sozobe wrote:maporsche, there are now 288 undeclared superdelegates. One of them -- Bill Richardson, a pretty influential one -- has said that whomever has more delegates Wednesday morning should be the nominee. It's very likely that Obama will have more delegates Wednesday morning.
Ok, so 288.....still enough to "mathematically" matter, despite Cyclo's best efforts to say that mathematically she's toast.
OCCOM BILL wrote:I completely disagree with Nimh that Hillary's vote for authorization should disqualify her. Her explanation that she didn't want to take the leverage away from the Oval Office is, at the very least, quite reasonable.
When you know that the guy in that Oval Office is a warmonger who's been haranguing for an excuse to up the escalation with Iraq for months, it's every lawmaker's obligation to block him from getting a freer hand still to do so. You dont give an arsonist matches, not even when he's in the White House.
See above. Your expectations of the SD's overwhelmingly going to Clinton are hard to swallow, based on the zero evidence that supports them.
Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn wrote:Lola wrote:Lola wrote:Roxxxanne wrote:It was Bill Clinton who said Hillary has to win Texas and Ohio and she does. If she doesn't quit voluntarily , the powers that be will drum her out of the race.
BTW the latest delegate count I saw had Obama up by over 150 delegates, not 100.
150 is still a long way from "quite a bit" in the full picture. And they'll "drum her out" using exactly what technique. It's a mistake for Obama, by way of his surrogates or supporters to be demanding that his still viable opponent leave the race.....for what? The good of the party? It's too late for the party. Now we have to see who really wins. That's not wag-the-dog winning, but really winning.
Oh, and Bill Clinton (I won't attempt to raise my voice as loudly as you did when speaking his name) did not say she had to win both states. He was talking to her supporters and encouraging them to get out the vote. He said she might not be able to be president if she didn't win........so go vote for her. It's a good example of how one statement can be molded to suit which ever purpose one wants.
She'll quit when she's lost and not before. The demand that she drop out reminds me of the Republican tactics during the years they hounded Bill Clinton. They wanted to over turn and discount the majority of the electorate believing they had the right. It's presumptuous and entitled to demand she quit.
Are you kidding?
Quote:BEAUMONT, Texas, Feb. 21 (UPI) -- Former U.S. President Bill Clinton told a crowd in Texas that Sen. Hillary Clinton must win primaries in Texas and Ohio to stay alive in the race for president.
The former president's statements were his most blunt in regards to his wife's chances of becoming the Democratic nominee for president, CNN reported.
"If she wins in Texas and Ohio, I think she will be the nominee. If you don't deliver for her then I don't think she can. It's all on you," he said Wednesday during a rally in Texas.
C'mon, now. I know you don't want to admit that Hillary is behind, but why make **** up?
Upi Link
Cycloptichorn
Again, the quote is translated for a clearly political purpose...... Try reading what it really says. He said if they didn't deliver for her, he's worried. What a mountain out of mole hill anyway. As if it proved anything. She'll quit when she has to. Make all the noise you want to about how she should quit and when, but it will do nothing but cause you to get all red in the face. It changes nothing about the game on the ground.
Finid another tiny straw to hang onto to shore up your confidence. This one is old and worn out.
Cycloptichorn wrote:
See, if you take the time to actually study the situation you would realize these things. But you don't, and would rather make assertions, b/c it's easier, and you don't actually care what the truth is.
That's a mighty bold accusation tough guy!
We disagree on something so I'm ignorant, lazy, and stupid. Nice.
F$ck Off!
maporsche wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:
See, if you take the time to actually study the situation you would realize these things. But you don't, and would rather make assertions, b/c it's easier, and you don't actually care what the truth is.
That's a mighty bold accusation tough guy!
We disagree on something so I'm ignorant, lazy, and stupid. Nice.
F$ck Off!
You haven't displayed any actual research, knowledge of what the numbers are, or how the situation works. So what is someone supposed to think? That you've done the research but just choose to ignore it, or just not mention it?
That would be worse, actually, b/c it would make you a liar.
Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn wrote:maporsche wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:
See, if you take the time to actually study the situation you would realize these things. But you don't, and would rather make assertions, b/c it's easier, and you don't actually care what the truth is.
That's a mighty bold accusation tough guy!
We disagree on something so I'm ignorant, lazy, and stupid. Nice.
F$ck Off!
You haven't displayed any actual research, knowledge of what the numbers are, or how the situation works. So what is someone supposed to think? That you've done the research but just choose to ignore it, or just not mention it?
That would be worse, actually, b/c it would make you a liar.
So I'm ignorant, lazy, stupid, and possibly a liar.
Got it.
Lola wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:Lola wrote:Lola wrote:Roxxxanne wrote:It was Bill Clinton who said Hillary has to win Texas and Ohio and she does. If she doesn't quit voluntarily , the powers that be will drum her out of the race.
BTW the latest delegate count I saw had Obama up by over 150 delegates, not 100.
150 is still a long way from "quite a bit" in the full picture. And they'll "drum her out" using exactly what technique. It's a mistake for Obama, by way of his surrogates or supporters to be demanding that his still viable opponent leave the race.....for what? The good of the party? It's too late for the party. Now we have to see who really wins. That's not wag-the-dog winning, but really winning.
Oh, and Bill Clinton (I won't attempt to raise my voice as loudly as you did when speaking his name) did not say she had to win both states. He was talking to her supporters and encouraging them to get out the vote. He said she might not be able to be president if she didn't win........so go vote for her. It's a good example of how one statement can be molded to suit which ever purpose one wants.
She'll quit when she's lost and not before. The demand that she drop out reminds me of the Republican tactics during the years they hounded Bill Clinton. They wanted to over turn and discount the majority of the electorate believing they had the right. It's presumptuous and entitled to demand she quit.
Are you kidding?
Quote:BEAUMONT, Texas, Feb. 21 (UPI) -- Former U.S. President Bill Clinton told a crowd in Texas that Sen. Hillary Clinton must win primaries in Texas and Ohio to stay alive in the race for president.
The former president's statements were his most blunt in regards to his wife's chances of becoming the Democratic nominee for president, CNN reported.
"If she wins in Texas and Ohio, I think she will be the nominee. If you don't deliver for her then I don't think she can. It's all on you," he said Wednesday during a rally in Texas.
C'mon, now. I know you don't want to admit that Hillary is behind, but why make **** up?
Upi Link
Cycloptichorn
Again, the quote is translated for a clearly political purpose...... Try reading what it really says. He said if they didn't deliver for her, he's worried. What a mountain out of mole hill anyway. As if it proved anything. She'll quit when she has to. Make all the noise you want to about how she should quit and when, but it will do nothing but cause you to get all red in the face. It changes nothing about the game on the ground.
Finid another tiny straw to hang onto to shore up your confidence. This one is old and worn out.
No worries. She'll 'have to' pretty soon now. Can't hide from the math forever.
Cycloptichorn
maporsche wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:maporsche wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:
See, if you take the time to actually study the situation you would realize these things. But you don't, and would rather make assertions, b/c it's easier, and you don't actually care what the truth is.
That's a mighty bold accusation tough guy!
We disagree on something so I'm ignorant, lazy, and stupid. Nice.
F$ck Off!
You haven't displayed any actual research, knowledge of what the numbers are, or how the situation works. So what is someone supposed to think? That you've done the research but just choose to ignore it, or just not mention it?
That would be worse, actually, b/c it would make you a liar.
So I'm ignorant, lazy, stupid, and possibly a liar.
Got it.
You could prove me wrong by posting actual data, backing up your position. But you and I both know that you won't, instead choosing to act like a blowhard and huff and puff and act insulted.
At the end of the day the numbers won't be any different, so it matters little to me.
Cycloptichorn
nimh wrote:OCCOM BILL wrote:I completely disagree with Nimh that Hillary's vote for authorization should disqualify her. Her explanation that she didn't want to take the leverage away from the Oval Office is, at the very least, quite reasonable.
When you know that the guy in that Oval Office is a warmonger who's been haranguing for an excuse to up the escalation with Iraq for months, it's every lawmaker's obligation to block him from getting a freer hand still to do so. You dont give an arsonist matches, not even when he's in the White House.
And how many lawmakers did block him at the time? Since most of them didn't, does that make them all unsuitable to handle their lawmaker responsibilities? Please.......it's another feeble excuse for not having enough experience. And it's the one and only answer he has to counter the charge that he needs more experience.
Cycloptichorn wrote:maporsche wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:maporsche wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:
See, if you take the time to actually study the situation you would realize these things. But you don't, and would rather make assertions, b/c it's easier, and you don't actually care what the truth is.
That's a mighty bold accusation tough guy!
We disagree on something so I'm ignorant, lazy, and stupid. Nice.
F$ck Off!
You haven't displayed any actual research, knowledge of what the numbers are, or how the situation works. So what is someone supposed to think? That you've done the research but just choose to ignore it, or just not mention it?
That would be worse, actually, b/c it would make you a liar.
So I'm ignorant, lazy, stupid, and possibly a liar.
Got it.
You could prove me wrong by posting actual data, backing up your position. But you and I both know that you won't, instead choosing to act like a blowhard and huff and puff and act insulted.
At the end of the day the numbers won't be any different, so it matters little to me.
Cycloptichorn
I AM insulted, and you're an a$$hole.
The ACTUAL DATA is that she's not mathematically out of it.
That was all that I said.
With the screwy setup of the Texas Dem primary system, isn't it possible that Hillary could win the popular vote there but be short on delegate count?
She's not mathematically out of it.
It seems extremely unlikely, and we've been pointing to some of the reasons why. But if everything aligns perfectly, she could still get the nomination, yes.
Re: Obama's Hollow "Judgment" and Empty Record
maporsche wrote:nimh wrote:So then our eyes turn to Obama, who did pass that test,
Obama DIDN'T TAKE THE TEST!
Hell yeah he did. Just like BBB took it and passed, and I took it and passed, and German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer took it and passed, and an overwhelming majority of UN Security Council states took it and passed. All of us realised that it would be foolish to give Bush any authorisation to take the escalation towards war any further. It wasnt that hard a judgement call to make.
Unfortunately, many Democrats in Congress failed to make it. Hillary among them. They were spineless, the Congressional Dems then.
Issue One: "Those lying Canuks!"
Listening to this story on NPR, it amazed me that the Obama campaign operative involved claimed he didn't tell the Canadians that his guy was just "politically posturing" on NAFTA, as was written in one of their memos. Canuks lying?
But now I see it was those lying Conservative Canuks. Of course!
Ignore the fact that the Obama campaign originally lied by denying the meeting even took place. How silly to think that is at all relevant to the issue. Nope, much more likely that the Conservative Canadian government is attempting to manipulate the elections for president of their sovereign neighbor to the south.
Issue Two: Hillary must concede!
I freely admit that I have favored Clinton's campaign because I have believed that she would be easier to beat in November that Obama, but I'm no longer convinced of this. In part, because I can see more clearly the Obama vulnerabilities in the general election, but also because I can't ignore the fact that conservative pundits have been touting Obama for months. The Brer Rabbit effect in play.
In any case, irrespective of my ulterior motives, I do think that there is no reason at all for Hillary to concede if she only wins Ohio.
As long as neither candidate secures the necessary number of delegates to lock in the nomination, why should either of them concede, and not seek to take it all the way to the convention?
What's the magic number for you Obama supporters? If Obama gets to the convention with one more delegate than Clinton, should Hillary concede?
I can't believe it, but I'm actually feeling sympathy for the woman. Obama comes along and suddenly the people who would have been singing her praises on this and other forums are wise to her extreme flaws.
Listen to Obama's tone when he criticizes Hillary. New politics? Give me a break.
Don't know what will happen, but I am a sucker for the tragic figure, and a defeated Hillary is "tragic figure" defined.
Undecideds have been breaking late for Hillary. Expect that to happen in Texas.
It may not be enough, but as long as Obama doesn't have enough delegates to clinch it, why should she concede?
How many Republicans are whining about Huckabee conceding?
Quote:
I AM insulted, and you're an a$$hole.
Don't care. And, exactly as predicted, you won't post any data.
maporsche wrote:The ACTUAL DATA is that she's not mathematically out of it.
That was all that I said.
You are correct. She could win 100% of the vote in many of the remaining contests and see the SD's swoon and fall into her lap. It would be magical.
I'll stick with realistic projections of what's going to happen, thanks.
Cycloptichorn
nappyheadedhohoho wrote:With the screwy setup of the Texas Dem primary system, isn't it possible that Hillary could win the popular vote there but be short on delegate count?
Not only possible, but very likely!
... well, likely that Obama will come out ahead on pledged delegates whether he wins or loses. Don't know if he will win the popular vote or not, but I sure hope he does...
Cycloptichorn
Yep, nappy. There is all kinds of weird redistricting stuff and it might favor Obama in the end.
Or not.
I've talked to people who just want this to be OVER and they've been receptive to the idea that if Obama wins big tomorrow, he's pretty much the nominee, while if Hillary wins, things are gonna drag on a lot longer. Don't know how many people think that way though.
We'll know a lot more soon enough. (Except for the TX caucus results!! So galling...)
Cycloptichorn wrote:Lola wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:Lola wrote:Lola wrote:Roxxxanne wrote:It was Bill Clinton who said Hillary has to win Texas and Ohio and she does. If she doesn't quit voluntarily , the powers that be will drum her out of the race.
BTW the latest delegate count I saw had Obama up by over 150 delegates, not 100.
150 is still a long way from "quite a bit" in the full picture. And they'll "drum her out" using exactly what technique. It's a mistake for Obama, by way of his surrogates or supporters to be demanding that his still viable opponent leave the race.....for what? The good of the party? It's too late for the party. Now we have to see who really wins. That's not wag-the-dog winning, but really winning.
Oh, and Bill Clinton (I won't attempt to raise my voice as loudly as you did when speaking his name) did not say she had to win both states. He was talking to her supporters and encouraging them to get out the vote. He said she might not be able to be president if she didn't win........so go vote for her. It's a good example of how one statement can be molded to suit which ever purpose one wants.
She'll quit when she's lost and not before. The demand that she drop out reminds me of the Republican tactics during the years they hounded Bill Clinton. They wanted to over turn and discount the majority of the electorate believing they had the right. It's presumptuous and entitled to demand she quit.
Are you kidding?
Quote:BEAUMONT, Texas, Feb. 21 (UPI) -- Former U.S. President Bill Clinton told a crowd in Texas that Sen. Hillary Clinton must win primaries in Texas and Ohio to stay alive in the race for president.
The former president's statements were his most blunt in regards to his wife's chances of becoming the Democratic nominee for president, CNN reported.
"If she wins in Texas and Ohio, I think she will be the nominee. If you don't deliver for her then I don't think she can. It's all on you," he said Wednesday during a rally in Texas.
C'mon, now. I know you don't want to admit that Hillary is behind, but why make **** up?
Upi Link
Cycloptichorn
Again, the quote is translated for a clearly political purpose...... Try reading what it really says. He said if they didn't deliver for her, he's worried. What a mountain out of mole hill anyway. As if it proved anything. She'll quit when she has to. Make all the noise you want to about how she should quit and when, but it will do nothing but cause you to get all red in the face. It changes nothing about the game on the ground.
Find another tiny straw to hang onto to shore up your confidence. This one is old and worn out.
No worries. She'll 'have to' pretty soon now. Can't hide from the math forever.
Cycloptichorn
My mother, before her death last week, used to say that she didn't need to watch the weather reports..........if she just waited, she would find out soon enough. She was wise in her 96 years. So we'll wait.
I'll say that if she drops out before Pennsylvania, there will be hell for the party to pay. What can be said about a major candidate being "drummed out" before the entire process is played out? There will be very hard feelings.
