Quote:
Quote by: Technosoul  The popular vote is nearly a tie. However it is only a tie in slight favor of Obama because the rules will not allow them to count two states. So Obama wins because millions of people in two states got cheated out of being counted as voters. Not fair to the people or to HIllary because with those votes she is ahead of Obama in popular votes. (and those states will take part in the final election). How can we honestly not allow those people to have a voice in who the nominee is? Obama does not agree to such fairness in any way, shape, or manner. And yet, wants to be the poster boy for unity and equality. McCain will play that agenst Obama. |
Wrong. I'll lay this out as simply as I possibly can so that maybe you'll understand:
1) People in those two states elected representatives in their state government.
2) Their elected representatives in state government talked about moving the primaries despite warnings from both parties that their votes might not count as punishment for doing that.
3) Their elected representatives went ahead and did it anyway.
How is that being cheated? They shouldn't have elected those dopes, or they should have called and voiced their opinion when the issue was raised.
They broke the rules, they got punished.
Now, KNOWING they were going to be punished, Obama (and Edwards) didn't campaign in those two states. Clinton did. In effect, Obama wasn't even in the race in those two states. So, since you're the big purveyor of fairness, how is it fair to count the results of an election in which one of the candidates didn't run? We've seen (PA and IN) that Obama's campaigning sways massive amounts of votes. Who is to say that if he didn't campaign in FL for example, he wouldn't have won?
Quote:
|
But Clinton is getting conservative votes, and votes from the farmers and hard hat workers, and the now important spanish voting block. Obama is seen as too liberal for those fense sitters who go for the canidate that can best create jobs and not raise taxes, which is Clintons stated goal. Also they feel Obama will not be strong enough as Commander and Chief which gives McCain some "points" to point to his self, where as Clinton would be a strong Commander and Chief. Obama's experience as a social worker might not work on those guys in Iran, as he imagines it would. So the Super Deligates are holding back on pledging support with Obama in the hopes that something will break to justify giving the nod to Clinton, and that is what she is hoping for, the odds that 60 percent of the Super Deligates will find a reason to unite behind her and her platform ideas which have more substance, to reduce the risk of a loss aganest McCain also, who has already found a lot to attack Obama over, which he has not found concerning Clinton.
|
Do you have any proof of any of these voting trends you suggest?
I think to suggest that one of the most divisive political figures of our time - Clinton - could draw the moderate votes needed to win the Presidency is absurd.
Meanwhile, Obama is motivating new and previously uninterested voters and in almost every poll beats both Clinton AND McCain. Basically, if the Democrats pick Obama they win, if they pick Clinton they lose.
Quote:
|
Let the Super Deligates determine when it is time to unite the party behind one canidate, they are experts in making such determinations when so needed. It is not CNN or other sources to say when to unite and end the primary race.
|
Many of the superdelegates are saying just that to Clinton...
McGovern will endorse Obama - The Associated Press - Politico.com Obama picks up superdelegates; undecideds moving his way - Yahoo! News