Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Why wont Hillary quit?

Why wont Hillary quit? (Page 2)
Thread Tools
peeb
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 8, 2008, 08:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post
He's almost a foot shorter. Apparently that's what is really important in elections.
Since the tv age, only two candidates who were shorter than their opponents have won.
     
smacintush
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 8, 2008, 08:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post
a black man
Obama is around 6'5"
You truly have a gift for exaggeration.

He's a beige man around 6' 1.5"
Being in debt and celebrating a lower deficit is like being on a diet and celebrating the fact you gained two pounds this week instead of five.
     
ApeInTheShell
Senior User
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: aurora
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 8, 2008, 10:55 PM
 
I just wanted to point out most of the people trying to oust her are liberal men. They p[retend to be about social equality to deferentiate themselves from us racist/sexist republicans but really they are just a bunch of bullies. I did not support hillary but i would almost like to see her win because i'm tired of listening to Obama's "i didnt support the war and i dont have a clue how to get us out".
One day we're all going to laugh about this. ha ha ha
     
peeb
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 9, 2008, 12:39 AM
 
Originally Posted by ApeInTheShell View Post
I would almost like to see her win because i'm tired of listening to Obama's "i didnt support the war and i dont have a clue how to get us out".
I would have thought that was better than "i did support the war and i dont have a clue how to get us out"?
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 9, 2008, 11:56 AM
 
( Last edited by Chongo; May 9, 2008 at 04:53 PM. )
45/47
     
Atomic Rooster
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: retired
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 9, 2008, 03:46 PM
 
Why won't the U.S. quit Iraq? It lost there long ago.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 9, 2008, 04:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by Atomic Rooster View Post
Why won't the U.S. quit Iraq? It lost there long ago.
Saddam, Uday, and Qusay would think not. The war was won, maintaining the peace is another question. But that is another thread.
45/47
     
smacintush
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 9, 2008, 08:40 PM
 
The south lost 150 years ago and they never got over it.

Maybe she can try the "He stole the election from me! WAH WAH WAH!" tactic." Or do they save that one only for the general election?
Being in debt and celebrating a lower deficit is like being on a diet and celebrating the fact you gained two pounds this week instead of five.
     
spacefreak
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NJ, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 10, 2008, 12:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
There is no way for anybody to accurately measure the effects of Operation Chaos, these arguments are based on gut feeling. My gut feeling tells me that not all 7% of Republicans that voted in these open primaries are a part of the so-called Limbaugh army, because most people are simply not this politically informed, let alone plugged into Limbaugh.
I agree that there is no way to definitively quantify it, but watch out for your "gut" feeling, because the numbers are conceivably there.

Limbaugh has 2 million daily and 20 million weekly listeners, never dropping less than 13.5 million on even his worst week. Expand that to include a portion of people who are friends of Limbaugh listeners, but who perhaps work during the day and can't tune in, and combine that with an understanding that a very high percentage of Limbaugh listeners vote regularly... yeah, the numbers are definitely there.

1) Historically speaking, a massively unpopular president residing over a recession doesn't do well for his/her party
What recession? Shouldn't you first confirm that a recession exists before spouting that we are in one.

2) The pendulum has swung back at least towards the center. Newt Gingrich wrote about this just recently and pointed to some special elections where a Democrat in Louisiana beat a Republican in a district that has been Republican for the past 33 years.
Did either Gingrich or you take into account Bobby Jindal's crushing romp over Democratic rivals as the young Republican won the Louisiana governorship? If you're going to point to a win of a special election for a congressional seat in Louisiana, why not also consider the recent Governor's election there? I'd think the state-wide race is a better indicator than a district.

3) The Republican party is fragmented now. A quarter of Republican voters in these primaries voted for somebody other than McCain. This suggests that he hasn't fully unified his party even after all this time.
Bush had similar numbers in primaries in both 2000 and 2004 after sealing up the nomination. So this means very little. Fact is, McCain supporters have no real reason to get to the polls, and the McCain campaign has no reason to spend money in there races.

However, McCain is surely not the preferred choice of conservatives, but he's a significantly better choice for conservatives that Hillary or Obama.

4) Obama has broken all fundraising records - more evidence of the pendulum shift.
Perhaps. Perhaps not. The primary process of the Democratic candidates could not be any more different than what went down on the Republican side. If the Republican race was as competitive this late in the game, I'm sure we would have seen much higher fundraising numbers by Republicans.

It is too early to say with any certainty that the race won't at least be close, but if I was Republican I wouldn't be boasting and asserting projections of a Republican victory.
Actually, I hear much more boasting from the Democrat side. Regardless, I agree.
     
mduell
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 10, 2008, 02:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
The Supers overturning the will of the people would be a HUGE disaster. I can't see any way to win if this happens.
Isn't that the point of superdelegates? If they went with the popular vote every time, there'd be no point to having superdelegates.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 10, 2008, 02:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by mduell View Post
Isn't that the point of superdelegates? If they went with the popular vote every time, there'd be no point to having superdelegates.
I'm not saying they should go with the popular vote - in fact, the popular vote is virtually irrelevant in the primaries.

There are different theories as to why we have superdelegates, and some say that we shouldn't, but over all I believe that unless something goes horribly wrong where it is necessary that they interject as a form of check/balance, they should follow along with the victor according to pledged delegate totals.
     
Captain Obvious
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 10, 2008, 02:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post

There are different theories as to why we have superdelegates.

No, there aren't.
They were made in response to and to prevent another Jimmy Carter.

Barack Obama: Four more years of the Carter Presidency
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 10, 2008, 03:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by Captain Obvious View Post
No, there aren't.
They were made in response to and to prevent another Jimmy Carter.
Superdelegate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
     
Captain Obvious
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 10, 2008, 03:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
First off, what idiot takes wikipedia as accurate?
Nevermind, I answered my own question. I also don't see any of those alternate "theories" you spoke about.

Democratic leaders realized that the voters are morons after they picked Carter and that they needed to prevent the electorate from pushing another inexperienced but well-meaning dunce to the top of the ticket so they created super delegates. It is why the role was made for the 84 election cycle and not right after 72 with McGovern.

Its a sad fact that even Ted Kennedy would have made a better president than Carter.

Barack Obama: Four more years of the Carter Presidency
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 10, 2008, 04:18 PM
 
Obvious: interesting debate style you have - say something so uninviting of productive discourse that you shut down conversation...
     
smacintush
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 10, 2008, 04:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I believe that unless something goes horribly wrong where it is necessary that they interject as a form of check/balance…
And when the hell should that be?

"TOO…MUCH…DEMOCRACY…POPULAR VOTE…TOO…POWERFUL…

QUICK! CALL THE SUPERDELEGATES!" </John Stewart>

Do you guys really see a need for checks and balances on democracy?
Being in debt and celebrating a lower deficit is like being on a diet and celebrating the fact you gained two pounds this week instead of five.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 10, 2008, 04:42 PM
 
smacintush: do you not understand why the popular vote is virtually irrelevant in the primaries (Republican and Democrat)?
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 10, 2008, 04:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
45/47
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 10, 2008, 04:54 PM
 
45/47
     
smacintush
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 10, 2008, 04:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
smacintush: do you not understand why the popular vote is virtually irrelevant in the primaries (Republican and Democrat)?
Sorry, gotta go to work…
Being in debt and celebrating a lower deficit is like being on a diet and celebrating the fact you gained two pounds this week instead of five.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 10, 2008, 05:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
smacintush: do you not understand why the popular vote is virtually irrelevant in the primaries (Republican and Democrat)?
even counting MI and FL, Billary is behind
ABC News: Politics Index
.
with MI&FL
(w/o MI&FL)
Clinton-1694 -16,452,341 (15,253,046)
Obama-1863 -16,556,313 (15,980,099)
.
Needed to win: 2,025
45/47
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 10, 2008, 05:21 PM
 
Chongo: it doesn't even matter, those popular vote tallies are completely bogus and useless.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 10, 2008, 05:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Chongo: it doesn't even matter, those popular vote tallies are completely bogus and useless.
Yes, they are useless(just as they will be in the general), but Hillary keeps pushing that as her plea to the supers.
45/47
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 10, 2008, 05:32 PM
 
I think she is also trying to manipulate uninformed people who don't understand the delegate process.

I hope she knows when to quit, for her own good and for the good of the party...
     
ink
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Utah
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 10, 2008, 06:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I hope she knows when to quit, for her own good and for the good of the party...
     
peeb
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 10, 2008, 06:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Saddam, Uday, and Qusay would think not. The war was won, maintaining the peace is another question. But that is another thread.
For the record, the war has not been 'won'. Killing a few high profile targets is not the same as winning a war. I suppose you want to argue that the Vietnam war was 'won' as well?
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 10, 2008, 08:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by peeb View Post
For the record, the war has not been 'won'. Killing a few high profile targets is not the same as winning a war. I suppose you want to argue that the Vietnam war was 'won' as well?
The US was not allowed to win.

Did the US have troops in Hanoi? Was Uncle Ho taken prisoner and hanged?
45/47
     
peeb
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 10, 2008, 08:44 PM
 
Have the Iraqis stopped fighting the US?
     
spacefreak
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NJ, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 10, 2008, 11:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I hope she knows when to quit, for her own good and for the good of the party...
Obama is going pay Hillary $10+ million to stand down, but it will occur with conditions...

Hillary has to stay in the race through Kentucky, because Obama is going to lose there and it would be a complete embarrassment for him to lose to a candidate who dropped out. So she has to stay active. But once that's done, he'll buy her off under the guise of helping to retire her campaign debt and easing party friction.

All that "record-breaking" fundraising... If I were an Obama supporter, I'd be pissed. That money should be going to his general election campaign. Instead, it will maneuver its way into Clinton bank accounts.

I would not be the least bit surprised if Hillary's camp is overstating their debt. Then when she gets the buy-off, the Clintons will realize a nice little profit.
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 10, 2008, 11:07 PM
 


Obama can't just give Hillary $10 million in campaign contributions. The max he can give her is $2000, just like everyone else.
     
spacefreak
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NJ, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 10, 2008, 11:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post
Obama can't just give Hillary $10 million in campaign contributions. The max he can give her is $2000, just like everyone else.
Officially, yes... he can't just cut a check. But he can route money to her. He can appeal to his bundlers to help out. He can make donations to the Clinton Foundation, the Clinton Presidential Library, etc... and he can ask his uber-rich buddies to help out as well.

I just read this... Obama Wont Rule Out Easing Clinton Campaign Debt - The Caucus - Politics - New York Times Blog

Read the updated part... apparently some Obama supporters got a little upset at the mere mention of this, and rightfully so in my opinion. But don't be so naive. If Obama wants monies routed to Hillary, there are plenty of ways to do it.
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2008, 12:06 AM
 
No one who gave money to Obama can have their money sent to Hillary. He can only help her by asking people to give her money.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2008, 12:08 AM
 
spacefreak: what Obama can do is ask his donors to donate to the Clinton campaign, but he himself can only donate $2000, period.
     
red rocket
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2008, 04:47 AM
 
It seems to me that Hillary is causing nothing but damage to her own party. If this happened in Britain, there’d probably be a party conference where they’d kick her out for bringing the party into disrepute. Selfish career bitch.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2008, 08:36 AM
 
Originally Posted by peeb View Post
Have the Iraqis stopped fighting the US?
They are fighting Iranians, and that is what going into Iraq was really about.
45/47
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2008, 10:40 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
They are fighting Iranians, and that is what going into Iraq was really about.
Wait. What? Fighting Iran was the reason for fighting Iraq?
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2008, 10:44 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
They are fighting Iranians, and that is what going into Iraq was really about.
Wow; just wow!
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2008, 11:32 AM
 
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post
Wait. What? Fighting Iran was the reason for fighting Iraq?
a staging area for the invasion of Iran. You don't read Neocon news?
45/47
     
Helmling
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2008, 11:42 AM
 
Originally Posted by Captain Obvious View Post
Why is that?
The pledged delegates won't win it for either one of them alone. The fact that super delegates can switch any time they feel like it makes it possible for her pull ahead between now and the convention. People who talk about the "math" are idiots Obama could implode for all we know. One big **** up and his lead could disappear with those super delegates abandoning him.

Given that she's been working towards this goal for most of her life it would be stupid for her to just throw up her hands and walk away. Furthermore, when Obama loses in the fall it all becomes about 2012 and she doesn't want to leave the impression that she is a quitter.
You see that's it exactly. She's been working for this goal most of her life. This is a personal quest for power and nothing else...whereas Obama has attracted support and been swept into this position because people believe in his democratic and anti-corruption message.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2008, 12:28 PM
 
45/47
     
spacefreak
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NJ, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2008, 01:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
spacefreak: what Obama can do is ask his donors to donate to the Clinton campaign, but he himself can only donate $2000, period.
On the books, sure. I already stated as much. But there are plenty of ways for him to get payoffs to her.
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2008, 02:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
a staging area for the invasion of Iran. You don't read Neocon news?
I guess not. Silly non-neocon me woulda thunk that overthrowing Saddam Hussein would give Iran the most power they've had in modern history. Shows what I know.
     
peeb
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2008, 02:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
a staging area for the invasion of Iran. You don't read Neocon news?
I love it when people give up on discussion and just start posting random non sequiturs. It really adds to the quality of the discussion.
     
Captain Obvious
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2008, 05:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by Helmling View Post
You see that's it exactly. She's been working for this goal most of her life. This is a personal quest for power and nothing else...whereas Obama has attracted support and been swept into this position because people believe in his democratic and anti-corruption message.

That's f'ing hilarious. You think anyone gets to this point in politics by accident? This has been Obama's personal quest for quite some time. He and Jack Ryan were running competing and parallel storylines for years on the southside with the same end goal. Its not as if Obama didn't cajole and position himself so that he could climb up the political ladder over the years.

Since you aren't from here I assume you have a different and incomplete story of how Obama rose up the ranks but he did it stepping on the backs of others and trading favors just like any other politician. In the end what you believe now is the result of him being a more talented orator than most of his peers. What you see is just as crafted and planned out as any other high ranking legislator.

That notion that Michelle and Barack have an arrogant sense of entitlement to the nomination isn't something that was crafted by their rivals. There is a very real ego component playing out with them that has driven them to this place. What you posted was quite naive.
( Last edited by Captain Obvious; May 11, 2008 at 05:55 PM. )

Barack Obama: Four more years of the Carter Presidency
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2008, 05:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by peeb View Post
I love it when people give up on discussion and just start posting random non sequiturs. It really adds to the quality of the discussion.
no need for discussion, it's all part of the grand necon cabal to enslave the world under Haliburton
45/47
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2008, 06:07 PM
 
How many times have the goal posts pertaining to our reason for invading Iraq changed?
     
peeb
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2008, 07:01 PM
 
I thought it was for the sake of the children, no?
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2008, 07:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by peeb View Post
I thought it was for the sake of the children, no?
that's Hillary's mantra (fill in the blank) reform is for the children, and it's always a "crisis"
45/47
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2008, 07:06 PM
 
If I have everything straight, we invaded Iraq for the following reasons, in sequence:

- Because Iraq's WMDs posed a threat to America
- To rid Iraq of Saddam Hussein, a dangerous dictator
- To spread democracy
- Iraq was/is a central part of the war on terrorism
- Some might say that we invaded Iraq for oil, although I don't know where that would fit in sequence
- To send a message to the rest of the world
- Staging ground for Iran

Why is it so difficult for Republicans to face the fact that even if you still think that the invasion was a good idea for whatever reason, that the war planning was complete and utter shit?
     
peeb
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2008, 07:10 PM
 
I thought it was because America was attacked on 9/11?
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:51 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,