Hillary.... it's over... do the right thing
MasterFramer
Posts: 2,268
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.
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.
10.31.93 / 10.1.94 / 6.24.95 / 11.4.95 / 10.19-20.96 / 7.16.98 / 7.21.98 / 10.31.00 /8.4.01 Nader Rally/ 10.21.01 / 12.8-9.02 / 6.01.03 / 9.1.05 / 7.15-16,18.06 / 7.20.06 / 7.22-23.06 / Lolla 07
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
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.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
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...
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
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Peace
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
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.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
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.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
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
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
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.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Their vote counts just as much as yours. Hillary is a bitch who condones infidelity so she can keep her power and influence.
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.
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
So the country will happily go along with the same foreign policy of the last 7 years that got us in the royally fucked position that we are in now?
And in exit polls, the biggest concern has been the economy... McCain doesn't have a shot with that one.
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
Do you honestly think that in a general election, Obama, wouldn't win New York, or any other traditionaly Blue state? Thats a stupid argument. Of course he would. They're blue states and the democratic nominee is pretty likely to win them. i could win those states as the democratic nominee in a genreral election against a republican. The test is in those red and purple states where Oama has done very well. In fact, this argument actually works AGAINST the cuntons if you really stop to analyze it.
I don't know why anyone hasn't called her out on that. What's the one swing state in a general that Hillary has won? Ohio. What swing state has Obama won? Missouri, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Virginia.
She wins these solid blue states because she is an old school Democrat. To suggest that these states would be won by John McCain is possibly the dumbest thing I have ever heard.
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
Exactly. Its a typical example of clinton spin that doesn't make the slightest bit of sense. It would be very wise for the Obama camp to take this argument, turn it around, and slap the taste out of her mouth with it. i don't know why they havn't done that yet.
Interesting article.....
BTW Holly weirdo.....
Republicans punished Florida and Michigan as well, not as harsh however both of those states broke the rules that were previously set.....
McCain won't drive shit down his throat why do you think McCain is attacking Obama now? Because he is scared he wants to face Hillary not Obama because he thinks he can beat Hilary not Obama....
What people seem to not see as well is that if Hillary when the nomination thus possible the presidency is that will be over 30 years of Bushes and Clintons in the white house...... a modern day kingdom or dynasty. That is very upsetting to me that two families can have control of this control for a majority of my life.
After Hillary in the white house what are you going to do vote Jeb Bush into office to continue this Bull Shit
Well, yeah, because the Democratic race is still contested. McCain's been running away with the Republican race for some time. I didn't vote in it, because what's the point? McCain had it in the bag by then.
Republicans will vote in the general election ... especially if it's against Hillary.
for the least they could possibly do
ding ding ding...we have a winner...
Billary getting the nomination will be the best thing to happen to the repubs in many a moon....
And you knows this because? let me guess your a mind reader.
- Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)
If you haven't got anything nice to say about anybody, come sit next to me."
- Alice Roosevelt Longworth (1884-1980)
maybe McCain is attacking Obama because he is teh front runner. why is both Obama and Clinton attacking McCain because he is teh person they are going to running against.
- Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)
If you haven't got anything nice to say about anybody, come sit next to me."
- Alice Roosevelt Longworth (1884-1980)