please tune in in about a month.

[dailykoff]

11. As you can see from their answers, yes.

A thousand times yes! Whatever it takes! Obama doesn't understand our values! :cry:

[mcctatas]

12. You know...

I support Obama, and it would really piss me off if she wins after what (in my opinion) has been one of the nastiest, most poorly run campaigns in years. That being said, I just want it to be over, I'm sick of being pissed off at other DU'ers (and having them pissed at me), I miss the good old days when we were all pissed at the republicans!

[Nedsdag]

13. Of course they do.

They're sycophants, dontcha know?

[Hieronymus]

17. Robert Reich said, "My conscience won't let me be silent any longer"....

He can't abide the Republican tactics being used by Hillary.

[BlueIdaho]

22. HRC is blinded by her ambition

Her followers know only blind obedience to her tired old politics.

But then again maybe its the yellow pantsuits they are awful bright!

[greguganus]

24. LOL. Something in the way she moves...n/t

[ScarletSniper]

23. I agree with you..and if the SDs do, count out this black voter and many others I know...

[greguganus]

25. ...and count out this white voter and many others I know. n/t

[ScarletSniper]

31. Amen.

[FrenchieCat]

26. Here's another one....and I personally know hundreds more......

Like everyone in my 5,000 congression at church. Multiply that by who knows how many....and Hillary loses so bad, till it ain't even funny. Possibly even California.

What Many Black folks realize now is that they get pissed on no matter which party is in power. As folks already down on the totum poll, they don't really give a shit anymore to that extent. Ms. Clinton is in for a rude awakening....and no amount of PR spin will change anything. The one thing you can say about Black folks, we don't fall for the Oke-Doke, in the past or in the future. If she thinks that we can be hoodwinked with some bone thrown at us and some empty pandering with promises, she's got another thing coming!

[ScarletSniper]

32. You better believe it. The old games won't work anymore...the oke doke is dead...

[Raine]

28. I really don't think they care...

sadly. :-(

I really wouldn't want Obama to win that way. I care about him and the party too much for that.

[saintandrew]

30. She's made many mistakes

She's run a very bad campaign.

[SoCalDem]

33. At this point, I don't think many of them care HOW she does it.

They seem perfectly willing to see her "win the primaries" ugly, and then lose to McCain..

The side benefit will be for the fired up newcomers to "opt out" of politics for another generation.. They like the DLC-big boss politics..

I don't understand it, but que sera, sera.. time will tell

[Perry Logan]

37. Hillary supporters would probably note that your assumptions are pure bullshit.

[ClassWarrior]

39. And present nothing to back up their spite, as usual.

NGU.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

38. "steals"?!? if Hillary has the popular vote THAT is the WILL OF THE PEOPLE!

[Citizen Kang]

44. she won't win the popular vote

she is too far behind. Just like she is too far behind in pledged delegates.

[rug]

43. "I think, Obama's race probably will help him"

The trouble with joining DU so recently is you missed all the thoughtful Ferraro threads.

[dbmk]

47. Its not stealing.

But it would not be smart either - because it will _seem_ like it to many voters. And the SDs knows this.

A piece of advice;
Keep the rhetoric clean on this. Rules are rules, and if she gets the SDS no rules will be broken.
But she won't.

So there is no need to give the other side an opportunity to paint your statements as misleading, when objective analysis will suffice.