|
|
|
|
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 3/10/2008 2:35:19 PM | From what I understand also FL and MI moved up their primaries for vanity. The voters of those states were never considered from discussion #1... but now circumstances make them important because... anyone? Because the Democrats all agreed their voices didn't matter in the beginning, now they realize they matter because the election could be lost on their electoral votes leaving the Democrats from the fallout. Just more of the same... "We will buy you or sell you based on what's convenient for us".
You can't count the results of those contests as is for any statistic. Until a decision to redo or not to redo those contests, they don't count. Considering that Clinton won by 10% over NOBODY in Michigan, that's not much to brag about. Put some names on that ballot prior to the contest, and Hillary likely comes out of there a mere +2 in pledged delegates and no significant advantage in popular vote. Let's say we had a competitive contest in Florida at that time with active campaigning with Obama riding a wave at that time with his message resonating, Hillary gains little there.
Considering the buffoonery of it from day 1, I think they should leave it as is and suffer the consequences even if that means McCain takes the states as the beneficiary of the disenfranchisement of those voters. It would probably be the only way that a lesson is learned from history in this case. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 3/10/2008 6:28:50 PM |
Please don't color me a Hillary fan. However, who has more experience: a two-term senator of 7-plus years who spent a great deal of time with a two-term president, or a one-term senator of 3-plus years?
Bikeman: you sound like a Hillary fan. Hillary has limited experience compared with someone like John McCain. McCain is the only candidate out of the 3 who has extensive legislative experience, having been elected to the U. S. House of Representatives in 1982, and to the U.S. Senate in 1986. That's 25+ years of legislative experience for McCain, compared with Obama's 11 years (Illinois state senate and U. S. Senate), and Hillary's 7 years (U. S. Senate). Hillary actually has the least legislative experience out of the three candidates.
For those who are still clinging to the notion that Hillary was a kind of "co-president" in Bill's White House, here is a link to comments by David Trimble. Trimble refutes the Clinton campaign's claim that she had something to do with the passing of the Good Friday Agreement (1998) in Northern Ireland. For those of you who know who Trimble is, these comments should carry great weight:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/08/wuspols108.xml
A candidate who has to concoct a record of foreign policy experience has limited experience. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 3/10/2008 6:34:43 PM | A 10 year old has a lifetime of learning, the 10 year olds lifetime....
Hillary is losing because of bad strategy, lack of planning, hubris, and ego....and doesn't seem to care how its affecting her party, or the people........sound familar?
I'm wondering how you were directed to that link Bikeman as you are now the second person who has used that link to say the same thing. I'm wondering if this is a spin or if this is just coincidence? | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 3/10/2008 6:51:09 PM | She can't run a successful campaign where she's was (at it's start) the best known candidate, the most "experienced"  , and with one of the most popular ex-President's on the stump for her.
She had to break that little glass box with that hammer, and pull out her daughter to assist.
The guy that's ahead of her was/is :
1) Black (mixed race, tbh)
2) Has the worse possible sounding name one could pick in today's America for a Presidential candidate. 
3) Had pretty much zero exposure to a national audience before it started.
And, because she "knew" she would win - she didn't really bother trying very hard.
And then that light at the end of the tunnel became a train headlight. 
Do you think she'll run a country any better as President ?
Do you need even MORE division there ? | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 3/10/2008 7:09:38 PM | You can't count the results of those contests as is for any statistic. Until a decision to redo or not to redo those contests, they don't count. Considering that Clinton won by 10% over NOBODY in Michigan, that's not much to brag about. Put some names on that ballot prior to the contest, and Hillary likely comes out of there a mere +2 in pledged delegates and no significant advantage in popular vote. Let's say we had a competitive contest in Florida at that time with active campaigning with Obama riding a wave at that time with his message resonating, Hillary gains little there.
But the fact remains that both of their names were on the ballot in Florida and she won. And since they were not campaigning, Obama got his momemtum by virtue of the fact that the only thing running on the news was the post-SC lovefest.
As you point out, she won by 10% in Michigan over Kucinich and 'Uncommitted.' But what is not mentioned is that the Omama and Edwards camps instructed voters to vote uncommitted to show support for them. You can't tell me that an Obama supporter would look at that ballot and pull the lever for Clinton over uncommitted knowing it was a competative race, even if they hadn't gotten the word. So yes, she would have led Obama by well over 10%.
This is not an argument for including the results of these states - that would make a mockery of the DNC. I'm just saying there is some validity to the argument that she leads in the popular vote. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 3/10/2008 7:20:42 PM |
The guy that's ahead of her was/is :
1) Black (mixed race, tbh)
2) Has the worse possible sounding name one could pick in today's America for a Presidential candidate.
3) Had pretty much zero exposure to a national audience before it started.
You act as if those are detriments. (2) is, but (1) and (3) are decided advantages. America loves the idea of voting for a non-divisive black politician - what Shelby Steele calls a 'negotiator.' And having no exposure means having no negatives to overcome and no voting record to defend. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 3/10/2008 7:43:11 PM | For Bikeman...
I posted this at the beginning of the thread. You can also do a search with regards to Barack's political career.
"You may not know what he's done, and I'm sure some won't LIKE what he's done, but if you want to ignore his rising against adversity (not notable?) to be President of the Harvard Law Review (not notable?) and the positive impact he had working as a community organizer on the south side of Chicago (not notable?) for whatever reason, well, that's your prerogative.
However, during the first (8) eight years of his elected service Barack Obama sponsored over 820 bills, including:
233 regarding healthcare reform,
125 on poverty and public assistance,
112 crime fighting bills,
97 economic bills,
60 human rights and anti-discrimination bills,
21 ethics reform bills,
15 gun control,
6 veterans affairs and many others.
His first year in the U.S. Senate, Senator Obama authored 152 bills and co-sponsored another 427. These included:
The Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006 (became law),
The Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act, (became law),
The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, passed the Senate,
The 2007 Government Ethics Bill, (became law),
The Protection Against Excessive Executive Compensation Bill, (In committee), and many more.
I'm not suggesting other Senators can't be a damn fine President. And like those financial prospectus warnings, past performance doesn't necessarily predict future outcomes - but I'm very impressed with the productive, often bi-partisan Obama "lack" of notable substance, myself." | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 3/10/2008 9:08:18 PM | I will not agree NG that there is any validity because the paradigm was skewed.
Whoever tallied up the argument that Hillary has more popular votes based on those two states, were popular votes included from the UNCOMMITTED side in Obama's column. If so how were they split if not all included for Obama?
It matters little now. I believe Geraldine Ferraro has just decided the outcome. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 3/10/2008 9:18:03 PM | | I don't want Shrillary anywhere on the Democratic ticket. I hope that Obama is nominated and a good man chosen for the VP slot. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 3/10/2008 10:54:24 PM | Hillery would be winning if Senator Obama never entered the race.
Her problem isn't that she's an unlikeable, fear-mongering member of the old guard, but that Senator Obama INSPIRES and makes people feel as if there actually *IS* a chance that 'politics as usual' can change. The reason he's winning is that HORDES of new fresh faces finally see something worth paying attention too...
And those hordes will see him through to the White House.
James, Port Orchard, Washington, USA, Earth | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 3/11/2008 6:14:41 AM | Good Day, All ...
Hillary would be winning if Senator Obama never entered the race.
Her problem isn't that she's an unlikeable, fear-mongering member of the old guard, but that Senator Obama INSPIRES and makes people feel as if there actually *IS* a chance that 'politics as usual' can change. The reason he's winning is that HORDES of new fresh faces finally see something worth paying attention to ...
I think that largely captures it.
In other news ...
The guy that's ahead of her was/is :
1) Black (mixed race, tbh)
2) Has the worse possible sounding name one could pick in today's America for a Presidential candidate.
3) Had pretty much zero exposure to a national audience before it started. You act as if those are detriments. (2) is, but (1) and (3) are decided advantages.
I read that and cracked up!
I'm not sure how you managed to reach that conclusion, but a [very] casual inspection of the annals/photos of our nation's past U.S. Presidents and Vice-Presidents (or even those heading up corporate America, academia, law firms, etc.) certainly would not lead one to believe that being either African-American OR a women of ANY race are "decided advantages" in the quest to reach those offices. Additionally, I would disagree with the proposition that a person who might make for an excellent President, yet who is only known locally (i.e., not to a national audience), is at a "decided advantage" over other candidates in a national election. But that's just me ...  | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 3/11/2008 6:45:03 AM | I disagree Seattlerain.
There are many Democrats and GOP, who completely distrust Hillary and actually despise her, if not hate her and make no secret of it. She comes off as ambitious, power-hungry and nothing wrong with that, but also as fraudulent & shrill.
As for your comment that she would be winning if Obama was not in the race, wow, what a revelation...isn't that the case with everyone in any race, who is in second place, that if the best candidate had not entered the race, they would be the winners?. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 3/11/2008 6:47:52 AM | Hillary is losing due to simple mathematics. All of the Black television stations and radio stations are calling for Blacks to vote in the cuaucuses. The colleges are doing the same since these two groups comprise most of Obamas support he is winning the cuacuses. Although he may be winning these it is in no way inidicitvie of how how he will do in the general election. Before anyone gets bent out of shape I know he is receiving votes from more than these two groups but if you take them out of the equation in the cuacuses he would not be winning. These groups make up a small percentage of the total of the voters in the U.S. it will be interesting to see how he does if he manages to get the nomination.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend, Obamas success is based on peoples hate of President Bush, if Bush was not so unliked most would not be seriously considering someone with Obamas lack of experience and affiliations, Obama needs to thank Bush for his success. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 3/11/2008 7:17:27 AM | Hillary would be winning if Senator Obama never entered the race.
Not so sure about that. I think John Edwards would be leading the Democrat nomination process if Obama had never entered the race. John Edwards has largely the same message that Obama does and is nearly as proficient a speaker as Obama. Edwards is a more viable nominee in a general election run than Hillary is. If Obama hadn't been in the race, a lot of those fundraising dollars would have swung over to Edwards, and he would have mounted a very effective campaign.
Hillary, considering the free media buildup she got for 5 years, is under-performing as a candidate. That would be true whether or not Obama had entered the race. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 3/11/2008 7:18:49 AM | Bikeman: you sound like a Hillary fan. This is an ignorant statement; you don't know me well, in fact you don't know me at all, so why would you refute a statement like this without any tangible proof? That makes no sense.
Hillary has limited experience compared with someone like John McCain. This is obvious to anyone who has been an adult longer than a few years.
Hillary actually has the least legislative experience out of the three candidates. Yet it is Obama running as a two-faced Washington outsider. I don't discount Obama's experience as an elected official. His sales technique doesn't wash with me. His technique has won over other people. Fine, this is a free country. Vote for whoever you want.
For those who are still clinging to the notion that Hillary was a kind of "co-president" I'm not "clinging" to anything of the sort. I do recognize that she spent a great deal of time with a highly effective president. A presidency where the economy was expanding, where growth was possible.
I'm wondering how you were directed to that link Bikeman as you are now the second person who has used that link to say the same thing. I'm wondering if this is a spin or if this is just coincidence? I found that link by "2008 democratic popular vote" into Google. It's the 2nd link listed. I interpreted the results. Anyone with the slightest bit of mathematical and statistical knowledge would recognize the race is a virtual tie. No mandate has been earned by either candidate.
For Bikeman...I posted this at the beginning of the thread. You can also do a search with regards to Barack's political career. No way do I discount Obama's career. However I know lots of people just as successful if not moreso in their careers; success doesn't necessarily give someone presidential timber. I've got no problem with the idea of an Obama presidency. Bill Clinton was as two-faced as Obama if not moreso, and his presidency was the most effective presidency in my lifetime; yet I never voted for him because I thought he had zero commander-in-chief skills. So if Obama were president, that might not be a bad thing, but should I vote for him just because he seems to be the "flavor of the day"? | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 3/11/2008 7:43:40 AM | From what I understand also FL and MI moved up their primaries for vanity. The voters of those states were never considered from discussion #1... but now circumstances make them important because... anyone? Because the Democrats all agreed their voices didn't matter in the beginning, now they realize they matter because the election could be lost on their electoral votes leaving the Democrats from the fallout. Just more of the same... "We will buy you or sell you based on what's convenient for us".
You can't count the results of those contests as is for any statistic. Until a decision to redo or not to redo those contests, they don't count. Considering that Clinton won by 10% over NOBODY in Michigan, that's not much to brag about. Put some names on that ballot prior to the contest, and Hillary likely comes out of there a mere +2 in pledged delegates and no significant advantage in popular vote. Let's say we had a competitive contest in Florida at that time with active campaigning with Obama riding a wave at that time with his message resonating, Hillary gains little there.
Considering the buffoonery of it from day 1, I think they should leave it as is and suffer the consequences even if that means McCain takes the states as the beneficiary of the disenfranchisement of those voters. It would probably be the only way that a lesson is learned from history in this case.
I agree!
I'm always opposed to people not having their vote counted but this "Do-Over" thing is just down right stupid and I will not go along with it. It's far better to not have my vote count (But I didn't vote in the primary as I'm not a Democrate or Republican) than concede to this "Do-Over" thing... Once you start down that path of "Do-Over's" there will be no end to it, there will always be one side or the other trying to say they lost unfairly and a "Do-Over" is required. As a Tax payer I don't want to see my money spent on such friviolus endevors... As bad as I hate to say it, I would rather see McCain or Hillary get elected than a never ending waste of my tax dollars on "Do-over contest" each election. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 3/11/2008 7:59:28 AM |
This is an ignorant statement; you don't know me well, in fact you don't know me at all, so why would you refute a statement like this without any tangible proof? That makes no sense.
The fact that you're getting butt-hurt about it is all the proof anyone needs. What we're seeing here is a guy trying to defend Hillary's professed "experience" while ignoring the fact that her resume doesn't back it up. No one needs to know you well to know that you and one other poster are the only ones on the thread trying to argue that Hillary has extensive experience. It's a joke when contrasted with the experience of John McCain. Anyone for whom experience is the primary criterion should vote for McCain. Hillary has the least OFFICIAL experience in government out of all 3 candidates. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 3/11/2008 8:21:29 AM | I suppose it could also be said, that had Hillary and Obama not entered the race, that Edwards would have gotten the nomination, but I don't believe he would have beaten Hillary alone since he was always a distant 3rd (except in Iowa) prior to dropping out. Moreover, from the outset, his candidacy was overshadowed by a woman and a black man.
Many were drawn to him because of his populist politics, pro-union, anti-corporate approach, but also, many did not particularly believe nor want to hear from someone with a $400 haircut that he empathized with their situation; this time around he did not have the fire in his belly, maybe due to the health of his wife. Also, IMHO, I think he made a big mistake by not endorsing Obama. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 3/11/2008 8:52:14 AM |
The enemy of my enemy is my friend, Obamas success is based on peoples hate of President Bush, if Bush was not so unliked most would not be seriously considering someone with Obamas lack of experience and affiliations, Obama needs to thank Bush for his success.
I disagre completley.
There are new variables to consider in this race.
1) New Voters brought by Obama
2) Republicans Voting for Obama
3) Republicans Voting against Hillary
If Obama doesn't get the nomination those previous (Voters for the Democrat Party-Obama) would leave and vote McCain.
I am one of those such voters. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 3/11/2008 9:10:38 AM | The previous post illuminates what I consider to be the stupidest argument out there by Hillary's people.
They say she wins the big Blue states, while Obama wins the Red states. But if you want to win an election, you have to win Red and swing states - the Blue states are already going your way. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 3/11/2008 9:16:48 AM | | ^^ What you are describing is 'win everything.' Good strategy. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 3/11/2008 9:40:14 AM | Yep wolves, your is not the first post I've seen that said this. Hillary is too devisive. I mean, look at what she's been doing, she's got a knack for it, do we really want a devisive person to be president or someone who can bring people together?
division doesn't seem to be going so well..... | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 3/11/2008 9:52:37 AM |
The fact that you're getting butt-hurt about it is all the proof anyone needs. What we're seeing here is a guy trying to defend Hillary's professed "experience" while ignoring the fact that her resume doesn't back it up. You would have to tell me what "butt-hurt" feels like, LOL.
I am not arguing Hillary has extensive experience. I do recognize she has a "unique" experience. To not recognize this is foolhardy. BTW I think McCain is the best of these three candidates but I've got a hard time overlooking that his base of support is right-wing. You need to choose the lesser of the evils with these three, that's for sure. A hot-headed septuagenarian, a two-face, or a boorish carpetbagger. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 3/11/2008 9:56:51 AM | You need to choose the lesser of the evils with these three, that's for sure. A hot-headed septuagenarian, a two-face, or a boorish carpetbagger.
I feel sorry for you if that's how you look at things? I suppose it's a good thing that their are good people out there that are willing to look to the bigger picture and cast votes for who will best lead America in a promising direction. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 3/11/2008 10:02:26 AM | I'm not sure how you managed to reach that conclusion, but a [very] casual inspection of the annals/photos of our nation's past U.S. Presidents and Vice-Presidents (or even those heading up corporate America, academia, law firms, etc.) certainly would not lead one to believe that being either African-American OR a women of ANY race are "decided advantages" in the quest to reach those offices.
Read Shelby Steele. You may disagree with his reasoning, but that's where the conclusion comes from. The thinking goes like this: African-Americans tend to adopt one of two public personas. A challenger (think Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton) says to white america 'you are racist until you prove to me otherwise.' A bargainer (think Bill Cosby, Oprah, Tiger Woods, Condi Rice, or Colin Powell) say's 'I will presume you are not racist if we leave race out of it.' Americans want nothing more than to leave racism behind. They like the idea of supporting a black candidate (or celebrity) who reflects their views, *especially if they can tell themselves that race didn't enter into their thinking*. It reinforces to them that they have moved beyond race. By never raising the issue, a bargainer allows them to do that. A challenger keeps race front and center, and puts them on the defensive.
http://www.blackstarnews.com/?c=135&a=4280
As a side note, this is why parties usually not associated with minorities are frequently successfull at breaking the highest barriers (like Thatcher in the UK). A minority-focused party tends to radicalize and produce challenger candidates (like Sharpton and Jackson) while minorities in parties light on minorities tend to get there by being negotiators (like JC Watts). I'm willing to bet that were it not for the reality of the Republicans rallying around the Iraq War, Colin Powell would have been the parties nominee in 2008. | |
|
|
| Page 7 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 
