Devils Pride 26 Posted May 9, 2008 Share Posted May 9, 2008 I heard she might end up running as an independent if she loses the dem bid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devilish34 Posted May 9, 2008 Share Posted May 9, 2008 I read an interesting article today that had a very good explaination about what Hillary is trying to do. She is going to do everything in her power to help McCain win the election. With his age, he may not seek a second term. So it's all about 2012. Destroy Obama now and get him off of the political landscape.... if she helps scuttle his run for the presidency he will be seen as another Dukakis. It's very unlikely that if he loses to McCain that he would be picked as the nominee again in 2012. Thats been tossed around for a while and it makes sense for her If I can't have you can't. But seriously who is there in the Dem party that could make a run in 2012 if Obama is the next Dukakis ? I'm with Jimmy on the empty suit thought and if he looses this time he'll have to resort to making movies Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squishyx Posted May 9, 2008 Share Posted May 9, 2008 I heard she might end up running as an independent if she loses the dem bid. considering she has stated many times she will support the democratic nominee i doubt it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squishyx Posted May 9, 2008 Share Posted May 9, 2008 I read an interesting article today that had a very good explaination about what Hillary is trying to do. She is going to do everything in her power to help McCain win the election. With his age, he may not seek a second term. So it's all about 2012. Destroy Obama now and get him off of the political landscape.... if she helps scuttle his run for the presidency he will be seen as another Dukakis. It's very unlikely that if he loses to McCain that he would be picked as the nominee again in 2012. Unlikely. Most of her party is very disappointed that she is staying as long as she is, if she tries to draw it out more her party will probably not support her again given they way she is acting. Also since the Indiana, NC election she has dropped Obama from her political agenda, she more or less knows it is over and is no longer saying Obama isn't the right guy, she isn't attacking him on issues and now is just trying to stay afloat. Not the kind of actions you would expect if she was trying to set herself up for a 2012 run. She is sticking with this because she feels that if she was able to get MI and FL to count, she still has an outside chance and she also knows that it's hard to be a nominee twice, this may be her only chance. in 4-8 years from now there may be a much stronger democratic contender and she wont even be a consideration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
halfsharkalligatorhalfman Posted May 9, 2008 Share Posted May 9, 2008 Hilary wants to be president and she wants the Democratic nominee. If she doesn't get it she will retreat to a distinguished career in the Senate ala Ted Kennedy and either bide her time and wait for her next opportunity, or she will not run again and make the most of it. She is certainly not going to become an independent and alienate everyone in the democratic party and basically committ political suicide, for a slim chance at winning the presidency. Whats going to happen is she's going to kick ass in West Virginia and Kentucky, and we're going to be right back where we started. This stupid primary isn't ending until June at the earliest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
halfsharkalligatorhalfman Posted May 9, 2008 Share Posted May 9, 2008 (edited) Hilary wants to be president and she wants the Democratic nominee. If she doesn't get it she will retreat to a distinguished career in the Senate ala Ted Kennedy and either bide her time and wait for her next opportunity, or she will not run again and make the most of it. She is certainly not going to become an independent and alienate everyone in the democratic party and basically committ political suicide, for a slim chance at winning the presidency. Whats going to happen in the race though is she's going to kick ass in West Virginia and Kentucky, and we're going to be right back where we started. This stupid primary isn't ending until June at the earliest. Edited May 9, 2008 by halfsharkalligatorhalfman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Senators Advocate Posted May 9, 2008 Share Posted May 9, 2008 I love how the defenders of him are ashamed of their candidate's middle name. What's to be ashamed of? No one is. But it is normally brought up with the intention of scaring undecideds into not voting for him. I know at least one person who has been affected by the fact that his middle name is Hussein and his last name rhymes with Osama, even though he likes Obama's ideas. Why can it not be said? Has this ever happened before, that a presidential candidate hides from his own given name? Hiram Ulysses Grant and William Jefferson Blythe are the only ones who come to mind. I get the feeling he's as ashamed of his middle name as he is of being american .. and that scary when he purports to hold the highest office in the country. Since he's not ashamed of being American at all, I agree. If he were ashamed of his middle name, he would have changed it before running for office. See the two examples above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LizDevil30 Posted May 9, 2008 Share Posted May 9, 2008 Bill changed his name when he was 16 though. I doubt he was thinking that Clinton was a better name for a prez when he did it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sammyk Posted May 10, 2008 Share Posted May 10, 2008 Bill changed his name when he was 16 though. I doubt he was thinking that Clinton was a better name for a prez when he did it. He might have been, he had very early aspirations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nork Posted May 10, 2008 Share Posted May 10, 2008 No one is. But it is normally brought up with the intention of scaring undecideds into not voting for him. I know at least one person who has been affected by the fact that his middle name is Hussein and his last name rhymes with Osama, even though he likes Obama's ideas. Jimmy usually puts HUSSEIN in caps. I don't think I need to say what's going on there. That being said, I'd be interested in everyone's treatment of their own middle name. Assuming you have one. And if you do NOT have a middle name, are you a commie or a jihadist? Or do you just have lazy parents? I'll go first: I sign my middle initial, as I usually sign first name, middle initial, and last name. My middle name appears on some legal documents, like passport. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LizDevil30 Posted May 10, 2008 Share Posted May 10, 2008 she more or less knows it is over and is no longer saying Obama isn't the right guy, she isn't attacking him on issues and now is just trying to stay afloat. Not the kind of actions you would expect if she was trying to set herself up for a 2012 run. I don't know about that. Just last night every news outlet was reporting her quote to USA Today and how "hard working Americans. White" support her. That her base is broader. There were many comments that said her statement could be misconstrued to be an insinuation that only Whites are hard working. I think she just jumbled her words and it is being blown out of proportion. Kind of like when Obama said "typical white person." I forget who it was, but on Chris Matthews "Hardball" someone said that this is the touchiest election he's ever seen in his lifetime. That every little work or phrase is blown out of proportions. Like everything is off limits. McCain's campaign recently took offense about a comment Obama made about McCain "losing his bearings." They jumped all over it saying it was a swipe at McCain's age. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pepperkorn Posted May 12, 2008 Share Posted May 12, 2008 http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/31042.htmlI myself have no problem with his name and would rather it be used. The way it is perceived by many as a tie to a terrorist is wrong. That fact that his party and campaign staff avoid it like the plague is wrong. It's as if they are ashamed of it or are they hiding something? Are you kidding me? I think we should make it a major issue John SIDNEY McCain is hiding his middle name. i had NO idea what it was until i saw it in this thread! What is he hiding? Is it something to do with Australia? I have a REAL problem with his campaign covering this up! Grow up and argue with some kind of dignity... yeesh - I'd expect more of you. It's Leeds' MO to be contrary and stupidly obtuse like this - that's not a slam against you Leeds - just one of your chosen tactics. No, no one wrote Gerry RUDOLPH Ford durign elections (or ever in fact) ... yeah they DID say JAMES EARL .... who? JAMES EARL...Who? JAMES EARL... Carter? and that's just as stupid as this Hussein crap and obviously was real effective - not . And you're fvcking McCain ROYALLY voting Hillary in, thinking she'll lose faster than Obama... if that bitch gets into office it's on YOUR shoulders my friend! You and all the other ignoramuses who thought she'd lose to an old white man . If she doesn't fine -- but I am of the opinion meddling with these elections thinking your swaying things your way is SOOO FAR OFF! Seriously -- Hillary WILL WIN if she comes out of this as the Democrat nominee. It's like saying lets lull the Rangers into a false sense of security letting them win the home opener... MORONS! If you want to win, you give NOTHING -- let the democrats duke it out unless you, yourself, are prepared to live with the vote you cast. If you'd rather have Hillary in office you change your party affiliation and vote for her... I seriously hope you were not one of those people devilish -- it was a worry of mine. A little late in saying something but I had hoped it wasn't that big a deal to you. Now I worry.... It infuriates me the way people underestimate the power of Billary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sammyk Posted May 12, 2008 Share Posted May 12, 2008 He doesn't want to be confused with Super Spy Chick Sidney Bristow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devilish34 Posted May 12, 2008 Share Posted May 12, 2008 If you'd rather have Hillary in office you change your party affiliation and vote for her... I seriously hope you were not one of those people devilish -- it was a worry of mine. A little late in saying something but I had hoped it wasn't that big a deal to you. Now I worry....It infuriates me the way people underestimate the power of Billary. Some days I'm just tired but what?!?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pepperkorn Posted May 12, 2008 Share Posted May 12, 2008 Please tell em you are not one of those wackjob Pennsylvanians who changed their party affiliation and voted for Hillary in the primaries thinking McCain would be a shoe-in against a Shrillery ticket Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devilish34 Posted May 12, 2008 Share Posted May 12, 2008 BTW, for Martin Van Buren, his last name is Van Buren, Van isn't his middle name. I was lazy as usual and copied then pasted but forgot to remove that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devilish34 Posted May 12, 2008 Share Posted May 12, 2008 (edited) Please tell em you are not one of those wackjob Pennsylvanians who changed their party affiliation and voted for Hillary in the primaries thinking McCain would be a shoe-in against a Shrillery ticket you are silly aren't you! Thats a Looney mans tactic.... And what is my party affiliation any way? I can't remember Independent or Republican I cannot remember how I am registered. Edited May 12, 2008 by Devilish34 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteyNice Posted May 12, 2008 Share Posted May 12, 2008 Please tell em you are not one of those wackjob Pennsylvanians who changed their party affiliation and voted for Hillary in the primaries thinking McCain would be a shoe-in against a Shrillery ticket Hey now, that is a perfectly viable strategy! In Georgia you don't register for a party so the primary is open but you can only vote in either the Republican or Democratic primary but not both. I voted for Huckabee! Gotta go with the craziest guy I can find since I knew Obama would win easily on the Democratic side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oofrostonoo Posted May 13, 2008 Author Share Posted May 13, 2008 Hey now, that is a perfectly viable strategy! In Georgia you don't register for a party so the primary is open but you can only vote in either the Republican or Democratic primary but not both. I voted for Huckabee! Gotta go with the craziest guy I can find since I knew Obama would win easily on the Democratic side. Out of all things people could do, voting for another candidate to skew results is extremely fvcked up. Rush Limbaugh is a real dirtbag for suggesting this. Did this "patriot" think about the millions of American's who have died over the past 250 years in order to protect that right? fvck every moron who did this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Senators Advocate Posted May 13, 2008 Share Posted May 13, 2008 (edited) Out of all things people could do, voting for another candidate to skew results is extremely fvcked up. Rush Limbaugh is a real dirtbag for suggesting this.Did this "patriot" think about the millions of American's who have died over the past 250 years in order to protect that right? fvck every moron who did this. Why is that f-ed up? It's not denying someone else the right to vote. It's not casting multiple ballots. It's not intimidating other voters. Those people who died to protect (and even extend) the right to vote were protecting the right to vote as one sees fit. Without exception. If we lived in a country with a Parliamentary system where third parties were electable, this wouldn't come up I don't think. But we are stuck with two viable parties to represent 300+ million individuals in a winner take all system. If one side already has a candidate, I fail to see why it is wrong for their partisans to attempt to influence the choice of the other side. It's taking advantage of a quirk in our method of selecting party nominees and it is open to all sides of the spectrum. Besides, the number of people who actually do this are vastly outnumbered when they reach the polls anyway. So it's more often than not a futile endeavor and no guarantee of eventual victory anyway. Edited May 13, 2008 by Senators Advocate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJDevs26 Posted May 13, 2008 Share Posted May 13, 2008 If anything the whole Operation Chaos nonsense just serves to show why party primaries should only have registered party voters in them. I never got why primaries should: A) some be caucuses and some be popular vote B) all be on different days, if they were all on the same day every state would be equally represented C) some states be proportional as opposed to winner-take-all None of these are true in the general election, why should they be true in the primaries? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super 17 Posted May 14, 2008 Share Posted May 14, 2008 Rush Limbaugh? Yawn... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils731 Posted May 14, 2008 Share Posted May 14, 2008 If anything the whole Operation Chaos nonsense just serves to show why party primaries should only have registered party voters in them. I never got why primaries should:A) some be caucuses and some be popular vote B) all be on different days, if they were all on the same day every state would be equally represented C) some states be proportional as opposed to winner-take-all None of these are true in the general election, why should they be true in the primaries? It's not true that C is not true in all states in general election. Some states are by percentage and some are winner take all. The reason for the differences is the states get to make their own rules in regards to some things having to do with elections which gave the states power and say in the federal elections. How the states choose to use and divide up this power is up to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Senators Advocate Posted May 14, 2008 Share Posted May 14, 2008 If anything the whole Operation Chaos nonsense just serves to show why party primaries should only have registered party voters in them. What do you mean by registered party members? People who pay for an actual party membership or those who register as a Democrat or Republican? If the former: You're making the process even less democratic by putting a two-person race in the hands of fewer people. If the latter: That won't stop something like this as people can switch party registration at just about any time (1 month before the election in PA) and vote in the primary. If anything, it is an argument for eliminating partisan primaries altogether and going to a "non-partisan" primary followed by a run-off general election. Let's give more people a say in who the final two are, not less. It's not true that C is not true in all states in general election. Some states are by percentage and some are winner take all. The reason for the differences is the states get to make their own rules in regards to some things having to do with elections which gave the states power and say in the federal elections. How the states choose to use and divide up this power is up to them. Maine and Nebraska are the only two states that do this. Both give 2 electoral votes to the overall winner and then each congressional district is individually winner take the electoral vote. No one who has won those states since they adopted that system has ever lost any of the districts individually. Neither is strictly proportional. There was a push in '04 to make Colorado proportional headed by Democrats and one in California at the end of last year to adopt a Maine-Nebraska system headed by Republicans. Both failed for obvious partisan reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LizDevil30 Posted May 14, 2008 Share Posted May 14, 2008 She won huge in West Virginia. The talking heads keeps saying this win exploits Obama's weakness that he can't win low income whites with no college degree. Is it just me, but if I were from West Virginia I'd be insulted, they're saying West Virginia's are poor and stupid. But maybe they are too stupid in West Virginia to know they are being dissed. Anyone else think "Deliverance" when they hear West Virginia? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts