If GD:P were the DU caucus, would both candidates be VIABLE?

[TahitiNut]

:evilgrin:

[waiting for hope]

1. I think it would be kinda hard -

Most of the Clinton supporters have been run off by the Obama supporters. At one time, this was a DEMOCRATIC board.

[Texas Hill Country]

2. agreed.

[Tesha]

3. Atone time, Hillary appeared to be a Democrat. (NT)

[TahitiNut]

5. Ironic. "If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen?"

I guess that applies to a caucus as well, no? :eyes:

[JuniperLea]

6. Is that the same as...

Love it or leave it?

:shrug:

[TahitiNut]

8. Maybe more like "put up or shut up"?

:shrug:

[JuniperLea]

7. I don't think many even lurk anymore...

Or we'd see a major difference in poll answers.


I like to vote:)

[sniffa]

10. No, they most certainly do

They talk about threads (and certain DUers) here constantly.

[TahitiNut]

11. Fecal Fling Fest Fans

:dunce:

[sniffa]

14. I was thinking it's more like

Tap it all Bill

[LSparkle]

4. Guess we'll soon find out -- will she get 15% of the responses to this poll?

Don't think so ...

[sniffa]

9. Most likely, Clinton would not be viable in many of the precints

Even more so, if her supporters are boycotting. :D

[BzaDem]

12. That's because some Obama supporters have been so nasty to Clinton supporters that they have left.

[TahitiNut]

13. ...

:cry:

:nopity:

[SoCalDem]

15. DU Caucus

um.. he lost a long time ago.. something about a tank IIRC :rofl:

[H2O Man]

16. In my opinion,

the purpose of DU was/is to serve as a forum for progressive and liberal democrats. Most of the progressives and liberals appear to support Obama. The support for Clinton appears to come from moderate to conservative democrats who post here. Just my opinion.

[TahitiNut]

17. That seems obvious to me.

I've seen a lot of the same names supporting Clinton who smeared Kucinich as "woo-woo" and "unelectable" - without any discussion of the policies whatsoever. I've seen the same smears hurled at Edwards and, now, Obama ... from the same shrinking crowd of "centrists." (Strangely, Obama's proposals, policies, and positions just aren't that much different from Clinton's. But the ephemerals are huge.)

Quite frankly, whether due to sloth or ignorance or whatever, it has seemed to me that the grasp of policy and political principle on the part of that portion of the Clinton supporters who climbed on board her bandwagon merely because she seemed the 'presumptive nominee' is particularly weak. (Horse race fans who bet the 'favorite' but know next to nothing about horses, breeding them, or racing them.) I see stances taken that are diametrically opposed to ALL the evidence. I see fallacies abounding - including an enormous amount of baseless-conjecture-stated-as-fact. I seriously doubt there's much if any in-depth comprehension of the issues. Of course, there's ALWAYS abortion and guns and gays and the other visceral shit. It's easy to have a stance on that stuff ... not always a workable stance that actually BELONGS at the federal level, but easy nonetheless.

It takes more than being in favor of Roe v. Wade to qualify as a liberal, imho. I doubt many at all have read "A Theory of Justice" by Rawls ... or would take the time to comprehend it and apply it. That's not easy. Opinions are easy.



Over the years, the Political Compass just keeps looking better than any other 'metric' I've ever seen.

[TahitiNut]

18. Polls are still open.

Vote early and often. :silly: