http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512665703Oh my.
I've been saying Obozo's the main reason Messalina Agrippina lost this year--a "search" of the DUmpster shows it---because he got selfish and greedy and couldn't wait.
It was obvious that 2008 was to have been her year, and she probably would've won the presidency that year, but the Democrat, liberal, and primitive propensity for shiny new toys--in this case a "black" man--and their distrust of strong, confident women did her in.
And one must keep in mind that Democrat, liberal, and primitive distrust of strong, confident women almost cost her the Democrat nomination this year, when a grouchy old sourassed sourpuss male tried robbing her of it, and almost succeeded.
Axolotls (19 posts) Fri Dec 23, 2016, 11:06 AM
The DNC messed up (Hillary '16 instead of '08)
(Hope I've posted in the correct forum, I think so but apologies if it belongs in General Discussion)
Would it not have been better had the DNC nominated Hillary in '08, and Obama this year? I say it would've, and had that happened instead, since many voters were open to/seeking change and something different this time--Trump wouldn't be the incoming president.
While it would've only been 8 years since Bill was in office, a lot of people had Bush fatigue and much disillusionment with the gop so whoever the democrat candidate was in '08 would've been a shoo-in, plus there wasn't the anti-establishment fervor as in this cycle, where being a Clinton didn't sit well with many (the same problem Jeb Bush faced and being part of a dynasty). Don't get mad please but I didn't like Hillary, didn't vote (I live in a deep blue state so it wouldn't matter but even if I was in a swing state, unsure I still could do it as that was a bridge too far)...but 2008 was her only real guaranteed shot, and she would've won.
Obama could've been put "on hold", and he was young and had time on his side. Also unlike Hillary, he had the immense likability and incredible magnetism and great campaigning skills, and lack of baggage and scandal. Does anyone think he would've lost to Trump? I don't. The DNC screwed up big time--and thinking it was a good idea that after 8 years of a democrat president, Hillary of all people was a savvy move and sure thing. Wtf.
Yeah, and Obozo should've been put on hold, permanent hold.
Orsino (33,886 posts) Fri Dec 23, 2016, 11:09 AM
1. The rule, I'm told, is that the nominee is the candidate who gets the most votes.
It wasn't up to the DNC in any practical sense.
I could imagine the sort of damage they would have done by picking the other candidate--no matter that I think she could also have won.
SFnomad (2,309 posts) Fri Dec 23, 2016, 11:17 AM
5. Re: the most votes
Not always true ... Clinton also got more votes in 2008 in the Democratic Primary. Obama beat her in the delegate count.
Ohmigod; I forgot all about that, another case of Messalina Agrippina getting more votes but losing anyway.
Shit happens. Sometimes more than once, I suppose.
Orsino (33,886 posts) Fri Dec 23, 2016, 11:24 AM
7. And delegates' are the votes that count.
Sure, attempts were made to woo them, and I'm okay with that in the primary, as I was with EC this month.
That party delegates wrnt with Obama was weird, but once they had declared, imagine the outcry and fallout had they flipped.
SFnomad (2,309 posts) Fri Dec 23, 2016, 11:09 AM
2. The "DNC" didn't nominate Obama or Hillary
And typically the only people that use the term "democrat president" are right wingnuts.
Axolotls (19 posts) Fri Dec 23, 2016, 11:26 AM
8. I'm an independent but left-leaning
SFnomad (2,309 posts) Fri Dec 23, 2016, 11:29 AM
10. If you say so ...
... and I have no reason not to believe you, but ...
"Democrat President"
"Democrat Party"
"Democrat whatever"
is usually a sign of right wingnuttery. They remove the "ic" from the end of the adjective because they want to point out that the "Democrat Party (uppercase D)" is not really democratic (lowercase d).
^^^
It's hardly that important.
