BigSqwert Posted May 7, 2008 Share Posted May 7, 2008 QUOTE (SoxFan562004 @ May 7, 2008 -> 07:57 AM) that's what I see too, with a major spin on Indiana being close to Obama's home base and how she won it. Also, she probably will start severly pressing the Michigan and Florida issue, in any pipe dream scenario she has they have to play into it FL and MI are almost, if not already, irrelevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Posted May 7, 2008 Share Posted May 7, 2008 QUOTE (jackie hayes @ May 6, 2008 -> 10:23 PM) If the Obamaites don't accept the Clintonites wholeheartedly from this point on, it's gonna be a long next 4 years. You mean the "OBamamaniacs". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoxFan562004 Posted May 7, 2008 Share Posted May 7, 2008 QUOTE (BigSqwert @ May 7, 2008 -> 08:02 AM) FL and MI are almost, if not already, irrelevant. oh we know that, but Hillary has very few straws to grasp at and anything she can through at the wall will have to be thrown. Her main argument can only be "electability" with the super delegates, so she'll hammer that in her conference call Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted May 7, 2008 Share Posted May 7, 2008 QUOTE (BigSqwert @ May 7, 2008 -> 08:02 AM) FL and MI are almost, if not already, irrelevant. I think with Obama with such a massive lead, a deal will be struck now. MY proposal is count FLorida, but cout the delegates in half. In MI, Give Clinton a 55-45 split, but also cut them in half. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted May 7, 2008 Share Posted May 7, 2008 QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ May 7, 2008 -> 08:05 AM) I think with Obama with such a massive lead, a deal will be struck now. MY proposal is count FLorida, but cout the delegates in half. In MI, Give Clinton a 55-45 split, but also cut them in half. I still don't understand the logic in giving Clinton an advantage in MI when Obama wasn't on the ballot. Why should she get more than 50%? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted May 7, 2008 Share Posted May 7, 2008 QUOTE (BigSqwert @ May 7, 2008 -> 08:06 AM) I still don't understand the logic in giving Clinton an advantage in MI when Obama wasn't on the ballot. Why should she get more than 50%? I think MI is up for debate. MI is such a hard state to find a good solution for. I agree, more than 50 is hard to make an argument for. In fact, with Edwards AND Obama in the primary, i dont think she breaks 50%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted May 7, 2008 Share Posted May 7, 2008 QUOTE (SoxFan562004 @ May 7, 2008 -> 08:04 AM) oh we know that, but Hillary has very few straws to grasp at and anything she can through at the wall will have to be thrown. Her main argument can only be "electability" with the super delegates, so she'll hammer that in her conference call Conference call is pushing FL and MI, "white electability", and that a win in WV shows she is strong in states that havent gone democratic in recent years. Wait, didnt the Clintons say "red states" dont matter? hmmm...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve9347 Posted May 7, 2008 Share Posted May 7, 2008 QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ May 7, 2008 -> 09:11 AM) Conference call is pushing FL and MI, "white electability", and that a win in WV shows she is strong in states that havent gone democratic in recent years. Wait, didnt the Clintons say "red states" dont matter? hmmm...... I hate her with a passion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted May 7, 2008 Share Posted May 7, 2008 QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ May 7, 2008 -> 10:11 AM) Conference call is pushing FL and MI, "white electability", and that a win in WV shows she is strong in states that havent gone democratic in recent years. Wait, didnt the Clintons say "red states" dont matter? hmmm...... lol. I guess the entire west and south of this country except for Florida, Oklahoma, and Texas aren't relevant. Didn't she think before she spoke on that one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted May 7, 2008 Share Posted May 7, 2008 (edited) George McGovern is urging Clinton to drop out. He first announced his support in October of '07 and is switching his support to Obama. Edited May 7, 2008 by Athomeboy_2000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted May 7, 2008 Share Posted May 7, 2008 QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ May 6, 2008 -> 11:02 PM) The hammond mayor comes off looking like a real ass to me. I couldn't believe he was saying that Lake County looked "corrupt" because the votes had not come in. How could a Mayor actually say that on CNN? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoxFan562004 Posted May 7, 2008 Share Posted May 7, 2008 QUOTE (iamshack @ May 7, 2008 -> 09:15 AM) I couldn't believe he was saying that Lake County looked "corrupt" because the votes had not come in. How could a Mayor actually say that on CNN? Yeah it was unreal, I caught it halfway into it and was shocked when Blitzer said he was the mayor of Hammond. Who knows, he is a Hillary supporter and I don't think yesterday went how they planned and it kind of rattled a lot of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted May 7, 2008 Share Posted May 7, 2008 It was especially funny when they interrupted with the final results, and it had closed 20 points from a 75-25 gap from Gary's votes in favor of Obama to a 55-45 gap when the rest of the county was counted. Which totally invalidates anything he was trying to imply about corruption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoxFan562004 Posted May 7, 2008 Share Posted May 7, 2008 CONGRESSIONAL SOURCE: Hillary having trouble finding superdelegates who will meet with her... 'No one wants to see her today'... Developing... from drudge... ouch!! (No link or further details, just the headline) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted May 7, 2008 Share Posted May 7, 2008 QUOTE (SoxFan562004 @ May 7, 2008 -> 11:09 AM) CONGRESSIONAL SOURCE: Hillary having trouble finding superdelegates who will meet with her... 'No one wants to see her today'... Developing... from drudge... ouch!! (No link or further details, just the headline) and combine that with an undeclared super this morning saying on MSNBC that for most of the supers, "yesterday answered a lot of questions" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoxFan562004 Posted May 7, 2008 Share Posted May 7, 2008 QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ May 7, 2008 -> 10:11 AM) and combine that with an undeclared super this morning saying on MSNBC that for most of the supers, "yesterday answered a lot of questions" I think there might have to be some strategy sessions for the super delegates and other dem party before there is a party line asking her to quit. No matter how you cut it, likely Bill and Hillary are going to be around and powerful Dems for many years. There are people in the party who likely don't want to be the fall person for leading the charge against her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted May 7, 2008 Share Posted May 7, 2008 QUOTE (SoxFan562004 @ May 7, 2008 -> 08:15 AM) I think there might have to be some strategy sessions for the super delegates and other dem party before there is a party line asking her to quit. No matter how you cut it, likely Bill and Hillary are going to be around and powerful Dems for many years. There are people in the party who likely don't want to be the fall person for leading the charge against her. There have been repeated rumors of these sorts of sessions happening basically since mid to late Feb. when the numbers really started going one way. Dean, Pelosi, and Reid have all indicated that these sorts of things have happened, and in public statements they reinforce the impression by saying "Things are being done" or something along the line of "This will be over after June 1". Obama is almost certainly going to take a firm hold of the pledged delegate lead 2 weeks from now when Oregon hits. By then he'll probably have a superdelegate lead as well. I think the pressure to "End it" on the rest of the supers will be tremendous...especially if we can get Dean, Pelosi, and Harry to come out and do their endorsements after that point, which I think they will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve9347 Posted May 7, 2008 Share Posted May 7, 2008 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted May 7, 2008 Share Posted May 7, 2008 QUOTE (Steve9347 @ May 7, 2008 -> 11:28 AM) Thanks for making me smile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted May 7, 2008 Share Posted May 7, 2008 The most updated count (CNN.com) in Indiana gives Clinton a 14,413 lead. Still shows at 99% counted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted May 7, 2008 Share Posted May 7, 2008 QUOTE (BigSqwert @ May 7, 2008 -> 01:48 PM) The most updated count (CNN.com) in Indiana gives Clinton a 14,413 lead. Still shows at 99% counted. Obama's people predicted a difference of 15,000 votes last night. These guys are GOOD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted May 8, 2008 Share Posted May 8, 2008 By the way...for all of y'all who keep saying this race is destroying the Dem party...yowza, Hillary and Obama dragged not only the primary total well above Kerry's total in 06, but their coattails hit a down the race ticket. Over 1.25 million Indianans voted yesterday for Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama in the Democratic presidential primary. Over 1.1 million Indianans voted for Jill Long Thompson or Jim Schellinger in the Democratic primary for Governor of Indiana. In 2004, Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry received 969,000 votes in the state of Indiana...in the general election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted May 8, 2008 Share Posted May 8, 2008 I do think the democratic party can reconcile, however, historically, long fought out primary battles haven't bode too well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted May 8, 2008 Author Share Posted May 8, 2008 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 7, 2008 -> 07:12 PM) By the way...for all of y'all who keep saying this race is destroying the Dem party...yowza, Hillary and Obama dragged not only the primary total well above Kerry's total in 06, but their coattails hit a down the race ticket. Nice snippet, out of context... The governors race has an incumbant Republican who is running unopposed, and a very tightly contested Democratic primary to be on the ballot against said governor. In other words there was no reason to need to vote for the Republicians governors race. The interesting about those statistics is that to vote for the President race, you had to pick one party or the other to vote on. If you picked the Democratic ballot then you got to vote for Thompson or Schellinger. If the coat tails were so big, why did 150,000 people (or over 10% of voters) who picked up a Democratic ballot, not vote for either one of them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts