OKAY...LOOK AT ALL THE STATES OBAMA HAS WON,,ALMOST ALL WILL GO REPUBLICAN IN THE GENERAL ELECTION. HILLARY HAS WON ALL THE STATES,,THE BIG STATES THAT CAN LEAN EITHER WAY IN THE ELECTION LIKE OHIO AND PENNSLYVANIA. OH AND I CAN THROW IN MICHIGAN AND FLORIDA WHICH YOU WONT COUNT,,BUT SHE WON THEM ANYWAY. aLL THESE STATES ARE SWING STATES. tHOSE ARE THE STATES THAT MATTER IN A GENERAL ELECTION. wHO CARES IF OBAMA WINS MISSISSIPPI ALASKA MONTANA LOL NORTH CAROLINA,,SHOULD i GO ON? ALL THESE STATES WILL GO REPUBLICAN IN THE ELECTION!!!!!!!!!
The Obama "has won more states" argument doesn't fly, or the has more delegates etc
- Thread starter pdxman
- Start date
Silly argument. I boils down to the rules, despite what one thinks might happen in November. The nominee simply needs to have bigger numbers to get support from most of the super delegates.
Regardless of who is Red or Blue. The Blues outnumber the reds so this voting game will be won by democrats, the blues, if they band together in numbers in November.
1. Primary results do not predict general election results.
2. There is no need for an argument. Obama is winning according to the rules, and Hillary has little chance of catching up without the superdelegates overriding the will of the majority of voters.
3. Again, Florida and Michigan conducted their primaries in a dysfunctional fashion. They knew what the rules were, and the consequences for breaking those rules, were given plenty of time far in advance to reschedule their elections in accordance with those rules, and chose not to do so. No real campaign was conducted in either state, and many people did not vote BECAUSE THEY KNEW IT WOULDN'T COUNT. If they'd had the opportunity to vote in elections that would count, they would have voted. Therefore counting the results of those elections would be unfair to the portion of the Democratic electorate who were informed what the rules were and abided by them, and favor those who were either ignorant of the situation or were hoping that the system could be gamed in some way. The only way to rectify this after the fact in an equitable manner would have been to hold new elections, but they couldn't get their act together in order to do so. This screw up is the fault of the state Democratic Parties of Florida and Michigan and the DNC, and they should have taken joint responsibility to schedule and fund new elections. Unfortunately they failed to do so and have thus wronged the voters of Florida and Michigan. I don't see what is so hard to understand about this. Trying to seat the delegations on the basis of the flawed January elections is just another example of the Clinton campaign's willingness to do anything to win, and we would be hearing nothing about it if Hillary was in the lead. They only became important to her once she realized that she was actually going to have to compete for the nomination, rather than walk away with it on the basis of her name recognition and Bill's popularity with Democrats.
3. I think that Democrats in all states deserve a voice in the nominating process. They should not be ignored because they have committed the sin of living in heavily Republican states. Every state counts, not just the ones Hillary wins. And again, Obama will probably win most of the states in the general that Hillary won in the primary.
2. There is no need for an argument. Obama is winning according to the rules, and Hillary has little chance of catching up without the superdelegates overriding the will of the majority of voters.
3. Again, Florida and Michigan conducted their primaries in a dysfunctional fashion. They knew what the rules were, and the consequences for breaking those rules, were given plenty of time far in advance to reschedule their elections in accordance with those rules, and chose not to do so. No real campaign was conducted in either state, and many people did not vote BECAUSE THEY KNEW IT WOULDN'T COUNT. If they'd had the opportunity to vote in elections that would count, they would have voted. Therefore counting the results of those elections would be unfair to the portion of the Democratic electorate who were informed what the rules were and abided by them, and favor those who were either ignorant of the situation or were hoping that the system could be gamed in some way. The only way to rectify this after the fact in an equitable manner would have been to hold new elections, but they couldn't get their act together in order to do so. This screw up is the fault of the state Democratic Parties of Florida and Michigan and the DNC, and they should have taken joint responsibility to schedule and fund new elections. Unfortunately they failed to do so and have thus wronged the voters of Florida and Michigan. I don't see what is so hard to understand about this. Trying to seat the delegations on the basis of the flawed January elections is just another example of the Clinton campaign's willingness to do anything to win, and we would be hearing nothing about it if Hillary was in the lead. They only became important to her once she realized that she was actually going to have to compete for the nomination, rather than walk away with it on the basis of her name recognition and Bill's popularity with Democrats.
3. I think that Democrats in all states deserve a voice in the nominating process. They should not be ignored because they have committed the sin of living in heavily Republican states. Every state counts, not just the ones Hillary wins. And again, Obama will probably win most of the states in the general that Hillary won in the primary.
SMD6107
Just Browsing
pdxman is right. dude252007, too.
The Democrats made their own rules, including the flexibility of superdelegates, and they can change them to ensure the most electable candidate -- Hillary Clinton -- is the nominee. With the exception of Illinois, Hillary has won the states that have more people than cows.
The Democrats made their own rules, including the flexibility of superdelegates, and they can change them to ensure the most electable candidate -- Hillary Clinton -- is the nominee. With the exception of Illinois, Hillary has won the states that have more people than cows.
B_VinylBoy
Sexy Member
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2007
- Posts
- 10,363
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 70
- Points
- 123
- Location
- Boston, MA / New York, NY
- Sexuality
- 90% Gay, 10% Straight
- Gender
- Male
One has to look to the future. Would Obama be able to beat McCain in the states that he won the primary? Clinton has won large states that are worth the most Electoral Votes and usually go for Democrats. Obama has won a lot of small states that usually go Republican. Figure out the math and see if whether or not either candidate can win without the support of the other?
I don't like to sound negative because I do suport Obama and Clinton. But you'd be fooling yourself if you think either one of these candidates can do this alone, considering the overall resentment people on both sides have for each other.
I don't like to sound negative because I do suport Obama and Clinton. But you'd be fooling yourself if you think either one of these candidates can do this alone, considering the overall resentment people on both sides have for each other.
- VeeP,
Yo, I resent that... but you're right, Obama won my RED bovine-inhabited state. Although in PA he proved that he can win in the big cities, he got his ass handed to him in the more rural areas of the state. What a predicament for the Dems. :biggrin1:
SMD6107
Just Browsing
Shelby
Experimental Member
SMD6107
Just Browsing
Actually, the "has more states/delegates" argument does fly, you know since that's what determines who gets to be the party's front runner.
But yeh, I mean, other than that, the argument doesn't fly at all. Hillary is the real winner, what with her winning the Blue states.
But yeh, I mean, other than that, the argument doesn't fly at all. Hillary is the real winner, what with her winning the Blue states.
If ya wanna call that control then go ahead..... LOL
They seem like they are more along for the ride and nudge it one way or the other from time to time. I don't give the president much credit or blame in this era.
I think the president used to literally lead by example, inspire and take action when times were tough. The last five presidents didn't do that nearly as much as the more iconic previous ones.
It's probably been that way for ages. We just believe otherwise because of how their careers are recorded in the annals of history.
I can't argue with that because all I can go on is what has been written and what I remember my parents and grandparents have said about them and both of those can be tainted.
It could just be that the media keeps getting bigger, more powerful and faster. Back in the day, if you were a screw up in California you could move and your reputation may never catch up with you.
Look at Bill Clinton for example. Had some type of affair as Gov of Arkansas and everyone knew about it immediately and certainly as soon as he ran for president.
Obama doesn't put his hand to his heart during the pledge of allegiance (sp) or something similar and it's around the world in 30 minutes.
Just the perception of a slip up feeds the media for weeks.
Forget John McCain.
Vote for John McClane. Slightly different name, much more badass.
![hero-showdown-john-mcclane-vs-jack-bauer-20071120024215838-000.jpg]()
Vote for John McClane. Slightly different name, much more badass.
B_VinylBoy
Sexy Member
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2007
- Posts
- 10,363
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 70
- Points
- 123
- Location
- Boston, MA / New York, NY
- Sexuality
- 90% Gay, 10% Straight
- Gender
- Male
And do what? Push him down the stairs?
Sorry, I had to take advantage of that one. :biggrin1:
Why not? The Republicans are getting behind Democratic candidates to stab them in the back and secure a victory in November.
B_VinylBoy
Sexy Member
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2007
- Posts
- 10,363
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 70
- Points
- 123
- Location
- Boston, MA / New York, NY
- Sexuality
- 90% Gay, 10% Straight
- Gender
- Male
The whole idea of Republicans going to the primary to vote in a candidate they think McCain can easily beat is one of those conspiracy theories that I just can't believe. Not that I don't let anything pass by a group of people who somehow fooled America into believing that Gay Rights is more of a threat than the war in '04. But that was a spin created by the officials themselves, not by the regular people.
You'd have to be a seriously screwed up person whose taking this election WAY too personally to do something that stupid.
Similar threads
