TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Why should Hillary leave the race?
Pages (11): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 »
Haha, it also builds one's arms collection 
. Me, living in Austin, I don't feel the necessity of owning anything more than my kung fu toys (well, they're not exactly toys! you can seriously fuck someobody up, or yourself if you're not careful 
)
My recent "outburst" should be a testament to the fact that getting wacked on the head with aluminum foil nunchucks makes one batshit crazy .
I'm addicted to gats, like Uncle Howie loves crack...
Being totally out of touch with "gangsta" culture, or not being white and suburban enough to be want to be "black," I had to look that one up .
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=gat
Re: Re: Re: hillary clinton: the psycho ex-girlfriend of the democratic party
| quote: |
| Originally posted by LazFX hey bud, FUCK YOU !!!! If you were right, then why can't Hilliary finish Obama off...... Fuck you and your bitch candidate..... why the fuck would I want someone that can't even keep her own husband happy?? why would I want someone that will allow herself to become a laughing stock due to her inability to keep her own house in order??? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by LazFX so no sir, you STFU and DIAF and also FOAD!!! |
Re: Re: Re: hillary clinton: the psycho ex-girlfriend of the democratic party
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Then let McCain pay for it with his meager funds. He has huge fund-raising problems and Hillary is handing him free pass after free pass. Christ on a bike, there's a thing called reality, and Mitt Romney is now officially a more permanent resident in it than Hillary Clinton. If she were staying in the race to influence the discourse of the race, that would be one thing. But it's an exercise in vanity and it was ok for awhile but it is really obnoxious now. The only reason Obama hasn't already sealed it (her main argument about his electability) is that the primaries are too spread out. You do know that John McCain didn't "seal" up the nomination until March, right? Like more than a month after Mitt Romney and company dropped out of the race? But I suppose you think he should have labored on as well. Mitt Romney looks so great by comparison to Hillary. He was gracious in defeat and didn't tear his party apart by fighting past the point where competition was realistic. Now he could easily run again with full party support. You think Hillary can still do that? You're crazy. |
Re: Re: Re: Re: hillary clinton: the psycho ex-girlfriend of the democratic party
| quote: |
| Originally posted by jerZ07002 i don't care if hillary can run again. i don't support her anymore because i see it is impossible. but to suggest that she is somehow foiling obama's chances is silly. this is the nature of the game and hillary is not obama's running mate. it isn't her duty to ensure he is viewed upon as favorably as you think. |
| quote: |
| Clinton's Best Case Scenario by: Chris Bowers Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:26 I know we are supposed to move on from the nomination campaign at this point, but in case there was any lingering doubt Clinton could still win the nomination, the new deal proposed from the Michigan Democratic Party should be an end to it. Every high-level Michigan Democrat now appears to be behind a 69-59 pledged delegate split, plus seating the superdelegates: Michigan Democratic leaders settled today on a plan to give presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton 69 delegates and Barack Obama 59 as a way to get the delegates seated at the national convention.(...) The state party's executive committee voted today to ask the national party's Rules and Bylaws Committee to approve the 69-59 delegate split when it meets May 31. The plan would shrink Clinton's delegate edge in Michigan from 18 to 10 and allow the state's 157 delegates and superdelegates to be seated at the convention. The state's Democratic leaders also pushed back the date of the party's State Central Committee meeting from May 17 to June 14 to give the rules committee time to act. The party is to pick 45 pledged delegates and two superdelegates at that meeting. It chose 83 pledged delegates last month at district conventions. A separate plan submitted to the rules committee by Democratic National Committee members Joel Ferguson of Michigan and Jon Ausman of Florida, both superdelegates, apparently will be withdrawn now that the Michigan executive committee has settled on the 69-59 plan. Under their proposal, delegates would have been allocated based on the primary election results, but have had only half a vote each. The superdelegates would have had full voting rights.(...) The 69-59 split was proposed last week by four prominent Michigan Democrats who have been working for months to find a way to get Michigan's delegates seated at the Aug. 25-28 convention in Denver: U.S. Rep. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, United Auto Workers President Ron Gettelfinger, U.S. Sen. Carl Levin and DNC member Debbie Dingell. While this may not be the exact plan that will pass, it is probably pretty close to the exact plan that will pass. Further, because of hte people backing the proposal, it is extremely unlikely that Clinton will get a better deal than this on Michigan. When it or something similar does pass, Florida will become irrelevant, and probably be seated based on something similar to the January 29th results. Here is the delegate count under that scenario: Clinton's Best-Case Delegate Scenario Type Obama Clinton Edwards Remaining 50% + 1 Pledged 1,590.5 1,426.5 19 217 1,627 Super 265 284.5 0 300.5 -- Florida 67 105 13 0 NA Michigan 59 69 0 0 NA Total 1,981.5 1,885.5 32 517.5 2,208.5 Even with Florida seated as is, Clinton trails by 96 delegates when the Michigan Party's plan is enacted. Further, since Edwards has declined to make an endorsement, his 32 delegates are now effectively uncommitted superdelegates. So, this means that the best case-scenario for Clinton right now is that she trails by 96 delegates with 549.5 delegates remaining. So, even in Clitnon's best case scenario, Obama only needs 227 of the remaining 550.5 delegates, or 41.3%, to win the nomination. Clinton's best-case scenario still overwhelmingly favors Obama. So yes, the outcome of the nomination campaign is now a foregone conclusion. Update: Yes, Florida probably won't be seated as is, and I probably should not have written that it would be. Still, that is why this is Clinton's best-case scenario. And it ain't very good. Update 2: The Clinton campaign rejects the proposal, which isn't surprising because it puts her nowhere near the nomination. However, considering its backers, most of whom are Clinton people, I still say that something better than this for Clinton is extremely unlikely. |
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: hillary clinton: the psycho ex-girlfriend of the democratic party
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Sure she is. She is taking up Obama's time and resources and directing her own at him. McCain is spared both scrutiny and expenditures. For what purpose? Because Hillary still can't come to terms with her defeat? You're surprised that she is getting animosity directed at her for that from people who think Obama would be a better President than John McCain? I'd urge any Hillary supporter to read this - it is a fine appraisal of Hillary's best-case scenario - and still shows she can't mathematically win. http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=5645 |
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: hillary clinton: the psycho ex-girlfriend of the democratic p
| quote: |
| Originally posted by jerZ07002 you're still assuming two things: (1) hillary owes something to obama, and (ii) obama being in the news won't eventually help him because people see how different he is from the typical politician. in obama's case, i actually think being in the spotlight is a good thing. i really haven't spotted an apparent unlikeable quality. i know a few loyal republicans that even said they would vote for him, even after this wright crap. if he wasn't in the news so much they wouldn't know anything about obama and they would revert to McCain by default. Having mccain on the side lines is not necessarily a bad thing. |
Re: Re: Re: Re: hillary clinton: the psycho ex-girlfriend of the democratic party
| quote: |
| Originally posted by jerZ07002 i'm not fluent in socially-awkward-most-likely-a-virgin lingo. |
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: hillary clinton: the psycho ex-girlfriend of the democratic party
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Sure she is. She is taking up Obama's time and resources and directing her own at him. McCain is spared both scrutiny and expenditures. For what purpose? Because Hillary still can't come to terms with her defeat? You're surprised that she is getting animosity directed at her for that from people who think Obama would be a better President than John McCain? I'd urge any Hillary supporter to read this - it is a fine appraisal of Hillary's best-case scenario - and still shows she can't mathematically win. http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=5645 |
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: hillary clinton: the psycho ex-girlfriend of the democrat
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov I'm certainly not assuming Hillary owes Obama anything. I'm assuming that Hillary would prefer Obama, who agrees with 95% of her campaign platform, over John McCain. Having McCain on the sidelines is terrible. Have you any idea how much stupid shit he's said in the last month that he's gotten away with because nobody cares about him right now?!!? |
Re: Re: Re: Re: hillary clinton: the psycho ex-girlfriend of the democratic party
| quote: |
| Originally posted by jerZ07002 you obviously missed the entire point. it's not about what you want. despite what you think, your opinion actually means shit. you have zero influence in US politics. |
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: hillary clinton: the psycho ex-girlfriend of the democratic p
| quote: |
| Originally posted by shaolin_Z Yeah, kinda like Raccoon City  . |
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: hillary clinton: the psycho ex-girlfriend of the democratic party
| quote: |
| Originally posted by LazFX actually, my position gives me a smidgen of influence in your life..... just a small one..... |
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: hillary clinton: the psycho ex-girlfriend of the democratic p
| quote: |
| Originally posted by jerZ07002 how so? do enlighten. |
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: hillary clinton: the psycho ex-girlfriend of the democrat
| quote: |
| Originally posted by LazFX i read your email |
The five mistakes that doomed the presidential campaign of Hillary Rodham Clinton
| quote: |
| The Five Mistakes Clinton Made By KAREN TUMULTYThu May 8, 11:40 AM ET For all her talk about "full speed on to the White House," there was an unmistakably elegiac tone to Hillary Clinton's primary-night speech in Indianapolis. And if one needed further confirmation that the undaunted, never-say-die Clintons realize their bid might be at an end, all it took was a look at the wistful faces of the husband and the daughter who stood behind the candidate as she talked of all the people she has met in a journey "that has been a blessing for me." It was also a journey she had begun with what appeared to be insurmountable advantages, which evaporated one by one as the campaign dragged on far longer than anyone could have anticipated. She made at least five big mistakes, each of which compounded the others: 1. She misjudged the mood That was probably her biggest blunder. In a cycle that has been all about change, Clinton chose an incumbent's strategy, running on experience, preparedness, inevitability - and the power of the strongest brand name in Democratic politics. It made sense, given who she is and the additional doubts that some voters might have about making a woman Commander in Chief. But in putting her focus on positioning herself to win the general election in November, Clinton completely misread the mood of Democratic-primary voters, who were desperate to turn the page. "Being the consummate Washington insider is not where you want to be in a year when people want change," says Barack Obama's chief strategist, David Axelrod. Clinton's "initial strategic positioning was wrong and kind of played into our hands." But other miscalculations made it worse: 2. She didn't master the rules Clinton picked people for her team primarily for their loyalty to her, instead of their mastery of the game. That became abundantly clear in a strategy session last year, according to two people who were there. As aides looked over the campaign calendar, chief strategist Mark Penn confidently predicted that an early win in California would put her over the top because she would pick up all the state's 370 delegates. It sounded smart, but as every high school civics student now knows, Penn was wrong: Democrats, unlike the Republicans, apportion their delegates according to vote totals, rather than allowing any state to award them winner-take-all. Sitting nearby, veteran Democratic insider Harold M. Ickes, who had helped write those rules, was horrified - and let Penn know it. "How can it possibly be," Ickes asked, "that the much vaunted chief strategist doesn't understand proportional allocation?" And yet the strategy remained the same, with the campaign making its bet on big-state victories. Even now, it can seem as if they don't get it. Both Bill and Hillary have noted plaintively that if Democrats had the same winner-take-all rules as Republicans, she'd be the nominee. Meanwhile, the Clinton campaign now acknowledges privately: 3. She underestimated the caucus states While Clinton based her strategy on the big contests, she seemed to virtually overlook states like Minnesota, Nebraska and Kansas, which choose their delegates through caucuses. She had a reason: the Clintons decided, says an adviser, that "caucus states were not really their thing." Her core supporters - women, the elderly, those with blue-collar jobs - were less likely to be able to commit an evening of the week, as the process requires. But it was a little like unilateral disarmament in states worth 12% of the pledged delegates. Indeed, it was in the caucus states that Obama piled up his lead among pledged delegates. "For all the talent and the money they had over there," says Axelrod, "they - bewilderingly - seemed to have little understanding for the caucuses and how important they would become." By the time Clinton's lieutenants realized the grave nature of their error, they lacked the resources to do anything about it - in part because: 4. She relied on old money For a decade or more, the Clintons set the standard for political fund-raising in the Democratic Party, and nearly all Bill's old donors had re-upped for Hillary's bid. Her 2006 Senate campaign had raised an astonishing $51.6 million against token opposition, in what everyone assumed was merely a dry run for a far bigger contest. But something had happened to fund-raising that Team Clinton didn't fully grasp: the Internet. Though Clinton's totals from working the shrimp-cocktail circuit remained impressive by every historic measure, her donors were typically big-check writers. And once they had ponied up the $2,300 allowed by law, they were forbidden to give more. The once bottomless Clinton well was drying up. Obama relied instead on a different model: the 800,000-plus people who had signed up on his website and could continue sending money his way $5, $10 and $50 at a time. (The campaign has raised more than $100 million online, better than half its total.) Meanwhile, the Clintons were forced to tap the $100 million - plus fortune they had acquired since he left the White House - first for $5 million in January to make it to Super Tuesday and then $6.4 million to get her through Indiana and North Carolina. And that reflects one final mistake: 5. She never counted on a long haul Clinton's strategy had been premised on delivering a knockout blow early. If she could win Iowa, she believed, the race would be over. Clinton spent lavishly there yet finished a disappointing third. What surprised the Obama forces was how long it took her campaign to retool. She fought him to a tie in the Feb. 5 Super Tuesday contests but didn't have any troops in place for the states that followed. Obama, on the other hand, was a train running hard on two or three tracks. Whatever the Chicago headquarters was unveiling to win immediate contests, it always had a separate operation setting up organizations in the states that were next. As far back as Feb. 21, Obama campaign manager David Plouffe was spotted in Raleigh, N.C. He told the News & Observer that the state's primary, then more than 10 weeks away, "could end up being very important in the nomination fight." At the time, the idea seemed laughable. Now, of course, the question seems not whether Clinton will exit the race but when. She continues to load her schedule with campaign stops, even as calls for her to concede grow louder. But the voice she is listening to now is the one inside her head, explains a longtime aide. Clinton's calculation is as much about history as it is about politics. As the first woman to have come this far, Clinton has told those close to her, she wants people who invested their hopes in her to see that she has given it her best. And then? As she said in Indianapolis, "No matter what happens, I will work for the nominee of the Democratic Party because we must win in November." When the task at hand is healing divisions in the Democratic Party, the loser can have as much influence as the winner. View this article on Time.com Related articles on Time.com: Obama's Weekend to Win The Primary to End All Primaries? The Keys to the Dems' Delegate Race Can Obama Keep the Momentum? The Confusing Battle for Washington State http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/200805...WHQ4PQq..fBF4l4 |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by LazFX she really thought it was going to be a cakewalk to the White House...... |
The big states are the ones in which the Democratic machines - established by the likes of Terry McAuliffe, Hillary's chief campaign strategist - are best established. New York was a gimme and California is dominated by big donors, who were in Bill's pocket long before Obama decided to run.
Pennsylvania and Ohio are true to the same extent - look at the polls from last May - Hillary was ahead in those states by 30-40 points. Simple name recognition had a lot to do with her initial success in polls and fund-raising, particularly in the states with the most established (Bill) Clinton-era machines.
New York would vote democratic if Bugs Bunny were the candidate - I think it's far more compelling that Obama won places like North Carolina, Virginia, and Nebraska - states with newly established Democratic infrastructure that gives Obama a very realistic chance of winning in November. You could conceivably see an electoral map in November in which the Dems lose PA, OH, and FL but still win the election (I think Obama will pick up PA though). That makes McCain play defense in a lot more states than just Pennsylvania and Ohio - something that he simply cannot afford to do... which again leads to my hope that Hillary bows out soon. McCain doesn't have the money to hit Obama nationwide from here to November. Hillary is only helping him right now, and she's taking the blowback that would otherwise fall on his clean campaign pledge's shoulders.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov McCain doesn't have the money to hit Obama nationwide from here to November. Hillary is only helping him right now, and she's taking the blowback that would otherwise fall on his clean campaign pledge's shoulders. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by jerZ07002 that's a valid point. i never looked at it from that direction. in reference to the rest of the post, don't you think that the caucus system lent itself very well for the obama crowd? do you think he would have performed just as favorably if each of those states had polling? i'm not sure about this, but weren't many of the caucus states red states? if that is true, i have to believe the numbers are not as supportive as you suggest. although i would agree that having someone who performed decently in those states is a plus factor. remember though, the large republican base in those states weren't voting against him in those caucuses. |
| quote: |
| i would add that obama might have to battle with McCain in NJ. I know you previously pointed out that NJ dems came to the polls in significantly greater numbers, but from past experience i have to think it's going to be close. NJ has alot of wall street bankers and fiscally conservative residents that vote republican because they believe republicans are more financially responsible. also, since McCain hasn't been shown to be as conservative as other republicans, moderate NJ residents won't necessarily be scared to vote for him. |
| quote: |
| On Nov. 10, while traveling through New Hampshire on his Straight Talk Express bus, McCain was asked what he would seek in a vice presidential candidate if nominated. After mentioning the ability of a potential running mate to replace the president, McCain said, 'You also look for people who maybe have talents you don't, or experience or knowledge you don't, as well.' 'What are those qualities that you don't - that you wouldn't mind complementing?' asked David Brooks, a columnist for The New York Times. McCain paused. 'Uh, maybe I shouldn't say this, but, somebody who's really well grounded in economics,' he said." "McCain Tested On Economy," The Boston Globe, www.boston.com, 1/26/08) In The Recent Boca Raton Debate, Sen. McCain Denied Saying He Didn't Know About Economics: McCain Denied His Own Comments When Tim Russert Quoted Him Saying He Did Not Know About Economics. RUSSERT: " And now the economy has taken hold. Ask any of the voters; it's the economy. Senator McCain, you have said repeatedly, quote, 'I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated.' Is it a problem for your campaign that the economy is now the most important issue, one that by your own acknowledgment you're not well versed on?" MCCAIN: "Actually, I don't know where you got that quote from. I'm very well versed in economics." (MSNBC, Republican Presidential Candidate Debate, Boca Raton, FL, 1/24/08) But Sen. McCain Himself Has Repeatedly Said He Doesn't Understand Economic Issues: Sen. McCain: "The Issue Of Economics Is Not Something I've Understood As Well As I Should." "Like Mike Huckabee, who joked recently that he 'may not be the expert that some people are on foreign policy, but I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night,' McCain suggested to reporters Monday that American consumer culture offered a short cut to expertise. 'The issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should,' McCain said. 'I've got Greenspan's book.'" (Sasha Issenberg, "McCain: It's About The Economy," The Boston Globe, www.boston.com, Posted 12/18/07) |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov A few were - but Iowa, Minnesota, Colorado, Nevada, and Maine are battleground states for sure. Again, turnout for the Democratic caucuses was in almost every case higher than turnout for the Republicans. Only two were open caucuses (meaning independents could caucus for the Dems or Repubs) - North Dakota and Minnesota I think were the only two. Obama definitely was up in Minnesota prior to the Feb. 5 primary - I do think he outperformed polling expectations though. I really don't see how McCain is winning this election on economic policy. The gas tax debate and things like these... |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by jerZ07002 i agree that mccain is weak on economic issues, but most people have default positions: republicans on economy, etc... but that aside, being fiscally conservative is not the same as economics. i haven't been following what McCain says because i know i would never vote for him, but i do believe McCain has taken a strong stance against government spending. That position resonates strongly with people in NJ. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Making tax cuts permanent? Sometimes I feel like I'm the only one who sees the disconnect between having existing deficits and wanting to further cut revenue before making any expenditure cuts. It's at least as counter-intuitive as the "socialist" position. But at least true socialists seek to increase revenue. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by jerZ07002 ummm....your not the only one. i am for increasing individual tax rates at all levels and selectively taxing products which we need to discourage people from using: gasoline, certain plastics, and other petro chemicals. I, however, also want a reduction in spending, starting with the military. |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.