Tuesday, October 28, 2008

I am a Hillary Clinton Supporter, and I APPROVED this Message.

10 comments:

CDA said...

This piece makes it seem as if the caucuses were created specifically to stick in wrench in Hillary's plans; in fact, one of the early slides reads: "The DNC deprived Hillary Clinton of the democratic nomination when they created a caucus voting system in 15 states..." The DNC did not create caucuses, let alone create them to lay waste to Hillary's plans. The roots of the caucus in American politics goes back at least 200 years. In the modern era, the caucus has been a part of the presidential selection process for at least 40 years.

The basic fact is this: Obama ran a better game during the nomination process than Hillary did. Hillary knew the rules going in, the caucuses were not a surprise to her. Obama had a far superior get out the vote operation, a more disciplined organization, more effective fundraising, and a message that spoke to what voters wanted to hear.

You might think caucuses are fundamentally undemocratic--I'm not going to argue that one way or the other. Even if they are, they would be just as undemocratic for Obama's voters who wrok two jobs or live far awy, as they would have been for Hillary's supporters.

Your arguments just don't hold water.

More than anything, this is just history. Hillary conceded months ago, and has been campaigning for Obama. In a week's time, a new president will have been elected. No one's talking about this anymore, and with good reason.

Put it to rest, my friend, put it to rest.

Alessandro Machi said...

You're just repeating talking point spin jobs. Barack Obama did not run a better campaign in the caucus states. ALL the polling showed either Hillary winning or tied with Barack Obama in virtually all the caucuses.

To have Barack Obama emerge with a 2-1 margin of victory means the caucuses definitely skewed to the younger voter, the non Hillary Clinton voter.
The younger, Barack Obama voters treated the caucuses as a social event while Hillary Clinton Voters did all the things mentioned in the video.

Voting for the democratic nominee is not a game of Survivor, or Amazing Race. Voting needs to be done the way it will be done when people vote for president in the fall when they have a 12 hour time span to vote, vote in the privacy of a voting booth, and vote near their homes.

The caucuses did not fairly reflect each candidates popularity.

I actually think Caucuses can be a really good thing for educational purposes. So having caucuses where people gather and discuss is fine. Then they come back a week later and vote in the precise manner it is done in a primary vote.

Obama couldn't hack it in the swing states, so his camp slithered off into Republican country and got more votes from a tiny group of voters. It has nothing to do with the actual popularity of each candidate.

A socialist says, said...

Those swing state that Obama couldn't hack it in? Most of them are poised to go his way in the general. That republican country he "slithered off into?" He's probably going to take some of those too.

How'd he orchestrate that? Better fundraising apparatus, better ground game, better organization.

Do you have any links to any of the polling in the caucus states? My recollection, and I could be wrong, is that, with the exception of NH, there weren't very many major surprises at the polls through most of the nominating process. If you provide me some links, I'll take a look at them.

Alessandro Machi said...

My use of the word slither is in reference to the voting being so so so much lower in the caucus states. Sneaking, slithering, slinking, all mean the same thing, you get a high return for small numbers of voters, as in 88% less voters.

I have a link to an article I wrote about the "discrepancies" in general. You'll have to cut and paste it. I've included the non caucus states as well but it also contains information about many of the caucus states also.

http://caucuscheating.blogspot.com/2008/07/quick-recap-of-caucus-cheating-and.html

Anonymous said...

I looked at your blog entry. It's interesting, but full of specualtion, and light on evidence. I was hoping you'd provide me links to polls. It's not necessarily that I don't believe your claims, but you've done nothing to back them up.

Anonymous said...

You do realize that it's up to the individual states to decide which method, primaries or caucuses, they want to utilize in determining their delegates, right?

The DNC does not dictate which method states use. Lets assume the DNC was trying to create a process which would be more favorable to Obama, and they decided caucuses were the way to go. Can you explain why there were fewer caucuses in 2008, than there were in 2004? If the caucus was going to be Clinton's Achilles' heel, it would reason the DNC would have pushed for more of them.

As for Soros, why should he have to stay neutral? Didn't Clinton have here share of wealthy supporters? Does he not have a right to voice his opinion, and if he so chooses, to donate money to the candidate of his choosing?

As for "fair reflection," how were you every going to determine "fair reflection" in the Michigan primary when Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot. If you're truly interested in "fair reflection," then it shouldn't matter why he took his name off the ballot, simply that it wasn't listed, making it impossible to determine "fair reflection." Clinton wanted to walk with 73 delegates, and have the remaining 55 go to "uncommitted." "Fair reflection?" I don't think so.

I do have a question for you, if McCain wins, and Clinton runs in 2012 as the Democratic nominee, will you support her if there isn't a major overhaul in the DNC? What I have read at HCF is a lot of PUMAs claiming they are angry with the DNC, and that's why they aren't supporting Obama, at least in part. I tend to believe, all will be forgiven.

As for Clinton, they other thing said at HCF is, "It's not what she says, but what she doesn't say, and you can tell she doesn't truly support Obama. She's only doing it because she has to." Really? You mean she couldn't either become an Independent or a Republican if she believed the DNC was broken? It may be political suicide, but wouldn't it be better to stand up for your own convictions, consequences be damned? It doesn't say much about her as a person if she is willing to be a mouthpiece for the Democrats when she's unhappy with direction the party has turned.

Alessandro Machi said...

You make a lot of good points, but you don't want to admit to is that Brazile, Reid, Pelosi, & Dean are all cut from the same cloth, make that the same piece of ultra liberal cloth.

The Clintons are liberal with a centrist reality to them, and I like that combination.

Alessandro Machi said...

As for the links, I didn't include them in the articles because sometimes they go dead. I actually do have the links saved however.

Maybe I'll do a links article so that people can check them out. Uh oh, will Obama get them shut down?

CDA said...

Post the links, or don't. If you get around to it, I'll get around to it. But really, I don't care.

As for this conversation, it just couldn't be any more irrelevant. In six days Americans go to the polls. For the vast majority of them, this election is about the economy, the war, the environment, immigration, America's reputation, among many other issues. In other words, it is about the future. What it is not about, for all but a very small number of people, is Hillary Clinton.

For those people, and that includes you Alessandro, history is moving on. They're left behind, standing in their own cramped little echo chamber, drowning in their own bile.

Good luck to you sir.

Alessandro Machi said...

You're confusing driving a Garbage Truck that is spewing garbage in all directions but not to the front, even as the garbage truck claims to be a fuel efficient HYBRID, when all it is is the hijacking of the democratic party by a billionaire named George Soros.

Must we go further than 200 million in unaccounted donations that have gleefully been spent by a spoiled kid in a candy store who claims after he's done there he will go to the candy plant and hand out the remaining treats to his "friends".