There are groups growing out of feelings of disenfranchisement on the part of Hillary Clinton supporters. One of those groups is PUMA: Party Unity My Ass. Read more about it and see a video below.
Former Hillary Clinton supporters are mad and aren’t going to take it anymore. There are several groups of these Hillary Clinton supporters that are vowing they will not vote for Barack Obama no matter what. They are saying they will vote for John McCain instead.
The primary source of their discontent seems to be that their votes are not counted in the democratic party. Who can blame them? Personally, I was wondering when someone was going to notice that the superdelegate system was set up for precisely that purpose. You know, if the party elite doesn’t like the way the people vote, they can just throw the votes out and put in the nominee they wanted to begin with. Kinda like they did during this election cycle.
I know it must have been excruciatingly painful for the party elite to have people find out about their system this time around. I keep wondering how much xanax and tums Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi are having to take these days as they watch their party drawn and quartered under their leadership and because of decisions they have made.
Part of the problem is that the democratic party has been hijacked by the far left wing. It appears that they seriously think they can win an election by tossing aside loyal democrats and ‘building a new coalition’ of core supporters for the democratic party. I guess that about says it all. If you have been a loyal democrat for the last dozen generations then you really don’t matter to them anymore. Barack Obama has made it pretty clear that his vision of HOPE and CHANGE has to do with changing the basic core of the democratic party. He has stated that he’s building a new coalition that includes the liberal elite, college students and the black communities. Period. The rest would be nice, but are disposable.
There’s also a group that’s called, ‘Say No to BO’. HA!
It looks like Howard Dean hasn’t quite gotten the party unified just yet. Here Howard, have another tums.
UPDATE: Yes there is anger:
The problem is the party itself. 2008 was the year that the party abandoned its principles. It is no longer the party of FDR and shared responsibility. Now, it is the party of wannabe rich libertarian Democrats. It is the party of the Ariana Huffingtons who, dissatisfied with her own party, have decided to steal someone else’s. It isn’t the party that nearly elected Bobby Kennedy. It is the party that is about to write off Appalachia. Good riddance, poor working people! You’re on your own now. It isn’t the party that made social security sacred. It is the party that might very well start tinkering with it …
The former democratic party base has taken to calling the new democratic party base ‘neo-liberals’:
…. Obama’s tactics have made him an unacceptable alternative to Hillary, and many of us will be voting for McCain, writing in Hillary, or staying home.
As Hillary continues to increase her popular vote lead and absolutely crush Obama in critical states, many are looking at a potential Obama nomination as a coup d’état similar to Florida in 2000, facilitated by the neo-liberal-Dean wing of the Party, African American power brokers, and the Clinton-hating media.
UPDATE #2 Apparently our political system is confusing to our cousins across the pond. Which reminds me, do you think that the democratic party is going the way of the Whig party and other defunct parties in American history? Is it fractured to the point that it will be difficult for it to survive? Will Obama have his way and create an entirely different party out of the remnants of what was once the democratic party? If so, and they continue to call themselves democrats, what happens to the disenfranchised? What happens to the working class who have depended on unions and social services? Will they become Republicans?
Just wondering what y’all think about that.
7.23.2008 UPDATE #3 PUMA is in the news again. They are angry and organizing. There are an estimated 250 PUMA-related Web sites and 2.5 million PUMAs online. Their stated goal is to Hillary Clinton reinstated as their candidate. They say they feel the nomination was rigged to get Obama nominated. The group is stalking Obama and meeting in preparation for the DNC Convention in Denver next month.
I hope everyone has their popcorn ready for the show. The Democratic National Convention should be quite a show this year. And the beat goes on …..
Party Unity My Ass – Video
Photo source: Pat Dollard
June 9th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
As I’ve noted numerous times now, when Bush beat McCain in 2000, polls showed that half of McCain supporters wouldn’t vote for Bush. In the end, most of them did.
Before last Tuesday, Rasmussen showed that 70% of Democrats would vote for Obama. As of today, it’s up to 81%, about normal for a Democratic nominee. And for all this talk about Obama having trouble attracting women, Rasmussen noted today that Obama is doing better among women than John Kerry. He leads overall among women nationally 52-40, and he’s currently up 48-40 among all voters according to Rasmussen.
June 10th, 2008 at 4:58 am
Excuse me, but do “the people” (apparently SD’s aren’t included) have a constitutional right to pick a party’s candidate? In my view, the parties hold primaries because it’s the best way to gauge electability, but they don’t have to consult the people at all. The people aren’t consulted about who’s running in the primaries to begin with. Unless there’s some law I don’t know about.
And is it better the way the republicans do it, winner-take-all? So the party forecloses on a candidate even when others are receiving huge vote tallies? At least the dems have the guts to let it play out. Not to mention, the winner-take all system increases the chances of a popular vote/delegate discrepancy.
June 10th, 2008 at 5:07 am
My pet squid, Alvin Johnson, was barking at me last night. He was angry because I forgot to buy his favorite brand of sardines (King of Norway). But he eventually fell asleep and all was quiet again.
June 10th, 2008 at 6:29 am
Wait, what? Over 80% of Democrats support Barack Obama. There’s no problem. Of course people are angry that Clinton wasn’t nominated, but they both agreed to the rules of the process and Obama was properly nominated. Democrats are uniting behind Obama. What the hell is all this about?!
June 10th, 2008 at 7:05 am
Obama is that kid we all knew & disliked in High School because he thought he was better than everyone else.
I am a conserative Democrat!
I’ll write in Hillary or vote Libertarian.
June 10th, 2008 at 9:00 am
A bunch of unelected superdelegates selected Obama. He didn’t even win the popular vote in his own party!
Slogan:
“Obama: Selected not elected”
June 10th, 2008 at 9:05 am
I know how the dems like to redefine words, but for the time being democracy is still defined as:
1 a: government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
June 10th, 2008 at 10:17 am
James: good call, vote according to your disliking the candidate’s personality. It’s that same knee-jerk ignorance that killed gore and kerry, to the detriment of the country.
Beth and Mccain: you two represent the worst of the conservatives on this site because you’re full of hyperbole and attacks, short on well-considered ideas. Obama did not lose the popular vote. As has been mentioned many times, the popular vote cannot be tallied because of the mixed primary/caucus system. So let me not see that argument from you again. 2, Beth — tell me where it’s written that a political party has to hold elections to decide on a nominee. We vote for presidents, not for presidential candidates (the latter is a privilege, not a right). If you disagree with me there, I’ll argue this: the fact that our presidential elections are monopolized by two parties is entirely UN-democratic; the relative fairness inherent in those parties choosing a candidate is entirely secondary.
June 10th, 2008 at 10:30 am
I think I represent the best of conservatives so liar liar, pants on fire, and neener neener on you. You think anyone who disagrees with you (like James) is “ignorant.” What you are is a person without an argument who wants to shut everyone up. So grow up and deal with dialog.
Obama did lose the popular vote. Hillary said so herself, so don’t lump her in with the worst of conservatives. Idiot.
I actually agree with most of your second paragraph, which is a long-winded way of agreeing that Obama was selected, not elected.
June 10th, 2008 at 10:48 am
Apparently our political system is confusing to our cousins across the pond. Which reminds me, do you think that the democratic party is going the way of the Whig party and other defunct parties in American history? Is it fractured to the point that it will be difficult for it to survive? Will Obama have his way and create an entirely different party out of the remnants of what was once the democratic party? If so, and they continue to call themselves democrats, what happens to the disenfranchised? What happens to the working class who have depended on unions and social services? Will they become Republicans?
Beth, the GOP senate committee has defined “holding 41 seats” as the mark of success this fall.
Seriously, I have to wonder what you are smoking.
June 10th, 2008 at 10:50 am
A bunch of unelected superdelegates selected Obama. He didn’t even win the popular vote in his own party!
McCain, more than half of GOP primary voters voted AGAINST John McCain this primary season. Roughly 25% of Republican voters continued to vote against him even AFTER he clinched enough delegates to win the nomination.
Instead of pushing desperate spin that even you can’t possibly believe, you need to look at the problems within the GOP and figure out how you can fix them. The GOP isn’t going to win this election by trying to scare folks about Obama. We’ve all seen what Bush has brought us these last 7 1/2 years.
June 10th, 2008 at 10:55 am
mccain — I tend to match my responses to the statements that provoked them. A lot of what you and beth do is essentially to say, “liberals are losers! look — here’s a liberal doing some liberal thing! How stupid! what a loser!” That’s not dialogue.
And I don’t think everyone who disagrees with me is ignorant. I didn’t call james ignorant, in fact, I called his comment ignorant. I said it’s ignorant to not vote for someone just because you don’t like that person’s personality. It’s kind of like saying, Einstein was an a**hole so I’m not gonna believe in his theory.
June 10th, 2008 at 11:09 am
Oh I see psynoir. People who disagree with you aren’t ignorant. It’s what they say that is ignorant. Got it now, thanks. That sounds like supporting the troops without supporting the mission, as only Orwellian-speaking liberals can do.
Bob, I’m not interested in fixing problems within the GOP party, but thanks for the encouragement. I’ll leave that to Republicans.
Bob, if you think telling the truth about Obama scares people, then I suggest that you have “selected” the wrong candidate. The Dems should have gone with the will of the voters so that people are presented with stronger choices this Fall.
So back to the point of this thread, I think these Democrats are joining the PUMA movement because they feel ripped off. They feel Obama was sexist and dismissive of Hillary and stole the election from the voters. No?
June 10th, 2008 at 11:19 am
“The GOP isn’t going to win this election by trying to scare folks about Obama. We’ve all seen what Bush has brought us these last 7 1/2 years.”
No matter what you are saying or what the point is.
Make sure you always end it with a jab at Bush.
June 10th, 2008 at 11:19 am
Two different issues mccain. 1 = ignorance of the person. 2 = ignorance of the statement. for instance, your misinterpretation of my point was ignorant. That doesn’t make you ignorant, but if you keep doing it, over and over again, then it does make you ignorant. Thanks for allowing me to clarify my point.
And stop saying the dems didn’t go with the will of the voters! Do you honestly think that Obama would have received ZERO votes in michigan?! This is more misleading hyperbole, and yes, ignorance. I suppose you think the dems should have picked hillary — sure, THAT would have smoothed things over.
Yes, some Dems feel ripped off, just like the majority of US citizens who voted for al gore felt ripped off in 2000. But I don’t think they feel that the election was “stolen,” just that it was very very close and it was unfair that the pundits seemed to want hillary to quit early. This whole PUMA thing is a big red herring. I’ll bet you right now, McCain, that by November, this will be a non-issue, in that it won’t prevent Obama from winning. Whaddya say? I’m already up 1 credibility point vs Bryan (assuming hillary doesn’t decide to fight at the convention).
June 10th, 2008 at 11:42 am
Thanks for interesting nuances of ignorance, Orwell. So is Obama ignorant, or are just his statements ignorant about chit chatting with terrorists?
Many think Obama stole the election through the caucus system. If the Dems had held democratic primaries in those states, he would be much farther behind in the popular vote, so this issue is about much more than Michigan. FYI we are talking about 2008, not 2000.
June 10th, 2008 at 11:55 am
No problem. I’ll be happy to enlighten you any time you want. Obama’s statement in an early debate about meeting with dictators sans preconditions was an ignorant statement. His revision of that policy, to me, amounts to an improvement. I don’t think he ever said anything about “chit-chatting” with terrorists, but rather, engaging in formal and direct diplomacy with heads of states. From a psychological point of view, this makes a lot of sense. Enemies are much more likely to come to agreements when there is a modicum of tolerance and respect shown between parties. This is the antithesis of the cowboy diplomacy that bush made the hallmark of his terrible administration (even though we thought he was so psychologically astute — after all, he looked into putin’s eyes and got a sense of his soul, saw him to be trustworthy — ha!).
Obama didn’t invent the caucus system, so he can’t have stolen anything. But boy did he know how to play given the rules as they existed. You might be right that he would have lost the popular vote, had one existed. But it doesn’t exist, so the point is moot, and I hope we can drop it because of that.
Out of curiosity, how did you guys feel in 2000? Were you whining about fairness and democracy then, when the electoral system failed to elect the person with the most votes? Oh, I forgot, we’re not talking about 2000. How convenient. I guess I just thought it was an apt comparison.
June 10th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
Obama stole nothing, popular vote tallies only matter for public perception.
Hillary Clinton leads in popular vote if and only if you discount 4 states entirely because vote counts aren’t distributed and you give Obama a 0 in Michigan. If that argument makes sense to you then, well, I’m glad you’re not a superdelegate.
I will agree on one point, that one party will go the way of the Whigs, and that will be the losing party of this election. I just disagree with which one it will be.
It will be the R’s that have to change if they want to be relevant again. The R’s policies will need to become more transparent and liberal to include these dissaffected working class people.
June 10th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Okay that’s precious. We are agreed that Obama makes ignorant statements, but disagree about whether or not his ignorant statements confer ignorance upon him. Something tells me that’s another facet of moral relativism that makes sense to a few of you.
I’m not whining about fairness and democracy (“you guys”??). This is a news article about Democrats that we are discussing. I am simply pointing out the obvious, which is that Democrat whining about fairness is due to a feeling that the election was stolen by a minority of Democrats in the party. And they have a good point, emotions aside. So although you Obamaheads want to polarize all thought as an “us vs. them” thing, we are talking about Democrats vs. Democrats. You think they are ignorant, fine. FYI isn’t Obama suppose to be a uniter not a divider?
June 10th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
I can make up magical what if’s also, what if the democratic nominating contest’s rules were changed to only include states able to vote in the GE because it is fooling voters to believe they can vote in the GE, highly un-democratic, Obama then retains his lead in popular vote, which means nothing because only delegates matter.
Hypothetical ‘what ifs’ are way off-base and have no business in a discussion of facts. All they’re being used for is a republican talking point to sway voter opinion, hence the clips to Fox News.
What if, Hillary Clinton showed good judgement and leadership qualities and chose a head of her campaign that knew the rules and had actually planned to campaign in caucus states?
June 10th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
I wish I could perform psychology on the guys who want to kill me.
It also makes sense that if you kill them they cant mess with you any more.
Even a good slap upside the head has been proven to be fruitful.
All the agreements and a$$ kissing in the last 50 years did us a lot of good now, didnt it ?
The only problem is that there is no “tolerance” on the part our enemies.
This is what the left continues to fail to see.
And the last 50 years provides abundant evidence of this shortsighted and ignorant trait held by the left.
June 10th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
Micky, you’re mixing apples (Muslim nations) and oranges (extremist-Muslim nations).
Will anyone, let alone Obama get any use out of speaking with extremist Muslims? Not unless you immediately claim Allah as your God and Muslim your religion.
Iran is not run by Ahmadinejad (who, more signs than not point to as extremist) they are run by Ayatollah, who is much more conservative, Ahmedinejad is a figure head…image Bush minus CIC and without veto power. What would be the problem in sitting down with them, if only to find out in an open dialogue, what they want?
June 10th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Micky, you’re such a lunatic. I just know there’s a storied history of mental illness and instability in your family. What a** kissers are you talking about over the last 50 years? We’ve mostly had republican presidents, a**hole! Sorry, I broke my vow again not to engage you. I fell off the wagon…it’s just too tempting.
Our enemies are intolerant of us PARTLY because we’ve been intolerant of them. At least, it doesn’t help to take the attitude you take. Thank God you’re on an island in the middle of the pacific, and nowhere near washington DC.
Mccain, let me give you a lesson on relativism: It’s the foundation of reality. Maybe you’ve heard of Einstein’s theory (it’s kinda famous). I don’t think many people would agree that 1 ignorant statement, or even 2 or 3, renders someone ignorant. I know that your dichotomous brain twitches at the thought that there might be grey areas to reality, that it’s not all either-or, but I have sad news for you: people don’t fall cleanly into “ignorant� and “non-ignorant� categories. It’s a continuum, like everything else, including physical reality (cf. quantum physics). The judgment itself is relative, compiled from independent measurements. Certainly if someone makes several dozen ignorant comments, I would begin to attribute the quality of ignorance to them, with full acknowledgment that they may be capable of non-ignorant statements. Clear as mud? I’ll keep trying if I have to.
As I’ve said many times before during these discussions, it wasn’t Obama who was doing the dividing, it was Hillary and operation chaos on the right. You’re about to see his ability to unite, if you didn’t already get the message from Iowa. This whole conversation will be a footnote in november. It just kills me that this “news� story is full of vitriol and obviously aimed at diminishing obama’s standing, when I didn’t hear conservatives complaining 8 years ago when democracy was usurped by an antiquated electoral system and a biased supreme court decision.
Beth, don’t bother moderating my earlier comment. I fixed it all up for you.
June 10th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/breaking/s_571996.html
What do you conservatives think of Ron Paul?
June 10th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Is Orwell ignorantly lumping all conservatives into one group for that question? Ron Paul is wrong on the war. Other than that, he’s just another congressman who decided to run for president. Got a lot of support from liberal moonbats. Give him that. Somehow I think this is a trick question so tell me what I am suppose to think of Ron Paul. And then back to the subject on the thread since you are off topic.