Why did Clinton lose?

Odd given my post is in response to Mame, not to you; and the phrase in question has a few different interpretations.

l have the authority to phrase any wager with you as I see fit, I do not relinquish said phrasing to you.

State your intentions clearly and expect a third party hold.

0 Replies

Should have seen that coming. Here, Chumly, I'll do you a favor: If you really believe in McCain you can get nearly 2 to 1 on your money by clicking here.

0 Replies

I propose $100.00 cash US from you, and $100.0 cash Can by me to be forwarded to an agreed upon third party A2K member within 10 working days of said agreement.

My wager: "the upcoming election will not have Obama as president."

The agreed upon third party A2K member, will within 10 working days of said election forward both $100.00 bills to the winner.

0 Replies

You dizzy fool, click on the link. I could easily accept your wager and then lay it off at Intrade, which would result in my total exposure being $40+ trading fees to be guaranteed $100 come November. Fortunately for you; I'd feel guilty about taking money from a fool. You really shouldn't gamble. :wink:

0 Replies

Put up or shut up.

$100.00 cash each held in advance by a third party A2K member as discussed.

I nominate Dys.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

put up or shut up

$100.00 cash each held by a third party A2K member as discussed.

Dude. Are you completely retarded? McCain is trading at $37.80. This is what it costs to get $100- trading fees if he wins. That means; anyone who wants your fool's bet will either pay $37.80 or profit $62.20-fees on the transaction. Put your $100 up there; and it will return over $250 if you're correct. As a rule; I don't take money from fools.

0 Replies

Put up or shut up.

$100.00 cash US from you
$100.00 cash Can by me

To be forwarded to an agreed upon third party A2K member within 10 working days of said agreement. I nominate Dys.

My wager: "the upcoming election will not have Obama as president."

The agreed upon third party A2K member, will within 10 working days of said election forward both $100.00 bills to the winner.

0 Replies

Why did Hillary lose? Has she lost yet? Can the super delegates still go with her?

But if the question is in context of her primaries lost to Obama, I'd think it is that Obama is what the Jeffersons were to 1970's tv. Meaning, I read/heard that the popularity of the Jeffersons in the 1970's was based on the supposed thought that here was a Black family that White people would be comfortable with. That may be Obama's real secret to success; he's a Black man that allows Whites to stay relaxed. He should be known perhaps as the Caucasian Whisperer.

That ability, of Obama's just trumped Hillary's image, in my opinion.

0 Replies

Okay dude. I've done all I can to educate you. Your terms are accepted, provided by Can you mean Canadian. Send your $99.40 on to Dys, and I'll send him a crisp $100... assuming he doesn't object.

0 Replies

If you are giving your money away may I have some?

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Okay dude. I've done all I can to educate you. Your terms are accepted, provided by Can you mean Canadian. Send your $99.40 on to Dys, and I'll send him a crisp $100... assuming he doesn't object.

As discussed:

The agreed upon wager is specifically and to the point that the upcoming election will not see Obama as president. The wager is not who will be the next president of the US per se.

The agreed upon wager is specifically and to the point that funds of $100.00 in cash, in each respective country's denomination, will be forwarded to the agreed upon third party A2K member Dys, within 10 working days of full completion of said agreement.

There will be no acceptance of checks, money orders, estimates of currency differentials etc.

Dys's confirmation will set day-one of the 10 days to forward the holdings, as per 10 standard working days.

Upon confirmation of the US presidency Dys, will within 10 working days of said election, forward both $100.00 bills to the winner. That being me if Obama is not the president, and that being you is Obama is the president.

0 Replies

Your terms are accepted. Shoot me a PM when you hear back from Dys.

0 Replies

Will do, it's all good clean fun!

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Chumly wrote:
put up or shut up

$100.00 cash each held by a third party A2K member as discussed.
Dude. Are you completely retarded? McCain is trading at $37.80. This is what it costs to get $100- trading fees if he wins. That means; anyone who wants your fool's bet will either pay $37.80 or profit $62.20-fees on the transaction. Put your $100 up there; and it will return over $250 if you're correct. As a rule; I don't take money from fools.

Poor Chumley -- doesn't understand what it means to hedge a bet. Oh well, O'BILL, you tried.

Chumley wrote:

The agreed upon wager is specifically and to the point that the upcoming election will not see Obama as president. The wager is not who will be the next president of the US per se.

Depends upon what you mean by "see." Of course, technically the only person who will be "seen" as president on election day is George W. Bush, but that couldn't be what you meant. I'm certain that you wouldn't play such puerile word games when we are all, in a sense, witnesses to this transaction. It would be beneath contempt if you were to do so, and would subject you to the justifiable scorn of everyone here, regardless of partisan persuasion. Republicans or Democrats, conservatives or liberals, we may differ in our politics, but we are as one in insisting upon an honest wager.

0 Replies

Some very good comprehensive analyses here - esp Engineer's

I also believe Occam Bill's remark about Clinton's error in letting Obama make the keynote speech at the 2004 convention was particularly insightful. I think he agrees that none of us really knows how or by whom that decision was made, or how much influence the Clintons had over it. However I suspect historians will cite it as a key event.

An interesting slice on all this is to note that Hillary has target a 2008 presidential run for a long time. Of necessity she was required to run on (or at least very close to) her voting record in the Senate. That forced her to make some critical strategic choices on key issues fairly soon after she first entered the Senate.

In keeping with a very successful Clinton practice of "triangulating" divisive issues, so as to avoid either extreme, or even unambiguous clarity, in the positions he and later she staked out, and therefore retain the ability to later claim a "centrist" position in subsequent elections, Hillary adopted a qualified and somewhat reluctant position of support for the war. Just how qualified and how reluctant it was varied over time with most indices of the public mind on the issue. She stayed somewhere between "Support for the troops and therefore what they were doing" and a somewhat stronger "Support for Combatting Terrorism", depending on how things seemed to be going. She, and most of the Democrat leadership in the Congress (including John Kerry) voted for the initial authorization - a move that seemed smart at the time.

Obama wasn't yet in the Senate when all these critical initial steps were taken. By the time he got there public support for the war was much diminished, and the positions he took were probably no longer available to Hillary who already had numerous votes and public statements under her belt.

I, of course don't know the degree to which the positions of either were guided by independent deeply held beliefs or by political considerations relative to the coming campaign. However it is a safe bet that both types of considerations played some role.

In this case, however, the factor of time was not on Hillary's side, and it was on Obama's.

0 Replies

Mark Twain: "Reports of my demise has been greatly exaggerated!"

0 Replies

I can't see Obama winning those red states that he did so well against Hillary, in competition with McCain. Those wily Republican merely created an illusion for wishful Democrats. The question is will those BIG States, the stronghold of Democrats, he lost to Hillary back Obama? in a general election, blacks only represent 20% of the votes whereas in Democratic primaries blacks constitute 40% of the votes. Besides the Obama camp is trying to destroy Michigan and Florida's voices by trying to force Hillary Clinton to quit. This will not play well in the general election for Obama.

0 Replies

talk72000 wrote:

I can't see Obama winning those red states that he did so well against Hillary, in competition with McCain. Those wily Republican merely created an illusion for wishful Democrats. The question is will those BIG States, the stronghold of Democrats, he lost to Hillary back Obama? in a general election, blacks only represent 20% of the votes whereas in Democratic primaries blacks constitute 40% of the votes. Besides the Obama camp is trying to destroy Michigan and Florida's voices by trying to force Hillary Clinton to quit. This will not play well in the general election for Obama.

It will depend on the next several months of campaigning. Dem leaning voters have a pretty clear choice policy wise between the two. Concerning MI and FL, The last polls comparing the candidates showed Obama beating McCain in MI by +2% with Clinton losing by -9% (Poll 4/8). In Florida the reverse is true with Clinton winning by 8% and Obama losing by 1% (Poll 4/29). Since Obama hasn't been to Florida at all this season, I think there is time to turn that around.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

I also believe Occam Bill's remark about Clinton's error in letting Obama make the keynote speech at the 2004 convention was particularly insightful. I think he agrees that none of us really knows how or by whom that decision was made, or how much influence the Clintons had over it. However I suspect historians will cite it as a key event.

It was John Kerry who made the decision.

0 Replies

Wanted to confirm that and found this:

The Speech -- Chicago Magazine

Interesting article!

Basically, Kerry wanted Obama, which put him on a short list, which was narrowed down to two (Obama and Jennifer Granholm), and Mary Beth Cahill (Kerry's campaign manager) made the final decision.

Quote:

Kerry and his aides first began to zero in on Obama after Kerry's two-day campaign swing through Illinois in April. Stumping together at a vocational center on Chicago's West Side and at a downtown fundraiser at the Hyatt Regency Chicago, Kerry came away impressed with the charismatic political hot shot. Watching Obama address the donors who filled the hotel's ballroom, Kerry's national finance chairman, the Chicago investment banker Louis Susman, told Kerry: "This guy will be on the national ticket someday." To which Kerry replied, according to an account in the Chicago Tribune: "Well, I have a way in mind for him to be at the national convention this year. He should be one of the faces of our party now, not years from now."

0 Replies

Why did Clinton lose?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know