Will Hillary throw in the towel on Friday as is being reported on CNN?

joepistole

joepistole

Deacon Blues
Valued Senior Member
The press is once again reporting that Hillary will throw in the towel on Friday. After all the other times she was reported to be throwing in the towel, I have to wonder will it happen as being advertised? My personal inclination, given the history, it that is not a probably outcome on Friday.

This is starting to remind me of actor that is mortally wounded never dies but keeps falling to the floor it dead several times only to manage enough energy to get up one more time for one more fall.

It is amazing to see some one get so much press ouf of loosing. I think her antics are starting to upset some of her supporters in the party. She is really hamming up this thing. If she is not careful, she is going to seriously overplay this and adversely impact her political future.
 
Previously, Obama didn't have the delegate numbers, so Hillary was still in with a chance. Now, things are different. She really has no option but to concede defeat.

However, she probably will not officially end her candidacy, even when she admits Obama will be the nominee. If Obama suddenly had a heart attack or something, that would leave it open for Hillary to declare that she is still in the race.
 
Well she has now move the announcement to Saturday. So it will not be Friday...sound familar. If I were an odds maker, I would take odds and make some money.
 
James R said:
Previously, Obama didn't have the delegate numbers, so Hillary was still in with a chance. Now, things are different. She really has no option but to concede defeat.
Click to expand...

She does have an option.
She can challenge the Florida and Michigan decisions.
Hopefully she is smart enough to see how daqmaging that would be to her career, however.
 
She has a much better claim to viability than Obama, considering the popular vote + swing states...
 
Prince_James said:
She has a much better claim to viability than Obama, considering the popular vote + swing states...
Click to expand...

He won under the rules of the party they belong to, and that's all there is to it.
In fact, if they more strictly stuck to the rules, she would have lost worse - them allowing the half-votes helped her.

If she continues to complain about the popular vote, knowing that's not how it works, she will simply paint herself as a sore loser and cry-baby.

He won - she needs to deal with it, or irreparably damage her career.
 
One Raven:

He won under the rules of the party they belong to, and that's all there is to it.
In fact, if they more strictly stuck to the rules, she would have lost worse - them allowing the half-votes helped her.
Click to expand...

Regardless. She could probably screw herself into a victory, says I. Smart Democrats want her, owing to the fact that she won so convincingly in states that need to be won.

Obama v. McCain is probably going to end up very similar to Bush v. Kerry. All the swing states go Red, all the Red states go Red, and all the Liberal states go Blue. Thus McCain wins 52-48 or something like that.
 
Prince_James said:
One Raven:



Regardless. She could probably screw herself into a victory, says I. Smart Democrats want her, owing to the fact that she won so convincingly in states that need to be won.

Obama v. McCain is probably going to end up very similar to Bush v. Kerry. All the swing states go Red, all the Red states go Red, and all the Liberal states go Blue. Thus McCain wins 52-48 or something like that.
Click to expand...

Which is exactly why Obama would be wise to select her as a runningmate.
 
I think the above would be positive, but there's nothing wrong with her contesting Florida and Michigan.

Party rules be damned; this is about the electing of the most powerful person in the world. I think at the very least some additional efforts should be made to get the votes of two states, considering the power at the end of the line. Do we need another potentially stolen election?
 
Nonsense.

The party has every right to choose whoever they want to put on the ballot in any way they choose to.
They can simply pick someone they like, if they wish.
 
One_Raven:

Which is exactly why Obama would be wise to select her as a runningmate.
Click to expand...

Neither Clinton nor Obama could ever do it. Not to mention that no one ever votes based off the VP in general.
 
Prince_James said:
Neither Clinton nor Obama could ever do it.
Click to expand...
I disagree, but I suppose time will tell.

Prince_James said:
Not to mention that no one ever votes based off the VP in general.
Click to expand...
I think in this unique situation, it will make a huge difference.
People who wanted Hillary, in such a hotly contested battle, are likely to not vote for Obama out of spite.
If she is with him, that mitigates that problem.
Hillary also has a lot of supporters that will vote for her just because she is a woman.
This will also help that, because they would love to see a woman VP almost as much as they would love to see a woman president.

Old standards go out the window with this one.
 
Most people who would vote for her, wouldn't have a problem voting for him if he wasn't running against her.
As it stands now in the minds of many is that Obama is the guy who beat Hillary and dashed her hopes of being president.
If they are running mates, on the other hand, they are a team.

Arguments about wanting a woman president?
Voting for McCain doesn't accomplish that, but voting for the team at least gets us a woman VP.
Arguments that he is not experienced enough?
If they were a team, he could benefit from her experience.

Other than those three points, people who want her don't really have many strong arguments against him.
 
GeoffP said:
Party rules be damned; this is about the electing of the most powerful person in the world. I think at the very least some additional efforts should be made to get the votes of two states, considering the power at the end of the line. Do we need another potentially stolen election?
Click to expand...

Think about this for a second.
What would you have her do?
Take it to the court system and allow the government in power decide who gets a party's nomination?
That is a precedent I NEVER want to see set under ANY circumstances.
 
one_raven said:
Think about this for a second.
What would you have her do?
Take it to the court system and allow the government in power decide who gets a party's nomination?
That is a precedent I NEVER want to see set under ANY circumstances.
Click to expand...

We already saw this happen once before in 2000 w George II. The Supremes gave him the presidency. And also had the forebarance to say their decision and reasoning should not be used in other cases going forward.

Two, Hillary did not win the popular vote as a normal and rational person would define it. In order to get to her numbers you have to ignore the votes that were cast against her in Michigan and the votes cast in the caucus states. That is the only way you can get to her leading in the popular vote, by ignoring the hundreds of thousands of votes for Obama that are not counted, under her counting rules. Take away the caucus results or the Michigan votes against her, and she looses the votes using her particular form of math.

The Democratic National Party tried to adjust for those Obama votes using the best available information. Was it perfect, no. Was it logically correct, yes. Was it probably accurate, yes. So Hillary lost fair and square, and she did not win the so call popular vote.

Byt the way, the caucus is a much better way of electing and coming to consensus than a primary. In the caucus, the cannidates are very carefully screened, versus just showing up and casting a vote...there is discussion and reflection before voting in a caucus state.
 
Prince_James said:
Regardless. She could probably screw herself into a victory, says I. Smart Democrats want her, owing to the fact that she won so convincingly in states that need to be won.
Click to expand...

As in smart, you mean the uneducated, working class, older voters right.....you know, the ones WITHOUT a college education. :shrug:

And you're version of swing states is very selective.

How about Missouri, New Mexico, Minnesta, Iowa, Colorado, Wisconsin, Washington, Oregon, North Carolina, Virginia, S.Carolina, ect....... :bugeye:

It's almost as if many people on this board are living in an alternative reality.
 
one_raven said:
Arguments that he is not experienced enough?
If they were a team, he could benefit from her experience.
Click to expand...

This is the thing that continues to baffle the fkc out of me.

Are you aware that Obama has more legislative experience than Hillary?

Obama also has done far more in his time as an elected official than Hillary has.

How in gods name can you people continue to use her 8 years as a First lady as Experience......? :eek:
 
joepistole said:
We already saw this happen once before in 2000 w George II. The Supremes gave him the presidency. And also had the forebarance to say their decision and reasoning should not be used in other cases going forward.

Two, Hillary did not win the popular vote as a normal and rational person would define it. In order to get to her numbers you have to ignore the votes that were cast against her in Michigan and the votes cast in the caucus states. That is the only way you can get to her leading in the popular vote, by ignoring the hundreds of thousands of votes for Obama that are not counted, under her counting rules. Take away the caucus results or the Michigan votes against her, and she looses the votes using her particular form of math.

The Democratic National Party tried to adjust for those Obama votes using the best available information. Was it perfect, no. Was it logically correct, yes. Was it probably accurate, yes. So Hillary lost fair and square, and she did not win the so call popular vote.

Byt the way, the caucus is a much better way of electing and coming to consensus than a primary. In the caucus, the cannidates are very carefully screened, versus just showing up and casting a vote...there is discussion and reflection before voting in a caucus state.
Click to expand...

Finally!!!!!

Well said AGAIN Joe.

The crazy thing is, I'll bet most of these people still believe Hillary won Texas too. :confused:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top