TX paper: If Obama doesn't get nomination, many Dem voters will skip Nov election

I imagine the same can be said on a nationwide level. Hopefully the superdelegates will pay attention to this!!


http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/030908dnpoldemvoters.3a5249f.html


Backers of both Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton turned out with passionate support for their candidate in last week's Texas primary. But once they got in the voting booth, they did something different.

Obama supporters were more likely to vote in the presidential race and then skip the other contests than Clinton supporters, who tended to continue voting down the ballot, a Dallas Morning News analysis finds.

<snip>

But the numbers suggest that many Obama voters were drawn singularly to him and might not return in the fall if he's not the nominee – blunting the flood of new voters who Democrats hope will help revive the party in Texas and sweep it into the White House.

"We wouldn't get a lot of those young voters that came into the process exclusively for him," said Dallas lawyer Doug Haloftis, a Clinton supporter.

No chance I vote for Hillary

Me? I may leave the portion of the ballot blank and vote for the rest of the Democratic ticket.

I haven't decided yet.

I'll vote Democrat down the ballot but leave the Presidential blank.

I feel she is trying to steal the nomination. I won't stand for the superdelegates overturning the nomination. If the Democratic party needs taught a lesson, so be it.

Maybe by election day my head would overrule my heart. But not today.

and a cheap, devisive one at that.

or divisive? Never mind - you'd be wrong either way.

so we have to vote on the propositions, but I don;t have to vote for her..

that wasn't a pile of BS. Nah. He's a straight shooter.

Her campaign tactics are very much Republican. It has nothing to do with Obama being divisive. I has everything to do with Hillary being dishonest and acting like a Republican. I don't necessarily vote for someone with a "D" next to their name, although I almost always do, as I am a Democrat. But, in her case, a deeper look shows to me that she is not a very good Democrat. I'd really have to think about whether I'd vote for her or no Presidential candidate at all (I would vote for all of the downticket Dems). I doubt she will get the nom, but if she does, this will be the most joyless election I have ever been a part of. A lose/lose worse proposition.

Obama is doing to Hillary what Bush did to Gore and Kerry, pretend to hover above the fray while his supporters and the lazy media engage in negative, obsessive attacks on his rivals. He has Olberman, Tweety, Stephanie Miller, Ed Schultz, etc, doing his dirty work for him.

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2004/08/28/moore_rove_swift_boat/">Obama is using the Karl Rove playbook.

"Rove developed a template for smearing opponents. The goal was to have his candidates hover above the fray while urging their opponents to concentrate on issues, thereby constantly putting them in a position of having to play defense and deny unfounded accusations. Eventually, the Rove client, according to the script, would step out to demand an end to the ugliness. Of course, Rove wrote the narrative of these plans in such a way that calling for a truce would not occur until the damage had already been done to his opposition."

No way I vote for her. Not after what she's done the past few weeks.

me 5

If we can't see what we have in front of us, I fear we'll never take back the W.H.

What if the Democrats had re-nominated Adlai Stevenson yet again in 1960 instead of a bright, earnest young man named John F. Kennedy?

The Clintons have had their day. And for chrissakes, the GOP has had far too long to run this country into the ground, and now they want us to vote for someone who'll be roughly 80 if/when he leaves office after 2 terms. If that's not looking backward, I don't know what the hell is.

Barak Obama is the ONLY candidate who offers a chance to hand the baton to a new generation of leaders, one who will reject the triangulation and DLC-GOP-lite BS that has just reduced our politics to a one-party system.

Hillary loses Texas by 7%, so why bother voting if she's the candidate?

Obama will have many months to win the 1% of Texas voters he needs to take the state.

would you vote for the down ticket dems?

same question if Hillary were the nominee.

I'm just curious.

btw - I'm for Obama.

Or care much about progressive causes.

And that is largely because of the Clintons. I'm an independent. But I'll support Obama if he's the nominee.

"One-in-five white Democrats (20%) say that they will vote for McCain over Obama, double the percentage who say they would switch sides in a Clinton-McCain matchup (10%). Roughly the same number of Democrats age 65 and older say they will vote for McCain if Obama is the party's choice (22%). Obama also suffers more defections among lower income and less educated Democratic voters than does Clinton.

In addition, female Democrats look at the race differently depending on the matchup. While 93% of women in the party say they would vote for Clinton over McCain, just 79% say they would support Obama over McCain.

A quarter of Democrats (25%) who back Clinton for the nomination say they would favor McCain in a general election test against Obama. The "defection" rate among Obama's supporters if Clinton wins the nomination is far lower; just 10% say they would vote for McCain in November, while 86% say they would back Clinton."

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=125...

And the sad part is, some of her supporters seem quite proud of these results. Now that's shameful.

... and if people's prejudices deliver us another Republican, then 4 more years of negative reinforcement are in the offing. One would think Nader/2000 was recent enough history for people to have a frickin' clue.

I loathe Hillary, but I realize she's not a Republican.

edit: Well, I don't loathe Hillary, just much of what she does, doesn't do, says, doesn't say, and implies. There's a diff.

You are a fence sitter. Some people have fragile egos and would prefer to sulk and lick their wounds rather than do the right thing. Hate does odd things to some people.

would anyone sit this out and let McPain get the White House? I am not for Clinton but I am more against the Repugs in the WH.

it is all about THEM and not what is best for Democracy and The Constitution

either McCain or Hillary.

Your principal isn't likely to be pleased with your spelling.

:D

I will be able to join you come election day, should Hillary win.

enough is enough.

...so WTF does my vote matter?

Corporate Tweedle Dee and Corporate Tweedle Dum. :shrug:

I guess that means Arizona may stay red. As I said above, maybe I will be able to not vote.

tends to last a lifetime. Throwing the youth for Obama under the bus with super delegates is unconscionable

Once tuned out, they don't come back.. maybe their kids do, but they don't

Clinton's supporters would likely do the same thing. Some of the Republican women who have crossed over for her, for example, would heed her advice that McCain is more fit to be "commander in chief" then Obama. Likewise, the youth vote that Obama has brought out could be disillusioned with the system if they perceive Clinton has slimed Obama, who has little policy difference with her, in order to meet her need to be president.

The Clintons keep stressing their logic that Hillary appeals
to the regular democratic base, the 'die-hards' who vote in every
election, who vote a straight ticket, who are loyal to the party.

So, if they are so loyal, if this logic is to work, it says
they support the anointed candidate of the party.

And if it isn't Hillary, then these party regulars suppport
whomever the convention nominates.

Party loyalty regulars vote...so if its Obama, then it is...

The wild card is all the young people and independents
who resonate with Obama's message of change and new ideas.

Hillary's tactics recently are simply business as usual.
And turn off the newbies..

McCain get's in we may have a draft and there will be no money for education, and people usually vote their pocket book anyway!

The superdelegates will not be intimidated or bullyed, but will choose very carefully after the final tally of delegates, popular vote and electability...........

they feel like they have lost fair and square they will probably stay in. This is my opinion, but of course neither of us can prove our theories and even when it is over here will be plenty of disagreement as to what happened.

play out. One side will be unhappy but I believe things will turn out fair in the end and people will calm down and vote in their own best interests.

in the end. As a Hillary supporter, I am willing to concede to Obama if he wins both the popular vote and is substantially ahead in delegates. But I don't think that will happen.

More likely the decision will be split!

They would vote for Mccain anyway :rofl:

this is why she will make this as nasty as possible to the very end. Her boss' want her but if they cant get her in office they need McCain. Clinton would be best for the elite because it would quiet down allot of people and put them back to sleep at the wheel because their was a D in office. The elite will continue to destroy our country at a fast rate, with Obama, I believe there will be enough people involved in whats going on and it will slow the machine. It will only slow it at this point, only a "peaceful" revolution will turn the country around.

All of our income tax paid, goes to the federal reserve (which isnt even an American organization). The federal reserve gives our government as much worthless paper it wants, we pay the interest from our income tax, our government continues to borrow more paper, cost of goods continue to climb up(the only way it can go) and we continue to have less and less money until we are slaves to the bankers and government.

No president will just fix the country but one that gets people involved could help.

I stood in line with a lot of African-Americans who look at this election as the cause of their lives. I don't see them working and voting for anyone but Obama.

They are fired up by Obama. They don't like Hillary, therefore they won't
go and vote.

This article is a bit off though. There are red states that Obama will win
in the general election- states that have mostly white voters. These
states will go to McCain if Obama isn't the nominee. The bottom line
is, Obama is the better candidate for many ewasons (not to mention
the rest of the world prefers Obama).

second civil war has gon on long enough. Politics aside, I have been happy to see young folks today benefit from all the work that has been done by many in their parents' generation to spawn a generation of young men and women of all races who by and large treat each other with equality and civility. We have got to let go.

Interesting choice of words.

Purely as a hypothetical: if the convention were deadlocked and none of the two candidates could muster the required delegates and 3rd candidate was proposed and endorsed (for the sake of example, Al Gore) and Obama campaigned for him, you think those voters would stay home?

They feel they are making history...they've had many chances to vote for a person many black leader have endorsed...nothing special there.

No two ways around that....

what's a name for people who will vote FOR him solely because he is...? There are a lot of those too.

just like you can. THEY didn't tell me they are racist, that's MY opinion.

Nothing like the Republicans, but, alas...

They're Democrats for other reasons... heredity/tradition... residual labor support... basic understanding that the Democratic Party is the workers' party (despite recent history).

Geez, I was already going to have to hold my nose and vote for her before all her bullshit. Now, if she steals the nomination, I am going to have to keep telling myself to actually vote for her, and that voting for her isn't really a vote for her, that it's a vote to try to keep the supreme court from swinging waaaaaay right, it's a vote to attempt to retain civil rights in this country, etc, etc, etc...

If the impossible by any ethical and moral means happens and she does manage to steal the nomination I feat that so many will be so disgusted by her that they won't show up at the polls at all.

If she does steal the nomination it is imperative that the word gets out that we need the Dem votes for the supreme court, even if Clinton makes us vote for what we hate, that tired old politics of hate and fear and smears.

The oft repeated charge which is true by the way is that the democrats take African American votes for granted. Hillary cheats to get the nom with MI & uses super delegates over voters. You can forget about it.

The religious right is awfully bossy these days, and the repubes are eagerly looking for a new group to replace them,.. They would LOVE to start welcoming African-Americans into the fold, and maybe even following through for a while at least, to convince them they belong.. They actively courted the religiosos and have held them for a long time..but I think they are sick of them and their odd beliefs..

Look for McCain to start pushing for inclusion..

to get 2025 elected delegates and she walkes away with the nomination, and there is no way she can do that.

Read the rules (which are admittedly flawed on many counts): any candidate who fails to get the majority of 2025 elected delegates loses. Both Obama and Clinton are poised to lose the nomination and will have to solicit votes from the super delegates to limp over the finish line.

But you can bet that is how the MSM and the Repubs will paint it to maximize the howling.

And there will be quite a lot if Obama comes in the with the most PDs and the most states and doesn't win - deservedly so.

he's just as big a loser as Mike Gravel.

I'm sure though his followers would think he was cheated if he held a lottery ticket which was just one number off. Such is partisan politics.

Unfortunately, a loss is a loss, no matter how good one is at spinning it.

And no matter what happens at the Convention, the corporate media will give us bad press. It will be general election time again, and they will expose their hand and start working for the Republican candidate -- The One, chosen not by Oprah Winfrey this time, but corporate America for round two.

if she manages to get the nomination with questionable tactics considering all her words about bush's stolen presidency. the hypocrisy!

So what's your point?

Even when they have no idea what his positions on issues are...is that different from being -against- him for the same reason?

in this country.

only vote for Hillary because she's a woman?

That's about the most charitable a term I can think of.

and you sell the american people short if you don't think they know the issues. this primary season has lasted for what seems like, FOREVER. People have had a chance to get to know Sen. Obama. You Clintonites slay me...you're all of a sudden concerned that blacks are voting disproportionately for the black candidate, but it doesn't seem to bother you in the GE when we vote in the same numbers for the white guy.

By your logic, perhaps AA's should be voting more proportionately, with the GOP as well? Which may happen, depending on the outcome of this year's convention.

politically-correct appellation is - and as I said I will absolutely vote for the Democratic nominee whoever he, she or it is. I merely tried to point out that millions of people in all the parties aren't ready to elect a black man (or even a woman of any hue) right now. I'm just pissed off that I don't have a black atheist lesbian to vote for.

presidential dem candidates for 60 years or so. Now they have a chance to vote for a qualified AA, so many are thrilled- just as many women are thrilled to vote for a qualified woman. It's definitely not racism on the part of AA voters or sexism on the part of women voters- as long as identity isn't the only reason they're voting for the person they support.

and it cuts both ways. Please don't think I am defending it by merely observing it. :-)

but don't forget- people vote for foolish reasons all the time, including who you'd rather have a beer with.

Bush is in the bottom .000001% of people I'd like to have -anything- with.
;-)

Except maybe a runcible spoon fight...

AFrican Americans, for the most part, are very loyal to the
Democratic party. They give their support to the party candidate.

They don't necessarily vote for a black candidate based on race,
otherwise both Jesse JAckson and Al Sharpton would have elected
office. But neither of them was seen as 'electable' in the wider arena,
and thus, never got very far.

Now, having said that, the Clintons have always held the loyalty
of the African American electorate. Bill was much beloved in the
black community. Heck, he put his post-presidential offices in
Harlem (much to the distain of many in the community who felt that
it 're-gentrified the community' and caused real estate prices
to soar much too high for the average resident of Harlem).

The Clintons were counting on the loyalty of the African American
community to support Hillary's bid for office. They thought Obama
was a local phenomena, and after a few contests, he could be
brushed away with the ease that Richardson, Dodd, and Edwards fell.

But after Obama proved he was a candidate viable in the general elections,
his support in the African American electorate soared. And the Clintons are faced
with several depressing possibilities:

1. That Obama will capture the nomination, souring Hillary's ambitions...

2. AND any attempt by the Clinton campaign to sully Obama will dampen any
loyalty to the Clintons by the AFrican American base, and she will lose their
valuable votes in the general election. They are in a lose/lose situation...
I believe that's why the gloves are off. She has nothing to lose, and a
presidency gained, no matter how bitterly it is gained.

People who are disgusted with his race-baiting tactics.

I'll vote for him. He hasn't proven himself to me and I certainly don't think he deserves to be president but I'll vote for him simply because a McLame presidency could spell the end of this country.

a microcosm of America or even of Democrats. Personally I'm TERRIFIED that McCain is very likely to be the next prez. :grr:

the convention, and increasingly I fear neither will be able to bring this party back together.

I have always disliked the concept of super delegates and have thought a situation such as this should be resolved by a national runoff between the two leading candidates. Unfortunately such are not the rules governing this primary.

If our leading candidates were willing to put aside their enormous egos and hammer out a compromise between themselves, that might be the best solution. Short of that, the super delegates should do the job for which they were created and throw their support behind the candidate they think can win, who may by the time of their decision be neither of our two leading, but losing, candidates.

of Obama's 'race-baiting' tactics....

I've watched his rallys, heard his speeches, and I find him unifying,
not 'race baiting.' That has been his appeal across all the ethnic lines,
he is not emphasizing race..

PLease elucidate...

Upon finding out that Clinton led him significantly in South Carolina--a must win state for him--he decided to do a "40 Days of Faith" tour in the state to pry the black gospel culture away from Clinton. (The Democratic electorate in SC is over 50% black, by the way.)

This was clearly to remind them that he's "one of them", and the use of religion was a comfortable way to tap into an already-in-place culture to pull supporters en masse.

There were unintended consequences, however, which have overshadowed all this: the inclusion of a couple of overtly homophobic performing acts. Knowing that he couldn't piss off the very community he was courting by flushing the Reverend Donnie or Sister Sister, he decided to do a classic political maneuver by including a gay preacher on the bill. This minister was on at the very beginning of the show that McClurkin MCed, and then left. The zinger? The minister is white, even though at least two prominent gay black preachers from the region had offered their services.

What's the subtext there? It's pretty obvious: even though some ceremonial toleration of the degenerates will be displayed, acknowledgment that this horrid failing exists among our strong blood won't be made. "We" aren't like that.

It stinks to high, high heaven.

Not repudiating Farrakhan earlier is another incident; he's a megaracist of the worst sort.

Obama's played it very cautiously and he's in a no-win situation if the race issue comes up, but he's also benefited from racism and will continue to do so.

Many people swear up and down that it has nothing to do with their support, just as I'm sure Farrakhan will assure us that Obama's a true statesman for the ages and he'd vote for him even if he was a Korean Jew.

One is not responsible for the actions of all of one's supporters, but one can wind up with some very strange bedfellows if one isn't careful.

As for using race as a wedge, there's no better example than that sad and ugly affair in South Carolina. Gosh, he was only using religion and race to sleaze a windfall of supporters; it's so unfair that all that other crap happened. The unfortunate thing is that the homophobia was probably accidental, yet it's eclipsed what I see as worse and creepier bigotries: race and religious xenophobia.

These are not the acts of a really nice guy; these are the acts of someone who confuses morality with expediency, and that's the most charitable way I can put it.

So, is he a "worse" person than Senator Clinton? Hard to say; if so, it's not by much.

so good riddance to them.

tactics before & since the OH and TX primaries? If not, then you're a lost cause. You're married to your notion that only Hillary is presidential material. Get this, Hillary has no coattails. She may win the nomination (by hook or by crook), and might even win the WH, but she will be a disaster for down-ticket races, all across the board.

...life long Democrats, such as me, who have NEVER missed an election and who have NEVER voted for a Repuke are unwilling to vote for Hillary.

If this is not a freaking clue as to how much she is hated, then you really, really need to open your eyes and take a long, hard look around you. EVERY faction has Hillary haters and her negatives tend to be over 50% of every faction except maybe for older women who earn under $50K a year...IIRC.

I could have gone to the polls and willingly voted for any Dem this coming November except Hillary. I had problems with Hillary to begin with ~~ but when the campaign started, I would have held my nose and forced myself to vote for her simply because she was the Dem nominee.

However, after watching the dishonest, snarky, nasty, bitter, unethical and bogus crap she has done...I would not vote for her under any circumstances. And coming from someone as active in and as passionate as I am about the Democratic Party...that should be a real eye opener to those who support Hillary. She has lost members of the base that consists of the REAL Dems....the life-long, straight-ticket voters.

JMHO

...Democratic Underground is not a representative of the voters' opinion. I certainly hope not anyway because if the immature brats who have run rampant on this board since January represent real people then I'm not leaving my house.

every democrat on the ballot, but worked my butt off. I was a precinct captain for Bill and brought in 97% of the voters I had identified would vote for him. I even had to get a couple women dressed -- at 6 PM yet. But I cannot in good conscience give Hillary my vote or work. My main reason was a speech she gave to AIPAC I watched on the internet -- she revealed that she had not learned her IWR lesson. She not only sickeningly pandered, but appeared to ache for the chance to bomb Iran -- and reiterated that she took nothing off the table - ie nukes! Her latest nasty campaign tactics have simply sealed the deal. I don't think political campaign have to be so destructive and mean.

Anyone see Obama going third party?

He'll have a huge warchest, a large, highly motivated organization on the ground, and a strong message against two "old school", DC-Centric politicians.

Of course that pretty much means President McCain, but that is going to happen anyway if Hillary is nominated.

possibility of a third party emerging within the next couple years if the rift can not be repaired.

He doesn't embrace liberalism. He doesn't embrace the traditional Democratic values.
He should have been an Independent candidate.

has a better chance of winning a 3 way race than Hillary does of winning a 2 way race.

but it doesn't suprise me...the "me" generation just pack it up and go home when it doesn't go their way...well guess what, this is not just about you. Get used to it, you have a lifetime ahead of you where things are not always going to go the way you want, time to grow-up.

than party insider super delegates

the article says "the numbers suggest that many Obama voters were drawn singularly to him and might not return in the fall if he's not the nominee". The fact of the matter is we have two potential candidates at the moment, but only one can move on. The fact that young people will not vote if it is not their candidate is very childish. I am a Hillary supporter who will back Obama 100% as the nominee should that be case. Young voters need to learn that sometimes you win, and sometimes you don't, but to remove yourself from the process because it does not go your way shows a lack of maturity. And don't think for a minute that I won't say the same to Clinton supporters who say they won't back Obama.

it's pretty well known that the only way Hillary can become the nominee is by having the super delegates overturn the pledged delegates.

Both Clinton and Obama will lose the nomination without super delegate support, as will all the other candidates who declared for this primary and have either dropped out or suspended their campaigns.

Obama may have a plurality; but pluralities count for squat under the rules.
If Obama goes on to win the nomination, he will have to depend on the votes of super delegates to override the votes of delegates elected to support Clinton. Will you consider that "stealing" the election? You shouldn't, because whoever wins the election will have to do it by overriding the elected delegates of other candidates with help from the super delegates.

Whichever of the two leading candidates, or both for that matter, who loses the nomination shall have done so under the rules he or she agreed to at the beginning of this process, and that will be true, since neither managed to win a majority, even if the convention turns to a compromise candidate, neither of the above.

If super delegates vote for Obama, and Obama has the lead in PD and popular vote, then they are continuing in the same manner as the people and reflecting the will of the people.

It's true that neither candidate can win the nomination without super delegates, but neither candidate can not win the nomination without the pledged delegates either.

If Obama wins more pledged delegated, which it appears he will, and the SD's give Clinton the 2025 that is what is called an injustice.

Super delegates were designed to keep out two types of candidates, and were never meant to be used to overturn the will of the popular vote because it is someone's turn.

They were designed to keep out candidates that are 1) not Democrats and 2)to keep an unelectable candidate from winning the nomination.

Neither of those two reasons apply to Obama. Polls show he would win more electoral votes than Hillary, and his voting record is often considered more liberal than hers.

It was not. 2025, a majority, was set as the required goal.

The problem both Obama and Clinton face is no clearcut "will of the people" manifested itself for either of them. If it had, one of them would have the nomination in hand. But both have failed to reach the agreed upon goal and both have had more Democrats vote against them than for them, not a very positive expression of the will the people in either case.

If a candidate was not a Democrat (highly unlikely) or unelectable (always debatable and many think both Clinton and Obama fit that category), the super delegates would be helpless to do anything about it if the candidate, Democrat or not, electable or not, had obtained 2025 delegates.

No, the super delegates were put into place to use their best judgment, based on whatever factors they considered important, to break a deadlocked conventions, such as the one to which we may be heading. If neither of our leading candidates is able to reach the magic number 2025 on the first vote, don't be surprised if neither wins the nomination, since failure to gain a majority from the ranks of the faithful hardly points to success in the general election.

which happens to be the exact amount that Edwards holds.

As far as to why the super delegates were put in place -

Super-delegates are designed to act as a check on ideologically extreme, inexperienced candidates, or those deemed unelectable. It also gives power to people who have a vested interested in party policies: elected leaders.


I just don't see how they can go against the popular vote since neither candidate fills that criteria, other than experience in which case they both come out almost equal.

If the super delegates say that Obama does not have enough experience, then they must also concede that Hillary doesn't enough experience.

candidate, who does not have to have run in the primaries. If she were more popular, Nancy Pelosi would be a possibility. AL Gore is a possibility.

The super delegates answer to no one but themselves. You can invent all sorts of rules for them to follow if you want to, but they have nothing to do with the agreed upon process. If the convention becomes deadlocked and neither the Clinton nor Obama elected delegates are willing to budge, a compromise candidate will have to be found. And Obama and Clinton, having already lost their bids to win the nomination through elected delegates, will both lose to a third party.

You may not like the rules; but that's the way it is. And it will be done according to the rules both Obama and Clinton, to say nothing of the candidates who have already dropped out or suspended their campaigns, have agreed to follow.

elected officials. When they run for reelection or a higher office they will have to answer to their voters.

and they are forced chose between Clinton and Obama. The super delegates will try to get Clinton and Obama to come to a compromise themselves; but failing that, it's not a winning situation for most of them no matter which way they jump. Clinton? Obama? Compromise candidate? And all the time, facing the prospect of a divided party jumping days later into a general election.

only do more damage.

thought there was almost no chance either party was headed toward a brokered convention.

Our primary process is a joke. Nothing can be done about now, however. I hope, no matter how the election goes, reforms will be made before 2012; but if the past is prologue, don't count on it.

Just think if we had the provision (costly though it would be) for a runoff between the two top contenders. There would be a clear-cut winner, and only the most fanatical of the candidates' followers would have an excuse for disputing the result, a result which would reflect the will of the majority of Democratic voters.

As it is, we are probably heading toward a brokered convention, in which the super delegates really have no way of knowing what the will of the majority is and will be forced to make a choice which at worst may split the party or at the very least cause a fair number of the loser's supporters stay home on election day, when they might not have if the process had been better. If Clinton and Obama refuse to come together, a compromise candidate might be the best way to go; but no one really knows.

At the very least we should say to our party leaders, Obama and Clinton included, "It's a fine mess you've gotten us into."

minds?

P Diddy couldn't do it

Madonna couldn't do it

Obama can

And you think the goals of a better world don't depend on growing our numbers?

and not allow them to make up their own minds.

The definition of insanity, according to Einstein, is running your head into a wall several times and expecting a different outcome ever time.

If the younger generation rams their head in the political brick wall, why would they set themselves up for failure a second time?

I keep hearing boomers say that they wish more young people were involved in politics, and when it finally happens the boomers want to shut them up because they don't agree.

but to take your ball and run home because things didn't go your way shows a lack of maturity. All people who participate in the vote will come down on the losing side at one time or another. It happened to many of us about 4 years ago, and guess what, we are back again. Younger voters should take a lesson from this, never give up!

turn, just like it was Bob dole's turn

no one said it was Clinton's turn...the post is about younger voters saying they will not participate if Obama does not go to the GE.

Voting Hillary in would basically allow the country's "stupidest generation" to continue gorging themselves on services provided by this younger generation you so easily denounce, and fattening themselves up on deficit spending this younger generation will have to pay back. Just maybe this younger generation doesn't feel like fighting a war in Iran. Maybe they're sick of being talked down to from a generation that hasn't accomplished a damn thing besides bankrupting this country and making sure their motor home rental is paid for before they go off to die.

but don't worry, you will always have a place with the "stupidest generation". Gotta go gas up my motor home before I die! See you sooner than you think!

I think it was called Generation X for some reason. I actually won't be seeing you sooner than I think. I'll be working to pay the taxes it will take to rebuild this country's infrastructure, continue funding our government's debt service, paying for your war efforts and expanding imperialism, bailing out banking interests, and most likely bailing out the next bubble created by the same folks who failed to do a damn thing about funding their retirements and now continually create the next bubble trying desperately to turn their credit card debt into a nest egg.

just the way you are seeing the "stupidest generation". It's only a matter of time, and it comes much quicker than you think. And on a side note, the younger generation and college aged adults generally carry the most credit card bebt of any age group. Guess generation Y or Z will be cleaning that mess up.

They carry that debt because they watched the careless spending ways of the generation before them, and was the first generation that had to deal with new and aggressive credit card marketing schemes allowed by law with the help of the generation of enablers represented by the Clintons.

:applause: :yourock: :applause:

and into our graves...spoken like a true American who is only in it for them-self.

I've been getting a little testy lately the way this thing is turning into a generational battle. We're all Americans but I'm not so shy as to fail to point out what I believe were some major missteps committed the last few decades. This younger generation is not coming out for the Rock Star, they know more about the issues we face then their given credit for and a lot of them are finally pissed off enough about it to get out and vote.

but the original post was about "the younger generation" calling it quits if their candidate didn't win the nomination. Frankly, I don't really care what it takes to motivate you to vote, but the point I am making is don't give up because things don't go your way.

Shitting on these kids as the "me" generation is not a great way to assure that vote.

about shitting on the "older generation". A lot of what Generation X has is because of the boomers, some of it good and some of it bad. I hate what the younger will have to go through to clean-up some of the messes from the generations before them, but don't think for a minute that the boomers did not go through the same from the generation before them.

And unlike some, I give Gen X'ers the benefit of the doubt when it comes to being aware of the issues. Boomers like myself have been aware of the issues for decades, and look what we've done. The same people who are pissed at young people are now pissed at black Dems for supporting Obama disproportionately. They claim that it's the only reason we're supporting him. How patronizing is that?

The same ones who scold young folks and blacks for their support of Obama, dance a jig when they boast about the number of Latinos, Jews, and women who disproportionately support Hillary. Go figure......

Every Republican with a puse - and many without one - will drag their buts to the polls to vote against her.

She will motivate more Repubs to vote against her than McCain could ever drum up to vote for him.

If Obama gets it I see a lot of conservatives just staying home.

And most of 'em ain't posting at DU.

REALLY don't like McCain.

About the only thing they hate worse are the Clintons.

Look at the Primary turnouts for the Repubs this year - they are terrible, especially compared to Dems.

This is not a good year for them, they had a terrible set of candidates to pick from in their eyes and one of the worst won. Hillary would be a big shot in the arm though.

There's a poll around here somewhere that says a full 20% of Hillary's "WHITE" supporters say they will not vote for Obama. What does that say about the "(D)emocratic party? As an AA, I can tell you that is both disappointing and disgusting. Sounds like blacks should really be taking a closer look at the Republican Party, after this election cycle.

healthcare and retirement. Happy outsourcing

makes perfect sense

Democrats will become republicans if a black man wins the nomination via the will of the voters

These dumbasses don't have to vote for McCain. You can either write somebody in or not vote at all. Good grief.

One-in-five white Democrats (20%) say that they will vote for McCain over Obama, double the percentage who say they would switch sides in a Clinton-McCain matchup (10%). Roughly the same number of Democrats age 65 and older say they will vote for McCain if Obama is the party's choice (22%). Obama also suffers more defections among lower income and less educated Democratic voters than does Clinton.

In addition, female Democrats look at the race differently depending on the matchup. While 93% of women in the party say they would vote for Clinton over McCain, just 79% say they would support Obama over McCain.

A quarter of Democrats (25%) who back Clinton for the nomination say they would favor McCain in a general election test against Obama. The "defection" rate among Obama's supporters if Clinton wins the nomination is far lower; just 10% say they would vote for McCain in November, while 86% say they would back Clinton.

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=1254

It's disappointing when white democrats tell blacks to STFU and just vote for us. At least with the Republican party we know where we stand. This is shocking to me.

When these numbers make their way through the black community, I really hope we'll begin to reassess our lopsided loyalty to the Democratic party. I feel sick right now.

Here it is:

"Obama supporters were more likely to vote in the presidential race and then skip the other contests than Clinton supporters, who tended to continue voting down the ballot, a Dallas Morning News analysis finds."

A person who is committed to the party, rather than one candidate or one campaign season, may read that Obama's supporters are more likely to not vote on the down ticket races, and worry. Especially since the DNC is broke and all the small donor money is going to this primary, there's a lot to worry about. There are already polls that show Clinton supporters hate Obama and won't vote for him and vice-versa. If the percentage of voters lost by picking one over the other is even (which it appears to be now), that's not going to be the deciding issue somebody who is committed to the party. A person who is committed to the party knows that whoever is the nominee will loose core support (according to current polls). So that person who is committed to the party may decide to back Clinton specifically because her supporters are more inclined to vote for the rest of the Dem ticket.

I'm not saying that's how the super delegates should decide. I'm saying it's a valid reason to back Clinton. I'm saying that the choices the super delegates have to make are not as simple as has been suggested.

rank-and-file Democrats to vote for him, or if they do, they'll suddenly NOT vote Dem down-ticket? Here's the magic of Obama--regular hard-core Dems AND new/cross-party voters will turn out in the GE for him--and the down-ticket stuff will be taken care of.

candidates. You'd have to be insane to tell Obama "no, I don't want you campaigning with me", especially if your in a swing district or state.

"I'm not saying that's how the super delegates should decide. I'm saying it's a valid reason to back Clinton. I'm saying that the choices the super delegates have to make are not as simple as has been suggested."

You're right, it shouldn't be as simple as just pledged delegates.

BUt the reality of it is that, well, it is. If they go against it the media and Republicans will have a field day with the Democrats overturning the vote. They will laugh their asses off as millions of Obama supporters go ballistic. The Dems will NEVER get this kind of turnout in a primary again for a good long time, because a lot of voters will be saying "Why should I vote? They are just going to pick who they want anyway."

SO you can rationalize all you want about why the SDs should consider this reason or that reason to pick HIllary, but at the end of the day that's the 2 ton elephant in the room.

is long gone now.

...

:eyes:

People this is the RW presses way to pretend that the election is close so the neo-cons can steal it again. Another version I have heard is 'we all know that the young people don't come out and vote in the general election the way they do in primaries' along with 'the independents may move back to the right after the primaries or lose their enthusiasm and not vote'. Next will be the old 'the polls are narrowing' or the similar 'everybody knows it will get closer by November'. Don't fall for it and don't let your own ego (My candidate didn't win so I am going to take my vote and go home. boo hoo! boo hoo!) get in the way of helping the Democratic party producing a resounding victory in 2008. Personally I don't care if it is Clinton or Obama they are both fine candidates and I will have no problem voting for either one.

It will go back to how i've been voting the past few elections, in that case I will once again be voting for the person I feel will be doing the least damage...versus if Obama were the nom...i'd be voting FOR him and not against McCain.

As far as i'm concerned lobbyists have their hands so far up McCain and Hillary's asses that when they open their mouths all you see is a big shit stained middle finger. :)

Bravo! :applause:

aren't voting down the ticket...only for obama.
So honestly...they are NOT helping the Democratic Party...they are only supporting their new American Idol and don't take the process seriously enough to realize that if they don't vote downticket...that obama will be just another pretty face sitting in Washington with his hands tied.
They are selfish and they are uneducated to the process.
I'd rather THEY stay home and people who are interested in the ENTIRE process vote if that is what the choice comes down to.

According to Hillary her base can't even figure that out.

So why is Obama's base 'selfish and uneducated to the process?"

and had their churches and their pastors guiding them through the process.
This particular caucus is very convoluted and difficult to follow.
If you don't believe, google it and find out for yourself.
And you know what...WE understood the process...but the obamites cheated for the most part to gain control of the caucuses and proceeded to disrupt and intimidate those who went to exercise their constitutional rights.
Many left fearing for their safety...others were locked out.

Selfish, uneducated people who don't understand the process still managed to organize busing of people in, churches to help people with their voting, and we even though they really didn't know what was going on managed to cheat on everyone anyway?

Even if half that shit is true, which I doubt, sounds like they understand the process and are willing to work it a whole lot better than you do.

I'll not discuss anything further with you.
Have a blessed day.

Helping the Democratic Party would be helping elect a Democratic President. I understand that you don't feel "cool" because you're not voting Obama, but he will win and a large percentage of these new voters will become the base of the new Democratic party.

After Party Democrats have done all the heavy lifting for decades, the starry-eyed Obamamites want to jump into the driver's seat.

Not happening.

for years, taken water hoses, beatings and the like and see this as an opportunity to rid the party of the likes of Hillary and Bill!!!

So that driver's seat belongs to some of us old folk too...

but what you are saying is that this is a racial issue and not just an election? Because last I heard Bill and Hillary haven't beaten ANYONE or sprayed water hoses on anyone.

I never said Bill and Hillary were racists, only made the point that some of us old folk have endured plenty of wrath and done plenty of heavy lifting for the party and we can take the drivers' seat too.

The OP just assumes its just the young folks that are behind Obama.

Btw, it's an election with a "racial" underbelly...to deny otherwise is just naive..

you disgust me.

Could it be possible that this younger generation and these Johnny-Come-Lately's are sick of:

* Deficit Spending
* Financial Deregulation
* Privatizing Infrastructure
* Media Consolidation
* Government Bailouts

They don't perceive Clinton and old Washington as the answer.

alienated from politics and have been energized and awakened by Obama will not cross over to Clinton. There are many reasons - but she says its mostly Clinton's nasty tactics.

Michelle says she'd like to rip out Bill Clinton's eyeballs. Obama's advisor calls Hillary a "monster."

Tell them how Obama got his start--this is certainly a "change":

1996. Obama got his start in politics by hiring Harvard election expert Thomas Johnson to challenge the nomination papers of his opponents, including the popular incumbent Alice Palmer, a community activist (Palmer is a black woman Ph.D. who founded and presided over Chicago youth groups). Knocking them all off, he ran unopposed.

While poor blacks in his district were going without head (and Chicago knew about it), Obama took campaign money from Rezko, who said he didn't have enough money to provide heat to his buildings:

December 27 1996 to Feb. 3, 1997 Rezko (Rezmar Co.) tenants had no heat for 5 weeks until the City of Chicago sued. Rezmar settled for $100.

January 14, 1997. Rezmar donated $1000 to area's newly elected state senator Barack Obama.

if they think both sides do not engage in nasty tactics at some point in their political careers. Are they planning not to vote at all, or cross over to McCain since they won't cross over to Clinton? I think it would be a shame they would choose not to participate in the democratic process just because "their" candidate does not make it to the GE. Frankly, the candidate that I supported dropped out of the race weeks ago, but this is too important to just let it go. I'm not that old (at least I think I'm not), 38 years old, but it seems the younger kids in their late teens and 20's have this "it's all about me" attitude, and if things don't go their way, they just quit. I hope you encourage your daughter and her friends to remain a part of the democratic process.

until Hillary's recent claim that only her and McCain and qualified to be president. In fact, I didn't realize how bad it was until I saw it on TV and noticed she repeated the same thing four or five times! Since hearing that, I'm not really sure if I can get behind her in the general election.

I was starting to wonder what her strategy was since she had no chance to overtake Obama with the plurality of pledged delegates, unless she wanted MI/FL to be included. And it was clear that her only chance was convincing super delegates to ignore the winner of the plurality of pledged delegates with a poor argument that she won "important" states.

Either way, she really crossed MY threshold the other day with her comments.

NOT

:kick:


& Rec

they are cult followers. I believe that Senator Clinton stands a better chance in the General Election than Senator Obama. I can see A LOT of registered Republican women pushing that button for her once the curtain closes. And if the nominee is Senator Obama, which it appears may be likely, then he is going to NEED my vote and the vote of every other Democrat in the land. With all the nasty rhetoric being flung by both sides followers, it is a good probability that SOME of the losing candidates followers will not vote for the Dem, not vote for President or not vote at all. Again, they are cult followers and not Dem voters. But this scenario also hurts Senator Obama worse than Senator Clinton, in my humble opinion. I will be there come November and I will vote for the Democratic candidate for President because I am an American first and a Democrat second but those two are really the same in my book.

"Obama supporters were more likely to vote in the presidential race and then skip the other contests than Clinton supporters, who tended to continue voting down the ballot, a Dallas Morning News analysis finds."

If generally true (far from proven by just one article, IMO), this undermines Obama's case that he will bring in votes for down ballot races in the GE. Hillary's people vote more Dem; Obama's vote more Obama-only.

all of my life and campaigned most of it. I have lost almost all faith in the system as well as many other people I know. Obama is responsible for a few people I know who gave up on politics becoming active again. One in particular, who I know well and is also 100% Dem, voted because Obama.

I, for one, gave money to John Kerry and campaigned hard for him only to discover he was sold out by the Clinton machine. I am becoming involved again because I believe Obama is not corrupted like many in DC. Let me make this totally clear:

I will not vote for HRC in ANY ELECTION! Not after she praised McCain over a Democratic member, NEVER, NOT EVER! To me, she is just as corrupt and those who would stand behind her after watching her negative politics are the ones who are NOT DEMOCRATIC and deserve what they may get!

We all know that the smart thing would be to welcome these new voters, but you already knew that.

The Clinton's are liars and cheats, just like the bush's.

is not a real member of the Democratic party. It's that simple.

All you supporters that declare you'll never vote for a candidate because they weren't "your" candidate in the primaries are nothing more than Vichy Democrats enabling the Republican party and their agenda.

early 70's. Don't you call me unloyal! I'm just one who will not follow a party blindly. IMHO it's time to kick the DLC out of the Democratic party. The party also needs a lesson on this damn stupid superdelegates overruling the voters crap. I don't want to award Hillary or the party the presidency based on her Rovian tactics!

We could survive 4 years of McCain. The only thing that might make me hold my nose and vote for her in the GE would be the SCOTUS and only because any McCain nomination would survive far beyond many more presidencies. I also fear that a Clinton presidency would revitalize the GOP and would in their presidency possibly turn back the Congress to the GOP.

And don't you dare compare us to Vichy!!!!!!!

"We could survive 4 years of McCain."

If you've been voting since the early 70's, then you should recall the enthusiasm for Gene McCarthy in 1968 that culminated in the Chicago convention disaster. McCarthy supporters condemned Hubert Humphrey's candidacy, ultimately contributing to Nixon's win. And this country has never been the same since.

Not voting for Clinton -- if she does win the nomination -- because she doesn't meet some "purity" threshold only serves to enable Republicans to continue their assault against the Constitution and the citizens of this country.

I will vote for whoever the Democratic nominee is. And those that choose not to are indeed Vichy Democrats; there are serious consequences for such decisions.

I will vote for all the other state and local Democrats, but not her.

If Hillary gets the nomination it's a huge net gain for the Republicans. All the Republicans who hate McCain and would stay home now come out to vote against her. The crossovers and Independents who would vote for Obama as the new, fresh face go to McCain over Clinton and our enthusistic young voters stay home. We lose the general. Again the Democrats shoot themselves in the foot.

These new voters didn't just start coming out for this Primary season. There were pretty active in 2006 as well. If the Democratic party believes in anything more than Hillary's turn then they'll need to turn away from a strategy of dismissing this huge new movement of voters to the Democratic candidate.

"Obama supporters were more likely to vote in the presidential race and then skip the other contests than Clinton supporters, who tended to continue voting down the ballot"

How many of Obama's supporters will vote for him November but leave the rest of the ballot blank?

To hell with another 4 or 8 years of the Billary NEOCON in democrat clothing clusterfuck.

:puke:

If he was not in the contest, even Sen. Clinton would not have received nearly the interest she has. Obama caused voters to be interested in Democrats, not Sen. Clinton. All the more reason Obama has earned the right to be and should be the nominee.

I can not vote for someone who doesn't put democrats above her own goals. It will set the democratic party back so far if she wins, and I'd honestly rather hold out for someone who will not triagulate all of the democratic ideals to the Republicans...

If Obama wins, I will do exactly what I did for Kerry and for Dean, I will telephone bank (shudder)...I will door to door all over the neighborhood (I did that a lot - it was really fun:))...I will volunteer for anything and everything...and I will donate the maximum I can...

...drawn to the empty rhetoric and pie in the sky ideas thrown out by obama. They appear out of nowhere, hijack the party, and try to force us all to assimilate.

you wanna talk hijacked? find the many articles floating around here that prove that Republican dirty tricks lead to Clinton's alleged "wins" in OH & TX.

Oh, and welcome to DU...I think :eyes:

Obama. Gotta vote.

:shrug:

White women who want to lose their and their daughters' reproductive rights via a conservative Supreme Court? How Ironic that they would lose what they are trying to protect to make a point that doesn't make any sense!

Kinda of seem like cutting off your nose to spite your face to me.

vote for Obama, of course. I'm sure they have various reasons.

I won't be voting for him myself; it has nothing to do with the supreme court and everything to do with not casting any more votes for neoliberals.

Personally, I don't trust either HRC or Obama to stop the charge to the right anywhere.

and things don't go well? Let's face it, nobody's going to look good cleaning up this mess. It seems to me it would be better to help her clean it up as her Vice President, and then, eight years from now, inherit a better situation. He could really shine as President eight years from now.

when all we have been hearing for months now from her camp is that he doesn't have the experience to be Prez?? VP is one heartbeat away from being Prez. Kinda contradicts her "he doesn't have the experience". So once again we have HRC talking out of 2 sides of her mouth. Much like her "I knew TX would matter a year ago" and then the WaPo article a month ago that had her camp panicking cuz they JUST figured out the TX primary/caucus system **weeks** before our primary election day.


She knows she can't win without him on the ticket... so even if she does offer it to him, he needs to tell her to go to hell..let her sleep in the bed she has made for herself--- the "Unelectable in November" bed.

Plus he would outshine her and HRC doesn't seem to like being outshined. She would forever be in his shadow and his constant presence would only serve as a public reminder how she stole the nomination.

All of the above is moot, anyway, since he will be the official Dem nominee in a few months and HRC bitter self will be off imploding somewhere.

If I was an Edwards supporter? (ducks and runs). LOL


I think it's true. I logged in tonight to see what the HRC supporters have posted re her comments that McCain would be better for the US than Obama. There's gotta be a back story to that or it had to be taken out of context.

If I discover it wasn't - then I won't be voting for her. And it doesn't matter if I do vote for her or not. I live in NJ so it's going Blue in November anyways.

But I'll have the knowledge that I stayed loyal to the Democratic Party - by not casting my vote for her. The reality is, until this developed I would have said, "I'm voting for the nominee no matter what."

actually zeroes in on a salient point.

It works both ways.

:shrug:

Why her first? Age before beauty. It's her turn. Sitting in the Vice-Presidency for a term or two will be a good resume-builder for young Barack, and he'll make for a great president by 2016.

If he's on top, many working class and middle class whites will migrate to McCain. And of course if it's just Hillary, the Obamatrons will stay home. But put Obama on as the VP nominee, and he can still go around the country in the GE and have monster rallies for latte liberals and black folks, and keep them energized.

That's not how it works. Obama's chance is now. If he waits for four or sixteen years who knows what the political situation will be then. Obama has got to go for it while he can. If he doesn't make it this time he may never get another chance.

supposed to be about getting a Dem, any Dem, back into the White House, and now it's all about getting Obama in period.

brother-in-law are three more who will not vote for Hillary. I will if I have to, but only because I believe she has to be better than McCain when it comes to appointing SC Justices.
I know many others in my area who refuse to even contemplate another Clinton administration.

The last time I looked, it had under 1500 signatures. It's growing FAST.


http://www.petitiononline.com/obama725/petition.html

To: Democratic National Committee



We currently support the candidacy of Senator Barack Obama for the office of President of the United States.

If Senator Obama becomes the nominee of the Democratic Party, we intend to vote for him in the general election on November 4th, 2008.

However, if Senator Hillary Clinton becomes the nominee of the Democratic Party, we will

a) abstain from voting in the general election.

OR

b) vote for Republican nominee Senator John McCain or another third-party candidate in the general election.

Sincerely,

The Undersigned