|
CNN.
In any case, Obama's lead is almost as much as before, and now there are less primaries to go.
|
The real story is that Clinton shut out Obama's very small chance of accumulating enough delegates to win without a mass movement of superdelegates. Clinton hasn't had a chance to win without superdelegates for a while. There's no way this contest will be decided before the convention where things may get complicated with Florida and Michigan delegate shenanigans, and a metaphorical smoke filled room where party bigwigs decide the nominee instead of the people.
|
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/campaign_rdp
"The count does not include delegates from Florida and Michigan, who were penalized by the Democratic Party for moving up their primaries ahead of a schedule set by the Democratic National Committee. None of the Democratic candidates campaigned in either state. But Clinton, who won the popular vote in both state primaries, on Wednesday renewed her call for Florida and Michigan to be counted in the nomination race.
"It's a mistake for the Democratic Party to punish these two states," she said. "I don't see how a Democratic nominee goes forward alienating two of the most important states.""
How do you say that system is aleinating those states when you couldn't be bothered to campaign there?
|
the DNC ruled to strip those states of their delegates and asked the candidates to sign a pledge not to campaign there.
so rather, you should be asking, 'how do you say that a system is alienating those states when you agreed not to campaign there?'
|
On March 06 2008 00:50 Hawk wrote:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/campaign_rdp"The count does not include delegates from Florida and Michigan, who were penalized by the Democratic Party for moving up their primaries ahead of a schedule set by the Democratic National Committee. None of the Democratic candidates campaigned in either state. But Clinton, who won the popular vote in both state primaries, on Wednesday renewed her call for Florida and Michigan to be counted in the nomination race. "It's a mistake for the Democratic Party to punish these two states," she said. "I don't see how a Democratic nominee goes forward alienating two of the most important states."" How do you say that system is aleinating those states when you couldn't be bothered to campaign there?
Actually, Hillary was the only major Dem candidate who left her name on those two state ballots. Obama and Edwards went with the Party's instructions to totally pull out. The DNC told ALL of them not to campaign in either state.
But I do agree that her trying to retroactively shoehorn them into the process does smack of opportunism at its worst. Even if she calls for a new primary in those states, it's because she needs as many winnable delegates as she can get to tighten things up before the convention.
It's too bad for the voters in those states, but I think it's too late now to really do anything about it.
|
Yeah, I agree it's late and it's a dumb move by the party as a whole, but that's a perfect example of why I dislike her so much: queen of opportunity!
So now this thing won't be decided until April?
/facepalm
|
I wish Hilldog would just fuck off. It'll be a shame watching her negative-campaign strategies divide the democratic party and lead to 4 years of a angry old man like McCain.
She has shown recently that all she cares about is getting the nomination - even if it causes her party to lose the general election.
|
Read the link I posted. I have no idea if it's possible, or if she was even serious, but she also hinted at having a shared ticket. I'd fucking drive to Washington to punch that cunt in the throat if she honestly goes out and proposes that. I'd never be a Republican, but goddamnit, their party is just SO MUCH SMARTER when it comes to campaigning. WHY ARE THE RETARDS ALWAYS DEMOCRATS?
|
tl;dr Democrats are fucked
|
Something I saw on another forum:
----------------------------------------
Ok time for some serious shit
The wins last night by Hillary Clinton are being overrated by the media and general public.
Yes, she won Ohio/Texas but it is by no means a upset or anything special for her. Woopie, she broke Obama's 11 state win streak and gained some momentum back, but it doesn't matter.
1) Hillary was a shoe-in for Ohio/Texas from the very beginning of this nomination. Ohio was always hers and it should not come as a surprise that she won by 10%. The fact that Obama actually caught up and brought the split to within 10% is a more important (and underlooked) message. Her win in Ohio was not significant enough to overcome the overall delegate count for the night.
2) Texas. Just like Ohio, she had a massive lead in Texas from the start. It wasn't until these past 2 weeks that Obama caught up to the point where it was a virtual tie. However, because of this, the media (and us) started hyping Texas up as a possible win for him. Now that he lost, many people and the media are seeing it as Obama's failure when he was unlikely to take it from the start. The delegate split on the primary and the win in the caucus means that Hillary will walk away with less delegates. The media and others should stop looking at the popular vote as the deciding factor, especially when it's fucking 51-47%. That's a very slim margin.
2.5) No one cares about RI
3) As the copypasta article that's been around says, it is mathematically impossible for Hillary to win. The florida/michigan delegates will not just be handed to her either especially since SHE broke the party agreement. Superdelegates shouldn't even be a point of discussion because its very doubtful that they will go against their own state. It's politically best for her to drop out now.
4) The notion that Hillary winning the big states is a good argument for the nomination is bullshit. California? Votes democratic anyways. New York? Mass? Conn? Rest of NE? All the same. Even PA went dem last election. The very notion that because Hillary won the big states means Obama won't win them in the general election is stupid as hell. Those states vote democratic. Obama is a democrat. Put the two and two together, use logic, christ. Florida and Texas vote rep, those are nonissues.
Rather than that, we should look at who can win swing states and that is Obama. Who decides the general election? Swing states. Who has cross-party and independent appeal? Obama. One of the key deciding factors this election will be independents. Hillary has absolutely no appeal to moderates and she has no appeal to moderate-leaning republicans. Guess what? McCain has a shitload of moderate appeal because he virtually is one. This means that logically, Obama is still the best person to go up against McCain as he is the only one who can generate enough enthusiasm and moderate appeal to properly take down McCain.
----------------------------------------
And I heard something about her supporters chanting "Yes She Will"? I mean, after the fear mongering with the 3am ad and the constant negative attacks and accusations of Obama plagarism, they go ahead and basically rip off his callsign
|
Show nested quote +On March 06 2008 07:38 useLess wrote:
Something I saw on another forum:
----------------------------------------
Ok time for some serious shit
The wins last night by Hillary Clinton are being overrated by the media and general public.
Yes, she won Ohio/Texas but it is by no means a upset or anything special for her. Woopie, she broke Obama's 11 state win streak and gained some momentum back, but it doesn't matter.
1) Hillary was a shoe-in for Ohio/Texas from the very beginning of this nomination. Ohio was always hers and it should not come as a surprise that she won by 10%. The fact that Obama actually caught up and brought the split to within 10% is a more important (and underlooked) message. Her win in Ohio was not significant enough to overcome the overall delegate count for the night.
2) Texas. Just like Ohio, she had a massive lead in Texas from the start. It wasn't until these past 2 weeks that Obama caught up to the point where it was a virtual tie. However, because of this, the media (and us) started hyping Texas up as a possible win for him. Now that he lost, many people and the media are seeing it as Obama's failure when he was unlikely to take it from the start. The delegate split on the primary and the win in the caucus means that Hillary will walk away with less delegates. The media and others should stop looking at the popular vote as the deciding factor, especially when it's fucking 51-47%. That's a very slim margin.
2.5) No one cares about RI
3) As the copypasta article that's been around says, it is mathematically impossible for Hillary to win. The florida/michigan delegates will not just be handed to her either especially since SHE broke the party agreement. Superdelegates shouldn't even be a point of discussion because its very doubtful that they will go against their own state. It's politically best for her to drop out now.
4) The notion that Hillary winning the big states is a good argument for the nomination is bullshit. California? Votes democratic anyways. New York? Mass? Conn? Rest of NE? All the same. Even PA went dem last election. The very notion that because Hillary won the big states means Obama won't win them in the general election is stupid as hell. Those states vote democratic. Obama is a democrat. Put the two and two together, use logic, christ. Florida and Texas vote rep, those are nonissues.
Rather than that, we should look at who can win swing states and that is Obama. Who decides the general election? Swing states. Who has cross-party and independent appeal? Obama. One of the key deciding factors this election will be independents. Hillary has absolutely no appeal to moderates and she has no appeal to moderate-leaning republicans. Guess what? McCain has a shitload of moderate appeal because he virtually is one. This means that logically, Obama is still the best person to go up against McCain as he is the only one who can generate enough enthusiasm and moderate appeal to properly take down McCain.
----------------------------------------
And I heard something about her supporters chanting "Yes She Will"? I mean, after the fear mongering with the 3am ad and the constant negative attacks and accusations of Obama plagarism, they go ahead and basically rip off his callsign
Actually Hillary would do better in the general election since she does better in the swing states than Obama. The fact that she WON Ohio, a crucial swing state, by a large margin against Obama in an OPEN primary proves that she has no credible reason whatsoever to drop out.
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x2882.xml?ReleaseID=1142
Who cares if Obama has a higher national poll rating, the US doesn't elect its president by the popular vote, it does it by the electoral college.
Besides, if Obama even wins the nomination in the first place, the media will tear that guy apart since he's been hiding behind his image of CHANGE this entire time.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/03/04/2008-03-04_angry_barack_obama_bombarded_by_media.html
Enjoy your McCain for the next four years.
|
Personally I think she stole those votes.
|
On March 06 2008 10:21 fight_or_flight wrote:
Personally I think she stole those votes.
|
lol, obama's lead over hillary is still 144 delegates despite her 'comeback'
wow for all the hype march 4 actually didn't change a damn thing when it comes to delegate count
|
On March 06 2008 10:19 dickhead wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2008 07:38 useLess wrote:
Something I saw on another forum:
----------------------------------------
Ok time for some serious shit
The wins last night by Hillary Clinton are being overrated by the media and general public.
Yes, she won Ohio/Texas but it is by no means a upset or anything special for her. Woopie, she broke Obama's 11 state win streak and gained some momentum back, but it doesn't matter.
1) Hillary was a shoe-in for Ohio/Texas from the very beginning of this nomination. Ohio was always hers and it should not come as a surprise that she won by 10%. The fact that Obama actually caught up and brought the split to within 10% is a more important (and underlooked) message. Her win in Ohio was not significant enough to overcome the overall delegate count for the night.
2) Texas. Just like Ohio, she had a massive lead in Texas from the start. It wasn't until these past 2 weeks that Obama caught up to the point where it was a virtual tie. However, because of this, the media (and us) started hyping Texas up as a possible win for him. Now that he lost, many people and the media are seeing it as Obama's failure when he was unlikely to take it from the start. The delegate split on the primary and the win in the caucus means that Hillary will walk away with less delegates. The media and others should stop looking at the popular vote as the deciding factor, especially when it's fucking 51-47%. That's a very slim margin.
2.5) No one cares about RI
3) As the copypasta article that's been around says, it is mathematically impossible for Hillary to win. The florida/michigan delegates will not just be handed to her either especially since SHE broke the party agreement. Superdelegates shouldn't even be a point of discussion because its very doubtful that they will go against their own state. It's politically best for her to drop out now.
4) The notion that Hillary winning the big states is a good argument for the nomination is bullshit. California? Votes democratic anyways. New York? Mass? Conn? Rest of NE? All the same. Even PA went dem last election. The very notion that because Hillary won the big states means Obama won't win them in the general election is stupid as hell. Those states vote democratic. Obama is a democrat. Put the two and two together, use logic, christ. Florida and Texas vote rep, those are nonissues.
Rather than that, we should look at who can win swing states and that is Obama. Who decides the general election? Swing states. Who has cross-party and independent appeal? Obama. One of the key deciding factors this election will be independents. Hillary has absolutely no appeal to moderates and she has no appeal to moderate-leaning republicans. Guess what? McCain has a shitload of moderate appeal because he virtually is one. This means that logically, Obama is still the best person to go up against McCain as he is the only one who can generate enough enthusiasm and moderate appeal to properly take down McCain.
----------------------------------------
And I heard something about her supporters chanting "Yes She Will"? I mean, after the fear mongering with the 3am ad and the constant negative attacks and accusations of Obama plagarism, they go ahead and basically rip off his callsign
Actually Hillary would do better in the general election since she does better in the swing states than Obama. The fact that she WON Ohio, a crucial swing state, by a large margin against Obama in an OPEN primary proves that she has no credible reason whatsoever to drop out. http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x2882.xml?ReleaseID=1142Who cares if Obama has a higher national poll rating, the US doesn't elect its president by the popular vote, it does it by the electoral college. Besides, if Obama even wins the nomination in the first place, the media will tear that guy apart since he's been hiding behind his image of CHANGE this entire time. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/03/04/2008-03-04_angry_barack_obama_bombarded_by_media.htmlEnjoy your McCain for the next four years.
That fact that the Republicans want Clinton to get the nomination I think would be a sign that shows that they believe she is the weaker candidate. There's a running joke on the GOP side that nobody energizes republicans more so than a Clinton. And the fact that you don't have much faith if she got the nomination and McCain would still win helps prove their point.
|
Hillary will be the last nail in the coffin of the democratic party this general election.
Let's just go ahead an swear in Mccain for gods sake.
|
On March 06 2008 10:29 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2008 10:19 dickhead wrote:On March 06 2008 07:38 useLess wrote:
Something I saw on another forum:
----------------------------------------
Ok time for some serious shit
The wins last night by Hillary Clinton are being overrated by the media and general public.
Yes, she won Ohio/Texas but it is by no means a upset or anything special for her. Woopie, she broke Obama's 11 state win streak and gained some momentum back, but it doesn't matter.
1) Hillary was a shoe-in for Ohio/Texas from the very beginning of this nomination. Ohio was always hers and it should not come as a surprise that she won by 10%. The fact that Obama actually caught up and brought the split to within 10% is a more important (and underlooked) message. Her win in Ohio was not significant enough to overcome the overall delegate count for the night.
2) Texas. Just like Ohio, she had a massive lead in Texas from the start. It wasn't until these past 2 weeks that Obama caught up to the point where it was a virtual tie. However, because of this, the media (and us) started hyping Texas up as a possible win for him. Now that he lost, many people and the media are seeing it as Obama's failure when he was unlikely to take it from the start. The delegate split on the primary and the win in the caucus means that Hillary will walk away with less delegates. The media and others should stop looking at the popular vote as the deciding factor, especially when it's fucking 51-47%. That's a very slim margin.
2.5) No one cares about RI
3) As the copypasta article that's been around says, it is mathematically impossible for Hillary to win. The florida/michigan delegates will not just be handed to her either especially since SHE broke the party agreement. Superdelegates shouldn't even be a point of discussion because its very doubtful that they will go against their own state. It's politically best for her to drop out now.
4) The notion that Hillary winning the big states is a good argument for the nomination is bullshit. California? Votes democratic anyways. New York? Mass? Conn? Rest of NE? All the same. Even PA went dem last election. The very notion that because Hillary won the big states means Obama won't win them in the general election is stupid as hell. Those states vote democratic. Obama is a democrat. Put the two and two together, use logic, christ. Florida and Texas vote rep, those are nonissues.
Rather than that, we should look at who can win swing states and that is Obama. Who decides the general election? Swing states. Who has cross-party and independent appeal? Obama. One of the key deciding factors this election will be independents. Hillary has absolutely no appeal to moderates and she has no appeal to moderate-leaning republicans. Guess what? McCain has a shitload of moderate appeal because he virtually is one. This means that logically, Obama is still the best person to go up against McCain as he is the only one who can generate enough enthusiasm and moderate appeal to properly take down McCain.
----------------------------------------
And I heard something about her supporters chanting "Yes She Will"? I mean, after the fear mongering with the 3am ad and the constant negative attacks and accusations of Obama plagarism, they go ahead and basically rip off his callsign
Actually Hillary would do better in the general election since she does better in the swing states than Obama. The fact that she WON Ohio, a crucial swing state, by a large margin against Obama in an OPEN primary proves that she has no credible reason whatsoever to drop out. http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x2882.xml?ReleaseID=1142Who cares if Obama has a higher national poll rating, the US doesn't elect its president by the popular vote, it does it by the electoral college. Besides, if Obama even wins the nomination in the first place, the media will tear that guy apart since he's been hiding behind his image of CHANGE this entire time. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/03/04/2008-03-04_angry_barack_obama_bombarded_by_media.htmlEnjoy your McCain for the next four years. That fact that the Republicans want Clinton to get the nomination I think would be a sign that shows that they believe she is the weaker candidate. There's a running joke on the GOP side that nobody energizes republicans more so than a Clinton. And the fact that you don't have much faith if she got the nomination and McCain would still win helps prove their point.
I think haliburton and blackwater would rather have hillary because she knows how to play ball. Sorry to sound like that, but its honestly what I believe.
Remember when bush was running for president? He kept talking about tax cuts/small government, and if you remember correctly he also mentioned repeatedly that he was against nation building and having a foreign policy like that. What does he do? The exact opposite.
What have I heard hillary talking about? Being against special interests and fixing medical care. Therefore, I believe that she would sell out to pretty much every corporation and force us to pay for mandatory health care at highly inflated rates, or lose our jobs if we don't want to pay.
|
On March 06 2008 10:19 dickhead wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2008 07:38 useLess wrote:
Something I saw on another forum:
----------------------------------------
Ok time for some serious shit
The wins last night by Hillary Clinton are being overrated by the media and general public.
Yes, she won Ohio/Texas but it is by no means a upset or anything special for her. Woopie, she broke Obama's 11 state win streak and gained some momentum back, but it doesn't matter.
1) Hillary was a shoe-in for Ohio/Texas from the very beginning of this nomination. Ohio was always hers and it should not come as a surprise that she won by 10%. The fact that Obama actually caught up and brought the split to within 10% is a more important (and underlooked) message. Her win in Ohio was not significant enough to overcome the overall delegate count for the night.
2) Texas. Just like Ohio, she had a massive lead in Texas from the start. It wasn't until these past 2 weeks that Obama caught up to the point where it was a virtual tie. However, because of this, the media (and us) started hyping Texas up as a possible win for him. Now that he lost, many people and the media are seeing it as Obama's failure when he was unlikely to take it from the start. The delegate split on the primary and the win in the caucus means that Hillary will walk away with less delegates. The media and others should stop looking at the popular vote as the deciding factor, especially when it's fucking 51-47%. That's a very slim margin.
2.5) No one cares about RI
3) As the copypasta article that's been around says, it is mathematically impossible for Hillary to win. The florida/michigan delegates will not just be handed to her either especially since SHE broke the party agreement. Superdelegates shouldn't even be a point of discussion because its very doubtful that they will go against their own state. It's politically best for her to drop out now.
4) The notion that Hillary winning the big states is a good argument for the nomination is bullshit. California? Votes democratic anyways. New York? Mass? Conn? Rest of NE? All the same. Even PA went dem last election. The very notion that because Hillary won the big states means Obama won't win them in the general election is stupid as hell. Those states vote democratic. Obama is a democrat. Put the two and two together, use logic, christ. Florida and Texas vote rep, those are nonissues.
Rather than that, we should look at who can win swing states and that is Obama. Who decides the general election? Swing states. Who has cross-party and independent appeal? Obama. One of the key deciding factors this election will be independents. Hillary has absolutely no appeal to moderates and she has no appeal to moderate-leaning republicans. Guess what? McCain has a shitload of moderate appeal because he virtually is one. This means that logically, Obama is still the best person to go up against McCain as he is the only one who can generate enough enthusiasm and moderate appeal to properly take down McCain.
----------------------------------------
And I heard something about her supporters chanting "Yes She Will"? I mean, after the fear mongering with the 3am ad and the constant negative attacks and accusations of Obama plagarism, they go ahead and basically rip off his callsign
Actually Hillary would do better in the general election since she does better in the swing states than Obama. The fact that she WON Ohio, a crucial swing state, by a large margin against Obama in an OPEN primary proves that she has no credible reason whatsoever to drop out.
Hillary is winning them by getting traditional democratic voters who would almost all switch over to Obama, while not all of Obama's voters would switch over to Hillary. I agree with the quoted post. This was illustrated when I saw one poll showing that while Obama trailed Hillary head to head in Ohio, he surpassed her in a one on one with McCain in the state (in which both of them lost, Obama by 2%).
Besides, if Obama even wins the nomination in the first place, the media will tear that guy apart since he's been hiding behind his image of CHANGE this entire time.
He has not been hiding. It is not the fault of Obama that change is the only thing the media will seem to discuss about him (as a positive). See fusionsdf's post.
|
Someone please tell me how the hell a President of the United States would make Universal Healthcare an option, when there are over 300 MILLION people in this country. I can only imagine the shit that would fly and the money that would have to bulldozed into that monster per year. And the loss of jobs in that area of industry.
|
what's the alternative though? let people die in the streets?
btw obama's plan is universal as well
edit: i'm from canada, what do you expect 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/7462/tinfoilhatoc6.jpg)
