NCAAbbs

Angry Clinton backers targeted

Or just a troublemaker?

You wish.

How is that even remotely reconcilable? The enemy of my enemy is my friend is a stupid way to base your allegiance.

Um, Hillary supporters vote too.

Just letting you know. BTW, I thought we were all Americans. Guess not in your eyes.

Does your density come naturally or do you have to work to get it there?

I'm confused at how a Clinton supporter can reconcile voting for a dissimilar candidate in lieu of one that shares many positions with their primary candidate. I find it stupidly childish to refuse to vote for a candidate that you share more viewpoints with because he narrowly beat your favorite candidate in the primaries. Just because Hillary and Barack were political rivals and Barack and John are political rivals now, does not mean that Hillary and John are in allied positions politically.

Density? PUMA is comprised of Hillary supporters. They will be voting McCain. I saw the DU meltdown. I saw Democrats who had been members for YEARS "tombstoned".

Is your ignorance voluntary? IOW, are you a f'n dumbass because you want to be?

Reality is that if Obama wins, Hillary will never be president or vice president. Clinton backers know that MCcain will be a one term guy with his age and that that MCCain is not the same type of social conservative that Bush is. Mccain appeal to some Democrats is that doesn't always walk the Republican party line and is liberal on issues like campaign fiance and was an ally to Democrats on emigration. Consider that strong latino suport for Clinton, its isn't that much of a stretch to see them drift to MCCain. OBama is a Chicago Democrat and lacks a history with national issues like illegal emigration. MCCain being from Arizona has to deal with the issue from both sides. Worked with Kennedy to get a bill done. Republican base didn't like it, but the fact that MCCain found common ground with a liberal like Kennedy on the issue shows that he is willing to strike a deal that makes sense. Moderate democrats see that as a huge plus. OBama has been nothing but hard left on every issue. Clinton supporters probably like MCCain, because he is some ways is a lot like Clinton who governored as a moderate during his presidency on various issues. Welfare reform being something that hardcore liberals like Kenndy and OBama would have not gone as far as Clinton did. Hillary Clinton voting record become more conservative after 9/11 as she voted for security bills on the war on terrorism. Kerry and OBama voted against some of those bills, but Clinton being from New York voted with the Republicans several times. Obama hit her hard for those votes in the primary which ruined her chances to win the nomination. She knew that those were good for the country as her husband sat in the executive branch chair like Bush and that is something that OBama has never done.....Obama has no idea what its like to sit in the oval office and have to make a decision to about a military action. Hillary saw first hand the tough decision.....you can't save the decision for a higher power to make when your president......you are the final authority. If he can't answer a question about when human rights begin, then how is he gonna decide if we attack Iran if they attack Isreal.

The "Gypsy Moth" (ie..Rockefeller) Republicans did the same thing to Barry Goldwater back in 1964 when many like Bill Scranton, Nelson Rockefeller, and Jacob Javitz openly supported LBJ. It was a move on the part of the liberal Republicans to take back the party from the conservatives. Eventually, the liberal Republicans and neoconservative Republicans reconciled when Ronald Reagan(a neoconservative) chose George Bush(a "Gypsy Moth") as his running mate in 1980.

This is a very interesting development. Methinks the Clintons want their party back and they will take it back at any cost. Prepare for a real cat fight between the more pragmatic Clintonistas and the leftist Deaniacs who presently run the Democratic Party. Brace yourself folks, it's about to get very interesting.

That's not exactly my thought process, since I prefer the libertarian option. But it's not hard for me to understand, if you look at the candidates in detail rather than falling for the stump speeches.

If I'm a centrist/conservative democrat who supported Hillary in the expectation that she would be the second coming of Bill, then it's pretty easy for me to see McCain as much closer to me politically than Obama is. I believe there are a number of these, and I'm guessing they are already in the McCain camp, and I'm guessing they'll stay there.

If I'm a woman who supported Hillary because she was a woman, and if McCain did put a woman on the ticket, then I could easily see her going for McCain. I have many female friends who feel exactly this way. My thought that McCain should select a woman running mate comes largely because the fact that I know so many women who feel that way makes me wonder if there aren't a lot of them nationwide.

"I'm p*$$*d off at Obama so I'm voting for McCain," is an irrational thought process, but it's not the only way to get that decision.

Jesus Christ when did it become illegal to leave this country? Well I guess for many criminals awaiting trial illegal emigration is an issue, but damn, now it is a political issue.

Clinton undercut him again today, asking: "Why would you vote for someone who shares your positions but can't enact those into actual policy"....

and Obama is down in the polls. If he's not up double digits on Monday he won't win this thing.

http://www.electoralcompass.com

Clinton (the one with the X across her picture) is not closer to McCain than to Obama. If anyone saw Hillary as the second coming of Bill, then for starters they weren't paying attention to what she was saying.

As for the woman reason, that would be applicable if McCain had already chosen a running mate, which he hasn't. If he does choose a woman to be his VP, then I would understand, though not agree, with many Hillary supporters supporting McCain.

To me, if you supported Hillary, and in turn the Democratic health care idea, the idea of start of the withdraw of troops from Iraq, ending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, etc., how can you support McCain who supports the exact opposite? That's what I'm having trouble getting my head around.

Of course PUMA is comprised of Hillary supporters, who else would be in it? Who else would they be voting for if they are against party unity? If there is any ignorance here, it is your own. I'm plenty aware of what a PUMA is and feels. My problem is understanding why they feel that way.

Shall I REQUOTE you, dumbass? YOU said:

Reconcile THAT ****, moron. Dense? No, I'm just turning your own GDamn words against you and you don't like it. You insult me, I insult back. Capiche, fucktard?

What is there to reconcile? I know that some Hillary supporters are going to vote for McCain, but I don't understand how they can put aside the issues because they are mad that Obama won the nomination. That's all I've been saying, so no, you aren't turning my own words against me.

If anyone honestly believes that this graphic accurately represents where ANY of these candidates stand on the issues, or what everyone says constitutes liberal and conservative, enough to be able to use it as a measuring stick with a reliable result, they are sadly mistaken.

To set the record straight, I did not say Hillary was closer to McCain, I said Bill was closer to McCain. And I think there are some who think, rightly or wrongly, that Hillary would be the second coming of Bill. Some number of those were in the number of Hillary supporters, and I could see those people gravitating more easily to McCain than to Obama. You don't have to agree with their thought process, and you obviously don't think much of the possibility that Hillary could be the second coming of Bill. But if I were limited to Hillary and Obama as choices, I would choose Hillary because the chance that Bill MIGHT have some influence on her administration is obviously greater than it would be with Obama.

As for the woman reason, I'm amazed at how many women I hear saying that they supported Hillary but would vote for McCain if he puts a woman on the ticket. I'd say fully 50% of the women that I've heard express an opinion on this feel that way. I'm in an academic environment, and that may be skewing the sample of people with whom I'm interacting, but I'm wondering if others are hearing the same thing. Is others in other parts of the country noticing this? If so, McCain needs to take a look.

As for the "Bush tax cuts for the wealthy," that's a terrible misnomer, and I think the republicans must have their heads up their @$$*$ for letting the democrats get away with that for so long. Someone making $250,000 a year is not necessarily wealthy; someone with zero taxable income is not necessarily poor. Michelle Obama herself pretty much admitted that when she told a group of middle-class women (don't remember the exact circumstance, but it was during the primary season) that she understood their pain because she remembered how hard it was for her and Barack to start a family and repay their student loans and make ends meet (at a time when their family income was $250,000). They weren't "wealthy" then, they really weren't. They are now, and they would remain wealthy if they had zero income next year. I really think the republicans should jump on this until the American public understands that annual income is a measure not of wealth but of mobility. People making $250,000/year are not necessarily "wealthy" but they are clearly "upwardly mobile" or, even better, "realizing the American dream." Taxing the "upwardly mobile" or taxing those who are "realizing the American dream" doesn't sound nearly as good in a sound byte at taxing "the wealthy."

That being said, I think the Bush tax cuts were focused too much on rewarding those who had voted for him, and not enough on spurring growth. I would have left the top individual income tax bracket where it was; we're among the lowest in the world there, and lowering it did not spur growth. I would have favored some more rational treatment of estate/death taxes, instead of something where the best estate planning advice I can give a client is to be sure to die in 2010. I would favor excluding family-owned businesses altogether, so long as the family kept the business and ran it for some required number of years (too bad it's too late to save family farms); beyond that, I would make some distinction between assets that are invested in the economy (stocks, bonds, etc.) and assets that are held for pleasure (vacation homes, yachts, art, etc.). I would have truly eliminated the marriage penalty instead of the half-@$$ thing they did. I would have lowered the corporate income tax and reduced or eliminated double taxation of dividends (two areas where our taxes are among the highest in the world) in order to spur investment, which would lead to jobs and growth. And I would take a hard look at the one tax that actually does tax the "wealthy," a consumption tax; theyr'e going to find ways to make money that escape taxation, but if you tax them when they spend it, they can't escape that.

I do think it gives at least some idea. To complete the picture, I would put Bill in the upper right (northeast) quadrant and GWB (based on what he did, not necessarily what he said) in the lower left (southwest) quadrant. I would put myself and libertarians in general in the northeast qadrant as well.

With that in mind, I think it would be easy to conclude that if you voted for Hillary because you liked Bill, the jump to McCain is not that difficult. I also think it should be easy for McCain to differentiate himself from GWB, although he has been reluctant thus far to do so.

Why is this graphic a misrepresentation? The website justifies the positions with links to the candidate's website, quotes from debates or speeches, and other places. You can doublecheck it for yourself if you want.

Its not illegal to leave...but...the IRS will now steal additional wages from you before you can renounce your citizenship and move out of the country. This was included in a recent generic piece of legislation....I wonder....Are people leaving and the IRS is seeing an opportunity for additional theft?