Hillary tries to steal pledged delegates. AGAIN!

[Padfoot]

Once again Hillary is trying to sneak into the nomination through the backdoor by suggestion pledged delegates should abandon the candidate they're pledged to.  Dean or Pelosi or someone really needs to grow some balls and do like Richardson did when he endorsed Obama, tell the wench to drop out already.

Here's a link to the article.

[Aizen]

This isn't surprising. The Democratic leadership does need to do soemthing though. Hillary is destroying the party. She is unbelievable.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

It's moot since this isn't going to happen. Obama's delegates are all die-hard Kool-Aid drinking Obamaniacs.

[Padfoot]

It's moot since this isn't going to happen. Obama's delegates are all die-hard Kool-Aid drinking Obamaniacs.

True, but the fact that she continues to bring things like this up means that in her desperation she probably is trying to plan some sort of coup at the convention.  The Democratic leadership needs to put an end to this bullcrap.

[MODU]

It's moot since this isn't going to happen. Obama's delegates are all die-hard Kool-Aid drinking Obamaniacs.

You party drinks waaay too much Kool-Aid.  Time to "progress" onto an adult beverage, don't you think?

[Beet]

In the end the only metric that carries moral weight as a determining outcome of the test between the two candidates is the popular vote.

[MODU]

I find it interesting how the two are so convinced they are correct and deserve the nomination.  Maybe in reality, both know they are fairly weak in electability, and they are doing all they can to justify themselves.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The level of vitriol here is really quite interesting.

[exopolitician]

Its fine, let her have her fun for now. Shes still not going to win even if she tries to steal it.

[Ban my account ffs!]

I'm really starting to despise Hillary Clinton.

I gave her the benefit of the doubt... but it all seems so clear now:  Nobody wants to be president as badly as Hillary Clinton.

[Democratic Hawk]

Yes, Clinton seems determined. It don't matter whether she wins by fair means or foul

Dave

[Lief 🗽]

She'll drop out in June when the supers all endorse Obama.

[Beet]

Um, the reason why she made this remark is clear. It's not that she actually wants to try to convince pledged delegates to switch over to her. Her campaign has repeatedly denied that. Nor is there any evidence that they are actually campaigning to convince pledged delegates to switch. Therefore, the title of this thread is a complete lie.

The reason she made the comment is that the media have been spinning fuzzy logic about how the "math" makes it "impossible" for her to win and that the "race is over." The average voter sees this and he or she will think "oh the race is over might as well not vote/support Obama even though I prefer Clinton." If they hear something like 'oh no one's really pledged' that does more to keep it open. Not sure how good it is as a strategy, since it generates negative coverage like this, but apparently it's what they've decided to go for.

The media is now comparing this factual comment to physical violence, when it is a far cry from that, but which says a lot about the media.

[memphis]

In the end the only metric that carries moral weight as a determining outcome of the test between the two candidates is the popular vote.

That'd be great except for the caucuses. There is no popular vote.

[Conan]

I'm really starting to despise Hillary Clinton.

I gave her the benefit of the doubt... but it all seems so clear now:  Nobody wants to be president as badly as Hillary Clinton.

Yet in this case, she deserves the nomination. You have someone with tons of experience and accomplishments in life running against an inexperienced and nonaccomplished 4 year ago nobody. Obama's nomination is a kick to anyone who has dedicated so much more of their time to any cause. It tells people you can shoot straight to the top without having to ever do anything, just be a great speaker/political maneuverer.

Aren't we supposed to reward hard work?

[exopolitician]

I'm really starting to despise Hillary Clinton.

I gave her the benefit of the doubt... but it all seems so clear now:  Nobody wants to be president as badly as Hillary Clinton.

Yet in this case, she deserves the nomination. You have someone with tons of experience and accomplishments in life running against an inexperienced and nonaccomplished 4 year ago nobody. Obama's nomination is a kick to anyone who has dedicated so much more of their time to any cause. It tells people you can shoot straight to the top without having to ever do anything, just be a great speaker/political maneuverer.

Aren't we supposed to reward hard work?

Nobody "deserves" any nomination. You have to work to get it and Clinton using her usual tactics to try and bend the rules somehow or try and find a backdoor to the nomination that is obviously slipping away is not what I consider an honest hardworking shot at the prize. Its just her being desperate.

[Beet]

In the end the only metric that carries moral weight as a determining outcome of the test between the two candidates is the popular vote.

That'd be great except for the caucuses. There is no popular vote.

There are only 4 states where the popular vote for the caucuses was not reported and in those cases it can be estimated.

[Conan]

This isn't surprising. The Democratic leadership does need to do soemthing though. Hillary is destroying the party. She is unbelievable.

Obama is destroying the party, he doesnt have the standing or experience required to be the president of the US, so he should have never run. On the other hand, you have a very experienced and accomplished candidate who is narrowly losing because the other guy makes good speeches and plays good politics.

[Aizen]

In the end the only metric that carries moral weight as a determining outcome of the test between the two candidates is the popular vote.

That'd be great except for the caucuses. There is no popular vote.

There are only 4 states where the popular vote for the caucuses was not reported and in those cases it can be estimated.

I don't think that is what he meant. Look at Colorado for example. It was a caucus. Look at the totals there and then compare it to a primary state of similar population (Arizona). If Colorado had a primary, vote totals would have of course increased and Clinton would have done better percent-wise but the margin of difference in the popular would be larger in Obama's favor. So in this sense, Obama was hurt by caucuses.

[Aizen]

This isn't surprising. The Democratic leadership does need to do something though. Hillary is destroying the party. She is unbelievable.

Obama is destroying the party, he doesnt have the standing or experience required to be the president of the US, so he should have never run. On the other hand, you have a very experienced and accomplished candidate who is narrowly losing because the other guy makes good speeches and plays good politics.

What an absurd statement. Honestly. No, the nominee is pretty much in the bag (Obama) yet Clinton staying in is dragging them both down for the GE. If the roles were reversed, and Obama was still in the race, then he would be destroying the party. The problem for you is that the roles are not reversed. So uh, stop being a dumb hack. Thanks.

[Keystone Phil]

So uh, stop being a dumb hack. Thanks.

Can I borrow that line, please? I know a few people here that need to hear that.


And if Obama's nomination is basically in the bag, he should win PA with little problem, right? The race isn't over.

[Lief 🗽]

So uh, stop being a dumb hack. Thanks.

Can I borrow that line, please? I know a few people here that need to hear that.


And if Obama's nomination is basically in the bag, he should win PA with little problem, right? The race isn't over.

By that logic, McCain didn't have the nomination locked up after Super Tuesday.

PA is a state that, demographically, is very good for Clinton. But a majority of states have voted, and they have clearly selected Obama, to the point that Clinton cannot catch up.

[Torie]

Hillary would be better advised just to try to do it, rather than talk about it.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

The super delegates were put in place to make sure the Democratic voters didn't make a bad mistake and nominate a fool. It's really funny when you think about it. The party doesn't even trust its voters.

Anyway, this race is far from over. No one will get the amount of pledged delegates needed to win, so it's kind of funny to say the race is basically over. Why isn't Obama winning Pennsylvania or Indiana or West VA or KY? You would think if he locked it up, he'd win those. Please don't tell me it's because they are racist.

[Keystone Phil]

By that logic, McCain didn't have the nomination locked up after Super Tuesday.

I'm just saying that it's a very bad sign when someone is guaranteed the nomination and is losing the Dem strongholds by healthy margins. That didn't happen to McCain.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sure it's demographically good for Hillary but if Obama is definitley the nominee, it's a problem that he'd still lose by a healthy margin here.