• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Democratic Campaign Deathwatch Thread

Foolmewunz

Grammar Resistance Leader, TLA Dictator
Foolmewunz
Joined
Aug 11, 2006
Messages
41,468
Location
Pattaya, Thailand
As they do every four years, working as hard as they possibly can to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, the Democratic Party is in the process of handing the White House to John McCain.

We're not even close to the convention and we've got Obama's preacher versus Hillary's sniper fire. That'll die down, and we'll have something else.

With the new wave of the Democratic Party unwilling to give up on Obama and the reconstructivist Reagan Democrats feeling the same about Hillary, will the just tear each other apart while the Republicans chuckle all the way back to the oval office. I believe so.

I opined somewhere on these boards a few months ago that the Republicans were not sure who they'd rather run against but that Hillary and Obama were their favorite two, each one being easier to beat than the other in the general elections. But that was before we had the deadlock and the sheer stupidity of the Democrats ripping at each others' jugulars. (For those who think that Obama's still taking the high road, pay attention to his stalking horses.)

Ah, election years! Decent folk on these boards are snarling at each other while singing several verses of "My Guy". (Nothing you can say can take me away from My Guy... Nothing you can do can make me be untrue to My Guy... My Guy!)

(Lest anyone misconstrue - I'm not happy with this. I'm an admitted credentialed liberal. This is not a McCain thread in sheep's clothing.)
 
If you were really paying attention to mass news media you'd be having a national discussion on race right now, not discussing piddling matters like the only alternative party in the US slowly imploding disorganizedly even in perfect political weather.
 
Foolmewunz said:
Ah, election years! Decent folk on these boards are snarling at each other while singing several verses of "My Guy". (Nothing you can say can take me away from My Guy... Nothing you can do can make me be untrue to My Guy... My Guy!)
Click to expand...
:) That's just one of two songs by Mary Wells about a dependent woman; the other is Two Lovers. From the song:

Well, I've got two lovers and I ain't ashamed
Two lovers, and I love them both the same

Let me tell you 'bout my other lover:
You know, he treats me bad, makes me sad
Makes be cry, but still I can't deny
That I love him
I really really love him
Wo wo oh (wo oh)
I love him so (love him so)
And I'll do everything I can to let him know
 
I'd never vote for her, but I actually don't hate Hillary for what she's doing. Remember she's not out there by herself; she's running on the backs of thousands of donors and volunteers and campaign workers and party big-wigs who risked jumping on board her candidacy. To quit while the score is tied (in the perception of her supporters) would be a slap in the face to everyone who has sacrificed to help her get where she is.

So I can totally understand playing out the string, using all your timeouts even if you're down by 7 with 10 seconds left. Maybe she's making the party mad by staying in, but she'd be making her loyal supporters equally mad by dropping out when she (at least in their eyes) is in a dead heat. If I was in her shoes, I think I'd play it out, too. Show everyone I'm a fighter.

And no, I don't buy this stuff about how it's going to ruin the Democrat chances in the general election. The fundraising has been MONSTROUSLY in favor of the Democrats, that's where all the energy is, that's where the public mood is. By October all of this bitter campaigning will be long forgotten, and it'll be just McCain vs. Obama, on THEIR issues.

McCain may still win, but it won't be because Hillary screwed it up.
 
I love the way the Obamamaniacs like to blame everything on Hilary.
The Wright affair would have come out anyway. The GOP would have seen to that.
I am no fan of Hilary, but I am not a fan of Obama or McCain either.
The fact is Obama is a candidate with real weaknesses, not the Messianic figure that Some Progressives made him out to be.
I feel the read damage the Wright affair did was to the Blue Collar White Workers, the "Reagan Democrats". If the Dems can get them ,as Clinton did, the Dems win. If they lose that bloc, the GOP wins. And a LOT of Blue Collar workers were very offended by Wright's remarks.
Obama needs to realise this and repair the damage,not keep playing to his base,which is safe anyway.
 
David Wong said:
I'd never vote for her, but I actually don't hate Hillary for what she's doing. Remember she's not out there by herself; she's running on the backs of thousands of donors and volunteers and campaign workers and party big-wigs who risked jumping on board her candidacy. To quit while the score is tied (in the perception of her supporters) would be a slap in the face to everyone who has sacrificed to help her get where she is.

So I can totally understand playing out the string, using all your timeouts even if you're down by 7 with 10 seconds left. Maybe she's making the party mad by staying in, but she'd be making her loyal supporters equally mad by dropping out when she (at least in their eyes) is in a dead heat. If I was in her shoes, I think I'd play it out, too. Show everyone I'm a fighter.

And no, I don't buy this stuff about how it's going to ruin the Democrat chances in the general election. The fundraising has been MONSTROUSLY in favor of the Democrats, that's where all the energy is, that's where the public mood is. By October all of this bitter campaigning will be long forgotten, and it'll be just McCain vs. Obama, on THEIR issues.

McCain may still win, but it won't be because Hillary screwed it up.
Click to expand...

It is not that she is stringing it out (that is an annoyance, but I see where she is coming from), but the way she and her surrogates are playing the game...

TAM:)
 
dudalb said:
I love the way the Obamamaniacs like to blame everything on Hilary.
The Wright affair would have come out anyway. The GOP would have seen to that.
I am no fan of Hilary, but I am not a fan of Obama or McCain either.
The fact is Obama is a candidate with real weaknesses, not the Messianic figure that Some Progressives made him out to be.
I feel the read damage the Wright affair did was to the Blue Collar White Workers, the "Reagan Democrats". If the Dems can get them ,as Clinton did, the Dems win. If they lose that bloc, the GOP wins. And a LOT of Blue Collar workers were very offended by Wright's remarks.
Obama needs to realise this and repair the damage,not keep playing to his base,which is safe anyway.
Click to expand...

Well I wouldn't say JFK or MLK were messianic either yet both were, and even more today are, revered by a large number of people.

Obama is neither, though he has elements of both. He comes at a time when people are looking for the message he brings, and the way he brings it.

I agree he has flaws, and his very human.

TAM:)
 
Oh Democrats...you guys get so down and out so easily.

I'm a McCain supporter but I suspect Obama will win the general election. He's young and charismatic, McCain's not. McCain's jokes aren't very funny and he's not a very good speaker. I suspect Obama's aura will get the better of him when the two actually start debating. At the end of the day, personality will trump the issues for most voters, IMO.
 
Sefarst said:
Oh Democrats...you guys get so down and out so easily.

I'm a McCain supporter but I suspect Obama will win the general election. He's young and charismatic, McCain's not. McCain's jokes aren't very funny and he's not a very good speaker. I suspect Obama's aura will get the better of him when the two actually start debating. At the end of the day, personality will trump the issues for most voters, IMO.
Click to expand...

Well if most Americans agree with Obama on the issues, then there is no trumping persay...correct?

lol

TAM:)
 
Brainster said:
Liberal blogger Matt Yglesias says the obvious:



Perhaps there's something to this "draft Al Gore" campaign?
Click to expand...

The trouble with the "Gore" thing is two-fold...

1. He lost in 2000, and REPs will exploit the "loser" aspect of it.
2. If he picks neither of Clinton or Obama as VP, the party will fall COMPLETELY apart, and if he picks either of them, the other half will be PISSED OFF, and likely skip out in November.

TAM:)
 
I really don't see Gore coming in, unless really dramatic stuff starts happening and the party literally starts coming apart. I don't think anything like that has happened yet.

I don't see why Hillary should give up yet. She is looking at a victory in Pennsylvania, and who knows what could happen between now and the convention. While the difference in delegate count is not insignificant, it isn't really that big either.

However, I think this could be distracting people from McCain's gaffes these days. Like when he said he didn't know if condoms should be used to prevent AIDS, and eventually, decided that they shouldn't.
 
T.A.M. said:
The trouble with the "Gore" thing is two-fold...

1. He lost in 2000, and REPs will exploit the "loser" aspect of it.
2. If he picks neither of Clinton or Obama as VP, the party will fall COMPLETELY apart, and if he picks either of them, the other half will be PISSED OFF, and likely skip out in November.

TAM:)
Click to expand...

Nixon, the incumbent VP, got beat in 1960, but came back and won in 1968. If Gore would have jumped in from the beginning, there was precedence for a favorable outcome. Way too late now.
 
Tsukasa Buddha said:
I really don't see Gore coming in, unless really dramatic stuff starts happening and the party literally starts coming apart. I don't think anything like that has happened yet.

I don't see why Hillary should give up yet. She is looking at a victory in Pennsylvania, and who knows what could happen between now and the convention. While the difference in delegate count is not insignificant, it isn't really that big either.

However, I think this could be distracting people from McCain's gaffes these days. Like when he said he didn't know if condoms should be used to prevent AIDS, and eventually, decided that they shouldn't.
Click to expand...

Actually the question was about US Government funding for condom distribution in Africa to prevent the spread of AIDS there, which McCain sensibly opposes.

Does condom use really prevent the spread of AIDS? An old rule of thumb was that condoms broke about 10% of the time, so it's quite possible that condom use may give people a false sense of security. In aggregate, I would guess that it does reduce transmission rates but it's an awfully silly question to be asking a politician.
 
Brainster said:
Actually the question was about US Government funding for condom distribution in Africa to prevent the spread of AIDS there, which McCain sensibly opposes.

Does condom use really prevent the spread of AIDS? An old rule of thumb was that condoms broke about 10% of the time, so it's quite possible that condom use may give people a false sense of security. In aggregate, I would guess that it does reduce transmission rates but it's an awfully silly question to be asking a politician.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but I think McCain dropped the ball on this one. IMO, we need to be flooding that continent with condoms.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom