|
Hillay bites the dust
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. |
Hillay bites the dust
On Feb 13, 6:13*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. well, you knew it was coming.... I really didn't think she had much of a chance when she started. |
Hillay bites the dust
"Tim" wrote in message ... On Feb 13, 6:13 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. well, you knew it was coming.... I really didn't think she had much of a chance when she started. ------------------------------------ I thought she did for a while, mainly because she has run around the country promising a government solution or handout to everybody's problems or interests. Things like promising everybody $5k for every kid born during her administration is a great way get attention and buy votes. It's a classic. Eisboch |
Hillay bites the dust
Tim wrote:
On Feb 13, 6:13 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. well, you knew it was coming.... I really didn't think she had much of a chance when she started. For what it is worth, some of the more rowdy boys on the firearms discussion groups have been talking about voting for Obama in the primaries in their states in order to help him win, because they think he'll be easier to defeat in the general. In other words, they were talking about *not* voting in the GOP primaries, as they usually do, and crossing over to vote for Obama. If this is the case, I have no idea how widespread it is...or isn't. I'm pretty much convinced that either Obama or Clinton will flush McCain down the toilet, so I don't care which of them wins the Democratic nomination. 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. The far-righties are really getting apoplectic about the general election. May they all burst an artery. |
Hillay bites the dust
----- 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 P.S. I hit the stupid "Reply" button again instead of the "Reply Group". Please ignore the email. Sorry about that. |
Hillay bites the dust
HK wrote:
Tim wrote: On Feb 13, 6:13 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. well, you knew it was coming.... I really didn't think she had much of a chance when she started. For what it is worth, some of the more rowdy boys on the firearms discussion groups have been talking about voting for Obama in the primaries in their states in order to help him win, because they think he'll be easier to defeat in the general. In other words, they were talking about *not* voting in the GOP primaries, as they usually do, and crossing over to vote for Obama. If this is the case, I have no idea how widespread it is...or isn't. I'm pretty much convinced that either Obama or Clinton will flush McCain down the toilet, so I don't care which of them wins the Democratic nomination. 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. The far-righties are really getting apoplectic about the general election. May they all burst an artery. I read that Rush was recommending people contribute to Hillary's campaign because he believed the Repub's can beat Hillary, but Obama will win against McCain. |
Hillay bites the dust
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
I read that Rush was recommending people contribute to Hillary's campaign because he believed the Repub's can beat Hillary, but Obama will win against McCain. Hillary has a shrill tone. McCain has a arrogant tone. Obama has an optimistic tone. Obama will win against McCain. McCain will win against Hillary. |
Hillay bites the dust
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. |
Hillay bites the dust
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 P.S. I hit the stupid "Reply" button again instead of the "Reply Group". Please ignore the email. Sorry about that. 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. 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. |
Hillay bites the dust
On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 09:03:27 -0500, HK wrote:
For what it is worth, some of the more rowdy boys on the firearms discussion groups have been talking about voting for Obama in the primaries in their states in order to help him win, because they think he'll be easier to defeat in the general. In other words, they were talking about *not* voting in the GOP primaries, as they usually do, and crossing over to vote for Obama. You don't suppose Republicans are responsible for the record turnouts in the Democratic primaries? Nah, I think Obama is bringing record numbers into the fold. Either that, or record numbers of Americans are motivated by the past eight years of Bush. |
Hillay bites the dust
On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 09:10:29 -0500, Eisboch wrote:
Yet, you are a fan of "brokered" conventions? Eisboch A "brokered" convention could prove quite damaging to the Democrats. I've been hearing quite a bit about Super Delegates lately. However, I don't hear much about the Republican tool of anointing their "chosen one", winner take all primaries. |
Hillay bites the dust
|
Hillay bites the dust
|
Hillay bites the dust
|
Hillay bites the dust
|
Hillay bites the dust
On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 09:43:46 -0500, HK wrote:
My concept of a brokered convention is one in which the delegates vote a couple of times over several times to agree on a nominee. I have no problem with your definition of a "brokered" convention, but both parties have a history of smoke-filled backroom deal making. Frankly, that's just out of place in modern day politics. Hopefully, the Democrats have learned by now. Republicans never seem to learn anything. ;-) |
Hillay bites the dust
"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 |
Hillay bites the dust
On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 07:13:58 -0500, "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. My game plan worked. However, yesterday while in the car (taking another lens back) I heard Rush comment that no matter who gets the most votes, Hillary will win. I hope not. I'd like to see Obama in a face to face with McCain. Any debates should be interesting, if only to see how soft the balls can be thrown by NBC. I doubt if either Obama or Clinton would face McCain on a Fox debate. -- John H |
Hillay bites the dust
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. |
Hillay bites the dust
On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 10:04:51 -0500, HK wrote:
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. If that's the case, why does Hillary lead in Super Delegates (242-196), but trail in pledged delegates? |
Hillay bites the dust
On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 08:58:55 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:
"Tim" wrote in message ... On Feb 13, 6:13 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. well, you knew it was coming.... I really didn't think she had much of a chance when she started. ------------------------------------ I thought she did for a while, mainly because she has run around the country promising a government solution or handout to everybody's problems or interests. Things like promising everybody $5k for every kid born during her administration is a great way get attention and buy votes. It's a classic. Eisboch Are you suggesting my wife and I should stop going to the fertility clinic? Damn! -- John H |
Hillay bites the dust
|
Hillay bites the dust
On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 09:03:27 -0500, HK wrote:
Tim wrote: On Feb 13, 6:13 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. well, you knew it was coming.... I really didn't think she had much of a chance when she started. For what it is worth, some of the more rowdy boys on the firearms discussion groups have been talking about voting for Obama in the primaries in their states in order to help him win, because they think he'll be easier to defeat in the general. In other words, they were talking about *not* voting in the GOP primaries, as they usually do, and crossing over to vote for Obama. If this is the case, I have no idea how widespread it is...or isn't. I'm pretty much convinced that either Obama or Clinton will flush McCain down the toilet, so I don't care which of them wins the Democratic nomination. 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. The far-righties are really getting apoplectic about the general election. May they all burst an artery. ****. We've been 'outed'! -- John H |
Hillay bites the dust
On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 09:42:42 -0500, HK wrote:
wrote: On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 09:03:27 -0500, HK wrote: For what it is worth, some of the more rowdy boys on the firearms discussion groups have been talking about voting for Obama in the primaries in their states in order to help him win, because they think he'll be easier to defeat in the general. In other words, they were talking about *not* voting in the GOP primaries, as they usually do, and crossing over to vote for Obama. You don't suppose Republicans are responsible for the record turnouts in the Democratic primaries? Nah, I think Obama is bringing record numbers into the fold. Either that, or record numbers of Americans are motivated by the past eight years of Bush. No, I think Democrats are *motivated* like never before by the possibility and probability of removing the Republicrooks from the White House and giving their party a working majority in Congress. I think some Republicans are playing the "crossover game" and voting for Obama because they believe "white America" in the end will not vote for a black candidate for president. It would not surprise me to learn that a couple of the more rapid Republicans here did that. I think and hope they are wrong. Bush has been the ultimate disaster for this country. It seems only fair that his party pay the price for that. I am enjoying watching the rabid Republicans attempting to destroy John McCain because all they really are doing is showing the world what losers they are. McCain is a decent, honorable man with a long and positive record of public service. He should have been the GOP nominee in 2000. By trying to "swiftboat" him, the rabid righties are only showing themselves up as slime. Gosh, Harry. Why must you keep up the 'filter' pretense. There's only one Republican here who's suggested such a thing. -- John H |
Hillay bites the dust
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. |
Hillay bites the dust
"HK" wrote in message ... wrote: On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 10:04:51 -0500, HK wrote: 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. If that's the case, why does Hillary lead in Super Delegates (242-196), but trail in pledged delegates? That is now. The convention is then. And, to protect their rears, they are beginning to bail out on Hillary. Eisboch |
Hillay bites the dust
John H. wrote:
On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 08:58:55 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: "Tim" wrote in message ... On Feb 13, 6:13 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. well, you knew it was coming.... I really didn't think she had much of a chance when she started. ------------------------------------ I thought she did for a while, mainly because she has run around the country promising a government solution or handout to everybody's problems or interests. Things like promising everybody $5k for every kid born during her administration is a great way get attention and buy votes. It's a classic. Eisboch Are you suggesting my wife and I should stop going to the fertility clinic? Damn! You are just too cheap to buy the magazines yourself! |
Hillay bites the dust
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. |
Hillay bites the dust
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. 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. |
Hillay bites the dust
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... |
Hillay bites the dust
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. |
Hillay bites the dust
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. |
Hillay bites the dust
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 |
Hillay bites the dust
On Feb 13, 11:08*am, 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. The big question on all the news shows to undecideds is "what exactly has Obama done?". There are still no answers except that he is motivational, Black, and hopeful... Not one accomplishment could even be noted by his strongest supporters... |
Hillay bites the dust
On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 10:22:55 -0500, BAR wrote:
John H. wrote: On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 08:58:55 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: "Tim" wrote in message ... On Feb 13, 6:13 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. well, you knew it was coming.... I really didn't think she had much of a chance when she started. ------------------------------------ I thought she did for a while, mainly because she has run around the country promising a government solution or handout to everybody's problems or interests. Things like promising everybody $5k for every kid born during her administration is a great way get attention and buy votes. It's a classic. Eisboch Are you suggesting my wife and I should stop going to the fertility clinic? Damn! You are just too cheap to buy the magazines yourself! LOL! It took a couple seconds, but it was funny! -- John H |
Hillay bites the dust
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. I really do not understand why an educated man such as yourself Harry puts up with this den of idiocy and stupidity? Wouldn't it suite your stature and place to go to group more worthy of your intellect, intelligence and general presence? I will assume that since you will not answer the question about super delegates it is due to the fact that the DNC wants to make sure that the leadership of the party controls the nominating process. Great way to get the nominee to accede to the will of the party leadership rather than the will of the people. Democratic Party? You have got to be kidding. |
Hillay bites the dust
|
Hillay bites the dust
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. |
Hillay bites the dust
BAR wrote:
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. I really do not understand why an educated man such as yourself Harry puts up with this den of idiocy and stupidity? Well, you never know in real life when you are going to encounter an idiot like you. Reading an occasional post from you helps prepare me for dealing with the mindless. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:29 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com