PDA

View Full Version : Hillary needed more than 20% in PA, and the superdelegates can't help


Pureracket
Apr 23rd, 2008, 05:52 PM
Delegate counts (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_delegate_count.html)

If all the remaining superdelegates commit to either Hillary or Obama after PA (Hillary by 20 pts):

................................Hillary......Obama
current.......................1508.........1650
plus PA (60%).................95............63
remaining SD.................321...........321
total..........................1924.........2034
needed......................2024..........2024
deficit/surplus..............-100............10

Obama wins!


If all the remaining superdelegates commit to either Hillary or Obama after PA (Hillary by 10 pts):

................................Hillary......Obama
current.......................1508.........1650
plus PA (55%).................87............71
remaining SD.................321...........321
total..........................1916.........2041
needed......................2024..........2024
deficit/surplus..............-108............18

Obama wins!

Calculator (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/29/delegate.counter/index.html)

Hillary needs to win every remaining state 64%-37% to get enough Delegates.

Worse, if Hillary would have won PA by 20, and then continues on to score a big win in IN (by 20 pts) and keep it close in NC (Obama wins by 6 pts), she would only net 7 more delegates (in addition to the 32 from PA), and still be far behind (by 127 pledged delegates and 103 total delegates):

................................Hillary......Obama
plus IN (Hillary 60%).........43............29
plus NC (Obama 53%).......54............61


She can't win.

Pureracket
Apr 23rd, 2008, 05:54 PM
I hope she's able to deliver some states like NYC and PA for the Democratic party in November, though. I have all the faith in the world that she can do it too.

abercrombieguy23
Apr 23rd, 2008, 06:02 PM
omg why don't you call her up?

With the hundreds of advisors around her no one got this message to her:eek:

:rolleyes:

Pureracket
Apr 23rd, 2008, 06:03 PM
omg why don't you call her up?

With the hundreds of advisors around her no one got this message to her:eek:

:rolleyes:
You have her digits? :lol:

BigB08822
Apr 23rd, 2008, 07:00 PM
Why would you assume the remaining SD would split down the middle for them? I could start a thread and say "oh my god, if all the remaining super delegates just go for Hillary then SHE WINS!" No shit, Sherlock. :)

Pureracket
Apr 23rd, 2008, 07:10 PM
Why would you assume the remaining SD would split down the middle for them? I could start a thread and say "oh my god, if all the remaining super delegates just go for Hillary then SHE WINS!" No shit, Sherlock. :)Do the math. Even the remaining ones aren't going to help win.

BigB08822
Apr 23rd, 2008, 07:13 PM
So then you are trying to tell me that you are so smart that you figured this out and yet no one else has picked up on this? If it was impossible for her to win, then the race would be over. There is a reason they have to get to 2024 because THAT is the number at which you can't be passed. It's math! And you brag about how smart the Obama supporters are.

Pureracket
Apr 23rd, 2008, 07:16 PM
So then you are trying to tell me that you are so smart that you figured this out and yet no one else has picked up on this? If it was impossible for her to win, then the race would be over. There is a reason they have to get to 2024 because THAT is the number at which you can't be passed. It's math! And you brag about how smart the Obama supporters are.I'm not trying to say that I'm the only one who's figured this out, but it's obvious that there are others who have not.

Do the math! She's a great candidate for alot of people, but she can't win.

gja360
Apr 23rd, 2008, 07:17 PM
So then you are trying to tell me that you are so smart that you figured this out and yet no one else has picked up on this? If it was impossible for her to win, then the race would be over. There is a reason they have to get to 2024 because THAT is the number at which you can't be passed. It's math! And you brag about how smart the Obama supporters are.

Exactly.... this race is far from over....

Pureracket
Apr 23rd, 2008, 07:21 PM
Exactly.... this race is far from over....
Nah, mathematically, it's over.

BigB08822
Apr 23rd, 2008, 07:30 PM
I understand now! This latest loss has you really concerned that perhaps Hillary can pull this off and it has made you a little cooky. Take your time and get better, honey!

gja360
Apr 23rd, 2008, 07:31 PM
Nah, mathematically, it's over.

No it is Mathematically over when one of them reaches 2025...

Pureracket
Apr 23rd, 2008, 07:33 PM
I understand now! This latest loss has you really concerned that perhaps Hillary can pull this off and it has made you a little cooky. Take your time and get better, honey!
Once I saw that it was below 20%, I was cool. I'm not concerned about him losing @ all.;) She'll have a likely deficit of 100 to 150 going into the convention. But it won't go that far. She can't catch up, and Howard Dean has called for superdelegates to endorse to get the primaries over with. And many prominent Democratic insiders have said that they don't expect it to go to the convention. My prediction is that this will be over come the second or third week of May. And that Hillary won't win the endorsement of enough of the remaining superdelegates to put her over the top.

Pureracket
Apr 23rd, 2008, 07:34 PM
No it is Mathematically over when one of them reaches 2025...Because FL and MI will be excluded, neither may get there. They will go with the candidate with the most pledged delegates. HRC cannot overtake Barack @ this point.

She can't win!

BigB08822
Apr 23rd, 2008, 07:57 PM
My prediction is that this will be over come the second or third week of May. And that Hillary won't win the endorsement of enough of the remaining superdelegates to put her over the top.

So then you are completely contradicting yourself. You have just admitted that it is NOT mathematically over. You predict it WILL eventually be once enough super delegates go for Obama but that is only a prediction and not yet reality.

IceHock
Apr 23rd, 2008, 08:00 PM
if she didn't think she could win she'd be out, and she is going to be keeping the barack did not win the states you need to win in the general election, and it's actually a good case, not a good shot at working but it can work.

Pureracket
Apr 23rd, 2008, 08:03 PM
So then you are completely contradicting yourself. You have just admitted that it is NOT mathematically over. You predict it WILL eventually be once enough super delegates go for Obama but that is only a prediction and not yet reality.The OP says exactly why it's mathematically over.

She can't win!

abercrombieguy23
Apr 23rd, 2008, 08:06 PM
You know what makes me laugh about this whole thing....

More Hillary supporter will defect to McCain and Obama continues to win mostly republican states

Hillary has almost all of the key states by a considerable margin

yet the Obamaniacs are busting their load over him being president in January

I think Obama and Hilary are gonna have to suck up their egos and go joint ticket or this thing is gonna bust in their faces faster than a Jenna Jameson flick

Pureracket
Apr 23rd, 2008, 08:08 PM
You know what makes me laugh about this whole thing....

More Hillary supporter will defect to McCain and Obama continues to win mostly republican states

Hillary has almost all of the key states by a considerable margin

yet the Obamaniacs are busting their load over him being president in JanuaryWith hope, HRC will help us win those states in November. It's going to take a helping hand from all true Democrats.

Certainly, you're not suggesting that HRC is in this only for herself and wouldn't be interested in helping the party retake the White House are you?:confused:

Pureracket
Apr 23rd, 2008, 08:17 PM
You know what makes me laugh about this whole thing....

More Hillary supporter will defect to McCain and Obama continues to win mostly republican states

Hillary has almost all of the key states by a considerable margin

yet the Obamaniacs are busting their load over him being president in January

I think Obama and Hilary are gonna have to suck up their egos and go joint ticket or this thing is gonna bust in their faces faster than a Jenna Jameson flickI don't think sensible people are going to vote for this:

http://i260.photobucket.com/albums/ii10/HughMoran/mccain_hug.jpg

If so, they'll be stuck with what they voted for. If McCain wins, then maybe that's what this country deserves. Either way, it's a Democratic process.

selking
Apr 23rd, 2008, 08:30 PM
Either way McCain will be president which is a hideous thought. If Hillary decides to run independent then she will take a lot of votes away from Obama. The next 4 years looks bleak.

Pureracket
Apr 23rd, 2008, 08:34 PM
Either way McCain will be president which is a hideous thought. If Hillary decides to run independent then she will take a lot of votes away from Obama. The next 4 years looks bleak.I don't think McCain can beat any of them, honestly. He's leading in the polls because they're campaigning against each other and not him.

I seriously doubt if HRC goes independent. She'll stop Barack from winning, but I seriously doubt she'll get many repuke converts.

samsung101
Apr 23rd, 2008, 08:34 PM
Will sensible people vote for a man like Obama, after the Mainstream Media does its job,
and gives us not just a split second photo on the campaign trail years ago of McCain
w/Bush (whom he disagrees w/on numerous topics, thus the RINO moniker)......but,of
Obama w/Ayers and his wife - the Weather Underground unrepetent bombers of American locations,
which did end up killing at least two people.......or with Wright, as his racist 'sermons'
pile up over 20 years......or Rezko the indicted, and soon to be convicted close finacial
pal of OBama's?

Nah......sensible people wouldn't do that, or care right.


McCain has an easy time reminding the public he was against Bush on numerous
things over 8 years, he was the #1 anti-Bush in the Senate who stymied him at
many times. From judges to Guantanamo to taxes....McCain can easily point to
his anti-Dubya stances.


I always find it funny the media likes to pick the photo of McCain trying to hug Bush
on the campaign trail....knowing it looks funny, since McCain can't raise his arms much -
due to the fact the people Ayers supported (the VietCong) broke his arms and never let
him get the right care for......

Just as the LA Times (could be another paper) put out an article today questioning
McCains disability income. Uh, the man was a POW for years, and had his head bashed in,
arms and shoulders broken, teeth knocked out, various organs beaten up, and they really
want to go there....questioning his military disability pay and tax benefit. Uh, nice.

Ryan
Apr 23rd, 2008, 08:34 PM
If she gets 401 Super delegates, doesn't she very literally win? :shrug:

samsung101
Apr 23rd, 2008, 08:38 PM
None of the state delegates are obligated to vote for the candidate the state
or percentage voted for...there is no legal obligation to do it for the
Democrats, for any of the state primaries to date.......

Ditto for the superdelegates, no formal obligation until they actually vote.

That's why they can be bought off by the candidates with donations, er',
persuaded.


Feinstein is but one who has said she will not be forced to vote the way the
state did, based on who ends up being the best candidate by the convention.


Anything can happen.

The Democrats who gave us the big show, the huge hype and hoopla about count every
vote! Really, it's about count every vote the way we want you to, if it's the way
we want it, otherwise, ther super dooper secret delegates we paid for can vote instead.

Pureracket
Apr 23rd, 2008, 08:40 PM
None of the state delegates are obligated to vote for the candidate the state
or percentage voted for...there is no legal obligation to do it for the
Democrats, for any of the state primaries to date.......

Ditto for the superdelegates, no formal obligation until they actually vote.

That's why they can be bought off by the candidates with donations, er',
persuaded.


Feinstein is but one who has said she will not be forced to vote the way the
state did, based on who ends up being the best candidate by the convention.


Anything can happen.

The Democrats who gave us the big show, the huge hype and hoopla about count every
vote! Really, it's about count every vote the way we want you to, if it's the way
we want it, otherwise, ther super dooper secret delegates we paid for can vote instead.It's confusing as to who you hate more....Barack Hussein Obama or the dreaded Clinton family. LOL!!!!! Either way, your right wing nut voice will be in the fringes of society come November. Thank goodness for that.

dementieva's fan
Apr 23rd, 2008, 08:54 PM
OP is exactly right, it is mathematically impossible for Hillary. Hillary needs to ashamed of herself, look in the mirror and see how low she has stooped to win. She needs to drop out NOW.

BigB08822
Apr 23rd, 2008, 10:27 PM
OP is exactly right, it is mathematically impossible for Hillary. Hillary needs to ashamed of herself, look in the mirror and see how low she has stooped to win. She needs to drop out NOW.

I think it is time for a song:

Love is blind
It will take over your mind

And...that's really the only part of the song that applies...:lol:

LeonHart
Apr 23rd, 2008, 10:34 PM
I'd rather McCain win than Obama because at least he has experience. Plus when he says troops will stay in Iraq for 100 years he doesn't mean that they will continue the war for that long; only stationed in Iraq. Kind of like how we still have our troops stationed in Germany and Japan today.

Donny
Apr 23rd, 2008, 11:11 PM
I'd rather McCain win than Obama because at least he has experience. Plus when he says troops will stay in Iraq for 100 years he doesn't mean that they will continue the war for that long; only stationed in Iraq. Kind of like how we still have our troops stationed in Germany and Japan today.

The Japanese are blowing up Americans? News to me.

SelesFan70
Apr 23rd, 2008, 11:31 PM
Neither of them can win without the "super delegates". There is no reason for Mrs. Clinton to get out of the race than for Mr. Barack to get out. He hasn't won anything since February. She has the momentum. And if any of you are expecting an elected official-super delegate (nevermind a democrat elected official) to take a strong stand and show a backbone you're fooling yourself. The "super delegates" will not decide anytime soon. They love all this attention! They are politicians whose egos are huge! These aren't regular people, they are powerful congressmen/women. Imagine all the promises Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Barack are making to them. All this chaos will only make the democrat party stronger...right? :confused:

:bigwave:

Philip
Apr 23rd, 2008, 11:37 PM
i didnt know if clinton or obama lost their nomination they could still run for president independantly :eek:

ah well, kinda hoped clinton would make it, but im sure obama would make a good president too :yeah:

In The Zone
Apr 24th, 2008, 12:15 AM
We didn't need the PA results to decide this. I thought the aggression was called off?

In The Zone
Apr 24th, 2008, 12:16 AM
Neither of them can win without the "super delegates". There is no reason for Mrs. Clinton to get out of the race than for Mr. Barack to get out. He hasn't won anything since February. She has the momentum. And if any of you are expecting an elected official-super delegate (nevermind a democrat elected official) to take a strong stand and show a backbone you're fooling yourself. The "super delegates" will not decide anytime soon. They love all this attention! They are politicians whose egos are huge! These aren't regular people, they are powerful congressmen/women. Imagine all the promises Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Barack are making to them. All this chaos will only make the democrat party stronger...right? :confused:

:bigwave:

Exactly. The Superdelegates are going to pick the one with the most momentum, attention, etc. They want cabinet and high ranking positions. No way would they risk it by picking one now in case something happens.

homogenius
Apr 24th, 2008, 12:20 AM
Either way McCain will be president which is a hideous thought. If Hillary decides to run independent then she will take a lot of votes away from Obama. The next 4 years looks bleak.

If Obama is nominated by the superdelegates, Hillary can still run as an independant ???
So the general election would be between the 3 (with McCain President at the end).What are the chances for her to do that (if it's true) ?

In The Zone
Apr 24th, 2008, 12:28 AM
If Obama is nominated by the superdelegates, Hillary can still run as an independant ???
So the general election would be between the 3 (with McCain President at the end).What are the chances for her to do that (if it's true) ?

She would run for another party. It's been done before.

In fact, this whole discussion is being brought up because something similar happened in 1912. Teddy Roosevelt could not get the Republican nomination after he thought he would and because of his ego, he created the Progressive Party. As a result, it was extremely easy for Woodrow Wilson to win the nomination as Roosevelt and Taft tore votes from one another.

This parallels strongly to Obama and Hillary as the Republican party had two tremendous candidates at the time and neither one wanted to step aside.

However, Obama and Hillary would not do this. You do not go against history. In fact, to avoid this and potential division, the other should be VP. It's just mere speculation and a media story to keep interest and intrigue alive during this race.

Pureracket
Apr 24th, 2008, 12:32 AM
Exactly. The Superdelegates are going to pick the one with the most momentum, attention, etc. They want cabinet and high ranking positions. No way would they risk it by picking one now in case something happens.You may be right with the "momentum" thing, but I'm pretty sure they're going to go by who gets the most delegates. At this point, if HRC is selected, she has no chance of winning the GE. Momentum is the only thing she has going for her, and that'll probably be over soon. If she somehow steals this election a la Supreme Court '00, I can almost promise you McCain will win in a landslide.

In The Zone
Apr 24th, 2008, 12:34 AM
You may be right with the "momentum" thing, but I'm pretty sure they're going to go by who gets the most delegates. At this point, if HRC is selected, she has no chance of winning the GE. Momentum is the only thing she has going for her, and that'll probably be over soon. If she somehow steals this election a la Supreme Court '00, I can almost promise you McCain will win in a landslide.

Not if it can be justified. If the popular vote, etc. etc. etc. So many scenarios. But again, this is all moot depending on the upcoming primaries.

And I can guarantee that Obama will not win if he steals recognition and respect from Hillary.

Split-ticket is the only solution. Or a repeat of 1912 will happen ( just without Hillary physically running ).

Pureracket
Apr 24th, 2008, 12:40 AM
Not if it can be justified. If the popular vote, etc. etc. etc. So many scenarios. But again, this is all moot depending on the upcoming primaries.

And I can guarantee that Obama will not win if he steals recognition and respect from Hillary.

Split-ticket is the only solution. Or a repeat of 1912 will happen ( just without Hillary physically running ).The popular vote is not going to count. I guess it would be an argument if HRC actually had the popular vote, though. She doesn't.

He's stealing recognition and respect from HRC by beating her in a nomination process?:confused:

Donny
Apr 24th, 2008, 12:40 AM
Not if it can be justified. If the popular vote, etc. etc. etc. So many scenarios. But again, this is all moot depending on the upcoming primaries.

Hillary has no realistic chance of winning the popular vote, either. And you're right, it is moot. Obama winning in NC and Indiana will end this.

And I can guarantee that Obama will not win if he steals recognition and respect from Hillary.

Hillary lost respect by voting for military action in Iraq, then voting for Kyl Leiberman. Obama didn't "take" anything.

Split-ticket is the only solution. Or a repeat of 1912 will happen ( just without Hillary physically running ).

What is it with Hillary supporters and this VP nonsense? Is it the dawning realization that this is done? Why are Obama supporters not nearly as concerned with this nonsense?

If Clinton wins the nomination through any means, she's free to pick whoever she wants. Fuck a split ticket. Same with Obama. Frankly, I'd lose respect for him if he agreed to a joint ticket.

homogenius
Apr 24th, 2008, 12:41 AM
She would run for another party. It's been done before.

In fact, this whole discussion is being brought up because something similar happened in 1912. Teddy Roosevelt could not get the Republican nomination after he thought he would and because of his ego, he created the Progressive Party. As a result, it was extremely easy for Woodrow Wilson to win the nomination as Roosevelt and Taft tore votes from one another.

This parallels strongly to Obama and Hillary as the Republican party had two tremendous candidates at the time and neither one wanted to step aside.

However, Obama and Hillary would not do this. You do not go against history. In fact, to avoid this and potential division, the other should be VP. It's just mere speculation and a media story to keep interest and intrigue alive during this race.

Ok, thanks.

In The Zone
Apr 24th, 2008, 12:42 AM
Hillary has no realistic chance of winning the popular vote, either. And you're right, it is moot. Obama winning in NC and Indiana will end this.



Hillary lost respect by voting for military action in Iraq, then voting for Kyl Leiberman. Obama didn't "take" anything.



What is it with Hillary supporters and this VP nonsense? Is it the dawning realization that this is done? Why are Obama supporters not nearly as concerned with this nonsense?

If Clinton wins the nomination through any means, she's free to pick whoever she wants. Fuck a split ticket. Same with Obama. Frankly, I'd lose respect for him if he agreed to a joint ticket.

Not sure if you realized this or not and based on how aggressive and similar your posts have gotten to the other Obamanables I can assume you don't; the other half of the democratic party voted for Hillary. Obama cannot win without her. As much as you dislike her and things she has done, 50% of this party does not feel that way.

Donny
Apr 24th, 2008, 12:45 AM
Not sure if you realized this or not and based on how aggressive and similar your posts have gotten to the other Obamanables I can assume you don't; the other half of the democratic party voted for Hillary. Obama cannot win without her. As much as you dislike her and things she has done, 50% of this party does not feel that way.

He would not win with her on the ticket. But more importantly, her ENTIRE argument to the super delegates relies on convincing them that Obama can't win in November. And she wants to be his VP? WHY? She's either blatantly lying to the supers, or she's a nihilist.

In The Zone
Apr 24th, 2008, 12:48 AM
He would not win with her on the ticket. But more importantly, her ENTIRE argument to the super delegates relies on convincing them that Obama can't win in November. And she wants to be his VP? WHY? She's either blatantly lying to the supers, or she's a nihilist.

No. Her argument is not that he CAN'T win. Her argument is that she is a safer victory. Why gamble if you do not need to? You have two presidential candidates. She is trying to make that case that she is the SAFER choice. And again, it's about politics. 2010 the new census is made, cabinet positions, etc.

And again, put your personal feelings aside. The Democratic Party needs a dream ticket to heal the wounds and put together a true coalition to defeat the Republicans. Any resemblance of a division could spell disaster.

Donny
Apr 24th, 2008, 12:56 AM
No. Her argument is not that he CAN'T win. Her argument is that she is a safer victory. Why gamble if you do not need to? You have two presidential candidates. She is trying to make that case that she is the SAFER choice. And again, it's about politics. 2010 the new census is made, cabinet positions, etc.

And again, put your personal feelings aside. The Democratic Party needs a dream ticket to heal the wounds and put together a true coalition to defeat the Republicans. Any resemblance of a division could spell disaster.

A large swath of Obama's supporters are those who support him as the antithesis of the right wing of the Democratic party which Hillary represents. I'm one of those supporters. Him making her second in command would lose him a lot of his base. More importantly, Hillary has a lot of support from whites who are simply uncomfortable seeing a black person in a position of power. A "dream ticket" would be disastrous.

Let me put it this way: Racists and Clinton haters make up a majority of the GOP and independents. A dream ticket isn't viable.

In The Zone
Apr 24th, 2008, 01:01 AM
A large swath of Obama's supporters are those who support him as the antithesis of the right wing of the Democratic party which Hillary represents. I'm one of those supporters. Him making her second in command would lose him a lot of his base. More importantly, Hillary has a lot of support from whites who are simply uncomfortable seeing a black person in a position of power. A "dream ticket" would be disastrous.

Let me put it this way: Racists and Clinton haters make up a majority of the GOP and independents. A dream ticket isn't viable.

Sounds like Obama has his own problems without Clinton even in the picture. He cannot win without Hillary's votes.

And while those are legitimate concerns, the positives would outweigh them. We're talking about such a large number of swing states being in play with BOTH of them. Ohio, Arkansas, Nevada, Wisconsin, Florida, etc. The apparent negatives would be washed away and overrun with their positives.

homogenius
Apr 24th, 2008, 01:04 AM
A large swath of Obama's supporters are those who support him as the antithesis of the right wing of the Democratic party which Hillary represents. I'm one of those supporters. Him making her second in command would lose him a lot of his base. More importantly, Hillary has a lot of support from whites who are simply uncomfortable seeing a black person in a position of power. A "dream ticket" would be disastrous.

Let me put it this way: Racists and Clinton haters make up a majority of the GOP and independents. A dream ticket isn't viable.

but it's a no-win situation because one of them alone can't win either, no ?

Donny
Apr 24th, 2008, 01:07 AM
Sounds like Obama has his own problems without Clinton even in the picture. He cannot win without Hillary's votes.

And vice versa.

And while those are legitimate concerns, the positives would outweigh them. We're talking about such a large number of swing states being in play with BOTH of them. Ohio, Arkansas, Nevada, Wisconsin, Florida, etc. The apparent negatives would be washed away and overrun with their positives.

Their negatives cancel out their positives. Clinton's advantages (being white, being seen as centrist by independents and moderate Republicans) would be cancelled out by Obama's skin color and liberalness. Obama's advantages (being anti war, and a answer to the conservative wing of the Democratic and Republican party) would be canceled out by Hillary's support of the Iraq war and being seen as part of the machine.

Donny
Apr 24th, 2008, 01:08 AM
but it's a no-win situation because one of them alone can't win either, no ?

I think either Clinton or Obama would win against McCain. I'd gladly have either over McCain. But the two of them on the same ticket is idiotic.

In The Zone
Apr 24th, 2008, 01:11 AM
And vice versa.



Their negatives cancel out their positives. Clinton's advantages (being white, being seen as centrist by independents and moderate Republicans) would be cancelled out by Obama's skin color and liberalness. Obama's advantages (being anti war, and a answer to the conservative wing of the Democratic and Republican party) would be canceled out by Hillary's support of the Iraq war and being seen as part of the machine.

I think you may be overanalyzing it, just a little. Your personal opinion is really evident in that paragraph.

For the sake of the rejuvenation of the party, so many newly registered voters, so many blue collared workers, women and blacks coming out to support their candidate, the positives would definitely outweigh the negatives. In fact, in the states where these negatives would be an issue, we wouldn't foresee them having a chance to win anyway.

Again, this is for the democratic party -- not trying to get redemption for being "scorned".

In The Zone
Apr 24th, 2008, 01:12 AM
I think either Clinton or Obama would win against McCain. I'd gladly have either over McCain. But the two of them on the same ticket is idiotic.

I am glad you finally said it. So now you understand the difficulty between choosing the two? Hillary is an open book and not much can go wrong with her ( as long as she gets enough sleep, ;) ). But Obama, we don't know what could be said. That's the issue at hand.

Donny
Apr 24th, 2008, 01:17 AM
I am glad you finally said it. So now you understand the difficulty between choosing the two?

No, not really. But then again, I'm a progressive.

Hillary is an open book and not much can go wrong with her ( as long as she gets enough sleep, ;) ). But Obama, we don't know what could be said. That's the issue at hand.

She's the most disliked woman in America. A LOT can go wrong.

mykarma
Apr 24th, 2008, 02:00 AM
I'd rather McCain win than Obama because at least he has experience. Plus when he says troops will stay in Iraq for 100 years he doesn't mean that they will continue the war for that long; only stationed in Iraq. Kind of like how we still have our troops stationed in Germany and Japan today.

The troops are not getting killed in Germany and Japan.

mykarma
Apr 24th, 2008, 02:09 AM
Not if it can be justified. If the popular vote, etc. etc. etc. So many scenarios. But again, this is all moot depending on the upcoming primaries.

And I can guarantee that Obama will not win if he steals recognition and respect from Hillary.

Split-ticket is the only solution. Or a repeat of 1912 will happen ( just without Hillary physically running ).
What in the world does that statement mean and it seems as though Clinton supporters are forgetting about the delegate count?

mykarma
Apr 24th, 2008, 02:13 AM
Not sure if you realized this or not and based on how aggressive and similar your posts have gotten to the other Obamanables I can assume you don't; the other half of the democratic party voted for Hillary. Obama cannot win without her. As much as you dislike her and things she has done, 50% of this party does not feel that way.
whine, whine, whine. There you go with your accusations toward any Obama supporter that disagrees with you but ignore or laugh if a Hillary supporters says anything they please. :Just grown up. :bigcry:

mykarma
Apr 24th, 2008, 02:20 AM
I think you may be overanalyzing it, just a little. Your personal opinion is really evident in that paragraph.

For the sake of the rejuvenation of the party, so many newly registered voters, so many blue collared workers, women and blacks coming out to support their candidate, the positives would definitely outweigh the negatives. In fact, in the states where these negatives would be an issue, we wouldn't foresee them having a chance to win anyway.

Again, this is for the democratic party -- not trying to get redemption for being "scorned".
If Hillary wanted to be VP I'm sure they could have worked something out before now. As a matter of fact, if it were possible I think Barack and the DNC would have agreed w/o hesitation instead of the two of them tearing each other apart while McCain goes about his merry way.

Dawn Marie
Apr 24th, 2008, 07:42 AM
I think either Clinton or Obama would win against McCain. I'd gladly have either over McCain. But the two of them on the same ticket is idiotic.
I AGREE. Whoever keeps stating that Obama and Clinton can't win over Mccain is foolish. Also Obama can win without Hillary. The same for Hillary.
With this all said. Hillary is only in this race because Obama hasn't reached 2025 yet. In June Hillary will drop out. It's really only a matter of time. Hillary is in this for pride's sake. When r u people going to realize that Super Tuesday was the end days for Hillary??? IT's VIRTUALLY OVeR. The PHAT LADY IS ACTUALLY SINGING!!