More Hillary dirty tricks?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by furcalchick, Feb 6, 2008.

  1. furcalchick macrumors 68020

    furcalchick

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2006
    Location:
    South Florida
    #1
    http://themoderatevoice.com/politic...-the-rules-on-florida-and-michigan-delegates/

    and if she gets delegates in those two states, she wins alot more votes because she was the only one pretty much on the ballot on those two states. and there are alot of unhappy campers out there too. http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/Give-Us-Fairness
     
  2. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #2
    Well, well, well. Wonder if her sudden act of desperation has anything to do with the fact that she's running low on money?

    I think she's obviously undermining the party, and my opinion of her has dropped even lower than it was.
     
  3. PlaceofDis macrumors Core

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    #3
    she'll do anything to get elected. or try anything to try and get elected. screams of power-hungry to me and scares me. Obama isn't the greatest thing either, but i prefer him over Hilary.
     
  4. Melrose macrumors 604

    Melrose

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2007
    Location:
    In a sidewalk.
    #4
    I think they're all typical politicians - I stay strictly politically neutral, but I've seen behaviour out of them both (actually, I think he's more aggressive about it) that puts me off.

    I wouldn't doubt it. But then again if it was his chance to do something like this, he'd probably go for it as well... hrm.
     
  5. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #5
    I love how she's touting American Samoa as a huge victory, she must be desperate. They've got like what, 3 delegates?

    Do American Samoa, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands even have a say in the general election? Last time I checked, only the 50 states and DC had electoral votes
     
  6. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #6
    Can someone tell me why I should be voting for the Dems and not just against the GOP, because I'm not seeing it.
     
  7. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #7
    What this says to me is that she'll put her own needs over the good of the party. And what does that tell you about the way she would govern?
     
  8. jaw04005 macrumors 601

    jaw04005

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2003
    Location:
    AR
    #8
    The only thing segregating the Democratic Party is the DNC. You don't think two of the largest states should get a vote at the convention?

    It's not the people of Florida and Michigan's fault that their elected representatives moved their primaries up. It's not like that was a campaign issue.

    It's time to work something out—whether that means re-holding the Democratic Primary in those states or slicing their delegate votes in half.

    The DNC rules committee meets within a few months to decide.

    A red Michigan and red Florida will go a long way in electing John McCain come November.
     
  9. ucfgrad93 macrumors P6

    ucfgrad93

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Colorado
    #9
    Agreed.
     
  10. atszyman macrumors 68020

    atszyman

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Location:
    The Dallas 'burbs
    #10
    The only fair method would be to re-hold the primaries. Obama wasn't even listed on the Ballot in MI and there are reports of people not being able to write in either. Obama also did not "campaign" as heavily in FL as Clinton, so to get a true idea of how the delegates should be counted requires a re-vote to determine. Any other method would give an unfair advantage to Clinton.
     
  11. PlaceofDis macrumors Core

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    #11
    i agree, and it might come down to the two states needing to have their votes cast too.
     
  12. nbs2 macrumors 68030

    nbs2

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Location:
    A geographical oddity
    #12
    Which is why Clinton campaigning there is such a big deal.

    Come the generals, she can point to her work there and say, "even my own party didn't want me to campaign here. But I believe in the voice of the people, that the voice of the people of <fill in punished state> is important. I won't put politics above listening to the people and working to meet their needs."

    Obama takes the nom, and I wouldn't be surprised to see the GOP say, "this is the time for the voters of <fill in state> to show the so called Democratic party that their votes do count. That their needs matter all the time, not just every four years in November. My dear opponent refused, because his political leaders told him not to, to visit your beautiful state during the primaries. This is the man who says that he will bring unity, and he can't even put the foundation of the United States, the people, above politics. How can he be trusted to put anything else above politics?"

    Shrewed and forward thinking on Clinton's part. On a side note - this was news a few weeks ago. Why is it getting brought up now?
     
  13. clevin macrumors G3

    clevin

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2006
    #13
    please, how clean is barack then? this is presidential primary, not visiting Mars, they all know what to do, and they ALL do WHATEVER it takes to get elected.
     
  14. PlaceofDis macrumors Core

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    #14
    couple of points.

    1. being brought up now because Obama and Hilary are so close
    2. its a big deal that she campaigned there and left her name on the ballots in both because the other candidates tried to abide by party rules to not campaign there, nor have their names on the ballots. she did neither and went against her own party.
    3. when it comes to the general election it all depends on how much time Obama (if he gets the nom) decides to spend campaigning there.
     
  15. atszyman macrumors 68020

    atszyman

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Location:
    The Dallas 'burbs
    #15
    While I agree that the message sounds good, and it was very shrewd tactics, but somehow her playing the "I'm not playing political games" card doesn't seem very genuine...

    If she's going to shirk the party why doesn't the party shirk her and force her to run as an independent. (Yes I know that would spell almost certain defeat for the Dems as the vote gets split).

    I could probably see FL being counted before MI. OK, Obama didn't campaign there, but his name wasn't on the ballot and people have said they weren't counting or you couldn't do write-ins so there is no accurate representation of how Obama would have done, even without campaigning...
     
  16. stevento macrumors 6502

    stevento

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2006
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #16
    hey obama and Edwards took their names off the ballots I'd their own accord.
    she decided not to do so and the people spoke and they chose Hillary.
    democrats who support some one else voted uncommitted (Michigan had uncommited 45%)
    how is that a dirty trick to have their voices heard?
     
  17. nbs2 macrumors 68030

    nbs2

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Location:
    A geographical oddity
    #17
    1. It's not like they were that far apart to begin with. I remember hearing a bit of coverage before the FL primary. If it was that big a deal, maybe someone should have worried then, rather than bringing it up after the fact.
    2. That's my point though - she clearly disagreed with the party leadership, for whatever reason. In the end though, she should be able to spin it in her favor. If the party is that upset it, it doesn't matter - see my thoughts below.
    3. Perhaps, but his opponent can campaign there as well.

    No it wouldn't. But, it doesn't have to. Make it a mantra, slogan, whatever, and you will sway people, even if subconsciously.

    She ain't Ariel Sharon, and this ain't Israel, but it would throttle the Dem party. Bill, regardless of what he's been doing, is still a former-POTUS. The Clinton Party would have a lot of backing, and would have it quickly. You say certain defeat for the Dems, I think possible defeat for both the GOP and the Dems.
     
  18. atszyman macrumors 68020

    atszyman

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Location:
    The Dallas 'burbs
    #18
    I think if Hillary were a third party candidate it would mean a fractured Democratic vote and a somewhat unified GOP base to make sure Clinton doesn't get back in. Hillary might very well beat the Democratic party as an indy candidate, but fracturing the Democrats would almost assure a GOP victory.

    It will definitely be interesting over the next few weeks as the Clinton's start using their own money, and Obama seems to have more money than he knows what to do with. Since FL was only went 50% to Clinton and 33% to Obama, with the remainder to candidates who are no longer running, it could be an even split on delegates or 105 to 70 if they get counted netting only an advantage of 35 to Clinton.

    MI cannot be considered as an accurate representation of the people there since the only choices were Clinton or uncommitted (well I guess they had Kucinich, Dodd, and Gravel), but even if you take all the uncommitted for Obama it works out as as 86 for Clinton, 62 for Obama.

    At maximum if FL and MI get counted you're only looking at 59 delegates more for Clinton, which if her funding is drying up may not matter at all.

    No matter how it's done someone will feel disenfranchised because of it. How many people didn't vote because they knew their delegates weren't being counted? How many didn't vote because their choice wasn't on the ballot? Considering the press that has been made about how many voters there have been in the Dems primaries vs the GOP and FL and MI seemed to have fewer Dem voters than GOP probably means that there is potentially a large population who just didn't bother that would have if they knew their delegates were going to count.
     
  19. nbs2 macrumors 68030

    nbs2

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Location:
    A geographical oddity
    #19
    You bring up a lot of good points, but I wonder if the delegations from FL and MI would swing to Clinton. I don't know the details how they run their primaries, but in MD you select your candidate and then you select delegates. Some of those delegates are committed, some are not. If the only delegates that were listed in MI were Clinton's, and in FL Clinton and Obama, then I wonder if Clinton would walk away with a monster advantage from those two.

    As for her running low on money, I think that if she can keep things going for a little bit longer, her well will be replenished. McCain is a strong example of that (Romney not so much). With Super Tuesday done and Not-So-Super just a few days away, it isn't like she needs to campaign too hard. But, we shall see.

    As for the above, with McCain headed for the nomination, I think there are a fair number of Republicans who would vote for Clinton and her more GOP-friendly-than-Obama (depending on the day) positions over McCain. It wouldn't be a lot, but coupled with a split Dem ticket, I think it could be enough to swing it her way.
     
  20. atszyman macrumors 68020

    atszyman

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Location:
    The Dallas 'burbs
    #20
    I think the money will depend on the next few primaries. McCain's saving grace was concentrating on an early stronghold and using that victory to gain support. Holding on for a later victory doesn't work well as Guilliani illustrated. If Hillary doesn't do in at least one of the next few primaries her funding could flounder as Obama's momentum, or appearance of momentum takes over.
     
  21. nbs2 macrumors 68030

    nbs2

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Location:
    A geographical oddity
    #21
    Agreed.

    From here to Tuesday, she has LA, NE, WA, USVI, ME, DC, MD, VA. I can't find polling numbers, but she needs to take two (preferably three) of the following to keep going - VA (103), MD (99) , WA (97), the Rest (179). LA, ME, MD, and DC are all closed.

    I can see Clinton taking NE, ME, and VA (total - 168) ; Obama taking LA, DC, and MD (204). WA and USVI, I'm not sure but I am guessing they will lean to Clinton. If they do, she comes out of Tuesday leading by 154. Not a major improvement, but it would be enough to get some folks back on her side. That's what she needs to stem Obama's momentum. Oh! And the open primaries and Romney essentially handing the nom to McCain make it all the easier for the GOP to have an influence.

    I know that these aren't WTA races, but it's just easier to discuss this way.
     
  22. atszyman macrumors 68020

    atszyman

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Location:
    The Dallas 'burbs
    #22
    Obama did very well in KS so I'm guessing that NE might go his way, and of course the non WTA setup could mean narrow victories and blowouts could have a huge effect on the outcome. It will be interesting, I'd like to see Obama with the nomination, but I'd also like to see it drag on until the bitter end so that the GOP has to run against two candidates all they way until August....
     
  23. nbs2 macrumors 68030

    nbs2

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Location:
    A geographical oddity
    #23
    Ooooo....that could be fun to watch. McCain could start filming spots now but would have to do twice as much, or he could wait and have to rush it later. That could be fun. It would also give the Dem candidate a bit of a reprieve since the press wouldn't want to try and hang someone out to dry only to see them not end up with the nom.

    I have a feeling that few, if any, places will be blowouts. Even DC, where some local politicians make a living by exploiting race relations (see: Barry, Marion), still has a lot of love for the Clintons. Nonetheless, I see DC as the most lopsided, and I'm going to say 60-40.
     
  24. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #24
    You could say she's putting the people above her party.

    I wouldn't because I don't see it that way at all, but it's an argument that could be made.
     
  25. atszyman macrumors 68020

    atszyman

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Location:
    The Dallas 'burbs
    #25
    Of course this counters those points almost completely. She's giving up on the rest of the primaries in February, ignoring those states to go for the "big" states in March. So her argument of putting the people before politics doesn't hold anymore.
     

Share This Page