MyDD :: How do we fix this?

How do we fix this?

by jacen42, Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:06:00 AM EST

How do we fix this? There is an obvious divide between Clinton supporters and Obama supporters. This divide is growing worse by the day, especially between the extreme supporters of each side. First, let me state that while an Obama supporter myself, I do not think that Clinton should drop out unless it is her choice. If she chooses, she has every right to run the whole way to the convention. Were she to obtain the nomination, I would vote for her.

I want to focus on the chasm between the supporters. It is not just a problem for the Obama campaign... were Clinton to become the nominee, it would likely be an issue for her campaign as well. So, how do WE fix this?

Honest question. (And try to keep the sniping back and forth to a minimum)

I think that the beginning of this fix is to look at some of the points of contention from the aspect of an outside observer. To at least acknowledge that both sides of the arguments can be both right and wrong. To that end, let us look at "MI and FL" and "Popular Vote"

First: Florida and Michigan-

Well, the DNC dropped the ball on the initial handling of this one. I personally think that both delegations should be seated in some capacity. The DNC probably should have done what the Republicans did: cut the delegates in half, but allow campaigning. Obviously, we do not want to disenfranchise the voters here. One can argue that not seating "as is" does exactly that. For Florida at least, this is fair at this point. Granted, if the people of Florida had not been repeatedly told that it was not going to count, more would have likely shown up at the polls. Also a fair argument, but unfixable at this point.

Ah, but then there is Michigan. On a personal note, my grandfather was a first-string lineman on the Wolverines. So, go Michigan... unless you are playing Penn State. Sorry, off track there for a minute. We want to seat them "as is", but there is the above point about FL and the "beauty contest" thing. We don't want to disenfranchise any voters, but what do we do with the "uncommited" delegates? Do they become roving SD's? Do they become delegates for anyone of their personal choice? Can they become Biden delegates? Also, since we don't want to disenfranchise any voters, do they become delegates for anyone but Clinton? Her name was on the ballot and these voters went out of the way to go to the polls and chose not to vote for her. All in an election that they were told didn't count. My point being that this is a crazy problem for both sides. Have I even mentioned that any pledged delegate can vote for anyone they want? I may be an Obama supporter, but that guy in MD just pisses me off. If that is all fair and true, why even bother having a primary at all if the "will of the voters" is not respected. Argh! Anyways...

And what happens if these two states aren't sanctioned at all? Does the DNC lose all control of the primary calendar? Do Iowa and New Hampshire deserve the first spots? Does the first primary in for the 2012 election happen in 2010?

Sorry if this is turning out longer that expected. Onwards:

Second: "Will of the Voters" or the "Popular Vote"-

The ways to measure or argue the "Popular Vote" seem to be many. I have seen no less than five different methods for determining the numbers and, within each of those methods, I have seen different counts. You can do it with or without any of the following: Florida, Michigan, Caucus states, Territories, Estimated turnout for caucus states if they were primaries, non-democrats, non-republicans, etc. At a certain point, this becomes somehow worse than cherry-picking polls or taking quotes out of context. In fact, this is the main reason that there are delegates at all. Personally, I think that as time honored as the caucus tradition is, they should all become primaries. Unfortunately, that is too late for this time around. And if it was based on the "Popular Vote", wouldn't both campaigns have campaigned and spent their fundraising in different areas like major population centers and the big states?

But what about the delegates? Do they reflect the "Will of the Voters"? Some states voted early, but might vote differently now. Would Obama have won the California if the vote was today? Would Clinton have won some of the caucus states if they were primaries? And why the hell does Puerto Rico have 55 delegates? I mean really. They have more delegates than either Oregon or Kentucky. Was it fair that they were rewarded with bonus delegates for waiting till the end of the primaries? They aren't even a state.

My point in all of this, if you are even reading at this point, is that this whole process is imperfect to say the least. Both sides have room to argue their points. Rather than getting angry at each other about these things, try a few simple measures of respect. "Fair point." "I disagree with you because of: (insert fact here) but I can see how you would say that." "I guess we will just have to agree to disagree." Try to stop spouting talking points at each other without both a reasoned argument to back it up and an ability to actually absorb what the other person is saying or asking. Other wise, you will just sound like that right-wingnut on "Hardball" last week.

Oh, and any other ideas on how to fix this are welcome.

Tags: Clinton, Obama, Arguments, Popular Vote, MI, FL, sexism, racism (all tags)

Permalink :: 64 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: How do we fix this? (2.00 / 2)

Sorry for the slight ramble. Tips?

by jacen42 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:07:56 AM EST

Obviously, it doesn't matter enough for them to DO (none / 0)

anything. Or they would have done it right now.

The things we need are not negotiable for them either.

They cost money. I think time will prove that this is all about money. Obama talks sweet on everything thet doesn't involve money and takes the wrong position on money issues.

Maybe its healthcare profits. Or Wall Street and financial theivery on a massive scale. Maybe its military spending. I don't know. But I see Obama as a fixer for somebody.

He has saved them from what obviously were almost certain changes.

Denial will triumph for at least four more years, whether Obama or McCain wins. No audits will get done.

Universal healthcare IS a core Democratic value
Comprehensively cover 100%, not only the healthiest 80%

by architek on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:20:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obviously, it (none / 0)

That's delightful.

Any chance you could back any of that up with anything resembling real evidence?

I'm not attacking you, either. Your views are way out of the norm, so I'd like to know how you came to have them.

by Reaper0Bot0 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:22:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

yeah we heard you the first million times (none / 0)

Obama is supported by secret money from the trilateral commission and the illuminati to hurt poor people in unspecified but very nefarious ways. You're just sure of it. Got it.

by JJE on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:37:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

There is no problem in the real world, just here.. (2.00 / 1)

A small amount of very aggressive Clinton supporters are trying to drive a wedge between Democrats on this site.

Stick to your guns and ignore their emotional blackmail.

by dystopianfuturetoday on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:14:24 AM EST

Re: There is no problem in (none / 0)

There is something to that, I'm afraid. It's about twenty or so very persistent people who are exacerbating what cleavage exists.

We should be respectful of one another. I try. I sometimes fail.

It's usually hard. Generally the things worth fighting for aren't easy.

You do realize that some of them don't want to reconcile, and will bait you into a response, then passive-aggressively respond, right?

We've got to get this back to issues. Once we've got a nominee, that'll get easier.

by Reaper0Bot0 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:21:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

What exactly are you fighting for? (none / 0)

Its never been clear.

OTOH, I think we who are supporting Hillary know what we are supporting. We are trying to have America elect a responsible leader who will fight for all of our rights and dreams.

Not just the very few. (while trying to appear to have a big tent, dishonestly)

Universal healthcare IS a core Democratic value
Comprehensively cover 100%, not only the healthiest 80%

by architek on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:25:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What exactly are you fighting for? (none / 0)

I know what I'm fighting for, and it is much the same as you. I can understand why you believe that your candidate is better. I have just as many reasons why I think Obama is the better candidate. And yes, I did my research. As I'm sure you did. The point here is that either one is much better than McSame. I agree with you that Clinton's HealthCare plan is superior to Obama's. However, neither will get us into a preemptive war with Iran, unlike McBush. Neither will get Roe v Wade overturned, unlike that old guy. Neither will randomly veto good bills by a democratic congress, unlike Grampa Simson. I could go on.

by jacen42 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:34:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What exactly are you fighting for? (2.00 / 2)

This I can answer.

I am fighting for a foreing policy that is rational, inclusive, and multilateral.

I am fighting for better access to health care. I am leery of mandates, but I am willing to debate it.

I am fighting for a Supreme Court, and indeed federal bench generally, that tilts no further to the right. I'm glad to have some conservative voices on the Supreme Court. Diversity of opinion matters in these sorts of thing. But I cannot sit idly by whilst it tilts any further right.

I am fighting for the rights of homosexuals to be treated just like the rest of us.

I am fighting for political discourse that is more than just warfare. I want to be able to have reasonable and respectful disagreements with Republicans. I can, and do, have them in real life, on a small scale. But nationally, we just can't. And blaming the other side, as they blame us, fixes nothing.

I am fighting for a generational change in leadership. I am tired of the Baby Boomers continuing to rack up massive debt and structuring our society in a way that we cannot sustain.

I am fighting for intelligence! I want a President who is not afraid to be erudite. I am tired of living in a society that denigrates intelligence.

I am fighting for reason! Every time one of our leaders, such as Al Gore or Barack Obama, tries to fix policy around reason and analysis, they are mocked for not being "strong" enough. The "feminization" of reason by the Right has been a tragedy in every respect. Al Gore has it right in his book "Assault on Reason."

I am fighting for a government that is better than the lowest common denominator. I am fighting for a government that doesn't require of its leaders that they pretend to be an "everyman" (or woman, as the case may be) in order to be elected.

I am fighting because what we have right now completely sucks, politically speaking. There is so much work to do.

"all of our rights and dreams" sounds great. My dreams are better served by Senator Obama, in my opinion. Either of our candidates are better than Senator McCain, but I've made my choice and I stand by it.

by Reaper0Bot0 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:35:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Don't you think these divides are larger than MyDD (none / 0)

Hell, they're bigger than the candidates themselves.

by lombard on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:28:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Wedge? (none / 0)

The two groups were never together. So nobody is trying to drive them apart.

Poor people can't afford Obama. They can't.

Universal healthcare IS a core Democratic value
Comprehensively cover 100%, not only the healthiest 80%

by architek on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:23:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

R U 4 real? (none / 0)

by dystopianfuturetoday on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:30:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wedge? (none / 0)

Makes. No. Sense.

by Gene In PA on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:34:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The hell there isn't a problem in the real world (none / 0)

These divides aren't new. They aren't something manufactured in the netroots. They've existed (undoubtedly) since a time before you were born.

by lombard on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:30:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: There is no problem in the real world, just he (none / 0)

Mojo'd.

Nuff said.

We want to see Ivana [Trump] because we are so desperate in Alaska for any semblance of glamour and culture. - Sarah Palin

by spacemanspiff on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:31:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

He is wrong. There is a problem in the real world. (none / 0)

Maybe not among his associates because he probably doesn't know many (if any) Clinton supporters.

by lombard on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:36:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I know plenty of Clinton supporters (none / 0)

they're for Obama in November.

Actually, they want Hillary to quit soon. Some of them have threatened to withdraw their support of her should she take it to the convention.

A couple of Clinton supporters have actually switched to Obama in the last few weeks because of the attitude you seem to think is widespread.

The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.

by nrafter530 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:41:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You always do this (none / 0)

You extrapolate to the entire nation based on your own small world. You are obviously very egocentric in your perceptions of reality. That is a visible sign of immaturity.

Large percentages of Clinton supporters have said continuously on exit polls that they will not vote for Obama. I don't know what the final percentage will be but I do know that about 25% of self-identified Democrats voted for Reagan over Carter and that was a significant factor in his landslide win. I have no idea what percentage of Democrats voted for Nixon over McGovern but it must have been high. I suspect you don't care about those events because you were likely in diapers or unborn at the time.

by lombard on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:47:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You always do this (none / 0)

"I suspect you don't care about those events because you were likely in diapers or unborn at the time." "Nixon...McGovern."

Dissing on the young, mis-remembering the lessons of history & them erroneously trying to graft them onto situations where they are outdated and no longer apply?

Hmmmm...what is that a hallmark of?

McCainuire, The Wrath Of Not Enough Naps.

by catilinus on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:40:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

And yet (none / 0)

Obama STILL beats McCain.

Your threats do not scare me. If you think we are going to say "oh, we have to give it to Clinton, her supporters won't vote for us" you're crazy, and your constant knocking at my youth is really a turnoff. Perhaps if you baby boomers didn't fuck up this country so bad, we wouldn't be voting for the younger, fresher candidate

The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.

by nrafter530 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 07:23:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Good, I'm glad you share my irritation (none / 0)

Maybe now you understand how you have annoyed me. I love your misplaced rage against "baby boomers" - quite possibly the same people who raised you and provided for your needs. But, perhaps you have a point in that some of us did err in the way we raised our children.

As far as your other points - I am not trying to threaten or scare anyone. The nomination is what it is. My own opinion is that the winning choice is not what the country (or party) needs right now but the voters have the right to make the wrong choice. All I'm saying is not to be surprised if things don't turn out so well.

Events from the past, while not completely the same as current events, may yield similar consequences. Those elections I referred to were contests with significant percentages of Democratic defections. Polling consistently reveals that we are going to have defections this year if circumstances don't change significantly. I don't know many Democrats will eventually follow through with those intentions, but the likely defectors (moderates and conservatives) are the same kinds of Democrats who defected in the past.

by lombard on Tue May 20, 2008 at 02:07:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm not going to cowtoe (none / 0)

to DINOS who have been standing in the way of progressive reforms for decades. If they want to defect, let them defect. This year the candidate's differences cannot be clearer. If the country still chooses a fascist route, then it has signed it's own death warrant, but I refuse to give in because some moderate and conservatives may not vote for us. I have never seen a real progressive government in Washington in my lifetime and I believe we need one, if America disagrees, so be it.

For the record, I think McCain will kick either's ass. This is a fascist country, but I adopting select right-wing talking points in order to win over voters doesn't make me feel good about myself. It makes me feel like a liar, a sellout, and a phony. We don't win if we win standing for nothing.

I will still support Clinton if she's the nominee, although her chances at this point really do rely on her destroying Obama, in which scenario I don't think I can support her, but I don't think she wins. Those moderate and conservative voters will turn on her after the first "Remember, Hillary's a liar" smear and what's she going to do then? Try to rally the party's base she marginalized? If you don't think Obama can rally her troops, what makes you think she can rally his?

The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.

by nrafter530 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:22:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Well, on this line we can agree (none / 0)

"I have never seen a real progressive government in Washington in my lifetime and I believe we need one, if America disagrees, so be it."

Fair enough. I don't believe we will really get one regardless of the election outcome but I'm willing to respect those who are willing to take risks without illusions.

by lombard on Tue May 20, 2008 at 04:17:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Only one way to fix this (none / 0)

Joint Ticket.

Unity Ticket: The best damn way to kick John McCain's Ass in November!

by aurelius on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:25:47 AM EST

Barack Obama/Willie Nelson 2008? (none / 0)

by dystopianfuturetoday on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:31:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Unnecessary (none / 0)

I was being sincere. Thanks for being snotty. You're really helping the situation. Kudos to you.

Unity Ticket: The best damn way to kick John McCain's Ass in November!

by aurelius on Tue May 20, 2008 at 01:42:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh, lighten up. Criminy! (none / 0)

by dystopianfuturetoday on Tue May 20, 2008 at 02:40:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Unnecessary (none / 0)

He was being jokey not snotty.

It wasn't distrespectful but merely a play on words.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Ernst on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:11:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How do we fix this? (none / 0)

I don't know why Obama just doesn't sit all of them.

He is going to be the nominee anyway.

Just doesn't make much sense to me.

oh well.

Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.

by lori on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:26:18 AM EST

Lori, its money.. (none / 0)

Lots and lots of money is riding on the healthcare issue. Nomatter how evil it is, people are making trillions as long as profits remain where they are. That money can buy a LOT of 'access'.

It can even buy elections and candidates.

Universal healthcare IS a core Democratic value
Comprehensively cover 100%, not only the healthiest 80%

by architek on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:28:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

that doesn't make any sense (none / 0)

assuming he'll be the nominee, as Lori does in her question, crazy evil secret healthcare money shouldn't prevent him from seating FL and MI delegations.

by JJE on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:32:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: that doesn't make any sense (none / 0)

I can't make head or tail of what the poster said .

lol.

What does healthcare/profits have to do with seating Michigan or Florida ?

Am I missing something.

Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.

by lori on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:38:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

no (none / 0)

I don't think you're the one missing something.

by JJE on Tue May 20, 2008 at 01:03:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

It's not just about Obama (none / 0)

If Florida and Michigan are sat without penalty, there will be no incentive for ANY state to follow the DNC calendar in any future primary. Why should they, since they'll all know that there won't be any penalty for not doing so?

If there's no penalty for rule-breaking, the first primary for the 2016 presidential election will be sometime in 2014 or thereabouts.

by Angry White Democrat on Tue May 20, 2008 at 02:46:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

How about this then? (none / 0)

On May 31, the parties agree to seat all or half the delegates as voted. (I think we can all see at this point that the additional delegates will not be enough by themselves for Clinton to overtake Obama.)

At the same time, they announce that the DNC will set up a commission to revamp the entire nominating process, with a goal of having the new process ready for the 2012 election. They can also announce a short list of broad principles that they have agreed the new process should meet.

Your attempt to change the subject to "the issues" is irrelevant.

by itsthemedia on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:47:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How about this then? (none / 0)

Hasn't that already happend?

The new delegate rules work. the contest gave everybody a voice.

They had a reason after 2004 but not after 2008 in 2004 the elction was over after just 2 states, that gave a huge reason to run towards the front of the calander. Why should any state want to do so now after 46? states haven't been enough to close nomination officially?

People seem to assume that states will want to break the calender rules for no reason at all.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Ernst on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:16:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How about this then? (none / 0)

I sort of agree, but realistically, few future primaries are likely to be this closely contested. There are legitimate gripes from states that want a chance to have an early say. There are also plenty of proposals out there for rotating regional primaries, etc. But up to now, IA and NH have been able to bully the parties into keeping the status quo ante. It gets worse every cycle, and this year was the breaking point, IMHO.

But there are LOTS of other things that need to be examined. One is the weird system of proportional representation by Congressional District. This sets up bizarre situations where a 61% win nets zero delegates, while accross town a 50%+1 win nets one delegate. Just stupid. One of the unsung heros of the Obama campaign is the guy who figured out all the delegate machinations, and where to direct resources. I think his name is Jeffrey Berman. Sorry if I got that wrong but I am too lazy to look it up just now.

Your attempt to change the subject to "the issues" is irrelevant.

by itsthemedia on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:09:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

They can outline all the principles they want (none / 0)

If there are no consequences for breaking the rules, the DNC can't possibly enforce them.

And, btw, it's not just the calendar that's at stake here. With no consequences for rule-breaking, ANY rule is fair game to be broken. What's to stop a state from changing its primary to winner-take-all? What's the DNC going to do; strip their delegates? Ha!

by Angry White Democrat on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:50:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: They can outline all the principles they want (none / 0)

How about if they strip half their delegates, as the existing rules provide? If your kid breaks a lamp, do you give him a time-out, or saw his arms off?

Your attempt to change the subject to "the issues" is irrelevant.

by itsthemedia on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:55:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm not sure we can (none / 0)

These divides are bigger than the candidates or the procedural issues of the nomination. And, although the candidates are too a large degree unique in American political history, these divides are not completely unique to this election.

Obama is attracting constituencies that other Democrats have attracted in the past and have been in conflict with other Democratic constituencies - the latte liberals and youth. The difference for Obama is that African Americans are also part of his constituency and that makes his constituency much bigger than usual because this block used to gather more with the Clinton type constituency.

Clinton is attracting something resembling more of the old line, New Deal, Cold War liberal type of constituency that has often been in conflict with the Obama style of constituency. She also has a significant gender element (that varies by location and age) that makes her coalition more complex.

There are some bad feelings here and I'm not sure they can be cured by procedural fairness or even the goodwill of the two candidates.

by lombard on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:26:29 AM EST

Do African Americans think Obama will somehow (none / 0)

change his policies just for them?

He won't. They are the most vulnerable.
Thats not going to change under Obama.

OTOH, Clinton's healthcare makes HUGE differences for people who are struggling. Its a different model.

It WORKS!

Universal healthcare IS a core Democratic value
Comprehensively cover 100%, not only the healthiest 80%

by architek on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:30:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I know, architek, but this is tribalism (none / 0)

And, to be fair, it is not only African Americans engaging in this even though they do it to the highest degree. And, the tribalism exists on both sides.

by lombard on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:33:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do African Americans think Obama will somehow (none / 0)

How do you know "it works"?

I mean, you can hope that it works, but you can't know it. It is a proposal. We haven't done it yet.

by Reaper0Bot0 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:38:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm not sure we can (2.00 / 1)

You make an excellent point. I hope that you are wrong, but good point anyway.

by jacen42 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:37:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Thanks! (none / 0)

by lombard on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:37:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Act like a party (2.00 / 1)

and deal with whoever wins.

But we won't do that, because unlike the Republicans, the Democrats aren't a political party, they are bunch of selfish left of the center citizens out for their own goals.

My opinion of Democrats has plummeted from this primary. I don't think we deserve to win this year. I coach pre-teen softball and if my team acted like this, I'd disband them and send them home.

The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.

by nrafter530 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:38:49 AM EST

Re: How do we fix this? (none / 0)

Either of our candidates beats McCain in almost every poll - getting about 46 to 48% of the vote in the heat of a contested primary. Talk of deep divisions and mass desertions is overblown, and frankly more amplified in the blogosphere than it is in reality. The Democratic groups I am involved with are passionate about their candidate, but haven't stopped working together one bit.

by alamedadem on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:47:21 AM EST

I am going to say something that is going to (2.00 / 2)

make a lot of people mad. You asked, why is there such a divide between us and the supporters of Hillary?

It is because of us. In January and February our supporters--mostly young folks, extremely emotionally involved for the first time in a primary fight--spewed such venomous attacks on Hillary (just go to Dkos and read the diaries from January and February), personal attacks, attacks that didn't really deal with her policies but her person, attacks that would make Tom Delay and Newt Gingrich look like choir boys. The day when i saw young folks in an Obama rally wearing t-shits with the inscription "Bros before Hos", i knew that we went waaaaaaay over the top.

I think we hurt a lot of people (mostly women) and the media did not help at all with their idiotic sycophantic coverage of the campaign and now some of Hillary supporters have hardened their opposition and some of them will never vote for Obama. I personally know more than 4 people who will never vote for Obama and they are serious about it. It is not a joke.

The scariest thing is that some of them are getting organized in battle ground states such as Ohio and Pennsylvania. I only hope that they won't have a serious impact.

by likelihood zero on Tue May 20, 2008 at 01:07:50 AM EST

Re: I am going to say something that is going to (none / 0)

You said it. This is the best description I've heard.

by nikkid on Tue May 20, 2008 at 01:31:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Thank you for saying that (none / 0)

Not just females are offended.

The media you refer to also way overemphasized certain demographic breakdowns and certain giddy, immature Obama supporters were far too willing to believe this press. I am PhD. in a technical field but an Obama supporter once said this to me:

"Do the math! Oh, I forgot, you're a Hillary supporter. You probably can't do any math. Did you even graduate high school?"

I don't know what will happen here. But, the Obama kids could end up being despised in a way that the McGovern kids were in 1972. Add the stridency of some African Americans about this candidacy and you have a sure potential for backlash.

by lombard on Tue May 20, 2008 at 01:50:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thank you for saying that (2.00 / 1)

I know exactly what you are talking about. I was involved in politics before. I worked in 1984 campaign (had a very small role) and in 1988 (where i did stats and modeling mostly) and then i worked on a major senatorial campaign in 1990 and then one day i was in an Obama rally trying to explain to 2 young kids (20 something years old) something very simple about the electoral map and turn out. They were going on and on about the need to boost turn out everywhere from California to Maine. I was trying to tell them that you don't need to boost turn out everywhere because get-out-the-vote operations and the organization of the ground game for election-day cost a lot of money and since money does not grow on trees, then you need to target specific states such as Ohio, Pennsylvanian, Missouri and so forth where it really pays off to have a large turn out.

One of them looked at me with a smile on his face and asked me (i swear to god i am telling you the truth) "do you even have a college degree?" That's probably because i was wearing overalls and a baseball hat (I was and still doing some work on my home, expanding and enlarging my kitchen). I was flabbergasted by his arrogance. I got mad actually and told him, "If i were a Hillary supporter, you would have lost me for good. And yes, i have a master degree from MIT and my specialization is time-series and longitudinal analysis. What say you now?"

And concerning backlash. Oh goodness gracious, let us not talk about that really. I hope we would never get to that. However, if he loses, blood will be on the floor. Retributions and revenge and ...it would be the American version of The Night of the Long Knives. A huge purge.

by likelihood zero on Tue May 20, 2008 at 02:20:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Thanks again (none / 0)

You're a great poster! Loved your Knight of the Long Knives image since I'm a big WWII fan. I wonder who would be our Ernst Roehm? Perhaps Dean or Kerry would be our Von Schleicher.

Loved your story. I hope the kids did get a bit of humility eventually. MIT? I'm sure impressed even if they didn't get it!

by lombard on Tue May 20, 2008 at 02:31:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Mojo for (none / 0)

... having the wisdom and guts to address the less rational members of your own camp. We rational Clinton and Obama supporters must strive to speak truth to our own out-of-control elements. If the criticism is perceived as coming from an ally, there is a chance it will be heard.

I have been willing and able to gently chide fellow Clinton supporters from time to time, but I should try to do it more often.

Your attempt to change the subject to "the issues" is irrelevant.

by itsthemedia on Tue May 20, 2008 at 04:30:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

If that is the case...isn't it a bit immature to.. (none / 0)

Blame the candidate for immature supporters? It is not as if he has a remote control to turn people off. Also, may I point out that many Hillary supporters have spewed equal venom, calling Obama a muslim, unpatriotic, unqualified, race baiter, woman hater, etc.

I agree the community on both sides are guilty of being mean...not all of us...just some big mouths. I know some AA are voting for Obama because he is AA and some Clinton supporters are voting for her because she is a woman...both of which are poor reasons to vote for a candidate.

In my opinion which does not mean much, I think anyone that votes McCain has gone over the top with misplaced revenge...Obama and Clinton's policies are so similar that there really is not much fight there, however, McCain...do I really need to go there? I look at it this way...I am not going to beg anyone to vote one way or the other, some of these same people gave us Bush's second term and if we get a third term..they deserve another war in Iran, endless Iraq, deep recession, Roe V over turned by the new Scalia type supreme court nominees....at the end of the day my concious will be clear and they should rightfully be guilt riddled...I will have sympathy for anyone who voted for the Dem nominee but anyone who votes third party or McCain, I will refuse to listen to their complaints and hardships, I will just tell them it is their fault and they deserve everything they get..bankruptcy, forclosure, wooden boxes containing their children, loss of health care, loss of freedom....sorry to be that way but after 8 years of Bush...if you do it again...it is on you.

by netgui68 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:17:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How do we fix this? (none / 0)

In the end people's votes should be about who they think should be the best president, not about hurt feelings.

I can try to convince people Obama would be a better choice for their country than McCain, but I have no time to try to satisfy people's wounded feelings, nor correct perceived slights against Clinton -- since I don't feel that "The way Clinton was slighted/The way we were slighted" is a valid criterion for anyone's vote.

When people present that criterion, the only thing I can do is argue that it's not a criterion they ought be using.

by Aris Katsaris on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:00:57 AM EST

Re: How do we fix this? (none / 0)

With the way people communicate around here, one would assume that we don't need each other in November. Something tells me that many Obama fans really believe that they can beat McCain without us.

by devoted1 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 04:14:58 AM EST

We're just getting used to the idea (none / 0)

that we're going to have to. There seems to be nothing we can do, short of asking Obama to concede, to win you guys over.

The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.

by nrafter530 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 07:17:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How do we fix this? (none / 0)

There may not be much fixing possible until the end of the primaries. (However, the May 31 confab deciding what to do about FL and MI presents one good opportunity to draw some of the poison.)

Once the primaries are over, the way Obama and Clinton heal the rift is to SHOW their supporters they can come together. You know, leadership. It has to be a two way street - the second place finisher is obligated to show solidarity against the common enemy. The first place finisher must be seen as magnanimous and inclusive in victory. That does not have to mean a joint ticket, although personally I think a joint ticket would be unbeatable in November.

I personally think both our candidates are up to the task of unifying, no matter comes out the winner (right now I would put the chances at about 90%/10% Obama/Clinton) - it is some of their supporters who don't seem to be acting as adults.

Some Clinton supporters: "My feelings are hurt, so I am going to take it out on the entire nation by voting for McCain. It's just not fair - it was our turn and that Obama guy took cuts in the line."

Some Obama supporters: "We kicked your ass by a whole 1% beyotch! Now you have to get over it and be on our side, or the Supreme Court will vote to have all uteruses taken into protective custody. Anyway, your candidate sucked, so I don't know what you are crying about."

So what can WE, the not-yet-driven-insane denizens of MyDD do? I think we Clinton supporters of good will have to take a bigger role policing the worst of the Obama hatred and sour grapes. I think Obama supporters of good will have to take a bigger role policing the worst of the Clinton hatred and in-your-face triumphalism.

There are plenty of legitimate reasons for hurt feelings over the way the primaries played out this year. But personally, (as my screen name implies) I think that at least 80% of the bad blood can be blamed squarely on the media. They love to start fights and then report the blow-by-blow. And their own role is always carefully airbrushed out. It is kind of easy to spot really, once you know to look for it. But most people don't look past the surface, or think about what the motivations of the reporter/editor/publisher might be.

Your attempt to change the subject to "the issues" is irrelevant.

by itsthemedia on Tue May 20, 2008 at 04:19:14 AM EST

I disagree with your premise (none / 0)

I understand you're trying to help, but I don't believe the chasm is widening. I believe it's closing.

There is a small vocal group of Hillary supporters whose back is against the wall and who have gotten increasingly nasty.

There is another group waiting for the words to come out of her mouth directly.

There is another group that is being much nicer to Obama supporters and actually trying to figure out where we stand. Many have already made the turn to working to get a Democrat elected even if it's Obama. (I love these people!)

Then there is another large group, which may overlap all of the above, who've gone silent. Look at the traffic on this site over the last week. Jerome doesn't release his figures, but I'll be it's way down. The same small group of people is writing all the diaries and commenting on them. Others have stopped arguing. I think that's a good sign.

Things are not coming apart. I think they're coming together.

John McCain supports privatizing Social Security.

by Travis Stark on Tue May 20, 2008 at 07:24:16 AM EST

Despite this (none / 0)

there are desperate attempts by some here to pull it apart again.

What do we do with them?

The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.

by nrafter530 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:29:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

It's a short lived problem. (none / 0)

Very shortly we we will have a name for these people. There will be those that support the Democratic nominee, and Republicans.

John McCain supports privatizing Social Security.

by Travis Stark on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:35:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]