Hillary.... it's over... do the right thing

MasterFramer

We need you and Bill thinking up dirty tricks to play on the other party... not your own...

http://www.newsweek.com/id/119010

Are these two people not the two biggest egomaniacs in the history of egomaniacs?

All you Clinton supporters better ask yourself what happens to the Obama movement if she wins the lottery and becomes the nominee? It's not rocket science, we stay home... we vote Nader, we vote McCain :eek:. Either way we don't vote for you and the dems loose cause the terrorist threat level is raised to red right before the election.

OR she can pack up and support Obama going forward. Make sure things she SAYS are important to her get Obama's attention. Keep the party united and together. But no... she's "Just getting started!" (-said yesterday). Oh boy! 7 more weeks of the party tearing each other apart. That will make it real easy for the dems to take on McBush.

There is no good reason for Hillary to be in this at this point. You Hillary supporters know this, I ask why you continue to help smash a sinking ship right into the barrier reef that is the democratic party?

*edit - the article from above

Jonathan Alter
Hillary’s New Math Problem

Tuesday's big wins? The delegate calculus just got worse.
Mar 5, 2008 | Updated: 6:48 p.m. ET Mar 5, 2008

Hillary Clinton won big victories Tuesday night in Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island. But she's now even further behind in the race for the Democratic nomination. How could that be? Math. It's relentless.

To beat Barack Obama among pledged delegates, Clinton now needs even bigger margins in the 12 remaining primaries than she needed when I ran the numbers on Monday—an average of 23 points, which is more than double what she received in Ohio.

Superdelegates won't help Clinton if she cannot erase Obama's lead among pledged delegates, which now stands at roughly 134. Caucus results from Texas aren't complete, but Clinton will probably net about 10 delegates out of March 4. That's 10 down, 134 to go. Good luck.

I've asked several prominent uncommitted superdelegates if there's any chance they would reverse the will of Democratic voters. They all say no. It would shatter young people and destroy the party.

Clinton's only hope lies in the popular vote—a yardstick on which she now trails Obama by about 600,000 votes. Should she end the primary season in June with a lead in popular votes, she could get a hearing from uncommitted superdelegates for all the other arguments that she would make a stronger nominee (wins the big states, etc.). If she loses both the pledged delegate count and the popular vote, no argument will cause the superdelegates to disenfranchise millions of Democratic voters. It will be over.

Projecting popular votes precisely is impossible because there's no way to calculate turnout. But Clinton would likely need do-overs in Michigan and Florida (whose January primaries didn't count because they broke Democratic Party rules). But even this probably wouldn't give her the necessary popular-vote margins.



Remember, Obama's name wasn't even on the Michigan ballot when voters there went to the polls. Even if he's trounced there (and Michigan, won by Jesse Jackson in 1988, has a large African-American vote in its primary), Obama would still win hundreds of thousands of popular votes. This is also an argument for why Obama may end up preferring a primary to a caucus in Michigan. (Obama has done better in caucuses).

Florida, with its heavy population of elderly and Jewish voters, might be a better place for Clinton to close the popular vote gap. But even if you assume she does 5 points better than her double-digit win there in the meaningless February primary (where no one campaigned), she would still fall short.

I'm no good at math, but with the help of Slate’s Delegate Calculator, I've once again scoped out the rest of the primaries. In order to show how deep a hole she's in, I've given her the benefit of the doubt every week. That's 12 victories in a row, bigger in total than Obama's run of 11 straight. And this time I've assigned her even larger margins than I did before in Wyoming, North Carolina, Indiana and Kentucky.

So here we go again:

Let's assume that on Saturday in Wyoming, Clinton's March 4 momentum gives her an Ohio-style 10-point win, confounding every expectation. Next Tuesday in Mississippi, where African-Americans play a big role in the Democratic primary, she shocks the political world by again winning 55-45.

Then on April 22, the big one—Pennsylvania—and it's a Clinton blowout: 60-40, with Clinton picking up a whopping 32 delegates. She wins both of Guam's two delegates on May 3 and Indiana's proximity to Illinois does Obama no good on May 6. The Hoosiers go for Clinton 55-45 and the same day brings another huge upset in a heavily African-American state. Enough blacks desert Obama to give North Carolina to Hillary in another big win, 55-45, netting her seven more delegates.



May 13 in West Virginia is no kinder to Obama, and he loses by double digits, netting Clinton two delegates. Another 60-40 landslide on May 20 in Kentucky nets her 11 more. The same day brings Oregon, a classic Obama state. Ooops! He loses there 52-48. Clinton wins by 10 in Montana and South Dakota on June 3 and the scheduled primary season ends on June 7 in Puerto Rico with another big Viva Clinton! Clinton pulls off a 60-40 landslide, giving her another 11 delegates.

Given that I've put not a thumb but my whole fist on the scale, this fanciful calculation gives Hillary the lead, right? Actually, it makes the score 1,625 to 1,584 for Obama. A margin of 39 pledged delegates may not seem like much, but remember, the chances of Obama losing state after state by 20-point margins are slim to none.

So no matter how you cut it, Obama will almost certainly end the primaries with a pledged delegate lead, courtesy of all those landslides in February. What happens then? Will Democrats come together before the Denver Convention opens in late August?

We know that Clinton is unlikely to quit. This will leave it up to the superdelegates to figure out how to settle on a nominee. With 205 already committed to Obama, he would need another 200 uncommitted superdelegates to get to the magic number of 2025 delegates needed to nominate. But that's only under my crazy pro-Hillary projections. More likely, Obama would need about 50-100 of the approximately 500 uncommitted superdelegates, which shouldn't be too difficult.

But let's say all the weeks of negative feeling have taken a toll. Let's say that Clinton supporters are feeling embittered and inclined to sit on their hands. It's not too hard to imagine prominent superdelegates asking Obama to consider putting Hillary on the ticket.

This might be the wrong move for him. A national-security choice like Sen. Jim Webb, former senator Sam Nunn or retired general Anthony Zinni could make more sense. But if Obama did ask Clinton, don't assume she would say no just because she has, well, already served as de facto vice president for eight years under her husband. (Sorry, Al).

In fact, she would probably say yes. When there's a good chance to win, almost no one has ever said no. (Colin Powell is the exception). In 1960, when the vice presidency was worth a lot less, Senate Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson gave up his powerful position to run with John F. Kennedy.

How about Clinton-Obama? Nope. The Clintonites can spin to their heart's content about how big March 4 was for them. How close the race is. How they've got the Big Mo now.

Tell it to Slate's Delegate Calculator. Again.

DriftingByTheStorm

Did you know that between Hillary and Bill the two of them have had just a few over 100 people murdered to protect their reputations?

Bill had bunch of girls he raped or had affairs with killed, apparently.
Not sure what hillary's deal was.

Her dad was a big mob boss in chicago, which apparently was why Bill married her.

Both of them are alleged to be US Intellegence spooks, too.

At least that is what Larry Nichols says.

Hollyweird

MasterFramer wrote:

We need you and Bill thinking up dirty tricks to play on the other party... not your own...

http://www.newsweek.com/id/119010

Are these two people not the two biggest egomaniacs in the history of egomaniacs?

All you Clinton supporters better ask yourself what happens to the Obama movement if she wins the lottery and becomes the nominee? It's not rocket science, we stay home... we vote Nader, we vote McCain :eek:. Either way we don't vote for you and the dems loose cause the terrorist threat level is raised to red right before the election.

OR she can pack up and support Obama going forward. Make sure things she SAYS are important to her get Obama's attention. Keep the party united and together. But no... she's "Just getting started!" (-said yesterday). Oh boy! 7 more weeks of the party tearing each other apart. That will make it real easy for the dems to take on McBush.

There is no good reason for Hillary to be in this at this point. You Hillary supporters know this, I ask why you continue to help smash a sinking ship right into the barrier reef that is the democratic party?

*edit - the article from above

Jonathan Alter
Hillary’s New Math Problem

Tuesday's big wins? The delegate calculus just got worse.
Mar 5, 2008 | Updated: 6:48 p.m. ET Mar 5, 2008

Hillary Clinton won big victories Tuesday night in Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island. But she's now even further behind in the race for the Democratic nomination. How could that be? Math. It's relentless.

To beat Barack Obama among pledged delegates, Clinton now needs even bigger margins in the 12 remaining primaries than she needed when I ran the numbers on Monday—an average of 23 points, which is more than double what she received in Ohio.

Superdelegates won't help Clinton if she cannot erase Obama's lead among pledged delegates, which now stands at roughly 134. Caucus results from Texas aren't complete, but Clinton will probably net about 10 delegates out of March 4. That's 10 down, 134 to go. Good luck.

I've asked several prominent uncommitted superdelegates if there's any chance they would reverse the will of Democratic voters. They all say no. It would shatter young people and destroy the party.

Clinton's only hope lies in the popular vote—a yardstick on which she now trails Obama by about 600,000 votes. Should she end the primary season in June with a lead in popular votes, she could get a hearing from uncommitted superdelegates for all the other arguments that she would make a stronger nominee (wins the big states, etc.). If she loses both the pledged delegate count and the popular vote, no argument will cause the superdelegates to disenfranchise millions of Democratic voters. It will be over.

Projecting popular votes precisely is impossible because there's no way to calculate turnout. But Clinton would likely need do-overs in Michigan and Florida (whose January primaries didn't count because they broke Democratic Party rules). But even this probably wouldn't give her the necessary popular-vote margins.



Remember, Obama's name wasn't even on the Michigan ballot when voters there went to the polls. Even if he's trounced there (and Michigan, won by Jesse Jackson in 1988, has a large African-American vote in its primary), Obama would still win hundreds of thousands of popular votes. This is also an argument for why Obama may end up preferring a primary to a caucus in Michigan. (Obama has done better in caucuses).

Florida, with its heavy population of elderly and Jewish voters, might be a better place for Clinton to close the popular vote gap. But even if you assume she does 5 points better than her double-digit win there in the meaningless February primary (where no one campaigned), she would still fall short.

I'm no good at math, but with the help of Slate’s Delegate Calculator, I've once again scoped out the rest of the primaries. In order to show how deep a hole she's in, I've given her the benefit of the doubt every week. That's 12 victories in a row, bigger in total than Obama's run of 11 straight. And this time I've assigned her even larger margins than I did before in Wyoming, North Carolina, Indiana and Kentucky.

So here we go again:

Let's assume that on Saturday in Wyoming, Clinton's March 4 momentum gives her an Ohio-style 10-point win, confounding every expectation. Next Tuesday in Mississippi, where African-Americans play a big role in the Democratic primary, she shocks the political world by again winning 55-45.

Then on April 22, the big one—Pennsylvania—and it's a Clinton blowout: 60-40, with Clinton picking up a whopping 32 delegates. She wins both of Guam's two delegates on May 3 and Indiana's proximity to Illinois does Obama no good on May 6. The Hoosiers go for Clinton 55-45 and the same day brings another huge upset in a heavily African-American state. Enough blacks desert Obama to give North Carolina to Hillary in another big win, 55-45, netting her seven more delegates.



May 13 in West Virginia is no kinder to Obama, and he loses by double digits, netting Clinton two delegates. Another 60-40 landslide on May 20 in Kentucky nets her 11 more. The same day brings Oregon, a classic Obama state. Ooops! He loses there 52-48. Clinton wins by 10 in Montana and South Dakota on June 3 and the scheduled primary season ends on June 7 in Puerto Rico with another big Viva Clinton! Clinton pulls off a 60-40 landslide, giving her another 11 delegates.

Given that I've put not a thumb but my whole fist on the scale, this fanciful calculation gives Hillary the lead, right? Actually, it makes the score 1,625 to 1,584 for Obama. A margin of 39 pledged delegates may not seem like much, but remember, the chances of Obama losing state after state by 20-point margins are slim to none.

So no matter how you cut it, Obama will almost certainly end the primaries with a pledged delegate lead, courtesy of all those landslides in February. What happens then? Will Democrats come together before the Denver Convention opens in late August?

We know that Clinton is unlikely to quit. This will leave it up to the superdelegates to figure out how to settle on a nominee. With 205 already committed to Obama, he would need another 200 uncommitted superdelegates to get to the magic number of 2025 delegates needed to nominate. But that's only under my crazy pro-Hillary projections. More likely, Obama would need about 50-100 of the approximately 500 uncommitted superdelegates, which shouldn't be too difficult.

But let's say all the weeks of negative feeling have taken a toll. Let's say that Clinton supporters are feeling embittered and inclined to sit on their hands. It's not too hard to imagine prominent superdelegates asking Obama to consider putting Hillary on the ticket.

This might be the wrong move for him. A national-security choice like Sen. Jim Webb, former senator Sam Nunn or retired general Anthony Zinni could make more sense. But if Obama did ask Clinton, don't assume she would say no just because she has, well, already served as de facto vice president for eight years under her husband. (Sorry, Al).

In fact, she would probably say yes. When there's a good chance to win, almost no one has ever said no. (Colin Powell is the exception). In 1960, when the vice presidency was worth a lot less, Senate Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson gave up his powerful position to run with John F. Kennedy.

How about Clinton-Obama? Nope. The Clintonites can spin to their heart's content about how big March 4 was for them. How close the race is. How they've got the Big Mo now.

Tell it to Slate's Delegate Calculator. Again.

Whether your a Clinton or Obama or McCain supporter you gotta give the gal some props. She's a warrior. American needs a warrior right now, not a talker. No one will miss the Obama movement. Perhaps the Obama kiddies will all start going back to their classes....And enough about this Obama is the definitive winner in a contest against McCain. If she can't thump Hillary he sure as hell wont thump the GOP...

MasterFramer

My post has nothing to do with being bitter... it has everything to do with reality. Something Hillary and her supporters fail to see. Did you even read that article?

Hollyweird

MasterFramer wrote:

My post has nothing to do with being bitter... it has everything to do with reality. Something Hillary and her supporters fail to see. Did you even read that article?

I read that article long before you posted. Amazing this internet thing. That's one dudes opinions. I can post a counter article that makes an argument she can win. I saw a great one last night on CNN. Point is she can win on the math. Not denying it would be tough. But if she can get it to the convention how can they NOT talk about at least Florida? Didn't the Democrats learn their lesson in 2000 that you cant win without Florida? So disenfranchise their voters. Smart move. The party declared them ineligible, not the candidates. In Florida everyone was on the ballot and everyone played by the rules. The rule was wrong and you and I both know that if Obama needed those delegates to win, do you think he would just roll? I dont think so.

The one part of the article I did agree with and actually predicted was Jim Webb for Vice President......with Hillary Clinton. Awesome ticket. Clinton has lots of baggage but you know how low the GOP plays. The dirt on Obama is just as bad, it's just different dirt that won't play well in the general election. His quotes on Castro, Chavez, and Ahmadnijad alone could cost him the election. McCain will drive that shit right down his throat. U watch

MasterFramer

Ok now research who Jonathan Alter is and realize he knows more than both of us when it comes to this subject... he's not some guy on some blog.

Abookamongstthemany

You mentioned Obama supporters voting Nader if Hillary won the nod. And you give me shit for standing up for my principles and not voting for Obama? Oh the irony! To me Hillary and Obama have much more in common than they do differences.

g under p

This will all be over soon enough, let's not all jump the gun.

Peace

MasterFramer

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

You mentioned Obama supporters voting Nader if Hillary won the nod. And you give me shit for standing up for my principles and not voting for Obama? Oh the irony! To me Hillary and Obama have much more in common than they do differences.

So I was giving you shit for something that IS going to happen, weeks ago. Stay on topic... and the topic isn't Nader. Thanks.

Abookamongstthemany

MasterFramer wrote:

So I was giving you shit for something that IS going to happen, weeks ago. Stay on topic... and the topic isn't Nader. Thanks.

For me right now, the topic is your hypocrisy.

I addressed exactly what you were spouting in the OP.

MasterFramer

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

For me right now, the topic is your hypocrisy.

I addressed exactly what you were spouting in the OP.

You voting for Nader are part of the problem, pretty insignificant at this point, but annoying none the less... where is the hypocrisy?

You have said nothing about Clinton and how her run to the convention is bad news for the democratic party.

Abookamongstthemany

MasterFramer wrote:

You voting for Nader are part of the problem, pretty insignificant at this point, but annoying none the less... where is the hypocrisy?

You have said nothing about Clinton and how her run to the convention is bad news for the democratic party.

See, I see you voting for Obama as part of the problem. See how that works?
Now you wanna come out and say that Hillary will not get your support if she gets the nod because you don't agree with her and you'd vote for Nader, McCain(wtf?) or not vote at all before supporting someone you don't believe in. The hypocrisy comes in where you continually gave me shit about doing exactly the same thing you described in the OP.


I can see why you'd wanna change the subject so I'll play along:

I think Obama and Hillary's run to the convention is bad news....there.

Hollyweird

MasterFramer wrote:

Ok now research who Jonathan Alter is and realize he knows more than both of us when it comes to this subject... he's not some guy on some blog.

I did the math myself. Thanks for the offer.

Hollyweird

This whole notion of Clinton quitting because it's bad for the party for her to fight is just hogwash. If Obama has skeletons and chinks in the armor, lets find out now. So if he wins at least everyone will have a better idea of who he is because that is his biggest weakness. Let's find out if he can man up in a campaign. Remember, this is a guy who has never ever really been tested at any level. He got into Congress virtually unopposed. No one really knows what he's made of which to me is the whole problem. And dont mention his books. Totally self serving. So lets find out. If he holds up he will be more proven. If he cant hold up and still gets the nod, that will solidify my vote for McCain who is a known commodity. Clinton's throwing spitballs at Obama and he ain't holding up so well. Hillary, by contrast, is clawing her ass back. Shows character to me. McCain will be throwing fast balls at Obama, especially on National Security. Hillary Clinton already is challenging him on National Security! How the fuck do you think the ex figther pilot will do there??If he cant handle the heat, he should not get the nomination. Period.

El_Kabong

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

See, I see you voting for Obama as part of the problem. See how that works?
Now you wanna come out and say that Hillary will not get your support if she gets the nod because you don't agree with her and you'd vote for Nader, McCain(wtf?) or not vote at all before supporting someone you don't believe in. The hypocrisy comes in where you continually gave me shit about doing exactly the same thing you described in the OP.


I can see why you'd wanna change the subject so I'll play along:

I think Obama and Hillary's run to the convention is bad news....there.

but, but, but...,i thought masterframer said a vote for nader is a vote for mickey mouse and if you vote for nader that means mccain will win??? i'm confused...seems a tad hypocritical given his and other bama supporters rhetoric around here lately

MasterFramer

A vote for Nader is a vote for Micky Mouse! When did I saw I AM going to vote for Nader? I was making the point that that is what some Obama supporters will do. You both need to brush up on your reading comprehension.

MasterFramer

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

See, I see you voting for Obama as part of the problem. See how that works?
Now you wanna come out and say that Hillary will not get your support if she gets the nod because you don't agree with her and you'd vote for Nader, McCain(wtf?) or not vote at all before supporting someone you don't believe in. The hypocrisy comes in where you continually gave me shit about doing exactly the same thing you described in the OP.


I can see why you'd wanna change the subject so I'll play along:

I think Obama and Hillary's run to the convention is bad news....there.

You seem forever butt hurt about my anti Nader comments. So sorry about that. Again please point out where I am talking about ME. My actions... You are just looking for a reason to pick a fight. 'We' refers to the democratic party.

Hollyweird

MasterFramer wrote:

A vote for Nader is a vote for Micky Mouse! When did I saw I AM going to vote for Nader? I was making the point that that is what some Obama supporters will do. You both need to brush up on your reading comprehension.

Alot of Clinton people (myself included) will be voting for McCain. Most of those in very key Democratic states. Look at the map my friend. Obama has carried predominantly Red states that will NEVER go for him in the general election AND he could not carry the very necessary Democratic stalwart States. So lets talk about that math..

Abookamongstthemany

MasterFramer wrote:

You seem forever butt hurt about my anti Nader comments. So sorry about that. Again please point out where I am talking about ME. My actions... You are just looking for a reason to pick a fight. 'We' refers to the democratic party.

I'm just pointing out inconsistancies. It was ironical and you know it even if you weren't speaking about yourself. Not picking a fight, just trying to get you to see where I was coming from since now you seem to have a bit more of an understanding about being discontent with the posssibility of a candidate you don't prefer being the chosen nod and not wanting to support them just to counter McCain. I thought this newfound insight might help you when addressing others who feel the same way about particular candidates.

But I'll try real hard to get over the anguish.

Jammin909

Hollyweird wrote:

Perhaps the Obama kiddies will all start going back to their classes....

Their vote counts just as much as yours. Hillary is a bitch who condones infidelity so she can keep her power and influence.

ledvedderman

Hollyweird wrote:

Alot of Clinton people (myself included) will be voting for McCain. Most of those in very key Democratic states. Look at the map my friend. Obama has carried predominantly Red states that will NEVER go for him in the general election AND he could not carry the very necessary Democratic stalwart States. So lets talk about that math..

Are you looking at the vote totals from these primaries in these red states? Democrats are doubling what Republicans are. Clinton can claim Ohio all she wants, but she can't ignore that she lost key swing states in Missouri, Virginia, and Wisconsin.

In a general election Obama could potentially win Virginia (13 electoral votes), Missouri (11 electoral votes) and even Mississippi (whose population is 40% African American -- 6 electoral votes). He would be considerably more competitive than Clinton in other battleground states like Colorado (9 electoral votes), Iowa (7 electoral votes), Wisconsin (10 electoral votes), Minnesota (10 electoral votes) and Michigan (17 electoral votes). The same goes for New Hampshire (4 electoral votes) -- a state where McCain will work hard to woo independents among whom Obama did much better than Clinton in this year's primary.