How To Be Hated
Mrs Clinton still has the edge among super-delegates, not least because Bill Clinton is calling in all the favours he has done them over the past 16 years ...Dear Mr. Clinton: please consider the following:
You think Dems were pissed at Nader for "costing" them the 2000 elections? I cannot even conceive of the vitriol that will be headed your way if the above scenario comes to pass.
- You call in favors, and use your influence as a former President, to convince superdelegates to vote for your wife instead of the man who wins the popular vote;
- Said wife loses in the general election;
- That roaring you hear is the sound of your legacy being flushed down the crapper.
Just a thought!
Posted on February 12, 2008 to Politics
Then again Matt, which do you think Bill would fear more? The derision of voters he no longer needs to care about and the superdelegates he no longer needs to work with or the vitriol of a wily, grudge-bearing wife with whom he (probably) has to spend the rest of his life?
Legacy be damned. At this stage, he probably just wants to practice his golf swing in peace.
Hm. Legacy. I'm not sure his has legs. He's not sure either and thus, it's worth the risk.
I don't know if the Hillary losing in the general election is quite the equivalent of the Nader thing. I don't think I'm going to have to use enormous willpower not to sock those who vote for Hillary. They are not saying things that are completely, completely stupid. So stupid that it is hard to throw objects at their head kind of stupid. They actually think Hillary is the safe bet. They are misguided but not self indulgent.
The Bill thing isn't going to work, though. The favors are only good if people think you will do them more favors, later. This requires some certainty that you will win. If they think you are going to lose, they go look for someone who will has a future favor in his or her pocket. Favor calling-in in politics is not about loyalty from the past but about future benefits.
Either Hillary or Barack will beat McCain, so I don't blame Bill for trying to swing it his way. I think, as Ozma points out, that those Pledgeproof Delegates who push for Hillary believe she'll win. And she has every chance of winning. People vote harder FOR people than they do against them, no matter how poisonous the anti-Hillary venom is on the right--the venom is potent, but it is concentrated.
Hillary would not lose the general. She has had nearly twice as many people vote for her in primaries as John McCain has. Obama has had slightly more, it's true. What it all means is that the Republicans will get crushed this November. Bill Clinton left office with roughly 65% approval, in spite of all the venom from the right.
Everyone but a group of democrats HATES Hillary. More people will vote against Hillary than will vote for McCain, therefore she will lose the general.
"Everyone but a group of democrats HATES Hillary. More people will vote against Hillary than will vote for McCain, therefore she will lose the general."
I need someone who has a better grounding in the formal rules of logic than I do, to come in here and explain what's wrong with the above statement.
And what about the legions of Dem voters who go ahead and pick one, but say that either candidate would be fine? Unless by "a group", you mean 80+% of the Dem populace.
Life was pretty easy when it looked like Romney and Clinton. Now it's tougher for me. Rush Limbaugh hates McCann, that means I must like him at least a bit. And Obama isn't looking to bad either. I could go either way in that pair up.
Is it really tougher for you? McCain and Obama represent a pretty distinct choice. Obviously I don't know you, so I have no idea how you come down on "the issues," but they're not exactly two sides of the same coin.
There was a lot of faulty logic in the posts above yours. Very rarely does the turnout in a general election match the turnout in a primary for a number of reasons that vary based on the specific contest in question. And since the Democratic nomination is still in question, it still makes a great deal of sense for people to choose the candidate they feel will best represent their interests in the general. In that light, I would offer this:
All three support the war. All three support torture and the end of civil rights. All three think any health care plan must make the insurance companies richer. All three are owned outright by the same billionaires and corporations. None of them is going to do anything to make the world a better place for the average person. This is not an election; it's just a very bad joke at the expense of 98% of the population. Getting to choose among three different flavors of evil is not a choice.
I can't find it in the archives b/c it was listed as "Analysis" but CNN.com ran a piece last week or so that says Obama more likely to beat McCain than HClinton -- mostly b/c men won't vote for Hillary. I think that's true, but mostly b/c I think that the east coast and west coasters that think Hillary has a chance are woefully ignorant about the general vitriol that Hillary inspires in the rest of America. I can't explain it and I don't understand it, but out here in podunk Indiana, people usually REALLY dislike her, and would vote against her. Particularly, they'd vote for McCain b/c they don't see him as a true Republican... I of course am as out of place as ever in the 'burbs of Indianapolis as a staunch Democrat and have been rooting for Obama for a long time now. But I'm virtually surrounded by reasonable people who might vote Democrat, except never for Hillary.
"All three support torture and the end of civil rights"
Uh no. McCain was one of the only republicans to oppose it and perhaps the only reason I like him. Obama is very anti-torture too, giving speeches against it.
Hey, red Leroy, you need to take a look at McCain's latest Senate vote. He voted against the bill that would have restricted interrogation methods for all government agencies to those listed in the Army manual. In other words, he voted in favor of continuing the status quo in which the CIA can do whatever they damn well please in an interrogation.
I think what gremlin is trying to say is, if it comes down to McCain vs. Obama, the choice will be harder if issues are ignored. That is to say, both candidates would actually be honorable people, as opposed to only one or even none. I'll probably vote Democrat, but not because I hate hate HATE McCain. If McCain stayed in Iraq, it would be because he sincerely believes something about being there, it wouldn't be a Rovian ploy. Of course his views can still be wrong, but at least they'd be honestly wrong.
I get the feeling that regardless of who wins in a matchup like that, it wouldn't rip the nation apart. After holding my head throughout the 2004 campaign, that would be very nice to witness.