Are Hillary voters willing to destroy this country for Hillary's pursuit of power?

[Rio Rebel]

Originally posted by: M0RPH

Originally posted by: chowderhead

Obama won the Washington caucus by 37 but he won the non-binding primary by only 5, ten days later.

Thank you. Second concrete piece of evidence of how skewed caucus voting is. I don't think there's much question that, had every state held a primary, Clinton would be winning this election right now.

And if we didn't have an electoral system, Al Gore would be President and Nixon never would been elected.

What's the point of "what if"? Hillary is losing in BOTH the delegate count AND the popular vote.

So the system hasn't selected her, and the people haven't selected her...but if we just could have used all primaries and no caucuses, then she would be winning because she would have won in the right states?

Is that your point?

 

[senseamp]

PA has yet to vote. She'll have EV lead coming out of that.
Caucuses are a bunch of BS and need to be scrapped entirely, IMO.
Secret ballot is the foundation of democracy, not people standing around in rooms.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: M0RPH

Originally posted by: chowderhead

Obama won the Washington caucus by 37 but he won the non-binding primary by only 5, ten days later.

Thank you. Second concrete piece of evidence of how skewed caucus voting is. I don't think there's much question that, had every state held a primary, Clinton would be winning this election right now.

You're hilarious.

Why the h3ll would Obama supporters go to a NON BINDING primary AFTER their candidate already won what counted - the caucus.

Oh, there's clearly something concrete here, but it ain't the "evidence'.

Fern

 

[M0RPH]

Originally posted by: Rio Rebel

What's the point of "what if"? Hillary is losing in BOTH the delegate count AND the popular vote.

So the system hasn't selected her, and the people haven't selected her...but if we just could have used all primaries and no caucuses, then she would be winning because she would have won in the right states?

Is that your point?

Let me explain things again since you don't seem to be understanding. Caucases make voting inconvenient and uncomfortable, and therefore you get a small pool of voters with a heavy skew towards those who are particularly motivated to vote. In the case of Clinton vs Obama, it has been clear that this skew is heavily favoring Obama. This can be seen conclusively in the Texas and Washington numbers where both primaries and caucases were held.

When you hold a primary where you give voters the opportunity to vote in a more convenient, traditional manner, you get a larger pool of voters that is much more representative of the actual population of registered voters in that state. I don't think anyone would argue against this being the more fair way of holding elections. I would argue that if all states held primaries, Clinton would be winning both in delegates and popular vote.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: M0RPH

Originally posted by: Rio Rebel

What's the point of "what if"? Hillary is losing in BOTH the delegate count AND the popular vote.

So the system hasn't selected her, and the people haven't selected her...but if we just could have used all primaries and no caucuses, then she would be winning because she would have won in the right states?

Is that your point?

Let me explain things again since you don't seem to be understanding. Caucases make voting inconvenient and uncomfortable, and therefore you get a small pool of voters with a heavy skew towards those who are particularly motivated to vote. In the case of Clinton vs Obama, it has been clear that this skew is heavily favoring Obama. This can be seen conclusively in the Texas and Washington numbers where both primaries and caucases were held.

When you hold a primary where you give voters the opportunity to vote in a more convenient, traditional manner, you get a larger pool of voters that is much more representative of the actual population of registered voters in that state. I don't think anyone would argue against this being the more fair way of holding elections. I would argue that if all states held primaries, Clinton would be winning both in delegates and popular vote.

No reason to think that. Obama applied his talents to winning delegates and succeeded. Obviously if he had gone after the popular vote he would have won that too. I can always out what if you because what if is only there to blind you and support your delusions.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: M0RPH
Hey Phokus, we get the message, you made another post just like this the other day. If Clinton is the nominee, the country disintegrates into chaos, the sun does not rise, everything is despair and hopelessnes. If Obama is the candidate, we enter a golden age, everyone holds hands and is happy and hopeful, the country is saved.

Thank you for coming over to the good side! :laugh:

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: M0RPH
Hey Phokus, we get the message, you made another post just like this the other day. If Clinton is the nominee, the country disintegrates into chaos, the sun does not rise, everything is despair and hopelessnes. If Obama is the candidate, we enter a golden age, everyone holds hands and is happy and hopeful, the country is saved.

Thank you for coming over to the good side! :laugh:

But what if he's right? Imagine all the people ......and the world will live as one.

 

[hellokeith]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: M0RPH
Hey Phokus, we get the message, you made another post just like this the other day. If Clinton is the nominee, the country disintegrates into chaos, the sun does not rise, everything is despair and hopelessnes. If Obama is the candidate, we enter a golden age, everyone holds hands and is happy and hopeful, the country is saved.

Thank you for coming over to the good side! :laugh:

But what if he's right? Imagine all the people ......and the world will live as one.

With David Archuleta singing in the background..

I wiped a tear from my eye just thinking about it. :laugh:

 

[babylon5]

Why can't we be more like Russia, making election much simpler with only one candidate can possibly win by being less democratic? ~?~?

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: M0RPH

Originally posted by: chowderhead

Obama won the Washington caucus by 37 but he won the non-binding primary by only 5, ten days later.

Thank you. Second concrete piece of evidence of how skewed caucus voting is. I don't think there's much question that, had every state held a primary, Clinton would be winning this election right now.

There is good evidence to show that if a frog didn't have any hind legs it would bump it's ass off and if Grandma has whiskers she'd be Grandpa.

This so-called "good evidence" wouldn't survive a pissin' contest with "grandpa."

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: hellokeith

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: M0RPH
Hey Phokus, we get the message, you made another post just like this the other day. If Clinton is the nominee, the country disintegrates into chaos, the sun does not rise, everything is despair and hopelessnes. If Obama is the candidate, we enter a golden age, everyone holds hands and is happy and hopeful, the country is saved.

Thank you for coming over to the good side! :laugh:

But what if he's right? Imagine all the people ......and the world will live as one.

With David Archuleta singing in the background..

I wiped a tear from my eye just thinking about it. :laugh:

Hehe, isn't he just so squeezably cute?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: M0RPH

Originally posted by: chowderhead

Obama won the Washington caucus by 37 but he won the non-binding primary by only 5, ten days later.

Thank you. Second concrete piece of evidence of how skewed caucus voting is. I don't think there's much question that, had every state held a primary, Clinton would be winning this election right now.

There is good evidence to show that if a frog didn't have any hind legs it would bump it's ass off and if Grandma has whiskers she'd be Grandpa.

This so-called "good evidence" wouldn't survive a pissin' contest with "grandpa."

But it would be good enough to start one with you?

 

[Starbuck1975]

To answer the OP, apparently yes they are.

I remember when Hillary was still the presumptive nominee, with Obama a mere nuisance yipping at her heels...Democrats waxed poetic about how fortunate they are to have two such outstanding candidates.

Now, go to any message board or thread dealing with the Democrat nomination...Hillary and Obama supporters are going after one another with the same vitrol and animosity usually directed towards Bush supporters.

The march to Pennsylvania is a march towards mutually assured political destruction.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: M0RPH

Originally posted by: Rio Rebel

What's the point of "what if"? Hillary is losing in BOTH the delegate count AND the popular vote.

So the system hasn't selected her, and the people haven't selected her...but if we just could have used all primaries and no caucuses, then she would be winning because she would have won in the right states?

Is that your point?

Let me explain things again since you don't seem to be understanding. Caucases make voting inconvenient and uncomfortable, and therefore you get a small pool of voters with a heavy skew towards those who are particularly motivated to vote. In the case of Clinton vs Obama, it has been clear that this skew is heavily favoring Obama. This can be seen conclusively in the Texas and Washington numbers where both primaries and caucases were held.

When you hold a primary where you give voters the opportunity to vote in a more convenient, traditional manner, you get a larger pool of voters that is much more representative of the actual population of registered voters in that state. I don't think anyone would argue against this being the more fair way of holding elections. I would argue that if all states held primaries, Clinton would be winning both in delegates and popular vote.

No reason to think that. Obama applied his talents to winning delegates and succeeded. Obviously if he had gone after the popular vote he would have won that too. I can always out what if you because what if is only there to blind you and support your delusions.

"No reason"? That's a mighty strong statement.

There are plenty of reasons. They may well be incorrect, but that doesn't mean there's "no reason" to think (or believe) them.

And just why do you think you can out "what-if" Morph? Is that ego I see? Ego is the biggest delusion of them all.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: M0RPH

Originally posted by: chowderhead

Obama won the Washington caucus by 37 but he won the non-binding primary by only 5, ten days later.

Thank you. Second concrete piece of evidence of how skewed caucus voting is. I don't think there's much question that, had every state held a primary, Clinton would be winning this election right now.

There is good evidence to show that if a frog didn't have any hind legs it would bump it's ass off and if Grandma has whiskers she'd be Grandpa.

This so-called "good evidence" wouldn't survive a pissin' contest with "grandpa."

But it would be good enough to start one with you?

If you pissed straight, it'd be a pleasure. But you splish and splash every which way, as if you don't know which way your pecker is pointing.

 

[Compddd]

Hey guys, its mathematically impossible for her to win, the super dels won't go against the will of the people. Obama will be the nominee, chill out already.

 

[Jhhnn]

Meh. Clinton haters are more irrational than Bush haters. At least Bush haters can articulate why, Clinton haters just hate, for the most part, because that's what talk radio tells them is the right thing to do...

The repubs nominee is set, and it's McCain. He represents change in a repub sort of way, but not really as much as his backers let on.. His only chance is to have the Dems run Hillary, because they're more alike than different. He can obfuscate on the issues, make it into a straight up popularity contest... Repubs want Hillary to run, just for that reason and because of the 15+ years of conditioning they've employed on their flock. Wouldn't want that to go to waste, right?

And, for sure, Hillary would clobber a more conservative repub nominee than McCain, but that's not what's happening. Dems would be very, very smart to run Obama as a much clearer alternative. The public is ready for change, and Hillary really doesn't offer enough of it to differentiate herself from McCain in the minds of many voters...

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Meh. Clinton haters are more irrational than Bush haters. At least Bush haters can articulate why, Clinton haters just hate, for the most part, because that's what talk radio tells them is the right thing to do...

The repubs nominee is set, and it's McCain. He represents change in a repub sort of way, but not really as much as his backers let on.. His only chance is to have the Dems run Hillary, because they're more alike than different. He can obfuscate on the issues, make it into a straight up popularity contest... Repubs want Hillary to run, just for that reason and because of the 15+ years of conditioning they've employed on their flock. Wouldn't want that to go to waste, right?

And, for sure, Hillary would clobber a more conservative repub nominee than McCain, but that's not what's happening. Dems would be very, very smart to run Obama as a much clearer alternative. The public is ready for change, and Hillary really doesn't offer enough of it to differentiate herself from McCain in the minds of many voters...

People keep forgetting independents. Independents would flock to McCain. If Crist is the running mate, it could be a landslide.

 

[Jhhnn]

People keep forgetting independents. Independents would flock to McCain. If Crist is the running mate, it could be a landslide.

Why? So we can stay the course in Iraq for the next 100 years? Or so we can have the same failed hyper-aggressive foreign policy? So that we can stock up on more pointless coldwar military hardware? So that the obvious and pervasive malfeasance of the Bush Admin can be kept under the rug of "National Security"? So that pandering to the far right and the fundie fringe will remain a major cornerstone of policy, foreign and domestic?

Yeh, I"m really, really sure that's what independents really want...

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn

People keep forgetting independents. Independents would flock to McCain. If Crist is the running mate, it could be a landslide.

Why? So we can stay the course in Iraq for the next 100 years? Or so we can have the same failed hyper-aggressive foreign policy? So that we can stock up on more pointless coldwar military hardware? So that the obvious and pervasive malfeasance of the Bush Admin can be kept under the rug of "National Security"? So that pandering to the far right and the fundie fringe will remain a major cornerstone of policy, foreign and domestic?

Yeh, I"m really, really sure that's what independents really want...

Given a choice between McCain or Hillary, who do you think they'll prefer?

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Compddd
Hey guys, its mathematically impossible for her to win, the super dels won't go against the will of the people. Obama will be the nominee, chill out already.

We've been trying to point this out to Hillarybots. Unfortunately, their delusional desire (despite the near insurmountable lead that Obama has) for Hildabeast to win trumps reality. They cling to the notion that Hildabeast actually has a chance to win, despite things like FACTS and LOGIC. They'll gladly destroy the Democratic party and this nation in order to chase these delusions.

 

[Jhhnn]

Given a choice between McCain or Hillary, who do you think they'll prefer?

I figure it'd be a pretty even split- those who have succumbed to 15+ years of Hillary hate from the rightwing pundits going with McCain, the rest being righteously fed up with repubs' shenanigans voting against more of the same...

thus pretty much mooting the independent vote...

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn

Given a choice between McCain or Hillary, who do you think they'll prefer?

I figure it'd be a pretty even split- those who have succumbed to 15+ years of Hillary hate from the rightwing pundits going with McCain, the rest being righteously fed up with repubs' shenanigans voting against more of the same...

thus pretty much mooting the independent vote...

Hillary is for government mandates. McCain is nothing like that. Besides, let's not forget they both support this war. Hillary is playing to her base by pretending she's against it. But we all know she has to look and act tough or else people will think she's a puss. Hence, she'll keep us in Iraq for as long as possible.

 

[M0RPH]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Compddd
Hey guys, its mathematically impossible for her to win, the super dels won't go against the will of the people. Obama will be the nominee, chill out already.

We've been trying to point this out to Hillarybots. Unfortunately, their delusional desire (despite the near insurmountable lead that Obama has) for Hildabeast to win trumps reality. They cling to the notion that Hildabeast actually has a chance to win, despite things like FACTS and LOGIC. They'll gladly destroy the Democratic party and this nation in order to chase these delusions.

Hussein Osama has not locked up anything mathematically. If you had a 4th grade grasp of mathematics you'd know that. The 49.5% of voters, or 13+ million people, who have voted for Clinton over Hussein Osama are in fact NOT out to destroy the country. You need to take a chill pill, my friend.

There, you want to do the grade-school name-calling thing, I'll do it too.

 

[Farang]

Haha.. he's back (techs). Now I have to read this bullshit for the next 7 weeks.