View Full Version : Hilary on the way out?
dahamsta
08/05/2008, 3:37 PM
I haven't read any detailed coverage, but the headlines slipping by in my feed reader are nearly all negative, saying Hilary's campaign is a sinking ship and she's on the cusp of pulling out. Is that an accurate assessment do you think? Last week it was going the other way, with the Obama pastor garbage, so I'm a bit surprised tbh. Did he turn that around or did Clinton shoot herself in the foot?
adam
Block G Raptor
08/05/2008, 3:39 PM
A copy of my post in the Obama Pastor Thread.
Looks like it might be all over for Her (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/08/us/politics/08campaign.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin)
from the NY Times : As adamant as Mrs. Clinton appeared on Wednesday, several advisers said that how long she would stay in the race was an open question. Some top Clinton fund-raisers said that the campaign was all but over and suggested that she was simply buying time on Wednesday to determine if she could raise enough money and still win over superdelegates, the elected officials and party leaders who could essentially hand Mr. Obama the nomination.
She's hugely in debt and can only win through superdelegates. It's certainly not looking good for her
She's finished and has been for the past two months, it was always just the media trying to sell a few more papers by pumping her up as someone who might overturn the odds
mypost
08/05/2008, 8:07 PM
She will stay in the race until a nominee is declared, presumably in August. Obama can't win the big states, and has had several opportunities to see her off, and has failed to do it. It's still too close to call.
Her determination to continue is increasingly funny in its desperation.
I think losing North Carolina so convincingly and only scraping Indiana has done her. All her gains and impetus from Pennsylvania and Ohio were obliterated by her defeat in North Carolina.
She will stay in the race until a nominee is declared, presumably in August. Obama can't win the big states, and has had several opportunities to see her off, and has failed to do it. It's still too close to call.
She.Is.Finished. :)
She's only staying in the race to try and lose Obama the election in November so she can come back in 4 years time against McCain (if he's not dead or senile by then). Do you really think the Democratic Party are stupid enough to overturn the public vote and give the nomination to Hilary?
mypost
08/05/2008, 8:47 PM
Do you really think the Democratic Party are stupid enough?
It's American politics. Anything can and does happen. Hillary is apparantly ahead of Obama in head-to-head polls against McCain, afaik. That will be taken into account as well, when the candidate is declared.
Should McCain win this time, he will automatically contest the next election.
osarusan
09/05/2008, 12:44 AM
She's only staying in the race to try and lose Obama the election in November so she can come back in 4 years time against McCain (if he's not dead or senile by then).
You don't really believe that do you?
She's still in the race because she has more superdelegates, she's won the states that need to be won in a presidential election, and she scores better than Obama in head to head polls.
I think she will lose the Democratic nomination pretty soon, some analysts think she may concede within a couple of days. But I actually think she has the better chance of beating McCain in a presidential election. She just won't get that chance.
You don't really believe that do you?
Yep I do. She thought it was agreed that she would be the Democratic nominee before the primaries started, and you could tell how startled she was by Obama's campaign at the beginning of January. She was arrogant enough to think that no one would stand in her way, and since then she has had various members of her team and her family attack Obama on his race and his past (he used drugs....wow), and had them spread lies to defame his character (he used to deal drugs, sure he's black and not rich, he must have). She has run a horrendously negative campaign since Obama blew her out of the water in the early primaries that has sought to undermine his creditability, rather than enhance her own.
Since practically every political observer with a shred of intelligence has had her living on borrowed time in this election for the past 3 months, and since she has refused to listen to repeated calls from the Democratic hierarchy to stand down so they can focus their energies on November, I can only assume that she is staying in this to deplete Obama's funds and attack his character so that he is easy pickings for the Republicans come the election season. She's too intelligent not to realise what harm she is doing, and since she realises that America will be very unlikely to vote in a female pensioner in 8 years time as it's President she must realise that the election in 4 years time is her only chance of realising her ambition to become the first female president
She will stay until June. The DNC will then put pressure on one of the candidates to withdraw (almost certainly Clinton).
mypost
09/05/2008, 1:19 PM
Since practically every political observer with a shred of intelligence has had her living on borrowed time in this election for the past 3 months
These are probably the same political observers who declared that Kerry won the election last time, while the vote was still going on. :D They've been writing Hillary off since she lost the first primary, and 4 months later, she's still in it. Obviously the democrat electorate know something the observers don't.
osarusan
10/05/2008, 11:44 PM
Obama has overtaken Clinton regarding the number of superdelegates.
From the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7394311.stm)
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has overtaken his rival Hillary Clinton for the first time in endorsements from super-delegates.
Four super-delegates - party and elected officials - pledged to support Mr Obama, including two who previously supported Mrs Clinton.
dancinpants
11/05/2008, 5:40 AM
They've been writing Hillary off since she lost the first primary, and 4 months later, she's still in it. Obviously the democrat electorate know something the observers don't.
Your just a fountain of bullet points aren't ya?...its hilarious :D Surprised you haven't mentioned the "disenfranchisement" of Florida and Michigan yet.
One question though....why do you refer to the MINORITY of the popular vote as the "democrat electorate"? You give the impression that its the MAJORITY electorate.
The Clintons are wearing VERY thin on everyone over here now. This bullsh!t of coming out and saying "Obama can't win the white vote" is unbelievable TBH. Is she insinuating that the 31 states he's won so far are majority black? Obama could argue, but doesn't, that she can't win the under 35's and Blacks. And if CNN are to be believed Hillary carried Indiana on the back of the pensioner vote.
Everything she does just smacks of desparation, she's now loaned her own campaign a total $11.4 million dollars....I think that speaks volumes. She can't even manage her own campaign finances...how could she be trusted with managing the country's?
Seriously "mypost" you need to wake up and smell the coffee. She's behind in STATES, PLEDGED DELEGATES, SUPERDELEGATES, and the POPULAR VOTE. Do you think the DNC are going to strip all of that away from Obama and hand the nomination to Hillary? And before you spout yer "but the polls have her ahead of McCain" crap, the polls also had her 20-25 points ahead in Pennsylvania she won it by NINE. The polls had Obama ahead in New Hampshire - Clinton won it. So "mypost" don't be so naieve as to pay heed to polls....especially ones almost 6 months ahead of time - because 6 months ago Clinton was a shoe-in for the nomination, guess what? She's not gonna get it.
Personally both candidates are crap...but they are better than Grandpa McCain. Having said that, the more time I spend engrossed in this race the more apparent it becomes that Hillary is a VERY right wing leaning democrat....especially with regards to foreign policy, and the "gas tax holiday" idea she blatantly nicked off McCain. But despite being very obviously "right leaning" she pulls in LESS independents than Obama.
dancinpants
11/05/2008, 6:09 AM
OK I take it back, "Billary" aren't behind in Superdelegates - they're ONE ahead after being ONE HUNDRED ahead in January:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/10/dems.wrap/index.html
Personally both candidates are crap...but they are better than Grandpa McCain. Having said that, the more time I spend engrossed in this race the more apparent it becomes that Hillary is a VERY right wing leaning democrat....especially with regards to foreign policy, and the "gas tax holiday" idea she blatantly nicked off McCain. But despite being very obviously "right leaning" she pulls in LESS independents than Obama.
The US can't be compared in European terms as there are no left wing US candidates. We might think the Democrats are left but they just a lighter shade of right. I agree what you say about Clinton but then she has been cleaning up the rural, blue collar Democrat votes. I don't know if socialists exist in the US certainly not at nation level.
Your just a fountain of bullet points aren't ya?...its hilarious :D Surprised you haven't mentioned the "disenfranchisement" of Florida and Michigan yet.
One question though....why do you refer to the MINORITY of the popular vote as the "democrat electorate"? You give the impression that its the MAJORITY electorate.
The Clintons are wearing VERY thin on everyone over here now. This bullsh!t of coming out and saying "Obama can't win the white vote" is unbelievable TBH. Is she insinuating that the 31 states he's won so far are majority black? Obama could argue, but doesn't, that she can't win the under 35's and Blacks. And if CNN are to be believed Hillary carried Indiana on the back of the pensioner vote.
Everything she does just smacks of desparation, she's now loaned her own campaign a total $11.4 million dollars....I think that speaks volumes. She can't even manage her own campaign finances...how could she be trusted with managing the country's?
Seriously "mypost" you need to wake up and smell the coffee. She's behind in STATES, PLEDGED DELEGATES, SUPERDELEGATES, and the POPULAR VOTE. Do you think the DNC are going to strip all of that away from Obama and hand the nomination to Hillary? And before you spout yer "but the polls have her ahead of McCain" crap, the polls also had her 20-25 points ahead in Pennsylvania she won it by NINE. The polls had Obama ahead in New Hampshire - Clinton won it. So "mypost" don't be so naieve as to pay heed to polls....especially ones almost 6 months ahead of time - because 6 months ago Clinton was a shoe-in for the nomination, guess what? She's not gonna get it.
Personally both candidates are crap...but they are better than Grandpa McCain. Having said that, the more time I spend engrossed in this race the more apparent it becomes that Hillary is a VERY right wing leaning democrat....especially with regards to foreign policy, and the "gas tax holiday" idea she blatantly nicked off McCain. But despite being very obviously "right leaning" she pulls in LESS independents than Obama.
having overdosed on CNN over the last 6months i find it very hard to disagree with any of this post and the majority of Jebus' post.
Though i do think Obama could turn out to be a very good President.
There was a very funny skit on this last week on the Daily Show. Hilary has Obama exactly where she wants him now - leading. :D
Pauro 76
02/06/2008, 3:28 PM
http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0602/uselection.html
Confused here. Hilary won the Puerto Rico primary. Isn't Puerto Rico an independent country, rather than an additional state?
dancinpants
02/06/2008, 4:05 PM
http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0602/uselection.html
Confused here. Hilary won the Puerto Rico primary. Isn't Puerto Rico an independent country, rather than an additional state?
No its a territory much like Guam, American Samoa etc.
They get a primary but yet they don't get to vote in the actual elections :rolleyes:
jebus
05/06/2008, 10:33 AM
You don't really believe that do you?
Watch what she does if her demands to be Vice President aren't accepted by Barack, she has been issuing thinly veiled threats to tear the democratic nomination apart since she knew she had lost, and she will do if her demands aren't met.
mypost
05/06/2008, 12:18 PM
Clinton won the popular vote, the swing states, carried by the blue rinse, the hispanics, and most of the recent primaries. She is also ahead of McCain in the polls.
Obama swept the black vote obviously, who make up just a quarter of the population, lost the popular vote, the swing states, and most of the recent primaries. The Democrats have had 2 Presidents in the last 30 years. And with him as their nominee, they'll be the ones holding primaries again in 4 years time.
osarusan
05/06/2008, 1:24 PM
Clinton won the popular vote
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html
not according to that site, although I dont know how reliable it is.
Also, you have to factor in over 300,000 votes in Michigan where Obama's name wasnt on the ballot.
I agree with some of your other points though.
I think that choosing the person who best represents what your party stands for and choosing the person with the best chance of becoming president may not be the same thing in this case.
gilberto_eire
05/06/2008, 1:34 PM
What does all that mean so??
Clinton won the popular vote, the swing states, carried by the blue rinse, the hispanics, and most of the recent primaries. She is also ahead of McCain in the polls.
Obama swept the black vote obviously, who make up just a quarter of the population, lost the popular vote, the swing states, and most of the recent primaries. The Democrats have had 2 Presidents in the last 30 years. And with him as their nominee, they'll be the ones holding primaries again in 4 years time.
Clinton didn't win the popular vote, Barack won the popular, the superdelegate and the majority of states, all Hilary won was the majority of the big states so please get your facts right before you come on talking about it. And Obama lost most of the recent primaries (not a clear majority either), but won a decisive victory in the majority of the primaries. As with the black vote you talk about, please. Spare me the racial nonsense, he also won the youth vote, the 'educated vote', the working white male vote. Hilary only clearly beat him in the hispanic vote and the over-45 woman vote. He's the better candidate and the party chose wisely.
Why do you think he won't win in November? He's clearly a better politician than McCain, and has the momentum now
Why do you think he won't win in November? He's clearly a better politician than McCain, and has the momentum now
There is no guarantee Obama will win & I don't see how it can be suggested he is a better politician than McCain. Obama has no experience worth talking about in terms of Presidential CV whereas McCain is heaped in military & Senate experience. Sure Obama makes great speeches & says all the right things but I think he may have a challenge proving he can deliver. Democrats have to win the big states & Obama won't take Florida - he needs to take some republican states to make up for that. Polls currently show Obama ahead but he is likely getting a post nomination boost so will be interesting to see what it shows in a couple of weeks.
mypost
05/06/2008, 2:50 PM
Obama has no experience worth talking about in terms of Presidential CV whereas McCain is heaped in military & Senate experience.
Giving Obama the Presidency, would be akin to giving Staunton an international manager's job.
Not even the Yanks are THAT stupid.
Giving Obama the Presidency, would be akin to giving Staunton an international manager's job.
Not even the Yanks are THAT stupid.
Obama does speak better than Steve though.
Giving Obama the Presidency, would be akin to giving Staunton an international manager's job.
Not even the Yanks are THAT stupid.
Yeah but given your loose interpretation on facts listening to you is akin to asking Bertie for his definition of friendship
Pete, I'll respond to your point later on when I'm not in work
dahamsta
05/06/2008, 3:35 PM
Forgive And Forget lads, Forgive And Forget.
Arf arf.
adam
dahamsta
05/06/2008, 3:37 PM
BTW, mypost and jebus will both need to post links to documents that support their assertions above if they're going to continue making them. There won't be another warning about this, I'll just ban one or both of ye from the forum if it continues.
ktnxbye,
adam
dancinpants
05/06/2008, 3:59 PM
Giving Obama the Presidency, would be akin to giving Staunton an international manager's job.
Not even the Yanks are THAT stupid.
Ahm, they gave Bush a 2nd term? And they might very well elect McCain to give themselves what would be in effect a 3rd term of Bush. Ahhh let the economic crises, mortgage crisis, heathcare crisis, energy crisis, foreign policy crises roll on. Yes, yanks ARE that stupid.
Ahm, they gave Bush a 2nd term? And they might very well elect McCain to give themselves what would be in effect a 3rd term of Bush. Ahhh let the economic crises, mortgage crisis, heathcare crisis, energy crisis, foreign policy crises roll on. Yes, yanks ARE that stupid.
Good point. As he said himself "There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." :D
McCain is basically running an incumbent campaign which really should not offer him any hope but the US is very conservative.
Obama v McCain state by state breakdown (http://www.electoral-vote.com/)
BTW, mypost and jebus will both need to post links to documents that support their assertions above if they're going to continue making them.
http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/
Click on the state and they will give you a breakdown of age, church, sex, etc. of votes. These have been widely reported in the media, I realise the need for having people support claims in current affairs, but when every proper news outlet is running them is there really a need? I have read that Obama was winning in the majority of voting demographs on CNN, BBC, and in the Guardian and the Times, anyone who has an interest in this election has surely done the same?
bennocelt
05/06/2008, 4:24 PM
Giving Obama the Presidency, would be akin to giving Staunton an international manager's job.
Not even the Yanks are THAT stupid.
:rolleyes:
what part of bombing iran is a good foreign policy plan for America? Yikes
superfrank
08/06/2008, 12:39 PM
Would an Obama/Clinton campaign do enough to topple Republicans?
My grandmother is convinced that the States will not have a black president but then she hasn't lived there since 1961, funnily enough in Chicago. Surely things have changed since then?
Would an Obama/Clinton campaign do enough to topple Republicans?
My grandmother is convinced that the States will not have a black president but then she hasn't lived there since 1961, funnily enough in Chicago. Surely things have changed since then?
to the first question - defintely YES. Though Obama would do it on his own in my opinion.
In my opinion, If America is ready for a black nominee then they are ready for a black President. You dont realise just how in love the majority of Democarts are with this guy - and rightly so. The media seems to love him too. The work and sacrifices of Robert Kennedy, MLK and Jesse Jackson will not have been in vain.
osarusan
09/06/2008, 4:37 AM
In my opinion, If America is ready for a black nominee then they are ready for a black President.
His nomination only shows that the Democrats are ready for a black president, not all of America. It will only be seen in November if that is the case for the whole country.
I think he will probably win in November alright, as long as the debate isn't focussed on foreign policy.
Anecdotally apparently people even in the more liberal East coast have issues voting for black man. According to guy at work when speaking about people he knows living there.
I know probably only 50-60% of registered voters partake in the Presidential election but even less again vote in democratic primaries. Obama needs the black vote but does he risk being seen as "the black candidate" ?
CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/06/poll.obama.clinton/index.html)
A majority of Democrats think Barack Obama should select Hillary Clinton as his running mate, according to a new national poll.
art.clinton.obama.file.ap.jpg
Most Democrats think Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, seen in a 2006 photo, should share the ticket.
Fifty-four percent of registered Democrats questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll released Friday think Obama should name his rival as his running mate; 43 percent disagreed.
Now that Hilary has bowed out without trying to take down the whole party I'll go on record and say that Obama will slaughter McCain in November. Watch what happens when these two go head to head in debates
dahamsta
09/06/2008, 10:01 AM
She already tried to take down the whole party, that was the whole point of holding out so long...
seanfhear
09/06/2008, 10:13 AM
His nomination only shows that the Democrats are ready for a black president, not all of America. It will only be seen in November if that is the case for the whole country.
I think he will probably win in November alright, as long as the debate isn't focussed on foreign policy.
we can all guess whats going to happen but it would be remarkable if america voted for a black person to be president.I certainly hope that they do especially if he has more inclusive policies than bush.I wonder if it makes a difference that he is a lighter shade of black than most black people[I am being serious here]
It is also very important that people do not follow this politician blindly[like people did with tony blair[liar] see how that turned out.His policies must be scrutinised and some pressure enforced that he sticks broadly to them if he is elected
jebus
09/06/2008, 12:47 PM
She already tried to take down the whole party, that was the whole point of holding out so long...
Well she's said she's not going to demand the Vice Presidency so she could have done a lot worse, that said I wouldn't be surprised if she does an about turn and urges her voters not to vote for Obama unless she is made VP
dahamsta
09/06/2008, 2:37 PM
It wouldn't be the first time she did an about-turn, by any stretch of the imagination. She's a thundering cow and no mistake; America's very lucky her campaign lost steam half way through.
Can you imaginer her as president? She'd be worse than Bush for god's sake; at least you know damn well which way Bush is going to go!
adam
I agree she would be worse than Bush, I personally think she has ran a more underhanded campaign than Bush or even Nixon ever did, and that had she recieved the nod from the Democrats she would have sunk to new levels to bring down McCain (for the record I'd pick McCain over Hilary as well). It's been one of the more enjoyable political events I've ever witnessed watching her have the rug swept out from underneath by Obama. The fact that she didn't have her campaign budgeted for beyond Super Tuesday (Feb 5th) shows the absolute arrogance that her family has in relation to US politics. Glad to see the back of the pair of them to be honest
His nomination only shows that the Democrats are ready for a black president, not all of America. It will only be seen in November if that is the case for the whole country.
yes, youre right but he will not be looking to take many votes off the Republicans anyway, he will just be looking to motivate all Democrats to come out and vote in big numbers which he has proven he is capable of doing. He and Hilary have broken numerous records for primary/caucus voter turnout and he is streets ahead of ALL rivals in the big issue of fund raising *spits* and using the internet to rally people to donate and vote.
I think in general though, America wants a change of direction. They want to be respected again, like they have been in the past and i think to most observers there, Obame represents the best prospect for acceptance of cultural diversity, change, discussion and possibly even peace.
dancinpants
09/06/2008, 5:37 PM
I agree she would be worse than Bush, I personally think she has ran a more underhanded campaign than Bush or even Nixon ever did, and that had she recieved the nod from the Democrats she would have sunk to new levels to bring down McCain (for the record I'd pick McCain over Hilary as well). It's been one of the more enjoyable political events I've ever witnessed watching her have the rug swept out from underneath by Obama. The fact that she didn't have her campaign budgeted for beyond Super Tuesday (Feb 5th) shows the absolute arrogance that her family has in relation to US politics. Glad to see the back of the pair of them to be honest
You're not serious are you? Whilst her campaign was somewhat "underhanded" it fell WAY short of the swiftboating involved in the Bush campaign. Hillary, while snide, doesn't even come close to Republicans in the arena of dirty politics.
To pick McCain over Clinton is sheer and utter foolishness....and needs no counter argument really.
And to counter what adam said with regards to Hillary "running out of steam halfway through" the campaign. The opposite infact happened...she BUILT UP a head of steam in the second half as she closed out really strongly. But thankfully Obama had already done the damage delegate wise.
I'm deadly serious. The Republicans for all their over-the-top villianry are at least straight with you in their method of politics. They're hyper-conservative and they will attack you without mercy if you have skeletons in the closet. Hilary on the other hand released bits and pieces to the press from 'unnamed sources' in her camp attacking Obama for his former drug use and his Muslim father. Of course she rolled a few non-descript heads after the slurs were printed, but make no mistake that it wasn't her who put them out there. Couple that with refusal to back out when it was obvious she wouldn't win (couple it even with that walking human travesty Mitt Romney), her early indications that she would insist on becoming Vice President (I assume the Party had a word), and her switch to good ol' Southern Gal as opposed to the Black Man and you can see why I think she's scum.
As per your point that it's ridiculous to suggest McCain over Hilary, well let me ask you this. If you didn't have a clue who Hilary was and I laid out her speeches and her political record ('I'll obliterate Iran' at the front of the queue) and I told you she was Republican would you doubt me? I don't think so to be truthful
dancinpants
09/06/2008, 8:41 PM
I'm deadly serious. The Republicans for all their over-the-top villianry are at leats straight with you in their method of politics. They're hyper-conservative and they will attack you without mercy if you have skeletons in the closet. Hilary on the other hand released bits and pieces to the press from 'unnamed sources' in her camp attacking Obama for his former drug use and his Muslim father. Of course she rolled a few non-descript heads after the slurs were printed, but make no mistake that it wasn't her who put them out there. Couple that with refusal to back out when it was obvious she wouldn't win (couple it even with that walking human travesty Mitt Romney), her early indications that she would insist on becoming Vice President (I assume the Party had a word), and her switch to good ol' Southern Gal as opposed to the Black Man and you can see why I think she's scum.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-johnson/john-mccain-2000-the-swi_b_30654.html Scroll to the lower part of that and see the hatchet job the Bush campaign done "indirectly" to McCain in 2000 - Hillary is an amateur. And Obama better toughen up, coz he's about to come up against a campaign the likes of which he'll unlikely ever come up against again.
As per your point that it's ridiculous to suggest McCain over Hilary, well let me ask you this. If you didn't have a clue who Hilary was and I laid out her speeches and her political record ('I'll obliterate Iran' at the front of the queue) and I told you she was Republican would you doubt me? I don't think so to be truthful
Apart from foreign policy stances what else would you put on that list? Now bear in mind that her policies and Obamas are almost identical...the only substantive difference being diplomacy with foreign countries. Infact their policies were so similar that many seen that as the reason it got so personal, neither camp barely mentioned policies for the last couple of months, even the debates weren't really debates. So by your way of thinking we could also say that Obama is Republican?
Clinton is a career politician. I think it is very naive not to think politicans do what they can to win. She was never going to give up easily. Obama got ahead so as the trailing candidate she had to attack. Obama would do it if he would win that way. Same with McCain. They are all the same just slightly different shades of grey. McCain has made a career campaigning against lobbying but then realised he had lots of them in his senior staff.
Obama is the favourite as has a massive organisation behind him. McCain nearly went broke early in the republican campaign until he got a few wins. He is running on a shoestring.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.