Hillay bites the dust
 

Chuck Gould wrote:
On Feb 13, 4:13�am, "Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is Here
wrote:
That loud sucking sound heard in Potomic area was Hillary losing 3 more
primaries.

It looks like the only way Hillary will win the primary is if Billary
can steal this away with super delegates and some rule changes.

Not so fast.

It appears you agree with my statement. If she gets the majority of the
vote via Super Delegates or changing the rules concerning Fl and Mich.
it will be a major upset for the new energized Dem. voters.

As much as many people are upset with the Republicans, they have
stronger feelings against Hillary. The Dems may not vote for a Rep.,
but many will sit at home. Obama is the Dem's one chance to win in Nov.



The Democrats don't really "lose" primaries. Because the delegates are
apportioned, there is a lot of value to be gleaned by coming in a
close second in a lot of contests, and a candidate can be nominated by
finishing close in a lot of the small states and winning outright in
just a few of the larger ones (like CA, TX, etc).

One of the talking heads on the news last night used a computer model
to forecast a deadlocked D convention. He noted that if Obama won
every remaining state with the same margin he has averaged so far in
the primaries he would *still* be short of the nomination. And the
same is true for Hillary. Unless something dramatic happens,
(Headline: Barack Obama indicted as a 9-11 conspirator), the Deomcrats
risk wasting all of the fresh energy and enthusiasm the primary
campaigns have generated. If it gets down to the "super-delegates"
retiring to a smoke-filled room to make side deals and make the only
meaningful decision regarding the nominee, the resulting public
cynicism will be very ugly indeed.

Hillay bites the dust
 

On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 12:07:05 -0500, BAR wrote:

That says a lot about news shows, undecideds, etc. It doesn't say
anything about Obama, does it? Besides being "motivational, Black, and
hopeful", he's devoted his life to community service. There are
several biographies online, perhaps you should read one. For a young
man, his life seems filled with accomplishments, not the least of
which, being the Democratic front runner in the race for POTUS.

Doesn't mean he has what it takes to run a country. The same goes for
Hillary and McCain.

Last time I looked, one of those three, will be the next President. On
an experience scale, they all seem to be about average or above, of the
candidates we've had in the recent past.

Hillay bites the dust
 

On Feb 13, 10:37*am, Tim wrote:
wrote:
On Feb 13, 7:13?am, "Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is Here
wrote:
That loud sucking sound heard in Potomic area was Hillary losing 3 more
primaries.

It looks like the only way Hillary will win the primary is if Billary
can steal this away with super delegates and some rule changes.

Nah, as far as delegates, she's really not that far behind. The media
spin, however makes it look like Obama is just running away with the
nomination.

yeah, "Sweeping" and "Landslide" victories, etc...

Here's the sco

http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv...011:11:00%20AM

This part:

The Associated Press count of delegates showed Obama with 1,210.
Clinton had 1,188, falling behind for the first time since the
campaign began.
Neither was close to the 2,025 needed to win the nomination at the
party's national convention this summer in Denver.

Hillay bites the dust
 

On Feb 13, 10:23*am, HK wrote:
BAR wrote:
HK wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "HK"
Newsgroups: rec.boats
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 9:03 AM
Subject: Hillay bites the dust

Yet another reason why I prefer *closed* primaries and secret
ballot voting, as opposed to open primaries, which encourage
crossovers, and caucuses, which encourage group vote, not secret
ballot vote.

Yet, you are a fan of "brokered" conventions?

Eisboch

I like the rough and tumble of tight primary races and conventions
in which delegates make a difference, and have to vote many times in
order to select a delegate. A good convention is like a microcosm of
the House of Representatives, with the delegates elected by the
people back home working for consensus. It's not the same animal as
a caucus.

Today's conventions are just too antiseptic for my taste.

That's all fine, good and healthy if it weren't for the "Super
Delegates" who don't necessarily have the backing of the people back
home. * That's where the *"you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours"
deals are made.

Eisboch

The super delegates as a group will support the will of the voters and
their delegates. If Hillary doesn't do very well in Texas, Ohio, and
Pennsylvania, it is all over for her.

What is the original purpose of the super delegates. Why do they exist?
What problem(s) do they solve to justify their existence?

For the Democrat party, which wants to be called the Democratic party,
to use super delegates to select their nominee to the Presidency is
laughable due to it not being a democratic process.

Read a book, d.f., and become enlightened.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You don't read, you watch movies and Drew Carey reruns.

Hillay bites the dust
 

On Feb 13, 9:45*am, BAR wrote:
wrote:
On Feb 13, 7:13 am, "Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is Here
wrote:
That loud sucking sound heard in Potomic area was Hillary losing 3 more
primaries.

It looks like the only way Hillary will win the primary is if Billary
can steal this away with super delegates and some rule changes.

Nah, as far as delegates, she's really not that far behind. The media
spin, however makes it look like Obama is just running away with the
nomination.

She has lost 6 or 8 in a row. It is hard to get contributions when you
are on a big loosing streak.

The Associated Press count of delegates showed Obama with 1,210.
Clinton had 1,188, falling behind for the first time since the
campaign began.

Neither was close to the 2,025 needed to win the nomination at the
party's national convention this summer in Denver.

Hillay bites the dust
 

"HK" wrote in message
...
wrote:
On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 10:26:17 -0500, Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:


They were started because of the 68 Convention, and because every time
they had a brokered convention, they hurt themselves so badly, they lost
the general election. The Republican's use a winner take all delegate
program in many states so it won't go to a broker convention. Since
this follows the general election, I think it makes more sense than
Super Delegats who can overide the entire primary system.

With all this talk of the Democrat's Super Delegates, it's interesting to
note, the Republicans will have the same percentage of *unpledged*
delegates at their convention. Although, in the case of Republicans,
it's dependent on the way the states designate their delegates.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/hor...republica.html


My guess is that the "Super Delegate" buzz is just something the media is
using to try to build up more interest (and ratings) in political
coverage.
How lucky the super delegates are. They can vote as they please without
worrying about the will of the people or being accused of accepting bribes
or of influence peddling, or making deals under the table. Pure and simply
the best way to represent the people. At least that is the way Harry looks
at it.

Hillay bites the dust
 

"HK" wrote in message
...
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 09:21:07 -0500, HK wrote:

Oh, and despite what the pundits say, I believe Clinton and Obama will
be well-served by fighting for the nomination to the very end. Democrats
will be happy with either candidate.

My friend, you are in a serious state of denial.

Hispanics are abandoning Hillary because she fired what's her face who
was a Hispanic.

And they ain't going to Obama.


Yeah, right. They're going to flock to the Republicans who want to round
them up and deport them. Sure...that's the ticket.

Nobody is looking to round up any immigrants that are legal.
I sure wouldn't want to be standing downwind of you, Harry.

Hillay bites the dust
 

"Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is Here wrote in message
. ..
HK wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 09:21:07 -0500, HK wrote:

Oh, and despite what the pundits say, I believe Clinton and Obama will
be well-served by fighting for the nomination to the very end.
Democrats will be happy with either candidate.

My friend, you are in a serious state of denial.

Hispanics are abandoning Hillary because she fired what's her face who
was a Hispanic.

And they ain't going to Obama.


Yeah, right. They're going to flock to the Republicans who want to round
them up and deport them. Sure...that's the ticket.


Harry,
The ones voting are not concerned about deporting, and McCain policy on
immigration is very similar to the Dem's policy on immigration.

You really do need to start thinking before you post.

Thinking is not his strong suit. Might be due to Harry's role as the piñata
all these years.

Hillay bites the dust
 

Hillay bites the dust
 

BAR wrote:
wrote:
On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 12:07:05 -0500, BAR wrote:

That says a lot about news shows, undecideds, etc. It doesn't say
anything about Obama, does it? Besides being "motivational, Black, and
hopeful", he's devoted his life to community service. There are
several biographies online, perhaps you should read one. For a young
man, his life seems filled with accomplishments, not the least of
which, being the Democratic front runner in the race for POTUS.
Doesn't mean he has what it takes to run a country. The same goes for
Hillary and McCain.

Last time I looked, one of those three, will be the next President.
On an experience scale, they all seem to be about average or above, of
the candidates we've had in the recent past.

I have a feeling something is going to happen at the Republican National
Convention.

What, are they going to declare defeat and go home? Draft Bob Barr? Have
Ron Paul give the keynote address? Come out of the closet?