U.S. Presidential Election 2008

[Troy McClure]

Originally Posted by cured

New youtube making the rounds...



(McCain the flip-flopper!)

There is also this one that move.org is sponsoring:
http://www.bush-mccainchallenge.com/?rc=homepage

Senator Clinton's speech seemed odd. I respect her decision to say what she said tonight, but she is fooling herself and her supporters.

-Jason

[cured]

I've heard (and I agree) that she doesn't want to be the VP because she wants Obama to lose in November and to run again in 2012. Her speech tonight would indicate that.

[Troy McClure]

Originally Posted by cured

I've heard (and I agree) that she doesn't want to be the VP because she wants Obama to lose in November and to run again in 2012. Her speech tonight would indicate that.

Some people are of the opinion that the Clintons did this same game to Al Gore and John Kerry.

For giggles, I been reading the blog comments on Senator Clinton's website tonight. Yikes.

Jason

[Sean]

Originally Posted by gambit

From Montana to the world, I have one thing to say:

You're welcome.

Obama is presumptive nominee.

Yes, thank you.

I'm still amazed that Hillary continued her claim that she's more electable and has more popular votes, even after Obama clinched the nomination. I mean, I can believe she said it, but I just find it to be stunning that she's willing to try to hobble the Democratic party for her own personal satisfaction. It's like watching the biggest, slowest car wreck in history happen right before our eyes.

Honestly, I have no doubt that Obama can beat McCain - Hillary's the one I'm scared of. Will she help, or hinder?

[BeautifulBurnout]

Originally Posted by Sean

Yes, thank you.

I'm still amazed that Hillary continued her claim that she's more electable and has more popular votes

Such BS - you either have a first-past-the-post system or you have proportional representation. You can't change the rules half way through the game, which is the way she seems to want to play it.

I think I can remember one year when the Lib Dems actually had more votes nationally than Labour in the general election but still came in a sorry 3rd on the first-past-the-post basis. It sucks, perhaps, but those are the rules we play by. And now she should gracefully retire from the scene.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by BeautifulBurnout

Such BS - you either have a first-past-the-post system or you have proportional representation. You can't change the rules half way through the game, which is the way she seems to want to play it.

I think I can remember one year when the Lib Dems actually had more votes nationally than Labour in the general election but still came in a sorry 3rd on the first-past-the-post basis. It sucks, perhaps, but those are the rules we play by. And now she should gracefully retire from the scene.

As most everyone knows, the Democratic party's nomination process is a delegate-based one. But what doesn't get discussed much when Hillary makes her popular vote argument is just HOW delegate based it is.

First, every state has different voting methods. Some have closed primaries where only Democrats can vote for Democrats. Some have open primaries, where people registered to any party can vote for Democrats. And then others have caucuses, in which smaller groups get together and have old-timey debates and discussions about the candidates and then vote. Even if we only consider these factors, we can see that the popular vote is an unreliable measure of support. In many states, you had Republicans, encouraged by people like Rush Limbaugh, voting for Hillary in an effort to extend the race. And clearly, caucuses don't give a good idea of what the popular vote numbers would be...they don't even report exact numbers of how many people voted in them.

But even beyond that, the delegates awarded from county to county are based not on sheer numbers of people, but on Democratic loyalty. Say you had two counties, each with a population of 100 people. The first county is made up of 10 registered Democrats, and 90 registered Republicans, and consistently votes Republican in elections. The second county is the exact opposite, with 10 registered Republicans and 90 registered Democrats, and consistently votes Democratic. The second county that consistently votes Democratic would have more delegates alloted to them than the first, effectively giving their votes more weight.

So it's not only a delegate-based system - it's actually structured in a way that makes it impossible to keep track of what the actual popular vote totals are. That's why, on CNN at least, they present multiple scenarios when discussing the popular vote. "If you count caucus estimates...", "if you count Michigan...", "if you blah blah blah...."

And of course, when it comes to Hillary's claim that she has the popular vote, she's happy to count all the Republican votes cast purely in an effort to hurt the Democratic party, but discards the caucus votes despite the fact that caucuses are typically run by the most passionate Democrats in the country. And more importantly, at it's foundation, her argument is basically along the lines of saying that if this were a soccer/football game, then she should win based on how long she had possession of the ball, not on goals. And as far as she's concerned, who cares if no one else knew they were playing for possession time and instead racked up more goals?

All she's accomplishing at this point is working her most fervent supporters into a frothy excitement over the prospect of going to Denver and trying to steal the nomination away from Obama. Hardly party unity.

[Sean]

Finally.

Hillary sent out the following message:

Dear Friend,
I wanted you to be one of the first to know: on Saturday, I will hold an event in Washington D.C. to thank everyone who has supported my campaign. Over the course of the last 16 months, I have been privileged and touched to witness the incredible dedication and sacrifice of so many people working for our campaign. Every minute you put into helping us win, every dollar you gave to keep up the fight meant more to me than I can ever possibly tell you.
On Saturday, I will extend my congratulations to Senator Obama and my support for his candidacy. This has been a long and hard-fought campaign, but as I have always said, my differences with Senator Obama are small compared to the differences we have with Senator McCain and the Republicans.
I have said throughout the campaign that I would strongly support Senator Obama if he were the Democratic Party's nominee, and I intend to deliver on that promise.
When I decided to run for president, I knew exactly why I was getting into this race: to work hard every day for the millions of Americans who need a voice in the White House.
I made you -- and everyone who supported me -- a promise: to stand up for our shared values and to never back down. I'm going to keep that promise today, tomorrow, and for the rest of my life.
I will be speaking on Saturday about how together we can rally the party behind Senator Obama. The stakes are too high and the task before us too important to do otherwise.
I know as I continue my lifelong work for a stronger America and a better world, I will turn to you for the support, the strength, and the commitment that you have shown me in the past 16 months. And I will always keep faith with the issues and causes that are important to you.
In the past few days, you have shown that support once again with hundreds of thousands of messages to the campaign, and again, I am touched by your thoughtfulness and kindness.
I can never possibly express my gratitude, so let me say simply, thank you.
Sincerely,

Hillary Rodham Clinton

http://blog.hillaryclinton.com/blog/...8/06/05/144631

[Deckard]

Well, I don't know what everyone else thought, but I'd say that was a good constructive rousing speech from Clinton.

Hopefully it will have convinced many of her most ardent supporters to back Obama.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Deckard

Well, I don't know what everyone else thought, but I'd say that was a good constructive rousing speech from Clinton.

Hopefully it will have convinced many of her most ardent supporters to back Obama.

I think it's a great first step. But judging from some article comment sections, a bunch of her supporters are still claiming they'll vote McCain. Luckily, there are still 5 months until election day though, so if Hillary continues to campaign passionately for Obama, I don't see why he wouldn't win in November. I'm sure some of her supporters will never back Obama, but I think most will.

[BeautifulBurnout]

Originally Posted by Sean

I think it's a great first step. But judging from some article comment sections, a bunch of her supporters are still claiming they'll vote McCain. Luckily, there are still 5 months until election day though, so if Hillary continues to campaign passionately for Obama, I don't see why he wouldn't win in November. I'm sure some of her supporters will never back Obama, but I think most will.

I read the first coupla dozen or so of the comments, then stopped. They read like some teenage band-site comments for the most part. One or two actually seem to give some kind of analysis, albeit skewed in favour of the Hillz version of events, but most of them are just - well - pathetic over-emotional grizzling. "We LURVE you Hillary, and we ain't ever gonna vote no more cos you'se gawn". Ugh. Shudder.