clinton dropping out tomorrow night? - Page 2

ibex · 06-02-2008, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rollerball

Well there would have been no reason to run the race she did if they would have just given her the nomination in the first place. There wouldn't have been any need for dirty politics if America would have gotten in line.

Marie D. and many others here will take this post completely seriously and agree if they see it.

EvilMonkey · 06-02-2008, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CosmicRocker

sick you took it that way.
Most commentattors took it as a time line ( June).
But you've gotten pretty hateful lately, not the same eric that used to post.

but keep slamming !! then it's

happened?
those damn hillary supporters didn't unify

No, it's sick that it's what she meant. Her "June" argument was debunked over and over again for those paying attention. Also, there were a lot of commentators who were down right pissed that she said that. Try tuning away from FOX once in a while for real news.

Mithrall · 06-02-2008, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CosmicRocker

sounds like it. prolly a "suspension" of her campaign.

good for her - she did it right, got all the primaries in as a candidate, without taking it further -like to the convention.

I reserve the right to tell her to kiss my ass.

RK77 · 06-02-2008, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by itsmeeeeeee

Clinton plans New York speech

By JIM KUHNHENN, Associated Press Writer 7 minutes ago

RAPID CITY, S.D. - Hillary Rodham Clinton will give her post-primary speech in New York Tuesday night, a rare departure from the campaign trail.

Staffers who have worked for her on he ground in Puerto Rico, South Dakota and Montana have been invited to attend the event or go home for further instructions, campaign aides said. The New York senator had no other events Tuesday. She planned to address AIPAC Wednesday in Washington.

But she is under increasing pressure to cede the Democratic nomination to Barack Obama after the final primaries. There was a sense of denouement in the campaign. She planned to rally with husband and former President Clinton and their daughter Chelsea in South Dakota Monday night — a reunion usually reserved for election nights.

Clinton is gearing up for a nuclear option----make no mistake about it.

Her problem is that SOME of her supporters are NOT psych cases and give a shit about the party and success in Nov. They will not back in a full fledged all out nuclear attack --- so they need to try to make it look like someone else caused it (scarey to think that someone like this would have their finger on a button in the white house).

********************************************

Does Clinton Have A Trick Up Her Sleeve?By
Adam Boulton
Political editor

Updated: 03:31, Friday May 30, 2008

When Barack Obama won the Iowa caucuses back in January, I cautioned against counting out Hillary Clinton too soon.

Clinton's campaign team has a plan
Now as conventional wisdom grows that she may bow out soon after the Primary season ends on 3 June I'd repeat my caution.

For sure Obama will remain the favourite to be the nominee because he will have more pledged delegates (currently the Obama/Clinton balance is 1,658/1,500 or 1,732/1,613 should Florida be counted).

Even if Clinton continues to finish strongly in Puerto Rico and elsewhere she won't close that gap.

However Obama will not have won because he will still be short of the 50% of all delegates.

That means that the super delegates (party elders) will hold the balance at the Convention in September.

Effectively unless Clinton withdraws they will have to choose between Clinton and Obama for the nomination.

The Clinton campaign is now preparing a two-pronged argument to persuade them to back Hillary.

Prong one is their argument that Hillary Clinton is the best candidate to beat John McCain.

This is based on her Primary victories in key big states including New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, California, Ohio and Massachussetts.

Obama's not got the nomination yet
And a belief that she will have narrowly won "the popular vote" should votes cast everywhere for each candidate be counted.

The second prong is far more contentious.

To my certain knowledge the Clinton campaign is drawing up a legal case to challenge the legitimacy of the entire 2008 Nomination Process.

At the core of this is a furious attack on the caucus system.

So far 34 states have held primaries and fifteen have held caucuses.

Obama owes all his delegate lead to his victories in the caucuses (excluding them the Obama/Clinton split is just 1,373/1,353 or 1,447/1,466 including Florida - a spread of less than 0.1%).

The Clinton case is that the caucuses are over-represented and undemocratic.

Primaries are normal elections as we would understand them in which votes are cast and counted.

The Democrats (but not the Republicans) then apportion delegates on a proportional basis. This explains why Clinton's wins in big states have not given her big leads in delegates.

Caucuses are not elections.

Who can take on John McCain?
They are small gatherings of activists, which reach a consensus on which candidate to support. It is not always known how many people take part in caucuses.

Based on official figures and estimates the Clinton Camp reckon around 1 million people voted in caucuses, 32.9 million have voted so far in Primaries.

That means, according to the Clintonistas, that caucus voters make up 2.9% of the total yet account for 14% of pledged delegates.

Caucus states, they argue, are over-represented on a votes per pledged delegate basis. On this calculation Obama won in caucuses in all 10 of the most over-represented states and Clinton won primaries in 7 of the 10 most underestimated.

More seriously still, Clinton supporters argue that caucuses are exclusionary - because they take place at a set time, usually in the evening, for a few hours only and are run by activists who may put off outsiders.

The Clintonistas claim this excludes voters on active military duty, blue collar shift workers, the elderly and families with children.

As a result they claim that Obama will be a "contaminated nominee" if the super delegates decide simply to rubber stamp the delegates selected so far.

Of course the Clintons would be on much stronger ground if they had complained about the nomination process before the race began.

But such detailed arguments do not suggest to me that Hillary Clinton is prepared to go quietly.

HarperLee · 06-02-2008, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ibex

So she's not sick for saying that but we are for quoting her and calling her out on that? Cosmo, that logic is as convoluted as the Enron math that Hillary uses to "prove" she's won the popular vote. You're engaging in deflection once again.

It was no time line. She said what she meant and meant what she said.

"Her husband" had "tied up the nomination" on March 20, 1992, when Paul Tsongas withdrew from the primary race.

Bobby Kennedy did not enter the 1968 Democratic primary until March 16, 1968, and he only ran for 82 days until his death, not 8-1/2years like Hillary has run. So saying that he was still in the race in
June makes no sense.

But Hillary banks on the sad fact that her base supporters, both the bitter old woman and the racist rednecks, will believe anything she says.

ibex · 06-02-2008, 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarperLee

It was no time line. She said what she meant and meant what she said.

"Her husband" had "tied up the nomination" on March 20, 1992, when Paul Tsongas withdrew from the primary race.

Bobby Kennedy did not enter the 1968 Democratic primary until March 16, 1968, and he only ran for 82 days until his death, not 8-1/2years like Hillary has run. So saying that he was still in the race in
June makes no sense.

But Hillary banks on the sad fact that her base supporters, both the bitter old woman and the racist rednecks, will believe anything she says.

HRC is the most polarizing figure in American politics. She had high negatives going into this race so I challenge her claims of electibility, especially now that she's alienated a lot of the Democratic rank and file. And this Daisy Duke act of hers, do we really believe she's Granny Clampet, because I think most of the electorate she's claiming bragging rights to now see her as Mrs. Drysedale! This whole Obama is an elitist business coming fom a woman who's parlayed her husband's career into tens of millions of dollars is particularly transparent. And as far as the big states she won, like CA, NJ, MA they will vote Democrat no matter who's on the ticket. The red necks who voted for her in the primaries would toss her under the bus in the general election for John McCain or Zippy the Pinhead for that matter.

RK77 · 06-02-2008, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarperLee

It was no time line. She said what she meant and meant what she said.

"Her husband" had "tied up the nomination" on March 20, 1992, when Paul Tsongas withdrew from the primary race.

Bobby Kennedy did not enter the 1968 Democratic primary until March 16, 1968, and he only ran for 82 days until his death, not 8-1/2years like Hillary has run. So saying that he was still in the race in
June makes no sense.

But Hillary banks on the sad fact that her base supporters, both the bitter old woman and the racist rednecks, will believe anything she says.

So far she has called them pretty right.......... they be freaking out till hell freezes over.

DanS. · 06-02-2008, 03:28 PM

I've heard this all before....I'll believe it when I see it.

CosmicRocker · 06-02-2008, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarperLee

It was no time line. She said what she meant and meant what she said.

"Her husband" had "tied up the nomination" on March 20, 1992, when Paul Tsongas withdrew from the primary race.

Bobby Kennedy did not enter the 1968 Democratic primary until March 16, 1968, and he only ran for 82 days until his death, not 8-1/2years like Hillary has run. So saying that he was still in the race in
June makes no sense.

But Hillary banks on the sad fact that her base supporters, both the bitter old woman and the racist rednecks, will believe anything she says.

right = the time line was bad too.

But you'd have to believe she actually wanted Obama to be killed, to believe sh was waiting for an assasination.

If you beleive that, than there is no point in continuing this discussion

EvilMonkey · 06-02-2008, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DRS112

I've heard this all before....I'll believe it when I see it.

You're right, I hate to get my hopes up. BTW my wife said this same thing.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode