Hillary is Not Out!

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by stevento, Feb 20, 2008.

  1. stevento macrumors 6502

    stevento

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2006
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #1
    She will come back! I promise! She's gonna take Texas back I know it!

    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/02/20/blitzer-dont-count-hillary-clinton-out/

    She's not even that far behind right now. Thankfully democratic primaries are not winner take all usually so even though Obama has 10 in a row she's still getting delegates.
    she only has about 150 less regular delegates that he does.
    on march 4th its goin down. hillary will be the comeback kid again. mark my words!!
     
  2. Spizzo macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2004
    Location:
    Pacific NW
    #2
    When was she the 'comeback kid' the first time? Are you talking about New Hampshire? Because I'm pretty sure she was still in the lead at that time.?:confused:
     
  3. stevegmu macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2008
    Location:
    A stone's throw from the White House.
    #3
    I think she can take Texas, because they have an open primary, and a lot of Republicans will be voting for her. The pollsters really haven't taken this into account.
     
  4. redfirebird08 macrumors regular

    redfirebird08

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2007
    #4
    Wow, way to deny reality there dude. The Republicans hate Hillary more than anyone else in the Democratic Party except perhaps her husband Bill.
     
  5. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #5
    More reason to vote for her now. They would rather face Hillary then Obama.
     
  6. zioxide macrumors 603

    zioxide

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #6
    ya, just like Giuliani came back in Florida.
     
  7. redfirebird08 macrumors regular

    redfirebird08

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2007
    #7
    True, but I don't think that's what will happen here in Texas.
     
  8. stevegmu macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2008
    Location:
    A stone's throw from the White House.
    #8
    Exactly. McCain can beat H. Clinton, but he would lose to B. Obama, which is why Republicans will vote for her in Texas. McCain already has the nomination locked up.
     
  9. zioxide macrumors 603

    zioxide

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #9
    Except that a lot of Republicans don't even like McCain. Plus, many of them might not be following the Mccain v Hillarypolls, and could go and vote for Obama because they would rather have Obama than Hillary
     
  10. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #10
    According to MSNBC, she needs to win every remaining state with at least 65% of the vote, and that's just to tie him, not even to pull ahead and get a comfortable lead. That's not possible. Even if she wins Texas and Ohio, she won't win by the margins necessary to even begin to chip away at Obama's lead. She's done.
     
  11. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #11
    That's exactly what conservatives want. They want Hillary to win the nomination. She's not going to. Give it up. She's gone. The Limbaugh fans like you are going to lose, and rightly so. That's what you get for supporting W for so long. It's called balance.
     
  12. stevegmu macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2008
    Location:
    A stone's throw from the White House.
    #12
    Possible, but they still want to win, even if they aren't 100% behind J. McCain, a race against H. Clinton is much preferred.
     
  13. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #13
    McCain has had this thing locked up since Super Tuesday, and Hillary hasn't won a single primary since Tuesday. So either the republicans are still voting republican, voting Obama, or not voting at all. But they're definitely not voting for Hillary
     
  14. redfirebird08 macrumors regular

    redfirebird08

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2007
    #14
    And now her campaign is flat-out lying about the Wisconsin drubbing:

    http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2008/02/clinton_to_bring_the_hammer_do.html

    They're claiming they had internal polls with Obama up 20. What a load of crap. One poll had Clinton up 6, another had Obama up 3, another Obama up 4, another Obama up 5, and the only one that even hinted at a blowout was with him up by 13.
     
  15. stevento thread starter macrumors 6502

    stevento

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2006
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #15
    that's what she wants republicans to think
    mccain will point to obama's inexpirience and idiot undecided voters will eat it up with a spoon
    i dont think either of them will have any problem powerslamming him but i think hillary will do a better job of it
    the thing is you cant attack hillary. its impossible. it water off a ducks back.
    hillary is not some newbie politician she will win. i know the next president of th USA is Hillary
     
  16. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #16
    denial :rolleyes:

    It's almost mathematically IMPOSSIBLE for her to win now. I don't know what it will take to get that through your head. If she's going to win, she needs at least 65% of the vote in the remaining states, and that's just to tie Obama. It's not going to happen. Period. She is finished. The fat lady's already taken the stage, we're just waiting for her to start singing.

    And don't even pull the experience crap. For one, Obama is older than Bill Clinton was when he first ran for president. Second, Hillary only has 4 years more experience in the senate than Obama (4 years isn't a lot) and unlike Hillary, Obama has previous political experience from before he became a US senator, as he was on the Illinois state senate. IIRC, Hillary had NO experience before becoming a senator (and no, being the first lady doesn't count). Besides, dubya is a fine example of how years in public office have absolutely no affect whatsoever on your abilities as a president.
     
  17. Spizzo macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2004
    Location:
    Pacific NW
    #17
    Punctuation, please!

    Hillary is doing such a good job at shooting herself in the foot, that no one needs to attack her. Her campaign is a sinking ship, all the smart rats fled a long time ago. Hope you can swim! :eek:
     
  18. redfirebird08 macrumors regular

    redfirebird08

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2007
    #18
    There's plenty of negative stuff you can pull out on Hillary. Just because Obama chooses to stay away from it doesn't mean there's not things to hit her on. You could run a TV ad where it talks about the fact that Bill got paid $20 million by the Dubai royal family as a "buyout" of a previous business deal. Then you have Hillary writing a $5 million check to her campaign. You also have Hillary refusing to release her tax returns. Those 3 things could easily be put in the same ad and it could make Hillary look awful. Barack and Edwards have both asked her to release her tax returns, but in the context of the $5 million check and Bill's recent $20 million income, it can definitely beg the question as to where her money is coming from. Foreigners are not allowed to donate to political campaigns in the United States. You think an attack on her outright refusal to show transparency with the people would just be water off a duck's back? I don't think so.
     
  19. Badandy macrumors 68040

    Badandy

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2005
    Location:
    Terminus
    #19
    Wow.
     
  20. redfirebird08 macrumors regular

    redfirebird08

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2007
    #20
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBJl4lsoJZs

    You wanna talk about alienating voters? Hillary is lucky that this was not turned into a major deal on Facebook, etc. because the college vote would be even more pissed at her if everyone saw this.
     
  21. MacHipster macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2007
    Location:
    Chicago/London/Sydney
    #21
    Anyone wants to place a wager on whether or not stevento will still be in denial after she drops out? I can see it now, "She didn't really drop out, that's what she wants you to think..it's the Clinton machine we're talking about!"
     
  22. atszyman macrumors 68020

    atszyman

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Location:
    The Dallas 'burbs
    #22
    The only way for her to win at this point is to thwart the will of the voters by doing it with superdelegates or by convincing pledged delegates to go rogue. Either one of these will harm her in the general election since voters will see it as a blatant selfish power grab. As much as she talks about making sure the voters' voices are heard in FL and MI, you'd think winning the nomination by subverting the voters' will would be unthinkable and suicide in the general election. I can see the GOP ads now, "She pulled political strings and managed to subvert the voters' will to win the Democratic nomination. If she's willing to ignore the will of the voters in an attempt to gain power, do you really think she'll listen to the people once she has the power?"

    Yes the Clinton political machine is impressive, Obama's is just more impressive this year. He's pulling in independents and Republicans in a way that Hillary and McCain both seem to be unable to do. The polls do fail to take the possibility of the GOP voting for her in TX, which is a point I've raised in other threads, but the polls also don't generally hit demographics that haven't voted well in the past, where Obama does extremely well. Given the publicity and closeness of the race there may be an exceptionally young turnout in TX to offset any of the GOP who might vote for Hillary.

    TX will be closer than Hillary would like (maybe even a loss), as will OH (although I think Clinton will win OH), considering the closest public poll to the WI results had Obama only up by 13% and he won by 17% either the undecided voters are changing their minds in favor of Obama now, or there's a demographic that isn't touched by the polls because they were not known for their voting. Either way this does not bode well for Clinton in any close states.

    I've long advocated that calling the race for Obama, even now, is a bit premature. However, it's currently Obama's race to lose, and while he could pull a Dean scream or a Biden "insert foot in mouth" and manage to spiral into the abyss, he's not shown any inclination or indication that he might be prone to such outbursts. If the Clinton Machine had anything really damning on him they would have released it before WI when they were only down 8 in a row to try to pull some momentum back before TX and OH. Now the media has two weeks to talk about the 10 in a row which only helps Obama, rather than 3 weeks of talking about whatever attack the Clinton Machine had.

    While I agree with the thread title, barring an insanely stupid error on Obama's part, Clinton is going to lose the pledged delegates by a substantial margin and the superdelegates are not going to ignore that margin. Since many delegates (super and non) are either in political office, or aspiring towards a career in politics, to go rogue or against a substantial lead in pledged delegates would be political suicide as the media starts analyzing and figuring out who the delegates are, and maybe some of the rogues, or supers who didn't pay attention to the voters.
     
  23. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #23
    Apparently even Bill Clinton realizes that she's practically toast.

    Bush.

    That's my answer in one word.

    In more than one word: the "inexperience" card is not gonna work. First of all, Obama can rightfully say that Bush didn't have a whole lot more experience than he does going in -- in fact, where national politics is concerned, much less so. Second, he can argue that he's got tons more smarts than the guy occupying the office at present. Third, he can point to any number of highly-experienced Dems that could have roles in his administration, unlike the stooges and cronies that Bush appointed.

    McCain can claim more experience for himself personally, but he's also anchored down by his flip-flopping and by being a part of the typical Washington establishment.

    Nope. Despite being in Washington himself, Obama is playing the "outsider" role, and it's working for him. The public sees him and doesn't think "inexperience". They think "not the same old same old."
     
  24. geese macrumors 6502a

    geese

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2003
    Location:
    London, UK
    #24
    Triangulation

    I think thats the strategy that Obama has been employing far more successfully then Hillary. He's taken the left-centre-right ground far more effectivley then Hillary has. Which is suprising given that Bill Clinton employed it in 1992 so well.

    The only thing that worries me about Obama, is will he able to influence to effectively on the international stage? How is he going to deal with fun characters such as Putin? And how is he going to handle the Middle East?

    I think he'd make a great President, although I cant help but compare him to Blair in 1997.
     
  25. kainjow Moderator emeritus

    kainjow

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2000
    #25
    http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/20/the-democratic-take-from-top-to-bottom/

    And that is another reason to dislike Hillary. Virtually all her contributions can be presumed to come from corporations/lobbyists/not-the-people.
     

Share This Page