I'm not supporting Hillary anymore.

[Beet]

Ask me who I think would make the best President, you might still be able to get me to say Hillary. But I'm not supporting her anymore. I don't really care who wins. I'm all politics-ed out. And if being Democrat means I still have to care about this stinking primary, then screw that as well. I'm free!

[Aizen]

it would seem you are beet from politics in general

you're giving up because obama is going to beet clinton

beet

beet

[Beet]

it would seem you are beet from politics in general

you're giving up because obama is going to beet clinton

beet

beet

I'm saying it because I no longer give a sh*t who wins your party's primary. If you want to call that beet, go ahead, but I feel like I've just stepped out of hell and into a clear blue sky, green grass, and good weather!

[Boris]

You're an enlightened individual, thefactor.

[Beet]

You're an enlightened individual, thefactor.

Thank you for not being sarcastic, Boris.

[Aizen]

it would seem you are beet from politics in general

you're giving up because obama is going to beet clinton

beet

beet

I'm saying it because I no longer give a sh*t who wins your party's primary. If you want to call that beet, go ahead, but I feel like I've just stepped out of hell and into a clear blue sky, green grass, and good weather!

In all seriousness, good for you. You seemed to be one of the more level-headed Clinton supporters here. I'm an Obama supporter but this forum needed people like you

[MarkWarner08]

I don't really care who wins. I'm all politics-ed out.

My thoughts exactly. The primary campaign has become really tedious...

[Padfoot]

makes sense to me.  supporting Hillary requires one to abandon all common decency in order to ensure victory and that can take a lot out of a person.  I'm sure many who aren't willing to surrender their souls to the Clinton machine will fall in the coming days especially now that she's having to pay for it herself.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

So you aren't voting for her in the MD primary? I'll take that as a good thing.

[Beet]

makes sense to me.  supporting Hillary requires one to abandon all common decency in order to ensure victory and that can take a lot out of a person.  I'm sure many who aren't willing to surrender their souls to the Clinton machine will fall in the coming days especially now that she's having to pay for it herself.

Politics as a form of "idealism" takes a lot out of a person, period.

I am going to have to cop out on your second point, Padfoot, I am sorry. It is the doctrine of my faith that my soul begins corrupt, and that I cannot save it, it can only be saved by a nebulous creator.

[Beet]

So you aren't voting for her in the MD primary? I'll take that as a good thing.

Oh good question. I guess I changed my mind again. I will vote for her. I'll just be a lot less stressed out and argumentative than the average full blown "supporter". My main concerns are

1) Electability

2) Legacy

I'm pretty sure Clinton would have a stronger legacy, but it's a tossup on electability. If someone can convince me Obama would be surefire more electable, then I'll switch.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I'm pretty sure Clinton would have a stronger legacy, but it's a tossup on electability. If someone can convince me Obama would be surefire more electable, then I'll switch.

Average of the last 7 polls.

Obama leads McCain by 3.5 points
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html

McCain leads Clinton by 1.6 points
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_clinton-224.html

That's a 5.1 point difference.

[dead0man]

I'm pretty sure Clinton would have a stronger legacy, but it's a tossup on electability. If someone can convince me Obama would be surefire more electable, then I'll switch.

How many Clinton supporters have said they would never vote for Obama in the general if he wins?  How many Obama supporters have you heard say they would never vote for Clinton under any circumstances?

[Aizen]

So you aren't voting for her in the MD primary? I'll take that as a good thing.

I'm pretty sure Clinton would have a stronger legacy, but it's a tossup on electability. If someone can convince me Obama would be surefire more electable, then I'll switch.

Which one has consistently had appeal with independents

[Beet]

I'm pretty sure Clinton would have a stronger legacy, but it's a tossup on electability. If someone can convince me Obama would be surefire more electable, then I'll switch.

Average of the last 7 polls.

Obama leads McCain by 3.5 points
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html

McCain leads Clinton by 1.6 points
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_clinton-224.html

That's a 5.1 point difference.

I know the polls. There are still other things to take into consideration
1. The Bradley effect in a GE
2. The possibility that his image could change significantly
3. The ability of his message to hold up after a long campaign
4. The problem that he has with lower income, blue collar Democrats who are the base of the party and who are populous in key states like Pennsylvania and Ohio.

Hillary of course, has problems too
1. The liberal Democratic base
2. She more strongly motivates conservatives
3. Less appeal to independents

Right now it's really difficult to judge.

[Alcon]

Beet,

I know I'm an Obama supporter, but I really try to be honest - sometimes to the point of over-adjustment in my predictions.  But, anyway, here's an honest answer to your question.  It's honest, so it's not very radical and exciting, but it's what I see as the truth.

As an (amateur) political analyst, there is just no condition under which I see Clinton as being more electable.

Yes, Obama could screw up badly.  But Clinton has a ceiling of around 52-53% at best, polls have shown many times.  That offers no opportunity for the solid victory that the Democrats need right now, and too much risk for a loss they cannot afford.

I don't really see much evidence for the "Bradley Effect" in any polling/exit polling thus far...more that the Obama folks are more likely to reply to polls.  I could get hyper-technical about why I'm seeing that, if you want.

There are very few viable candidates for which the electability argument is 100% concrete.  But Obama has proven himself popular among independents, and Clinton's "would not vote for" among independents is striking.  Even relative to her unpopularity among independents, I've never seen a candidate so far with "refuse to votes" so high relate to general disapproval.

Clinton would bring this race back to a 2004 context; Obama could re-shape the party and take advantage of its 2006-2008 showing.  It's not a sure bet.  But it's a surer bet than with Clinton.

The important part:

Above all, please don't let this all bother you this way.  I know a lot of people have beaten up on you recently.  I really care about this primary, too, and sometimes apathy is attractive in lieu of disappointment and conflict.  I'm 18, this is my first election, and I'm so close to being jaded it hurts.  And I'm not an easily jaded person.  But...hang in there, please.  I'd rather you be an enthusiastic supporter of a candidate I struggle to respect, than let this make you lose total interest.

Because apathy just isn't fulfilling.  At all.

Thank you for your time

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I'm pretty sure Clinton would have a stronger legacy, but it's a tossup on electability. If someone can convince me Obama would be surefire more electable, then I'll switch.

Average of the last 7 polls.

Obama leads McCain by 3.5 points
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html

McCain leads Clinton by 1.6 points
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_clinton-224.html

That's a 5.1 point difference.

I know the polls. There are still other things to take into consideration
1. The Bradley effect in a GE
2. The possibility that his image could change significantly
3. The ability of his message to hold up after a long campaign
4. The problem that he has with lower income, blue collar Democrats who are the base of the party and who are populous in key states like Pennsylvania and Ohio.

Hillary of course, has problems too
1. The liberal Democratic base
2. She more strongly motivates conservatives
3. Less appeal to independents

Right now it's really difficult to judge.

1. We don't really know, but for now, he has been doing great with Independents.
2. I think the main attacks that will be used on him are already out there: Rezko, inexperience, Muslim, and they're not working.
3. The General election might not be so long the way this primary is going
4. There are some ways Obama could address that. Choice of running mate could help, for instance Richardson = more Hispanic support, Strickland = strong in Ohio, and so on.

[Beet]

Beet,

I know I'm an Obama supporter, but I really try to be honest.

As an (amateur) political analyst, there is just no condition under which I see Clinton as being more electable.

Yes, Obama could screw up badly.  But Clinton has a ceiling of around 52-53% at best, polls have shown many times.  That's a very low base.

There are very few viable candidates for which the electability argument is 100% concrete.  But Obama has proven himself popular among independents, and Clinton's "would not vote for" among independents is striking.  Even relative to her unpopularity among independents, I've never seen a candidate so far with "refuse to votes" so high relate to general disapproval.

Clinton would bring this race back to a 2004 context; Obama could re-shape the party and take advantage of its 2006-2008 showing.

The important part:

Above all, please don't let this all bother you this way.  I know a lot of people have beaten up on you recently.  I really care about this primary, too, and sometimes apathy is attractive in lieu of disappointment and conflict.  I'm 18, this is my first election, and I'm so close to being jaded it hurts.  And I'm not an easily jaded person.  But...hang in there, please.  I'd rather you be an enthusiastic supporter of a candidate I struggle to respect, than let this make you lose total interest.

Because apathy just isn't fulfilling.  At all.

Alcon, thanks for that encouragement.

I wouldn't say that my turn toward apathy in the primary is because of Obama's popularity here or among people of my SES group in general.

First of all he bitterness and fighting that happened between New Hampshire and South Carolina was the worst I have ever seen, and while I think it was contributed to by many different parties, my candidate was by no means clean. The only reason I am able to overlook that is
(1) the belief that politics is in general "dirty" and that is a fixed result of human nature and will never change. If impurity turns you irrevocably away from something, then find your activism and idealism in someplace else other than electoral politics.
(2) the thought that in 20 or 30 years from now, no one will care about what X person said or did not say in January 2008. What they will care about is what kind of President(s) we had in the intervening years, and the positive of negative legacy they left for this country, based on not only their mode of politics but their competence in governing.

Secondly, I have always cared a lot more about the GE than the Dem primary. All of my support for Hillary was based on the premise that we would have a nominee by Feb. 5. The primary season was going to end on that day. Well, it didn't. My candidate won the states I thought she needed to win to clinch the nomination, but this nomination is about the popular vote (with a caveat for caucuses having lower turnout) and possibly superdelegates, not which states you win.

At this point I think the Dems are in for a long a divisive struggle while a very strong GOP candidate gets time to build a national campaign focused on targeting Democrats. That is bad. The Democrats should do what they can to ensure that we have a nominee by March or April and they should pick the one more likely to win a GE, because that is becoming a bigger challenge than it appeared to be 2 or 3 months ago. Who knows if that will ever happen, but until then I'll remain an independent, and may or may not vote.

jfern- points taken.

[Alcon]

All right, I suppose.  I've never been much of a partisan, even when I identified as a Democrat, so I'm not really able to understand where you're coming with as well.

Maybe someone else can offer some rah-rah.  But I think you've come about this conclusion honestly, consciously and intelligently.  I still believe that Obama is the best for your party (and in general).  But I really so sympathize with your fatigue and you're definitely not alone on that. 

(Or should that be ?)

[Beet]

I don't really see much evidence for the "Bradley Effect" in any polling/exit polling thus far...more that the Obama folks are more likely to reply to polls.  I could get hyper-technical about why I'm seeing that, if you want.

Wait a minute, isn't that the same thing? It doesn't matter why Obama over-polls, all that matters is whether or not he does. Perhaps undecideds tend to break against him. That doesn't help him, because it suggests that in a 48-41 poll (for example), he is not really 7 points up. Perhaps its time to get technical?

[Alcon]

Wait a minute, isn't that the same thing? It doesn't matter why Obama over-polls, all that matters is whether or not he does. Perhaps undecideds tend to break against him. That doesn't help him, because it suggests that in a 48-41 poll (for example), he is not really 7 points up. Perhaps its time to get technical?

I was really talking about exit poll voters.  I've seen no real overpolling otherwise.  Just a few Zogby-type "let's overestimate trends to get news headlines."  Clinton people tend to be older, more private, less enthused.

That wouldn't extend to General Election polls at all.  No reason for it to that I can think of.  I mean, Kerry voters were probably more energized in 2004, and that didn't have much of an effect.  General election polls and primary exit polls aren't the same at all.

[Nym90]

Just because you are a Democrat doesn't mean you have to care who wins the primary; please don't let that be your reason for leaving the party.

If you are exasperated with all politics all the time, that's perfectly understandable. There's no reason why you must feel an obligation to keep up with the race.

But changing your party affiliation to independent doesn't really have anything to do with that I wouldn't think. I'm assuming you'll still favor the ultimate Dem nominee over McCain in the general?

I agree with your analysis about the strengths and weaknesses of Clinton and Obama. Obama's negatives are lower than Clinton's mainly because Clinton has had 16 years for them to accumulate whereas Obama has had.....well I would say a few months, but he hasn't been attacked by Republicans at all yet. If he wins the nomination, he won't get a free pass to November; far from it.

Am I the only Obama supporter on this board who isn't convinced that he's more likely to win the general than Clinton? In fact if I had to lay money on it I'd say he may actually have a smaller chance of winning, although a much greater chance of winning by a large margin. He's more of a risk than Clinton, but I think that the only way we can get the change we need is with a large Obama victory.

We have to take the risk of him losing (and McCain being nominated at least makes it less of a setback if he does ultimately lose than if it were, say, Romney.....) because the country truly needs a big Democratic win this November, which only Obama can possibly deliver. And most importantly of all, we need a President who will really shake things up and change the entire Washington mindset and way of doing business, which again only Obama will do.

[Ebowed]

Stick with apathy, Beet.  Nothing worse than getting emotionally invested into something like a Presidential campaign to watch it inevitably either a.) lose or b.) win, and then not fulfill your expectations in office.

Semi-nihilistic wry political observers like Sam Spade or Boss Tweed have the right idea.