Why does Hillary think she should win??

[MsWikia]

(Side note: I post on CNN and Newsweek but of course I can't write that much...so this note might be a little long )

Why does Hillary think she should win????

1. she is behind in states lost (big or small)
2. she is behind in the popular vote
3. she is behind in pledge delegates
4. she is behind in super delegates
5. she is behind in money raised; her campaign is in debt

Apparently majority of Americans are NOT voting for her if she is losing in every single category!

Hillary believes she should be president because she is a Clinton. No matter how much she loses, she will find a way to say that she is more elect-able, despite the numbers and math not being in her favor. She is not for America but for herself, she wants to win at any cost, even if it means tearing a part not only the Democratic Party, but the American people.

Hillary first claimed I am more experienced and will be ready on day 1. Well, let’s look at their experience: Hillary was elected to the United States Senate for term commencing January 3, 2001; reelected in 2006 for the term ending January 3, 2013. Obama was a member of the Illinois State senate 1997-2004; and then elected as a Democrat to the U.S. Senate in 2004 for term beginning January 3, 2005; worked as a community organizer in Chicago, Ill. Both seem to have experience in politics/as leaders, so that argument didn’t fly.

Then she went to super delegates. She said ultimately the super delegates will be the ones who will determine the nominee, thus people in her camp begin indirectly campaigning to the super delegates. When she started losing in this category she moved on to MI and FL being the determining factors. Recall, she agreed that both MI and FL should be penalized because they held their primaries too early and MI didn’t even have Obama on their ticket. However, now that she is really behind in the numbers, she is fighting for MI and FL delegates to be seated. But even if MI and FL delegates are split up fairly, she can not win! She will still be losing. So now she claims, well I am ahead in the popular vote if we count MI and FL. However, no data can support this claim, especially since Obama was not even on the Michigan ballot.

Next Hillary claims, well, I won W. VA and other big states, which should mean something. However, Hillary and her camp do NOT understand how the Democratic Primaries are ran, probably because she use to be a republican . The Democrats split up the delegates for each state based off of how many votes you receive in that state; plus it’s going to take more than a few big states that usually vote Republican in the general election anyhow, to guarantee an overall victory.

Currently Hillary says, according to electoral maps drawn up by Karl Rove’s consulting firm,
I have a better chance of beating McCain than Obama does. Therefore, she cites this as a reason to stay in the race. Come on now! I do not understand why she thinks she should win when she has no real supporting evidence!

WHY oh WHY?!

 

[Gunny]

Obama did not win FL and MI; which, would change the scorecard considerably. But the same party that tried to boost the 2000 election over the cry of disenfranchised voters in FL has disenfranchised 2 states of its votes. She also overwhelmingly won the popular vote in TX. The people who obviously didn't have to go to work the next day stayed all night to steal the delegates via caucusing.

That would invalidate your comment that the majority of Americans -- which SHOULD read: majority of Democrats -- are not voting for Hillary.

Common sense says Hillary has a better chance of beating McCain than Obama. The most obvious reason is Obama's been tagged with the "elitist" label. That hasn't won a Presidency in MY lifetime.

Second, he makes Hillary appear moderate. There are a lot of moderates/conservatives/Republicans pissed at having McCain rammed down our throats. While Hillary is considered a viable option, Obama is not.

WV is the evidence that supports Hillary's claim. That vote was a direct result of Obama's comments in SF, and his trying to claim he rejects Wright's views when it's obvious to one and all that tossing him under a bus was simple a politically expedient move.

 

[Larkinn]

Obama did not win FL and MI; which, would change the scorecard considerably. But the same party that tried to boost the 2000 election over the cry of disenfranchised voters in FL has disenfranchised 2 states of its votes.

Interesting that you blame the Democrats for disenfranchising FL and MI, but not the Republicans. And it was the state parties that disenfranchised them when they decided to play chicken with their votes.

She also overwhelmingly won the popular vote in TX. The people who obviously didn't have to go to work the next day stayed all night to steal the delegates via caucusing.

Steal the delegates? So do you think somehow that only popular vote should matter, and the rules shouldn't? Playing by the rules is somehow "stealing"?

That would invalidate your comment that the majority of Americans -- which SHOULD read: majority of Democrats -- are not voting for Hillary.

Actually no. It only invalidates it if you don't count the caucus states of Iowa, Washington, Minnesota.

Common sense says Hillary has a better chance of beating McCain than Obama. The most obvious reason is Obama's been tagged with the "elitist" label. That hasn't won a Presidency in MY lifetime.

Try looking at polls and analysis. They are generally more accurate than your common sense.

Second, he makes Hillary appear moderate. There are a lot of moderates/conservatives/Republicans pissed at having McCain rammed down our throats. While Hillary is considered a viable option, Obama is not.

Yeah, but there are enough Democrats to make up for that. This should be the high point of McCain's campaign, the two democrats have been tearing each other to shreds for months while he has been coasting. But yet they are running even in the polls? Wha?

WV is the evidence that supports Hillary's claim. That vote was a direct result of Obama's comments in SF, and his trying to claim he rejects Wright's views when it's obvious to one and all that tossing him under a bus was simple a politically expedient move.

Nonsense, Obama was going to lose in WV long before any of that happened.

 

[Annie]

I don't care if Hillary wins or loses, just as long as she continues to proved 'crazy excitement' to the election cycle. Like SNL, I think it would be very cool, if the dems leave their convention without a nominee, could happen.

 

[MsWikia]

Yes, she won some big states no one is denying her that, but states won in total, big or small goes to Obama; and he won the Texas Caucuses.

W. Va = 95% White people (according to the media uneducated White people) Obama didn’t have a chance in that state from the jump! So her winning that state means nothing; that state most likely is going to vote Republican in the general election anyhow; Bush won West VA in 2004.

Obama an elitist? Makes no sense; this is the picture the media wants us to believe. However, he grew up with a White single mother in an environment unkind to his biracial background. He just finish paying off his student loans, he was a community organizer when he could have been exercising his expertise elsewhere… this right here is enough to scratch THAT term out of words use to describe him.

Rev. Wright? Let’s not discuss Hillary's skeletons or questionable associations: She invited Wright to her house after Bill cheated on her, so he can’t be that bad eh? Ferrero and her affirmative action comments; Mark Penn and his Colombian Scandal; Bosnia Lies; ex-pastor sentenced for molesting a child; voted yes to the Iraq War; her whole campaign has been nothing but lies and dirty tactics “what is done in the dark will come to the light” and her candidacy in this primary is falling a part as more and more super delegates flock to Obama each day.

 

[manifold]

Why does Hillary think she should win??

Because she's a power hungry douchebag.

 

[jillian]

(Side note: I post on CNN and Newsweek but of course I can't write that much...so this note might be a little long )

Why does Hillary think she should win????

She thinks she can win because she's won every large battleground state she's going to need to win in November.

Winning...a small consideration, I know.

 

[Jon]

Steal the delegates? So do you think somehow that only popular vote should matter, and the rules shouldn't? Playing by the rules is somehow "stealing"?

Winning the popular vote is supposed to guarantee a majority of the delegates. The rules are flawed when it comes to the Texas Two-Step.

 

[doeton]

She thinks she can win because she's won every large battleground state she's going to need to win in November.
Winning...a small consideration, I know.

come on big jill...as if winning among dims translates to winning in the general.


just another silly hillary claim that doesn't match history.

"Recent history shows that winning a state in the primary season — no matter its importance on the map — doesn’t guarantee success in the general election.

In 2004, for example, John Kerry won early Democratic contests in Iowa, Arizona, and Missouri, but he fell short in all three states when pitted against George W. Bush.

In 1992, Bill Clinton captured primaries in Florida and Texas, but lost those states in the general election. And in 1984 — in a primary that has drawn parallels to the current Democratic race — Walter Mondale secured the Democratic nomination over Gary Hart in part by winning large industrial states like Illinois, New York and Pennsylvania. "

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23591347/

 

[AllieBaba]

Oh lord, it's the stupid Florida thing again.

NOTHING HAPPENED. Despite attempts to make it look as though there were some very underhanded things going on, there weren't. It was a nice fairytale, but now it's over and let's all remember...it was all make believe.

 

[jillian]

come on big jill...as if winning among dims translates to winning in the general.


just another silly hillary claim that doesn't match history.

"Recent history shows that winning a state in the primary season — no matter its importance on the map — doesn’t guarantee success in the general election.

In 2004, for example, John Kerry won early Democratic contests in Iowa, Arizona, and Missouri, but he fell short in all three states when pitted against George W. Bush.

In 1992, Bill Clinton captured primaries in Florida and Texas, but lost those states in the general election. And in 1984 — in a primary that has drawn parallels to the current Democratic race — Walter Mondale secured the Democratic nomination over Gary Hart in part by winning large industrial states like Illinois, New York and Pennsylvania. "

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23591347/

No you come on. And if you actually want to have a conversation with me on this subject, I'd stop with the "dims" garbage, because, IMO, it's like saying "fuck you" before the conversation starts. K?

But what I can say... is that if you think he's getting crossover vote from anywhere else, you're living in a dream world, so you'd better get the party in line.

 

[doeton]

No you come on. And if you actually want to have a conversation with me on this subject, I'd stop with the "dims" garbage, because, IMO, it's like saying "fuck you" before the conversation starts. K?
But what I can say... is that if you think he's getting crossover vote from anywhere else, you're living in a dream world, so you'd better get the party in line.

conversation?

i just posted a story noting the historical inaccuracy of your comments.

you are more than welcome to ignore it.

the dim comment isn't particularly intended to offend, and certainly wasn't aimed at you. Personally given the state of the party and politics in general i don't see referring to democrats as dims as really being anything other than a recognition that things are far from perfect.

as for the cross over vote? i don't see the winning of big state in the DEm primary as proof that DEMs won't vote for obama.

there may be other factors at work that'll cause a crossover.

i'm just saying that's not one em.

i mean since when does voting democrat in a primary mean you will vote pub in the general

 

[jillian]

I don't think I ever said Dems (noit dims, it's really vile, it implies ignorance, not imperfection and that isn't the way to discuss an issue... unless of course you think a political discussion board is for anything other than discussion, of course) won't vote for Obama. He'll get solid blue states. Now try getting the battleground states without the women, working class whites and crossover repubs/independents.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Does anyone see how flawed the dem process is? Win the popular but lose the caucuses and then split the delegates EVEN though you win the state majority. Lol. And then the supers come along as the all knowing to possibly trump the aforementioned boondoggle. Beautiful process there.

 

[Shogun]

it seems like more people are trying to decipher the process more these days though... which is a good thing.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

it seems like more people are trying to decipher the process more these days though... which is a good thing.

Yeah, that's true too.

 

[MsWikia]

I think the popular vote should just be enough in the primaries and in the General election. Delegates and the electoral college serve no real purpose anymore, especially with all of this techonolgy we have in 2008.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

I think the popular vote should just be enough in the primaries and in the General election. Delegates and the electoral college serve no real purpose anymore, especially with all of this techonolgy we have in 2008.

I disagree with the notion of excluding the electoral college. This would enable the candidates to pander only to the most populated states and cities.

 

[Annie]

I disagree with the notion of excluding the electoral college. This would enable the candidates to pander only to the most populated states and cities.

Something that too many Americans for the past 60 years have failed to learn, due to the loss of civics in the classroom.

 

[MsWikia]

Well, isnt that what Hillary is doing now? She is claiming that she won the BIG STATES so she should be the nominee. Candidates campaign harder in states who have more delegates at stake anyhow..so I still say eliminate them and keep it strictly to votes.