Okay, I get it now. Thank you for the explaination. I don’t consider something that happened 20 years ago recent (that was 2/3rds of my lifetime ago), but it’s good to know that some people do which accounts for the differences in preception.
As does she. Her Bosnia comments were a major gaffe. Talk of the nuclear or Tonya Harding strategies, people on the news saying Hillary needs to drop out of the race because she can’t win, the letter sent to Pelosi by her supporters. These are all negatives attached to Hillary.
This is the problem with this long primary layoff: nothing to fill the news but dirt.
True.
No, it would not take a “miracle” for the person leading in pledged delegates, the popular vote, and total states won to carry the nomination. Most people would see it as a foregone conclusion. :rolleyes:
But he won’t be leading in the popular vote come Denver.
Furthermore, he hasn’t won the big states, just more of the smaller ones that won’t even be in play.
To my way of thinking, the person who was the presumptive nominee in the first place, that has won the big states, and that has the popular vote, and has her credentials is the foregone conclusion and this rush to get her to go away is part of politics because everyone knows she’s going to win the next primary.
…and Kentucky, and West Virginia, and Puerto Rico.
If one candidate being ahead means the other should quit, then Obama should have quit a long time ago. The thing is, the tide turned and he came back.
Now, the tide has turned again and she just came off Ohio and Texas where Obama was supposed to land a knockout blow. He couldn’t. There was talk of her being derailed in California. She wasn’t. The end was supposed to be in New Hampshire after she lost Iowa. She won.
And so on.
I think it’s symptomatic of American, hypercaffeinated ADHD to want people to stop voting and for this to be over now.
But it’s a good tactic on their part to feed into the notion of her being Tonya Harding and a bitch.
He’s been ahead in pledged delegates since Iowa. There has not been a time in this entire primary campaign after the Iowa caucuses kicked off that he was not in the lead with pledged delegates. You cannot come back if you’ve never been gone.
It’s good to know you can see into the future. :rolleyes:
Of course, that is not a fact, just your opinion. But others (using math) are inclined to disagree
Outside of general Gallup polling (which doesn’t, you know, count), she’s never been ahead–and since the primaries began she was never leading in pledged delegates.
Gotcha. So, in the classic Clintonian fashion, you conveniently cherry-pick the criteria that best suits your argument, regardless of how rooted in reality it might be.
And people aren’t shooing her away because they know she’s going to win the next primary. They’re shooing her away because winning PA won’t matter! She’ll still be behind and she still can’t catch up.
I wouldn’t mind if she stuck it out until the convention, if her campaign was about highlighting the merits of her qualities as a candidate. But it’s not. She knows the only way to win is to smear her opponent with everything, regardless of the merit or decency involved, hoping his negatives can eventually work their way down to equal her (rather abysmal) approval rating. That is destructive and narcissistic.
Ah, the sweet revisionism! Nobody was expecting him to land a knockout blow. People did say that it would be a knockout blow if he happened to win those states. But I challenge you to find one mainstream pundit who actually predicted he would. (hint: you won’t)
On the other hand, is there any reason to doubt that New York and California won’t support Obama if he is the nominee? Is there any reason to think that Texas will support Hillary if she is the nominee? Likewise I’m sure Obama has won some states that will vote for Hillary if she is the nominee or that will go republican in the general. Trying to pick a victor based on what specific states they won is flawed. Some states will go red while others will likely go blue.
I thought Obama had the popular vote. Do you have a cite for Hillary having it?
This falls back to the filling of airtime with mud. The best argument I have seen regarding Hillary dropping out early is that we have had 20-some debates already, so policy has been hammered out pretty well. That leaves the dirt. The more dirt that gets dragged up, the easier time the republicans have, not to mention that this is taking air time away from McCains various flaws and gaffes.
nevermind
Yes this strategy worked so well last time, right? Another Democratic losing strategy. Put all of the eggs in the Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania basket. Nevermind the fact that Obama has been showing lots of strength in VA, CO, IA, etc. I’m not saying that it’s a good idea to ignore those states, but regardless of who wins, I don’t want them focusing on our tired old swing state strategy that never worked.
Ahahaha! That’s it, isn’t it! It’s simply been that HRC supporters are still pissed off that people had to start voting to throw off all of these dreams! Presumptive nominee? Does that mean that Dean would have had a good argument for staying in the race after he did so poorly in the first few primaries in 2004? Of course not, because being a presumptive nominee doesn’t mean shit.
Hillary has not won the popular vote. She is down by 80k even if you include the sham election in Michigan.
Her credentials? Like singlehandedly making peace in Northern Ireland, or maybe her heroic trip to Bosnia as the first big American politician. No wait, Bill was there a few months earlier.
Secondly just thought I’d add that her tale about dodging sniper fire seems to be lifted wholesale from Olympia Snowe.
But what can you possibly say about her performance during this election? She started out with every possible advantage. She had a superdelegate lead of around 200 and had every single possible advantage and blew it all. How is this supposed to let us know that she’ll win? Is this what ready on day one looks like? Does that mean, i dunno, not understanding how your campaign finances work? Is that supposed to inspire confidence?
You know who has been ready on day one of the campaign? That would be Obama. At every stage he has been far more organized and prepared. Why do you think he’d been whooping Hillary in the primaries? Because she didn’t prepare!
Obama is polling better against McCain in CA these days than Clinton is.
US News & World Report has an article about Clinton’s eroding support in California as well.
True, but I didn’t say ahead by ‘pledged delegates,’ you did.
The thing about pledged delegates is that it doesn’t matter who’s ahead or behind if neither one earns the necessary number of delegates.
That’s the whole concept of the delegates. The winner has to earn 2,025.
Neither one will do that.
The person that’s ahead in delegates means squat. It’s a win 2,025 system or else all bets are off and they can vote for whomever they damn well please as specifically provided for in 12(J) ("This provision is designed in part to make the Convention a deliberative body. Delegates are not bound to vote for the candidate they are pledged to at the Convention or on the first ballot."http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2008/02/the_rules.html)
Yup, it’s my opinion that she’ll be ahead in the popular vote. You thought it was a fact, due to my clairvoyance. :rolleyes: That’s odd.
To “cherry-pick the criteria that best suits your argument” is something only the Clintons do? That’s interesting, I’m glad we’ve settled that.
We can agree to disagree on the reasoning and motivation for why people are “shooing” her away. She’ll win a bunch of states and can end up with a popular vote lead which will strengthen her argument for the supers. As for ‘catching up’ if you mean by pledged delegates, neither can Obama make up the difference between what he’s got and what he needs to clinch the nomination by pledged delegates if she stays in. The only shot he has at that is if she leaves. She won’t, so he won’t. And being ahead doesn’t earn you the nomination. It’s 2,025 or not.
I know, I know she’s narcissistic, destructive, and folks like me that support her are not “rooted in reality.” Gosh, I’m sure glad the new politics have arrived!
In my view, the best argument for not dropping out at this point isn’t mud; it’s that letting people finish voting is a good thing. The Dems sure felt that way when it was Gore and Florida and there’d been shenanigans and confusion going on as there has been this time with MI and FL not being counted, etc.
Yes, there’s a reason to think that many voters won’t support the opposite candidate. In fact, there are specific numbers to think that: 28% of HRC voters will do McCain rather than Obama and 19% of Obama voters will do McCain rather than HRC. Polls, not fact, but yes there is a **reason **to think that. That’s it.
I understood your ‘foregone conclusion’ assessment to be that of who should get the nod from the supers at the convention based on the advantages that Obama has and it is towards that scenario that I refer to HRC’s popular vote lead at that time (which is what I expect to see, though neither of us can read the future of course and neither can know if Obama or HRC will have that lead at that time).
You know, I have nothing against you personally, 9thFloor, but I do think you’re going to be a very disappointed person well before August.
Why do I think he’s been whooping Hillary in the non-big-state primaries? Caucuses, the fact that he gets 91% of the African American vote (which will move to her in the general in large numbers) thanks to playing the race card against Bill and Hill, missteps on the part of her campaign, underestimating the gullibility of the electorate, and the fact that he’s a novelty act. Once he’s gone and the general begins, no more novelty act, and voters switch to HRC (as polls have shown more switch to McCain if Obama is the candidate) over McCain.
Dean is actually a good example, I’m glad you brought him up. That’s pretty much Obama – won Iowa, but doesn’t mean he’ll win the general. Kind of reminds me of South Carolina and Mississippi, both won by Jesse Jackson. That didn’t work out.
The popular vote lead referred to is at the convention, counting FL and MI. That’s one of the premises upon which I make the argument. Not based on current numbers. Because, you know, the voting isn’t over yet.
As for foreign policy experience, it’s nice to know that those digs somehow make Obama have more foreign policy experience.
What was **his **involvement in Bosnia and Northern Ireland again? Oh, that’s right.
Thanks. 
Me neither. And yes, I know you think so. And, of course, you know I think the converse (or is that inverse…? I’m so confused…)
His involvement was perhaps not lying about his involvement?
I had no problem with HRC’s red phone ad or Obama’s flyers criticizing HRC’s past position on NAFTA. It is a political contest so attacking your opponent’s perceived weakness is fair game, but the Clintons chose to use a smear against Obama, a fellow Democrat. Bill Clinton has implied that Obama doesn’t love his country, feeding into right wing feigned histrionics. In contrast to Obama’s dubious patriotism, the Clintons emphasize and praise John McCain’s nationalism and political experience. Frankly, I don’t believe the Rev. Wright tapes are the result of clever investigative journalism by Fox News. It is too coincidental that those tapes surfaced on the heels of Geraldine Ferraro’s racist comments. I believe the Clintons leaked those clips of Rev Wright to Fox News. Bill Clinton knows Rev Wright, maybe not intimately, but Clinton did invite the Rev Wright to the White House. Undoubtedly, Bill Clinton – as the first black president - is aware of the tone and style used by Trinity Church pastors. Furthermore, it is curious that HRC turned down both CNN and MSNBC invites, choosing, instead, to give an exclusive interview to Fox News. Maybe this is the deal she made with Murdoch.
Fostering underlying racism, blind patriotism, and prejudicial stereotypes is distasteful. The criticism and campaign tactics waged against Obama by the Clintons are definitely a smear. Sadly, it is the media that play the most important role in stoking racial misunderstanding.
I actually think this strategy worked and HRC may get this nomination. We live in a social climate that encourages winning at all costs. The Clintons only confirm this notion.
OK, who are these caucuses that are deciding the next candidate? (Obama has done very very well in Caucuses, and they do not follow any direct democratic vote of the overall electorate).
Obama has also done very very well in smaller states, which were allocated a dis-proportional number of delegates. Who are these small states who are deciding the next candidate?
Sure, Hillary has done well with Superdelegates, but Obama has done well with Caucuses and small states. In fact, in the overall total popular vote, Obama only has a tiny lead, and at times Hillary has apparently been ahead.
What would you say if the Primaries are over, and Obama still had 100 more delagates than Hillary, but Hillary had managed a tiny edge back in the total Popular vote? Would you say “Fuck the whole delegate thing, Obama should quit and give it to Hillary?” :dubious: I don’t think so. (It’s not terribly likely, but it’s possible)
Yeah, the whole delegate thing has been weird this election, as the vote is so damn close. Normally, none of those things should or do matter. The use of Superdelegates- or Caucuses- is not “stealing” or unfair. It just wasn’t expected to mean much, and has taken everyone by suprise.