It's simple: If we lose in 2008, it's because not enough people voted for Obama.

[msallied]

Seems pretty obvious, right? Well some of the idiots here who are both refusing to vote for Obama and claiming we are going to lose in November are doing their damnedest to make SURE we lose. Why? So they could tell us they told us so?

So if that is your final objective, for Democrats to LOSE simply to appease your childish egos, then join the Republican party. With the way they've been hemorrhaging support lately, I'm sure they'd be more than willing to have you.

For those of us who still care about Democratic principles, who still believe in our party, who know that the future of this nation is more important than ONE person, I look forward to celebrating our victory with you.

[skooooo]

1. k-r

[beezlebum]

2. "i'm not voting for him b/c he's unelectable!!11!"

that's my favorite :wtf:

[msallied]

4. Do these people not realize how ridiculous they sound?? LOL

It's like shoving pizza down your throat while saying: "These diet pills don't work at all!!"

[hendo]

3. To be fair...

would you still say this if the roles were reversed?

[msallied]

5. Of course! Listen, I DETEST Hillary Clinton

and I have even said on numerous occasions that I wasn't sure if I could ever vote for her, but I never said that that I wouldn't vote for her while at the same time saying "She'd never be able to win!" Because that would be dumb. And I am also quite confident that either candidate could beat John McCain (I just think Obama has a better shot at it).

Also, I have come to realize that a lot of what I was saying at the time was when emotions were running high. If she scored the nomination (fair and square, and according to the rules put forth BEFORE the primary began), then I would have eventually gotten behind her. All I know is that with the ballot in front of me, I know I would have punched the right hole, even if I had to hold my nose to do it. Voting for John McCain is completely OUT of the question.

[Andy823]

26. I supported Edwards

And I was not happy when he dropped out, but he did drop out for the good of the party. It took some time, but I now support Obama. If Edwards would have acted like Hillary has, or if Obama would was the one doing what Hillary is doing now and Hillary was the front runner, I would be switching to Hillary, period! Edwards showed us how to be a good sport and do what is right for the party, Hillary has shown us how "not" to be a good sport. All she has done is make it harder for Obama in the GE.

[SoonerPride]

6. Or the machines are rigged.

Whichever.

[OneBlueSky]

18. bingo . . . it could be because even though more people vote for Obama . . .

the tabulated results in certain key districts in certain key states don't reflect the true vote counts . . . and since there's no way to verify the accuracy of the count one way or the other (thanks in no small part to a totally ineffective Democratic Congress), we could easily have a repeat of 2000 and 2004, where the candidate with the most votes is not declared the winner . . .

it's not who votes that counts; it's who counts the votes . . .

[msallied]

19. So using that slightly far-fetched theory (and admit it, it's just a theory)

people will simply not vote for Obama because they think it won't count anyway?

If people are really that stupid, then we'll get the Presidency we deserve.

I'm not denying there are voting anomalies and corruption, because it's an imperfect system (and every country has one), but if Democrats actually turn out and widely support their candidate enough to ensure that the election isn't going to come within two effing points, then I think election fraud is much more difficult to attain.

We just need to firmly and completely get BEHIND OUR CANDIDATE for once! For the love of god, THAT is how the Republicans have always won. If anything, they always know how to fall in line and vote for their guy! It's the sign of a troubled party if it can't unite for the greater good!

[mkultra]

7. we know they are throwing a tantrum

and so do they. But like any errant child, you just let them scream and kick until they are done.

[msallied]

12. Good point. Admittedly, I'd have had to do the same if the tables were reversed.

But I'd sooner stick my head in a wood-chipper than vote for John McCain.

[Oleladylib]

8. NO..it's because he wasn't a qualified candidate.

[SoonerPride]

9. The Democratic party disagrees with your right wing assertion

Thank you for playing

[msallied]

10. Elections are determined by VOTES.

He would lose because whiners refused to lick their wounds and vote for the good of the country.

[shadowknows69]

13. But he is that candidate and he's going to be the nominee

You explain to me how McCain will be better please?

[swishyfeet]

38. Qualifications for President:

(it appears he's fully qualified)

Age and Citizenship requirements - US Constitution, Article II, Section 1

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.

Term limit amendment - US Constitution, Amendment XXII, Section 1 – ratified February 27, 1951

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.

[griffi94]

11. what if not voting for him

has nothing to do with hillary losing.
what if some people don't vote for him because they just don't like him.
or they don't think he would make a good president.

[msallied]

14. Then he'd lose and John McCain would win. Whatever your "reason"

if you want to see this country go through another 4 years (and probably more like 8 years given the difficulty of defeating an incumbent) of Bush-like policies, then you only have yourself to blame for not casting a vote that could have saved our nation from it.

[DearAbby]

17. You think McCain will make a better President?

Both candidates are lightyears better than McCain. You know it and I know it.

[griffi94]

20. i didn't mention mccain at all

the op implies that if obama loses in november it will be because he didn't get enough votes due to childish ego.
if obama should lose in november i don't think you can blame any one group or pinpoint it to any one particular reason, but should he lose, then obviously he wasn't the best candidate. i'm not saying hillary would be either, but if the democrats can't manage to win the white house this year then there is something missing in their message.
it seems to me about half (maybe a little less)of the democrats like hillarys message. about half (maybe a little more) like obamas message. the "shut up and get on board" school of diplomacy could cause a big enough rift to cost the democrats in november. just my opinion of course.

[DearAbby]

23. A vote for third party or sitting it out

IS A VOTE FOR MCCAIN!

[griffi94]

27. see i have to disagree

a vote for mccaiin is a vote for mccain. a vote for obama is a vote for obama. a vote for a 3rd party candidate is a vote for a 3rd party candidate.
your logic seems to imply that i owe my vote to a particular candidate, and not a set of principles.
you're certainly entitled to that opinion. however all the voters who disagree with you are entitled to their opinions as well. i'd bet that the voters who vote for hillary think it's in the best interests of the country to vote for her. same thing goes for the people who vote for obama, and mccain, and the green party candidate.
no candidate is entitled to my vote, or anybody elses.

[DearAbby]

34. Vote as you wish...

[WinkyDink]

40. i owe my vote to a particular candidate~~~Yes, yes, you do. Read this board's tenets.

[WinkyDink]

39. Then they are on the wrong website, that's "what if".

[unblock]

15. most likely it would be because republicans are the ones counting the votes

or at least, they're the ones imposing the rules and methods by which we ignore count them.

[msallied]

16. They weren't counting them in 06, obviously.

Because the Republicans had their asses handed to them.

[unblock]

30. i'm sure they were up to their old tricks in 2006

but cheating is only worth so many percentage points.

[beezlebum]

22. if he wins by a large enough margin

it would be more difficult to steal the election.

the more votes, the winningyierer. :)

[unblock]

31. yes. to be precise,

if obama loses, it would be because republican cheating exceeded obama's margin of victory.

i simply chose to emphasize the republican cheating, rather than blaming voters for not giving obama enough padding.

[AZ Criminal JD]

21. If we lose in 2008 it will because we nominated Obama.

[beezlebum]

24. prove the op's point why don't you?

"i'm not voting for obama b/c he's unelectable!!1!!"

think i'm going to make that my sig line.

[AZ Criminal JD]

44. His electability will not be the reason most people cast their votes.

Their lack of agreement with his policies or their trust in him will be the main reason.

[MGKrebs]

25. You know, the funny thing about that is that I remember a lot of people

around here tossing out poll numbers showing Hillary's "negatives" and the number of people who said that they would "never" vote for her as justification for supporting someone else.

It's a bizarro-world logic: Candidate A can't win because too many people won't vote for them, so I'll support candidate B. But no one is allowed to not support candidate B, even though some polls now show candidate B to be weaker against the Repub.

Like the old Grass Roots song: "Where were you when I needed you".

But of course I will vote for our nominee. I just really HOPE we can win.

[Texas Hill Country]

28. yeah, that's why, we want to be petty and say that we told you so...

[mtf80123]

29. I will pull the lever for whom ever the Dem nominee is.

At this point in the game, I do not care which one wins the nomination, I voted on Super Tuesday. I only want a Democrat in office. We cannot survive another 4 years of Republican rule.

However, my best friend says that if Hillary does not win the nomination he will vote for McBush.

I ask "Why vote McBush instead of Nader as a protest vote"?

He says "He and many other Clinton supporters will vote McBush simply to "Bring down the Democratic party by teaching them a lesson they will never forget".

Of course I then said that he and every other voter (whether Clinton or Obama supporters) can swiftly go to hell for that thought if their candidate does not win the nomination.

To me, what is going on now is a popularity contest. It is disgusting to know that some folks will vote McBush if their canditate is not the nominee.

[RichardRay]

32. Amazing that you have to point that out!! n/t

[justinaforjustice]

33. Obama Will Win the Most Votes, But Will They Be Counted?

Obama is the Democratic candidate who brought out 75,000 mostly white voters in a city like Portland, Oregon will bring out all the votes needed to win the 2008 presidential election. The real questions are will that majority vote be sabotaged by the Republican's voting machines which make recounts almost impossible. The next serious question is, if the Republicans are unable to manipulate the vote enough to seat McCain, will the Bush-Cheney administration find some trumped up excuse to declare martial law and prevent Obama from taking office.

The Bush-Cheney administration has committed so many crimes against U.S. and international law that it cannot risk being exposed by an aggressive Democratic administration. To forestall their loss of the presidency, they have set in motion, by means of executive orders, plans for taking total control of all federal and state governments, their police and national guards, and even had a massive network of internment camps constructed by Cheney's companies, Halliburton and Brown and Root.

The Bush-Cheney administration has no loyalty whatever to the U.S. Constitution or even to the United States itself. Their loyalties are strictly to the bottom-lines, the profits, of the international companies they represent. Thus their companies, like Halliburton, have moved their corporate headquarters to the Middle East and or small islands in the Caribbean. They have raided this country like the worst of corporate raiders, who conduct leveraged buy-outs of rich corporations and then loot their assets, leaving only a shell for the other investors. This is the age of global capitalism and the big corporations no longer have nationalities, they are global.

The United States is being looted by Bush-Cheney and the neo-conservatives just like they are looting Iraq. They are using our military to extend their control over the world's oil resources in the Middle East and, still to come, Latin America. When they have finished looting our assets, they will leave the U.S. population with only the multi-trillion dollar debts they have run up.

Obama represents a shining hope for a sane, humane future for this country, but we have to be very aware that the Bush-Cheney administration will do anything they can to prevent him from taking office. We have to make sure that the vote for Obama is so over-whelming that they cannot steal the election. We have to be prepared for Bush-Cheney's attempts to create false-flag operations to justify their declaration of martial law. Every state needs to take back control of its police and national guard forces. Every state must design its own, state-controlled, emergency plan. Every Democratic, Libertarian and rational Republican political leader needs to be prepared to jointly resist martial law.

Our U.S. Congress needs to wake up and actively plan for the security of our Constitution and our country. The first step should be to pass its own plans for continuity of government in the event of emergency. They must take back the powers that the Bush-Cheney administration has stolen from them and from the American people.

[MGKrebs]

35. Good luck.

Being able to win in the GE has ALWAYS been part of the equation. If you and me and our candidate can't convince enough people to get on board, then that looks like a big mistake that we will have made in selecting our nominee.

It's just so comical/frustrating/sad to now see all the hand-wringing about Obama appealing to enough people in the GE. Why the hell didn't that matter 3 months ago? Then it was all about HRC being too centrist, too DLC, too pandering, too triangulating. What did you all think that was all about? Well, we're going to get what we get and if things go badly, we'll have no one to blame but ourselves. For those who have supported Obama, you chose this task of convincing others to get on board. You've done well so far, but the job isn't done yet. Get to work.

[tritsofme]

36. Its pathetic that the only way many people see him failing is through voter fraud.

These people are very deluded.

If Obama loses, it won't be because of some giant conspiracy against him, which I doubt he would stand for if such a thing existed, it would be because he failed to connect with voters.

[Two Americas]

37. slash and burn

Crush and destroy. Mock, ridicule, and insult.

Build that unity.

[tandem5]

41. I wonder how many here have learned the secret of the Chinese finger trap...

[JuniperLea]

42. I think the GOP seeded the divide in the Democratic party

so when they flip the switch to flip out votes, they have something to blame for McCain winning.

[anamnua]

43. Losing in '08

For those of us who still care about Democratic principles, who still believe in our party, who know that the future of this nation is more important than ONE person,
It's precisely for these reasons that I have*extreme* issues about voting for Obama.