|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Oct 18, 2016 22:41:28 GMT -5
I don't think anybody picked Obama over McCain (or Hillary) because of "political correctness." (No matter which definition of that useless term you prefer.) That's not at all what I mean... I mean that if Obama lost the nomination on Superdelagates (as Bernie arguably did) it would have been a massive crapstorm on racist allegations.. Sanders didn't arguably lose the nomination on Superdelegates. That's just nonsense. Clinton won the majority of the delegates before the superdelegate votes were ever counted. I'm not sure how 54% to 46% is arguable.
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Oct 18, 2016 23:04:19 GMT -5
It was actually Hillary's turn in 2008. She was much more popular then in the polls and had the perfect age to crown her political life with two presidential terms. But it turned out the big bad party machine with all its money and Superdelegates could not prevent primary voters from picking the candidate they liked best. I don't think it had anything to do with the primary voters.. she was polling terribly at the time, and the party (correctly, I think) realized she'd probably lose in the general election, and besides, for the PC crowd, what's better than the first woman president? Clearly, the first African American one. The fix occurred in 2008 . Hillary got a prestigious cabinet position which helped her resume. In return she would promise not to run against Obama again in 2012. Then in return she would have the 2016 nomination all to herself. Only Bernie Sanders broke protocol and ran against her. It is so obvious how this played out. I can't remember ever seeing the Dems or Repubs having practically no competition in the primary stages when there is no incumbent.
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Oct 18, 2016 23:07:21 GMT -5
I don't think it had anything to do with the primary voters.. she was polling terribly at the time, and the party (correctly, I think) realized she'd probably lose in the general election, and besides, for the PC crowd, what's better than the first woman president? Clearly, the first African American one. The fix occurred in 2008 . Hillary got a prestigious cabinet position which helped her resume. In return she would promise not to run against Obama again in 2012. Then in return she would have the 2016 nomination all to herself. Only Bernie Sanders broke protocol and ran against her. It is so obvious how this played out. I can't remember ever seeing the Dems or Repubs having practically no competition in the primary stages when there is no incumbent. Really? She agreed not to run against him in 2012? Do you know how rare it is to have a primary challenge against an incumbent? She was never going to run against Obama in 2012.
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Oct 18, 2016 23:15:46 GMT -5
The fix occurred in 2008 . Hillary got a prestigious cabinet position which helped her resume. In return she would promise not to run against Obama again in 2012. Then in return she would have the 2016 nomination all to herself. Only Bernie Sanders broke protocol and ran against her. It is so obvious how this played out. I can't remember ever seeing the Dems or Repubs having practically no competition in the primary stages when there is no incumbent. Really? She agreed not to run against him in 2012? Do you know how rare it is to have a primary challenge against an incumbent? She was never going to run against Obama in 2012. Not as rare as you think depending on the incumbent's popularity. most famous example would be Bobby Kennedy running against LBJ before Johnson decided not to pursue a second term.Or having Hilary on the sideline strategical criticizing Obama's decision. No, to keep the party united, I'm convinced that this was agreed upon Again, don't you find it extremely strange that no other Democrat ran against Hillary? We had a busload of clownish Republicans but you can hear crickets chirping on the Dem side
|
|
|
Post by the4thpip on Oct 19, 2016 2:43:21 GMT -5
Obama beat Hillary in spite of the Superdelagates system, which kind of dispels that idea. He did because the party changed their mind... the Superdelagates switched sides when when the popular vote turned. Sanders was hoping that was going to happen, and talked about it often... it just never did. Now we know why. The superdelegates have always done that. Because there would be a huge outcry otherwise. The reason it did not happen for Sanders: The popular vote didn't turn for him. He lost by a huge margin. What Sanders was actually advocating for at the end was that the superdelegates overrule the will of the primary voters and coronate him based on polls of a few hundred individuals by commercial polling firms that showed that he (being less known and less vetted and not the victim of decades of GOP smears) was better liked and had a better chance of beating Trump. Now you know why he lost. The people preferred Hillary.
|
|
|
Post by the4thpip on Oct 19, 2016 2:50:44 GMT -5
I don't think it had anything to do with the primary voters.. she was polling terribly at the time, and the party (correctly, I think) realized she'd probably lose in the general election, and besides, for the PC crowd, what's better than the first woman president? Clearly, the first African American one. The fix occurred in 2008 . Hillary got a prestigious cabinet position which helped her resume. In return she would promise not to run against Obama again in 2012. Then in return she would have the 2016 nomination all to herself. Only Bernie Sanders broke protocol and ran against her. It is so obvious how this played out. I can't remember ever seeing the Dems or Repubs having practically no competition in the primary stages when there is no incumbent. No offense, Ish, but that is pretty deep in tinfoil hat territory.
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Oct 19, 2016 3:01:15 GMT -5
The fix occurred in 2008 . Hillary got a prestigious cabinet position which helped her resume. In return she would promise not to run against Obama again in 2012. Then in return she would have the 2016 nomination all to herself. Only Bernie Sanders broke protocol and ran against her. It is so obvious how this played out. I can't remember ever seeing the Dems or Repubs having practically no competition in the primary stages when there is no incumbent. Really? She agreed not to run against him in 2012? Do you know how rare it is to have a primary challenge against an incumbent? She was never going to run against Obama in 2012. Did a little research, Slam, to see in recent history other examples of a candidate from the same party running against the incumbent president. Besides the Bobby Kennedy and Eugene McCarthy challenge to LBJ in 1968 you had: 1976-Ronald Reagan ran against Gerald Ford 1980-Ted Kennedy ran against Jimmy Carter Each time, if the sitting President looked vulnerable, like sharks smelling blood, someone from the same party might think there is a chance to unseat him and win the general election. Now, when Obama took office, with us still mired in Iraq and the economy in a disaster, Obama played it very smart by giving his chief rival/ critic a seat at the table. Better to keep your enemies close etc. as the saying goes. It wouldn't be far-fetched to think 4 years down the line Obama's presidency, what with the crisis's on hand in 2008, might be troubled. Offer her complete free run in 2016. Smart of Obama to make the offer, smart of Clinton to accept. Keeps the party unified and everyone is happy. Except those who think the public should be offered more choices instead of having to settle for these back-room deals
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Oct 19, 2016 3:02:16 GMT -5
The fix occurred in 2008 . Hillary got a prestigious cabinet position which helped her resume. In return she would promise not to run against Obama again in 2012. Then in return she would have the 2016 nomination all to herself. Only Bernie Sanders broke protocol and ran against her. It is so obvious how this played out. I can't remember ever seeing the Dems or Repubs having practically no competition in the primary stages when there is no incumbent. No offense, Ish, but that is pretty deep in tinfoil hat territory. Explain where all the democratic candidates were. No one wants the job?
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Oct 19, 2016 4:52:13 GMT -5
That's not at all what I mean... I mean that if Obama lost the nomination on Superdelagates (as Bernie arguably did) it would have been a massive crapstorm on racist allegations.. Sanders didn't arguably lose the nomination on Superdelegates. That's just nonsense. Clinton won the majority of the delegates before the superdelegate votes were ever counted. I'm not sure how 54% to 46% is arguable. It's arguable because from the very beginning of the campaign, CNN and others where showing Clinton with a big lead because of the Superdelagates... that definitely effects people. That's why they don't allow any results until polls close. Who can say how may independents didn't 'waste their vote' for Sanders because it appeared he had no chance and voted in the Republican primary instead? Or just stayed home?
|
|
|
Post by The Captain on Oct 19, 2016 5:54:45 GMT -5
No offense, Ish, but that is pretty deep in tinfoil hat territory. Explain where all the democratic candidates were. No one wants the job? I don't agree with Pip that this "deep in tinfoil hat territory", because I think that the SoS position was definitely a sop to Hillary to keep her placated, out of the 2012 election, and boost a pretty thin resume. However, I think there is an easier explanation to why there were few other Democrat candidates in 2016, and that is pride and positioning. Going up against the Hillary machine, with all of its money and celebrity endorsers, was going to be a tough battle, so why would any candidate with a viable shot at the White House waste their first (and possibly last) run at the POTUS tangling with that meat grinder? Anyone who opposed Hillary would not only have all of their faults and flaws exposed to the voting public, damaging their future prospects (particularly if they got trounced) but they would have to deal with the "female" issue. I know it's not popular or maybe PC to discuss, but Hillary's gender makes her fairly bulletproof, because any criticism of her, no matter how valid, can be decried as sexist, much like criticism of candidate Obama was called out as racist even if it had merit. It also comes with a built-in voting block, made up of women who just want to see a female POTUS (just like many African-Americans did with candidate Obama) or people want to be able to say they voted for the first female POTUS, like picking the winner is the same thing as picking the right person. Any smart players on the Democratic side knew enough to steer clear of Hillary in this one, so rather than destroy any chance at the WH, they stepped back so their political futures could remain intact.
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Oct 19, 2016 6:03:31 GMT -5
Let's look back, and we'll stick to just the Democratic Party, at the amount of candidates running in the primaries when there was no incumbent from the same party
2008-Obama was probably the least known of them all.You also had Hillary, Joe Biden, John Edwards, Christopher Dodd, Bill Richardson and Dennis Kucinich
2004-John Kerry, Howard Dean, John Edwards, Wesley Clark, Joseph Lieberman, Dick Gephardt, Al Sharpton, Carole Moseley Braun, Bob Graham, Dennis Kucinich
2000-Al Gore, Bill Bradley, Jesse Jackson, Dick Gephardt, John Kerry, Bob Kerrey
1992-Bill Clinton, Jerry Brown, Paul Tsongas, Tom Harkin, Bob Kerrey, Eugene McCarthy
I'm not including minor democrats who withdrew just before the primaries began but did announce beforehand
I'll stop here but believe me there never was a shortage of candidates running in primaries when the field was wide open with no incumbent. I'm no political hound like some others here might be and have not read anything elsewhere about what looks to me to be a very fishy situation.
In fact, has anyone read anything elsewhere about what I'm pointing out? I'd love to read why others think Hillary had the nomination to herself with the exception of Sanders who most of his career identified himself as an independent and didn't become a Democrat until November, 2015
|
|
Roquefort Raider
CCF Mod Squad
Modus omnibus in rebus
Posts: 17,161
Member is Online
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Oct 19, 2016 6:09:21 GMT -5
Really? She agreed not to run against him in 2012? Do you know how rare it is to have a primary challenge against an incumbent? She was never going to run against Obama in 2012. Did a little research, Slam, to see in recent history other examples of a candidate from the same party running against the incumbent president. Besides the Bobby Kennedy and Eugene McCarthy challenge to LBJ in 1968 you had: 1976-Ronald Reagan ran against Gerald Ford 1980-Ted Kennedy ran against Jimmy Carter Each time, if the sitting President looked vulnerable, like sharks smelling blood, someone from the same party might think there is a chance to unseat him and win the general election. Now, when Obama took office, with us still mired in Iraq and the economy in a disaster, Obama played it very smart by giving his chief rival/ critic a seat at the table. Better to keep your enemies close etc. as the saying goes. It wouldn't be far-fetched to think 4 years down the line Obama's presidency, what with the crisis's on hand in 2008, might be troubled. Offer her complete free run in 2016. Smart of Obama to make the offer, smart of Clinton to accept. Keeps the party unified and everyone is happy. Except those who think the public should be offered more choices instead of having to settle for these back-room deals I've no idea if it happened that way, but that scenario is at least plausible. It would also be pretty sensible, because a political party, as an entity, is not about offering the public more choices; it's all about maximizing its chances of being elected. As you say, a unified party makes everyone happy, and the road to unification is often paved with back-room deals and quid pro quo. Politics and sausage, right?
|
|
|
Post by the4thpip on Oct 19, 2016 6:09:50 GMT -5
No offense, Ish, but that is pretty deep in tinfoil hat territory. Explain where all the democratic candidates were. No one wants the job? They considered her such a strong candidate that they decided to sit it out. This happens all the time at all levels of government. And again, the facts show that Hillary beat Sanders fair and square, no matter what worries or opinions were uttered about him by members of the Democratic party in internal emails.
|
|
|
Post by the4thpip on Oct 19, 2016 6:14:54 GMT -5
Explain where all the democratic candidates were. No one wants the job? I don't agree with Pip that this "deep in tinfoil hat territory", because I think that the SoS position was definitely a sop to Hillary to keep her placated, out of the 2012 election, and boost a pretty thin resume. However, I think there is an easier explanation to why there were few other Democrat candidates in 2016, and that is pride and positioning. Going up against the Hillary machine, with all of its money and celebrity endorsers, was going to be a tough battle, so why would any candidate with a viable shot at the White House waste their first (and possibly last) run at the POTUS tangling with that meat grinder? Anyone who opposed Hillary would not only have all of their faults and flaws exposed to the voting public, damaging their future prospects (particularly if they got trounced) but they would have to deal with the "female" issue. I know it's not popular or maybe PC to discuss, but Hillary's gender makes her fairly bulletproof, because any criticism of her, no matter how valid, can be decried as sexist, much like criticism of candidate Obama was called out as racist even if it had merit. It also comes with a built-in voting block, made up of women who just want to see a female POTUS (just like many African-Americans did with candidate Obama) or people want to be able to say they voted for the first female POTUS, like picking the winner is the same thing as picking the right person. Any smart players on the Democratic side knew enough to steer clear of Hillary in this one, so rather than destroy any chance at the WH, they stepped back so their political futures could remain intact. There were other viable female candidates, though, like Elizabeth Warren. Or Hispanic candidates, where you would have a similar situation as with Obama. Also, I find the idea weird that a system that for 240 years has produced white, male candidates should in any way be rigged in favor of women.
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Oct 19, 2016 6:16:57 GMT -5
Explain where all the democratic candidates were. No one wants the job? I don't agree with Pip that this "deep in tinfoil hat territory", because I think that the SoS position was definitely a sop to Hillary to keep her placated, out of the 2012 election, and boost a pretty thin resume. However, I think there is an easier explanation to why there were few other Democrat candidates in 2016, and that is pride and positioning. Going up against the Hillary machine, with all of its money and celebrity endorsers, was going to be a tough battle, so why would any candidate with a viable shot at the White House waste their first (and possibly last) run at the POTUS tangling with that meat grinder? Anyone who opposed Hillary would not only have all of their faults and flaws exposed to the voting public, damaging their future prospects (particularly if they got trounced) but they would have to deal with the "female" issue. I know it's not popular or maybe PC to discuss, but Hillary's gender makes her fairly bulletproof, because any criticism of her, no matter how valid, can be decried as sexist, much like criticism of candidate Obama was called out as racist even if it had merit. It also comes with a built-in voting block, made up of women who just want to see a female POTUS (just like many African-Americans did with candidate Obama) or people want to be able to say they voted for the first female POTUS, like picking the winner is the same thing as picking the right person. Any smart players on the Democratic side knew enough to steer clear of Hillary in this one, so rather than destroy any chance at the WH, they stepped back so their political futures could remain intact. You bring up some good points Captain. Just to try and counter them, it was always obvious that Hillary was a polarizing figure in the political landscape and would have plenty of baggage tied to her. And as Obama proved, she was not infallible at all. Bernie Sanders proved that again, surprising so many pundits with how well he polled, way beyond expectations. I would have thought a few viable candidates would have taken the plunge rather than wait another 4-8 years. i just think the Democratic Party Bosses kind of persuaded potential candidates to keep the party as unified as possible and let the Republicans maul each other with their dozen or more high office seekers.
|
|