Bill Maher: GOP Really Doesn't Want To Win The Election

@maporsche,

Quote:

I got sick of his [Obama's] grand plans and the hope and change stuff.

That's what I don't understand... What problem do you have with hope?

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

Can you give an example of Obama supporters being jerks in 2008 to the extent that Clinton supporters are being now?

I seriously doubt anyone can.

Their gloating and bitching is an indication of how afraid Bernie got them.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

A LOT of Bernie supporters THEMSELVES are telling us that they aren't Democrats.

And I opted out of your little anecdotal game of posting YouTube videos, not because I couldn't play, but because it doesn't serve any purpose. Also, cell phone cameras weren't much of a thing in 2008.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

I don't have time to go back. I do remember that as soon as Obama took the lead and the unpledged delegates started switching, just about every thread on here was about when is Hillary going to get out, when she was not as far behind as Bernie is. The Obama people were divided up into two camps-one was "Hillary you lost, get the **** out" and the other was a softer, "but we must start the healing now, so you must get out". And the numbers were indeed getting more and more difficult for Hillary, but I still emotionally resented those who would cut short her shot at it until it was shown to HER satisfaction that it wasn't going to happen.

Various print and broadcast pundits were encouraging her to get out as well.

I don't have the patience to go back and give the examples, if you don't see it that way, well and good. That's the way I saw it.

As far as Sanders being a Democrat, we were willing to accept him as such, (he did caucus with the Democrats and vote for Democratic committee chairmen for decades, which is the important thing), but a couple of Bernie supporters on here are saying they will not vote for Hillary in the general election. And that sentiment of not voting for Hillary even if she wins the nomination is much stronger now than any such anti-Obama sentiment existed among Hillary supporters.

0 Replies

@maporsche,

This is Hillary's campaign now. It is her job (assuming she wants to win) to pull in as many voters as she possibly can. I am a Bernie supporter and I have been a registered Democrat (who votes Democrat) for decades.

For her to attack me, my values, or the candidate who represents me as not being part of her party is stupid.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

Bernie was an Independent until last year. He caucused with the Democrats, which means he voted for a Democratic Speaker of the House and Senate Majority Leader, and also voted for a Democratic majority on all committees and a Democratic committee chairman, so he was accepted as a Democrat.

Hillary's pointing out that he was not a member of the party until recently, which is technically true, was in response to a question where her ability to bring in new people to the Democratic party was questioned. If Bernie wants to run as a technical Independent for his own reasons but vote for Democrats, fine. But these things will come up if his followers try to claim that only Bernie can support the rest of the Democratic Party best.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

This is Hillary's campaign now. It is her job (assuming she wants to win) to pull in as many voters as she possibly can. I am a Bernie supporter and I have been a registered Democrat (who votes Democrat) for decades.

I see her doing that. I don't know how you don't. She talked all about unity and coming together in her speech last night.

Quote:

For her to attack me, my values, or the candidate who represents me as not being part of her party is stupid.

Attacking Sanders for not adequately supporting the democratic party is a VALID attack. He hasn't supported the democratic party NEARLY to the degree that she has. It's one of the best things about Clinton is her ability to impact down-ticket elections in 50 states. It's a main reason why I support her.

I don't see her attacking you or your values though.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

The argument about whether it is a valid attack is irrelevant (although I disagree with you). Either way it is a STUPID attack.

You don't alienate the very voters who you are counting on in the general election.

0 Replies

@Blickers,

Blickers wrote:

To briefly recap, in 2008 the primary votes from Michigan were discounted by half or something in response to Michigan's breaking the Democratic rules.

That is incorrect.

What happened was, Michigan complained about Iowa and New Hampshire always going first, and got the rules changed so that New Hampshire had to go after someone else (I forget who, but it was another small state).

New Hampshire then flagrantly broke the rules and went first anyway.

The national Democratic Party decided to not penalize New Hampshire in any way, and accepted 100% of their delegates instead of reducing them by half.

In protest for New Hampshire being allowed to violate the rules without punishment, Michigan then also moved our primary date ahead in violation of the rules.

The national Democratic Party then decided to penalize Michigan by not counting ANY of our delegates.

Candidate Barack Obama then decided, all on his own, to remove his name from the Michigan ballot. Consequently he received zero votes in the primary.

Later in the primary season, there was an effort to redo the Michigan primary since the first one supposedly did not count (and was allegedly marred by the absence of Mr. Obama's name on the ballot). However, Mr. Obama actively fought to prevent Michigan from redoing the primary, and ultimately he succeeded in blocking it.

In the end, the Democratic Party decided to completely ignore the will of the voters. They simply awarded Michigan's delegates as they saw fit without any regard for the election results. It was allegedly unfair to follow the will of the voters because that would award no delegates to Mr. Obama, even though it was his own choice to remove his name from the ballot, and even though he was the one who prevented Michigan from redoing the primary.

Blickers wrote:

This is not disenfranchisement. Your vote is only "franchised" for the election in November. The selection of a party's candidate is internal party business.

I'm going to vote for every single Republican in every single general election for the rest of my life.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

For those of us who care about things like single payer healthcare, economic justice and fairness in the Middle East, Hillary as leader of the party, is going to have to accept that these are heartfelt issues for the core of her base.

Fairness in the Middle East would exclude any effort to be blatantly unfair to Israel.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

Olivier5 wrote:
Roger's allegation is also baseless.

Is there any chance that Roger was being subtly sarcastic, and was voicing disagreement both with the idea that the Republicans want to lose and with the accusations against Lash?

Dayum! I find myself hoping Lash also knows how to read.

4 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote oralloy:

Quote:

In protest for New Hampshire being allowed to violate the rules without punishment, Michigan then also moved our primary date ahead in violation of the rules.

New Hampshire was the first primary since forever. Even as kid I remember the attention being paid to that. New Hampshire just ran its primary when it traditionally did, despite the new Democratic Party rules, and was forgiven because of that tradition. In fact, New Hampshire is still the first primary today. Michigan's protest was not forgiven because Michigan did not have that traditionally early spot, Michigan had neither the Democratic Party rules nor long tradition backing them up. That's why Michigan Democrats lost out in 2008. Are you a Michigan Democrat?

All this was internal Democratic Party business, and like I said, the primaries are new, the bosses of both parties used to just meet at party conventions and make deals to decide who got the nomination. The only vote you are constitutionally guaranteed is the one in November, the individual parties can decide whatever rules they want, whether they want a primary, a caucus, a smoky back room of party bosses, or any combo of the three. Then your constitutionally guaranteed vote decides if you like the party's selection or not.

1 Reply

@roger,

Oops. Apologies if (as it does seem to be the case) you were being sarcastic. To my defense, you got quite a few of us confused.

0 Replies

@roger,

It's kind of a tricky one since there's been a fair bit of coverage (going back at least a year) about the Republican big money people giving a pass to 2016 so they have time to rebuild the party in a way they like and to develop some candidates they're in favour of.

0 Replies

@roger,

I was just going to post that people are misreading Roger's post - and Oralloy beat me to it; that was my memory but I hadn't looked back yet, still haven't.
He has a fine capacity to be somewhat sardonic, not a bad thing, and people don't always get it.

0 Replies

@Blickers,

Blickers wrote:

New Hampshire was the first primary since forever. Even as kid I remember the attention being paid to that. New Hampshire just ran its primary when it traditionally did, despite the new Democratic Party rules, and was forgiven because of that tradition. In fact, New Hampshire is still the first primary today. Michigan's protest was not forgiven because Michigan did not have that traditionally early spot, Michigan had neither the Democratic Party rules nor long tradition backing them up. That's why Michigan Democrats lost out in 2008.

They can justify it any way they want. I'm still going to vote for every Republican in every general election race for the rest of my life.

Blickers wrote:

Are you a Michigan Democrat?

For now.

I'm expecting that Mr. Trump will permanently pull the Reagan Democrats into the Republican Party, which will cripple the Democratic base and lead to a long series of Republican victories. I am debating whether to follow the Reagan Democrats when they migrate.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote oralloy:

Quote:

They can justify it any way they want. I'm still going to vote for every Republican in every general election race for the rest of my life.

To each his own. That's what democracy is for.

Quote oralloy:

Quote:

I'm expecting that Mr. Trump will permanently pull the Reagan Democrats into the Republican Party, which will cripple the Democratic base and lead to a long series of Republican victories.

I disagree, but if your oft-made prediction turns out to be the truth, I hereby grant you nyaah rights, (the right to come back here and tell us all, "nyaah nyaah nyaah I told you so".

0 Replies

Just finished listening to an interesting political panel on the radio. Republicans saying they'll vote Democrat if Trump is the nominee. Independents who had supported Sanders saying they'll vote Republican. Democrats sitting tight.

If 10% of them are telling the truth, it could make for an entertaining result. Leftwing independents pwning Republicans. Moderate Republicans pwning Democrats. Democrats either confused or happy or both.

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

I could see a Sanders voter going independent or not voting, but voting for Cruz or Trump completely baffles me.

1 Reply

@engineer,

the story is that Mr. Trump might as well be an independent so he's the next best thing to Mr. Sanders.

I don't see it but I'm not particularly attached to any of them.

1 Reply

Bill Maher: GOP Really Doesn't Want To Win The Election

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know