|
|
|
|
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 4/23/2008 2:01:25 PM | | Simmah, I know Michigan has been hit SEVERELY in an economic sense, all sorts of automotive and manufacturing jobs have been relocated to Alabama and Mississippi. Essentially Michigan has been ravaged economically. Aren't Michiganders a fickle sort politically? Democrat and Republican governors? Michigan has voted for Democrats in the last four presidential elections. Why should Michiganders in general believe McCain is better suited to fix economic conditions in Michigan than either Obama or Clinton?? That clearly isn't so. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 4/23/2008 2:02:34 PM | | I agree with SimmmahDahNah. Neither Obama nor Hillary have roots in Michigan, so there is no reason to think that Michigan voters would deviate from the way they have voted in the past (mostly Republican since the '80's. Hillary's "good intentions" wouldn't give her an advantage over McCain in the fall. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 4/23/2008 2:09:24 PM |
there is no reason to think that Michigan voters would deviate from the way they have voted in the past (mostly Republican since the '80's Incorrect, my sources indicate Michigan has voted blue in the last four presidential elections. If they don't deviate, they will vote Democratic. They voted for Bill Clinton twice. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 4/23/2008 2:19:12 PM |
Common misinterpretation up there.. That Clinton voted for the War!
She didn't vote for the war, she voted to allow this administration the authority to do what it believed was necessary in critical times to protect our homeland, due to the stated presence of WMD in Iraq, the fabricated threat, and the cooked intel which suggested Saddam was both targeting the USA, assembling nuclear weapons, and had a partnership in 9/11. All of which was complete hogwash!
She believed this administration could be trusted to do the right thing and should be able to act as necessary. The vast majority of Americans felt that way at the time too.
Those are very different things! Obama of course didn't vote for anything! He was a rookie state legislator at the time. He wasn't involved in it in any way. Had he been in an official federal position, there no way to know how he might have voted.
So comparing the two is just completely unrealistic.
Someone should ask how he would have voted....
If he were the Senator From NEW YORK???? Obama has always been against the War....
Next question ............ How it would feel to be a one term Senator....
. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 4/23/2008 2:25:32 PM | | Looks like you're right, Bikeman--I re-checked it. At any rate, the Michigan primary results should not count for Hillary (neither the popular vote nor seating of the delegates.) There's nothing she can do about that, now. A better case can be made for Florida; but in reality, Hillary is forestalling the inevitable. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 4/23/2008 2:30:44 PM | At any rate, the Michigan primary results should not count for Hillary (neither the popular vote nor seating of the delegates.) There's nothing she can do about that, now. A better case can be made for Florida; but in reality, Hillary is forestalling the inevitable.
So is Obama. The inevitable is that neither candidate will have enough delegates to win on the first ballot, so why not resign ourselves to letting the system work as designed? Release the delegates on subsequent ballots and let them decide, as they have done in the past. Why the pressure to declare a moral victor in advance and get the superdelegates to swing en mass to that candidate? | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 4/23/2008 2:31:10 PM | | I stand corrected. I just checked and in 2004 MI voted Kerry, and in 2000 they voted Gore. Maybe I just feel that way because of the way a lot of people really dislike our democratic governor. She has a tough job and had a huge mess to clean up when she took office. And yes, I know full well the economic hardships we've been experiencing....it's very disheartening to see this great state and the great people in it in such hardship. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 4/23/2008 6:18:20 PM |
"She's the one who's keeping this thing going.....her refusal to QUIT!"
-----Pat Buchanan
Everyone understands the obvious truth, Republicans and Democrats alike. At some point, the thing has to end so that the focus can get back to substantive issues (the economy, the Iraq war, etc.). There needs to be a presumptive Democratic nominee for the face-off in the Fall. The super-delegates should stop dÃcking around. Go ahead and make a choice, whether it be Obama or Hillary (it looks like it will be Obama, obviously. )
The primary system was never meant to be a circus sideshow. Let the super-delegates make their individual decisions based on what they've seen. They have more than enough information on both candidates to go ahead and wrap this thing up. Letting it limp all the way to June with Hillary running on empty and Obama scooping up the remaining states is pointless. Shut it down so that the focus on the legitimate race may begin.  | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 4/23/2008 6:40:46 PM |
Letting it limp all the way to June with Hillary running on empty and Obama scooping up the remaining states is pointless. Shut it down so that the focus on the legitimate race may begin.
Sure, if in fact we knew that Obama was going to scoop up the remaining states. We thought we knew he was going to do that after Super Tuesday. If Clinton wins half the remaining states, then wouldn't shutting it down be premature? | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 4/23/2008 8:10:34 PM | Superdelegates from states which have already held primaries or caucuses should feel comfortable declaring now. That would leave only the superdelegates from 8 states (and Puerto Rico) who might wish to wait until their states participate. Once the superdelegates from the 42 completed states declare, it will probably be evident that Hillary cannot get the intended result her camp is looking for. It's even possible that Obama could achieve the minimum S-D requirement right there.
She can't succeed. Time to move on. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 4/23/2008 9:23:16 PM | Spitfire said:
The primary system was never meant to be a circus sideshow. Let the super-delegates make their individual decisions based on what they've seen. They have more than enough information on both candidates to go ahead and wrap this thing up. Letting it limp all the way to June with Hillary running on empty and Obama scooping up the remaining states is pointless. Shut it down so that the focus on the legitimate race may begin.
How very annoying. It is exactly this attitude of yours that irritates me to the point of certainty that I wouldn't vote for Obama if he was the best person for the job of president (which he obviously isn't). There's an arrogance about Obama and about your attitude that I abhor and I definitely don't want to see it exhibited on a daily basis in my president.
Hillary Clinton is going to kick butt and take names all the way to that convention and those super delegates are going to wake up and see that Obama is a sure loser in November for the democratic party.
On the other hand, the fact is that either candidate is going to be crippled because of the divisive state of this party now and I don't believe that it's going to change come November. I think this primary season has been handled badly, especially by the supporters of Obama more than anyone else. As I've said before, had the Obama followers treated the Clintonites with some dignity and respect, the divisiveness might have not gone as deep nor festered as badly as it has now -- but the fact is that we aren't going to forget.
Hillary Clinton is the best person for the job, no matter how many delegates Obama has at the moment and no matter what the popular vote currently is. She won Penn and she will win Indiana and numerous others and I do believe she will be ahead in the popular vote by June. Then she needs to take the nomination and I believe the super's will back her. She damn well better not quit! She is clearly superior to Obama and the best candidate to lead this nation into the future.
Should we not have her as our nominee, I honestly cannot back the Democratic party at that point because I have little faith in it anymore if it actually chooses a man that cannot win against McCain who I have little respect for. Obama regularly puts his foot in his mouth and let's his mask slip and the real guy comes through. He is not an honest person. He is no better than any other professional politician. He's just a better actor in that he has managed to reel in the youth with his finely polished veneer but he is not right for the position of president of the United States of America and he will never get my vote. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 4/23/2008 9:33:47 PM | | That's funny, considering the very president that runs this country has been running on stupidity and arrogance for the last 8 years...at least. | |
|
| |
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 4/23/2008 9:40:55 PM |
That's funny, considering the very president that runs this country has been running on stupidity and arrogance for the last 8 years...at least.
I count 20. | |
|
| |
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 4/23/2008 10:48:41 PM |
On the other hand, the fact is that either candidate is going to be crippled because of the divisive state of this party now and I don't believe that it's going to change come November.
SouthernLass: that's why you need to stop being a "Clintonite" and start thinking about the best way to guarantee a good, long, general election process for the fall. That's all I'm thinking about. I said that the super-delegates should go ahead and immediately express whom they are endorsing. If you read my post carefully, I said that if some of them want to endorse Hillary, that's fine as long as we get this part of the process OVER with. Historically, any party which endures a long, divisive primary process loses the general election. There needs to be a presumptive nominee right now.
The only people who don't want the remaining super-delegates to declare their choice now are those people who are worried to death that their candidate cannot currently pass muster with the super-delegates. The remaining super-delegates don't need to see the last few primaries to declare for a candidate. They should do it now.
Here is a NY Times story on Hillary's tactics in this primary race:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/opinion/23wed1.html?ref=opinion | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 4/24/2008 7:01:58 AM | Superdelegates from states which have already held primaries or caucuses should feel comfortable declaring now...She can't succeed. Time to move on. I disagree, they should actually feel less comfortable should they make a decision now. Clearly the fate of the party and the presidency is in the hands of the superdelegates.
Actually I'd guess the concept of Democratic party superdelegates is to correct if possible the party nominee should there be no clear consensus yet an unelectable candidate appears to have marginal support versus a more electable candidate. That's clearly what is going on here. The superdelegates don't need to declare their affiliation until the convention. Now some of them might due to pressures from their local constituencies. But Hillary is counting on most of them making a responsible decision should she enter the convention behind in delegates. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 4/24/2008 9:51:36 AM | There needs to be a presumptive nominee right now.
Absolutely Not!
What needs to happen is all of the participating voters in the primaries need to be heard and counted, and no one, but no one, including you and I, should be left out of the process. To presume how things may turn out, and just take a guess in advance, is irresponsible, shorting what voters are still out there to be counted. And that includes Florida and Michigan. But Mr Obama refuses to agree to settle that little two-state problem in any fair way, because he's quite sure he can't possibly win that way.
Some say Clinton can't win in any reasonable way. Well, to a degree that's true, But what isn't considered is, neither can Obama! Any solution for either candidate will require SuperDelegates.
I'd say the NYTimes shot themselves in the foot with that little Clinton-Bashing article. They are after all, supporting her in the primary. That article makes them look pretty silly. Clearly one of their editorial writers is outside the fold, and has no problem embarassing then newspaper. Of course he very well may be looking for another job in the near future.
Naturally most Obama followers want to end this ASAP, not for a fair conclusion, but because they would win, as it is right now. And they'll take a win, any way they can get it. But that's not the democratic way to resolve it. Counting and including everybody, is.
-Suth'nBoy
| |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 4/24/2008 10:00:01 AM |
But Mr Obama refuses to agree to settle that little two-state problem in any fair way
It already was. They screwed up, all agreed how to deal with it, and now the residents of those states need to deal with their own who screwed it up for them. If the shoe was on the other foot, don't think for a second that Hillary wouldn't say the exact same thing. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 4/24/2008 10:16:25 AM | Doesn't matter. We cannot disenfranchise two states and many millions of people. That solves nothing. The only reasonable solution, regardless of what candidate may be in favor either place, is to count those voters, one way or another. Otherwise, we will not have had a fair and balanced primary. It will be no better than the 2000 Presidential Elections.
If it were you who was removed from having your vote count for anything, you'd feel the same way they do. The voters didn't blow it. The party and the States did that.
But the bottom line is, even right now, neither candidate can possibly win without SuperDelegates. So why do we keep saying it is only Clinton who cannot win?
-Suth'nBoy
| |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 4/24/2008 10:30:12 AM | Oh, I agree Suthn. It stinks and is just a spotlight on how this country is so screwed up already and these are the people we are looking to to fix things.
The primaries weren't fair and balanced. The candidates agreed not to campaign in FL but one sneaks off in the 11th hour to do some more or less. Another state didn't have names on the ballot... implied UNCOMMITTED for sure but still it wasn't the due and clear process. I think a big issue that reflects on all of us really is that the majority of people that voted didn't even know what was going on until afterwards.
And the problem now is that because it goes to the Superdelegates in Denver, it is the 2000 election all over again. This is not going to be an equitable and unifying situation at all. Practically half of the party is going to pissed and feel as though they were robbed of their vote. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 4/24/2008 10:36:26 AM | Those two states 'disenfranchised' themselves... by going against the rules put out by the DNC... It's not Obama's fault, and Hillary didn't give a crap until after she realized she was actually (SHOCK!) going to have to run for the nomination rather than having it handed to her on a velvet pillow.
Since then the states have had opportunities to have 'make up' elections and they've balked at that option... so really, they are the only ones to blame for their predicament. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 4/24/2008 10:39:36 AM | Simlasa and Itechman are right. The bottom line is that the remaining super-delegates need to declare for a candidate right now. All of them.
Let's be clear. It doesn't benefit Hillary at all the longer this goes on. She consistently trends downward in most state polls over time. Even in states like Pennsylvania, where she ended up with a 10 point margin win, Hillary lost 10 points from what was a 20 point lead just a few weeks ago. The longer this goes on, the more traction she will lose from the initial buildup she had in 2007. That has been the consistent reality throughout the campaign. Hillary loses support and loses voting percentages everywhere she goes. Her lead diminished in Texas. Her lead diminished in Ohio. The only states where she maintained or increased her 2007 margins were in California and New York. She is slipping, not gaining, as the Democratic party moves forward toward the convention.
She tends to trend downward against Obama as time goes on.
The fair thing is for the remaining super-delegates to declare whom they are for right now. There really isn't anything left to consider. The candidates have had over 20 debates and countless public appearances. If the super-delegates in states yet to vote want to wait, that's OK. There are only 8 of those left. However, any super-delegate from a state which has already had its primary or caucus should immediately endorse a candidate. That will facilitate wrapping up this process quickly. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 4/24/2008 10:54:38 AM | The bottom line is that the remaining super-delegates need to declare for a candidate right now. All of them. Geez if you're in favor of changing party rules midstream, why not give Hillary the Michigan and Florida delegates while you're at it??? 
Her lead diminished in Ohio. Who won Ohio? Do you think Obama is going to win a November election without Ohio? It's got to be real troublesome for Obama that he couldn't convince registered Ohio Democrats to vote for him; how in the world is he expecting to convince Ohio Independents and Republicans to vote his way in November?
Hillary lost 10 points from what was a 20 point lead just a few weeks ago. I think it was shrewd on her part not to waste money in Pennsylvania on TV ads like Obama did.
She is slipping, not gaining, as the Democratic party moves forward toward the convention. Explain how earning a double-digit state primary victory could be considered "slipping".
She tends to trend downward against Obama as time goes on. Did she cut Obama's delegate lead this week? I'm not following the logic here.
The fair thing is for the remaining super-delegates to declare whom they are for right now. There really isn't anything left to consider. Sure this is lots to consider. The big picture. Concentrate on the forest instead of the trees.
That will facilitate wrapping up this process quickly. I'm not sure why the process should be quick, that sounds like recommending an incomprehensive, incomplete procedure over something that is well thought-out. That's like proclaiming Ignorance Is A Virtue. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 4/24/2008 10:59:34 AM | As stated previously, Absolutely not!!
Disregarding Florida and Michigan for the moment, to do anything such as guess on an end result, in advance, would be more than irresponsible. Even Howard Dean says so. He wants the SuperDelagates to register themselves, but not until the entire vote is in, and the primaries are over. He cleared that up two days ago.
I realize you want Obama to run with the ball, and you want Clinton out. A lot of Obama supporters would like that, and they are very vocal about it. But that doesn't make it fair or reasonable. This IS a democracy after all. What makes it fair and reasonable is for all voters to be counted. And that's how it's going to end up, because most of the uncommited SuperDelegates feel the same way.
They feel very commited to a true democratic process, and so do I. Hopefully this process will end up a lot cleaner than was the 2000 election.
-Suth'nBoy 
| |
|
|
| Page 26 of 98
|
12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52 |
|
Home
login 
