anyone else getting bored with obama clinton?
- Thread starter Chapdog
- Start date
- Status
I have only seen two political commercials on my local channels this season. It's been great. Haven't had to watch one since the 1st "Super Tuesday."
Yes, it's all so terrible, and the party is tearing itself to bits.
Wait. Obama and Clinton together raised over 80 million dollars last month. Compared to the paltry 12 million McCain raised. And Democratic voter participation and enthusiasm is outpacing republican enthusiasm on the order of two to one.
Sounds like a disaster.
Yes. I always get bored around elections because issues are thrown under the rug for personality. This time I admittedly got a little drawn in to it with the Paul campaign, so my boredom was delayed a bit. But now I am quickly approaching my saturation/apathy level on the election.
Yes, it's all so terrible, and the party is tearing itself to bits.
Wait. Obama and Clinton together raised over 80 million dollars last month. Compared to the paltry 12 million McCain raised. And Democratic voter participation and enthusiasm is outpacing republican enthusiasm on the order of two to one.
Sounds like a disaster.
who cares. they are spending the money on bashing each other. what a disgusting display of wasted money.
It's a contested primary chap. Not a coronation. These are both, two strong viable candidates. They're not going to roll over for the other's coronation. Yes, I don't like negative ads either. But, both candidates are building a massive donor databases and broad functioning grass roots political infrastructure in all 50 states. Partly as a result of a long, drawn out primary. There are upsides to that too.
And they both better sure as f*ck better learn to run war rooms and negative ads. Because that's why Kerry lost. He didn't kick the republicans in the balls, like they were doing to him.
And they both better sure as f*ck better learn to run war rooms and negative ads. Because that's why Kerry lost. He didn't kick the republicans in the balls, like they were doing to him.
Last edited:
gonzojournals
Better than You
Yes, it's all so terrible, and the party is tearing itself to bits.
Wait. Obama and Clinton together raised over 80 million dollars last month. Compared to the paltry 12 million McCain raised. And Democratic voter participation and enthusiasm is outpacing republican enthusiasm on the order of two to one.
Sounds like a disaster.
They needed the money more, too. Smear campaigns are expensive.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Yes, it's all so terrible, and the party is tearing itself to bits.
Wait. Obama and Clinton together raised over 80 million dollars last month. Compared to the paltry 12 million McCain raised. And Democratic voter participation and enthusiasm is outpacing republican enthusiasm on the order of two to one.
Sounds like a disaster.
yep.... ya gotta hate to see the Dems spend that $80 million attacking each other. Just breaks my heart to see that happen.
gonzojournals
Better than You
And being Democrats, you can be sure they spent it in a couple minutes.
Battleborne
Terminator
Personally.....!
I was bored with the Clintons there first day in National Office...same goes for Obama...the first day he set foot on the National stage!
I was bored with the Clintons there first day in National Office...same goes for Obama...the first day he set foot on the National stage!
That's fine for the general, but doing this in the primary when the losers will undoubtedly end up supporting the winner is just political cannibalism and all it does is give republicans more material to use against the dems. I'd much rather see a civil and uplifting primary than people getting thrown under the bus.
The only way to do it is to do what the Republicans do which is to have winner-take-all primaries. It’s smarter for the party, but is it the most Democratic way to do it? I don’t think so.
For instance, I don’t even like the electoral system we currently have.
Well, the Clintons have done a fine job of portraying Obama as an empty suit with no accomplishments, someone with a "disturbing pattern" of plagiarism, someone who can't be trusted with our national security & is naive on foreign policy, someone who won't protect your children at night, and someone who is aligned with Farakhan & other radicals.
Oh, and someone who is a black Muslim, as well. Boo.
That pretty much sums it up. I can honestly say she's completely turned me off to her now.
i like the way they do it.. but dump the supers. i am willing to bet if the supers didnt count at all and you lowered the required delegate for nomination count to reflect no supers.. obama would almost be near impossible to beat now. i dont know exact math but:
right now they require 2025 to get nomination.
Hillary has 1269 (48%) and obama has 1378 (not including supers) 52%
there are 364 supers.. if u were to eliminate the supers and allocate that back:
Obama = 189 + 1378 = 1567
Clinton = 175 +1269 = 1444
Then todays primary have 370. Say its a tie in delegates today.
Obama = 1567+185 = 1752
Clinton = 1444 + 185 = 1629
then its just simple math.. Hillary becomes a HUGE long shot to get to the total. Shes far more likely to concede. With this super delegate thing its far to subjective where as deals can be made.. This causes someone like Hillary to stay in it.
right now they require 2025 to get nomination.
Hillary has 1269 (48%) and obama has 1378 (not including supers) 52%
there are 364 supers.. if u were to eliminate the supers and allocate that back:
Obama = 189 + 1378 = 1567
Clinton = 175 +1269 = 1444
Then todays primary have 370. Say its a tie in delegates today.
Obama = 1567+185 = 1752
Clinton = 1444 + 185 = 1629
then its just simple math.. Hillary becomes a HUGE long shot to get to the total. Shes far more likely to concede. With this super delegate thing its far to subjective where as deals can be made.. This causes someone like Hillary to stay in it.
Well, I like the idea that states who's votes normally don't count for $hit are actually meaningful this time around and yes, I feel as though the proportional allotment (sp?) of votes is ideal for a primary. I'd like to see it done on one day or over the course of one month.
What I don't like is the fact that its so spread out and people don't really get a chance to vote for who they originally wanted, which negates the entire premise of a proportionally dividing the votes anyway. The first few states essentially decide who the nominee will be.
Its a fair point. I can't speak with any authority on all the alleged negative TV ads. The ads I saw in california from both candidates were pretty plain vanilla and non-inflammatory.
That texas phone ad from clinton was just plain idiotic.
- Status