Difference between Obama & Clinton Fans

As you observed diary after diary, posting after posting, & comment after comment.

You start to clearly see how two groups of democrats view this 2008 Presidential race.

Are there exceptions ? Of course ! But for the overwhelming majority of Obama & Clinton fans, you will notice a pattern & a way of thinking.

For Obama supporters:

The overwhelming majority of Obamamaniacs postings/diaries are focused on Proving that Obama is going to win this primary.
Its basically repeating & convincing anyone & everyone who wants to listen- that Sen. Obama is already the nominee.

Basically, its all about the democratic primary & the historic implications of nominating the 1st black candidate for President.

The November election is mentioned by far, at a lesser volume than Clinton supporters. And those who mention Obama's chances for November go to the same one formula. ( just varying one or two states but pretty much the same formula)

Obama " HOPEFULLY" wins Colorado.( 9 EV's) and "Very Hopefully" wins Virginia.(13 EV's) While keeping states like Wisconsin, Oregon, & Minnesotta Blue.( 3 states total of 23 EV's) ( The celebration of primary victories in states like Idaho, North Dakota, Wyoming, Alaska & South Dakota is Never Ever mentioned Again for November- For Very Obvious Reasons. But once in a while, we all get our share of a nutcase here & there who would proclaim that the Charm of Sen. Obama will carry the state of Idaho, Wyoming & North Dakota in the fall)

For Clinton Supporters:

For 99% of Clinton supporters, the focus for these Clintonistas is 100 times more focused on "Winning in November".  

The confidence level for November could not be more different between the two groups of Democrats.

While the Obamamaniacs predictions & dreams for November sound more based on " Hope", & "Optimism" based on the Charisma, Intelligence, Freshness of their man, Sen. Obama...

Pratically, 9 out of 10 Clinton supporters will tell anyone without blinking of an eye of multiple realistic scenarios of how Clinton will win in November. Without a doubt, its a much higher ( with even a smell of some arrogance, lol) confidence level of what Sen. Clinton will accomplish as the nominee.

It ranges for ensuring key Blue states remain Blue like PA,NJ,MA,NH ( total=52 electoral votes) in the democratic column to confidently Winning Red states like  Ohio (20 EV), Missouri(11 EV) , Florida (27 EV), West Virginia(5 EV), Arkansas( 6EV), New Mexico(5 EV.) (total of 74 EV's)

So many different combinations that ensure a democratic victory.

Even a very possible electoral landslide.

In conclusion:

With the Obama persuasion, its normally the same. "HOPEFULLY" win Colorado. Even a "Gigantic Hope" of Winning Virginia.
Combined with a Proud proclaimation that Obama will keep the state of Minnesotta,Oregon & Wisconsin Blue.

Someone needs to point out to the partisans that If..

states like MN,OR & WI went for the awful New England liberal John Kerry, Gore, Bill Clinton twice - Any Democrat, regardless of Obama or Hillary Clinton WILL CARRY these three states.

For Heaven's sake, the state of Minnesota even went SOLO & voted for Fritz Mondale while 49 other states went for the Conservative Reagan.

And you think MN will somehow vote for a Republican McCain over a Democrat Clinton ? The other half of the Clinton that carried MN by huge margins?

Dodd, Edwards, Biden,Kerry, Gore, even Ted Kennedy would carry MN in November! lol

If any democrat cannot even carry any of these 3 blue states, then, any Republican would win by a landslide in November.

Secondly, Most Obamamaniacs & his political surrogates in the media have pretty much accepted the fact that Ohio, Florida & Missouri ( total of 40 EV's)will almost surely  go for McCain in November against Obama.

Third, Not one Obama campaign strategist or political backer ever explains how Obama intends to carry PA & its 21 electoral votes in November against John McCain.

The only few times that you will ever hear any Obamamaniac on MYDD explain how Obama might carry or defend PA is with the help of CLinton in November.

Its the " Clinton will need to show she is a real democrat & campaign hard for Obama in states like PA & OH".

Guys & Gals. Yes, Clinton is very popular in places like OH,PA, FL but I don't think she is that popular that voters will just blindly follow her endorsement to vote for Obama.

With all that said, Why Go for a Big "Headache" in November when it can be avoided ?

Why Go for someone who  using a non-bias opinion will most likely lose In November BASED on the ELECTORAL COLLEGE system of electing a President ?

No more delegate splits,no more caucuses limited to the most liberal activists. No more 4 to 1 money advantage.
$150 million of 527 attacks on Race, Patriotism & Rev. Wright.

The sad part in all this ?

The very same community who gives Sen. Obama 92% of their vote are the Very Same Community that Suffers the most every single time that this country installs a Republican Administration. A  Republican agenda based on Anti-Poor, Anti-Minority, Anti-Affirmative Action, Anti-Jobs.

And Yes, the chances of a Republican President is high today. In fact, it is very high with the Senator from Chicago as the nominee.



Display:


Re: (1.77 / 9)

You and this diary are why Obama supporters think Clinton supporters suck.  In terms of you, they are correct.

Signed

Your Humble Clinton Supporter


by hillaryfor2008 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:08:57 AM EST

Re: (2.00 / 1)

Thank you.

Let's just all admit that most of us Obama and Clinton supporters like each other just fine.

We're going to win in November.  If McCain can't pull away during this messy primary season, he is toast once we have rallied around our nominee.


by emptythreatsfarm on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:34:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (2.00 / 1)

as a Obama supporter I thank you for being open minded and not supporting BS like this

you represent Hillary Well

whether it is Obama or Hillary  people like us  need to keep McCain out the white house

If its Hill rest assured she has my vote  


PUMA: Particularly Undeveloped Mental Ability
by wellinformed on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:20:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Really? (2.00 / 1)

For some reason my first comment disappeared.

Let me put this nicely:
A lot of typing, not much truth......can you say "sweeping generalization"?


"I am standing with Barack Obama to say, `Yes, we can!'" Hillary Clinton 6/7/08
by feliks on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:22:36 AM EST

Such fair and reasonable analysis! (2.00 / 0)

It's almost as if this was written by a Clinton supporter!


by Slim Tyranny on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:25:43 AM EST

Re: Difference between Obama and Clinton Fans (2.00 / 1)

On one thing many are quite similar.  It is not about issues.  It is about personality and electability.  Two celebrity centrists.  The American Idol election.


by TomP on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:29:50 AM EST

What a ridiculous Diary (2.00 / 5)

A shorter version of your post:  Clinton supporters are smart enough to realize that she's the best candidate.  Obama supporters are delusional because they think he has a chance.  Hyterical.  

By the way, if I actually thought that the diaries on this site were reflective of most Hillary supporters, my conclusion would actually be that all such individuals care about is destroying Senator Obama by attacking him, culturally, from the right.  [Seriously, how many diaries about reverse racism and another Democrat's "elitism" do we need to see?]  Luckily, I know that's not the case and that most of this BS is just the result of the silly season getting to people.  Lets hope that's what happened to you with this diary.  

As far as GE chances go, it's instructive to me  that the most recent polling shows Obama beating McCain in PA by the same % as Clinton.  He wins in NJ by a larger percentage than her.  Similarly, he is stronger in Iowa,Wisconsin, and MN -- with quite a few polls showing McCain beating Clinton in those states.  He's also, ironically, stronger than her in Michigan and Connecticut as well.  He also leads McCain in Colorado, where Hillary gets killed.  

Now, does any of that "prove" that he's the stronger GE candidate?  Nope.  Primarily becaus polls from April -- taken at a time when McCain is at his peak and hasn't been attacked by anyone in months -- aren't particularly instructive.  But the picture you paint is one sided and misleading.  Not to mention, not helpful to your candidate, who -- if she wins the nomination -- will need not only the votes of Obama supporters (and she'll get mine), but also our enthusiastic support.  If I thought you represented Senator Clinton's views, she might very well not get much of the latter from me.    


by HSTruman on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:30:34 AM EST

Here's a difference you didn't point out. (2.00 / 6)

Obama's supporters generally call Clinton's supporters 'Clinton supporters' and when one of them says something stupid, that person is called out individually.

Clinton's supporters (on this site) generally call Obama's supporters 'Obamabots or in your case, 'Obamamaniacs' and when one of them says something you disagree with (you would think of it as stupid), all 'Obamamaniacs' are called out as if one person's statement was made by all and sometimes Obama himself is called out as if he said it too.

Here's another one:

Obama supporters realize he already has the primary wrapped up and have been trying (unsucessfully) to show Clinton supporters why that is so.

Clinton supporters focus on why they think Obama can't win in November because they seem to believe that it will help Clinton win the primary election.


Swish. Nothing but net.
by GFORD on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:32:40 AM EST

it's almost as though (1.50 / 2)

you just vomited on the keyboard and happened to hit "submit."

Hillary is unelectable. She is who the Republicans want to face. Hillary will never win independents in an election vs McCain. She is flawed in that 60% of the country doesn't even trust her. When was the last time a candidate that a majority of the country doesn't trust, became president?  


by highgrade on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:33:55 AM EST

Re: it's almost as though (none / 0)

Um... 2004, duh.


by Misty Mountain Maggie on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:45:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: it's almost as though (none / 0)

They may not trust him now, but more people in 2004 trusted him than Kerry. Indeed, his negatives (same sort of poll we find disfavors Clinton) were far above the level she's at right now.


Hooray for John McCain!
by ragekage on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:09:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

My opinion... (none / 0)

Hillary Clinton is far more electable than Obama, who polls better than the end results would indicate.  Hillary has a MUCH better chance of taking Ohio, Florida, Arkansas, Michigan, and Pennsylvania than Obama. There isn't one state below the MD line that Obama would beat McCain in.  His supporters seem to think he can win every state, including Utah, Kansas, and Nebraska; they are mistaken.  I still point to poll after which show Reagan lunch bucket Dems going to McCain if Obama is the nominee.


by handsomegent on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:52:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: My opinion... (none / 0)

Sorry, bud, you can't make that argument now for either. It's true they pick their win from different models; Obama expands the electoral map, and Clinton sticks to the Clinton/Gore/Kerry model.

Obama polls very well in VA and CO, which are the two biggest swing states we're calling him having a good chance in. NH, CT, NV, and perhaps at least one or two electoral votes out of NB, given the new laws there. MN, IA, WI, MI, etc, also go for Obama. Under this model, actually, he can win entirely without PA, OH, or FL- and if he gets just one, he's almost to 300 EVs.

Now, Clinton has to get PA, OH, FL, because she loses the following Obama gets against McCain- IA, WI, CO, NH, weaker in CT, and Florida is entirely a tossup. If you grant Florida to Clinton hands-down, then I think you better get real if you really want a chance to win in November. McCain has all the strengths in Florida Clinton does, and possibly more.

But hey, thanks for disparaging all Obama supporters. We're a pretty dim crowd, I know.


Hooray for John McCain!
by ragekage on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:16:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Keep this up (none / 0)

and I will vote for McCain.  You are living in dreamland if you think Obama can expand the map AND he can't win w/o at least taking 3 of 4 states: PA,OI,FL,MI--all of which could easily fall to McCain.


by handsomegent on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:02:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Keep this up (none / 0)

Hey, if you want to vote for McCain because I bothered to show you silly things called facts, go ahead; you're not real committed if that's the case. I get called far worse things by Clinton supporters here and yet still support Obama.

Go to any of the electoral vote counters sites, and run the model I did, and Obama wins.

However, winning one of the bigger states gives him an easy win. However, note that I did include MI in my total above, which Obama polls over McCain easily. He also polls over McCain by the same margin in PA as Clinton, which I didn't notate, because my point was Obama can win without PA, FL, and OH, it's just not as easy.

However, if Clinton loses any of those three in her model- PA, FL, OH- even with possibly brining AK and WV into the fold, she's done. Period. And McCain could take Florida easily, and Ohio and PA aren't pushovers for Clinton by any means.


Hooray for John McCain!
by ragekage on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:19:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Keep this up (none / 0)

actually, she doesn't even need to carry Florida or Ohio, she can get everything Kerry and Gore got plus AR and has exactly 270


"there is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right in America"-William Jefferson Clinton, forty-second President of the United States
by DiamondJay on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:39:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Keep this up (none / 0)

Is that really how you want to win?
Shoot for 270?
I'd rather put the Republicans on the defensive all over the country.
And don't forget about races down the ticket. Even if Obama loses a lot of those states, if he runs well enough, some Congressional candidates are going to squeak by...
ооо
by Mumphrey on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:46:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Keep this up (none / 0)

with reverend wright, WE'll be on the defensive all over this country. Now, he is not gonna go away. plus, Bill Clinton's presidency is still seen as successful by most Americans, so I think she can put the GOP on the defensive. i think wright and the affirmative action bans the GOP has across the country will energize conservatives as much as Hillary Clinton, as it brings out more than just hate, but racism and hate


"there is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right in America"-William Jefferson Clinton, forty-second President of the United States
by DiamondJay on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:14:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Keep this up (none / 0)

Err, that means she'd have to get New Mexico, Iowa, and New Hampshire, plus Arkansas. But your plan there is flawed, because of electoral vote total changes and the fact she loses Iowa, Wisconsin, possibly MN, NH, possibly MN, and certainly doesn't get CO, your claims to the contrary nonwithstanding.

Tell you what. Wait a month, and then a couple weeks after Obama becomes nominee, and you can admit how wrong you were.


Hooray for John McCain!
by ragekage on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:47:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Keep this up (none / 0)

actually with current EV counts, if she got Kerry and Gore plus arkansas she DOES have exactly 270. It would be slightly more before 2002. THere is no way Clinton loses Minnesota. The only reason she lost in the primary is because much of it is ultra liberal and they love Obama, ultra liberal enough to be the only state to vote for Walter Mondale for President. There is no reason in the general Hillary would be abandoned there. She is not gonna lose NM, the latinos love the Clintons, and they'll come out in droves there for her. And New Hampshire could be close, but I don't see why Kerry and Bill Clinton carry it and she doesn't. Also, by your Obama "he wins primary, so thus the general" she shoudl auto carry it.


"there is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right in America"-William Jefferson Clinton, forty-second President of the United States
by DiamondJay on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:10:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Keep this up (none / 0)

Um, Last time I checked Hillary's the one who's going to lose MI not Obama (but hey that's probably what happens when you piss off our most loyal voting bloc).


by Socraticsilence on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 05:12:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: My opinion... (none / 0)

umm Bill Clinton WON, and got a helluva lot more states than either Kerry and Gore, and most definitely Barack Obama. I don't know how the hell you but Clinton with Kerry and Gore. Bill Clinton got 370 and 379 electoral votes my friend. Bill Clinton got a lot more states than Kerry and Gore, as he got WV, AR, TN, OH, KY, LA, MO, FL, all of which Kerry and Gore didn't get.

[And don't give me this "Ross Perot/didn't get a majority" HORSESHIT, because the exit polls in both years show Perot took at best equally, if not more from Clinton

1996:
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/elec tions/natl.exit.poll/index1.html
and he exit polls show he still wins all the states he won http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/elec tions/president/pres.return.html

1992:
http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/1992 1026.pdf
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.ht ml?res=9E0CE0DB1F3FF936A35752C1A96495826 0

not to mention, in 3 party races, almost no one gets 50 percent of popular votes, because a. people are gonna vote for the 3rd party guy, and b. look at British and Canadian elections, the last time a party got 50 percent of popular vote was in 1931, and Canada had one at 50 percent in 1984, 1958, and 1940 in the last 70 years, and look at many >2 party countries. So pointing out like you did earlier that Bill didn't get an absolute majority is ridiculous because he was in 3 way races, which are actually harder when you got another pro-choice pro-gay candidate like Perot who was to the left on NAFTA. Clintons wins, his WINS, and his 1996 LANDSLIDE (as I pointed out, 1945 1997 and 2001 in the UK and 1949 and 1993 in UK and Canada were all plurality but considered landslides)]

so please, the Clinton model of electoral college is a fucking lot better than kerry and Gore, and what Barack Obama will not get.

There is no way she is weaker than Obama in IA WI CO NH and CT, those are just the states who will run away from Obama with radical Reverend Wright, and his race may not help him in those states, when more than just Dem primary voters vote, not to mention his gonna be liberal image. He will not win Virginia, unless black turnout near doubles, and whites shift big time, if you look at 2004 http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004//pages/ results/states/VA/P/00/epolls.0.html Kerry got blown out there. We cannot lose Pennsylvania, and cannot win without it. Obama could lose it, for the first time since Michael Dukakis. He is not getting Ohio, Hillary should have lost that state on NAFTA, but obviously Ohio wasn't ready for Obama, and his elitist comments will not help him in the general. Same should have been for Pennsylvania. Hillary is clearly the better candidate.


"there is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right in America"-William Jefferson Clinton, forty-second President of the United States
by DiamondJay on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:34:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: it's almost as though (2.00 / 1)

On the contrary, I think Independents are moving to Hillary after the Rev. Wright-gate.  There is change coming and the polls aren't showing it yet, but it will made clear by next Tuesday.

Independents and moderate Conservative will NOT vote for Obama in the General Election.  If you want the White House, you gotta support Hillary.

Hillary '08-  Real Solutions for Real Change!


by stefystef on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:56:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: it's almost as though (none / 0)

Except Obama's had far, far more strength from independents and moderates than Clinton, by leaps and bounds. The split in VA, for instance, was 85-15, I believe, in Obama's favor.

McCain, on the other hand, was the one Republican candidate who appealed to independent voters. The Republicans were smart to pick him, because they figured they were probably going to go up against Clinton, which meant they needed the person best able to fight her in key demographics; Latinos, independents, moderates, etc. Now is problem is rallying the base around him, which is why you've seen independents such as myself balk a bit, because that's what we initially liked about him- he was willing to not whore himself to the party line.

But in a Clinton/McCain matchup, if you just give independents and moderates to Clinton with the assumption they'll obviously support Clinton, well... good luck in November.


Hooray for John McCain!
by ragekage on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:21:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: it's almost as though (none / 0)

ummm I disagree
where do you see that independents are moving to Hillary  because of Wright-gate? as of today its a non issue. All candidates agree if anyone of them  brings Wright  up to attack Obama  they run they risk of it backfiring on them. Wright was Denouced yesterday so anybody  tries to attack them will run the risk of being viewed as a negative campaigner that is avoiding talking about issues important to Americans IE economny
PUMA: Particularly Undeveloped Mental Ability
by wellinformed on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:32:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Know your History (none / 0)

Highgrade,

The way you strongly delivered your expert opinion on " Why Hillary Clinton cannot win"
made me almost forget for one second that you live in the 20 Electoral Vote count  State of OHIO that Only Clinton can deliver for the democrats.

For someone like you who knows in your heart, mind, & butt that your candidate will almost surely lose the valuable state that you're sitting in, You Talk a Very Good Game.

This is not poker young man. There are no "bluffs" nor "poker faces" in November.

Millions of white "bitter" working class Ohioans don't play poker when it comes to voting for President.

Kerry & Gore know that very well. If Barack is the nominee, he will have nightmares about Ohio.
He will has enough horror dreams about Florida & PA.

If you know your history well Highgrade, I don't have to repeat this to you:

" No Republican has ever won the White House without carrying the State of Ohio"

The only democrat to ever win the white house in the last 3 decades carried Ohio not once, but twice ! It was one & the same Democrat. Who  happens to be the other half of Hillary. Same the last name- CLINTON. Know your history.


by labanman on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:24:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Know your History (none / 0)

wow labanman

until today the only thing that scared the crap out of me the way you did  was that creepy  girl on the TV in the grudge movie ........

geez nightmares about Ohio ??!!?!?!

"WELCOME TO OHIO.... THE TRANSYLVANIA of THE U.S"


PUMA: Particularly Undeveloped Mental Ability
by wellinformed on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:39:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Know your History (none / 0)

Well, that was well-thought out and reasoned. Read my fracas up the thread and get with the program on PA, OH, FL, and Clinton/Obama winning.


Hooray for John McCain!
by ragekage on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:24:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Difference (none / 0)

Independents will ultimately decide the November election. Choosing McCain was a very good move for Republicans for this reason.  The "maverick" image will win many of those voters.

Had we known months ago that McCain would be their nominee, and had the Rev Wright stuff come out months ago (as it should have, media not doing their job again), Obama would not be the front-runner.

That is why the super-delegate system exists, to prevent the nomination of a non-viable candidate.  I am not saying Obama is non-viable, yet, but what to do if he totally unravels over the next several primaries?  Just keep marching on, right over the cliff? Or pick another nominee? We could even pick Gore.

Those who would march over a cliff for Obama keep telling us what we "have" to do (nominate/elect Obama).  Americans don't like being told what to do. We often do the opposite.


by WolfmanJack on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:28:14 PM EST

Re: Difference (none / 0)

Isn't this perhaps the reason Clinton's not winning?


Hooray for John McCain!
by ragekage on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:25:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Difference (none / 0)

yet.


by WolfmanJack on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:29:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Difference (none / 0)

Still, you said the American people hate to be told what to do. I don't see you acknowledging that could, as seems likely as this juncture in time, be the reason for her downfall.


Hooray for John McCain!
by ragekage on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:42:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Healthcare - Read this article on McCain (none / 0)

http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/mcca in-health-plan-millions-lose-coverage-he alth-costs-worsen-and-insurance-and-drug -indu

Thats why Hillary can WIN on the issue of healthcare. She will represent a huge difference from McCain's healthcare insanity, which will worsten the situation. You can't apply the GOP 'less is more' logic to healthcare. People are already not getting care they need! Clinton would be a huge contrast to McCain. Obama would not be as significant because for those with even minor chronic conditions, (i.e not in Obama's 'normal' family) healthcare would still be MUCH too expensive to buy, even if 'they could not be turned away, the price quoted can be astonomical.) (Obama's 'fair price' means price related to cost to treat disease and risk, which can be much much more than people can afford if they are buying on their own, and are not part of a large group.)

Obama's healthcare plan (when he starts looking at the issue in 2012) is designed to fail, its like the state high risk pools, it would keep real insurance unafforable for most Americans, because it doesn't change much of anything.

Many states already have programs much like Obamas and they are too expensive. None of them uses the buying power of the healthy to make COMPREHENSIVE healthcare affordable to everybody.


Universal healthcare IS a core Democratic value
Without a REAL committment to it, we WON'T win in November.
by architek on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:46:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: When 92 % was cool (none / 0)

Doesn't the same community give 92 percent of its vote to Democrats, including President Clinton?

You just be sure to let them know when it's good to vote as a bloc again, OK?


by niksder on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:46:00 PM EST

Re: When 92 % was cool (none / 0)

Its all right as long as its all White.


by Socraticsilence on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 05:15:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

hmmm (none / 0)

perhaps sen. clinton's supporters would do better focusing on the immediate issue i.e. winning the primary.  

kinda difficult to win the general when one doesn't win the nomination, no?
s.


by synth on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:13:44 PM EST

Re: hmmm (none / 0)

I wish Obama knew that. In life, its not where you start, its where you end up. Obama will end up the loser in the post-april primaries, and being that this is politics, the most recent wins are the ones which matter, as things change. Also, in primaries, different voter groups have more influence. IN the Dem one, the blacks have a lot, and they are all voting for their own. in the general, they make up a much smaller percentage.


"there is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right in America"-William Jefferson Clinton, forty-second President of the United States
by DiamondJay on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:36:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.