|
05-14-2008, 10:10 PM
|
|
|
|
Location: Piedmont, CA
36,202 posts, read 64,719,013 times
Reputation: 20398
|
|
|
|
|
05-14-2008, 10:13 PM
|
|
|
|
4,626 posts, read 13,777,082 times
Reputation: 1719
|
|
|
from the article:
"The only scenario in which Clinton would appear to have the lead is a fifth scenario that only counts primary states – including both Florida and Michigan – and excludes any votes cast in the party’s caucuses. In that count, Clinton currently holds a lead of about 225,000 votes."
Huh?
|
|
05-14-2008, 10:14 PM
|
|
|
|
Location: Charlotte
12,642 posts, read 15,196,975 times
Reputation: 1680
|
|
|
If you "disenfranchise" Iowa and Washington.
(Isn't that the term everyone's using?)
|
|
05-14-2008, 10:18 PM
|
|
|
|
2,215 posts, read 3,527,282 times
Reputation: 507
|
|
Clinton leads by both vote counts.
So, she is ahead and is the current frontrunner of the party.
Obama fan club members cannot stand the fact that she is ahead of him and when she wins the next group of states it time for Obama to resign and stop dividing our country.
Obama has no chance in he-- to beat McCain. He cannot even win a single important state. Now that is really bad!!
Even John Kerry won the states Obama cannot win. 
|
|
05-14-2008, 10:23 PM
|
|
|
|
4,626 posts, read 13,777,082 times
Reputation: 1719
|
|
|
What article did you read? I read one that stated this:
"Four different scenarios of the total popular vote have been kicked around: (1) only counting primary contests without factoring in Florida and Michigan, whose contests were not sanctioned by the national party, (2) counting primary and caucus contests without Florida and Michigan, (3) counting primaries and contests and Florida but not Michigan, and (4) counting all primaries and caucuses including Florida and Michigan.
Clinton trails in all four counts, but by significantly different margins. In the first scenario she trails by by about 397,000, in the second she's behind 699,000, in the third she has a 405,000 vote deficit, and in the fourth scenario she trails by 77,000 votes.
The fourth scenario does not give Obama any votes out of Michigan, where he did not appear on the ballot.
The only scenario in which Clinton would appear to have the lead is a fifth scenario that only counts primary states – including both Florida and Michigan – and excludes any votes cast in the party’s caucuses. In that count, Clinton currently holds a lead of about 225,000 votes."
How on earth can you come away from that article and state:
"Clinton leads by both vote counts.
So, she is ahead and is the current frontrunner of the party."
Seriously, that doesn't even make sense. Please explain your logic.
|
|
05-14-2008, 10:57 PM
|
|
|
|
Location: Wilkes-Barre, PA
2,012 posts, read 3,752,020 times
Reputation: 1719
|
|
|
Clinton is a well done piece of meat. Take her off the grill and sauce her.
|
|
05-14-2008, 11:18 PM
|
|
|
|
1,318 posts, read 2,399,637 times
Reputation: 409
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by j33
What article did you read? I read one that stated this:
"Four different scenarios of the total popular vote have been kicked around: (1) only counting primary contests without factoring in Florida and Michigan, whose contests were not sanctioned by the national party, (2) counting primary and caucus contests without Florida and Michigan, (3) counting primaries and contests and Florida but not Michigan, and (4) counting all primaries and caucuses including Florida and Michigan.
Clinton trails in all four counts, but by significantly different margins. In the first scenario she trails by by about 397,000, in the second she's behind 699,000, in the third she has a 405,000 vote deficit, and in the fourth scenario she trails by 77,000 votes.
The fourth scenario does not give Obama any votes out of Michigan, where he did not appear on the ballot.
The only scenario in which Clinton would appear to have the lead is a fifth scenario that only counts primary states – including both Florida and Michigan – and excludes any votes cast in the party’s caucuses. In that count, Clinton currently holds a lead of about 225,000 votes."
How on earth can you come away from that article and state:
"Clinton leads by both vote counts.
So, she is ahead and is the current frontrunner of the party."
Seriously, that doesn't even make sense. Please explain your logic.
|
Can I answer that question? It's called "Clinton World". This logic of her ahead in the popular vote only exists in "Clinton World" especially when you cannot count caucus states in the popular vote and you count a state where Obama's name was not on the ballot. That sounds fair, if you are in "Clinton World". This is what "Clinton World" is all about.... It's about deceit, changing rules, moving goal posts, tearing down opponents, spitting out racial comments, dividing the democratic party and lying. Now there's a candidate for President that everyone should respect.  So there you have it. It makes no sense because Hillary has her own math going on in her twisted brain and the sad part is she now has her supporters believing it too. OMG!  |
|
05-14-2008, 11:21 PM
|
|
|
|
30 posts, read 81,307 times
Reputation: 25
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chefkey
Clinton is a well done piece of meat. Take her off the grill and sauce her.
|
Apparently, she is already "sauced". lol
It just makes me wonder what kind of spin she will put on things if by some chance she does get into office. (Read: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" and other Clinton nonsense). She is already showing ugly similarities to GW by trying to steal an election where she clearly does not have the popular vote.
She is making up her own reality. In HC-fantasy-land FL and MI count, but in reality no one has agreed to the rule change but her. Maybe she is going off of the whole "speak/think things into existence" theory, but she appears to be selfish, divisive, dishonest, and in need of a psychiatric consult when it comes to statements like this and the # of delegates needed to secure the nomination. |
|
05-15-2008, 02:16 AM
|
|
|
|
Location: County Mayo Descendant
2,725 posts, read 5,842,951 times
Reputation: 1216
|
|
I was very disappointed with John Edwards and surprised to see an email from him wanting me to donate to one of his causes after he says he backed Obama, is he nuts?
I was so upset I blocked his future emails and opted out.
Also the NARAL supporting Obama? Whats wrong with these people? As a woman who was there during the womens movement that was a slap in the face to all women.
What are they up too? Theres more than meets than eye going on here.
Sorry to say we need a Deep Throat to come forward and spill the beans with this election, something is wrong. 
You know Obama is not going to win against McCain, so why are they doing this to Hillary? 
These delegate votes, doesn't anyone understand that these delegate votes are not necessarily for Obama, there are things happening behind the scenes we don't know about. 
Was it because she spoke up re womens rights in China and China wanted to shut her up, is it something related to the trade with China?? Are these delegates for the trade with China? What are these delegates scared of, what is swaying their votes? Its not Obama...........  |
|
05-15-2008, 05:36 AM
|
|
|
|
Location: Chicagoland
41,321 posts, read 43,758,895 times
Reputation: 7118
|
|
|
Well, she does have a point.
Look at the caucus states Obama won. Will he keep most of those in the general?
|
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.
