|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
MadHungo
Baseball Legend
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
Location: Lo0nEyBiNvIlLe, UsA
|
 Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 9:01 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| RedbirdVA wrote: |
| Well, speaking as a Democrat, I hated to see what happened last night. Hillary & Obama will be fighting for at least seven more weeks with Hillary playing the usual Clinton politics. News could not be better for McCain. I still have faith in Obama but dragging this on is certainly not going to help him in in the general election. The math says Obama is virtually a lock, too bad Hillary can't except that. |
I could'nt agree more!
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Elite1
Baseball Legend
Joined: 30 Aug 2003
Location: Camarillo, CA
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 9:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
Texas was the largest prize in yesterday's primaries. I realize that Hillary won the popular vote in Texas, by a slim margin. But when will we know the outcome of the more important delegate count? Why do they only have 38% of the caucus counted?
_________________
When asked why he always seemed so happy, he remarked, "If you had a .331 lifetime batting average, you'd be happy all the time, too!" Stan Musial
You Are Not Forgotten
P-51D, 4th Fighter Group |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bake_McBride
Cleanup Hitter
Joined: 31 May 2005
Location: SPFLD, MO
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 10:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RedbirdVA wrote: |
| Well, speaking as a Democrat, I hated to see what happened last night. Hillary & Obama will be fighting for at least seven more weeks with Hillary playing the usual Clinton politics...I still have faith in Obama but dragging this on is certainly not going to help him in in the general election. The math says Obama is virtually a lock, too bad Hillary can't except that. |
I felt exactly like you did last night after watching the results come in but I'm starting to see things in a more positive light. Obama will get the nomination, and I think Hillary will be asked to join the ticket. The longer she stays in, the more she and her husband get to speak to and motivate Latino and women voters. And she is finally showcasing her more pleasant side. She needs to keep that up.
Also, I think it's beneficial that he's being held under this level of scrutiny so far away from the general election. Better to do so now than feel the full brunt of the Republican spin machine when there's only a few weeks until the general election to respond. Come October and early November, I think most people will have heard it all, will see it as typical negative politics that's already been explained, refuted, and baseless, and it won't cost him many votes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ozarkbird
Franchise Player
Joined: 22 Dec 2004
Location: Never Going Back to Memphis
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 11:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Elite1 wrote: |
| Texas was the largest prize in yesterday's primaries. I realize that Hillary won the popular vote in Texas, by a slim margin. But when will we know the outcome of the more important delegate count? Why do they only have 38% of the caucus counted? |
CNN has Clinton gaining 4 more delegates than Obama from the primaries, and if those caucus results hold up Obama would gain 2 or 3 of those delegates back. So Clinton currently on net has gotten 1 or 2 delegates closer to Obama because of Texas. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PowderBlueof82
Hall of Famer
Joined: 12 Oct 2004
Location: Macomb, IL
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 1:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Mathematically she can't win. . . and the only way she can win is if the Dems go against the designated delegates selected BY THE PEOPLE!!!
Actually the most disappointing thing is that she won after going negative on him. . . nothing like the Clinton machine digging up dirt. .
ALSO TO FOOLS IN OHIO: if your main concern was over the economy and NAFTA. . then WHY IN PETE SAKES DID YOU VOTE FOR HILLARY!!!
IF you fools would remember it was a CLINTON who created NAFTA!!! DUH!! If it wasn't for the first Clinton. . NAFTA wouldn't have driven out all your freakin' jobs!!!
| Quote: |
| But Clinton, who won the popular vote in both state primaries, on Wednesday renewed her call for Florida and Michigan to be counted in the nomination race. "It's a mistake for the Democratic Party to punish these two states," she said. "I don't see how a Democratic nominee goes forward alienating two of the most important states |
Umm. .. Hillary. . you were the only name on the Michigan ballot!!! Obama and the other Dems complied with the rules and went ahead and removed their names!!!
If you want Florida and Michigan count, you'll have to have an actual election!!!
_________________
Just so Proud too live in the most corrupt state in the Country!!! Thanks Chicago!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bake_McBride
Cleanup Hitter
Joined: 31 May 2005
Location: SPFLD, MO
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 3:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| PowderBlueof82 wrote: |
ALSO TO FOOLS IN OHIO: if your main concern was over the economy and NAFTA. Then WHY IN PETE SAKES DID YOU VOTE FOR HILLARY!!!
IF you fools would remember it was a CLINTON who created NAFTA!!! DUH!! If it wasn't for the first Clinton. NAFTA wouldn't have driven out all your freakin' jobs!! |
People quickly forget things like facts. Most have a three day attention span anymore and believe the latest spin must be the truth.
In this case, our lazy media, overcompensating for their lack of scrutiny of Obama, bought into a rumor that Obama's economic advisor, Austan Goolsbee, told Georges Rioux, consul general for the Canadian government, to not worry about what Obama was saying about NAFTA because he was just playing politics.
Clinton of course embraced that angle and people believed it. Never mind that the story has been proven false. The damage was done. Once again, the media smelled controversy and ran with it...truth be damned! The media seems to be making every effort in keeping this election close (and why not...CNN and other news network's ratings are through the roof).
I agree that Obama hadn't been scrutinized enough until now, but isn't it pathetic that it took a skit on SNL to remind journalists to do their job? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Redbird4Ever
Franchise Player
Joined: 07 May 2005
Location: Florida
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 7:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
First, Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton are different people. To help you in the future Hillary is a female and Bill is a male. As they are different people they can have different views. Hillary told Bill not to go through with NAFTA during his administration. Her position has been entirely consistent. Your boy Obama though...not so much. Did you miss the articles about him telling the American people that he was against NAFTA and then his campaign secretly telling the Canadians he was just pandering to his base? Trust me it's not just the media trying to create a story out of thin air (they only do that with republicans). Therefore, if the people in Ohio were against NAFTA they made the right choice.
Second, free trade is good. 55% of the products produced in Ohio go abroad to countries in the NAFTA agreement. Just because we lose a few jobs doesn't meant that it's a bad thing overall.
Third, for all of Obama's rhetoric about making the world love us...cutting NAFTA Is going to go a long way to annoying all of the NAFTA countries to a large degree. You aren't good enough to trade freely with us!
Finally, Obama is not the savior he makes himself out to be. He's just like any other politician except that he pretends to be this authentic figure. As with his efforts on NAFTA there are a number of other examples of him being as pandering as anyone else (Resco, and his ability to accidentally vote wrong in the Illinois legislature for instance). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bake_McBride
Cleanup Hitter
Joined: 31 May 2005
Location: SPFLD, MO
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 10:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Redbird4Ever wrote: |
| Hillary told Bill not to go through with NAFTA during his administration. Her position has been entirely consistent. |
Wow you really believe what she's selling don't you? She has praised NAFTA many times over the years. If she was so against it where's the documentation of her "entirely consistent position?" How about some quotes from Mrs. Entitlement herself:
In 2004, in a Jan 5th news teleconference, she said: "I think, on balance, NAFTA has been good for New York and America."
Back in 1998, Clinton attended the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, and praised corporations for mounting "a very effective business effort in the U.S. on behalf of NAFTA." Yes, you read that right: She traveled to Davos to thank corporate interests for their campaign ramming NAFTA through Congress.
On November 1, 1996, United Press International reported that on a trip to Brownsville, Texas, Clinton "touted the president's support for the North American Free Trade Agreement, saying it would reap widespread benefits in the region."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/hillary-clinton-pretends-_b_86747.html
There is so much proof of her love for NAFTA it could fill a book
http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/02/23/hillary_clintons_support_of_na.php
| Quote: |
| Your boy Obama though...not so much. Did you miss the articles about him telling the American people that he was against NAFTA and then his campaign secretly telling the Canadians he was just pandering to his base? |
The memo in question that has raised such a fuss that you think proves Obama was "pandering to his base" is based on one guy's perception of an Obama advisor's opinion. Not a direct quote. And the memo's leak is currently under investigation.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jrFPkleRZmbmPtPxHBGNAPSzfUtwD8V6295G0
There are 100's of quotes directly from Hillary's mouth about how great she thinks NAFTA has been but an untrue characterization about a "secret" Obama meeting is viewed as damning? Pathetic. This "story" turned into a media frenzy, all because the media was desperate to throw her a bone since they collectively felt they owed Obama some scrutiny.
The funny thing is I think she and Obama have the exact same views on the pros and cons of NAFTA. She was just able to spin things to her liking this time.
I just hope she doesn't get the nomination (it'd be a miracle at this point, but I'm betting the DNC is going to pay for a real-this-time primary in Michigan and Florida so anything's possible). If Republicans were smart they would have shown up in droves and voted for her because her nomination would be their best chance of getting McCain in. Even Limbaugh knows it...that's why he and all the crazy right wing talk show hosts are encouraging folks to vote for her. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ozarkbird
Franchise Player
Joined: 22 Dec 2004
Location: Never Going Back to Memphis
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 10:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Redbird4Ever wrote: |
Therefore, if the people in Ohio were against NAFTA they made the right choice.
Second, free trade is good. 55% of the products produced in Ohio go abroad to countries in the NAFTA agreement. Just because we lose a few jobs doesn't meant that it's a bad thing overall. |
First, you want us to believe Clinton is against NAFTA. Then you say NAFTA is good. You've repeatedly made it clear you support Clinton... and you say you believe NAFTA is good.... therefore you really don't believe that Clinton is against NAFTA. Put another way, you said NAFTA is good and that Obama supports NAFTA.... so if all that's really true why don't you support Obama? (Don't feel obligated to answer, it's a rhetorical question.)
Truth is, Obama and Clinton stated policy on most issues is so close that the tiebreaking reason Clinton is losing is her lack of authenticity.
Last edited by ozarkbird on Wed Mar 05, 2008 11:48 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Redbird4Ever
Franchise Player
Joined: 07 May 2005
Location: Florida
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 11:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hillary is better than Obama. But I'm a McCain supporter. Bernstein said in one of his books that hillary opposed NAFTA when Bill was starting to push it. I'd say based on that the ev is solid that she was against it.
But yes, NAFTA is a good thing for america in general.
I just want someone who has some knowledge of international affairs in office. Obama doesn't have it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chevyman58
Baseball Legend
Joined: 01 Mar 2008
Location: Chemistry Class
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 4:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
"Mathematically Obama is virtually a lock".
"The math says she can't win".
I don't understand these statements. The fact is that mathematically, as well as practically, it is as likely as not there will be no nomination winner before the Convention. If the state victory %s continue at their current rates neither candidate will gain the necessary delegate count to win the nomination. This is why all the current talk about redux in Fla & Mi. Most mathematical scenarios leave both candidates short of 2025 delegates. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bake_McBride
Cleanup Hitter
Joined: 31 May 2005
Location: SPFLD, MO
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 9:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| chevyman58 wrote: |
"Mathematically Obama is virtually a lock".
"The math says she can't win".
Most mathematical scenarios leave both candidates short of 2025 delegates. |
You're right in that neither will probably have 2025 delegates before the convention, unless the superdelegates decide to throw all their weight to the majority delegate winner.
I think what people mean by "the math says she can't win" is that, unless she gets like 65%-70% of the vote in Pennsylvania and a revoting Florida and Michigan...and were to split delegates in the rest of the remaining states, she won't mathematically have enough of the popular vote to justify her being the nominee...unless the superdelegates go against the will of the people.
If you don't factor in Michigan and Florida, there are 729 total delegates left up for grabs. Currently Obama has around a 100 delegate lead. She would need to win 64% of the final 729 delegates to tie Obama as the count stands today. She will get creamed in Mississippi (40 delegates), Oregon (65 delegates), and has done poorly in the Northwest (Montana, South Dakota, Wyoming...65 delegates total). That's 170 delegates total, and she'll probably get around 37% of them, which will make a big victory in Pennsylvania a wash.
Her only hope at this point is for a revote in Michigan and Florida. As much as I want Obama to win, I think the DNC should pay for a revote because those voters should have their say. They should have never stripped the delegates in the first place. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Redbird4Ever
Franchise Player
Joined: 07 May 2005
Location: Florida
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 10:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I agree with you on MI and FL. Those primaries should count but in the form of a new vote that gives everyone an equal opportunity to win. They should just make the day the PA primary is on include primaries in MI and FL. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bake_McBride
Cleanup Hitter
Joined: 31 May 2005
Location: SPFLD, MO
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 10:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
I saw an estimate stating that a re-vote for both states would cost around $18 million. If it's allowed, Hillary would be smart to make an announcement that she'd help pay for the revote (because she just cares so much about their votes counting...even though she agreed to not count them when she presumed she wouldn't need their votes). And she should tell Obama in so many words that if he really cared about the voters in Florida and Michigan his campaign should match her funds (since he's raised so much more money and can afford it). This would help force the DNC's hand (do they really want to look like they don't care about those voters?).
Anyway I don't think it would matter. Florida and Michigan would add 366 delegates, making the total 1095 left up for grab (including superdelegates). She would have to get around 60% of the remaining delegates to beat him in the delegate count. It's not going to happen.
Last edited by Bake_McBride on Thu Mar 06, 2008 10:49 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PowderBlueof82
Hall of Famer
Joined: 12 Oct 2004
Location: Macomb, IL
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 10:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
I too am a republican, and most likely will vote for McCain in November, (especially if Hillary gets the nomination), though he does has flaws too. . . amenesty for Illegals  , Howz that fair? There are thousands of people patiently waiting to become American citizens legally, and he's proposing amenesty for people who came to this country Illegally!!! Wow, what a great message we're sending out. . . don't worry about becoming a legal, tax paying, U.S. citizen. . just come here illegally, and we'll give you amenesty???
I really despise the conservative pundits telling people to vote for Hillary to help McCain in November. . . now that is just a stupid philosophy!!! What happens if your plan fails???
You don't vote for someone in hopes they will lose in November. . . You vote for someone who you can live with, in case they do win in NOvember.. . which is why I voted for Obama. . . I assumed McCain would most likely win the Republican nomination, so I voted for Obama, I don't care if he's more likely to beat McCain in November. . it's that if he does win, I can live with him. . . Hillary, I don't agree with her plans. . I really don't like her overall. . .
I'm not going to vote for a candidate, just in hopes that he/she loses in november. . because that's just stupid!!!
_________________
Just so Proud too live in the most corrupt state in the Country!!! Thanks Chicago!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
