Slog - Comments on She's Destroying the Party! She's Destroying the Party!

Comment by Jiberish

Jiberish — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 16:38:15 -0800

no no no, she's destroying democracy not just the party. seriously the lady has only been an elected official these past 8 years. when we consider your time as part of a political dynasty "experience" for the white house that's just wrong.

Comment by Michigan Matt (soon to be Balt-o-matt)

Michigan Matt (soon to be Balt-o-matt) — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 16:38:37 -0800

If you can't see it, then I can't explain it.

Comment by Bellevue Ave

Bellevue Ave — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 16:40:03 -0800

how do you know those 26% arent there for obama?

Comment by boyd main

boyd main — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 16:40:43 -0800

These comparisons with previous elections are disingenuous. In 2004 the nomination was decided by the time PA voted. Of course there was a low turn out then.

It's like the old 'as Ohio goes...' trope. Even Ohio is usually so far down the list that its mroe like 'as America goes, so Ohio goes'

Comment by NapoleonXIV

NapoleonXIV — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 16:41:00 -0800

This is all a sad, sad consequence of giving women the right to vote.

It was hardly unforeseeable that once we extended the franchise, one of them would get it in their head to run for President now, was it?

Comment by slim

slim — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 16:43:38 -0800

Who is saying she is destroying the party?

Comment by torrentprime

torrentprime — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 16:46:45 -0800

Josh,
Take a deep breath, look in the mirror, and say, very slowly, "There is more to life than being a Democrat."
When people observe that the protracted nomination is hurting the Democratic party, that's only one symptom or warning sign of the larger issue: can the eventual Democratic nominee keep another Republican out of the White House.
We're not all Democrats. We don't all care about whether the Blues are feeling good with each other. We care about winning, and Clinton's actions are hurting Obama's chances to do so. This means she cares more about herself and her power than her party or her country, and this we note sadly her campaign antics as they sink lower and lower. For every Democratic voter registered, how many independent / swing voters lose faith in Obama due to Bill's race-baiting or Hillary's favorable comparison of McCain over Obama on national security? Again, the mindless focus on Democratic funds raised and voters registered shows a election viewed through a party view, and we don't have time for that this year.

Comment by heywhatsit

heywhatsit — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 16:47:40 -0800

According to exit polls http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/22/pa.primary/index.html, Obama is getting the majority of new Democratic voters that are helping drive these turnout numbers up. Lets see how many of them show up in November to vote for HRC if she gets the nomination.

Comment by max solomon

max solomon — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 16:50:57 -0800

She's not destroying the party single-handedly. But she's PARTICIPATING in the self-destruction of the democratic party. She's refusing to heed to lessons of "Don't Think of an Elephant" by using GOP frames & issues on which the Democratic Party cannot win. She's validating McCain. She's using the playbook from 1996.

If only the GOP had completed their own self-destruction already, I wouldn't care if she destroyed the Democratic Party. But they haven't, and we cannot afford her candidacy, because Reagan Democrats like my parents, who live in Ohio & vote every time, HATE HER GUTS for reasons they cannot explain or justify.

Comment by skye

skye — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 17:06:25 -0800

what @7 and @9 said x1000. fucking christ i can't wait for this to be over.

Comment by eeyore.

eeyore. — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 17:10:41 -0800

she's not destroying the party, but she is doing the McCain campaigns job at this point, and dems fighting dems this late in the game is not helping. I want to shake her. Stop, Hillary! Just stop! Let your shovel fall in your big pile of shit and go back to the Senate. Thanks.

Comment by Will in Seattle

Will in Seattle — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 17:12:51 -0800

eeyore wins @11.

Comment by Bellevue Ave

Bellevue Ave — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 17:15:26 -0800

clinton wins 52-48ish

Comment by dw

dw — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 17:28:17 -0800

I don't know. I look at this like Yankees-Red Sox: Everyone thinks the endless attention to them is bad for baseball, but the ratings are always through the roof.

If this can end amicably at the convention, the nominee is going to have an incredible amount of momentum coming out of it. That, combined with the low ratings for Dubya and the economic downturn working against the incumbent party... signs point to a Democratic landslide.

OTOH, these are the Democrats we're talking about; they're best at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Comment by OR Matt

OR Matt — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 17:56:49 -0800

@14 EXACTLY

There is no such thing as bad publicity, especially when the press is giving it to the democrats for FREE. I bet money, the republicans will pull something like this next election.

Comment by Will in Seattle

Will in Seattle — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 18:03:35 -0800

@13 - Obama wins in delegates.

Comment by Nat

Nat — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 19:28:32 -0800

As Eli called out earlier, "54% of [PA] voters think Obama will be the nominee, 43% think Clinton."

43% is shockingly high considering the absurd majority of superdelegates she'd need to go her way in order to reach the nomination, even if she runs the table on the remaining elections, which she isn't going to do.

Her supporters who still think she can win are not paying attention, and they're going to have a hangover. By prolonging the campaign she's running out the clock on their ability to take a deep breath and come around to the Democratic nominee by November. She's not killing the party, but she's not doing it (or herself) any favors.

Comment by patrick

patrick — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 19:51:04 -0800

I hope someone destroys that party...it ought to be an incredibly easy thing to do...and it's looooooong overdue.

Comment by julie

julie — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 19:54:22 -0800

What #7 said. Seriously. Figure it out.

Comment by Todd

Todd — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:15:15 -0800

Christ you're fucking stupid Josh.

Comment by e-bay

e-bay — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:21:27 -0800

Josh, duh. Because virtually every time there is a hotly contested primary in one party, the other party wins. You'd think you could pick up even a used poli sci text on e-bay for a couple of bucks and figure that out. Christ. Reagan v. Ford in '76. Kennedy v. Carter in '80. Need I continue? OK, Hart v. Mondale in '84. No, stop, it's killing me. Conversely (amazing how these things work), when one party can rally early around a single candidate, it ups their chances in the general. Reagan in '80. Bush in '88. W in '00. Now, can the Stranger please engage a political reporter who isn't a useless hack?

Comment by Carollani

Carollani — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 09:39:27 -0800

Excuse me? By her staying in the race she's ensuring that democrats have A CHOICE. What's more fucking democratic than that?

Don't let the pundits tell you what "the people" are thinking or feeling. WE ARE the people, and I don't think that Hillary is destroying democracy or the democratic party. Why do you? Do you believe that because that's what you've been told you believe? Get your own fucking brain.

Comment by Phoebe

Phoebe — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 12:36:31 -0800

Josh, as everyone including the nyt says: her staying in it isn't destroying the party, it's the continual Rovian bullsh!t kneecapping of Obama, who WILL be our nominee, that is hurting things. "Destroying" is probably hyperbole, but yeah, hurting. Possibly hurting quite a lot.
Now: Instead of just repeating yourself, can you address this point, which people made also in the previous comments section?