Clinton is getting more tiresome with each passing week. The gas tax holiday proposal is a shameless pander.
The only way Clinton gets the nomination right now is to steal it at the convention -- and that will do irreparable damage to the Dems for a generation.
But, yeah, you know, we need Hillary, because she's a fighter.
I think offering a break, if only minimally helpful and mostly symbolic, to the American peoples' wallet is far less shameful than Obama's commitment to Rev. Wright and his cuckoo politics until it became, ya know, politically inconvenient for him. Not to mention Ayers. Obama shows poor, poor judgment in who he chooses to surround himself with.
If Clinton wins, it won't involve STEALING anything. Superdelegates aren't obliged to pledge themselves to the candidate with the most pledged delegates, especially when that lead is razor thin. As it is.
Clinton is a fighter. I have my doubts about Obama's ability to stand up to McCain. Really, I do.
Also, as someone pointed out on the Sunday morning shows yesterday, if the Democrats abandoned their absurd "porportional delegates" approach to the primaries and allowed Michigan and Florida to have a say, Clinton would've sewn up the nomination already. So the playing field that has allowed your candidate to stay in the game is the same one that could give Hilary the nomination.
So to repeat.... If we manipulated the system away from the way it is currently setup. If we allow states to count in which Obama was not even on the ticket by mutual agreement of all the candidates....
then Hilary might have enough votes to be the nominee.
OBAMA WAS NOT EVEN ON THE BALLOT....how is that a level playing field?
None of your statements in this post were fact based in any way. Just opinions...Hilary is smarter? Ridiculous.
I haven't given them an IQ test, no. But I've watched shit tons of debates, and on policy matters, Hilary seems to know the dynamics, the facts, the ins and outs far better than Obama --- who STILL answers specific policy questions with some pretty broad language. Check!
We need not manipulate the system in ANY way for Hilary to win. The superdelegates can vote for her. That's their perrogative. Check!
Obama was on the ballot in Florida, and the candidates didn't have any choice but to agree, as the DNC had already unfairly punished Florida and Michigan long ago. Check.
How you feel about debate performance is not a FACT. Check.
What you suggested is we DID need to manipulate the system by allowing changes in the way we count delegates and what states were eligible. That's what I was re-stating... Check.
Obama was not on the ballot in Michegan, and yet you would still like all the votes from that state to be applied to a in for Hilary. Not a level playing field...check.
DnC unfairly...is not a FACT. The fact is BOTH STATES HAD A CHOICE. Change your priomary dates to unusually early in the season and your votes will not count. Their choice. THOSE STATES CHOSE FOR THEIR VOTES NOT TO COUNT.
It's not merely how I feel. It's how a great majority of analysts feel. Hilary may not always win on style in those debates, but on knowledge and rhetorical finesse, she almost always dominates Obama. Check.
Never did I say we should count the existing votes in Florida or Michigan. That would be unfair, as neither candidate campaigned there. What we SHOULD do, however, is find a way to give Michigan and Florida a voice. My guess? A Clinton sweep of those two CRITICAL GENERAL ELECTION states. Check.
For the DNC to deny millions of voters a say in their nominee is unfair, especially when the primary date was selected by the REPUBLICAN-DOMINATED legislature and REPUBLICAN governor (in Florida, anyway). Check.
I hate doing this with you because you always end up making sense. I think you start out easily arguable on purpose and then move toward sanity so it seems like you are winning...check.
I think "vast majority of analysts" is stilljust an opinion. No fact there. Check
I would support the re-vote in FL/MI...does that mean you and I both get a check? Make mine out to Brian Overman. minister is only a stage name.
Is proportional delegates really an absurd concept? I like a system where I can actually be represented rather than swept under the rug. Do you think the Electoral College is working well? Gore beat Bush in the 2000 popular vote and lost because of a "sound" system. How's that been working out?
It's not thaaaat absurd no, except insofar as it allows races like this to extend for almost two full years. And perhaps the system just needs fixing. But when one candidate gets, say, 100,000 more votes in the state but net only one or two additional delegates, the system seems a bit too ... close.
But yeah, I think winner-take-all is fair and fine, if that's how we choose to do the general election, which it is.
If we can make the general election a straight-up popular vote contest, then I say we do the same for the primary. Oh, but wait, then Messiah Obama wouldn't be winning! Shiiiiite.
Well, no, actually, he's winning the popular vote. Clinton's math is predicated on certain states not winning, and under the assumption that Obama would still get zero votes in Michigan had there been a legitimate election there.
It was HRC that pointed this out first and if she wanted to run in an primary that had those rules, I think there is another party that would have suited her needs!
When your candidate of choice says, "If we had the Republican rules, I would already be the nominee," it has to make you proud to be a Democrat!
She doesn't give a damn about the party! And this alone means that she is not the best candidate. She will do and say anything to get nominated and if she has to destroy the party to do so, then it appears that she will
( ... )
The only way Clinton gets the nomination right now is to steal it at the convention -- and that will do irreparable damage to the Dems for a generation.
But, yeah, you know, we need Hillary, because she's a fighter.
Reply
If Clinton wins, it won't involve STEALING anything. Superdelegates aren't obliged to pledge themselves to the candidate with the most pledged delegates, especially when that lead is razor thin. As it is.
Clinton is a fighter. I have my doubts about Obama's ability to stand up to McCain. Really, I do.
Reply
Reply
Reply
If we manipulated the system away from the way it is currently setup.
If we allow states to count in which Obama was not even on the ticket by mutual agreement of all the candidates....
then Hilary might have enough votes to be the nominee.
OBAMA WAS NOT EVEN ON THE BALLOT....how is that a level playing field?
None of your statements in this post were fact based in any way. Just opinions...Hilary is smarter?
Ridiculous.
Reply
We need not manipulate the system in ANY way for Hilary to win. The superdelegates can vote for her. That's their perrogative. Check!
Obama was on the ballot in Florida, and the candidates didn't have any choice but to agree, as the DNC had already unfairly punished Florida and Michigan long ago. Check.
I win!
Reply
What you suggested is we DID need to manipulate the system by allowing changes in the way we count delegates and what states were eligible. That's what I was re-stating... Check.
Obama was not on the ballot in Michegan, and yet you would still like all the votes from that state to be applied to a in for Hilary. Not a level playing field...check.
DnC unfairly...is not a FACT. The fact is BOTH STATES HAD A CHOICE. Change your priomary dates to unusually early in the season and your votes will not count. Their choice. THOSE STATES CHOSE FOR THEIR VOTES NOT TO COUNT.
Check.
Isn't this fun?
Reply
Never did I say we should count the existing votes in Florida or Michigan. That would be unfair, as neither candidate campaigned there. What we SHOULD do, however, is find a way to give Michigan and Florida a voice. My guess? A Clinton sweep of those two CRITICAL GENERAL ELECTION states. Check.
For the DNC to deny millions of voters a say in their nominee is unfair, especially when the primary date was selected by the REPUBLICAN-DOMINATED legislature and REPUBLICAN governor (in Florida, anyway). Check.
Czech? Check.
Reply
I think "vast majority of analysts" is stilljust an opinion. No fact there. Check
I would support the re-vote in FL/MI...does that mean you and I both get a check? Make mine out to Brian Overman. minister is only a stage name.
B
Reply
Reply
Reply
But yeah, I think winner-take-all is fair and fine, if that's how we choose to do the general election, which it is.
If we can make the general election a straight-up popular vote contest, then I say we do the same for the primary. Oh, but wait, then Messiah Obama wouldn't be winning! Shiiiiite.
Reply
Reply
When your candidate of choice says, "If we had the Republican rules, I would already be the nominee," it has to make you proud to be a Democrat!
Reply
That's your winning argument, Jackson? And you're going to be a national delegate for this guy?
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment