Clinton? Obama? or Edwards? Who Will It Be?

page: 1
12
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 18 2007 @ 08:00 PM
link   
The Democrat's Convention is to be held in St. Paul, MN, August 25 to August 28.

Here is how the Democratic Party’s nomination will be decided. I have made a list by date of the primaries and caucuses to be held early. I may have overlooked your state, or an important state, but that was accidental and not intentional.

The convention will have 4,360 voting delegates. In the past some smaller states have used half-voting delegates to increase their number of attendees, but I have not heard if that will be allowed in 2008. 2,181 votes are needed to win the nomination.

The race for the White House traditionally kicks off in Iowa with its famous caucuses held in each of its 5 congressional districts at the same time.
Iowa, January 14, 2008. 56 delegates to choose.
Nevada, January 19, 2008. Caucuses choose 33 delegates.
New Hampshire. January 22, 2008. The first primary chooses 30 delegates.
Florida and South Carolina. January 29, 2008. Primaries. FL chooses 210 delegates, SC picks 54.
February 5,2008, is the Super Tuesday for Democrats.
California, 440 delegates, the largest bloc.
New York, 280 delegates.
Illinois, 185 delegates.
Georgia, 105 delegates.
Colorado, 71 delegates.
Arizona, 67 delegates. And
New Mexico, 36 delegates.
Michigan and Washington state vote on February 9, 2008. MI has 157 votes and WA 97.
Maine votes on February 10, 2008, to pick 34 votes. See Foot Note.
Virginia votes on February 12, 2008, George Washington’s birthday.
103 delegates to choose.
Texas, another big state, votes on March 4, 2008. 228 delegates.
Ohio, also voting picks 161 delegates.
Massachusetts, 120 votes. And
Vermont. Also on March 4, 2008. has 23 delegates. See Foot Note.
Pennsylvania, April 22, 2008, 181 votes.
West “By God” Virginia, May 6, 2008, 37 votes.
North Carolina, also May 6, 2008, has 110 delegates.
Kentucky and Oregon, May 20, 2008, KY 55 votes. OR 62 votes.
Puerto Rico, on June 1, 2008, chooses 58 delegates.
Other states select delegates after June 1.

The foregoing states choose a combined 3,053 delegates, more than enough to win.

Dates and number of delegates from: www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/


Foot Note. The country’s voters turned to the Democrats and FDR in 1932. By 1936, the New Deal had been in place nearly 4 years and it was very popular with the voters. James Farley, FDR’s Postmaster General, was picked by FDR to again run his reelection campaign. Since the 1840s, Maine had voted for its local offices early, in September. Bad weather and crops to harvest gave the Down East’ers little time for politics in the fall.

Maine’s voters had proven to be a bellwether for the nation, most often showing the way the fall election would go. In 1936, Maine went Republican in September, which prompted many wags to predict the Dems would be put out of office come November. When asked about this bad omen Farley said, “As Maine goes, so goes Vermont.” As it turned out, FDR carried all of the 48 states except Maine and Vermont, confirming Farley’s prediction.

[edit on 7/18/2007 by donwhite]




posted on Jul, 18 2007 @ 08:25 PM
link   
To answer your question I need to put in a DISCLAIMER if I may... I called this election the day after the 2006 election and called it for Hillary. I believe they want to destroy America in 4 terms and those are Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton so this has been my prediction and basically even with my disclaimer it is my prediction because I believe that they are counting the votes on their Diebold machines and whomever they say they want to win will win....

Now the DISCLAIMER...

It is possible that if, and thats a big IF, Al Gore runs I think he can beat Hillary, I thnk Americans wish they coudl do it over, nd some believe he won that one anyways. So NO AL all Hillary, IF Al I would go with AL...



posted on Jul, 18 2007 @ 08:30 PM
link   
You got some good material here but left kinda a cliff hanger as you didn't throw your two cents in about who you believed would take the spot.

In my perspective here in Iowa Obama is taking all the hits. As Clinton has had a hard time drawing in a crowd while Obama brings them in by the thousands.

I don't want to see the Clinton's in office again and am sure a lot of people would agree.

Outside of the ignorant people bashing Obama with statements like "his middle name is hussien don't vote for him" he's got it hands down. Haven't heard any legitamite statements that really bring out any skeletons in this guys closet. Obama's got my vote.

As far as Edwards.... Who's he. j/k



posted on Jul, 18 2007 @ 08:39 PM
link   
boots on the ground, per se ... (?)

Obama, seems to be the democratic equivalent of Ron Paul ... funded mostly by individual/singular donations.


Money can't buy you love, and this time around I don't think it'll buy you an election either ... change is in the wind, hopefully ...



 



posted on Jul, 18 2007 @ 08:42 PM
link   
I pray to God Al Gore/Barack Obama run together. They will clean Hillary's clock.

They would win, hands down.

If only big Al comes around.

Without him in the race, I would like to see Ron Paul win the GOP nomination; and I will be voting for him in the primaries. His nomination is about as likely, tho, as the tooth fairy being crowned miss USA.


Anyway, I'm disgusted by the fact that the establishment keeps telling us that we love Hillary, b/c frankly, we don't. And, as Americans, we don't shine to dynasties. Can you imagine, over 20 years of Bush/Clinton rule? It makes me wanna gag, pull my hair out and run away to Venezuela.

Can I get an amen?



posted on Jul, 18 2007 @ 08:50 PM
link   
AMEN!!!

Cept the hair pulling part I am bald and pulling leg hairs or others HURTS



posted on Jul, 18 2007 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by theindependentjournal
AMEN!!!

Cept the hair pulling part I am bald and pulling leg hairs or others HURTS


Man, that made me LAUGH!


But its crazy. Like in the Army, you either laugh or you cry, regardless. I want to cry already because I think the Democrats are DUMB enuff to nominate Hillary. They will lose an historic shot at realigning the entire US polity and world, for the better if they put her in the big seat.

Oh well, at least I can rest knowing I'll be voting for Ron Paul in the primaries. That might be it for me. And that would be fine.



posted on Jul, 18 2007 @ 09:40 PM
link   

posted by Nathabeanz
You got some good material here but left kinda a cliff hanger as you didn't throw your two cents in about who you believed would take the spot. In my perspective here in Iowa Obama is taking all the hits. As Clinton has had a hard time drawing in a crowd while Obama brings them in by the thousands. I don't want to see the Clinton's in office again and am sure a lot of people would agree.


My feeling is that Hillary is best positioned to run and win. She has been in politics as long as her husband - late 1970s - and was often rumored to be the “brains” behind the throne. I believe Bill Clinton did a very good job running the country from 1993 to 2001. I do not know how much credit Hillary deserves. I know others do not agree about her. None of them have offered a plan equal to the Clinton 1993 tax code which gave us a balanced budget and a projected surplus. Pay as you go has real appeal to me. Not to pay as you go amounts to shifting the tax burden to the future just because you have the power and opportunity to do it. It’s called cheating.

The perpetrators of the 1993 WTC bombing are in prison and we did not spend $750 b. and lose 3,600+ KIA and kill over 75,000 others in the process. Although the Balkans have not yet ended their disputes, they have stopped committing genocide and are not fighting today. Their disparate ethnic backgrounds are arguably as complex as those of the Iraqis. Outcomes depend largely on good planning and careful execution. Results will invariably show which you had going-in.

2008 is Hillary‘s year. She is 60 this year. Assuming whoever other than her wins the 2008 election and is reelected, her next opportunity would be 2016. She would be 68 years old. Almost as old as Ronald Reagan, our oldest president. She’d really be too old to be taken seriously. OTOH Barack was born in 1961 and is 46 years old. He will be 54 in 2016, a good age to take on the presidency. Whether as vice president or as a senator from Illinois, he will mature in his job and gain wisdom that comes only with age. Now that Barack has entered the foray big time, he will be around until he catches the big banana. Or tries and loses. But that’s for 2016.


Outside of the ignorant people bashing Obama with statements like "his middle name is Hussein don't vote for him" he's got it hands down. Haven't heard any legitimate statements that really bring out any skeletons in this guys closet. Obama's got my vote. As far as Edwards.... Who's he. j/k


Well Mr J/K, nothing beats believing in your cause. Barack polls in the mid 20s and Hillary polls in the mid to high 30s. She has hit 40 in some polls. I fail to see how it can be said Barack has it “hands down.” I am not denigrating the Iowa caucus. 56 delegates. Winning is always better than losing. It has a lot of psychological value. It can save a weak candidate but it cannot ruin a strong one. All I can say for sure is hey, Iowa is closer to Illinois than NY. Regardless who wins Iowa it is only 22 days from Jan. 14 to Feb. 5. That’s going to be the real test of both sides; February 5. Who wins that day will wrap up the nominations in both parties. I predict.

Hillary (and Bill) have been investigated more than any other two people on earth! We all know everything about them, good and bad. You are right in saying we know all we need to know about Obama. He sounds squeaky clean. I like John Edwards. He is the only candidate speaking to the poor of America. Sort of a re-born RFK. He is soiled goods from 2004. But he’s my choice for Homeland Security Secretary in ‘09. That’s it, Mr J/K.

[edit on 7/18/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Jul, 18 2007 @ 10:10 PM
link   
Well, now. I'm rather surprised to see this thread in a CM forum.


Okay, then. Let's cook this turkey!


For those who haven't seen it, I'd like to point out the the following thread. There's a lot of good reading there, going back to January 1st of this year. Just to show a little "street cred," I am the #4 post in this thread. Don and I have been talking this over for slightly more than a year. I'm glad to see new participants.

If you have had a chance to see what's in this forum, you know what I think about our future. In her own way, Mrs. Clinton provided me with some motivation to write my first book. She scares me. She's scare me even if she were a man because we haven't seen the kind of Machievellian skill she posesses on the national scene in quite some time.

My suspicion of her began when her husband first ran for the Presidency. the two of them show a degree of ambition that puts other couples to shame. I really do think she is the more cunning of the two. I have no doubt thathey'd both be good company to have over for a saturday barbecue, but as a populist...I'm just not liking what I see. My opinion has evolve only slightly since coming to ATS. I fear. I do not hate. I repsect her ability to harness the dark powers of American politics. It takes an exceptional person to do that.

The political trend that I write about on ATS has een profoundly "verified" by the actions of George W. Bush. The pllitical trend that I forecast is none too good. You may find the current podcast series to be worth looking at. I honestly don't think that any person who could be our next President would be capable of avoiding the many temptaitons that Mr. Bush has given in to. What's Hillary going to do with a domestic spying program, and all that questionable legislation?



posted on Jul, 18 2007 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite


My feeling is that Hillary is best positioned to run and win. She has been in politics as long as her husband - late 1970s - and was often rumored to be the “brains” behind the throne. I believe Bill Clinton did a very good job running the country from 1993 to 2001. I do not know how much credit Hillary deserves. I know others do not agree about her. None of them have offered a plan equal to the Clinton 1993 tax code which gave us a balanced budget and a projected surplus. Pay as you go has real appeal to me. Not to pay as you go amounts to shifting the tax burden to the future just because you have the power and opportunity to do it. It’s called cheating.


DW, you should vote Republican, because in today's paradigm, that's exactly what Hillary is.

That's who she's pandered to to get where she is and that's what she will be: an AIPAC following, pro-war, pro-corporate triangulator.




posted on Jul, 18 2007 @ 11:27 PM
link   
In other discussion,s I have maintained that Hillary will out-conservative the conservatives. The country is moving to slightly right of center these days, and she knows it. My concerns remain unchanged.



posted on Jul, 18 2007 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
In other discussion,s I have maintained that Hillary will out-conservative the conservatives. The country is moving to slightly right of center these days, and she knows it. My concerns remain unchanged.


Ah, but you're right and you are wrong. Hillary will, infact, out conservative the false conservative candidate, if the establishment has its way.

The country is not moving slightly right of center; its moving left.

Hillary's position is bullsh&*. Plain and simple. Just like John McCain's. And that is precisely why he is tanking. Because he is a liar. Inauthentic. The Dumocrats can nominate Hillary, but she stands a dam fine chance of losing - becuase of her inauthenticity and adherence to AIPAC. It's unAmerican.



posted on Jul, 18 2007 @ 11:52 PM
link   
My read of the socio-demographic situation suggests that more and more Americans are moving slightly right of center because they feel the need to be defensive. There's no doubt at all in my mind that the country will vote Left in 2008. The concensus seems to be that the GOP needs to be punished. A lot of republicans will vote Left to send a message to the GOP. Once Hillary is in office, more and more peole will feel that need I mentioned to be on their guard.

Being sociaiologically "right" or "left" doesn't always signal voting trends. Don has done some good essay work on the elections of '68. The country was "left," but they did vote "right." It's tempting to presume that the majority will kill the elephant and then embrace the donkey, but I don't see it that way. Once we see Hillary's true colors, we will most of us have good reason to be afraid.



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 12:01 AM
link   
What Im trying to say is simple: voting for Hillary (DEMS are you listening?!) is voting Republican.

Her stances are middle of the road Republican. Is that what you want DEMS? has it really been that long since 9-11 and the "old days"?

The answer is NO! Do NOT vote for Hilliary. She is the right-wing-accepted Dem candidate. (As in hedging of bets). Obama is an unknown and popular quantity; JOhn Edwards wants to fight poverty GD! That is NOT on the elite agenda; and on an on....



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 01:06 AM
link   
I think that every member of the Democrat's national committee knows what Hillary is, and what she's doing. The simple truth of the thing is that they would accept a lot from almost any candidate as long as that person could bring them victory. the Republicans would do the same thing. Look at Giuliani, who is arguablly more Liberal than Hillary in some regards. Cearly, the GOP is willing to hold its nose so long as they think that Rudy can bring them victory. The only real question in my mind is, how badly to the Republicans lose? I'm sure that even Fritz Mondale his own bad self will be watching this one.



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 02:46 AM
link   
Hillary will win the nomination and select Obama as her running mate . I have always thought that Hillary stayed married to Bill for political or some other gains and now we appear to be seeing the fruit of this . Having said that the private life of the president has little bearing on the persons performance as the president of the United States.

Maybe Hillary staying married to Bill gives an American voters an insight into her charterer I am really divided on this one.



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 02:31 PM
link   
I think the day wil come when we look back of the Bush43 presidency and think of it as The Goold Old Days. Hillary will make Bush seem tame by comparison. Bear in mind that not all of that mischief will be her doing. Some of it will be circumstance and serendipity that has been building for quite some time now.



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 03:10 PM
link   

posted by Xpert11
Hillary will win the nomination and select Obama as her running mate . I have always thought that Hillary stayed married to Bill for political or some other gains and now we appear to be seeing the fruit of this. Having said that the private life of the president has little bearing on the persons performance as the president of the United States. Maybe Hillary staying married to Bill gives an American voters an insight into her charterer I am really divided on this one.


Steadfastness. Courage in the face of disappointment. Making the best out of a less than desired circumstances not of your own making. Overcoming personal hardships. Assuming all or some of these descriptions of character we mostly admire are applicable to Hilary, why are you worried over Hillary? If she wins, that will be a FIRST in the FREE world, will it not?

Discounting Juan Peron and his second wife, Lolita, oops, I mean Eva! Known affectionately to many Argentines as Evita. Little Eva. But Eva never held office and Peron’s 3rd wife Izabel, served as acting or interim president for a year on his death. But not elected. See Wikipedia.


posted by Justin Oldham
I think the day will come when we look back of the Bush43 presidency and think of it as The Good Old Days. Hillary will make Bush seem tame by comparison. Bear in mind that not all of that mischief will be her doing. Some of it will be circumstance and serendipity that has been building for quite some time now.


J/O, it sounds like you are warning the devil you know is preferred to the devil you don’t know. While I don’t think Harry Reid is up to Tom Daschle I do think Nancy Pelosi can stand up to any man! Or woman. Relax, J/O. You’ll like it.

[edit on 7/19/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 03:44 PM
link   
I personally view Obama a much more viable candidate than either Hillary or Edwards.. While it is true that there is not much to base this on, given that Obama has only been a senator for one term, I just personally don't feel comfortable with either Hillary or Edwards.

It really doesn't matter to me... I am not likely to vote for any of the candidates that the Democrats have vying for the nomination... *Shrug*



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 04:07 PM
link   
There is still a lot of time until the demo convention.
Keep your eye on Gov. Bill Richardson from the great state of New Mexico.
Already he has bumped Edwards and he has some very powerful
friends with very deep pockets.

Personally I think he has already been selected by the PTB and his nomination is already in the bag.





top topics
 
12
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join