Yes, (West) Virginia …

Democratic voters in West Virginia will today elect 28 delegates by some method or other. I can’t be bothered looking into it because the New York Post reports that Hillary Clinton is “toast”, and papa says, “if you see it in the Post, it’s so”.

Author: William Bowe

William Bowe is a Perth-based election analyst and occasional teacher of political science. His blog, The Poll Bludger, has existed in one form or another since 2004, and is one of the most heavily trafficked websites on Australian politics.

1,725 comments on “Yes, (West) Virginia …”

Comments Page 31 of 35
1 … 30 31 32 … 35

  1. Kirri,

    You dont have to suffer anger management issues in silence. You can see someone confidentially who may be able to help.

  2. I’ve been thinking about this characteristic of Clinton supporters and a trend visible here and in the states of a high degree of polarization. I don’t have a conclusion why this is just yet, but I suspect that there are several causes. Within my collection of immediate friends – those with an opinion are evenly split between the two candidates. On the Clinton side about 3 in 2 are only supporting Hillary because they think it would be cool to have Bill back in the Oval Office doing what he does best. The other third of the Clinton supporters (i.e. 1 person) its all about her potential to redefine what it is to be a woman (which really p!sses me off cuz she’s not the role model I want to see on the evening news). On the Obama side its a mix of 50/50 between people who want to see they guy win on the grounds that he’s not a rich white guy and that in itself would be good for development of America – while the other half are supporting Obama because of character, policy, etc. Within this limited survey – none are supporting Hillary on the grounds of policy, ability, or character.

  3. Catrina,

    Hardly, a major attitudinal study. Me thinks you are attempting to dress up your personal opinions as something of substance.

    Credibility, zero.

  5. jaundiced view @ 1450 –

    IMHO, Neville Chamberlain is one of the most maligned politicians of the 20 Century, as is the charge that his appeasement allowed tyranny to prosper.

    Had he declared war in 1938 instead of signing the Munich Agreement it’s highly likely that the Brits, and possibly we, would now be speaking German.

    In 1938 the RAF was still mostly equipped with slow, Gloster Gladiator and open cockpit Fury biplanes that were no match for the Luftwaffe’s Bf109 and Fw190 fighters, as was proven during the Spanish Civil War. Three RAN Gladiators, Faith, Hope and Charity did survive longer in the defence of Malta than anyone had a right to expect, but that may have had more to do with their Italian opponents having trouble seeing them through mirth induced tears than the aircrafts’ performance.

    What is rarely mentioned is that on his return from Munich Chamberlain ordered the country to rearm. That extra year to prepare meant that the RAF met the enemy with Hurricanes and Spitfires which were directed to the enemy thanks to the newly installed radar stations dotted along the coastline of south eastern England. A few Hurricanes had entered service in 1937 and the first Spitfire squadron only started receiving its aircraft a couple of weeks before the Munich conference with the last of its planes arriving in late December 1938.

  7. Dio @ 1497,
    Well spoken.
    I had a very similar thought about Glen during the 07 election, people kept bagging him but on many days he was the main reason PB was worth visiting.
    It’s pretty boring just reading people agreeing with each other about how awful their opponents are.

  8. Mayo @ 1505,
    Agree with that, pretty much. Although I do think the phrase “peace in our time” was, if nothing else, poignant in its total incorrectness.
    Another point about Chamberlain is that he died of cancer within a year of leaving office in 1940. Whether his health adversely affected his ability to direct events, we will never know.
    Churchill always said he admired Chamberlain personally, but despised Baldwin. (Baldwin, of course, was the PM before Chamberlain. Amongst other things Baldwin totally failed to re-arm. He also turned a blind eye to the re-militarisation of the Rhineland, which Germany did at a time when Britain could probably have acted much more easily than later on).

  9. Jen

    The reason GG et al “hate” Obama is the same reason us Obamabots “hate” Billary. We have taught ourselves to. It reduces our cognitive dissonance. Indulge me.

    At PB, most of us have chosen one or the other to support. We invest a lot of time, mental and emotional energy in our candidate. We are even fighting our friends, often bitterly. We can only really justify this to ourselves if our opponent and his/her supporters deserve a huge smacking. 👿

    But we’ve got a problem. They don’t. 🙁

    Obama and Hillary have a similar chance of beating McCain. Obama and Hillary will do about 90% of the same things if they were in office. We have our personal preferences but, logically, there is very little between them.

    So how can we justify attacking the “enemy” relentlessly if our “enemy” is about 90% the same as us ❓

    We have to demonise and vilify them. You know, concentrate on all of the negative articles, polls and opinions about them. Then we don’t suffer the cognitive dissonance of attacking something that is 90% the same as us. Problem solvered! 😀

  11. Diogenes-
    very high minded of you.
    But what about the fact that our old allies are supporting a woman who voted for the invasion of Iraq.
    No cognitive dissonance here ,Growler. I remember you dissing Howard for his support of the invasion. ie- causing the unnecessary
    deaths of tens/ nay, hundreds of thousands of innocents..
    Moral high horse???? or just standing by whatI believe in.

    I respect you guys too.
    mwaaah.
    xx

  14. (I don’t take it too seriously. I mean, who would! Butterflies aren’t allowed to vote and I’m certain no-one of any consequence is paying any attention to this blog, great as it is…)

  15. 1509
    Diogenes

    Nup.

    There’s been posters who’ve stated why they thought Clinton better and were civil, while there’s some who always take a position only so that they can attack others.

    I’ve seen enough to know they are only here to be aggressive little sh!ts, snide and goading, and running behind the tree to see if anyone bites.

    Boring little sh!ts at that, but if it amuses them, I’ll dish it back until I’m bored with them.

    I wouldn’t use such grandiose terms as cognitive dissonance. It’d call it puerile behaviour, which is exactly what it is.

  16. 1511 Jen

    That’s easy.

    Firstly, GG could just ignore the fact that Hillary voted for the war and say she just did what most Americans did. She is not responsible for the War. Bush is. But he didn’t do that.

    Secondly, he could say that everyone makes mistakes and she wants desperately to fix this one. And that her support for the War has been criticised violently by neocon Repugs as being half-hearted and equivocal. I think that’s what GG has been saying.

  17. Diogenes at 1509
    I have another theory. I figure in the case of Eddy, GG, and The Finns – its about being the underdog – and through that role being a center of attention. None of them put up and grounded arguments supporting Hillary (with the exception of The Finns and their fetish for polls on the general election and references to electability). What they do have in common (along with Ron) is to attack on any ground possible irrespective of substance or value. That behavior reminds me a lot of Fox News style reporting – i.e. focus on controversy which drives attention, and that kind of reinforces my assumption that Eddy, GG, and The Finns just need attention. As for Ron – I’m guessing that he’s a special case and deserves our care and attention – because he does put the miles in and you have to give him credit for that.

  18. 1515 KR and 1517 Catrina

    Wow! I’ve never been accused of not being cynical enough before! Thank you! I’m going to show my wife that I’m not such a bastard after all! 😉

  20. Diogenese,
    ‘GG could just ignore the fact that Hillary voted for the war and say she just did what most Americans did. She is not responsible’.
    oh good.
    so she votes for sending troops(that would be children) off to die, and then say it’s not actually her fault.
    So what do you say to those of us on our Moral High Horses who simply said all along- this is a mistake. A Big One.
    You can diss us, but if you do, what do you say to those who supported it?
    Oooops. Riding high again.
    Or just utterly disappointed in the lot of you.
    Scruples. What happened to them…

  23. 1521
    Enemy Combatant

    It’s those chirping ones that send ’em crazy Ecky.

    They come out of those fields, like it was the heart of darkness, muttering:

    “the chirping, the chirping” and all you can do for them is give some ether and put them into a long sleep.

    Or, as we say, “have a little Naba nap”

  26. Why the debate about Hillary? It’s over. Her supporters must let go, but when I wonder? The US media is engaged in analysis of why her campaign failed, and yet there are deniers still. Weird.
    The main game is Obama v the Repugs, and he’s already wiping the floor with them.
    Electability? Just watch the kid change the meaning of that word.

  28. 1520 Jen

    WTF!

    Now I’m meant to defend Hillary for a decision she made that I completely disagree with! I’m an Choskyite isolationist!

    I’ll give it a go.

    A lot of good Americans voted for or supported the Iraq War, like Al Franken. They may have not believed Bush and Cheney, but they had faith in Colin Powell which turned out to be horribly misplaced. He lied to them and distorted the truth. The doves turned out to be right and the hawks were wrong. A lot of the reasoning behind the hawks ideology was basically evil greed and lust for power. But that does not mean that all the people who supported the war were evil and greedy. They were fooled. And they are very sorry they got it so badly wrong. They are sickened by it and want to make up for their error.

  29. #1497 & #1509 – Diog, its’ 4 amigos now vs 30. it’s never bother us. when you’ve been to hell and back with these Obamabots here. The larger the odd, the better we perform.

    I dont hate Obama, you cannot hate someone you dont know. And we dont know him. i will support him when i know him better. but so far, what we have learnt are not exactly politically re-assuring. As i said many times, i will support him if he can prove that he can win in Nov. Beside, Obama and I have a lot in common.

    I support Hillary because i think she is a woman and a stronger candidate, and the time is not right for Obama. His entrance has disturbed the harmony. If he’s been a little more patience, he’ll be POTUS for 2012, and 2016 and the Dems will have 12 years of rule. As now, it’s 50-50 in Nov. the mandate from heaven has been violated.

    i doubly support her because i dont think she deserves the kind of hate and bagging she got here at PB. Nobody deserves that. She has her faults and flaws, but she is not as bad as she has been made out to be.

    i tq for your considerate comments.

  31. #1517 – Catrina – [reinforces my assumption that Eddy, GG, and The Finns just need attention] – you are suffering the Warwick Fairfax Jr syndrome. as i said to jen, i got the remedy if you say the magic word.

  33. 1521
    Enemy Combatant Says:
    May 18th, 2008 at 8:32 pm
    I HUNT & I VOTE , !!
    ……
    he looks like GG on speed

  36. 1534
    Greeensborough Growler Says:
    May 18th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
    “Catrina @ 1504….Cop a bit of reasoned criticism and you pull out the abuse card!”

    Abuse doublegee? Not really. More like mild invective. Exasperation perhaps? Almost certainly irritation. And you are an itch in the earhole during a good conversation, doublegee. You’re the mormon at the door when lunch is being served.

  37. Diogenes

    Don’t even attempt to mount the case that Hillary Clinton is sorry for her vote for the Iraq War. She is not. And has stated she is not.

    Further, she has also voted recently to give G.W. Bush the right to start the next War. With Iran.

    Type : “clinton vote iran resolution” into google.

    She is a vital cog in the War Party than consists of Republicans and Democrats.

    Don’t try and misrepresent that she just made a mistake re Iraq.

  38. 1505 MayoFeral: I don’t completely buy that theory. Yes the luftwaffe was stronger than British airforce in 1938, but not decisively so. German armor was not at it’s peak either. The advantage that allies might have had in 1938 is that they could have waged a 2 front war on Germany which Józef Pi?sudski proposed in 1933 after Hitler came to power. Of course that premise was based on the French having a will to fight …

  39. HarryH

    I know that!!

    I was just trying to show Jen that you could make a half plausible excuse for her. Why is everyone so jumpy!

  40. Dio

    There is NO excuse for Hillarys war stances…unless you want to forgive Bush and his mob as well.

    Her intent is clear. She is doing the bidding of her backers and that is exactly why it is important for Obama to win this nomination and then the Presidency.

  41. From moonshine to bourbon; will a gal be gettin’ lucky in Kentucky or is she a wannabe Louisville (s)Lip?
    http://www.truthdig.com/cartoon/item/20080513_shadow_boxing/

    “As Clinton wrapped up a speech on the porch of a farmhouse in Bath, S.D., one day this week, 85-year-old Roy Heintzman said as he walked away: “I hope she’s got an ace up her sleeve. She’s going to need it.”
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/17/you-dont-quit-until-you-f_n_102279.html

  42. Hi Diogenes,

    This blog is becoming more and more like those American TV shows where participants reveal that they are their own grandfather.

    1. Ultimately, the Iraq War was, is and will continue to be about oil. Hardly a revelation. Paddy O’Rourke summed it up perfectly when he said it would have been better to pay ten times the going rate, rather than try to steal it.
    2. Yes Hillary voted for the war based on information that was available to her at the time. Bad call, probably but most others went along.
    3. Obama did not. Obama was not in the Senate at that time. So neither did he vote against the Iraq War when it was declared.
    4. Obama made a speech about not supporting the war. However, when pressed about how he would have voted, replied that “he was not sure”.
    5. Significant difference or just politicking? Certainly, doesn’t justify the Jen hysterics.
    6. 2008 is about how you get out. Hillary’s tougher approach appeals to me. (Peace through strength!)
    7. Iraq although an issue, is not nearly as important in the mindset of the US voters as many on this blog site believe.
    8. Americans believe they are the great world power and any politicians that prick that balloon won’t win. New politics, new way etc is code for appeasement (watch the Republican attack dogs).

    Now that should bring in the flying monkeys of moral outrage.

    Cheers all.

  43. The one thing a politician and a Party must do is get the balance right about lying to their constituents but having them not really care or hate you for it.

    The Republican Party have completely crossed this line to the point where a proportion above 50% won’t vote for them in any circumstance.

    That is why either Obama or Clinton would beat them in Nov.

    However there is also a Dem nomination race decided by Dem voters.

    Hillary should have won this easily, but she didn’t. She didn’t because with the base of the Party she also crossed the line of acceptability, in large part to her deception and support for the massive, blatant lie that is the Iraq War.

    That is why Obama got a foothold in this race.

    The rest is history.

  44. HH, Clinton is not a principle sort of politician, at least not by my watching of her. OK, she may have some left of centre philosophical attachments, but within a certain range, it’s do what it takes.

    Her handling of Iraq at the beginning was a fine example of this. She didn’t want to be tarred the ‘peacenik’ chick of the Democratic party, and so, without even reading the ‘evidence’ thoroughly (on her own admission), handed GWB what a lot thought was the power to start a war with Iraq.

    Now of course, she will not repudiate that stand, except with some weaseling about ‘if I knew then etc’, but she will not because she’s smart enough to know that public opinion can turn, so she wants to be able to move in either direction.

    If say, the ‘surge’ had coincided with the flowering of democracy in Iraq and it becoming the cradle of moderation, she would have owned her earlier decision. As it is, she can sit astride the whole thing and take shots at Bush for doing a lousy job, which he has on anyone’s reckoning, or congratulate General Petraeus for his sterling efforts without being seen as ‘conflicted’.

    In other words, a politician.

    Obama’s made a clear stand against the war from woe to go, and has been consistent about his principle of not starting wars in countries that haven’t attacked you.

    I’m with Jen on this issue. Being half-pregnant is only possible if you’re an unprincipled polly looking out for your next poll result. Otherwise an oxymoron.

  45. “…New politics, new way etc is code for appeasement (watch the Republican attack dogs)….”

    I left my moral outrage at the door, but think the “appeasement” line is well and truly discredited. The public don’t trust the Republicans – especially the more vocally Bushite variety – on security and defense. And why would they? The Republicans have completely messed things up. What are voters going to do? Punish the Repubicans for their incompetence by re-electing them? Fraid not doublegee.

  46. Dio at 1539: “Why is everyone so jumpy!”

    As Harry says at 1537, “Further, she has also voted recently to give G.W. Bush the right to start the next War. With Iran.”

    Dio, some folk get mighty touchy about stuff like that. In the Iraq Fiasco which HRC has been an unabashed shill from the get go, according to the esteemed Medical Journal, Lancet, an awful lot of innocent men women and children have been needlessly maimed and slaughtered. Not sure of the exact figure, perhaps you could help us out here?

    http://www.truthdig.com/cartoon/item/20080515_best_foot_forward/

  47. I dont give much credence to the whole Obama/war thing. If he had of been in Congress and voted against it, then it would count.

    I started being a Hillary fan but I prefer Obama because he has impressed me more as candidate and Hillary’s tactics have been quite grubby

    One of the factors no-one is mentioning in terms of Obama is the “He’s not Hillary” factor. I think there is a far degree of “anyone but Hillary/ a Clinton” out there.

    And I know I’ve broken my promise and read a Finns post but this “i doubly support her because i dont think she deserves the kind of hate and bagging she got here at PB”. Youve GOT to be joking…You use the anti-PB opinion to decide who to support? Using this theory, I should have supported Howard and should now start supporting Nelson

  48. “….Ultimately, the Iraq War was, is and will continue to be about oil…”
    ……
    I’m not so sure. I thought it was more visceral, even monarchical or medieval – a war of revenge and pride; a demonstration of sheer, irresistable power; a rejection of the very ideas of restraint and law and forebearance and the exercise of a new doctrine: pre-emptive attack.

    George Bush was trying to place himself above justice, law and the principle of limited power. It is not yet clear whether he’s won or lost.

  49. I think you can safely say he’s lost. Even if Iraq had some connection to 9/11 and even if WMDs had of been found, the pre-emptive invasion against the UN was still wrong

  50. The discussion about why Hillary supporters here have behaved they way they have has been interesting. Quite apart from the high level of personal abuse, the most annoying thing (as with the Howard Huggers last year) is the level of the denial and the inability to accept the figures/ reality of the contest. We have been told repeatedly that Hillary would win, despite all evidence to the contrary, without any intelligent discussion of how or why

Comments are closed.

Comments Page 31 of 35
1 … 30 31 32 … 35