Clinton's backers: We won't 'roll over'

[red states rule]

The Dems may think they settled the FL and MI issue, but Hillary supporters are not happy campers

It looks like Sen McCain may get those Democrat and Independent votes after all


Clinton's backers: We won't 'roll over'
Sean Lengell (Contact)
Sunday, June 1, 2008


The Democratic Party risks the defection of many supporters of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton unless it settles the Florida and Michigan primary fracas to their satisfaction, said protesters at pro-Clinton rallies in Washington yesterday.

"I refuse to be associated with a party that is stupid, self-destructive and undemocratic, and now, I'm beginning to realize, is misogynistic," said Norma Broude, an American University professor who was among more than 1,000 Clinton supporters at a "count the vote" rally at Rock Creek Park.

Friend and fellow American University professor Mary Garrard agreed, saying that she will not vote for Mrs. Clinton's rival, Sen. Barack Obama, if he receives the party's presidential nomination.

"The Democratic Party has disdained the female demographic, they have demeaned Hillary Clinton, and this time we're not going to roll over," Ms. Garrard said.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jun/01/clintons-backers-we-wont-roll-over/

[Pale Rider]

You KNOW the dems have HUGE problems when even our very own board libs are REAL QUITE! :laugh:

But mcamnesty has much of the same problems with conservatives, the majority of which will NOT vote for HIM.

[red states rule]

You KNOW the dems have HUGE problems when even our very own board libs are REAL QUITE! :laugh:

But mcamnesty has much of the same problems with conservatives, the majority of which will NOT vote for HIM.

I have noticed how libs are avoiding threads like this. It is funny they are not leaping to Obama's defense

Perhaps they are now starting to sweat like the party leaders :laugh2:

McCain will get some of the Hillary voters, and that might put him over the top

[Pale Rider]

I have noticed how libs are avoiding threads like this. It is funny they are not leaping to Obama's defense

Perhaps they are now starting to sweat like the party leaders :laugh2:

McCain will get some of the Hillary voters, and that might put him over the top

That's mccain's saving grace. But he better hope that as many hitlery votes he picks up will make up for the conservative votes he lost, providing the dims nominate hussein, who is a sure loser.

I do think mccain would have a tough time winning against hitlery.

[red states rule]

That's mccain's saving grace. But he better hope that as many hitlery votes he picks up will make up for the conservative votes he lost, providing the dims nominate hussein, who is a sure loser.

I do think mccain would have a tough time winning against hitlery.

While it is early, and Obama has plenty of time to keep fucking things up; McCain is doing very well against Obama in the Electoral College

Hillary is doing alot better then Obama

As long as Dems stick with Obama, McCain has a good chance of winning

[mundame]

It looks like Sen McCain may get those Democrat and Independent votes after all



Or it may simply be that Obama doesn't get votes Hillary would have gotten. A lot of people are saying they've given up on the election in disgust; I'm not the only one.

I was very impressed with this Wall Street Journal op-ed Friday that details the BIG disadvantage Obama has in polled voter intentions versus Hillary in many states: in short, Hillary wins a lot of states that Obama loses.

The Argument for Nominating Hillary (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121219030144534313.html)

May 31, WSJ

Here's an excerpt:

The latest state-by-state battleground polls (published May 21-23) by other respected polling organizations verify Gallup's findings that Sen. Clinton is significantly stronger against Sen. McCain in the key states that a Democrat must win to gain the presidency. According to various poll data within the last 10 days:
- Pennsylvania: Sen. Clinton leads McCain 50%-39%; Sen. Obama and Sen. McCain are effectively tied.

- Ohio: Sen. Clinton leads Sen. McCain 48%-41%, Sen. Obama is down 44%-40%.

- Florida: Sen. Clinton leads Sen. McCain 47%-41%; Sen. McCain leads Sen. Obama 50%-40%. (Sen. Clinton has a net advantage of 16 points!)

- North Carolina: Despite a substantial primary victory, Sen. Obama is down 8% vs. Sen. McCain, (51%-43%), while Sen. Clinton leads by 6% (49%-43%).

- Nevada: Sen. Clinton up 5%, Sen. Obama down 6%.

Even the theory that Sen. Obama can open up significant numbers of "red" states has not been borne out by recent polling. For example: in Virginia, which Sen. Obama won substantially in the Feb. 12 Democratic primary, he is currently down in at least one recent, respected poll by a significant 9% margin – one point greater than the 8% margin Sen. Clinton is behind Sen. McCain.

Finally, one unfortunate argument is making the rounds lately to convince superdelegates to go for Sen. Obama. That is the prediction that if Sen. Obama is not the nominee, African-American and other passionate Obama supporters will conclude that the nomination had been "stolen" and will walk out of the convention or stay at home. On the other side are the many women and others strongly committed to Sen. Clinton promising that if she is denied the nomination, they will refuse to vote for Sen. Obama.
************************************************** **

[glockmail]

I noticed that the Affirmative Action Candidate got delegates from a state that he wasn't on the ballot. Where's the accusations from Libs that he "stole" the election? :laugh2:

[Hagbard Celine]

If you look at it, Obama hasn't won any big states. He may have the most delegates, but he hasn't won California, New York, Texas or any of the other big-time states that hold a lot of sway in the Pop. election. So basically, the Dem party is setting up to nominate a candidate who can't win any major states. :thumb: Great job!

[mundame]

If you look at it, Obama hasn't won any big states. He may have the most delegates, but he hasn't won California, New York, Texas or any of the other big-time states that hold a lot of sway in the Pop. election. So basically, the Dem party is setting up to nominate a candidate who can't win any major states. :thumb: Great job!


Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida are all very shaky for Dems. And they cannot win without two or all of those three states.

[red states rule]

Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida are all very shaky for Dems. And they cannot win without two or all of those three states.

Dems have to give it to Obama. They would rather piss off women then piss off blacks

Either way, Dems are going with the much weaker candidate and are to "color blind" to see it

[mundame]

Dems have to give it to Obama. They would rather piss off women then piss off blacks

Either way, Dems are going with the much weaker candidate and are to "color blind" to see it


It's an amazing and perhaps historic situation.

It does look to me as if the Dems are jogging right out onto a bridge that ends in the middle of the river.

That the primary electorate for Dems is WILDLY further left than the general population, so that they can't win the general with this strange candidate they have. I'd say he's weirder than Dukakis or Mondale or McGovern, by far.

[red states rule]

It's an amazing and perhaps historic situation.

It does look to me as if the Dems are jogging right out onto a bridge that ends in the middle of the river.

That the primary electorate for Dems is WILDLY further left than the general population, so that they can't win the general with this strange candidate they have. I'd say he's weirder than Dukakis or Mondale or McGovern, by far.

Obama is crawling over the finish line, and his supporters still look at him as the second coming