"The Kyle Syndrome"

Temporal Renegade · 24th May 2008, 06:44 AM

On 'The Stephanie Miller Show' (http://www.stephaniemiller.com; political discussion with humor, from a Liberal view), there's a character they do called Kyle. Kyle is a disenchanted Democrat, who has such an enormous ego about his 'voting power', that if HIS candidate doesn't get the nomination (it's never explained if he's for Obama or Clinton), he'll vote for John McCain, because "That'll show YOU not to place MY CANDIDATE as the nominee!"

Since people from both sides are expressing this view, it's looked upon as a legitimate concern for November (the term in the title comes from an article, which talked about this very thing).

This question is for any Dems here: if the candidate you're backing doesn't get the nomination, would you do the same thing?

Travis · 24th May 2008, 06:59 AM

Yes, because I'm very petty and a complete idiot.

Temporal Renegade · 24th May 2008, 07:01 AM

jj · 24th May 2008, 08:04 AM

Well, based on Hil3ary's performance in the latest parts of this primary, I'd vote for just about anyone on the planet before I voted for her.

To be clear, this is based on her hidden-racist rhetoric, her histrionics, and her insistance on "my way or the highway".

Beerina · 24th May 2008, 10:28 AM

She's like Chuck Yeagher in The Right Stuff, where he takes the rocket plane way up and starts to see the edge of space...and...just...can't...make...it...

Beerina · 24th May 2008, 10:29 AM

"Sir? Over there! Is that a bitchy lawyer?"

"You damn right it is!"

gtc · 24th May 2008, 05:29 PM

I am not an American and I wouldn't call myself a Democrat even if I were.

However, it is entirely possible that a Democrat could have a good reason for putting McCain above the other Democrat. Likewise a Republican could have a good reason for putting Clinton or Obama or both above McCain.

Rufo · 24th May 2008, 05:53 PM

I don't have nearly the knowledge of the candidates' political agenda to mock this as I would if it was something I was familiar with, so I'll rather try to increase my knowledge. Is there any political matter on which McCain is closer to Hillary than Obama is or closer to Obama than Hillary is? Which questions are those, and why is there such a monumental difference within the Democratic party on those questions?

Richard Masters · 25th May 2008, 02:50 PM

Hillary is closer to McCain on the war.

fuelair · 25th May 2008, 03:15 PM

Since I will not vote for a republicker (as decided for me by the republickers in 2000), obviously no, nor will I not vote since any Democrat is better than McCain - since he dropped trou , bent over for Shrub and became his bum-boy after the Carolina thing. I will not, on the other hand, be sending the DNC anything except messages telling them why I won't send them anything in responce to anything they send me asking for same (I remind them each time that if they hadn't played games in January with Florida (where I am) and Michigan, HC would likely already be the nominee and could be stomping on McCain now (as I love to keep pointing out, initially my only concern was that a democrat who could beat McCain came out ahead. I do not care about minor differences betwwen Democrats, I care about the big differences between us and republickers - especially those that are or kowtow to the fundies.)

Dr Adequate · 25th May 2008, 05:38 PM

It should be called the Cartman Syndrome.

"Screw you guys, I'm going home."

Puppycow · 25th May 2008, 07:37 PM

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate

It should be called the Cartman Syndrome.

"Screw you guys, I'm going home."

Yeah, I was totally thinking South Park, too.

This Kyle syndrome is a concern. I suppose it means that there is a whole block of voters for whom the actual issues and policies such as the war, the economy and health care are less important than the personalities, associates and imagined slights of the candidates. I don't really think this is suprising, but it is discouraging for anyone who cares more about the issues.

Puppycow · 26th May 2008, 12:49 AM

This story suggests that most people will probably get over the Kyle Syndrome by voting day.

Quote:

Both parties can rest easy. Despite ugly battles and policy differences that sometimes seem intractable, the reality is that presidential campaigns tend to unify each party behind its nominee. Political scientists call this phenomenon the "reinforcement effect." It was described in 1940 in the first major study of a presidential campaign.

Temporal Renegade · 26th May 2008, 06:51 AM

Originally Posted by Beerina

"Sir? Over there! Is that a bitchy lawyer?"

"You damn right it is!"

Temporal Renegade · 26th May 2008, 06:55 AM

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Yeah, I was totally thinking South Park, too.

This Kyle syndrome is a concern. I suppose it means that there is a whole block of voters for whom the actual issues and policies such as the war, the economy and health care are less important than the personalities, associates and imagined slights of the candidates. I don't really think this is suprising, but it is discouraging for anyone who cares more about the issues.

Exactly. I guess the question they should ask themselves, would be "Are you better off now, than you were eight years ago?" If the answer's 'No', maybe they should check their egos and re-think about the choices...

davefoc · 30th May 2008, 04:10 AM

I think racism is the secret reason behind at least some of the "Kyle factor" in the people who favored Clinton but won't vote for Obama. That particular "Kyle factor" element is unlikely to change their minds for the general election I suspect.

At least some of the "Kyle factor" Obama supporters that claim they won't vote for Clinton are basing it on the fact that if she did get the nomination at this point she would probably have won it by some fairly scummy behavior and that is not going to sit well with Obama supporters who see him as the legitimate winner regardless of the actions of the Democratic leadership.

But overall, I suspect that the "kyle factor" is much less important than some of the current polls suggest that it is. Assuming that Clinton decides to abandon her kamikaze campaign and enthusiastically supports Obama in the general election it might be reduced to the point of insignificance.

Right now though Clinton seems determined to bring down Obama's presidential chances and her career in some kind of narcissistic death spiral. I'm betting that she won't actually do it though.

Soapy Sam · 30th May 2008, 04:39 AM

Gods, I just wish you guys would flip a coin and GET IT OVER!

Darth Rotor · 30th May 2008, 06:39 AM

Originally Posted by fuelair

Since I will not vote for a republicker (as decided for me by the republickers in 2000), obviously no, nor will I not vote since any Democrat is better than McCain - since he dropped trou , bent over for Shrub and became his bum-boy after the Carolina thing. I will not, on the other hand, be sending the DNC anything except messages telling them why I won't send them anything in responce to anything they send me asking for same (I remind them each time that if they hadn't played games in January with Florida (where I am) and Michigan, HC would likely already be the nominee and could be stomping on McCain now (as I love to keep pointing out, initially my only concern was that a democrat who could beat McCain came out ahead. I do not care about minor differences betwwen Democrats, I care about the big differences between us and republickers - especially those that are or kowtow to the fundies.)

Funny, the RNC has been sending me mail for some years, always asking for money, (based on my zip code, I think). I keep sending them back with nasty notes about how they'll never get a dime, nor get me to join their party, unless they somehow unscrew their irresponsible spending, deal with the border, and a few other pet peeves.

It's fun to vent after a rough week at work and begin a letter with:

Dear Moron . . .

DR

Puppycow · 30th May 2008, 06:56 AM

Originally Posted by Soapy Sam

Gods, I just wish you guys would flip a coin and GET IT OVER!

Tim Russert said it would be effectively over by next Wednesday.

Dr Adequate · 30th May 2008, 11:27 AM

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Tim Russert said it would be effectively over by next Wednesday.

Yes, but will Clinton notice?

dudalb · 30th May 2008, 11:36 AM

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate

Yes, but will Clinton notice?

If Obama gets the votes to nominate, will anybody care what Clinton does?
I really think the Obama campaign is wise in deciding to just let things run their course. They've got the nomination, and any attempts to strongarm Hilary out of the race will just create more problems they don't need.

Temporal Renegade · 30th May 2008, 01:46 PM

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate

Yes, but will Clinton notice?

Trust me, if (or when) Obama gets the nomination, she'll definitely notice...

davefoc · 30th May 2008, 02:34 PM

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate

Yes, but will Clinton notice?

Rachel Madow's (Democratic partisan radio talk show host) theory for awhile now has been that the Clinton strategy is to tie this thing up until the convention where she will unleash a nasty fight.

The theory (assuming I understand it) is that the Clinton campaign will make unrealistic demands about Florida and Michigan, the rules committee will rule against her, she will then appeal to some other group that only meets at the convention and then when she loses there she will appeal such that the issue is thrown open to a convention fight.

This is all very unlikely to result in a Clinton nomination, but at this point if she doesn't do this she has zero chance of getting the nomination and she has some chance if she does.

Another theory is that she just intends to threaten this kind of stuff as part of an overall plan to get something. Among the possible goals put forth for this strategy is an invitation for the VP slot and some help with he campaign debts. A problem with theory is that Clinton has huge leverage right now without threatening this sort of crap so why mess with it except that all she really wants is the nomination and she thinks her recent round of wildly inflammatory behavior followed by the initiation of a nasty convention fight is her last shot.

My guess is that she concedes after June 3 with a great speech that validates her efforts and the people who have supported her and that ends with a rousing pro-Obama section.

If she doesn't, will she still be able to maintain a credible band of toadies (Like Lanny Davis) to push her BS?

Beerina · 5th June 2008, 07:26 AM

Donna Brazile: "If Hillary wins because of superdelegates but Obama has the popular vote, I'm quitting the Democrats."

Yeah, that kind of thing?

davefoc · 5th June 2008, 07:54 AM

Originally Posted by Rufo

I don't have nearly the knowledge of the candidates' political agenda to mock this as I would if it was something I was familiar with, so I'll rather try to increase my knowledge. Is there any political matter on which McCain is closer to Hillary than Obama is or closer to Obama than Hillary is? Which questions are those, and why is there such a monumental difference within the Democratic party on those questions?

Originally Posted by Richard Masters

Hillary is closer to McCain on the war.

I tend to disagree with this. I think, Clinton is reviled by many because of her vote to enable Bush to go to war, but I don't think that is completely fair. I believe her when she says that she would not have gone to war on the facts that were available to Bush. I think most Republicans and probably almost no* Democrats would have gone to war on the facts that Bush took the country to war on.

Further, McCain, based on his rhetoric, intends to maintain the in-your-face diplomatic approach to the middle east. There seems to be no evidence that Clinton, intends to maintain this kind of belligerent, go it alone, neocon inspired foreign policy.

* I originally said no Democrats, but clearly Lieberman would have gone to war and very well might have attacked Iran by now.

Checkmite · 5th June 2008, 12:53 PM

Originally Posted by Puppycow

This Kyle syndrome is a concern. I suppose it means that there is a whole block of voters for whom the actual issues and policies such as the war, the economy and health care are less important than the personalities, associates and imagined slights of the candidates. I don't really think this is suprising, but it is discouraging for anyone who cares more about the issues.

Screw the "issues". Screw personalities, screw "this candidate cheated on fewer tests in 7th grade science class than the other candidate". I've never been big on politics.

I'm going to vote for Obama, for absolutely no other reason than that having a black man become president will really piss off certain people I wouldn't mind pissing off, because I don't like them. That's all.

Darth Rotor · 5th June 2008, 01:06 PM

Originally Posted by Beerina

She's like Chuck Yeagher in The Right Stuff, where he takes the rocket plane way up and starts to see the edge of space...and...just...can't...make...it...

That would be Chuck Yeager, AC Delco spokesman in commercials after he retired.

/nitpicky moment

Redtail · 5th June 2008, 01:23 PM

Originally Posted by Checkmite

I'm going to vote for Obama, for absolutely no other reason than that having a black man become president will really piss off certain people I wouldn't mind pissing off, because I don't like them. That's all.

I have several Republican friends in VT & CT who say the same thing.

Beerina · 6th June 2008, 02:38 PM

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

That would be Chuck Yeager, AC Delco spokesman in commercials after he retired.

/nitpicky moment

Sort of. That parallel for her comes later.

24th May 2008, 06:44 AM	#1
Temporal Renegade Last of the Time Lords Join Date: May 2003 Location: University of Southern North Dakota at Hoople Posts: 1,870	"The Kyle Syndrome" On 'The Stephanie Miller Show' (http://www.stephaniemiller.com; political discussion with humor, from a Liberal view), there's a character they do called Kyle. Kyle is a disenchanted Democrat, who has such an enormous ego about his 'voting power', that if HIS candidate doesn't get the nomination (it's never explained if he's for Obama or Clinton), he'll vote for John McCain, because "That'll show YOU not to place MY CANDIDATE as the nominee!" Since people from both sides are expressing this view, it's looked upon as a legitimate concern for November (the term in the title comes from an article, which talked about this very thing). This question is for any Dems here: if the candidate you're backing doesn't get the nomination, would you do the same thing?
	__________________ "Attention please..... a child has been lost in the Tunnel of Goats......" .......FATHER TED

24th May 2008, 06:59 AM	#2
Travis Misanthrope of the Mountains Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Tuolumne City, CA Posts: 8,144	Yes, because I'm very petty and a complete idiot.
	__________________ "Because WE ARE IGNORANT OF 911 FACTS, WE DEMAND PROOF" -- Douglas Herman on Rense.com Nominate July Stundies.

24th May 2008, 07:01 AM	#3
Temporal Renegade Last of the Time Lords Join Date: May 2003 Location: University of Southern North Dakota at Hoople Posts: 1,870
	__________________ "Attention please..... a child has been lost in the Tunnel of Goats......" .......FATHER TED

24th May 2008, 08:04 AM	#4
jj grumpy old skeptic Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Redmond, Washington Posts: 14,801	Well, based on Hil3ary's performance in the latest parts of this primary, I'd vote for just about anyone on the planet before I voted for her. To be clear, this is based on her hidden-racist rhetoric, her histrionics, and her insistance on "my way or the highway".
	__________________ Watch the looting. Those "left behind" are a lot less poor than they were on Sunday. They're mostly black, too, from all accounts. - Jocko, 09-01-05 What did you think would happen when there was no police around? NO has a concentration of African Americans, most of the residents there are black. - JayGW 09-02-05 The 'tards. The window lickers. The mouth breathers. Duh.Jocko 04-13-06 The power to quit.

24th May 2008, 10:28 AM	#5
Beerina Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: A floating island above the clouds Posts: 15,788	She's like Chuck Yeagher in The Right Stuff, where he takes the rocket plane way up and starts to see the edge of space...and...just...can't...make...it...
	__________________ "Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales *now!* More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?

24th May 2008, 10:29 AM	#6
Beerina Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: A floating island above the clouds Posts: 15,788	"Sir? Over there! Is that a bitchy lawyer?" "You damn right it is!"
	__________________ "Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales *now!* More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?

24th May 2008, 05:29 PM	#7
gtc Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: the downunderverse Posts: 7,109	I am not an American and I wouldn't call myself a Democrat even if I were. However, it is entirely possible that a Democrat could have a good reason for putting McCain above the other Democrat. Likewise a Republican could have a good reason for putting Clinton or Obama or both above McCain.
	__________________

24th May 2008, 05:53 PM	#8
Rufo Muse Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 885	I don't have nearly the knowledge of the candidates' political agenda to mock this as I would if it was something I was familiar with, so I'll rather try to increase my knowledge. Is there any political matter on which McCain is closer to Hillary than Obama is or closer to Obama than Hillary is? Which questions are those, and why is there such a monumental difference within the Democratic party on those questions?
Rufo Muse Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 885	__________________ Love is patient, love is kind, says he [Paul] - so is humour too, for it is not offended by that which is ugly and offensive, it seeks out the lost and miserable and shows that they are worth interest - love is not angered, it does not judge - neither does humour - love forgives all - so does humour - love is humble - such is humour too, for humour makes men not consider themselves better than others. - Gustaf Fröding

25th May 2008, 02:50 PM	#9
Richard Masters Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 2,428	Hillary is closer to McCain on the war.

25th May 2008, 03:15 PM	#10
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 18,126	Since I will not vote for a republicker (as decided for me by the republickers in 2000), obviously no, nor will I not vote since any Democrat is better than McCain - since he dropped trou , bent over for Shrub and became his bum-boy after the Carolina thing. I will not, on the other hand, be sending the DNC anything except messages telling them why I won't send them anything in responce to anything they send me asking for same (I remind them each time that if they hadn't played games in January with Florida (where I am) and Michigan, HC would likely already be the nominee and could be stomping on McCain now (as I love to keep pointing out, initially my only concern was that a democrat who could beat McCain came out ahead. I do not care about minor differences betwwen Democrats, I care about the big differences between us and republickers - especially those that are or kowtow to the fundies.)
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 18,126	Last edited by fuelair; 25th May 2008 at 03:16 PM. Reason: +).

25th May 2008, 05:38 PM	#11
Dr Adequate Banned Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Waiting Long Enough By The River Posts: 17,902	It should be called the Cartman Syndrome. "Screw you guys, I'm going home."

25th May 2008, 07:37 PM	#12
Puppycow Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Japan Posts: 7,060	Originally Posted by Dr Adequate It should be called the Cartman Syndrome. "Screw you guys, I'm going home." Yeah, I was totally thinking South Park, too. This Kyle syndrome is a concern. I suppose it means that there is a whole block of voters for whom the actual issues and policies such as the war, the economy and health care are less important than the personalities, associates and imagined slights of the candidates. I don't really think this is suprising, but it is discouraging for anyone who cares more about the issues.
	__________________ I can't come to bed yet, honey. Someone on the Internet is wrong. -XKCD Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous

26th May 2008, 12:49 AM	#13
Puppycow Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Japan Posts: 7,060	This story suggests that most people will probably get over the Kyle Syndrome by voting day. Quote: Both parties can rest easy. Despite ugly battles and policy differences that sometimes seem intractable, the reality is that presidential campaigns tend to unify each party behind its nominee. Political scientists call this phenomenon the "reinforcement effect." It was described in 1940 in the first major study of a presidential campaign.
	__________________ I can't come to bed yet, honey. Someone on the Internet is wrong. -XKCD Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous

26th May 2008, 06:51 AM	#14
Temporal Renegade Last of the Time Lords Join Date: May 2003 Location: University of Southern North Dakota at Hoople Posts: 1,870	Originally Posted by Beerina "Sir? Over there! Is that a bitchy lawyer?" "You damn right it is!"
	__________________ "Attention please..... a child has been lost in the Tunnel of Goats......" .......FATHER TED

26th May 2008, 06:55 AM	#15
Temporal Renegade Last of the Time Lords Join Date: May 2003 Location: University of Southern North Dakota at Hoople Posts: 1,870	Originally Posted by Puppycow Yeah, I was totally thinking South Park, too. This Kyle syndrome is a concern. I suppose it means that there is a whole block of voters for whom the actual issues and policies such as the war, the economy and health care are less important than the personalities, associates and imagined slights of the candidates. I don't really think this is suprising, but it is discouraging for anyone who cares more about the issues. Exactly. I guess the question they should ask themselves, would be "Are you better off now, than you were eight years ago?" If the answer's 'No', maybe they should check their egos and re-think about the choices...
	__________________ "Attention please..... a child has been lost in the Tunnel of Goats......" .......FATHER TED

30th May 2008, 04:10 AM	#16
davefoc Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: orange country, california Posts: 5,695	I think racism is the secret reason behind at least some of the "Kyle factor" in the people who favored Clinton but won't vote for Obama. That particular "Kyle factor" element is unlikely to change their minds for the general election I suspect. At least some of the "Kyle factor" Obama supporters that claim they won't vote for Clinton are basing it on the fact that if she did get the nomination at this point she would probably have won it by some fairly scummy behavior and that is not going to sit well with Obama supporters who see him as the legitimate winner regardless of the actions of the Democratic leadership. But overall, I suspect that the "kyle factor" is much less important than some of the current polls suggest that it is. Assuming that Clinton decides to abandon her kamikaze campaign and enthusiastically supports Obama in the general election it might be reduced to the point of insignificance. Right now though Clinton seems determined to bring down Obama's presidential chances and her career in some kind of narcissistic death spiral. I'm betting that she won't actually do it though.
	__________________ The way of truth is along the path of intellectual sincerity. -- Henry S. Pritchett Perfection is the enemy of good enough -- Russian proverb

30th May 2008, 04:39 AM	#17
Soapy Sam NLH Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 19,602	Gods, I just wish you guys would flip a coin and GET IT OVER!
Soapy Sam NLH Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 19,602

30th May 2008, 06:39 AM	#18
Darth Rotor Salted Sith Cynic Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Rat cheer Posts: 29,313	Originally Posted by fuelair Since I will not vote for a republicker (as decided for me by the republickers in 2000), obviously no, nor will I not vote since any Democrat is better than McCain - since he dropped trou , bent over for Shrub and became his bum-boy after the Carolina thing. I will not, on the other hand, be sending the DNC anything except messages telling them why I won't send them anything in responce to anything they send me asking for same (I remind them each time that if they hadn't played games in January with Florida (where I am) and Michigan, HC would likely already be the nominee and could be stomping on McCain now (as I love to keep pointing out, initially my only concern was that a democrat who could beat McCain came out ahead. I do not care about minor differences betwwen Democrats, I care about the big differences between us and republickers - especially those that are or kowtow to the fundies.) Funny, the RNC has been sending me mail for some years, always asking for money, (based on my zip code, I think). I keep sending them back with nasty notes about how they'll never get a dime, nor get me to join their party, unless they somehow unscrew their irresponsible spending, deal with the border, and a few other pet peeves. It's fun to vent after a rough week at work and begin a letter with: Dear Moron . . . DR
	__________________ Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission. "Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is some one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton____If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok____ "Your onus is aimed in the wrong direction." -- Cleon__"... they don't make pills for being a self-absorbed twit. --bookitty Last edited by Darth Rotor; 30th May 2008 at 06:40 AM.

30th May 2008, 06:56 AM	#19
Puppycow Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Japan Posts: 7,060	Originally Posted by Soapy Sam Gods, I just wish you guys would flip a coin and GET IT OVER! Tim Russert said it would be effectively over by next Wednesday.
	__________________ I can't come to bed yet, honey. Someone on the Internet is wrong. -XKCD Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous

30th May 2008, 11:27 AM	#20
Dr Adequate Banned Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Waiting Long Enough By The River Posts: 17,902	Originally Posted by Puppycow Tim Russert said it would be effectively over by next Wednesday. Yes, but will Clinton notice?

30th May 2008, 11:36 AM	#21
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 16,887	Originally Posted by Dr Adequate Yes, but will Clinton notice? If Obama gets the votes to nominate, will anybody care what Clinton does? I really think the Obama campaign is wise in deciding to just let things run their course. They've got the nomination, and any attempts to strongarm Hilary out of the race will just create more problems they don't need.

30th May 2008, 01:46 PM	#22
Temporal Renegade Last of the Time Lords Join Date: May 2003 Location: University of Southern North Dakota at Hoople Posts: 1,870	Originally Posted by Dr Adequate Yes, but will Clinton notice? Trust me, if (or when) Obama gets the nomination, she'll definitely notice...
	__________________ "Attention please..... a child has been lost in the Tunnel of Goats......" .......FATHER TED

30th May 2008, 02:34 PM	#23
davefoc Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: orange country, california Posts: 5,695	Originally Posted by Dr Adequate Yes, but will Clinton notice? Rachel Madow's (Democratic partisan radio talk show host) theory for awhile now has been that the Clinton strategy is to tie this thing up until the convention where she will unleash a nasty fight. The theory (assuming I understand it) is that the Clinton campaign will make unrealistic demands about Florida and Michigan, the rules committee will rule against her, she will then appeal to some other group that only meets at the convention and then when she loses there she will appeal such that the issue is thrown open to a convention fight. This is all very unlikely to result in a Clinton nomination, but at this point if she doesn't do this she has zero chance of getting the nomination and she has some chance if she does. Another theory is that she just intends to threaten this kind of stuff as part of an overall plan to get something. Among the possible goals put forth for this strategy is an invitation for the VP slot and some help with he campaign debts. A problem with theory is that Clinton has huge leverage right now without threatening this sort of crap so why mess with it except that all she really wants is the nomination and she thinks her recent round of wildly inflammatory behavior followed by the initiation of a nasty convention fight is her last shot. My guess is that she concedes after June 3 with a great speech that validates her efforts and the people who have supported her and that ends with a rousing pro-Obama section. If she doesn't, will she still be able to maintain a credible band of toadies (Like Lanny Davis) to push her BS?
	Last edited by davefoc; 30th May 2008 at 02:37 PM.

5th June 2008, 07:26 AM	#24
Beerina Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: A floating island above the clouds Posts: 15,788	Donna Brazile: "If Hillary wins because of superdelegates but Obama has the popular vote, I'm quitting the Democrats." Yeah, that kind of thing?
	__________________ "Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales *now!* More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?

5th June 2008, 07:54 AM	#25
davefoc Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: orange country, california Posts: 5,695	Originally Posted by Rufo I don't have nearly the knowledge of the candidates' political agenda to mock this as I would if it was something I was familiar with, so I'll rather try to increase my knowledge. Is there any political matter on which McCain is closer to Hillary than Obama is or closer to Obama than Hillary is? Which questions are those, and why is there such a monumental difference within the Democratic party on those questions? Originally Posted by Richard Masters Hillary is closer to McCain on the war. I tend to disagree with this. I think, Clinton is reviled by many because of her vote to enable Bush to go to war, but I don't think that is completely fair. I believe her when she says that she would not have gone to war on the facts that were available to Bush. I think most Republicans and probably almost no* Democrats would have gone to war on the facts that Bush took the country to war on. Further, McCain, based on his rhetoric, intends to maintain the in-your-face diplomatic approach to the middle east. There seems to be no evidence that Clinton, intends to maintain this kind of belligerent, go it alone, neocon inspired foreign policy. * I originally said no Democrats, but clearly Lieberman would have gone to war and very well might have attacked Iran by now.

5th June 2008, 12:53 PM	#26
Checkmite Skepticifimisticalationist Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Third in line Posts: 9,302	Originally Posted by Puppycow This Kyle syndrome is a concern. I suppose it means that there is a whole block of voters for whom the actual issues and policies such as the war, the economy and health care are less important than the personalities, associates and imagined slights of the candidates. I don't really think this is suprising, but it is discouraging for anyone who cares more about the issues. Screw the "issues". Screw personalities, screw "this candidate cheated on fewer tests in 7th grade science class than the other candidate". I've never been big on politics. I'm going to vote for Obama, for absolutely no other reason than that having a black man become president will really piss off certain people I wouldn't mind pissing off, because I don't like them. That's all.
	__________________ Nuclear energy is GREEN energy.

5th June 2008, 01:06 PM	#27
Darth Rotor Salted Sith Cynic Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Rat cheer Posts: 29,313	Originally Posted by Beerina She's like Chuck Yeagher in The Right Stuff, where he takes the rocket plane way up and starts to see the edge of space...and...just...can't...make...it... That would be Chuck Yeager, AC Delco spokesman in commercials after he retired. /nitpicky moment
	__________________ Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission. "Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is some one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton____If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok____ "Your onus is aimed in the wrong direction." -- Cleon__"... they don't make pills for being a self-absorbed twit. --bookitty Last edited by Darth Rotor; 5th June 2008 at 01:06 PM.

5th June 2008, 01:23 PM	#28
Redtail Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 6,073	Originally Posted by Checkmite I'm going to vote for Obama, for absolutely no other reason than that having a black man become president will really piss off certain people I wouldn't mind pissing off, because I don't like them. That's all. I have several Republican friends in VT & CT who say the same thing.
Redtail Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 6,073	__________________ Follow that, killer!-Jerry Lee Lewis

6th June 2008, 02:38 PM	#29
Beerina Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: A floating island above the clouds Posts: 15,788	Originally Posted by Darth Rotor That would be Chuck Yeager, AC Delco spokesman in commercials after he retired. /nitpicky moment Sort of. That parallel for her comes later.
	__________________ "Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales *now!* More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?