Dems eating their own

N

NoWowway_IHB

New member
Maybe N_V can address this.



I just don't get why contingents of Hillary Clinton supporters are not getting behind the Democrat candidate, Barack Obama. They are claiming to support McCain in the upcoming election. Are they just so used to losing that they want to throw the 2008 election too?
 
Ah, you don't know the old Will Rogers quote. Such a kerfuffle is hardly new. You also might want to Google "Reagan Democrats" and do some reading. Most of the Hillary supporters are from hard core Dem states (like CA), so as long as they are less than about 10%, it won't matter in the Electoral College count.



Besides, there was alot of grumbling out of Reeps about McCain, too.
 
Maybe instead of *expecting* Hillary supporters to get behind Obama - perhaps Obama and all his idol worshipers should try to figure out WHY those democrats don't support Obama and address those issues.
 
I don't think anyone would quibble with the concept of first seeking to understand and then to be understood. From your language and tone, it sounds like you're Hillary supporter who is not supportive of Obama. If so, perhaps you would like to explain why (or "WHY").



And for NWW - I don't get "used to losing"? I thought Dems were the majority in both houses of Congress and prior to Bush, held the WH for 8 years.
 
my tone was a little less than pleasant wasn't it! sorry about that....



There are certain issues with which I disagree with Obama about but it really comes ultimately down to the fact that my feeling from the Obama campaign is that they fail to recognize the moderate democratic view. I have felt this way for quite awhile with the democratic party and the election of Obama is the icing on the cake. I definetely get the 'democratic elite' feeling from Obama's campaign - I did not get that feeling from Hillary - it reminds me of college - so idealistic and with lack of understanding of the real world (as evidenced by some of the mistakes the Obama campaign has made).



anyway, I know there are a ton of arguments and examples that people will and do present against my argument but it is not a feeling that has come from one incident or one issue - just a general feeling that I get when I watch Obama and his campaigners.



I do have to say though that I saw him on tv a few days ago and he was actually talking a bit more moderately than I had ever heard him speak before. I actually liked him much more than ever before during the interview - however, so much for all the talk I have heard about him not being a 'politician' who will change his approach to win the election.
 
My problem with Senator Obama is he is the most liberal member in the senate.



My problem with Senator McCain is he is to the right of Daniel Boone, execpt on gun control (which he gets right IMO) and immigration (which he also gets right). It's the last two the Republicans hate about him. He doesn't walk in lock step with the party.



If I vote for McCain, I get a guy who is going to nominate the most conservative of justices and make the court more conservative, which I don't like. McCain will radically cut spending if elected. He may even touch the third rails and fix the structural deficits.



If I vote for Obama I get a guy who I'm not convinced can do the job, and is much more liberal than I am. I am not thrilled about a Dem dominated executive and legeslative branch. But, I have not printed up the "Democrats for McCain" bumperstickers - yet. Obama ran an excelent campaign. He would do well to run to the center as fast as possible, steal the middle ground from McCain, and earn my vote. I want more substance and less speeches.



In 2000, I remember saying after the election "Meh, Bush was a good governer. He'll be OK." Boy was I wrong.
 
<em>And for NWW - I don?t get ?used to losing?? I thought Dems were the majority in both houses of Congress and prior to Bush, held the WH for 8 years. </em>



Bill Clinton was the only Dem president to get two terms in several decades of presidential elections. The Dem's ran Kerry (tired out democrat ideas) and could not even defeat GWB- arguably on of the very worst presidents in all of US history. The ONLY reason the dems are sweeping the elections in 2006 and (predictions for) in upcoming 2008: Overwhelming George W. Bush abuses that have led to the 80% disapproval rate.



The democrats are in for a spanking as soon as Republican incumbents are shoved out of office for enabling the current President and his dismal record of stupidity.



If the Democrats can't get organized - or worse- start dictating things TO the voters, rather than listening to what we all want, then you can expect them to face ousters in the subsequent elections.



Things have changed for our "representatives". They're going to have to represent, rather than rule.



Pelosi needs to go the next election cycle. When she said "impeachment is off the table", she showed herself as one of the ruling class. I'm tired of the royalty factor. From BOTH parties.
 
<em>In 2000, I remember saying after the election ?Meh, Bush was a good governer. He?ll be OK.? Boy was I wrong. </em>



In 2000, I remember saying at the time of the election, "Bush and Gore seem to be about the same. I'll vote for the guy who I think will be more fiscally responsible".



Boy was I wrong.
 
NWW,



You underestimate Karl Rove - the greatest political mind of our generation, maybe ever.



He is also a sick, sick, demented man. For him I have respect - and a great deal of pity.
 
Yep, I voted for Bush, 'cause Gore looked uncomforable, heck,

he looked like he had a stick pushed up his posterior regions.



Boy, was I wrong. If Gore had shown the comfort he has in the

spotlight that he shows now, he would have been a shoo-in.



My Florida vote would have been a significant fraction of the number

needed to change history.
 
Democrats should show some sensibility and then maybe they could get a toehold in for more than an election cycle or two.



Look at the Republicans. The real party republicans don't like McCain at all. However, they are voting for him b/c he's the party nomination. No matter what they say. They are voting for him. They'll hold their nose and vote the party line.



Obama is the DEMOCRAT PARTY NOMINEE. Yet there's all kinds of handwringing about "how much/what kind of" democrat he is and IF democrats should vote for the other party. Huh? You want THE ONLY DEMOCRAT IN THIS RACE TO win this one or not?



Man, you just don't see that kind of shooting in the foot stuff from the Republicans. They want some distance between their party and what all Bush has been up to, so they let a guy they don't even really like, be the candidate and cross their fingers to see if he'll get in.



Not so for the Democrats! They just can't wait to lose this one.



Republicans have their Royalty in their party, as do the Democrats. However the Dems come across as unorganized crybabies who will backstab and carry out their philosophical grudges in public. They'll even vote for the opposite party, when they clearly should have the win in the bag.



They threw the 2004 elections by bringing out party Royalty -old, dusty, entitled Kerry for voters to deny. If they had taken a risk with some new face who has mature judgment and could speak with eloquence and vision, they might have taken back the presidency for their party. I guess they could have trotted out old Teddy Kennedy as an even more offensive choice to outraged republicans who wanted ANY excuse to vote for someone other than Bush. No Republican - even the UNhappy republicans could ever vote for Ted Kennedy- do not make the mistake of misunderstanding how hated some Dem political hacks are, by republican voters. (think Edwards, for example of someone who could have at least not offended so many Republicans with all the traditional political party shenanigans that both sides engage in. He could have stood a chance against Bush. But it was "not his turn")



I really don't underestimate the Democrats ability to throw this election in November. They are professional losers.
 
[quote author="NoWowway" date=1213680036]I really don't underestimate the Democrats ability to throw this election in November. They are professional losers.</blockquote>


The problem is the Dems are not the tight knit like Republicans.



Republicans tend to be



- Evangelical Christians

- Anti Tax types

- Law and Order types

- Want Government off thier back types

- Farmers from California



Dems are often:



- Minorities

- Labor

- Education

- Social Welfare types

- Farmers from Iowa (well, midwest)

- Catholics

- Jews

- Somebody who was formerly oppressed

- Poor

- Apologeticly wealthy



Social conservatives can overlook the anti tax platform (it doesn't cause friction with thier belief structure), so they build an easy coalition.



Minorities and labor have vastly different agendas, and farmers from Iowa hate both of them. Catholics scratch their heads and are begrudgeingly forced to accept the Gay/Lesbian group, even though it doesn't jive with thier faith. See a problem?



I think the term is obsolete, but I would describe myself as a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Dog_Coalition">Blue Dog Democrat</a>, a Spartan furugality with a pinch of Jesuit commitment to the underclass of the world. Which makes me a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heretic">heretic.</a>
 
nowowway - your statement is assuming that democrats would consider Obama as president 'winning' simply because they are registered as a democrat. There are sooooo many more things that define who I am, what I believe politically, and who I vote for than the simple act of registering as democrat or republican. Personally, based on what I have heard neither option is going to do much for my personal financial situation - maybe Obama depending on how he ends up defining middle class.
 
Here's some good news for NWW: <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-women16-2008jun16,0,5593581.story">Women are lining up behind Obama.</a>



Re: the "elitist" tag. This isn't the first time we've heard it. They trotted it out for Gore and Kerry, too. Apparently any educated Dem is an elitist. I was talking to someone the other day who said that about Obama. I looked at him quizzically and said, "How can someone who earned their chops doing organizing in Chicago be an elitist?" I still have the same question. Essentially, that argument is to pull enough working class folks from the Dems (who, economically, would mostly be on their side) to make a difference. While this generally doesn't work among represented folks (i.e., union members), it works well in "right to work states" (i.e., the South and West).



I think many of you touched on something important though: You were provided a characterization that seemed to line up with the guy you voted against last time (or the time before) and now you wish you would have been more critical. Whether it be Obama, McCain, Nader, or whomever, I would really encourage voters to be very, very skeptical of easy negative narratives. Examine them, roll them around, ask who would be putting this forward and why. Is it true, or does it contain only a seed of the truth? Does it matter? Sadly, voters will always get mud slinging because irregular voters are motivated to go to the polls to vote against a candidate rather than for one.
 
[quote author="EvaLSeraphim" date=1213701269]Link? Or at least a reference?</blockquote>


I was pointing out (that you were pointing out) the information gap. Nothing more. Easy there, sister.
 
There still seems to be confusion as far as how important it is to vote either republican or democrat in this election. We've just completed 8 distinct years under Republican, GWBush. Here is something from a friend of mine to consider:



<strong>Memo to Americans from the Ultra-Rich:



We have conned you for years in order to place in effect a system by which we can destroy the middle class and create a labor pool of people so desperate to survive you will submit to any form of exploitation we choose to impose upon you. We have done this because the level of our greed will not support the existence of a middle class. We will not be satisfied until we possess, quite literally, everything -- including the labor of your bodies and minds in our service.



If you will not consent to accepting slave wages as sufficient remuneration for your services to us, we will abandon you and let you starve. There are plenty of already starving people on this planet whom we can exploit, and who will gladly perform as our wage slaves for the privilege of being permitted to eat.



You have been credulous fools for decades now, and we are very, very close to having you precisely where we want you. We doubt you have the strength of character or of will to prevent us from owning the entire planet and forcing the world's population into granting us what we believe we deserve -- concentration of all wealth and power into our hands and your permanent subjugation in service to our desire for the infinite luxuries you will produce for our pleasure.



Vote Republican."</strong>
 
ok nowowway - maybe I do need to vote for Obama - good post..



Eva - in my personal experience there are democrats that are educated that are not elitist; however, in highly educated circles - which is where most of my experience lies - you are a minority if you are not extremely liberal in every single way. It is basically assumed that everyone agrees with the extreme liberal view and when you don't it is sort of met with incredulism and an attitude that you just must be missing some information or else you would also come to agree with them. In addition, the anti-american rhetoric in these circles is constant and strong - and although I do believe that one of the best things about our society is our freedom to critisize the govt., I also believe that constant anti-american rhetoric only serves to turn a lot of people off including me.



I did not feel about Kerry how I have felt about Obama - although he was accused of being an elitist as well as you mentioned.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top