Friday, April 18, 2008

why clinton is still in the race

quick thoughts and cynicism:

1. obama already said he's not going to run again if he does not win this year.
2. the only chance that clinton has in winning the nomination is by having the superdelegates overturn the delegates, popular vote, and # of states
3. the superdelegates giving it to clinton would severely damage the democratic party
4. the superdelegates are mostly active politicians within the democratic party and need a healthy party to be re-elected
5. the superdelegates won't overturn obama's nomination regardless of 3&4
6. clinton has no chance at winning the presidential election in 2008
7. clinton is a power-hungry second wave feminist who needs power in order to feel accepted
8. the president of the u.s.a. is the real ultimate power (besides ninjas of course)
9. clinton needs to become president of the usa to fulfill her needs (and then president of earth if possible)
10. clinton's only chance will be in 2012
11. clinton can only win in 2012 if a republican wins in 2008
12. if mccain wins in 2008, clinton can argue that she should have been the nominee
13. a mccain presidency will continue bush's policies
14. bush's policies have led our country in the wrong direction and given bush one of the lowest presidetial approval ratings in decades
15. after 4 years america will want to replace mccain
16. clinton will need mccain to win in 2008 in order for her to become president in 2012
17. clinton wants mccain to win in 2008
18. clinton knows that her staying in the current primaries is hurting obama's chances and helping mccain's
19. clinton is staying in the current primaries to hurt obama, get mccain elected, and give her the only real chance of being president


  1. Careful with your logic, your going to get yourself in trouble. According to point 14 President Bush's policies have lead to his horrible approval rating. If that is the case then can we not also assume that the Democrat controlled congress's policies are even worse because their approval rating is even lower than President Bush's? If that is true than can we assume that Obama and/or Clinton will continue with their, worse than President Bush's, policies? I do believe that both Senator Obama and Senator Clinton are part of that congress that has the lowest approval rating of them all.

  2. Clinton or Obama wouldn't need 4 whole years to destroy America. I think they could do it in 2.

  3. (Katy) Not sure McCain would continue Bush's policies. Bush doesn't have significant policies anymore, really. Are you saying that all Republicans are the same? I'm a Democrat and you and I see things differently and would make different decisions about various policies; therefore, McCain and Bush may have more differences than you expect. To say that one person has the power to drag down an entire country is erroneous. Bush had a lot of help getting his presidency to this point -- I'm suggesting that's why it's called an "administration". The people of this country need to change as much as government policies need to change. I have a hard time believing one person can "bring us all together". Why would I want to be "together" with people who are politically polar opposites? A republic is a group of people working freely and equally for the same cause. Without our differences the cause of freedom would be for naught. I still love ya, Loyd, even though I disagree with your line of reasoning. Gotta run. My Canadian comedy is on.

  4. rypwn'd,

    besides the fallacy of equating a part to the whole, one of the biggest problems with the current congress is that while the democrats have a majority, it is not enough to actually get enough votes to accomplish anything of significance. so instead, the polarized congress remains deadlocked with major decisions. a dead-locked congress doesn't produce. a non-producing congress doesn't make folks happy. other problems with congress is that they are still getting the backlash of originally supporting bush's war which is the source of the bulk of bush's disapproval.

    so basically, your logic doesn't work. you assume there are "democrat controlled congress's policies" that are getting score low. there aren't any such policies as nothing controversial or "democratic controlled" is getting enough votes to pass.

  5. katy,

    i don't think mccain would necessarily lead the country to destruction (and i don't think i claimed such). he has, however, pledged to support bush's war and economic strategies - which are the sources of bush's low approval rates.

    whether or not mccain actually does this is besides the point as clinton has repeatedly asserted that mccain would in fact lead the country down the wrong parth. if she is to be believed, then my point would well fit within her reasoning to damage obama's chances.

    as far as the 'togethering' abilities of obama go, i think that it's important to be able to bring polar opposites together. as i mentioned in the above comment, a congress that maintains its unwillingness to work with others ends up dead-locked in stalemates.

  6. (Katy) In response to your 3 points.

    1. Bush's war? It's America's war whether we like it or not -- our soldiers, our money, our strategy, our families. "we" (and I gag having to say, "we" because I've never voted for a republican presidential candidate) nevertheless, "we" voted for this man and for the congress that authorized his power to make the decision to go to war. There hasn't been a vote to say whether we stay the course or bail out - only opinion polls (and I'm sure you understand the weak methodology of media opinion polls). The same people who had flags waving on their cars, flying in their yards, and pinned to their lapels after 9/11 are complaining because the price of gas is outrageous. How many of those people understand global economics? I'll stop here because this could go on and on. Read, The Age of American Unreason, by Susan Jacoby.

    2. Of course Clinton wants to "damage Obama's chances" to win the nomination... (didn't quite grasp what you were trying to say with that one)

    Points 1 & 2: P.S. I'm tired of political soundbites. The American public isn't being educated by political presidential candidates. In fact, their lack of understanding is being reinforced in some ways. How many people understand the economic tidal waves of corporations like the oil companies that Clinton and Obama keep railing on? Plus, it would be easy to implement effective health care policies that have worked in other countries if it wasn't for politicians/lobbyists/etc. (Clinton and Obama's overall policies are really not that much different from each other and they both are lacking in comparison to what is working elsewhere...France, Germany, Canada, etc.)

    3. My state legislature is predominately republican and somehow manages to get very little done on a yearly basis. This year was no exception. Political differences aren't the only reason things don't get done.

    Why do people keep saying the democratic party is going to be damaged & torn apart beyond repair if this or if that? Ridiculous. If the party is that flimsy it would have fallen apart several times over. In effect, when people predict such a calamity they are saying that democrats aren't intelligent or reasonable or adaptable to change. I hope we aren't so immature as to throw a temper tantrum if one's favored candidate does not prevail. I thought you said you wanted people to pull together. If so, then why pull apart one's own party before the convention has even taken place? How can we "come together" with republicans if we can't "come together" as a party, regardless of the nominee? You seem to fail to understand that there are clinton supporters that would also feel "jipped" if Obama were to win the nomination. I think he won a lot of delegates unfairly through caucases (which I abhor). Who's to say that Clinton would not have won delegates in certain caucase-holding states if a regular primary election would have taken place? Many, many letters to the editor (which I don't believe are necessarily a grand representation of public viewpoint) in our paper said that people felt like their voice wasn't heard because of how the caucases were set up, and the absence of a primary election. I certainly felt like I didn't have an opportunity to vote in this primary election.

    Didn't mean to take up so much room. Kind of like the family page - I'll say something and then lay low for a while. It's time for me to lay low at project mayhem.

  7. No, congress's low ratings are attributed to them doing nothing. They were voted in because they promised changed - they didn't deliver, they spent to much time drafting non-binding resolutions and giving no confidence votes! Had they spent 1/2 as much time and energy on their policy as they did the above they might have gotten something done and with action caused some better approval ratings. But, like you, they are to busy blaming President Bush for the worlds problems. Their own inaction, not "polarization" (love the buzz words), is the cause for their low ratings.

    President Bush didn't hold a gun to peoples heads and force them to go buy a house they couldn't afford with a mortgage they couldn't pay. He didn't hold a gun to the heads of banks forcing them to come up with "sub-prime" loans in the first place. One of the downsides to a market economy is "buyer be ware". President Bush isn't forcing people to spend more than they save either. Only recently has the American economy had negative savings. The major difference between Senator McCain and President Bush is that Sen. McCain claims to want to cut government spending ALONG with the tax cuts. That is where Pres. Bush's economic plan failed, he left more money in the pockets of the American people but he never reigned in government spending. Understanding this requires a couple courses in economics!

    Loyd, congress's low rating are because of their inaction and it's their fault alone. You said: "bush's policies have led our country in the wrong direction and given bush one of the lowest presidetial approval ratings in decades" so then according to your statement we can say "congress's policies have led our country in the wrong direction and given congress on of the lowest congressional approval ratings in decades" ... and your boy Sen. Obama is a part of that congress.

    And will you please add my name to the list of who's war it is. It isn't Pres. Bush's war. It is America's war. They time for debating and discussing are long over, the decision was made based of the best intelligence we had at the time and the decision was, by a large majority, to go to war. However, if you insist on being divisive and partisan (the exact opposite of what your man Sen Obama claims to stand for) continue to divide people by pointing your finger and blaming others instead of trying to solve the problem as they are. I would hate for us to "come together" and accept the consequence (good or bad) of the choice WE made together as a country. Do me a favor though, add my name to the list. Because I'm proud that we helped protect the life, liberty, and are doing our damn best to give the people of Iraq the opportunity to pursue happiness.

  8. (Katy) It's me again. One more comment before I lay low "for reals" (as Abby would say). I'm so fed up with all the analysts here and there that I took some of my frustrations out on you even though you may not have said what I accused you of thinking. However, I honestly believe that there are other people like me. Meaning, there are others who are tired of the bruhaha. Unless one's state has yet to vote, I think we are becoming weary of the hype. In my opinion, Obama is getting better at politics. (in this case I mean that in a not so positive way) carry on.

  9. I don't know if Hillary is sticking it out for the exact reasons you suggest, but I do know that by staying in the race, she's making it less likely that the Dems will retake the White House.

    Winning the Presidency in the wake of GWB's presidency should be ridiculously simple, but I won't be surprised if the Democratic party manages to blow it.

    Part of the problem is some Democratic voters' myopic thinking. Last week I read an article saying that, based on a recent survey, about a third of both Obama and Clinton supporters would vote for McCain if their favored candidate didn't get the nomination. This baffles me. Although I prefer Obama, I determined early on (back when he was still the underdog candidate) that if Hillary got the nomination, I'd vote for her. I think we need a Democrat in the White House. I just don't see McCain ending the Iraq War, getting government spending in control, reforming taxes, or devoting sufficient attention to the health care system.

    But as long as Hillary stays in the race, Obama (who has all but wrapped up the nomination) has to keep expending resources fighting her instead of McCain. I'm afraid that by the time she comes to her senses, it will be too late for the Democrats to catch up with the Republican campaign.

  10. anyone else notice this:

    1. obama can not win any of the key states. hillary wins those (7 out of 10 anyways - california, new york, pennsylvania, etc.).

    2. obama wins a lot of the states that are going red in the general election anyways (idaho, utah, wyoming, etc.).

    3. obama is only ahead in the popular vote by 500,000 +/-. if you discount his home state which he should sweep anyways then clinton would be ahead in the popular vote by about 100,000?

    maybe clinton is still in it b/c she knows that they are, for all intents and purposes, 50/50 in the popular vote. she also knows that obama can't win the turn states in the general against mccain simple because he can't even win them from her.

    just a thought

  11. katy,

    comment how often you like. i always appreciate your counterpoints.

    i call it bush's war because it was bush's neoconservative administration who wanted and pulled the strings to enact the war

    i was not claiming the obvious that clinton was trying to damage obama's chances to get the nomination, but that clinton was intentionally trying to damage obama's chances of winning the november elections.

    yes, most of the american public is uneducated about who they vote for. democracy plus stupidity doesn't always equal greatness.

  12. rypwn'd,

    "No, congress's low ratings are attributed to them doing nothing."

    umm... that's what i said. try reading.

    "Understanding this requires a couple courses in economics!"

    umm... what of the above did i not know?

    obama did not vote for the war.

    and i still call it bush's war because it was bush's neoconservative adminstration who knowingly duped our country into supporting the wolfowitz doctribe (later bush doctrine).

    "Because I'm proud that we helped protect the life, liberty, and are doing our damn best to give the people of Iraq the opportunity to pursue happiness."

    if you honestly believe that we went in their with the intent of helping the iraqi people, you are living in a dream world.

  13. wondering,

    1. who cares? the notion that obama can't win any of the key states that clinton won is a fantasy dreamed up by the clinton campaign to win over stupid people. no serious analyst buys it.

    2. obama is able to get republican votes. is that a bad thing?

    3. that kind of reasoning is just absurd. why discount obama's home state votes. by your odd logic, we should also discount clinton's new york votes and obama is back up by 200,000 votes.

    for all intents and purposes, clinton will not be able to pass obama in the delegate, state, or popular vote count. everyone knows that unless obama somehow dies, clinton will only be able to get the nomination by getting enough superdelegates. this is so obvious now that clinton supporters are now being 'traitors' and giving their support to obama to seal the nomination.

  14. are you saying the clinton campaign dreamed up the victories in the key states against obama??? and here i thought it was fact that clinton won them! in a head to head compitition clinton BEAT obama in key states - true or false? that should show that the majority of people in those states that belong to obama's party would rather have clinton. all i was saying is that obama can't even carry a majority of his own party in the big states. how is he supposed to then bring republicans into the fold come november if he can't even get the majority of his own party behind him?

    point 2 shows the false reality you are living in. primaries are based off of party vote. obama's majority is coming from states that will go red in the general elections. if you honestly believe that idaho, utah, wyoming, etc are going to vote for obama come november, i would hate to be near you when your view of the world comes crashing down around election time. obama is not winning any republicans. he is beating clinton in democratic primaries in states that will vote republican come november. if you can not understand this simple fact, there isn't much hope for further discussion.

    my reasoning is not absurd, it just goes against yours, so pull your head out of your ass! there have been 18 million votes in the democratic primaries. obama only has a 500,000 vote lead. 18,000,000 votes with only 500,000 - that is a 2.78% lead. not a very big lead considering most of them came from states he will not win in the general. see previous paragraph for further on this issue. the democratic party needs to be smart on this one and ask themselves what states they will lose to mccain, which states they will win, and which states are up for grabs. of those states that are up for grabs which candidate is doing better in them? sadly clinton is. it is a fact. sorry.

  15. This comment has been removed by the author.

  16. Wondering,

    The argument that Obama can't win big states in a general election because Hillary won most of them in the primaries is bogus. Comparing primary elections to a general election is comparing apples to oranges, plain and simple. An intra-party election between two Democratic candidates is fundamentally different from a general election between a Democrat and a Republican.

    You're assuming that all or most Democrats who voted for Hillary in the primaries will either vote for McCain or will not vote at all in the general election. That's absurd. Even if Hillary doesn't get the nomination, most of her supporters would still rather see a Democrat take the White House than McCain. Therefore, most of them will end up voting for Obama in November.

    As much as Hillary would like to believe otherwise, her big state primary wins really don't say much of anything about Obama's chances of winning the big states in the general election.


Please provide a name or consistent pseudonym with your comments and avoid insults or personal attacks against anyone or any group. All anonymous comments will be immediately deleted. Other comments are subject to deletion at my discretion.