![]() |
NAVIGATION
|
True test of a candidate: Can you convince 55% of voters to support you if given no other choice?By Nick, Section News
The votes have all been counted and the dust is beginning to settle. And as far as the left is concerned it's time to let the spin begin! As you read your local paper today expect to find stories about an exultant Hillary Clinton, thrilled Hillary supporters and activists and her momentum heading into South Carolina and the casino-caucuses in Nevada. Remember that the Clinton machine is one built upon an almost other-worldly (apologies to Dem hero Denny Kucinich) ability to spin (no, I don't mean like a UFO). But as you read all of that don't jump too quickly over the reports of the final voting tallies.
Once the dust settled Hillary Clinton took Michigan by outpolling "Uncommitted" 55 to 40! In a primary in which everyone knew going to the ballot-box that they could pick Hillary or nobody 236,723 Michigan Democrats went to the polls, took a Dem primary and checked the box for the phantom stranger. Watching her performance as the night went along was like watching a stone sink. First she was at 70, then it was 67. 66. 65. 62. 55?! Oh, but that's not shocking. Except that it is. Talk about barely escaping with your life. Or, if you're a Hillary stalwart talk about how great it is that you can convince 55% of the people to vote for you if they have no other choice. Read on...
Exhibit 1, the Detroit News:
Former Michigan Gov. James Blanchard, a leading proponent for Clinton in Michigan, said he was "ecstatic" about the results.
"This is a nice springboard to win Michigan in November," Blanchard said. "Anything above 50 (percent) I'd be happy with...
David Rohde, political science professor at Duke University, said the exit poll numbers indicate Clinton met expectations.
"If uncommitted wins, it doesn't look so good. But this result doesn't mean much," said Rohde, who specializes in presidential elections. "It's hard to sell as anything more than what was expected." So Jennifer Granholm's BFF expected that she'd barely squeeze out a win against a ghost. Got it. Keep shining that stuff, guys. Maybe eventually someone will buy it. And about that springboard into winning Michigan in November, that's not all that likely if Clinton continues to flip Michigan the bird and avoid us like we have some sort of economic plague (call it granholmanddillonacacus). And that's not just me talking. From the mouth of the left, the Ivory Tower
And she said she won't vote Democratic in November, either.
"I believe we should have representation, and I believe my vote should count. And I don't think it will with the Democrats," said Emmert, a glassblower artist. "I can't imagine any Democratic voter would allow the party to exclude them from the electoral process..."
(Debbie Dingell) said Republican candidates now have set the bar to discuss issues that affect the auto industry -- and the Democratic nominee will have to do likewise.
"Democrats are going to have to fight for Michigan. They can't take Michigan for granted now," Dingell said. Too late for that I'm afraid. They've been taking us for granted for the last half-year while Republican candidates have swarmed the State repeatedly. Folks like Kimberly Emmert give me some small ray of hope in all of this lefty darkness. I was seriously starting to wonder whether or not there was a single Democrat in the State who was willing to put Michigan before their personal partisan political hackery. If the FREEP is willing to identify one there've got to be more, right? Maybe not many more, though. We know there aren't any in the House Democrat caucus or on staff with the Dems. The State is good enough to provide a paycheck but apparently it's not good enough to defend at the ballot box. Plus on election day you can just skip work and head out to the polls in another city to attempt to intimidate voters. The Grand Rapids Press has coverage of yesterday's reported shenanigans by Dem central staffers.
They debated with him over taxes, he said, then took his photograph. One of the men identified himself as a member of Dean's staff, he said.
"It was borderline intimidation," Taratuta said. He said he signed the petition...
Dean said none of them were members of his staff. Their job, he said, was to inform, not to intimidate. "The fact is, there's a lot of misinformation going out," Dean said, who added he wasn't aware they were taking photographs of petition signers. But what, no condemnation from Dean for the intimidation tactics? Shoving a camera into a voter's face while he or she signs a legal petition is galling and is certainly one serious form of intimidation. Imagine for a moment that it's election day 2008 and Republicans showed up to the polls in Detroit armed with cameras. Now imagine that as every voter approached the building one of these Republicians jumped in their way, started yelling at them and put a camera in their face snapping a photograph. Sounds like a recipe for national guard deployment, doesn't it? That sort of behavior would be tolerated for approximately five seconds before the blocker wound up beaten to a pulp, arrested or both. The Democrats? They come to Grand Rapids and do the exact same thing and it's no skin off Dean's nose. Not a word of condemnation or even concern for the integrity of the process. And there I go expecting consistency again. Someday I'll learn to suppress that particular urge.
True test of a candidate: Can you convince 55% of voters to support you if given no other choice? | 8 comments (8 topical, 0 hidden)
True test of a candidate: Can you convince 55% of voters to support you if given no other choice? | 8 comments (8 topical, 0 hidden)
|
|