Your not suggesting that the Dems would perform the exact same behavior about which they have spent eight years bitching?
- Spydertrader
Do the math!!
- Thread starter saxon
- Start date
Your not suggesting that the Dems would perform the exact same behavior about which they have spent eight years bitching?
- Spydertrader
That's politics...
It really comes down to who the party thinks will have the best chance of beating McCain when the decision is made at the convention, not who won the most votes over an extended period of time. The general election doesn't happen over months and months...it is one day's opinion on the first Tuesday in November.
The party who ignores what gives their party the best shot of winning the general election in favor of blind fundamentalism and staid convention is the party of Bush, and Paul, and McCain...AKA the regressive Klannish party...
It really comes down to who the party thinks will have the best chance of beating McCain when the decision is made at the convention, not who won the most votes over an extended period of time. The general election doesn't happen over months and months...it is one day's opinion on the first Tuesday in November.
The party who ignores what gives their party the best shot of winning the general election in favor of blind fundamentalism and staid convention is the party of Bush, and Paul, and McCain...AKA the regressive Klannish party...
Quote from Spydertrader:
Your not suggesting that the Dems would perform the exact same behavior about which they have spent eight years bitching?
- Spydertrader
You don't seem to understand that the vast majority of delegates are not mandated to vote for the nominee that sent them to the convention. It is the delegates' votes at the convention that decide the nominee. It is often the case in political conventions that more than two nominees are fighting it out and there are multiple votes of elimination with many delegates switching their allegiances.
If the delegates vote for Hillary, too bad, so sad for Obama. This is a typical delegate/convention process. You may not think it is fair, but it is what it is, and no amount of whining and crying by Obama supporters is going to change it. If the party's top brass attempt to interfere in the process it will certainly split the party in two.
You mean the party that [so far] has disenfranchised an entire voting block (as in Michigan and Florida) by not following their own rules? Or, did you mean the party that currently appears willing to 'sway' the nomination process by placing absolute authority into the hands of a select 'few' at the expense of the majority?
Wow. I'd never thought I'd see you advocate, "the ends justify the means."
- Spydertrader
No, it will not split the party in two. The democratic party is not one, it is a collection of different factions.
Were either Obama or Hillary try an independent run if they were not the nominee?
No way...
What will happen is the pressure for a dual ticket of Hillary and Obama, and if there is one who sacrifices to be VP, that will win the hearts and minds of the majority of democrats, and would be the best chance to defeat McCain.
If Obama is smart, he would opt for VP. Then if McCain wins anyway, it doesn't hurt him going forward, Hillary takes all the blame for the loss. If Hillary/Obama were to win, Obama would have the presidency in front of him. If Obama runs alone without Hillary and is beaten by McCain, he may not ever get another chance.
Obama could easily sell his followers that Hillary is the best choice to beat McCain, and they are stupid enough to buy it. They would embrace Hillary if Obama said so, he is their master.
It is a no lose situation for him in the long run, and really, it is the right thing to do...so it won't happen
Were either Obama or Hillary try an independent run if they were not the nominee?
No way...
What will happen is the pressure for a dual ticket of Hillary and Obama, and if there is one who sacrifices to be VP, that will win the hearts and minds of the majority of democrats, and would be the best chance to defeat McCain.
If Obama is smart, he would opt for VP. Then if McCain wins anyway, it doesn't hurt him going forward, Hillary takes all the blame for the loss. If Hillary/Obama were to win, Obama would have the presidency in front of him. If Obama runs alone without Hillary and is beaten by McCain, he may not ever get another chance.
Obama could easily sell his followers that Hillary is the best choice to beat McCain, and they are stupid enough to buy it. They would embrace Hillary if Obama said so, he is their master.
It is a no lose situation for him in the long run, and really, it is the right thing to do...so it won't happen
If Hillary takes this to the convention any attempt to stop the delegates from voting their conscience will alienate Hillary's supporters. The majority will not support Obama in the general election. Sheesh, 20% are even saying that now, even if he wins fair and square.Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
No, it will not split the party in two. The democratic party is not one, it is a collection of different factions.
Were either Obama or Hillary try an independent run if they were not the nominee?
No way...
What will happen is the pressure for a dual ticket of Hillary and Obama, and if there is one who sacrifices to be VP, that will win the hearts and minds of the majority of democrats, and would be the best chance to defeat McCain.
If Obama is smart, he would opt for VP. Then if McCain wins anyway, it doesn't hurt him going forward, Hillary takes all the blame for the loss. If Hillary/Obama were to win, Obama would have the presidency in front of him. If Obama runs alone without Hillary and is beaten by McCain, he may not ever get another chance.
Obama could easily sell his followers that Hillary is the best choice to beat McCain, and they are stupid enough to buy it. They would embrace Hillary if Obama said so, he is their master.
It is a no lose situation for him in the long run, and really, it is the right thing to do...so it won't happen
I am not saying the end justifies the means, as in this case, the means is politics itself, which has no real external governing body to police the process as long as there is no violation of federal law. There are no rules in politics, no principle, except winning. This is not a war where rules are to protect lives of the innocent...
Looking back, should the democratic party have put up Kerry in 2004 if another candidate was actually more electable?
Look, if someone voted for Hillary in January primary, then something that was revealed in March caused them to change their mind, should they be held to that vote when new information comes to light about the candidates?
We have a real cutoff date...which is the convention. After that, unless the nominee resigns, we are stuck with the nominee. Before the end of the nomination, the delegates should be free to vote their conscience, just as congressmen are. Congressmen are not held to their party when they vote in the house and the senate, and damn sure aren't held to their campaign promises when they ran for office.
Looking back, should the democratic party have put up Kerry in 2004 if another candidate was actually more electable?
Look, if someone voted for Hillary in January primary, then something that was revealed in March caused them to change their mind, should they be held to that vote when new information comes to light about the candidates?
We have a real cutoff date...which is the convention. After that, unless the nominee resigns, we are stuck with the nominee. Before the end of the nomination, the delegates should be free to vote their conscience, just as congressmen are. Congressmen are not held to their party when they vote in the house and the senate, and damn sure aren't held to their campaign promises when they ran for office.
Quote from Spydertrader:
You mean the party that [so far] has disenfranchised an entire voting block (as in Michigan and Florida) by not following their own rules? Or, did you mean the party that currently appears willing to 'sway' the nomination process by placing absolute authority into the hands of a select 'few' at the expense of the majority?
Wow. I'd never thought I'd see you advocate, "the ends justify the means."
- Spydertrader
Look, think man.
What people are saying now is really meaningless.
Haven't you see conventions where bitter opponents end up on the stage all hugging each other and rallying the party?
You think the right wingers who hated McCain and supported Romney and Huckabee won't vote for McCain come November because they hate him and preferred Romney or Huckabee?
Use your brain, the people will end up voting more against one candidate than for their own preference...
All the dems have to do is end up showing solidarity in beating McCain, and we need to see both Hillary and Obama on stage in support of whoever is the nominee for president. The rest is just noise...
What people are saying now is really meaningless.
Haven't you see conventions where bitter opponents end up on the stage all hugging each other and rallying the party?
You think the right wingers who hated McCain and supported Romney and Huckabee won't vote for McCain come November because they hate him and preferred Romney or Huckabee?
Use your brain, the people will end up voting more against one candidate than for their own preference...
All the dems have to do is end up showing solidarity in beating McCain, and we need to see both Hillary and Obama on stage in support of whoever is the nominee for president. The rest is just noise...
This is different. Many Democrat voters said they would vote for McCain before they would vote for their opposing Democrat candidate if they won. That simply does not happen in normal election cycles. There is an animosity here that makes this contest unique. Obama gave Hillary the finger! And you can bet that many Hillary supporters felt like it was directed at them.
Blah, blah, blah.
What voters said they would do in the past, is meaningless.
What matters is the first Tuesday in November.
The dems should produce the best possible ticket.
If Obama can't win the nomination with the roll call vote at the convention, then it should be wide open.
Hell, if Gore were drafted and got the nomination because that would unify the party...then that would be the best thing to do.
If you study our own history as a country, you will lots of deals made to reach a consensus.
What voters said they would do in the past, is meaningless.
What matters is the first Tuesday in November.
The dems should produce the best possible ticket.
If Obama can't win the nomination with the roll call vote at the convention, then it should be wide open.
Hell, if Gore were drafted and got the nomination because that would unify the party...then that would be the best thing to do.
If you study our own history as a country, you will lots of deals made to reach a consensus.