<p>I can understand that they would be upset that Hillary lost and that the Obama campaign had attacked her unfairly. But how can they say that they supported her and then say they will vote for someone who is arguably a total opposite who stands for nothing she stands for. </p>
<p>Why?</p>
<p>They're just bitter. It doesn't make any sense to me why you would vote for someone of the opposite ticket instead of the person whose views are closest to your own candidate's, just because you wish s/he had stayed in the race.</p>
<p>Did you see Hillary!Delegate on CNN the other night? At least she said she would abstain from voting for McCain -- but she never said she was voting for Obama, either. Oy vey. Just pick the lesser of two evils, and Obama and Clinton are far more alike than the voters and/or politicians themselves would like to admit. Besides, Hillary herself came on TV and made a wonderful speech about how the party should unite and she urges her supporters to make the right decision and support Barack Obama. One would think that her obsessers would go with her on that one...</p>
<p>As Charles Barkley said, it's because they're idiots. Anyone who would cast their vote for a poor candidate solely because of a grudge should have their voting rights revoked. But in some states, as much as 25% of Clinton supporters said that race played a role in their primary vote, so clearly, some of these people are not right in the head.</p>
<p>The only real difference between Hillary and Obama is whether you'd prefer to see a Black man or a woman in office.<br>
Everything else is the same.</p>
<p>If you're willing to jump ship and vote for McCain, just because Hillary lost, then as someone previously stated, you should have your voting privileges revoked.</p>
<p>A lot of these people wouldn't have ended up voting for Hillary in the general election anyway. These are the people who vote Republican when they see a picture of Osama.</p>
<p>I did see that Hillary delegate and I was happy to see that she would not be voting for McCain.</p>
<p>Another thing that I don't understand is that these Hillary supporters won't vote for Obama because she isn't on the ticket. I, for one, did not want her to be his running mate but I feel that she could do so much more in the Senate or in another position in Obama's administration.</p>
<p>She'll be Secretary of State for Obama. That's my prediction.</p>
<p>
[quote]
They're just bitter.
[/quote]
Exactly. Her supporters who are now turning to McCain are female.</p>
<p>If men were Hilary's base supporters, I guarantee you none of this would be happening.</p>
<p>If you consider McCain Poor, Obama is even worse considering his education.
McCain is a bloody idiot and Obama cant even gain plurality forget about majority.</p>
<p>I think in the long run the vast majority of the people who would have *really *voted for Hillary in the general will vote for Obama in the general. If you heard Hillary's and Bill's speeches you can see how they implored Hillary's supporters to vote for Obama.</p>
<p>I hope and think they will vote for Obama in the end. The differences between Hillary and McCain are enormous and if they fail to see it then I don't know what their problem is.</p>
<p>Ultimately I think that Hillary's "No way, no how, no McCain" and Billy's (paraphrased) < In 2002, when the Republicans gained control of both houses of Congress, they could finally deliver the ideology they were promising for 25 years and it brought havoc. > (something like that) will catch on.
The catch-phrase is most powerful in its association with Hillary, and I think Bill's point could reach across the political divide to many who would see that the mainstream GOP - in particular, Reagan's legacy is gleaned from the "25 years" "promise" remark - cannot run a country unless it is very tightly restrained.
Of course, I'm just speculating about how it would be perceived, but as I recall, WJ Clinton gained 16 points after his first convention.</p>
<p>Obama is even worse considering his education.</p>
<p>I'm not sure what you're getting at. Obama received a great education from two of the best schools in the country. </p>
<p>McCain is a bloody idiot</p>
<p>I wholeheartedly agree. </p>
<p>Obama cant even gain plurality forget about majority.</p>
<p>I don't think that's a fair accusation to make. Obama is probably the most liked presidential candidate I've seen run for office. Even if you disagree with his views, he has a very charismatic charm and easily relates to "normal" Americans. He's hip, young and definitely has the youth vote and the black vote and many other groups' votes as well.</p>
<p>Hippo I am saying that even with his great education, he is really not doing great. He should at least have plurality, and I think McCain is horrible and due to that Americas view of Obama is pretty bleak.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Hippo I am saying that even with his great education, he is really not doing great. He should at least have plurality, and I think McCain is horrible and due to that Americas view of Obama is pretty bleak.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If what you say is true, Dr. Horse, then it only confirms my belief that we're a nation of idiots. Or racists. Or a combination of both. ;)</p>
<p>
[quote]
Hippo I am saying that even with his great education, he is really not doing great.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>***? Since when did Americans elect people because of their colleges? We're in the Age of Anti-intellectualism right now, where being smart makes you an elitist.</p>
<p>Not that there are too many Hillary-McCain voters out there, but those that exist and are not Republican operatives or sympathizers are... racists. There's no way around it. If you're going to completely discard issues, then we have to examine what other factors have been powerful in elections of the past. And guess what the big one is? Race. In 1980, Kennedy supporters did not jump ship to Reagan when Teddy lost the hotly contested nomination to Jimmy Carter. Supporters of a losing candidate do not completely betray their beliefs just due to "bitterness". It's gotta be racism. And it doesn't have to be hood-wearing slave-lynching racism either. It can be very weak racism that accepts blacks as mostly equals, just not as presidents (or at least not presidents before white women).</p>
<p>Yes and no. Yes, there are lots of middle of the way women who lean conservative but not too strongly who decided to vote for Hilary. No, Blacks voted for Obama over Clinton because of Fmr. President Clinton's remarks likening some of Obama's victories due to his race. Even though anyone who knows Clinton knows he's not a racist by any means, these types of remarks galvanized some Blacks. And I don't know where you got the 90% figure from lol</p>
<p>Seems reasonable enough. Also, being racist means (at least to me) that some of those 90% of Blacks wouldn't have voted for Clinton if Obama weren't running. Considering Blacks generally monolithic support for the Democratic party and Fmr President Clinton's status as "the First Black President" to suggest that would be ridiculous. I wouldn't say the female supporters who voted for Clinton were sexist, it's not as if they are opposed to a male President.</p>
<p>^I definitely know what you mean, but I don't think racist is the right term. Racism has a connotation of hating someone and finding them inferior because of their race. Wanting Obama to be president because of his race isn't racist, but it is prejudiced (in his favor), but wanting Obama to lose the presidency because of his race is racist. </p>
<p>God, I hope that made sense...</p>
<p>
[Quote]
I heard a news report about Black Conservatives struggling whether to vote Republican or vote for Obama because he might be the first black president.
[/Quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah...all five of them. ;)</p>