Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Excellent point. She won by 9.4%, not even the "double digit" nonsense people are hanging on.
This is not enough.
Well even 10% is nothing to be proud of when one considers that Hillary had around a 20% lead a couple of weeks ago. Clinton supporters really have no reason to rejoice, more than likely this is the last primary Hillary will win.
Besides, Hillary was supposed to win, and win big. She didn't accomplish that, so actually she's the loser.
She gained 210,000 in the popular and that with Florida (where they were both on the ballot ) she would be ahead. So yea for the dems they can not even run their primaries right and they want us to give them control of the congress and white house.
if after all the wrightgate and bittergate Hillary can only muster 9%
she wont beat McCain
If after spending twice as much as Hillary on his PA campaign, Obama couldn't beat her... there's something wrong with your candidate. He clearly doesn't have the mandate of the people.
If after spending twice as much as Hillary on his PA campaign, Obama couldn't beat her... there's something wrong with your candidate. He clearly doesn't have the mandate of the people.
If by "the people" you mean racist whites, then I'll agree with you. Obama does not have the mandate of racist white people.
If after spending twice as much as Hillary on his PA campaign, Obama couldn't beat her... there's something wrong with your candidate. He clearly doesn't have the mandate of the people.
If after spending twice as much as Hillary on his PA campaign, Obama couldn't beat her... there's something wrong with your candidate. He clearly doesn't have the mandate of the people.
The other side of the coin is that he outspent her to cut into her lead, which was his only intent. He accomplished that.
He does have the mandate of the people. He leads the popular vote, the delegate count, and he has won the most states. Wake up.
Hillary's 'victory" means nothing but it will be embellished.
Your appeal to the "numbers" is both pathetic and predictable, and what's more ignore the history of voting patterns for blacks and working class whites. Blacks have always been strong supporters of white candidates, the same cannot be said of working class whites in regard to black candidates. An entire political strategy--the Southern Strategy--was crafted based upon race so as to win the votes of working class whites, which has worked very well for Republicans. It is the same strategy being employed by the Clintons, which is producing the same kind of results for Hillary.
Hillary had a majority of black supporters prior to the South Carolina primary.
If by "the people" you mean racist whites, then I'll agree with you. Obama does not have the mandate of racist white people.
He certainly has the vote from the "racist" blacks. Democrats have two choices. They can select Clinton or they can enjoy McCain as president. I think the people of the USA pretty much know who Obama cares about now. It certainly is not the middle class of the USA. He doesn't even like us.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
