You know what really bothers me?

A_C_E · 04-22-2008, 10:24 PM

(From a post in a previous thread; I wanted more opinions before this got buried so I made a new thread. Apologies for the double-post, mods)

Ok, so we've been told ad nauseam that young voters and first-time voters are at an unprecedented high in this primary cycle. We've also seen how these voters overwhelmingly vote for Obama. There's no guesses or rumors going on here, young people ARE ALREADY VOTING at a far higher clip than they ever have before. And these are only primaries, where, traditionally, young people have never voted. So, here's the problem:

If, and this is a big if, but if Clinton gets the superdelegates to throw the election to her, and then she loses the general election, all those new voters? Those young Democrats who could be the core of the party going forward? None of them are going to vote again. They will go back to being apathetic, since they will feel that their votes really don't matter. Like, at all.

Consider: Obama wins more states, more delegates, and more popular votes. Superdelegates (party elites) give the nomination to Clinton regardless of the vote of the people. Clinton loses in November.

The end result: All those new and young voters vanish, now thinking (knowing?) for sure that their votes really DON'T matter. Which would be a disastrous (and typical) mistake for the party to make

kombayn · 04-22-2008, 10:30 PM

I don't think young voters will just stop voting, they may just switch parties or disenfranchised. Hell, this nomination process is wearing thin. It's hard to stomach a bunch of overpaid news-broadcasters spew their opinions. Then bicker like petty high school students over the subject matter. Once Obama wins NC and Indiana, this can hopefully end the non-sense and we can get towards nominating the Vice Presidential candidates.

TankRizzo · 04-22-2008, 10:36 PM

I think that's a lot of speculation and assumptions to really sit and worry about. They're not going to be "young voters" forever and to say they will never vote again is quite a stretch (as is Clinton stealing the nomination).

...and as I said in the other thread, I don't think you'd want to put all of your eggs in the basket of a group who has a history of staying home in November. Plus, I'd imagine a good deal of these are college kids who are potentially out of state and would be forced to write in.

A_C_E · 04-22-2008, 10:49 PM

Originally Posted by TankRizzo

I think that's a lot of speculation and assumptions to really sit and worry about. They're not going to be "young voters" forever and to say they will never vote again is quite a stretch (as is Clinton stealing the nomination).

...and as I said in the other thread, I don't think you'd want to put all of your eggs in the basket of a group who has a history of staying home in November. Plus, I'd imagine a good deal of these are college kids who are potentially out of state and would be forced to write in.

I suppose more of what bothers me would be to see the traditional complaints of "apathetic" young voters coming true.

Think about it, the classically jaded argument regarding apathy in American politics is "my vote just doesn't matter." Many young people traditionally have espoused this view, and I, like many others, have marginalized it. How could I do that now?

If Obama is playing every few weeks to 20,000+ person rallies in arenas and parks, winning the popular vote, winning the delegate race, and winning the most states--yet, Democratic party insiders decide that the nomination should go to Hillary instead of the candidate the people tried to choose--does this not mean that their ever-present belief that their votes don't matter is actually true? They went to rallies, they cheered, they volunteered, and they voted; and in the end, party insiders decided to overrule them? Wouldn't you feel repulsed? Jaded? Not wanting to go out and vote in November even amidst war and recession?

I know I would

IminWonderland · 04-22-2008, 10:53 PM

Originally Posted by A_C_E

(From a post in a previous thread; I wanted more opinions before this got buried so I made a new thread. Apologies for the double-post, mods)

Ok, so we've been told ad nauseam that young voters and first-time voters are at an unprecedented high in this primary cycle. We've also seen how these voters overwhelmingly vote for Obama. There's no guesses or rumors going on here, young people ARE ALREADY VOTING at a far higher clip than they ever have before. And these are only primaries, where, traditionally, young people have never voted. So, here's the problem:

If, and this is a big if, but if Clinton gets the superdelegates to throw the election to her, and then she loses the general election, all those new voters? Those young Democrats who could be the core of the party going forward? None of them are going to vote again. They will go back to being apathetic, since they will feel that their votes really don't matter. Like, at all.

Consider: Obama wins more states, more delegates, and more popular votes. Superdelegates (party elites) give the nomination to Clinton regardless of the vote of the people. Clinton loses in November.

The end result: All those new and young voters vanish, now thinking (knowing?) for sure that their votes really DON'T matter. Which would be a disastrous (and typical) mistake for the party to make

I can see this happening.

7960 · 04-22-2008, 11:10 PM

Originally Posted by A_C_E

....., all those new voters? Those young Democrats who could be the core of the party going forward? None of them are going to vote again. They will go back to being apathetic, since they will feel that their votes really don't matter.

Or they'd switch parties with the thought that "at least now my vote will count."

A_C_E · 04-22-2008, 11:14 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

Or they'd switch parties with the thought that "at least now my vote will count."

I don't really see them voting for McCain in this election cycle, but yes, changing parties is a possibility. It might not be a bad thing for the Democratic party to die and a new, left-leaning party to spring up in its place. They've been consistently bitch-slapped on the national scale for forty years.

7960 · 04-22-2008, 11:24 PM

Originally Posted by A_C_E

I don't really see them voting for McCain in this election cycle, but yes, changing parties is a possibility.

Maybe not in this election, but the next election would be ripe for a smart candidate to energize people with speeches like "your vote didn't count last time"

It coudl happen in as little time as one election cycle.

A_C_E · 04-22-2008, 11:26 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

Maybe not in this election, but the next election would be ripe for a smart candidate to energize people with speeches like "your vote didn't count last time"

It coudl happen in as little time as one election cycle.

You're certainly right.

I often wonder what will come of Obama if Hillary gets the nom from the superdelegates and then loses to McCain. Will we see him in four years? Will we ever see him in a national election ever again? It will be interesting to see.

He is so well-loved among young people; he could be that "your vote didn't count" candidate in 2012. It's unlikely, but possible. We would see who the real mavericks of the party are if someone used a "your vote didn't count" talking point in 2012.

TankRizzo · 04-22-2008, 11:30 PM

Originally Posted by A_C_E

Wouldn't you feel repulsed? Jaded? Not wanting to go out and vote in November even amidst war and recession?

I know I would

I'd be pissed, but I don't think that'd keep me from voting. I mean, hell, I'm a republican in Maryland and I keep going back to the polls. If that's the kind of voter they're going to be then who needs them?

A_C_E · 04-22-2008, 11:39 PM

Originally Posted by TankRizzo

I'd be pissed, but I don't think that'd keep me from voting. I mean, hell, I'm a republican in Maryland and I keep going back to the polls. If that's the kind of voter they're going to be then who needs them?

I just have a hard time wanting to vote for a party which went out of its way to vote against my candidate, and the candidate who won more delegates, more states, and more votes, just so they could pay off old favors.

Here's my other question, and this one is a general for anyone to chime in on: If the superdelegates (as the pundits say), are voting based on whoever is the "more electable" of the two candidates, what happens if they overrule the public and then Clinton loses? The superdelegates thought Clinton was more electable and she still lost? What are we to make of this?

Obviously I'm just wildly speculating at this point, but it's interesting to think about, I feel.

TankRizzo · 04-22-2008, 11:50 PM

Originally Posted by A_C_E

I just have a hard time wanting to vote for a party which went out of its way to vote against my candidate, and the candidate who won more delegates, more states, and more votes, just so they could pay off old favors.

Here's my other question, and this one is a general for anyone to chime in on: If the superdelegates (as the pundits say), are voting based on whoever is the "more electable" of the two candidates, what happens if they overrule the public and then Clinton loses? The superdelegates thought Clinton was more electable and she still lost? What are we to make of this?

Obviously I'm just wildly speculating at this point, but it's interesting to think about, I feel.

Well, technically speaking they didn't get it done. There is not a clear cut winner as dictated by the rules, not to mention the whole florida and michigan thing. The democratic party really needs to re-examine their ways of handling things. It'll suck for the young voters, but guess what? They're not always going to be the young voters. They'll age and mature and at the end of the day I think they'll realize they still need to vote.

A_C_E · 04-23-2008, 12:01 AM

Originally Posted by TankRizzo

Well, technically speaking they didn't get it done. There is not a clear cut winner as dictated by the rules, not to mention the whole florida and michigan thing. The democratic party really needs to re-examine their ways of handling things. It'll suck for the young voters, but guess what? They're not always going to be the young voters. They'll age and mature and at the end of the day I think they'll realize they still need to vote.

Well, I do hope that you're right. And, yes, we obviously need to re-organize the way the primary process is undertaken. We never really knew what kind of disaster it could provide until this year, when the nightmare scenario actually has happened.

Fed Up · 04-23-2008, 12:58 AM

Originally Posted by A_C_E

Well, I do hope that you're right. And, yes, we obviously need to re-organize the way the primary process is undertaken. We never really knew what kind of disaster it could provide until this year, when the nightmare scenario actually has happened.

Awhile back I made a comment that the Democrat primary could come down to Puetro Rico's vote. My God I hope that happens (even though there is one primary after that).

But the numbers are in Obama's favor till after all the "regular" delegate's are counted. Then the "Superdelegate's" step up and sway the vote.

Your points are taken. The system is flawed per the Gore fiasco in Florida.

The real question is, what solution do you think will rectify the situation?

This has been a question pondering in my mind that I haven't had the time to research.

On another note.... I think I saw you, in a flash, on Luntz's group via FOX, but the show kept being interrupted by the Correspondents dinner. I didn't listen long on Fox as I switched to C-SPAN to watch the jokesters since FOX wasn't showing Rocca at the time (Rocca pretty much sucked). Cheney was pretty funny!

Fed Up

Thorgrim · 04-23-2008, 02:35 AM

I don't get what you are saying at all...

Not every young left-leaning college student voted in PA, it wasn't even close

If more young people and new voters would have turned out, Obama would have fun...hell even _I_ voted for Obama, and where did it get us?

new/young registered voters don't show up and actually vote

I saw a young, late 20something (rather attractive) black woman headed off to work in a little honda who came out of the polling place with a huge smile going "I just voted for Hillary, yea!"

That is not machine politics, that is not voting on negativity...it's a great many people who hear her detailed plans and her style of speaking

That is the reason Hillary won by 200,000 votes

It's pretty condescending and arrogant to go "oh, f you working class women, i know you believe in all the standard progressive issues you'd expect any left-of-center Democrat to stand for...but don't you get it, Obama is just so cool, and did you hear his speech tonight? Yeah it was the same one he always gives, but he's change man, I can 'feel' it and if you can't 'feel' what i can 'feel', well you're stupid let's elect Bush for another 8 years"

E. Robinson, a liberal black editorialist for the WaPost, was on TV tonight saying that Obama's speech tonight was exactly the same speech he's been giving for months (now this guy is pretty clearly rooting for Obama I've been watching him for awhile) and that some people are simply getting tired of the same damn speech, and if it's getting old now...what do you think is going to happen by November?

This "machine politics" and somehow democrats are voting backwards is total BS...don't expect a mother of two kids to keep tabs on all the developments of the primary, it's elitist and arrogant, and dismissing their vote would only confirm it

Thorgrim · 04-23-2008, 02:49 AM

Wtf is with this "we should start anew" if, by god, Obama didn't win the nomination clearly by June?

The GOP had a total lock on the government in 2004, and after 12 years of DOMINATING politics and looking to establish a majority that would last 50 years, Democrats took back Congress through a blend of new liberals and new moderates, both of which gave a lot of energy to the party

The GOP looked in total disarray, and until very recently, looked like they might spend at least 20 years in the wilderness, as a new progressive coalition formed...kept moderate by Senators like Webb/Tester/Salazar/etc...

Now Obama can't run a decent campaign in Ohio and Pennsylvania and all of a sudden the Democratic Party is coming to an end? Not going to happen

Do you have any idea what would replace it? it'd be a 50/50 split between some sort of "unity08" clone party lead by pro-cenorship in music/tv/etc, extremely anti-palestinian, pro-war to the max, etc Joe Lieberman...you want that, go right ahead...the other half would be some sort of Green-like party with no leader...Feingold would be close but he's a Wisconsin Democrat he'd go down with the ship...

It'd be like the southern and northern democrats beating each other up in 1860 while the GOP cruises to election, you'd be giving people like Jim Inhofe and Ted Stevens control of the country...with their hand picked successors to follow...for decades

Don't you remember how disgusted you were with the GOP in 2006? Well, they'd be back in full force using their exact same policies 55% of americans couldn't stand...but this time there would be no party to seriously oppose them

Obama has gotten about 1/4 of registered Democrats to vote for him overall, if you think that could be any sort of viable party...ha

kinggovernor · 04-23-2008, 09:03 AM

the super delegates are going to grant the nomination to either candidate, you guys made the system like that to make sure that you had an electable candidate for the general election. For instance, a guy that appeals to the young, hip and liberal, but can't lock down the traditional parts of the democratic base. So you appeal to the younger voters, that aren't reliable, and shuck off the 40+ vote, who are much more reliable.

As a Republican, please do this. It will help us carry Penn., Ohio and Florida.

JaJae · 04-23-2008, 09:29 AM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

the super delegates are going to grant the nomination to either candidate, you guys made the system like that to make sure that you had an electable candidate for the general election. For instance, a guy that appeals to the young, hip and liberal, but can't lock down the traditional parts of the democratic base. So you appeal to the younger voters, that aren't reliable, and shuck off the 40+ vote, who are much more reliable.

As a Republican, please do this. It will help us carry Penn., Ohio and Florida.

What's to say he can't lock them down? Hillary has the advantage now, but that's not to say Obama can't get them against a McCain. He's got the popular vote, he isn't someone Democrats aren't willing to vote for. He also does very well among independents (as does McCain).

kinggovernor · 04-23-2008, 09:36 AM

Originally Posted by JaJae

What's to say he can't lock them down? Hillary has the advantage now, but that's not to say Obama can't get them against a McCain. He's got the popular vote, he isn't someone Democrats aren't willing to vote for. He also does very well among independents (as does McCain).

he can't secure the white working class vote, which has a tendency to be more conservative. These are the people he pissed off with his bitter comment and it is going to hurt him.