Jump To » Mobile / Confirm Them / Right Shelf / Sports / State Blogs / About / Contact / Help / Posting Rules / Conservative Book Club / Human Events
Good evening, Democrats. Welcome to the Spring of Pain.
And no, you will not be enjoying it. At all.
By Moe Lane Posted in 2008 | Kneel Before Zod | Rooting For Injuries | Spring of Pain — Comments (85) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
So, you're asking yourself right now, How bad can it be, really? Yes, she won Rhode Island. Yes, she won Ohio by a lot. Yes, at this stage of the game she's on track to win at least the primary in Texas, but there's still the caucus, which he'll probably win, and there's all those lawsuits pending, and there are more races, and hasn't everyone been telling us that she'll never be the nominee anyway?
So it's not that bad, right? We wanted something like this, right?
Yes, it's that bad. No, you really didn't want this. Yes, the next six weeks are going to be exquisitely depressing for you.
Read on. Or don't. You pretty much stopped being relevant to this race when Hillary Clinton won Ohio.
I would lecture you on vote totals and the need to balance winning States like Idaho against losing States like Ohio, and so on, and so on, ad infinitum and ad nauseam. But there's no need for that; Senator Hillary Clinton has made it very simple. She has looked over the situation, she has decided that she can still win*, and so she will keep in the race. And she will not be making a token effort. That means that Senator Barack Obama must do the same thing.
That means that this race goes on, full throttle, through at least April 22. All that money that the two have collected? Guess what! It's going to get spent. Advertising is expensive, not to mention various and sundry... well, let's not call them bribes. Merely "considerations." But that's OK; they'll just call you up for more money. And more money. And then some more money on top of that. Because it's important. And if you can't cough it up, well, there's always corporate America. Lobbyists are actually made of money, you know. It's true! Look it up on Wikipedia. That's why they don't mind giving it away to politicians. Especially ones desperately looking for an edge.
By the way, did I mention how tiring campaigning is? Living out of suitcases, spending each night in a different hotel, driving back and forth across the country... it's no life for a person, or people, or group of people who have every tic, outburst, burst of temper and/or gaffe being recorded for posterity, or at least the nightly news. And they will make mistakes. And nobody was really expecting this to last this long, so they'll be making more mistakes as time goes on. Hopefully amusing ones, but I'm sure that the increasingly bored media that will be following both campaigns around are up to the task of ensuring that.
Meanwhile, of course, our candidate has wrapped up his nomination and will be spending the next few months preparing for the general election. I'm sure that you're looking forward to seeing one or the other of your candidates go after him; disabuse yourself of that notion. If one of them does, the other will take advantage of his/her lowered guard to strike a dirty blow of his/her own: remember, every dime spent attacking Senator McCain is a dime not spent ensuring the nomination, which is the important thing right now. If both of them do, McCain will simply murmur something about waiting until there's an actual Democratic candidate to give his answer. Mind you, there's nothing really stopping him from going after either candidate on his own.
And I need hardly point out that, thanks to the absolutely byzantine laws governing delegate allocation, the nomination will almost be decided at the Democratic National Convention by the eventual consensus of the super-delegates. Which is another way of saying that the Democratic Party has wasted a good deal of your time, attention, and money - but will be expecting you to replenish their stocks of all three anyway.
And I think that pretty much sums it up, doesn't it? You're going to hate the next few weeks, the campaign's going to end up being the political equivalent of an abscessed tooth for you, the GOP is meanwhile going to take this gift from the gods to do some needed infrastructure work, and it's all going to be essentially meaningless from your perspective anyway. And, oh, yes: you'll be needing to send the Democratic Party more money.
(pause)
I don't know how you should handle it, honestly. Heavy drinking, maybe?
Moe Lane
*Which she actually in fact can. Yes, yes, I know, somebody online told you that she couldn't. That person probably also told you that Obama was going to win big tonight; that she'd drop out tomorrow; and that the DNC knows better than you do about how to spend your money. So at least contemplate the possibility that you might have gotten some bad information, OK?
« Anticipating the shellacking: Senator Obama explains his Kentucky loss on email and Fox News. — Comments (6) | Hillary Wins Ohio — Comments (26) »
Good evening, Democrats. Welcome to the Spring of Pain. 85 Comments (0 topical, 85 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Don't know about Ohio...
by asleep06
But in Texas, Obama won self-identified Republican voters by a slim margin. Sorry Rush...
Dr. Strangehate.
by Addison
...you say that Hillary does have a path to the nomination. But I think that most of the paths Hillary has would demolish the Democratic Party enough that they wouldn't be "solutions" to Democrats so much as "doomsday" strategies. I don't see how her paths to being the nominee are any more realistically "successful" -- from our vantage point, and this post was directed at us after all -- than Slim Pickens' chances of eating some good Russian cuisine once he touches down.
Ah, Addison, you make some good
by c17wife
points here and personally, I agree with you.
As for me, I'm rooting for injuries all the way to Denver. Lots of cat scratches and such.
But, should you get tired of the childish play, you can always come over to our side. Our tent is getting bigger everyday.
Neither will clinch
by Whitehorse
the nomination before the convention, unless something majorly unpredictable happens. Hillary would need 97% of the remaining unsuper delegates; Obama, 77%. Momentum is in Hillary's favor, & PA is a state much like Ohio. Unless Obama can strike a huge blow without suffering a counterattack, Hillary will win PA. All signs point to superdelegates choosing the nominee, & that is portending to be an ugly scene - for the democrats!
It is more than that
by qlangley
Hillary would need 97% of the remaining unsuper delegates; Obama, 77%.
I think you may be looking at the total size of the delegations from upcoming states, including super-delegates from those states.
There are only 611 remaining elected delegates. Obama needs 530 and Clinton needs 619. And that is including super-delegates who have expressed a preference. If you don't count them Obama needs over 700 more delegates and Clinton over 800.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
May their money go down in defeating each other...
by Remington Steele
I'd love to see more and more of the millions of democratic donated money be spent on hammering each other. It's the one time I'm actually glad there is so much cash on their sides.
Moe, I am so glad you are on
by c17wife
our side now. Dude, you can twist the knife so well. Heh!
You mean six MONTHS
by qlangley
No way is this going to be finished by Pennsylvania, or even Puerto Rico. This is going all the way to the Convention at the end of August.
According to RealClearPolitics, Obama currently has 1495 delegates, which means he needs 530 to win. Clinton has 1406, which means she needs 619 to win.
There are (immac - if my maths are correct) 611 elected delegates left. No way. No, freaking way. Not happening. Not under any circumstances.
Furthermore, the RCP totals include super-delegates who can change their minds any time they like. Any embassy you want, dude. I mean it. Any embassy in the world. To be sure, to be really sure, and win without superdelegates, Obama now needs 732 of the remaining 611 elected delegates and Clinton needs 860 out of 611. Perhaps Saturday Night Live is going to have to go over the concept of 'mathematically impossible' twice more.
To make matters worse, of the remaining primaries, there is very likely to be a major split.
Much the largest is Pennsylvania, with 158 delegates. That has been leaning towards Clinton. The votes in Ohio and Rhode Island probably bode well for Clinton in PA, and she has the strong support of Ed Rendell.
The next biggest is North Carolina (115 delegates). Obama-country. Not going to be close.
The third largest is the last vote of all, Puerto Rico (55). This will give Clinton her biggest victory of the entire campaign.
Not far behind are Oregon (52), likely Obama and Kentucky (51) which will be close.
In other words, those 611 delegates will be split pretty evenly. Obama's current lead of 89 delegates is not going to vary much.
Clinton has a net lead of at least 100 in the Florida and Michigan delegations, not counted in the above figures.
The popular vote total is already confused. Clinton is winning if you count all the states and territories that have voted. If you exclude Michigan (where Obama was not on the ballot) then Obama is ahead by 300,000. If you exclude Florida too, then his lead expands to 600,000. Clinton's popular vote position is likely to improve but not be enough to erase Obama's advantage in the non-Florida and Michigan total. In other words, of the three ways of counting the totals, each will be ahead on at least one.
What odds can you get on Al Gore right now?
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
Al Gore Now!
by Socrates
Like a white knight riding into the convention in a long black stretch Hummer limousine, Gore will come bearing carbon credits for all.
Neither Obama/Hillary nor Hillary/Obama works for symbolism, which is what the Dems are all about. Think about them sharing the stage, with Bill eyeing up Michelle.
This is so much fun, I can't stand it.
And it's all because the Democrats don't want anyone to lose and get their feelings hurt with a winner-take-all election.
--
Gone 2500 years, still not PC.
So.......
by Risky
...say I'm an undecided super-delegate. And I think I need some help deciding. Would someone on the candidate's team be able to offer me a bit of advice - perhaps over dinner? I hear there's a good place at 155 W. 58th St. You can arrange the flights, right? Oh and there's a fair bit to go over so perhaps a hotel.......................
Can I make you an offer?
by qlangley
How would you like to work here: http://www.usvisalawgroup.com/images/embassy.jpg
Or how about this one: http://www.whitehouse.gov/firstlady/photoessays/Paris2007/images/p011707...
I hear this place is rather nice: http://lh4.google.com/jodilynn77/Rx4QvukzW7I/AAAAAAAAAXY/6PPgo8ounfA/DSC...
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
Certainly......
by Risky
that's the sort of policies I'm looking for. But you still havn't sent the plane to pick me up for that dinner.
Not current but relevant
by Risky
http://www.cagle.com/news/Superdelegates08/main.asp
Something there may bring a smile to your face.
Obama should capitulate
by davod
"...you say that Hillary does have a path to the nomination. But I think that most of the paths Hillary has would demolish the Democratic Party enough that they wouldn't be "solutions" to Democrats so much as "doomsday" strategies..." This statement applies equally to Obama. I f only he got out out of the race the party would be saved.
You Dems are as bad as Republicans, pushing for a winner before the process is finished. How do you think this makes the rest of the states feel.
The MSM loves Obama too much
by ZootSuit
The blatant fawning of the MSM over Obama is getting so bad and so blatant that I am actually beginning to feel some sympathy for Hillary. WOW, I never thought I would ever say that about anything involving a Clinton.
It seems the MSM is very
by Common Cents
It seems the MSM is very fickle and supports the underdog. They are fawning over the huge comeback by Hillary. Characterized as a gargantuan win. In reality I believe she only gained a net of 20 delegates? If you didn't know better, you'd swear Hillary jumped into a big lead. Like scoring a run in the bottom of the ninth to pull within a couple runs, but you're still losing.
Ask not what I can do for my country, ask what my country can do for me. Washington Elected Elite
Even more than for Obama,
by asleep06
The MSM is for themselves, and they know a quick Democratic win will kill the ratings and click-throughs, etc. that have been a boon to the media this year.
Huckabee was my first choice (did you hear his concession speech? incredible man.), but I'm glad we have our nominee.
Another effect
by Zigguratv
Does anybody else think it's possible people will look at the Democrats and say, "man, these guys just plain can't govern. The Republicans are nicely wrapped up, but with all their convoluted rules the Democrats created their own brutal convention?"
Exactly
by Risky
Though it's the same conclusion the electorate might make if too many conservatives spend too much time aiming their guns at their own candidate.
Moe, your writing is.....
by Wubbies World
...artistic in its flare for, as the Bible says, "Heaping coals on their heads".
Rush Limbaugh was saying Republicans should vote for Hillery just to create this kind of result. I blew off the notion, but now he may have been on to something here.
I specifically remember the Democrats campaigning to switch party and vote for Linc Chaffee in the Rhode Island primary in 2006. I also remember the same sort of thing early in the Republican primaries being done for Mr McCain this year.
In the words of Khan in Star trek II, "Revenge is a dish best served cold". Yes, it is nice to see the Democrats experience the mayhem they crafted for us originally.
Now that McCain has it locked up mathematically, we can continue to vote in the Democrat primaries just to cause mayhem some more.
They can thank us later.
I will thank you for your prose now. Thanks Moe!
Wubbies World, MSgt, USAF (Retired):
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println("An argument is a sequence of statements aimed at demonstrating the truth of an assertion.); }
But what percentage self-identified?
by MNConservative
and how many were going incognito?
Moe
by Oz
A masterpiece.
The other thing Democrats have to think about is that other than a few speed bumps along the way in Arkanasas, this is the first time the Democrats have ever felt the wrath a fully funded Clinton machine.
We Republicans have felt that wrath before and understand it all too well.
As a McCain supporter, I certainly hope you are right, but . . .
I was listening to Karl Rove on Fox News last night and he made a very good point concerning how the on-going Democratic campaign could actually hurt McCain. Essentially, he argued that the on-going Hillary-Obama fight kept the interest focused on the Democrats and pushed McCain and his message to the back pages of the papers. So while the Democrats may spend more money in the primaries, they will also be able to raise more money because of the greater attention focused on their race. They are also generating support, interest and excitement in their candidates (at least among the Democratic faithful).
Now, McCain does get a chance to rest and start focusing on raising money for the general election and developing his campaign themes, but I think he will be pushed out of the minds of many voters for at least a month or two more (if not longer).
That having been said, I hope I'm wrong.
NC
There's a huge problem with that theory
by Neil Stevens
Most people aren't going to pay attention until September at the earliest, period.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
if the Democratic base is energized and feels personally invested in the success of their nominee that could increase their vote totals in November.
Look, all this is rampant speculation on my part. Who knows what will actually happen, my only point is that Republicans should not get overly excited about the lingering Democratic infighting. It may be great for us, it may not be.
NC
It depends
by JFJ
who the nominee is. If it's Clinton this whole mess will have soured a lot of Dem voters and they will stay home. (New/young voters, African Americans, etc.) Obama supporters have already crowned him king, for cripes sake!
If Obama gets the nomination, it depends how bloody it is whether Hillary's diehard supporters will stay home.
The nice thing is this: If it goes to the convention, it will be six months of fighting and only 2 months to mend fences.. and pick a VP!
As to McCain being ...
by skorrent
Pushed out of the voters' minds for awhile, fear not. That gives us conservatives time to cool off. Only we junkies are paying any attention now, anyway. If McCain is successful in storing up money and Clinton vs. Obama talking points for September, when the electorate begins to pay attention, he'll be OK.
how you might be wrong
by jamesbhai
It depends on the tenor of the Democratic campaign. If it devolves into mud-slinging and/or is brokered, you will have nearly half of the party dejected because their candidate came so close and yet had it 'stolen'. For example, if FL and MI are re-instated, they will both go heavily for Hillary since she has been pushing for their votes to count (re-instated also means re-held). If they are NOT, then FL easily stays in the R column in November and MI will be in play.
A lot of Obama supporters can't stand Hillary. They will stay home rather than vote for her (especially as she goes negative). Other people will be reminded of Hillary's high (and rising if Obama goes negative) negatives. They will not view the difference between McCain and Hillary as significant enough (due to Obama lumping her support for the war authorization) to justify voting for the person who slung mud at The Chosen One for 6 months. As long as McCain attacks on issues, he'll have more respect from the wounded Obama voters.
And if Hillary loses, her fan base has been growingly perturbed by the Obamaniacs condescension about the race already being over, drop out already, etc.
The wounds will be too deep, the time to heal too short (only 2 months between convention and election) for the party to heal and to mount a solid attack on McCain.
All the while, McCain must campaign POSITIVELY on issues and use barbs that lump Hillary and Obama together (health care, NAFTA, Iraq, taxes, etc.). When 527s attack, they won't even be able to tell you whom to support. McCain should disavow any gutter 527s to play the 'above the fray' card. If Hillary and Obama do not reciprocate, then they will again look petty and negative. They cannot attack too much because they will then be viewed as being negative by half their party AND by Republican-leaners.
At any given point, 3/4 of the electorate will be unhappy with Hillary and Obama if they are negative. Meanwhile, McCain should talk about solutions that are reasonable and grounded in reality.
The less civil the Dem civil war, the more McCain can write the narrative that he is above all this crap by two people with less than 12 years of total federal service.
How You Might Be Wrong
by kens
The logic here seems plausible. A fractured democrat party with too little time to heal to get behind either Clinton or Obama. The sad part is that McCain is the third democrat in the race - - so although the party may lose, democrats won't. McCain is a horse that just a few years ago was actively looking to jump to the democrat party corral. He hasn't sponsored any legislation that doesn't have a liberal democrat's name behind the dash (e.g. McCain-Feingold) And how ill conceivable is it that the ol' Maverick, the democrat wannabe, won't appoint his good friend Russ Feingold to the supreme court? Or worse - - his good friend Ted Kennedy (i.e. McCain-Kennedy)?
Me? I'd rather take the ride with [Obama - NS] or the Krone Woman. Either of them as president will do more to help the republican party than McCain ever will.
Then take the ride somewhere else.
by c17wife
This is a Republican site. Given that McCain is a Republican and the party's nominee, this site supports him.
If you don't, then perhaps your time would be better spent elsewhere and our bandwidth can be used by those that wish to see our party continue to occupy the White House.
ATTN: kens
by Neil Stevens
This is a moderator speaking. You were already told once not to call Barack Obama that. Do it again and I will ban you.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
There is the difference between the parties
by Joliphant
You see either of those two helping our party.
We see either one hurting the country.
Our party is a vehicle to help the nation.
Yours is ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
They Should Nominate Hastur The Unspeakable
by Repair Man Jack
To the Hellfires with these lesser evils!
"I believe we must adjourn this meeting to some other place." - The last recorded words of Adam Smith.
I Disagree
by 9th amendment
To be clear, I'm a liberal, maxed-out Hillary supporter who checks in here occasionally. I know I'm not supposed to troll but since this is addressed to me (sort of), I thought I'd reply.
We can handle a drag out fight between two good candidates who so-well represent our values. Campaigns are adversarial and anything these two say about each other will pale in comparison to what the Republicans will say in the general. That's OK, the stakes are high and everybody should fight hard to win. If Obama can't handle what Hillary has thrown at him this past week, he shouldn't be president. If he can, then he's a stronger candidate for it. He needs to be tested.
For her part, Hillary needs to show that she can motivate large numbers of voters. She did that last night and has more opportunities to show she's the big-states-that-matter-in-November candidate.
Bring it on and may the best campaign in. I'll be happy with either of them as president.
And yes, the convention will be ugly. That part will hurt but will have been worth it for all the free advertising this drawn out campaign is giving us Dems.
[No offence meant but do ban me if you must. It's your site]
It's the Clinton campaign, who wants to know why you're wasting time on right-wing websites when you could be doing useful work for them. :)
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
disagree to your disagree
by jamesbhai
The perfect sign is if you view the polls of McCain versus Obama or Hillary, McCain has been rising the longer the Dem fight goes on. Republicans better coalesce around their candidate. Democrats tend to remain bitter and are more disparate in their views.
The negative ads that have already begun increase the negatives for candidates in a way that is not easily reversed. McCain just has to pick on the themes that will have been battle tested by the Dems. We already saw what 3 a.m. and the Canadian NAFTA issue has done. We know that works. You know that will be pointed out. If something that Hillary or Obama tries does not work, then it won't be used.
Right now the Dems are poll testing concepts for the Republicans free of charge. Obama's negatives are rising, Hillary's are already at a level which will make winning the general difficult.
I hope she gets JUST close enough to Obama on the popular vote to be able to steal the nomination from him at the convention.
Obama frankly scares the crap out of me. He'll drive enough turn out to win the presidancy (and most of congress) if he's chosen. McCain doesn't fire us up enough to drive normal turnout let alone anything extra.
Hillary on the other hand will drive Dems away from the polls. Especially if she manages to steal the nomination rather than winning it outright. Like you, I think she's the best hope for America, I just mean it in a different way.
Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
I (was) with Fred!
Ugly conventions choose losers
by qlangley
And yes, the convention will be ugly. That part will hurt but will have been worth it for all the free advertising this drawn out campaign is giving us Dems.
If Obama wins by disenfranchising Florida and Michigan, how is he goning to carry those states? What is his path to winning without them?
If Obama wins despite Florida and Michigan voting (which is still possible), how will it play that he tried to disenfranchise them?
If Clinton wins by changing the the rules at the last minute to disadvantage the first viable black candidate for President, how many African Americans will sit on their hands in November? How does she win Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia, Arkansas or Missouri without a good turnout from black voters?
Up to last night there was a chance, albeit a slim one, that Obama could have a practically (though not mathematically) insurmountable lead by June. There was a chance that Clinton might have conceded. There was a chance that Obama could have graciously allowed Florida and Michigan to vote, still confident of victory.
Those chances all went up in flames last night. The chance of anyone sweeping the remaining states and having a lead higher than 200 delegates is now about 1%.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
Drudge Report: Who's on top? -- Jeopardy
by OCBill
What is "Mental image I'd rather not have".
You can't afford the price of free corn.
Spring of Pain
by kens
Excellent piece! I'm in this for the entertainment value. It's time for Obama to hijack that dump truck load of dirt he said McCain would drop on Hillary if she got the nomination and start doing some excavation work himself: So much dirt - - so much time!
It's all fun and games...
by MrSyHastings
unless they join forces.
I don't think it would be that much of a surprise.
Nope, and Hillary has already hinted
by c17wife
at it here-
"Asked on CBS's "The Early Show" whether she and Obama should be on the same ticket, Clinton said:
"That may be where this is headed, but of course we have to decide who is on the top of ticket. I think the people of Ohio very clearly said that it should be me."
Gawd-what a nightmare that would be!
Obama as Veep
by bluechiplaw
Does anybody really think he would accept?
The Democratic Party of 2008 died last night
by Independent in Dixie
and with it what would have been a narrow opportunity to win in November. My, how the tables have turned? The GOP and the press could not have written a better script.
Apparently the Obama campaign had predicted this scenario yet hoped it would not come to pass. The Scourge of Jezebel lives to fight another day even though she, like Huckabee, doesn't believe in math.
A military history/poli-sci buff at my church emailed me saying "If the 1968 democratic convetion was Iwo Jima, 2008 is going to be Stanlingrad". Any thoughts?
...for banning alcohol in August.
Some new firetrucks wouldn't be a bad call, either.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Ha..they'll need to call in the CO National Guard n/t
by Independent in Dixie
N/T
Sadly, you are probably right.
by c17wife
And it is a shame because it is such a nice city.
Not in Aug when it's infested by socialists and animists
by Independent in Dixie
n/t.
For the first time, I feel cautiously optimistic.
by St. Louis Conservative
And by "cautiously optimistic" I mean the GOP has a 50/50 shot. If Obama eventually wins, Hillary will have brought him down to earth and portrayed him as just another politician before the GOP even lays a hand on him.
If Clinton wins, well we already know everything about her and all the negatives she brings to the table, ESPECIALLY in down-ballot races (this point cannot be underestimated).
Whomever gets the nomination, the other one is going to be livid, and a sizable chunk of the Democrat base is going to be alienated.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
Especially
by Independent in Dixie
if Clinton takes it by chicanery, black voters are going to EXPLODE and hopefully (maybe permanently) get off the democratic plantation.
Even her so-called coalition of angry old white women and hispanics cannot even come close to winning ANY general election. The unspoken fact oblivious to the Dem warfare is that Clinton and/or Obama are gonna get creamed among the millions of pro-life women that vote in MO, OH, WI, KY,KY etc.
But
by pwest
what if Obama gets on the ticket with Hillary. I said last night that has now become my biggest fear. Will he accept a VP slot if she pulls this out, or will she accept a VP slot if he wins?
Folks, a Hillar/Obama ticket or a Obama/Hillary ticket, cannot be defeated IMHO.
Prove me wrong; believe me, I want to be wrong.
Patience. The universe will provide. <NT>
by Moe Lane
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
It's fun watching the
by Common Cents
It's fun watching the trainwreck but the longer this goes on and as Hillary closes the gap, the more likely a Hillary/Obama ticket will be forged. That is bad news for McCain. I'd think conservatives would want Obama to put Hillary out of her misery earlier. IMHO Obama is more likely to fold and is easier to beat in the general. A Hillary/Obama ticket would unite the Dems and would be very tough to beat.
I doubt Hillary would ever agree to be #2, but if she did, Obama should be very very very worried for his safety against some accident! LOL (I'm only half joking)
Ask not what I can do for my country, ask what my country can do for me. Washington Elected Elite
Proving pwest wrong
by Dave J.
I think an Obama/Hillary (or vice versa) ticket could indeed be defeated. What about McCain tapping J.C. Watts as his veep? That would do a several key things.
First, it would put a true conservative on the ticket to give us Reaganites a reason to support McCain. J.C. Watts is as committed to philosophical conservatism as anyone else you can name.
Second, if Hillary steals the nomination by predictable Clintonesque chicanery, which is a very real possibility, it would give disaffected minority Obama supporters another option besides just defaulting to the Demagogic Party.
Third, even if Obama wins, it makes the Republican ticket much more attractive to minority voters. Let's face it, Obama's overwhelming advantage in the African-American demographic (right around 80-90%) shows that race is indeed an issue for those voters, like it or not. Why not give them a reason to think twice about knee-jerking for Obama?
So, to answer your question, can the Dems "dream ticket" be beaten? Absolutely, with a smart VP choice by McCain.
I'm not sure a JC Watts
by Common Cents
I'm not sure a JC Watts would be the strong antidote(not that he wouldn't be a qualified choice, I believe he would). Maybe he would if it didn't take much to swing the pendulum a little. A Watts as VP will be tough to build up name recognition during the general campaign and more importantly, credibility, because the Reps have not "shown up" as BlackRepub has stated in his recent entry. It will be reduced to a knee-jerk reactionary window dressing.
It could very easily backfire on Reps by being spun into the rich white man uses the token black guy. Or that JC is a sellout rich black guy. That would be tough for JC to overcome and get his message out to prove his value. Primarily because the Reps have not laid the ground work before-hand. We are not going to change the victim mentality built up over decades in several months in a general campaign.
Ask not what I can do for my country, ask what my country can do for me. Washington Elected Elite
Your point is well taken, but
by Dave J.
I think the type of backlash you predict is going to happen regardless of when an African-American candidate finally makes it onto a Republican ticket. It is standard Dem policy to paint all successful black conservates as "Uncles Toms", whether it's J.C. Watts, or Armstrong Williams, or Thomas Sowell, or Clarence Thomas, etc. Guys like Obama will only perpetuate the stereotypes with their liberal rhetoric. It takes someone as young, attractive, energetic AND conservative as a Watts to begin to turn the tide.
There may not be alot of groundwork laid for a guy like Watts (although I would suggest that's normal for many prospective VPs in many campaigns at this stage), but Watts has been on the national scene long enough that name recognition may not be as insurmountable a hurdle as you fear.
Uncle Bills
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
Ok, you're wrong
by ekevlar11
Obama's negatives are just starting to rise as the press starts to rip him to shreds for his Chicago chicanery. Hillary's negatives will never retreat. Remember about half of voters will NEVER vote for her.
Joining the two of them together would just create some kind of negative pact, and may assist in uniting the Democrats, but would never create a positive reaction with the general public.
Erik
Exactly
by mediumcool
Taking on Hillary as VP gives Obama nothing. His best bet is to take a Gov. of a purple state with executive experience (like Mark Warner). He's taking NY anyway, and adding Hillary will only make more people run away.
Hillary/Obama but not Obama/Hillary
by swamp_yankee
Hillary/Obama but not Obama/Hillary. I dont think Obama will add Hill, but Hill may need to add Obama. It's one more reason to support Obama. Either way I think he is on the ticket, but an Obama victory ensures Hillary is off, the Clintons ar dead and little intra-party healing. Obama is a paper tier anyway. He will end up being a horrible candidate by October.
Then he'd just point not only doesn't half the country not want her. Half+x the democrats didn't want her given a choice
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Any ticket with Hilary on it is going to lose
by Independent in Dixie
An Obama/Hilary ticket or vice versa is an oxymoron and a walking contradiction in message, style and vision for the Dems; he broadens it she contracts it, he is positive she is caustic etc. Basically, she needs him more than he needs her. TX ain't voting for either or both of them and her saying her win in OH makes her the champ is baseless (Obama won MO narrowly and WI handily and those swing just like OH).
The argument that the person who wins some bellwheter primary will win it in the general doesn't work. Case in point: in 2000, George W. Bush won the IA caucuses and lost the NH primary, both by double digits; yet he won the latter and lost the former against Al Gore in Nov. Also, Clinton '92 won the FL primary but lost it to GHWB in Nov.
Obama is not the VP attack dog type and Hilary really wants Ted Strickland of OH to carry her over the top (she is following an 18 state strategy while Obama has a longer and broader view). Not since 1968 has the loser of the Dem pledged delegate race won the nomination so as far as I can tell, Obama will be the nominee. However, yesterday was 11th hour for the Dems to say with a clear voice what they want; not suprisingly they were confused, divided and fidgeted.
McCain will never have the money but as Romney learned, money ain't everything..he'll just play their words against each other and the beat will go on until he starts hearing hail to the chief. He is truly a lucky man!
Obama would never have Hillary as VP.
by asleep06
His rhetoric has always been "turn the page," "we need to change from the old politics." Having Hillary on the ticket would annihilate any credibility he has; even he isn't charismatic enough to pull that off.
Secondly, Hillary's supporters are party Democrats, while Obama's supporters are loyal to him primarily (cults are like that). So to a small extent at least, Obama doesn't need Hillary to get her votes, while Hillary does need Obama to get his supporters.
Now, Hillary having Obama as VP is possible, but is not likely to the extent that Obama has more popular support than Hillary--though it's more likely than Obama-Hillary. It would be a sort of betrayal of the democratic process, and he's not likely to accept VP, especially if he wants a political future unstained by his association to Clinton. He's still young, and knows it.
Sure, it depends on whether they are both willing to sacrifice their political careers and principles for the sake of the Party. I doubt it.
The Dems are in for a spring of pain and they have no one to blame but themselves. If I were to bet, I would say it is going to be a brokered convention, ie Superdelegates will decide who the nominee is going to be.
The problem is not their candidates but rather their system to the nomination. For the most part the GOP allot delegates like the electoral college winner take all. As we all know the Dems do it on a proportional basis. As such as long as there are competitive campaigns it is virtually impossible for any one candidate to lock up the nomination. If the Dems had our system Clinton would now have 1521 delegates as opposed to her current 1449, super delegates aside. Obama would have 1453 instead of 1555. Well one would argue the change of about 72 delegates is not a big deal. However, if they had a winner take all situation it would be possible in fact likely that they would have a nominee prior to the convention, or at least a clear front runner. Take the next big contest Pennsylvania 188 delegates at stake. In stead of the winner taking a clear lead with a win in Pa, they will likely effectively split those delegates, and no clear winner.
Besides their system requires advance degrees in algebra, calculus and rocket science. Every webiste you check have different numbers for the candiates. Because the system is so mashugana each campaign can and is making arguments as to why they are the leader. If anything the system thwarts the will of the voters. I realize that democrats are psycologically inclined to seek a perceived kind of fairness. But this selection process is on the verge of drinking hemlock. I can only hope that they do not smell the toast burning and realize that they need to change the system. But I would guess that if any changes at all come in the future is will merely be nothing more than rearranging the proverbial deck chairs on the Titanic. All I have to say is thank you democrats for being in a word fair to the point of being brain dead.
Typical of negotiated systems,
by Achance
their nominating process is a camel - a horse designed by a committee. They went through a lot of pain to get to this system with out and out wars in state parties in the '70s. We had a couple of Democrat state conventions here that went to fisticuffs - literally - in the '70s.
Much like what we're seeing today, the Clean for Gene and McGovernite left wing brought their Marxist organizing techniques into play and "took over" many state parties, leaving the old boys, the machine politicians, old-time labor unions, etc., out in the cold. I know, I was one of those left out in the cold since I worked for the Laborers' Union and the AFL-CIO's Committee on Political Education in those days. The young radicals hated people like me more than they hated the Republicans! As the result of those days, and a little growing up, I cast my last vote for a Democrat in a federal election in '80 and my last for a state candidate in '82, and then only because he was a friend. The old boys didn't take it well and a mighty struggle ensued. The "superdelegate" was/is their way to moot insurgent groups and candidates. In that sense, if the superdelegates install HRC over Obama, the system will be doing exactly what it was designed to do. It's gonna' be fun to watch.
In Vino Veritas
...beyond any reasonable doubt that the Democratic primary system is in profound need of an overhaul. Its central problem - the one biting everybody involved in it on the rear right now - is that it assumes that the last 75% of its races will merely be confirming a nomination that was sewn up in the first 25%. So you could have caucuses and byzantine selection procedures and a totally ridiculous percentage of super-delegates. What difference did it make?
Quite a bit, really. I mean, there's somebody in both campaigns right now trying to set up more offices in Indiana. And that's with me charitably assuming that they even have offices in Indiana to begin with. :)
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
So change is
by Risky
..handing out backhanders (in policy or placement) in smoke-free rooms. Much as the media wan't to root for the Dems, they won't be able to help themselves having fun with all the old-school favouur-haggling that will be going on.
How either of them can come out of that horse-trading orgy and claim to the candidate of change is beyond me.
Ouch
by itrytobenice
There's salt in them thar wounds. :)
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
Oh man, I just wondered over to the cesspool at Kos
by BlackRepub
I don't have an account there, as I assume I wouldn't last 20 minutes over there, but man oh man are they absolutely fuming mad. They are in all sorts of flmae wars, denial, and bargaining trying to squeeze their way out of the brokered convention. I'm so happy Hillary won last night now, I retract my wish for Obama to vanquish the Beast.
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.Let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."-Barry Goldwater
McCain/Rudy 08-kill the terrorists and punch the hippies.
Love your campaign slogan
by Dave J.
although I might instead say "deport the hippies." They would be happier in some overseas socialist utopia anyway.
Heh, they can be deported after they've been punched
by BlackRepub
Being at UTex and Wesleyan U, I got to know a lot of hippies I wanted to punch in the face.
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.Let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."-Barry Goldwater
McCain/Rudy 08-kill the terrorists and punch the hippies.
20 seconds tops - nt
by gamecock
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
You ain't kidding
by ekevlar11
And they have the nerve to call Redstate a "hate" site??? Go figure. I have yet to see here the flame-spewing, anger induced wars that occur over there constantly. Even during the primary process the debate here was reasonable and objective, with the exception of some trolls.
Calling the kettle black?
Erik
Another scenario?
by kenk
Suppose that Gore and Edwards together come out and say that they will both vote, as superdelegates, for Obama..
electability
by fernandmcman
it is ALL about electability now.
Must read for those into American politics!!!!
I found some brilliant/awesome analysis on Obama’s current happenings on the campaign trail. I haven’t seen anything like this mentioned anywhere in the MSM.
Check out the article “Super Tuesday 2: Revenge of the Clintons” on h ttp://savagepolitics.com/?p=177, “Follow the Money” on htt p://savagepolitics.com/?p=165, “Bush’s Twin and the G.O.P.” ht tp://savagepolitics.com/?p=172 and “Barack Obama’s Apotasy” ht tp://savagepolitics.com/?p=101
Check their “Political Analysis” and “Humor” sections for other striking perspectives and comedic analysis on both parties.
Didn't Elysee spam this same site ?
by Joliphant
Was some sort of democrat site masquerading as a conservative site No ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
There's only one reason ...
by whoframedrudy
the race wasn't settled yesterday: mainstream Dems aren't scared by a McCain Presidency. The far left is trying to scare the Dem base with 'McCain will beat Obama if we don't unite.' We know that! This isn't painful for me at all.
All that 'McCain will start WWIII' baloney. They already used their chicken little line on Clinton. Bush wants WWIII, not McCain.
"You're gonna need more than one lesson. And you're gonna get more than one lesson."
It was one of their primary attacks on Reagan in his first term election. They scared me into voting for Anderson instead of Reagan (me being a stupid college kid, I believed them). That was the LAST time I believed the lying liars....
Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
I (was) with Fred!
Anticipation
by Whitehorse
Oh, it's making all of us wait. The dems aren't happy about it, those of us on the right are. I believe that even if there is some great reconciliation with a Clinton Obama ticket, McCain can still win with the right campaign strategery. I would think that whichever wins the nomination in the end, he or she will pick a different VP, someone they say is a "uniter." I don't think that, especially with the bad blood that will get worse between now & PA, either Obama or Clinton would want to be on the other's ticket as fiddle #2...
honorable fight?
by mudkiller
didn't john mccain want a honorable contest? will john mccain allow the machine to run at full power?
blog advertising is good for you
Washington Times
Recent comments
Would you agree
by tbrucegodfreyI blame my loss
by SocratesChina
by davodI don't think that was insulting...
by ocotilloJust the tip of the iceberg
by bilkayI'm still voting down ticket
by StephCSeems like all you can do is .....
by ocotilloOk, Godzilla
by Purple Vet5. I do not agree 100% ... but it's close enough. [n/t]
by Martin A. KnightThanks for pointing that out Jaded.
by Tim Schieferecke5 5 5 nt
by JadedDone...
by John_LouisianaAlthough I'm 100% Behind McCain
by buckeyeHe is a sore loser
by hunter"Tear Down This Wall"
by buckeye
blog advertising is good for you
Ok, I had to follow it up from Mwuahhh, ha, ha, ha, ha. I have no idea how Republican votes counted into this "mess" we are in. But regardless Moe, you are correct sir! The super delegates will make or break the Democratic party. I toast to you sir that I hope they split to Nader.
And I am certainly toasting John McCain tonight!
Erik