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 »

Why should Hillary leave the race?

I just want to hear from people why they think Hillary should leave the presidential nomination race? I'm really interested to see people's reasons? I personally see no discernible reason short of straight-out irrationality, so I need someone to clarify?

I think the only way for any of the candidates to save their souls is seppuku, but then again that's just me. Seriously though... seppuku

quote:

Originally posted by Zild I think the only way for any of the candidates to save their souls is seppuku, but then again that's just me. Seriously though... seppuku

hahaha Although, not sure how much you've been tuned in to any other presidential race, but I still don't see anything different this year... I think people are so shocked by the "integrity" of either candidate or their tactics (this goes for both of them), simply because they can and are paying more attention to it (blogs, free press, Youtube)... Otherwise, I see nothing different between this race and any race that has gone on... If anything, they're more careful now and just get caught saying or doing something 1% of the time that sucks lol...

It has nothing to do with the personality of either candidate, merely the mathematic inevitability of Obama as the nominee. Hillary can claim she's the "better" candidate, but at this point it's too late for that. She can't win. So it's time to face the music and get behind the party so they can begin to fight against the GOP machine as a united front.

That said, I've written multiple times that there are good reasons for Hillary to stay in the race - not least of which is the infrastructure primaries in Pennsylvania and North Carolina build that can be used for when Obama does finally emerge as the uncontested nominee.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Eco hahaha Although, not sure how much you've been tuned in to any other presidential race, but I still don't see anything different this year... I think people are so shocked by the "integrity" of either candidate or their tactics (this goes for both of them), simply because they can and are paying more attention to it (blogs, free press, Youtube)... Otherwise, I see nothing different between this race and any race that has gone on... If anything, they're more careful now and just get caught saying or doing something 1% of the time that sucks lol...

They've all been bought and sold for quite some time now. As to your question I've only really followed Presidential races since the 2000 election, so this is my third, but that doesn't mean I have absolutely no knowledge about history.

I was however making a Bill Hicks allusion with a twist.

plain and simple, because she's a power hungery kuunt with bad ideas and nobody likes her. The only reason people vote for her is because they think she's going to make all of their welfare dreams come true.

As proof, I offer you this god-awful, completely shameful piece of marketing shit.

1. It is mathematically certain that she cannot win, barring the biggest swing in voting in the history of the planet.

2. The longer she "fights" the more ammo she later gives the Republicans, making it more difficult for Obama to become elected.

3. With every "misspeak" she presents herself as even more dishonest, disgenuine, ego-centric and ungraceful in losing.

So, due to math, the benefit to her party and the benefit to whatever image she has left, she needs to stop.

...my opinion.

She can't win the nomination unless the vast majority of superdelegates back her. She is the most power-hungry person in Washington right now and would rather see the democratic party destroyed than lose this nomination. She is causing a civil war within the democratic party and is making a Mccain presidency much more likely by staying in the race.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt She is causing a civil war within the democratic party and is making a Mccain presidency much more likely by staying in the race.

...Yet just about ever Democrat you say this to will try to debate and deny it is true for whatever reason.

The thing you guys are missing, and the point of my thread is that, mathematically, Obama can't win the nomination either... This is what boggles my mind, when people say "She can't win the nomination." He can't either! They're neck and neck by any standard other than "Oh he's my candidate and he's the right candidate."

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt She is the most power-hungry person in Washington right now and would rather see the democratic party destroyed than lose this nomination.

Obama's been a Senator for a little over 2 years and the thought came to him, "Hmmm I should be president." They're both power-hungry my friend. Anybody who thinks they can be the president and run this country is power-hungry, and both of them are NO different in this respect.

The irony is that this is the Democratic party. There is a lack of democracy when Obama supporters shout "She should drop out!"... They're absolutely neck-and-neck! Because she's still giving YOUR candidate a run for his money doesn't mean she's breaking up the Democratic Party. Like I said in an earlier thread she has in fact won the most Democratic votes in this primary than any primary in history,, it's clear who is the candidate that more Democrats want. She has won most of the Democrat strongholds, while Obama has won in states that can't possibly go to us in November. I don't see where the Civil War is.

She needs to get out because while Democrats fight amongst themselves, the Republicans are already prepping for November. If the Democrats want a chance, they need to settle on Obama, and get on with it...

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Eco The thing you guys are missing, and the point of my thread is that, mathematically, Obama can't win the nomination either... This is what boggles my mind, when people say "She can't win the nomination." He can't either! They're neck and neck by any standard other than "Oh he's my candidate and he's the right candidate."

Sure he can. What are you talking about?

Barack Obama is 301 delegates away from the 2,025 needed to outright win the nomination, and there are still 712 delegates that have not been assigned as of yet. In other words, he needs to win like 38% of remaining delegates to seal it. If anyone's math is funky, it's definitely yours.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Eco They're absolutely neck-and-neck! Because she's still giving YOUR candidate a run for his money doesn't mean she's breaking up the Democratic Party. Like I said in an earlier thread she has in fact won the most Democratic votes in this primary than any primary in history,, it's clear who is the candidate that more Democrats want. She has won most of the Democrat strongholds, while Obama has won in states that can't possibly go to us in November. I don't see where the Civil War is.

Ok, are you taking the piss with this thread? Everything you post is empirically false. Like, not just a matter of opinion. But wrong.

1. They're not neck and neck. Obama needs to win 38% of remaining delegates to seal the nomination. Hillary needs to win 62%. See why her getting 55% of the vote in PA doesn't actually help her very much?

2. Clinton doesn't have the most Democratic votes in this primary... Obama does. Look above at my previous post where that point is made quite clearly.

3. Democratic strongholds? You mean the ones we're going to win no matter who the nominee is? Like California and New York? Yeah, I'll take a candidate that will broaden the electoral map to include places like South Carolina, Iowa, Nebraska, etc. Thanks.

4. To preempt you on the "battleground state" argument the mainstream media is in love with at the moment. Yes, Hillary won in Ohio and PA. That doesn't mean Barack would lose to McCain. In fact, ironically, he polls better than Hillary does in a general election matchup in PA. That said, Obama has won South Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Washington, Wisconsin, etc. - all "battleground states."

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov It has nothing to do with the personality of either candidate, merely the mathematic inevitability of Obama as the nominee.

Mathematics play no part in American politics... amnesia, however, does.

She would be foolish to drop out.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Shibby Mathematics play no part in American politics... amnesia, however, does.

LOL, that's was awesome Shibby .

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Sure he can. What are you talking about? Barack Obama is 301 delegates away from the 2,025 needed to outright win the nomination, and there are still 712 delegates that have not been assigned as of yet. In other words, he needs to win like 38% of remaining delegates to seal it. If anyone's math is funky, it's definitely yours.

i think he meant that barack can't win the nomination either without superdelegates. if my math is correct, there is only 408 delegates for the states that have yet to hold primaries and 306 unpledged superdelegates. There is no way that barack is winning 73% of the delegates from the remaining primaries.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02...nter/index.html

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov 2. Clinton doesn't have the most Democratic votes in this primary... Obama does. Look above at my previous post where that point is made quite clearly.

are you sure about that? i'm not too interested in researching this, but even obama himself says that he is the better candidate because he will bring in the independents and moderate republicans. I think even though obama is getting more votes, hillary is getting more votes from registered democrats.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka ...Yet just about ever Democrat you say this to will try to debate and deny it is true for whatever reason.

I'm not denying it.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Eco The irony is that this is the Democratic party. There is a lack of democracy when Obama supporters shout "She should drop out!"... They're absolutely neck-and-neck! Because she's still giving YOUR candidate a run for his money doesn't mean she's breaking up the Democratic Party. Like I said in an earlier thread she has in fact won the most Democratic votes in this primary than any primary in history,, it's clear who is the candidate that more Democrats want. She has won most of the Democrat strongholds, while Obama has won in states that can't possibly go to us in November. I don't see where the Civil War is.

They are not "neck and neck" no matter how much you want to delude yourself. He has 10% more delegates than her. The media has been making this sound close to maintain ratings and interest. She won PA, which was no surprise due to the racism that I witnessed growing up there for 18 years, yet only netted 10 more delegates. How is she going to make up the other 130 delegates she's down by? Are ALL of the remaining superdelegates suddenly going to decide, unlike all of the others who've announced lately, that they support Hillary?

There's a post on the Daily Kos about the math and if you take it at it's face, the author argues that Obama needs 40-some more superdelegates to make it mathematically impossible for her to ever gain 2025, even if she wins the states where she's favored by more than 20 points each, plus Obama wins the states where he's favored by less than current predictions.

Also, regarding how Obama needs superdelegates to win - OF COURSE HE DOES, just not nearly as many. Superdelegates represent about 20% of the fucking pool. They shouldn't even exist, but we can thank morons like Hillary supporter Geraldine Ferraro for this disaster. To be honest, I hope this travesty eliminates their existence following this election.

The only way she's getting this nomination is if Obama catches a bullet by August.

quote:

Originally posted by Groundhog Boy which was no surprise due to the racism that I witnessed growing up there for 18 years

does the above statement mean that you think the statement below is probable?

quote:

Originally posted by Groundhog Boy The only way she's getting this nomination is if Obama catches a bullet by August.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 does the above statement mean that you think the statement below is probable?

I don't think it's probable, but I'm sure people out there have thought about it. Honestly, combined with increased security on everything due to terrorism, I don't think there's the political activism out there for it to happen.

That said, people have been killed in this country over less, but I think that with the first woman and the first African American running, Secret Service has probably been heightened more than during a nomination process with a couple of white guys.

By the way, now that you mention it, though, it's kind of ironic that Q5Echo is in the "Gotta Love Free Speech" thread claiming that it's the left that's always causing problems. I seem to recall most of the assassinations in the last 50 years happening to members of the left. There was the attempt on Reagan, which failed, but Hinckley also was stalking Carter while he was President and probably would have gone after him instead if he were re-elected President in 1980.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov 1. They're not neck and neck. Obama needs to win 38% of remaining delegates to seal the nomination. Hillary needs to win 62%. See why her getting 55% of the vote in PA doesn't actually help her very much?

You're lumping in all the delegates together. People who really don't know all the info or whatever make outlandish statements like "Hillary can't win unless a strong superdelegate result pushes her ahead." I don't know what fuzzy math you're accusing me of, but the same goes for Obama. Without superdelegates, neither of them can clinch the nomination, no other way to see it. I hate the idea of SDs as much as the next guy, but, until she's written off as completely having ZERO chance of winning, I think what's best for the idea of democracy is that she stays in.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov 3. Democratic strongholds? You mean the ones we're going to win no matter who the nominee is? Like California and New York? Yeah, I'll take a candidate that will broaden the electoral map to include places like South Carolina, Iowa, Nebraska, etc. Thanks. 4. To preempt you on the "battleground state" argument the mainstream media is in love with at the moment. Yes, Hillary won in Ohio and PA. That doesn't mean Barack would lose to McCain. In fact, ironically, he polls better than Hillary does in a general election matchup in PA. That said, Obama has won South Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Washington, Wisconsin, etc. - all "battleground states."

See, that's where you're wrong. Every Obama supporter likes to put two and two together, although, it's not always so easy. Think about it. 10,000 to 80,000 people are showing up to the caucuses in these red/battleground states of maybe a few million people. You shouldn't assume a 60/40 win by Obama in a red-state means he's gunna beat McCain in November. It doesn't even mean he has a credible shot. Obama supporters have been using this "two and two makes four" math which doesn't really apply. We won't win these red states, it's not happening.

It's the big states with millions of people in them that Hillary is winning. Not only that, but it's the Democratic states that Hillary is winning. If Hillary were to drop out, it will make many people wonder if states like Jersey, Florida, Michigan, and Pennsylvania (among many others) will cave into McCain, it's a huge possibility. But the talking-heads and Obama-bots don't want to face that reality. I think we need to keep the states we had with Kerry and Gore and add one or two and we have the presidency. You're delusional if you think Obama has a shot against McCain in 98% of the red states he won against Hillary in (with 5,000-person caucuses).

As far as bringing up polls, any intelligent adult knows how flawed polls are, no matter who's in front or behind. One week, Hillary's polling better against McCain, another week Obama. Let's not bring 1000-person polls into this.

quote:

Originally posted by Groundhog Boy They are not "neck and neck" no matter how much you want to delude yourself. He has 10% more delegates than her.

Okay, imagine a basketball game where the first winner to get to 11 wins. Team 1 has been doing well but Team 2 has come back, with their main man injured and a rookie substitute in his place. There's 2 minutes left in the game and they're down 7-6. Nobody will ever call it quits in a scenario like this, especially if it's not deemed impossible, which it isn't.

quote:

Originally posted by Groundhog Boy She won PA, which was no surprise due to the racism that I witnessed growing up there for 18 years

Okay, so in your opinion (which is valid and I can't disprove it), Clinton won because of a large amount of people who voted blindly because of race. Okay, so take the states that Obama won 90% of the Black vote, and only winning by maybe 5-10% at best and say that he won those because of a large amount of people who voted blindly because of race. Include in that big jambalaya the Black superdelegates who are voting for him, not because they necessarily want to, but because they feel pressured (and scared) to, and we have one big circus of a race-driven campaign.

Aside from this all, I'm going to bring back the "She's ruining and splitting the party issue." Please, intelligent people, hear me out. Why is there a pattern of her winning our Democratic strongholds, where there are closed primaries and no Republicans and Independents are allowed to vote. Obama wins all these open caucuses where anyone can vote. I can't stress this enough, that winning a caucus against Hillary doesn't mean he's going to be McCain there. Not only that, but if she's winning all these strong Dem states, how is she breaking up the party? No... A few of Obama's friends in Congress and the House, who are very outspoken, are up in flames about her still being in the race, and the general perception by an Obama supporter is that the party is falling apart. If the party were falling apart like many of you say it is, making Clinton call it quits is no way to solve it. That would anger the almost 50% of Dems who actually voted for her. If she stays the course, and loses, then we can say she lost and lost fairly, and move on with our lives. Anyone with a brain of their own will rally together for the Dems in November's election, regardless of what I said earlier about Jersey or Florida or Michigan folding. I think the unfair thing and the worst way to solve this situation is to pressure her to step down, a bigger scandal within the history of current Democratic party could not be commited.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.