If Barack Obama won the nomination but lost the general election

who will you blame

And maybe redneck racists.

Next stupid question......

Electronic machines count the votes. Once Again.

I have been drinking sake tonight, and I usually don't drink.

-Not a member of the Illuminati.

Do you like R.A.Wilson?

*With* a bun.

So, yes. What's your favorite work?

I know WHY the family has eluded Fritz.....we're really FRENCH and changed the name....

That is a tough one, there were so many that I loved. I can't think of one that I don't like.

When I was active in the O.T.O. there was a guy who would not read any of his books, because those that did all became fanatical fans.

Post O.T.O./A.'.A.'. I drifted IOT, and finally settled on Chaos work. Stripped away a lot of the "masters" for me.

I guess I wound up "not so far" from most seekers who aren't trying to make a buck out of what they've found. ;)

Oh, and to quote something amusing I saw the other night:
"93/93, bitches."

23

Just kidding. But I know thats the answer you want to hear from Obama supporters so you can stir up some trouble.

The voters

Us... His supporters

We should have done a better job of supporting him and helping him make the case to our friends.

And refuse to acknowledge the flaws of the candidate, ala 2004.

I'm confident in our situational advantage. I'm concerned we are nominating the one candidate who could blow that edge.

Regardless, Obama can't lose according to DU. If he wins the White House by 3% it was actually failed theft, from a legit 8% gap.

If he loses, then the most favorable poll from any period in '08 is desperately summoned, state after state, along with national and exit polls. The same simpleton posters will assert we were more motivated, so the only explanation is outright thievery.

We'll win '08. Not by the candidates who would have made the best presidents, but we'll succeed nonetheless. However, if we do lose then that's the clue to depart DU, for a long while. Fraud will be front and center and suffocating.

:(

but he ain't gonna lose

"The best argument against democracy is a five minute discussion with the average voter."

- Winston Churchill

The same question could be reversed. If that happens we are all screwed either way. I support Obama full heartedly, but will vote for Clinton in the GE regardless. I don't understand the hate, or the need to blame the other side.

do I get the prize now?

We wouldn't allow a system where he could lose Nevada by 6 points and pick up a delegate. Or where Texas punished districts for having a low voter turnout in 04. If we had winner-take-all, like we used to, Hillary would be way ahead. The super delegates should make sure that the choice of the convention reflects the choice of the American people. If Hillary wins the popular vote and the electoral college map then she should be the nominee. And that includes her wins in Fl and MI.

Steve

(and most assuredly HRC herself), who still believe this. I have a strong impression that if this system was working for her, no one would want to change a thing. And if it worked for her by gerrymandering some other way, THAT would be the preferred method.

I do find it peculiar that there are those who are still holding onto FL and MI. :eyes:
It is so sad that some people have such disregard for agreements and giving their word to certify future actions. I see it in people around me all the time. I don't expect to see it in elected officials. Their word HAS TO MEAN SOMETHING.

It is the way it is NOW. THIS is the ONLY thing we actually HAVE, what exists right NOW. Living in the present has some real advantages. It helps you see reality. You should give it a try.

Your campaign wrote (Good ol' Terry) the rules for the damn process before Dean took office. If you can't come up with a strategy to win the nomination when you wrote the rules I don't know what claim you have to the nomination.

Everyone knew the rules going into this. I'm sick and tired of hearing belly aching over caucuses and delegate allocation. If the rules weren't fair why did your candidate not say so before the process started?

:hi:

:toast:

:hi:

this disgusts me

Personally I will vote for Hill even if she mugs Obama and steals the nomination


I'm a democrat first and an Obama supporter second

:rofl:

And what do you consider McCain? Geez, do some comparison between McCain and Obama, on their positioins, and if you can honestly say that Obama is worse than McCain, perhaps you should rethink your stay on this board.

because she has lost black support.

and has to win 70% of Hispanics against the most popular Republican ever with Hispanics.

Well because I blame them for everything

Best answer.

If you're one of those Hillary supporters that will vote for John McCain out of spite then you will be to blame if it's close. And I'm certain I'm not the only person here that feels that way.

This pettiness mirrors her campaign perfectly. Unbelievable.

1. Standing (though self-denied) racist voters in the US.
2. Weaker portfolio in bureaucracy, where McCain has more experience than any of our candidates.
3. A DLC campaign of "Clinton or McCain", pretty much laying out why they no longer should be in our party.

... the criteria should be "electing the guy you'd most like to have a beer with".

But more to the point, the MSM who encourage voters to be that ignorant.

The same as I blame Gore and Kerry. All the blame of others is just sinking into powerless victimhood, when in fact Gore could have fought like an SOB and not laid down, and Kerry had a thousand chances to really connect with the people and did not...

But with that said, Barack won't lose.

Well let me amend that. At least Dukakis was able to win almost 90% of Democratic voters in the general election...

1) He's a bad person

2) He will have won it through smearing his opponent on a personal level.

3) He will have disenfranchised Florida and Michigan, thereby costing us those states.

4) He is not trusted by the American people (and with good reason).

5) He does not appeal to blue-collar Reagan Democrats, the core of Hillary's support.

6) He has infuriated Clinton supporters with his reprehensible tactics.

7) He doesn't even ask for people's votes. He simply declares by fiat that he is entitled to them. "I'm pretty sure I'm going to get her voters." Even George Bush has the decency to ask people to vote for him.

8) He has all the same character flaws that George Bush has, with none of Bush's perceived positive traits (fleeting though they are).

Steve

if Obama gets the nomination? :wow: :wow: :wow: :wow:

He tells them they need to make calls and canvas, get involved. THEN they go vote.

I don't know how I've missed you in here so far. Your ideas are infuriating, and considering the lack of responses to your posts, I must assume not too many people can see you.

1) He's a bad person.

Who the fuck are you to say he's a bad person. Do you know him personally?

other than those who reap the greatest profits from the crimes of our system.

You're funny! It's so obvious Obama supporters are setting it up now, maybe because so many of them know deep down he won't win the GE. I read it all over the O-blogs. They are repeating over and over that Hillary is only staying in the race to damage Obama so badly he will lose the GE. If they repeat it enough, it becomes true (for them). Then IF he wins the nomination, and when he loses the GE, BAM! It's all in place. They can say, See, we told you so! It's all Hillary's fault! End of story (for them).

Only problem is the millions who are for Hillary, won't buy it.

O supporters think they have some huge majority on their side. But they don't.

Popular Vote Total
Obama: 13,345,318 49.5%
Clinton:12,634,376 46.9%

Popular Vote (w/FL & MI)**
Obama: 13,921,532 47.5%
Clinton: 13,833,671 47.2%

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html

how do you account for the fact that Obama wasnt even on the ballot in Michigan? Seems a tad unfair to include numbers he wasn't even present in...
cheers!

Yeah,we may be in for four more years of Republican rule. But hey, a lot of latte liberals will have another new imaginary hip black friend, and that's all that really matters, isn't it? :eyes:

all the braggarts what a hell on earth that would be.

Latte Liberals...there are 13 million latte liberals in the country. I don't dismiss HRC supporters as radical femnist. Your arrogance is the reason your losing.

I think you need a new product to make regular people seem elitist.

"Merlot Liberal" still works for NASCAR dads though. Try that one.

Sounds of sweet desperation from Hillary supporters.

GOTCHA!

No, Diebold, or whatever the fuck they call themselves these days.

Edit: Maybe my homo-ness will ruin it for all of you again. Or maybe it will rain and people will be too tired to go vote. Maybe we can just wait for the media to tell us? That seems to be the way these narratives evolve.

but to blame cowardly voters.

.

1) HRC
2) Obama
3) The MSM

who's fault would it be? :rofl:

The buck stops there, and all.

That is a given and not even a concern. Hillary has a better chance at winning the primary then Obama has in winning the GE.

The goal is to get Obama the candidacy and then use his celebrity to win Congressional seats and local races by bringing out Black and young voters to pull that Democratic lever.

I don't think McCain is going to win, but then again I'm not going to make an ass of myself by making definitive statements and predictions about a contest that is seven months away.

I would have been graded A. Obama will be blamed. Simple as that. Is Bob Strum in any way involved in the obama camp? If he is then obama is a sure loser...

I'd figure out what to do next and start doing it. I've been doing that for the last 45 years and I don't see a reason to change now.

worse yet - Democrats who vote for McCain because they're in a snit that Hillary isn't the nominee. A vote for McCain is a vote against your own self interest. A very Republican thing to do. I know a poor guy who always votes Republican because of the "death tax." Don't be a dumb Republican.

Seriously... I'm writing your name down now, so I remember.


:)
(kiddin)

Obama would have the kind of campaign that will engage new people and build a mass movement for years to come. Compare that to 8 years of the Bill Clinton administration that accomplished little lasting change, weakened progressive movements, and turned young people away form the party entirely. The kind of mass movement Obama will help ignite will do more long term good than four more years of a status quo Clinton administration that would only be a damper on mass people's movements like her husband was. We don't get a Democratic President very often. I don't want to waste four more years on one whose accomplishments can be completely erased after one year of the next Republican President.

even when it only tangentially has something to do with the topic.

god...

In the long term, movement building will do more good than another Democratic President who helps destroy progressive movements.

What are some of the changes that you would like to see under Obama?

If its a choice between McCain and Clinton then Clinton is better. But I think an Obama candidacy that loses the general election will do more long term good than four years of a Clinton Presidency.

Same as in town.

fueled by the media.

Same thing I blame for 2 terms of Bush.

in that order

And I would also blame them for fixing the election if Hillary got the nomination and lost. It's what they do. I have no doubt they'll try it again no matter who the nominee is.

A myriad of things will be theblame. The Oompas are so blind, Obama could shit in public and Oompas would pay for the droppings.

I'd blame Hillary for the kitchen sink strat, we never should have attacked our own like that. I'd also blame the Obama supporters who responded to those tactics by adopting them themselves, now both sides are dirty. I'd blame the dem party as a whole for letting this whole Wright thing be twisted and twisted by our own. Agree with him or not much of what's been said about him and posted from him has been out of context and without the simple fact pointed out that in parts it wasn't even his own words. He was quoting a US Ambassador.

There's power in attacks from your own that attacks from the other party doesn't hold, we think about it we already know it. The facts about the war were there for ages but it wasn't until some Generals and a few repubs started to show doubt too that it got real traction. The facts behind Bush dodging service in war were pretty good but lacking anything but a partisan attack it never got any traction, if some of his own had owned it I'd bet it would have. Each time we attack our own we've cast an early vote, republican, in this election.

If we lose this election under either candidate, and at this point I expect us to, the blame is pretty simple to hand out. It goes to most of us, or too many at least. We forgot who we were and acted like repubs, and for no better reason than they did. Because we're so sure we're right that we'll do anything to win. Even when we know it's wrong.

I'd blame in ascending order: general Democrats, stupid people, Obama, Hillary's surrogates, Hillary, Republicans, criminally inept media, and myself. Of course, this is just a prediction, the order could change.

Bastard. :(

lets just say, she isn't doing us any favors. Ignoring the math is only hurting the party.

:shrug:

:shrug:

Anyone but Obama, I say.