Not gonna happen. I live in the most democratic area of Indiana and out of all the people I've heard tht are gonna vote in the democratic primaries only one is voting for clinton.Kmarion wrote:
Indiana
Most polls I've seen would suggest that Obama will get Indiana, but that Clinton will win big in Pennsylvania and has been gaining in North Carolina.
lol.. I was joking, thx for the resume.OrangeHound wrote:
I also have straight A's in math ... graduated Summa Cum Laude from college ...
The super delegates have already said they will go with whoever has the most at the time. They are desperately trying to stay away from the selected not elected cliché. It has less to do with your math skills and more to do with actually knowing what the superdelegates have said they would do.
http://www.redlasso.com/ClipPlayer.aspx … 2a1d7cefa4
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Actually, I've heard one Super Delegate say that (speaking for other Super Delegates) they will not merely vote for whomever is in the lead at the time of the convention, but rather what is best for the party and the chances of beating McCain.Kmarion wrote:
lol.. I was joking, thx for the resume.OrangeHound wrote:
I also have straight A's in math ... graduated Summa Cum Laude from college ...
The super delegates have already said they will go with whoever has the most at the time. They are desperately trying to stay away from the selected not elected cliché. It has less to do with your math skills and more to do with actually knowing what the superdelegates have said they would do.
http://www.redlasso.com/ClipPlayer.aspx … 2a1d7cefa4
So, there is a bit of a disagreement among the Super Delegates as to how this will play out.
One political observer I know said that he believes things may play out this way ...
Obama, by all statistical measures will enter the convention with more delegates and a higher proportion of the vote, but not enough for the nomination. That is, both he and Hillary failed, and the convention now needs to select the nominee.
For the super delegates to simply overthrow the majority, it might be seen as "Florida-gate", so they could try a different approach.
That is, if sufficient super delegates believe Hillary should be the nominee, the first vote will specifically come back as undecided (e.g., sufficient super delegates will vote for, say, John Edwards, or simply abstaining) ... and this will lead to a brokered convention ... effectively a caucus will ensue.
The "Democratic" party can not afford to be labeled as the party who ignored the majority. Although that kind of disenfranchisement would certainly help McCain.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Morri … nd_Clinton
http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2008/ … -of-obama/
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/foreign/to … nton54.htm
Toby Harnden, The Daily Telegraph's U.S. editor since 2006, writes that Clinton has "no realistic path" to the nomination. "Unless Obama is, as the now-jailed former Louisiana governor Edwin Edwards once put it, 'caught in bed with either a dead girl or a live boy' she cannot overcome his pledged delegate lead."
http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/20 … -chie.html
So, Bill, how’d Hillary take the news that you’re endorsing Obama?
“It got a little heated.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Morri … nd_Clinton
Jack Cafferty, of the Cafferty File on CNN, used the phrase when talking about the Richardson endorsement and the delegate count. Specifically, Cafferty said Richardson's status as a special delegate gives other special delegates the excuse to come out and support Obama now, despite the Wright controversy.Dick Morris wrote:
I think that you have to bear two things in mind. First of all, he is the Democratic Party nominee. There is no way that Hillary Clinton is going to either beat him in elected delegates or persuade the superdelegates. He is the Democratic nominee.
http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2008/ … -of-obama/
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/foreign/to … nton54.htm
Toby Harnden, The Daily Telegraph's U.S. editor since 2006, writes that Clinton has "no realistic path" to the nomination. "Unless Obama is, as the now-jailed former Louisiana governor Edwin Edwards once put it, 'caught in bed with either a dead girl or a live boy' she cannot overcome his pledged delegate lead."
http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/20 … -chie.html
Also consider endorsements have never really impacted the popular vote. They do however influence the party insiders/Super Delegates.Romer, while reiterating that he hasn't taken a side, said the key should be the delegate count -- a standard that is likely to favor Illinois Sen. Barack Obama. He didn't pick up on a reporter's suggestion that the overall popular vote should matter, too. That's probably a disappointment to New York Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign. Romer was a national co-chairman of her husband's presidential re-election campaign in 1996 and became general chairman of the DNC in January 1997, while Bill Clinton was president and the nation's leading Democrat.
"Any decision that goes against the delegate count is a difficult decision," Romer said. "The ultimate issue is who has the most delegates. I think anything that varies from that has a lot of risks to it. ... Math is very compelling." He added later: "You have to stay faithful to the rules you agreed on" at the beginning. "This is a delegate convention."
So, Bill, how’d Hillary take the news that you’re endorsing Obama?
“It got a little heated.”
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Ya, I can only imagine, LOL!
But, the pledged delegates do not necessarily represent the "majority" will of the Democratic party. There are a ton of Republicans who have influenced the vote, and Michigan and Florida are not represented.Kmarion wrote:
The "Democratic" party can not afford to be labeled as the party who ignored the majority. Although that kind of disenfranchisement would certainly help McCain.
If the role of the super delegate is simply to reflect the leaning of the pledged delegate count coming into they convention, then they are useless. The whole reason they are there is just for such a situation as this: to be the "adults" who step in to decide things when the popular vote can't make a decision.
OrangeHound wrote:
...to be the "adults" who step in to decide things when the popular vote can't make a decision.
I agree with your interpretation, and to be honest I agree with the reasoning behind it, but what it represents is not democracy in the truest sense, and as Kmarion said the Democratic party needs all the democracy behind their candidate they can get. To some degree it might be political suicide to go against the popular vote.
They know this and that's my point.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
To some degree it might be political suicide to go against the popular vote.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Google is getting so good it's scary.
Maybe one or two considering all government positions. The ones who really do the job are the ones who either A) wont get promoted or voted into office or B) dont want to be and prefer to do their job behind the scenes.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
How many of the candidates do you think are honestly, truly running because they are the number one person for the job?Reciprocity wrote:
Isn't she still behind, even if you count Florida and Michigan as is?
I think she's blinded by ambition. She's been scheming for the presidency for at least 15 years and can't accept reality. Someone as divisive as her will never be elected President. If she stood back for a few minutes she might realize that she is only worsening the cause of her party. But she's more concerned with her own cause.
Oh that's right. She's got that 35 years of experience she keeps touting.Hakei wrote:
Hillary will win, you just can't accept the fact that someone who knows what they're doing is going to be in power.Kmarion wrote:
Kmarion is never wrong. You just sided against the strong arm of the law.Hakei wrote:
I think Hillary will win, it's pretty even in the polls if you look, and I think she will just clinch it at the end Well I hope.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
And really, that's all she has. He has everything else.FEOS wrote:
Oh that's right. She's got that 35 years of experience she keeps touting.Hakei wrote:
Hillary will win, you just can't accept the fact that someone who knows what they're doing is going to be in power.Kmarion wrote:
Kmarion is never wrong. You just sided against the strong arm of the law.
I'd rather take the everything else over "experience" any day, thanks.
Especially considering this 35 years of experience isn't really as useful as she wants sheeple Democrat party voters to believe.Poseidon wrote:
And really, that's all she has. He has everything else.FEOS wrote:
Oh that's right. She's got that 35 years of experience she keeps touting.Hakei wrote:
Hillary will win, you just can't accept the fact that someone who knows what they're doing is going to be in power.
I'd rather take the everything else over "experience" any day, thanks.
Being the First Chef during the Clinton presidency hardly counts as experiencenukchebi0 wrote:
Especially considering this 35 years of experience isn't really as useful as she wants sheeple Democrat party voters to believe.Poseidon wrote:
And really, that's all she has. He has everything else.FEOS wrote:
Oh that's right. She's got that 35 years of experience she keeps touting.
I'd rather take the everything else over "experience" any day, thanks.
As I said.HurricaИe wrote:
Being the First Chef during the Clinton presidency hardly counts as experiencenukchebi0 wrote:
Especially considering this 35 years of experience isn't really as useful as she wants sheeple Democrat party voters to believe.Poseidon wrote:
And really, that's all she has. He has everything else.
I'd rather take the everything else over "experience" any day, thanks.
Fixed more.nukchebi0 wrote:
Especially considering this 35 years of experience isn't really as usefulexistant as she wants sheeple Democrat party voters to believe.Poseidon wrote:
And really, that's all she has. He has everything else.FEOS wrote:
Oh that's right. She's got that 35 years of experience she keeps touting.
I'd rather take the everything else over "experience" any day, thanks.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
If anything hits Obama with a political meteor, it's going to be Obama. If he keeps driving on about racial loyalty, it'll probably be the thing that ends his presidential aspirations.
By adults, you mean lobbyists and corporations.OrangeHound wrote:
But, the pledged delegates do not necessarily represent the "majority" will of the Democratic party. There are a ton of Republicans who have influenced the vote, and Michigan and Florida are not represented.Kmarion wrote:
The "Democratic" party can not afford to be labeled as the party who ignored the majority. Although that kind of disenfranchisement would certainly help McCain.
If the role of the super delegate is simply to reflect the leaning of the pledged delegate count coming into they convention, then they are useless. The whole reason they are there is just for such a situation as this: to be the "adults" who step in to decide things when the popular vote can't make a decision.
Both superdelegates and the Electoral College are a joke.
uh............. what?unnamednewbie13 wrote:
If anything hits Obama with a political meteor, it's going to be Obama. If he keeps driving on about racial loyalty, it'll probably be the thing that ends his presidential aspirations.
The equivalent of political stat padding.FEOS wrote:
Oh that's right. She's got that 35 years of experience she keeps touting.
Hillary wrote:
I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base. But it was a moment of great pride for me to visit our troops, not only in our main base as Tuzla, but also at two outposts where they were serving in so many capacities to deactivate and remove landmines, to hunt and seek out those who had not complied with the Dayton Accords and put down their arms, and to build relationships with the people that might lead to a peace for them and their children.
As for a lack of a ceremony at the air base, Atkisson reported Clinton was greeted by the acting President of Bosnia and “an eight-year-old Bosnian girl who says she can't remember a time before the war and by a class of seventh-graders who have been pen pals with the children of US troops.”
The little girl was shown telling Clinton: “Thank you, because you’ve given us a lot of help, and I want all the best in Bosnia.” Nobody was covering their heads or hiding.
The AP’s Ron Fournier noted that Mrs. Clinton was “protected by sharpshooters” when she traveled beyond the Tuzla Air Base, but made no mention that they were needed in his report on Clinton’s next stop:
Protected by sharpshooters, First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton arrived by Black Hawk helicopter in a military zone Monday to deliver a personal “thank you” to U.S. soldiers. “They’re making a difference,” she said of the 18,500 Americans working as peacekeepers in Bosnia.
None of the stories mentioned the drama of landing under fire that Clinton referred to on Monday. So either Hillary faced “sniper fire” — and no one at the time thought shots fired at the First Lady were newsworthy — or she is exaggerating the dangers of her Bosnia trip to bolster the image of herself as a potential commander-in-chief. Either way, reporters who were on the trip should make the reality of the situation clear.
Sinbad, who joined Mrs. Clinton on the trip, doesn’t remember anything especially dangerous. “I think the only ‘red-phone’ moment was: ‘Do we eat here or at the next place,’” he told the Washington Post.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
You know nothing about politics.FEOS wrote:
Oh that's right. She's got that 35 years of experience she keeps touting.Hakei wrote:
Hillary will win, you just can't accept the fact that someone who knows what they're doing is going to be in power.Kmarion wrote:
Kmarion is never wrong. You just sided against the strong arm of the law.
Meteor=ICBM.Spearhead wrote:
uh............. what?unnamednewbie13 wrote:
If anything hits Obama with a political meteor, it's going to be Obama. If he keeps driving on about racial loyalty, it'll probably be the thing that ends his presidential aspirations.
He was referring to something that would derail Obama's campaign.
I wanted to be nice. I agree with your fix, though.FEOS wrote:
Fixed more.nukchebi0 wrote:
Especially considering this 35 years of experience isn't really as usefulexistant as she wants sheeple Democrat party voters to believe.Poseidon wrote:
And really, that's all she has. He has everything else.
I'd rather take the everything else over "experience" any day, thanks.
Last edited by nukchebi0 (2008-03-23 12:41:08)
Billery is toast! Just when you thought she had something going too!! What an arrogant frumpy cunt she is!