|
|
|
|
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 3/3/2008 5:33:52 PM | | I don't know why people are drawn to Obama. There isn't one piece of legislation that he has passed or pushed through to become law. He has accomplished nothing. Would someone please name one thing that Obama has successfully done while in the political arena? | |
|
| |
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 3/3/2008 5:50:55 PM |
Would someone please name one thing that Obama has successfully done while in the political arena?
Gotcha covered. He's successfully shown that a genuinely good person with a little class can also be a gifted politician.
 | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 3/3/2008 6:18:57 PM | Like the old joke about a two car road race.
Hillary's not losing, she's in 2nd place.
Obama's' running next to last. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 3/3/2008 8:14:21 PM | | If Hillary doesn't win both Texas and Ohio tomorrow, she should do the honorable thing and drop out. She will have done all she can do at that point. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 3/3/2008 8:19:52 PM | Actually if you go the Library of Congress and look into it, you'll be surprised of the comparisons of what Obama has done in his few years in DC compared to what Hillary has done in more years.
So much for comparing Rezko and McDougal to Potato Potahto. Seems like Mr. and Mrs. Slick has the market cornered.
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/01/25/photo-surfaces-showing-sen-clinton-posing-with-chicago-landlord-rezko/comment-page-6/ | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 3/3/2008 10:50:45 PM | Yeah jeez people, I'm not even American and I know that Obama has had many successes in congress.
Violet was actually nice enough to list them earlier in the thread, quite eloquently I might add.
Actually, I'll take this time to make my plea to democratic Americans in Texas, Ohio, Vermont, and Rhode Island. PLEASE do your part and vote Obama, put an end to the doubt. Us Canadians would love you for it. Lots of Obama fans up here. Plus I personally hope to see NAFTA blown away (it would be good for both of our economies) and I don't trust Mrs. Clinton to do so.
<3
Love,
Scott | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 3/4/2008 12:19:24 AM |
I don't know why people are drawn to Obama. There isn't one piece of legislation that he has passed or pushed through to become law. He has accomplished nothing. Would someone please name one thing that Obama has successfully done while in the political arena?
That's why people are drawn to him. This percieved "lack of experience" makes him seem untainted by politics, someone who believes we can change and will actually try to make a difference. Hillary is just the same old partisan bull$hit, the only difference is that she's a woman. McCain is just the same old crap also. I voted for Obama in the California primary, and will vote for him against McCain in the general election. Hillary can't win, it's mathematically over for her.
Obama will be the next president of the USA. McCain can't beat him. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 3/4/2008 5:07:05 AM | | If Clinton wins the nomination, the Democrats lost the Independent and Moderate vote. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 3/4/2008 10:12:05 AM |
The most intriguing story this election cycle is how Hillary Clinton, after being the prohibitive favorite for the Democratic nomination for 5 years, is now on the verge of losing to Barack Obama. Hillary is intelligent; has experience; and has extensive political connections. However, those assets aren't translating sufficiently into votes.
Well first of all I wouldn't say she's losing, behind yes, but not losing.
There are dozens of little reasons why she's in this position, but I'll focus on the major ones.
1) As you said, she was declared the favorite long before she even entered the race. But people don't like being told who will win before they vote, they like choices. Much of Obama's early support was an effort by voters to give Hillary some competition.
2) Sexism, some have said, has played a role in this race. I disagree, at least I don't believe it's intended by most, perhaps Limbaugh, but not most. What we are seeing happen is a reluctance on the media's part to ask Obama the hard questions in part because he is half-black. I'm sure they are trying to be sensitive to Obama and his supports but I've long said that lowering the bar for a class of people only ends up hurting them in the long run.
3) Media bias, not in the sense that the media is 'out to get Hillary', but rather she's old news. Obama is fresh and exciting with new possible scandals to cover (as we are starting to see now). There's not much exciting for the media to cover when it comes to a woman that the GOP has thrown every 'scandal' and rumor at for 20+ years. if there was fresh mud to sling it would have been slung by now.
4) Obama himself is running an incredibly successful campaign and I don't think that can be overlooked. He has formed a coalition of nearly all blacks, most young voters, and many Republicans that would love to see Hillary go down in flames. He is also raising record breaking sums of money, nothing to sneeze at.
5) Finally, something that is being largely overlooked by the media, perhaps because of that sensitivity I spoke of earlier, is the fact that black districts count for more than white districts delegate-wise. Years ago in an effort to give blacks more of a voice in our government Democrats redrew many congressional districts so they would have a majority black population. With Obama pulling 80-90% of the black vote he is all but guaranteed wins in these districts, which thanks to the redrawing, account for a disproportionate amount of the vote. In other words, a state with say a 15% black population actually can control up to 30% of the avialable delegates should a candidate (like Obama) garner a heavy majority of the black vote.
Tonight will be interesting thanks to Texas where voters can actually twice (once in the primary and once more in the caucus). Obama has a fairly good chance of again losing the popular vote, but winning more delegates as he did in Nevada. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 3/4/2008 3:45:53 PM | Hey Deagle ...
While I'm already very confident that virtually everything you say in point #5 above is wrong, before I call it all a crock of sheet, can I ask you to cite any credible source for any of the assertions you make there?
Continuing on, back at #1, am I understanding correctly that you are alleging that many voters really wanted to see Hillary win the nomination, but voted for Obama "just to make it interesting???" I know I must be misunderstanding you and I apologize in advance for my patently absurd misinterpretation of what you meant; but could you please clarify it for me?
Regarding #2, can you please proffer examples of some of these "hard questions" that the media is "reluctant to ask" and also indicate why it is you feel they are doing that because of his "partial Blackness???" I don't know ... I'm thinking that this Harvard-Law-Educated Law Journal President is prepared to respond to the "hard questions" at least as well as anyone else; but I'm open to the prospect that you might have several in mind, which have been asked of Hillary but not Barack, so I'm listening ...
Onward to #3, you stated that we are starting to see "all these new possible scandals." Which are they, exactly???
4) Obama himself is running an incredibly successful campaign and I don't think that can be overlooked.
FINALLY, deep in the recesses of your post, I found something that we can agree upon! You're starting to make some sense to me and --- WAIT ...
He has formed a coalition of nearly all blacks, most young voters, and many Republicans that would love to see Hillary go down in flames.
Awww, Hell, Man!!! 
So are you now saying that nearly all Blacks are in behind Barack? (Wrong) and/or
that Republicans are voting for him, just so Hillary doesn't win? (Doubtful)
Do you have any sources (credible or not) to cite to to support THAT/THOSE argument(s)?
Help me out, here. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 3/4/2008 7:30:48 PM | Hillary is losing because:
1) She is not at all likeable...she has a grating voice and personality
2) She is extremely and fundamentally dishonest...and there are numerous examples of this...Gennifer Flowers, Travelgate, Stock futures, Whitewater, Monica, etc.
3) She is power hungry...and she believes the nomination is her birthright
4) A lot of Democratic voters didn't want to be forced to vote for her...and once they saw Obama winning areas with large white populations, they started to see that he could really have a shot at winning. Obama is everything Hillary isn't...very charismatic, likeable, not a Washington insider, etc.
Personally, I like Obama a lot. However, I don't agree with either one of them politically, so I won't be voting for either of them. But I did vote for Obama in my state primary...as a vote against her. And I know others who did the same. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 3/4/2008 8:47:01 PM | ^
.........to me....its astonishing that someone like Hilary (an individual with the personality of an ameba, a conscience of an alligator, and the trustworthiness of a Judas) has actually beaten out......pple like Edwards, Kucinich and Richardson......all of whom are fairly decent pple!
.....and...she still has a 50% chance of being the dem nominee!!!!...preliminary polls now show that she has won Ohio!
....even if i could live 1000 years and i still will never be able to understand the mindset of a typical democrat!!! | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 3/4/2008 8:57:08 PM | Just a theory...
Democrats all have an anti-establishment streak. They like the innovator, the person with the harder struggle. So you have Hillary, who has the connections, with the family name, whose husband is basically the figurehead of their party.
So when presented with the young guy who has Democrats favorite message...CHANGE...and he's a minority and he's charismatic...well, well, well-we have created someone irrestible to liberals countrywide.
It's been fun to watch though...the conundrum of the Party Queen vs. the new Pied Piper.  | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 3/4/2008 9:03:27 PM | I think Obama reaches people more into what they are really thinking, feeling and hoping and better captures the spirit of Americans. Hillary just doesnt talk to me. She sounds empty, routine, rote.................more of the same.
Bill is a nice guy, slick, smart, savvy .... but the Monica thing, him lying to America with a straight face, impeachment.......Bill, get away from my White House.
And take your little wife and call it a day. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 3/4/2008 9:06:48 PM | I;m not sure what HIllary has done, can you tell me? The one thing she might have done failed. Otherwise, she was on Bill's coattails for a long time and pretty undistinguished as a Senator fro NY.
I like Obama's voting record. It matches how I would vote and agrees with my values. Thats enough for me.
And incidentally, I dont care about experience. Rumself and Cheney had plenty and they screwed up, big time, in my opinion. Experienced in Washington most often equates to dirty hands. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 3/4/2008 10:15:00 PM | As of now, it's 51% to 47% in the Texas primary as they are calling Texas for Hillary.
Yes, Hillary has definitely taken Ohio, Texas, and RI in the popular vote according to the most biased station on TV, good ole' CNN, so we know it's true when they call it as it is. Hillary has gotten 2/3 of the vote here in TX.
I'll be cooking up that crow late into the night for those of you that put your orders in last week as Hillary dances onto Pennsylvania in the very near future. Seems that fat lady sometimes sings off key, doesn't she?
Senator Hillary Clinton 2008  | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 3/5/2008 1:35:09 AM | Hey Vyper ...
In answer to your questions (and keep in mind the OP asked for our opinions and that's all I'm offering)...
#1 - What I was suggesting is that the media, not voters, declared Clinton the presumptive nominee. Call me crazy, but I don't think voters like having their minds made up for them. I also think it was a tad absurd and premature considering almost no one knew who Obama was at the time.
#2 - Well let me just say that I feel the media is finally turning an inquisitive eye towards Obama, but that hasn't been the case until now. You asked for specifics though, so what about Obama violating the pledge he made with other candidates and airing campaign ads in Florida? Or how about the fact that what he proposes in his first term can't possibly be achieved without higher deficits? Or why he hasn't introduced any legislation concerning Afghanistan during his three years as senator if he is serious about ending the war on terrorism? And finally why Obama spins yarns about people he's met (such as an unidentified Army captain mentioned in the last debate) that no one can verify as being true?
#3 - Obama's shifting stance on NAFTA and the embarassment of having a staffer hold private meetings with Canadians when he's so critical of Hillary's so-called 'veil of secrecy'. Then there's this Rezko fella that Obama is suspiciously quiet about. Larry Sinclair may be a nutjob, but Obama should at least deny his allegations. Etc.
#4 - Obama is drawing 80-90% of the black vote in state after state, this is a fact.
He also does much better than Hillary in traditional red states that allow cross-over voting from Republicans. Look, it's no secret that the country is full of people (mostly men, but some women too) that loathe Hillary Clinton. I wish I were making this up, but sadly I'm not. One brief scan of this very thread can show you that.
#5- And now finally for the remark that got your goat 
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/02/05/obama_would_get_edge_if_he_carries_black_districts/
^^ Here's a link that explains it better than I ever could. But basically what it says is that districts that repeatedly vote for Democrats are rewarded with extra delegates at the convention. Most black districts consistantly vote for a Democrat and therefore count for more than white districts that tend to go back and forth between Republican and Democrat. For example, in Obama's home state, three congressional districts with a majority black population in the Chicago area have eight delegates apiece - the most allotted to any of the 224 congressional districts that voted during Super Tuesday.
Those three heavily Democratic districts have more pledged delegates than Utah, Delaware, or Alaska.
Obama has shown great political savy by largely ignoring districts in states with a 70% or better black population because he obviously already has those won. Instead he focuses his attention on districts where the black population is 30-40% or so in order to secure those as well.
Now you no doubt will think I'm racist or trying to 'pigeonhole' Obama, but I honestly do admire his political prowess. The old rules had a winner-take-all approach to states. Obama has shown that he understands that the battle is for delegates, and therefore districts when it comes to proportional allocation.
Unfortunate for him, he is in danger of losing the popular vote (if he hasn't already) and in a race where Clinton holds enough delegates to keep Obama from the magic number he needs to secure his nomination the obvious choice is the popular vote holder...but that's a discussion for another thread.
 | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 3/5/2008 4:30:11 AM | Hillary did better than many expected last night. She showed class and optimism in her victory speech. However, the delegate count remains mostly the same, and Obama is still ahead in the overall popular vote. The remaining state primaries are not likely to significantly change that. The polls also show that Obama has a better chance in the general election against McCain. A McCain/Obama race would be a more dignified, issue-focused contest than McCain/Clinton.
"This contest should not be an uncivilized brawl for the spoils of power."
--John McCain | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 3/5/2008 5:17:21 AM | I am not suprised by the outcomes in Texas and Ohio.
Math still favors Obama, but Clinton will make a pitch that she is more electable to the Super Delegates.
We may soon see an Olive Branch to split the power before the delegation.
The question is, "Who holds it and who gives it?" | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 3/5/2008 5:35:34 AM | I am actually surprised that after the frequent defeats (5) over the past thirty that the Democratic leadership would such an obvious chance to re-take the White House.
Or maybe I'm not.
Every time the Democrats appear to be succeeding, they shoot themselves in the head.
And then claim it was murder.
Hillary Clinton (and through extension the DNC leadership) knows she can't win.
She is too polarizing and the combination of the Republicans re-forming around McCain and the general dislike she engenders (living next to Ohio, I can tell you Clinton supporters the reason that most Ohioans went for Hillary wasn't that they like her.It's because she's not Black) are going to torpedo their chances at the White House.
Numerically, she can't win.
Any brokered nominations would cause large numbers of Democrats to stay at home.
And the Republican party would make easy work decimating her campaign and reminding people that Hillary Clinton has already BEEN in the White House.
Sadly, I'm a lifelong Democrat and I see the beginnings of what appears to be the party losing the election.
If they do, they'll have no one to blame but themselves. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 3/5/2008 8:13:38 AM | Top o'da Mornin' to Ya, Deagle and Welcome Back!
In response to your latest post I offer:
#1 Democrats generally love Bill Clinton. And everyone expected Hillary to be entering this years race. Barack was a bit of a latent surprise. I think that we could all reasonably agree that, without Barack in the race, it would have been reasonable to presume Hillary to be the nominee. So, while I agree with you that she had been declared such early on, I respectfully disagree that those voting for Barack did so "to give her some competition." Rather, I would argue that, once Barack elected to enter the race, he began winning the popular vote and pledged delegates because his espoused positions resonated more with the Democratic voting public and that public felt that he would make a better president.
#2 OK. Now you're schooling me here. And I appreciate it. So you are asserting that for some reason he said he would NOT run any campaign ads in the Sunshine State? Since I'm not aware of the existence of any such pledge or controversy related thereto, I will refrain from speaking to whether or not he violated it. I am, however, aware that the DNC agreed with all of the nominee candidates that FL and MI delegates would not count towards the delegate allocation, and yet Hillary went back, after the fact to try to get the delegates in those states counted since she had won them all due to the other candidates not campaigning there. Additionally, I certainly can understand, considering how Barack was busy authoring, sponsoring, co-sponsoring or otherwise advancing the cause of nearly 1000 pieces of legislation during his very brief time in the Senate, how he might not have introduced any legislation regarding Afghanistan. But, the simple truth of the matter is that he DID. See generally, as multiple examples:
S. 433 - Iraq War De-Escalation Act of 2007
and
S. 674 - Transparency and Accountability in Military and Security Contracting Act of 2007
BOTH sponsored by Obama! Needless to say, since McCain professes to believe that Bush is doing the right thing, none of his 53 bills addresses Afghanistan; nor does any of Hillary's. Moreover, when was the last time we've heard of a politician advancing the cause of "transparency" in ANYTHING that goes on in Washington??? But I digress ...
Obama spins yarns about people he's met (such as an unidentified Army captain mentioned in the last debate) that no one can verify as being true?
Does whether or not anyone can verify it as "true," make it not so? Do we have any reason to dispute the voracity of his claims? Does it bear any relevance to his intelligence or ability to lead or represent our nation effectively if he doesn't "really" know that general??? My point is that, in my humble opinion, all this is needling petty crap that stinks as a thinly-veiled effort to obfuscate the fact that the man has perhaps among the strongest credentials of any presidential candidate that we've seen in at least a few generations. And THAT, I believe, is why Hillary is "losing," "behind," "lagging," "coming in 'second' in a two-candidate race," or however else one chooses to occupy her present status.
#3 Ah, that pesky "Rezko fella." You mean the guy who is all over the media posted up in smiling pictures with Hillary and Bill, who they say they "don't know at all.?" Again, people with money (shady people as well as ethically upstanding) sometimes have brushes or even more close relationships with decent people. And, while I'm sure you're a pretty good guy, I suspect that if I devoted a few hundred thousand dollars worth of resources to "digging," I'd find somebody even YOU know -- or have had some dealings with -- who is a pretty shady character. Again, that is simply a smear effort, designed to take the voters' eye off the ball of whether he is intelligent enough to lead our nation with the assistance of a myriad of other very knowledgeable aides, assistants, and advisors.
#4 While it is true that Obama is winning up to about 80% of the so-called "Black vote" in many contests, 90% he is winning nowhere. But here's the thing: He's ALSO winning a significant percentage of the "Union vote," the "White vote," the "Non-Union vote," the "highly-educated vote," the high-earning vote," and the "female vote." See, generally what the folks over at the Washington Post and those over at Real Clear Politics have to say about that:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/26/AR2008012602741.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/2008/01/demography_and_the_democratic.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/2008/02/the_state_of_the_democratic_ra.html
I think THAT more accurate speaks to the question of "why Hillary is losing."
Unfortunately, I am out of time and will have to vet and speak to the validity of your citation in #5 later. But I DO want to say that you are mistaken in your presumption that I believe you to be "[a] racist or trying to 'pigeonhole' Obama." Quite the contrary, I presume you to be a reasonable, fair-minded person who holds a position in disagreement with my own. And I'm all good with that, as reasonable minds can disagree! If you ARE, in fact, a racist, however, I will need a LOT more exposure to your views -- and the reasons behind them -- before I would reach such a conclusion.  | |
|
P|R8
|
Joined: 6/16/2007
Msg: 73 | |
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 3/5/2008 8:19:40 AM | People, this is all just elaborately crafted theater. I called it like 3 months ago that it would be Clinton v. McCain in the end. The two people that have the least amount of broad support, but the largest ties to the establishment.
What makes you think we get to choose our leaders silly wabbit...
For the record, I through my vote away in our caucus (that word sounds so dirty) and voted for Ron Paul. That being said I am 100% certain that the entire process is rigged, and especially the most important primary process, which has the least amount of security, auditing and fairness. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 3/5/2008 8:27:00 AM | Because her husband was already a President. What better would she do that he didn't?
Also she's as stupid as Hillary Duff!!! | |
|
| |
|
| Page 3 of 98
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 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 |
|
Home
login 
