do it yourself. If she gets 57% of the vote, she still comes out about 50 delegates behind, 54% is 80
2008 US Presidential Election - Page 39
Forum Index > Closed |
fusionsdf
Canada15390 Posts
do it yourself. If she gets 57% of the vote, she still comes out about 50 delegates behind, 54% is 80 | ||
Masamune
Canada3401 Posts
| ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
On March 06 2008 13:17 Masamune wrote: Hmm a lot of people here are saying that Clinton is favoured by the media but they are forgetting that Obama has the internets! So did Ron Paul, look how that turned out. | ||
Slaughter
United States20254 Posts
| ||
Clutch3
United States1344 Posts
Oh Hillary.... you're making it awful hard to defend you.... http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080305.wharpleak0305/BNStory/National/home | ||
fusionsdf
Canada15390 Posts
"Despite Obama's impressive victories in February, Clinton's comeback is based on sowing political seeds of doubt," said Donna Brazile, a Democratic strategist and one of nearly 800 party leaders known as superdelegates for their ability to determine the nomination. "In order to clinch the nomination, he must anticipate the worst attacks ever." Consider that a shot across the bow to the Clinton campaign because Brazile -- like many other superdelegates -- worries that Clinton's only hope for victory is tearing down Obama and dividing the party. Party chairman Howard Dean recently told House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid that he was concerned about the possible impact of a nominating campaign that stretched through the end of the primaries in early June. Some superdelegates are bracing themselves to intervene on Obama's behalf if necessary. "If these attacks are contrasts based on policy differences, there is no need to stop the race or halt the debate," Brazile said. "But, if this is more division, more diversion from the issues and more of the same politics of personal destruction, chairman Dean and other should be on standby." .... also, definition of spin: Still, Clinton supporters said yesterday's results suggested that Obama has not been able to close the deal, leaving her an opening. "She has lost 11 states in a row -- and the closest was Wisconsin, which she lost by 17" percentage points, said Paul Begala, who was a White House aide to her husband. "The theory of momentum suggested Obama should roll up equally large margins today, but voters seem to want to keep this race going. I suspect Senator Clinton agrees with them." .... ![]() | ||
Skye_MyO
Singapore107 Posts
On March 06 2008 13:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: So did Ron Paul, look how that turned out. I saw how it turned out, the media is very effective, even against the best message. | ||
a-game
Canada5085 Posts
On March 06 2008 14:27 Clutch3 wrote: More info out on NAFTA-gate. It's hard to tell what actually happened fully, but it seems now that all of this started when a campaign staffer of HILLARY, not Obama, gave the Canadian government an assertion about not taking the campaign rhetoric too seriously. So, even this is starting to smell at best like an accusation that applies equally to both candidates, and at worst, as a dirty trick by either Hillary and/or some conservative anti-Obama people in the Canadian government. Oh Hillary.... you're making it awful hard to defend you.... http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080305.wharpleak0305/BNStory/National/home wow. so the canadian government leaks to reporters that both clinton and obama were downplaying their nafta rhetoric in private, and yet CTV entirely focuses on the obama side of the story? oh yeah media is totally in the tank for obama :eyeroll: that cost him a lot of momentum, the nomination would practically be over today if it hadn't been for tthat slanted coverage. and the correction will probably never get a second of coverage in the states either. | ||
gwho
United States632 Posts
| ||
gwho
United States632 Posts
| ||
gwho
United States632 Posts
why aren't all delegates superdelegates? shouldn't they be free to choose whoever they want? or is it that they already pledged to vote one way from the beginning, and thus the name "super delegates" are created for the rest? | ||
The Storyteller
Singapore2486 Posts
On March 06 2008 16:41 gwho wrote: i have a question, maybe someone who knows more about the electing system can answer this. why aren't all delegates superdelegates? shouldn't they be free to choose whoever they want? or is it that they already pledged to vote one way from the beginning, and thus the name "super delegates" are created for the rest? Haha... are you sure you don't know the system? You basically summed it up perfectly. Every state has a certain number of pledged delegates. These people are pledged to vote in a certain way. But different states and different parties have different rules. For example, the Republican primaries have some "winner takes all" states. So if John McCain wins in one of those states even by a margin of 1%, he still gets 80 delegates or however many that state is worth. The Democratic pramaries are all based on proportional representation. So if Obama wins 48% of a vote in a state, technically, he should get 48% of the delegates. For the Republicans, because they have these winner takes all states, the chances of a tie are pretty slim. So there are no superdelegates (or at least, that's why I think there's no real need to have them. I could be wrong). But for the Democrats... well, you've seen what can happen. One candidate can lose every single primary by a couple of percentage points and still not hit the number of delegates needed for the nomination. To fix that kind of problem, where the voice of the people is essentially that they don't care who they get for nominee, the Democrats created superdelegates - state governers, the party chairman and other big shots in the party. In theory, these superdelegates are supposed to say, "okay, these two candidates have even appeal. Now which one do we think is best for the party?" Basically, they pick the one they think will win the election and give him/her the nomination. We've seen numbers of superdelegates the candidates have picked up. These numbers are based on the superdelegates coming out and declaring their support for one or the other candidate. However, these superdelegates are really not bound to support who they say they'll support. Joe Lewis, for example, was in the Hillary camp. Then he changed his mind. | ||
The Storyteller
Singapore2486 Posts
On March 06 2008 16:00 a-game wrote: wow. so the canadian government leaks to reporters that both clinton and obama were downplaying their nafta rhetoric in private, and yet CTV entirely focuses on the obama side of the story? oh yeah media is totally in the tank for obama :eyeroll: that cost him a lot of momentum, the nomination would practically be over today if it hadn't been for tthat slanted coverage. and the correction will probably never get a second of coverage in the states either. Actually, it could get A LOT of press, and could cost Hillary the nomination if Obama presses his advantage right. I just don't know if he will. However, I think the Democrats as a whole will make sure that it gets the publicity it deserves, because if left unresolved, it's really something that could hurt them during the general election. McCain I think will apologise and denounce the false information the moment he's certain. Hillary will look like a bitch, the Canadians will look like bastards, Obama will look like he didn't handle the situation well and McCain will look like a straight talker who isn't afraid to admit when he's wrong. Man, I can't believe this happened. | ||
fusionsdf
Canada15390 Posts
On March 06 2008 19:28 The Storyteller wrote: Haha... are you sure you don't know the system? You basically summed it up perfectly. Every state has a certain number of pledged delegates. These people are pledged to vote in a certain way. But different states and different parties have different rules. For example, the Republican primaries have some "winner takes all" states. So if John McCain wins in one of those states even by a margin of 1%, he still gets 80 delegates or however many that state is worth. The Democratic pramaries are all based on proportional representation. So if Obama wins 48% of a vote in a state, technically, he should get 48% of the delegates. For the Republicans, because they have these winner takes all states, the chances of a tie are pretty slim. So there are no superdelegates (or at least, that's why I think there's no real need to have them. I could be wrong). But for the Democrats... well, you've seen what can happen. One candidate can lose every single primary by a couple of percentage points and still not hit the number of delegates needed for the nomination. To fix that kind of problem, where the voice of the people is essentially that they don't care who they get for nominee, the Democrats created superdelegates - state governers, the party chairman and other big shots in the party. In theory, these superdelegates are supposed to say, "okay, these two candidates have even appeal. Now which one do we think is best for the party?" Basically, they pick the one they think will win the election and give him/her the nomination. We've seen numbers of superdelegates the candidates have picked up. These numbers are based on the superdelegates coming out and declaring their support for one or the other candidate. However, these superdelegates are really not bound to support who they say they'll support. Joe Lewis, for example, was in the Hillary camp. Then he changed his mind. The thing is, at the convention, pledged delegates can technically change their support on the floor.... Hillary clinton has already talked about 'poaching' pledged delegates. | ||
fusionsdf
Canada15390 Posts
By Peter Nicholas and Tom Hamburger, Los Angeles Times Staff Writers October 19, 2007 NEW YORK -- Something remarkable happened at 44 Henry St., a grimy Chinatown tenement with peeling walls. It also happened nearby at a dimly lighted apartment building with trash bins clustered by the front door. And again not too far away, at 88 E. Broadway beneath the Manhattan bridge, where vendors chatter in Mandarin and Fujianese as they hawk rubber sandals and bargain-basement clothes. Related - Best of 2007: The year's most popular stories on latimes.com All three locations, along with scores of others scattered throughout some of the poorest Chinese neighborhoods in Queens, Brooklyn and the Bronx, have been swept by an extraordinary impulse to shower money on one particular presidential candidate -- Democratic front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton. Dishwashers, waiters and others whose jobs and dilapidated home addresses seem to make them unpromising targets for political fundraisers are pouring $1,000 and $2,000 contributions into Clinton's campaign treasury. In April, a single fundraiser in an area long known for its gritty urban poverty yielded a whopping $380,000. When Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) ran for president in 2004, he received $24,000 from Chinatown. At this point in the presidential campaign cycle, Clinton has raised more money than any candidate in history. Those dishwashers, waiters and street stall hawkers are part of the reason. And Clinton's success in gathering money from Chinatown's least-affluent residents stems from a two-pronged strategy: mutually beneficial alliances with powerful groups, and appeals to the hopes and dreams of people now consigned to the margins. Clinton has enlisted the aid of Chinese neighborhood associations, especially those representing recent immigrants from Fujian province. The organizations, at least one of which is a descendant of Chinatown criminal enterprises that engaged in gambling and human trafficking, exert enormous influence over immigrants. The associations help them with everything from protection against crime to obtaining green cards. Many of Clinton's Chinatown donors said they had contributed because leaders in neighborhood associations told them to. In some cases, donors said they felt pressure to give. The other piece of the strategy involves holding out hope that, if Clinton becomes president, she will move quickly to reunite families and help illegal residents move toward citizenship. As New York's junior senator, Clinton has expressed support for immigrants and greater family reunification. She is also benefiting from Chinese donors' naive notions of what she could do in the White House. -- Campaign concerns As with other campaigns looking for dollars in unpromising places, the Clinton operation also has accepted what it later conceded were improper donations. At least one reported donor denies making a contribution. Another admitted to lacking the legal-resident status required for giving campaign money. Clinton aides said they were concerned about some of the Chinatown contributions. "We have hundreds of thousands of donors. We are proud to have support from across New York and the country from many different communities," campaign spokesman Howard Wolfson said. "In this instance, our own compliance process flagged a number of questionable donations and took the appropriate steps to be sure they were legally given. In cases where we couldn't confirm that, the money was returned." The Times examined the cases of more than 150 donors who provided checks to Clinton after fundraising events geared to the Chinese community. One-third of those donors could not be found using property, telephone or business records. Most have not registered to vote, according to public records. And several dozen were described in financial reports as holding jobs -- including dishwasher, server or chef -- that would normally make it difficult to donate amounts ranging from $500 to the legal maximum of $2,300 per election. Of 74 residents of New York's Chinatown, Flushing, the Bronx or Brooklyn that The Times called or visited, only 24 could be reached for comment. Many said they gave to Clinton because they were instructed to do so by local association leaders. Some said they wanted help on immigration concerns. And several spoke of the pride they felt by being associated with a powerful figure such as Clinton. http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-donors19oct19,0,4231217.story?page=1 | ||
Wysp
Canada2299 Posts
| ||
Ancestral
United States3230 Posts
| ||
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
geometryb
United States1249 Posts
| ||
QuanticHawk
United States32040 Posts
Clinton's path to the nomination, then, involves the following steps: kneecap an eloquent, inspiring, reform-minded young leader who happens to be the first serious African American presidential candidate (meanwhile cementing her own reputation for Nixonian ruthlessness) and then win a contested convention by persuading party elites to override the results at the polls. The plan may also involve trying to seat the Michigan and Florida delegations, after having explicitly agreed that the results would not count toward delegate totals. Oh, and her campaign has periodically hinted that some of Obama's elected delegates might break off and support her. I don't think she'd be in a position to defeat Hitler's dog in November, let alone a popular war hero. | ||
| ||