|
|
|
|
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/23/2008 2:31:07 PM | Itechman, since neither candidate will have enough pledged delegates to win outright, it is up to the superdelegates to decide. Not even if all 800 of them came out for Obama right now it still wouldn't matter until the actual convention when they cast their votes in August.
PhillyFellow | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/23/2008 2:34:39 PM |
Obama took his name off the ballot in Michigan because he was told by the DNC that no delegates were to be assigned there. Most the other candidates did the same thing, I think with the exception of Clinton and Kucinich. All the candidates well before the MI primary what the DNC's ruling would be. NO DELEGATES would be seated.
Geez Louise at this point you could award ALL THE FREAKING Michigan and Florida delegates to Hillary and she would still lose
That's pretty much what I would have said with the exception of this--Gravel was on the ballot too. Oh, and that I read/heard that Obama and Edwards were told it would be against the rules to leave their names on.
Did I ever tell you guys my voting story? I walk up the little old lady at the table, who asked me which party I wanted a ballot for. (I was kind of surprised, because I didn't think you were supposed to talk about anything like that out loud in these places, but what the heck--it's the primary). So I said "Democrat". She handed me a folder, I walked behind the little voting booth/desk thing, and opened it up, eager to cast my vote for Edwards. (Yes I said Edwards). Imagine my surprise when HILLARY CLINTON was as large as life on the ballot, and in smaller print Dennis Kuchnick or however they spelled it, and Mike Gravel. Much smaller....I'm sure some of the little old ladies she's winning with are experiencing the same thing. Ok so I was like wtf? Where're my guys?
I walked back up to the little old lady at the desk and said, in the smallest voice I could find that would still be heard by her hearing aid--"Um....my guy isn't on here".
She told me nope, there are only a couple of people on there because we held it early....so I went back to the booth/desk thing and nearly broke the pencil lead on "UNCOMMITTED".
lol I just thought you guys could use a laugh at me walking back up there wondering where my guy was.  | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/23/2008 2:42:45 PM |
I understand what she meant, the RFK comment may have been the TKO as far as Superdelegates are concerned.
Hillary 08
#1 With A Bullet | |
|
| |
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/23/2008 2:49:06 PM | Do you see now SimmahDahnNah why it was the STUPENDOUS stupidity of the DNC rules committee that led to this mess?
If they had followed their own rules and made it a 50% penalty like it should have been in the first place and like what the republicans did, we wouldn't have this mess.
Note the republican primaries in Florida and Michigan went off perfectly without a hitch and now the popular votes in those states do count, and have from the beginning. The delegate penalty will simply be assessed at the convention for the republicans.
McCain Beats Romney to Win Fla. Primary.
DAVID ESPO and LIZ SIDOTI | January 29, 2008 11:25 PM EST | AP
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/29/mccain-beats-romney-to-wi_n_83909.html
Romney's Michigan win shakes up GOP race.
updated 12:10 a.m. EST, Wed January 16, 2008
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/15/michigan.primary/index.html
PhillyFellow | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/23/2008 2:50:49 PM | Itechman, "ten will get you twenty", it's not.
PhillyFellow | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/23/2008 2:51:23 PM | | Helloooooo....earth to PhillyFellow....have I ever said I agreed with any of it? Have I ever said I thought the DNC did things the right way? Or my own state legislators? NO. I have not. And I will not, because it was monumental stupidity. But it's over. The chips have fallen, and all we can do is pick them up and try to reassemble them. Reassembling them does not mean giving Hillary both states because the DNC effed up. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/23/2008 2:56:25 PM |
Posted By: PhillyFellow on 5/23/2008
Fred, we'll see who has the last laugh when the honorific placed before President is
"Madame"
Thats not happening this time around...
She has lost the nomination and just won't admit it.
 | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/23/2008 3:11:05 PM |
While I understand what she meant, the RFK comment may have been the TKO as far as Superdelegates are concerned.
She should have said it was June when RFK withdrew?
This means very little.... She is much less guarded than Obama.
Why don't the Obama supers come out now? | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/23/2008 3:20:29 PM |
Let's say that she wins in Puerto Rico substantially, say 62% to 38%, and that Obama wins the two caucus states, which are the kinds of states he's won, more narrowly, by 10% each. Those seem like reasonable projections that if anything help Clinton. In that case, using the famous Slate delegate calculator, Clinton would win the remaining 86 delegates by 49-37, cutting the pledged delegate margin from 154 to 142, bringing her total to 1,548 at the end of the voting, to Obama's 1,690.
Obama's total after the voting is done on June 3, adding the super delegates he now has to the above figure of 1,690, would be 1,997. Clinton's would be 1,827, for an Obama margin of 170.
But remember, super delegates are committing themselves in dribs and drabs on a daily basis. There remain 211 super delegates as of this morning. Between now and June 3, some number of these delegates will commit themselves in the same kind of daily dribble we've been seeing, in which Obama has been winning steadily more than Clinton in small chunks.
So here again we need to make some projections, and, again, let's make them in a way that gives Clinton the benefit of the doubt. Let's say Obama gains 11 super delegates through June 3, and Clinton four (very conservative projections, especially in Obama's case, but we're trying to be fair). Add those 11 to his total above, and on the morning of June 4, Obama has, fittingly, 2,008 total delegates, and Clinton 1,831. The magic number of course is 2,026, so Obama would be a mere 18 delegates short of victory.
The 15 super delegates who commit in my scenario between now and June 4 reduce the overall super delegate pool from 211 to 196. So here's what we call in the states the $64,000 question: How many of those 196 would Clinton need to commit to her to overtake Obama and reach the magic number?
The answer is straightforward. Obama must receive no more than 17, right, because if he gets 18, he wins. So Clinton must win 179 of the remaining 196 to beat him, or 91.3%.
I'm not going to say a word one way or the other about how likely this is. I'll leave it to you to decide how plausible this seems.
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/michael_tomasky/2008/05/unfuzzy_math.html
So in the pursuit of this impossibility, she's not only holding up Rove's playbook to vindicate the impossible, she's actually being played by Rove to his own ends.
As Clinton supporters soldier bravely on, in this children's crusade, the momentum building for the Democrats is wasted.
Her campaign is broke, because she isn't getting any popular money - except her own.
Here's a thought.
If Clinton supporters want to pick up their toys, storm home, and not throw their support onto Obama - so be it.
When McCain wins in November, they will be the ones to will have allowed it to occur. It's their lack of vision that will put the neocons and McCain back into power. They will have cut off their own nose to spite their face.
At the McCain inauguration, we can all raise a glass to their undying support for Hillary, and proudly thank them for it.
McCain's one of the easiest Republican presidential candidates to beat I've ever seen.
Bush lost to Clinton, after WINNING a war - because of the economy.
The American people are fed up with Bush, fed up with the neo cons, fed up with this war,
and fed up with a failing economy.
All of those things can be ties directly to Bush and McCain, directly.
So here's a last invitation to those who are still unconvinced.
How badly do you want another four years resembling the last eight ? Take a deep look into your soul , and answer honestly.
The country you save, may be your own. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/23/2008 4:50:49 PM |
She should have said it was June when RFK withdrew?
It was exactly what she meant. In this campaign it's been the nonsense that has pulled me in to try to get it tossed aside and to get back to some discussion of what the Hell are we going to do about this economy and this occupation. To make an issue alluding to the fact that Hillary was referring to anything other than the fact that RFK was assassinated in June while the nominating race was still in the air is that nonsense. While I think her race is anything but undecided at this point, this is a non-issue and not an inappropriate thing for her to say.
The Superdelegates have a decision to make and one of them is not to decide on the convention floor... that's out and they will not do that. Their decision is based on the fact that they don't want to have to force her out and they want her to not make them do that. If it becomes clear that she intends to drag this out until Denver, then many will decide they have to force her out.
The media WANTS a contentious and chaotic convention and post-convention story so they do all they can to perpetuate this. Hillary supporters are playing into their hands believing this is not over. The Democrats don't want it dragging on. If she takes it to the convention and still has $20 million or more in debt, then she can't raise the money to pay it and her Senatorial re-election campaign is in trouble because she'd have to pay her debt for this campaign with what she raises in that one. If she does not step down or refuses to be forced out by those that then are telling her they won't give her the election when they are the very ones that she has to have give it to her, then she's a political suicide bomber. Taking as many out with her as she can. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/23/2008 4:54:51 PM | .
If Clinton supporters want to pick up their toys, storm home, and not throw their support onto Obama - so be it.
When McCain wins in November, they will be the ones to will have allowed it to occur. It's their lack of vision that will put the neocons and McCain back into power. They will have cut off their own nose to spite their face.
At the McCain inauguration, we can all raise a glass to their undying support for Hillary, and proudly thank them for it.
Sounds good for the Obama supporters. When McCain wins its Hillary's Fault. Makes sence to me.
I see Today to be a turning point in the Election of '09.
Clinton: RFK shooting reason to stay in race..................
http://www.rawstory.com/
"My Husband Did Not Wrap Up The Nomination" Until June ... "Bobby Kennedy Was Assassinated In June"....................................
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/
These are out of context and were not what was said or implied. The newspaper that interviewed her has even issued a statement.
The aggressive nature of the Obama group is over the top.
This is not a good path and not changing. Obama has no control. He is not showing the leadership needed to manage even his major surrogates. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/23/2008 5:03:14 PM |
These are out of context and were not what was said or implied. The newspaper that interviewed her has even issued a statement.
TIME: Can you envision a point at which--if the race stays this close--Democratic Party elders would step in and say, "This is now hurting the party and whoever will be the nominee in the fall"?
CLINTON: No, I really can't. I think people have short memories. Primary contests used to last a lot longer. We all remember the great tragedy of Bobby Kennedy being assassinated in June in L.A. My husband didn't wrap up the nomination in 1992 until June. Having a primary contest go through June is nothing particularly unusual.
These are out of context and were not what was said or implied.
RFK didn't "withdraw" in June. He was murdered in June. That comment, in that context, is totally without any justification. It's saying that some lone gunman can change the inevitable towards her favor. It was unnecessary, uncalled for, and particularly grievous in a time where the man's brother has just been diagnosed with a brain tumor - and Obama's been threatened quite openly.
If it was so "out of context", why did she apologize ? She's done that a lot, hasn't she ?
"I regret that if my referencing that moment of trauma for our entire nation - and in particular the Kennedy family - was in any way offensive. I certainly had no intention of that whatsoever."
- Hillary Clinton, today
. I think people have short memories.
Seems so, and Hillary is one of them. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/23/2008 5:10:46 PM | | That turning point is great for whatever election happens in '09 because this contest between Obama and McCain is on now and Hillary is the kid sister tagging along that is only noticed when she's most annoying. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/23/2008 6:30:27 PM |
If it was so "out of context", why did she apologize ? She's done that a lot, hasn't she ?
OMG, like Obama hasn't apologized MANY times...for Rev Wright, for the sweetie comment, for saying troops lives were wasted, for a senior advisor calling Hillary a monster, for saying that his children shouldn't be punished with a baby....
do you want me to go on- | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/23/2008 6:31:40 PM | Yes, I'd like you to go on and compare how "sweetie" even comes close to what she said today.
**edit** OH What fun!! Look what I just found! If Hillary was still in the least in contention, I might even start a new thread for it...but she's not so I'll just place it here.
For your reading pleasure.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080331/ehrenreich
Clinton fell in with The Family in 1993, when she joined a Bible study group composed of wives of conservative leaders like Jack Kemp and James Baker. When she ascended to the Senate, she was promoted to what Sharlet calls the Family's "most elite cell," the weekly Senate Prayer Breakfast, which included, until his downfall, Virginia's notoriously racist Senator George Allen. This has not been a casual connection for Clinton. She has written of Doug Coe, The Family's publicity-averse leader, that he is "a unique presence in Washington: a genuinely loving spiritual mentor and guide to anyone, regardless of party or faith, who wants to deepen his or her relationship with God."
If nothing else, I fail to see how she can be accepting of a sex-segregated religious "Family", yet now cry sexism. hmm
And more on Doug Coe:
http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101050207/photoessay/4.html
This could get interesting.
This one is really good.
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2003/03/0079525?pg=1
| |
|
| |
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/23/2008 7:21:07 PM | Ahhhhhhhhh (elated sigh) You're most welcome. It was fun, I wish I had found it two months ago.
| |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/23/2008 7:29:44 PM |
CLINTON: No, I really can't. I think people have short memories. Primary contests used to last a lot longer. We all remember the great tragedy of Bobby Kennedy being assassinated in June in L.A. My husband didn't wrap up the nomination in 1992 until June. Having a primary contest go through June is nothing particularly unusual.
Wow, what a horrible glimpse of the inside of Hillary's mind. Pretty twisted for her to have even thought of that as a valid reason for remaining in the contest, never mind actually verbalizing it.
She might as well have said "a couple of things could happen between now and the convention that would give me the victory, for one, senator Obama could be assassinated....." | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/23/2008 7:32:14 PM | The sweetie comment was NOTHING compared to Shrillary's ridiculous remarks about the Kennedy assassination. How freaking tactless especially now that Sen. Ted Kennedy has been diagnosed with a brain tumor!! She is an embarrassment to the Democratic Party, and after that disgusting comment, I have found a newer high in my level of contempt for that woman.
Sweetie was an honest mistake and not done with malicious intent.
Shrillary is malicious, and should get out of the race PRONTO for the good of the Democratic Party and our nation. We do not need four more years of neocon manure!
GO OBAMA!! | |
|
| |
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/23/2008 8:23:09 PM |
Posted By: itechman42
That turning point is great for whatever election happens in '09 because this contest between Obama and McCain is on now and Hillary is the kid sister tagging along that is only noticed when she's most annoying.
You keep saying "election '09" as if thats when we will vote for President.
Sorry... the Presidential election is Nov '08
The inauguration will be in '09.
All major elections are in Nov of even numbered years.
Terms of office begin appx 5 months after the votes are counted. (that has changed a bit since George Washington's time)
Getting it wrong once is a typo (which I make all the time)... getting it wrong consistantly is an error in understanding the system.
| |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/23/2008 9:37:38 PM | Getting it wrong once is a typo (which I make all the time)... getting it wrong consistantly is an error in understanding the system.
He did only say it once. And it's consistently. lol | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/24/2008 1:27:10 AM | Vyper, we'll see what the state of affairs is when she delivers a decisive trouncing of Obama in Puerto Rico, and solidifies her lead in the popular vote including FL and Mich. This large gain in popular vote and delegates in PR will swamp the small amount he might get in South Dakota and Montana if any.
She could then use this to support her argument that her winning the popular vote means the "will of the people" is in her favor. She can also have her supporters in each district write to their superdelegates in their district to tell them that since Hillary Clinton won our district your vote should be in favor of her. This would also result in the majority of superdelegates voting in her favor.
I agree with you that it is mystifying why the state party leaders in those states would want to move their primaries when they knew it would result in a 50% loss of delegates. I haven't seen what the rationale of the republicans was in those two states. I do know that the democrats in Florida were against it but were powerless to prevent it since the republicans had an overwhelming control of the state legislature. The bill to move the Michigan primary also originated from the republicans, though the republicans did not have as nearly an overwhelming majority as they did in Florida.
In regards to the sexism issue, here is one instance of it where CNN’s Alex Castellanos says it's OK to refer to Hillary as a "white ****":
CNN’s Alex Castellanos - “****” is OK if it’s accurate?
http://womensmediacenter.com/wordpress/?p=174
PhillyFellow | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/24/2008 2:38:57 AM | Vyper, we'll see what the state of affairs is when she delivers a decisive trouncing of Obama in Puerto Rico, and solidifies her lead in the popular vote including FL and Mich.
Phil, my man ...  We've already seen what the state of affairs is! It ain't changing, man! Hillary fought a hard, vigorous, and tenacious battle, proving that she (and Bill) are incredibly worthy adversaries. She's even gone and identified one or two "chinks" in Obama's armor. She's steadfastly pointed out his weaknesses as a candidate (some "real"; others, not). Obama has been notably resistant to doing the same of her.
So who knows? ... by the time this whole thing is over, she may actually hold a marginal lead in popular votes, but this contest is all about the delegates, and she ain't got nothing coming.
I admire your hopeful spirit, even if it now exceeds the parameters of fantasy; and I note in your stalwart posts how frequently you speak in "conditional" terms (e.g., "if she ..."), and then link a string of implausible conditional events (e.g., "and then she could ...") to ultimately reach your hoped-for scenario. But you and the rest of us have already seen this movie and know how it ends. The ship has already sailed, the train has left the station, the bus has departed the depot, and -- dammit -- Ilsa Lund will NOT be leaving Victor Laszlo on that plane to live her life with Rick Blaine! ... no matter HOW much you wish she could the next time you watch the film! 
Maybe she can do it in 2012 but, as for 2008, Hillary is finished. You may as well come on in behind Barack this term and try to unify the party. 
Here's a few more nails in Hillary's coffin for the doubting Phillies out there ...
Obama gains delegates, moves closer to nomination
By HOLLY RAMER
CONCORD, N.H. (AP) — Barack Obama inched closer to securing the Democratic presidential nomination on Friday, picking up five delegates, including a California congressman who switched his allegiance from Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Obama "has proven himself to be a thoughtful, knowledgeable, and inspirational leader and will take America in a new direction, which we desperately need," said Rep. Dennis Cardoza, who became the 14th superdelegate to switch from Clinton to Obama.
Obama has 1,970 delegates in the Associated Press tally, out of the 2,026 he needs [56] to become the first black to win a major party presidential nomination. Clinton has 1,779.
Two of John Edwards' New Hampshire delegates, State Sen. Peter Burling and high school teacher Deborah Nelson, held a news conference to announce they were backing Obama.
In a phone interview, Burling told the AP that he and Nelson believe either Obama or Clinton would make a superb president, but it came down to "who can win and who could make a better president."
"We chose Obama because he so clearly understands the American yearning for change," Burling said. "He understands it, he embraces it, and I think he has the leadership to deliver it."
full story at: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hY742M_s1ttD_ycf2Zusn1o1fD3QD90RGUR80 | |
|
|
| Page 62 of 98
|
58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98 |
|
Home
login 
