*IF* Hillary gets the nod, how long until some DUers start accusing her of stealing the primary?

is in my opinion polarizing. Seems you are trying to defend Sen Clinton before she is accused. I don't think this is the way to win over HRC doubters.

I have to wonder if some of the haters on here are really Democrats/progressives or trolls

It is so counterproductive and childish. I'm amazed at some of the things I read on this board. There are some people who have legitimate issues with many candidates. According to some of their supporters this can not be discussed.

Sometimes I think this is high school and we are electing a class president.

The Hillary camp is most tolerant. Even people who don't like her have to respect that her
followers don't bounce people out of the blogs for cfriticizing her.
I
The Obama guys can dish it out, but will get people thrown out of liberal blogs for
criticizing him.

But here I don't see the HRC camp has being more tolerant.

:rofl:

If she wins, she wins. If she wins, she gets my vote, though she's done painfully little, IMO, to have earned it. If she were a more inspiring candidate, her cheering section on DU would post much better threads.

Beyond that, blah blah blah. Carry on with whatever you think you're doing for your candidate...

Be brave, O stalwart innocents!

with HRC having a statistically-significant lead in Iowa. Should that not be the case, they'll probably wait until merely a few days beforehand. Rather than post outright declarations of theft, they'll post evidence of "irregularities" and six-degrees-of-separation threads between HRC and various pollsters and state officials. Should HRC lose, those will be forgotten. Should she win, they will be referenced as "proof" she stole it.

However, such actions will probably be those of only a small but vocal minority. The overwhelming number of DUers, including myself, would greet her hypothetical nomination with mild disappointment, uncertainty as to the wisdom of choosing her, but resolve to see her win in November.

They'll be trotting over here with the latest smears for the next eight years. They're going to be almost as miserable as the wingers.

Some of the whining so far...

Media's candidate

Only popular because she's the best known

The word corporatist was created to define something/somewhere about her

The polls are all rigged

but what is meant by stealing? Kerry out maneuvered the Dean people without being on the radar both in the popular shift and the machinery used to get the caucus votes. That was not theft although adding up the "unfair" factors and the greenness of the sincere Dean boosters was great cause for bitterness. Edwards slipped in as second choice the same way to Dean's final disadvantage.

Now in Iowa, just comparing it to last time, what are the grounds for saying it is stolen? Hillary is granted openly a national front runner status that is not stealthily effecting the polls. her organization is given more scrutiny- now- and any cause for complaints are there now if you think they violate the peculiar rules of the caucus contest. If anyone is stealing anything it is media interference
in voters' choice and lack of media coverage of what exactly is going on in the machinery strategy overall. Despite the isolation from fair knowledge there is nothing sneaky or surprising about what is currently happening. Doubtless, in the aftermath, the intrepid media gets to decide how to postmortem the losers' campaigns and begin diminishing the winner as a simply more clever tactician and continue pimping a public wave of opinion according to media spin.

Money and organization will likely never be more equal than here, where Hillary does not want to be caught overspending toward a poor showing and where the "competitors" will have to dare to spend and work hard. The only question is how immune the native Iowan is from all the intense influences and then, how it comes to its popular decisions, and then, how it was molded into the caucus process by each campaign.

Maybe someone, for the benefit of the many puzzled by the fairness of the caucus process itself in the most significant first test for ANY semblance of democracy leading up to a contest, not an election, against tyranny and fraud in 2008, someone, anyone, can tell us what unfairness a candidate COULD be guilty of and what form it would take?

I imagine it would be fair to exclude stump speeches and ad blips and traditional maneuvers from the serious complaints? The single most blunder/unfairness to me is that the DNC has taken no hint that they should even try to immunize the people against a biased and hostile media interference. In the long run it hurts every candidate severely.

We've been transported to High School Musical.

Beam me up Scotty.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

"Do not say that you are hitting the alert link to report another member. You are permitted to tell someone that you are adding them to your ignore list, provided that you actually do so."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html

Kinda says something about the mindset, don't you think?

D) They believe that she's already stolen the primary.


:rofl::rofl::rofl:

Many people I talk to seem to think that Hillary2008 is a foregone conclusion...

...not to mention that the MSM seem to have already made THEIR choice...but then, the media isn't the delagates, either...

Just incase she wins, I'm gonna have it ready to post on every "Hillary stole the primary!!" thread.

I love this poll.

:toast:

especially 2000. I thought only republicans use the "if you think the results are suspect, you are a loony lefty tactic" Who would of figured DUer's would get so tasteless and nasty?

No kidding. If only the rest of DU used your threads as the example of kindness and empathy for everyone to follow, we'd all be so warm and fuzzy with each other from here on in. :evilgrin:

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

quit trying to start trouble

if that's what you are asking.

:rofl::rofl::rofl: