-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF Interim Thread of Tears/Lapel Pins (ScratchingHisCheek-Gate)
- Thread starter Rur0ni
- Start date
- Status
CoolTrick said:
How is she going to win the presidency when her only method of obtaining the nomination now is through a drawn-out fight where she convinces the party elite to wrest it from the first viable black candidate who the majority of voters selected? But I'm sure you recognized that was my point.
Which makes your continued use of the word "naive" hilarious.
CoolTrick said:
You want politics?
Here is one: Howard Dean's 50 state strategy was a huge reason that the democrats won so many seats in 2006. If you think those democrats that have nearly everything to thank to the heads of the DNC for putting them into congress to begin with, will just switch to support Hillary on a whim then you are a crazy. Oh, you know, those same that hold superdelegate votes? Do you understand now?
Politics are about allegiances; you rub my back, I'll rub yours. Hillary has very little right now.
EDIT: Guess I was beaten to the punch on the superdelegate bit.
mashoutposse
Ante Up
CoolTrick said:
Pissing off party leaders is a great way to win superdelegate votes and overturn an insurmountable pledged delegate lead.
BTW. It's only politics after you're elected. Prior to that, it's very much a game of personality, especially when you don't have the voters behind you.
They also won't pick someone just because they personally like them. See: Bill Richardson.
That doesn't help as much with the Presidency though.
I don't feel like debating you about that, though, because you thinking that the deep south states would be in play if Obama's the nom says all I need to know about your naivety.
and expecting superdelegates to break away from the pledged delegate total, or Clinton's assertions that even pledged delegates aren't off limits, or that she has a chance at forcing the credentials committee to seat the Florida and Michigan delegates isn't naive?CoolTrick said:
Clinton's trying to play Calvinball, except no one else seems to be acknowledging her new rules (big states matter more than other states, popular vote totals are just as important as the delegate count, the-total-electoral-college-votes-in-the-states-she-won are important, etc.)
mashoutposse
Ante Up
KRS7 said:
He's arguing for the sake of argument. It's likely time to move on.
mashoutposse
Ante Up
KRS7 said:
It's a ridiculous assertion to be sure; I'm convinced APF and Cooltrick are on some IRC channel laughing at the shitstorm they always manage to stir up...
mashoutposse
Ante Up
CoolTrick said:
It is when the candidate in question has little to no leverage.
CoolTrick said:
Okay, CoolTrick's reasons to vote Hillary:
- No democratic candidate will be capable of having a bipartisan unity, therefore, Obama should not try. Vote Hillary because she won't even bother. She's a realist.
- No democrat is going to win the South, therefore, Obama should not try. Vote Hillary because she won't even bother. She's a realist.
- The democratic nomination process using a combination of delegates and superdelegates [both allocated by popularity, mind you] is not a popularity contest. Hillary is not trying to win the nomination by popularity, she's a realist, therefore, vote Hillary.
Am I missing anything else?
EDIT:
- Hillary has a history of being dishonest, so it is okay for her to continue to be dishonest. Obama claims he is honest, but since we know everyone lies, we should just go with the more dishonest person because they don't claim to be honest. Vote Hillary.
- Hillary has earned the presidency. Obama has not. She was the incumbent candidate some 10 months ago.
This is why it's pointless to debate with you. You're not really interested in discussing.
How many dozens of times is the electability argument on both sides given? Obviously some believe Obama is the more electable, some Clinton.
Or, take Barbara Boxer, who's voting for Clinton because she won the California primary.
How do you know for sure a Dem can't win Florida? I'm talking Miss/Ala/Georgia/NC/SC/Louis/etc. Obama ain't winning them.
Just call my mom who's reading the paper:
"My god, I can't take anymore of politics. These people want to lead this country and they're acting like children. Especially Hilary; can't believe I voted for her."
I cursed her for voting Clinton and told her to contribute $500 to Obama's campaign to repent.
j/k.
She did say that, which I found awesome. Hopefully more people are opening their eyes.
"My god, I can't take anymore of politics. These people want to lead this country and they're acting like children. Especially Hilary; can't believe I voted for her."
I cursed her for voting Clinton and told her to contribute $500 to Obama's campaign to repent.
j/k.
She did say that, which I found awesome. Hopefully more people are opening their eyes.
CoolTrick said:
This is why it's pointless to argue with you. I asked you a goddamn legitimate question as to why a superdelegate should endorse Clinton, but of course, you are weaseling your way out of it again using ad hominem attacks.
:lol This is the elitism rampant around here that is so ridiculous.
"Why would anyone be a Hillary fan?"
You people are actually serious when you ask this stuff, it's scary.
To think this site tries to laugh at hillaryis44.
Also, I'd probably vote for Obama in the general election. But I'm not super 100% sure or anything.
No, because there is no way to resolve it.
It's all based on assumption.
Clinton argues she has a better shot at winning the swing states and that her coalition is more likely to swing to McCain if Obama's the nominee. Clinton can argue that Obama's coalition are more likely to always vote Democratic.
Obama argues that due to him being less polarizing he has a better shot at putting some states in play, and that he has more strength in the swing region of Colorado, Nevada, etc. He also can argue the black turnout would be tremendous and help put some other states potentially in play.
I mean, Christ, the campaigns spew these things endlessly. There's no way to refute them because they're predictions and assumptions. I'm not going to debate about this with someone that is as naive as reilo is who apparently doesn't even know what the pro-Hillary argument is.
mashoutposse
Ante Up
I'm going to take a page out of PD's book:
"Bu-bu-bu Obama!"
The last couple of pages or so have been exactly that...
You'd do better by answering that simple question than by doing whatever it is you're trying to do in this thread.
"Bu-bu-bu Obama!"
The last couple of pages or so have been exactly that...
CoolTrick said:
You'd do better by answering that simple question than by doing whatever it is you're trying to do in this thread.
CoolTrick said:
You call me naive? That's rich.
If we are not arguing based on speculation of what would happen in November, then why the fuck are you even following politics?
It's all speculation when it comes to predicting the future when it comes to elections. Nobody knows the certain outcome, but for you to claim that people should stop supporting Barack Obama based on the assumption [see what I did there?] that he won't be able to carry some states by some flawed logic eventhough the numbers are in his favor.
If anyone is naive, it's you.
You are naive to the fact that Hillary would destroy her own party from the inside out if she becomes the nominee.
You are naive to the fact that Hillary has turned into a compulsive liar during this campaign. No wait, that's okay, because she's always been dishonest.
You are naive to the fact that in order to succeed in achieving something, you have to try first at accomplishing your goals, hence your argument that Obama is disingenuous when he says we have to try and change the way politics are run in Washington is a load of bullshit.
So please, either argue my points or keep to yourself because your entire shtick this entire thread has been to call other's naive because they don't see your convoluted point of view.
Fragamemnon
Member
Obama can't win Florida. Hillary, OTOH, has real a play at Florida. Just getting that out there, though I do think that McCain is really hard to beat there.
What Obama brings to the table is a real play at both VA and CO, two places Hillary wouldn't even bother campaigning in.
Treason worthy of extreme punishment. The other case (wahhhh I won't vote for Hillary) supporters are equally traitorous.
What Obama brings to the table is a real play at both VA and CO, two places Hillary wouldn't even bother campaigning in.
Treason worthy of extreme punishment. The other case (wahhhh I won't vote for Hillary) supporters are equally traitorous.
mashoutposse
Ante Up
Cooltrick is throwing his full support behind someone he fully acknowledges is dishonest :lol Dude is making a mockery of this discussion.
Frank the Great
Banned
mashoutposse said:
oh is that what this is called
Uh, I decided not to argue with you when you made it clear you didn't even know the fucking pro-Hillary arguments. Go read up on your shit and then come back.
And frankly, you in particular bring absolutely nothing to the discussion we haven't all heard a billion times.
Yawn.
Not worth my time.
CoolTrick said:
No, I know the pro-Hillary arguments. I did my homework. I believe it's you that doesn't know the pro-Hillary arguments because quite frankly, there aren't many. And you probably know this, so you won't bother posting them because it would just make your argument for Clinton look shallow and at best, lack a whole lot of substance.
Otherwise, with all the posts you've made so far, you could have easily summed up why superdelegates should throw their support behind Hillary.
But then again, I suppose it makes perfect sense that you are arguing that you are too apathetic to even bother when you support a candidate that believes there is no point in even trying to accomplish certain policies they believe in.
mashoutposse
Ante Up
CoolTrick said:
You can't assume that he's dishonest simply because he's a politician. Most are basing their opinions on actions -- he's lived up to his own hype on this front. If he didn't, his support would have dried up long ago.
ZeroTolerance
Junior Member
Damn, it's hot up in here..:lol ... Carry on guys..
Deus Ex Machina
Member
What happen? any videos up?Francois the Great said:countdown on nbc
In my opinion, Obama is just as Guilty as Clinton.
His campaign makes ads like "Clinton will say anything to get elected." He lies about Clinton's positions before the Ohio contest about NAFTA. He misquotes McCain's comments on being in Iraq for 100 years constantly. And the South Carolina race was nothing but mudslinging between the Clintons and Obama. His supporters will just ignore that because Obama's perfect and their eyes and some of it is based in truth (such as Clinton saying anything to get elected).
He lied to the voters about NAFTA, telling them that he will bring changes and if not he'll pull the United States out but tells the Canadian government that it was nothing but political posturing. Thankfully this did not escape Obama. This has effectively screwed him in the Rust Belt states.
And he's just as dirty for ending any prospects of a redo vote in Michigan. But Obama supporters overlook that because he tells the media that he wants Michigan to get seated and in their mind there is some made up rule that says Michigan can't get seated at all apparently and allowing a redo changes some nonexistant rule.
His campaign makes ads like "Clinton will say anything to get elected." He lies about Clinton's positions before the Ohio contest about NAFTA. He misquotes McCain's comments on being in Iraq for 100 years constantly. And the South Carolina race was nothing but mudslinging between the Clintons and Obama. His supporters will just ignore that because Obama's perfect and their eyes and some of it is based in truth (such as Clinton saying anything to get elected).
He lied to the voters about NAFTA, telling them that he will bring changes and if not he'll pull the United States out but tells the Canadian government that it was nothing but political posturing. Thankfully this did not escape Obama. This has effectively screwed him in the Rust Belt states.
And he's just as dirty for ending any prospects of a redo vote in Michigan. But Obama supporters overlook that because he tells the media that he wants Michigan to get seated and in their mind there is some made up rule that says Michigan can't get seated at all apparently and allowing a redo changes some nonexistant rule.
XxenobladerxX
Member
Your opinion fucking sucks. No offence.Defcon7 said:
Uh...Defcon7 said:
Clinton DID support NAFTA.
McCain's quote was overblown but it's no secret he supports the war and both Clinton and Obama used it to drive the anti-war line.
South Carolina was entirely Clinton's camp.
I remember hearing the Canada thing was actually Clinton going through the backchannel but I'm not sure of this.
Michigan's revote is Michigan's problem.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked