Originally posted by Schecter
well, one advantage is the low attention span of voters
But this point, a valid one, is where my argument fails. I always assume people are paying attention and realize their own self-interest. I always fail when I assume the intelligence of the "other guy".
If voters could be swayed by a protracted nomination proccess, then the few months remaining after the dem nominee has been chosen would render my point moot. And, perhaps this is why Cinton calls Obama "elitist" when he doesn't speak down to people. He doesn't speak in 3 to 5 word sentences, so he's told that uneducated whites don't like him. If Clinton were paying attention to her own campaign, she'd realize the "change" on which Obama is running is only actually being addressed by Obama himself. She plays by old rules, by old methods, which only actually serve to illustrate her lack of consideration towards the very demographic she professes to appeal. And she does, %50 of the time, apparently. It isn't that I dislike Clinton, it's that I dislike the low rode she's chosen to walk coupled with her choice to do so. People always talk about "the party" suffering. But, who gives a shit about the super-delegates, which make up the party? Super-delegates don't have to worry about ramen noodles going up 10 cents a package; super-delegates (read any ****ing delegate for that matter) don't have to worry about banks being allowed to screw them over when their mother transfers funds to his bank account. (notice I don't mention gas prices: that's because super delegates, congressmen and senators don't have to worry about gas prices. But, gas prices effect practically every industry that serves the regular consumer that is more than a mile away from it's production site.)
What strikes me more than anything, is when democrats tear themselves apart over the idea that one candidate (and both sides think it's theirs) is going to "liberate" us from the burden of corporate theocracy. Ron Paul wasn't going to do it (he actually wanted to hand the country to them) Obama isn't going to do it, Hillary won't and neither will Johnny "I don't like torture" McCain. Members of the democratic party needn't worry about what the news says when they say that Clinton supporters won't back Obama when he gets the nod, as neither do Obama supporters being told the same. What has been seen are huge numbers of new democrat voters as well as huge numbers of people switching their party lines. The republicans are toast. That's not in question. And if I were a high tier conspiracy theorist, I'd say getting the democrats to hate each other were a masterstroke idea. But, they won't. Supporters of both candiadtes on teh democratic side have openly, and in my experiencce, said they would support either if they were given a choice between Obama and McCain or Clinton and McCain. I'd like to see one democrat on this board claim they wouldn't vote for Hillary over McCain.
The whole ****ing system needs to be torn down and rebuilt. But, in leiu of that, I'll vote for the candidate that will do the least damage to me; at least until the guillotine is reinvented.