It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


10 things to remember after the Pennslyvania Primary

page: 1

log in


posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 08:55 AM

10 things to remember after the Pennslyvania Primary

1. Remember that there's no way Hillary can become the nominee without a superdelegate coup -- which would alienate a generation of young Democrats and dangerously fracture the party.

2. Remember that her campaign leaked internals showing an eleven point lead (as a means of firing up her supporters and getting out the vote). Therefore, any win smaller than eleven points should be considered a disappointment by her own assessment.

3. Remember that every time Hillary begins a sentence with "you know," or "my opponent," the next thing out of her mouth is a lie.
(visit the link for the full news article)


Removed entire copy-and-paste from the source website.

[edit on 23-4-2008 by SkepticOverlord]

posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 08:55 AM
Enough said.
(visit the link for the full news article)

posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 09:54 AM
Well Clinton won Pennslyvania by 10%... 45% Obama to 55% Clinton... but it is not the upset pundits are claiming... it was expected that Clinton would win... an upset would have been if Obama had won. Still... 10% is far lower than what she needed to score... 20% or above and after the noses are counted, Obama still leads her by about 150 delegates + or - a few.

It seems that the only way Clinton can beat Obama in any given primary is going dirty.

Its going to get ugly and she will still lose, if not the convention then the general election.

posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 10:08 AM
reply to post by grover

you say this campaign is getting dirty?...wait till the general election. why do you think Rove went back to texas last fall? he knows it's going to be damn hard for McCain to win in 08, and he's going to pull out all the stops as it pertains to race baiting if obama is the selection, and he will make hillary seem like the anti-christ resurrection of bill clinton, if she is the other words "you ain't seen nothin' yet"

posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 10:55 AM
From a PA Independant voter who was turned away from the polls yesterday (right... an Ind. has NO say in the Primaries in PA... some voice, eh?).... you only need to remember one thing... you don't need to vote for any of them in November. Vote for one of "us"...

Root for America!

posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 11:02 AM
reply to post by RabbitChaser

c'mon...your the one who chose to be an "independent"...this is a "democratic" primary...and yes, that means you can't vote for either obama or clinton...because's for democrats only!!! what part of that do you not understand?

posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 11:11 AM
reply to post by RabbitChaser

just read your blue submitted link... and shocker!!! it seems you do understand and this thread was simply a lie, meant to fool people. nice try, why don't you go down to texas and put in an application to join Karl Roves team

posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 11:33 AM
reply to post by jimmyx

You certainly need to explain yourself a bit more clearly, as you make absolutely no sense in either of you posts. Not attacking... I just can't read your mind of some things you seem be trying to imply. I just can't determine what those 'things' are, as I do not read minds.

Looking further... maybe I can gather some, but certainly not the last of it.

And for my experience at the polls, I should have sent you specifically to this post and continues into the following one.

And as I voiced in an email to a state voter rep. of some sort, a Jonathan Marks, As an Independant voter I should ahve a say in whichever party I decide in the Primaries... not just the General, imo. As well as it not being geared to a 2-party system by making it more difficult for those running from "lesser" parties to get on the ballot. I certainly would prefer to choose from 11 Libertarian candidates, than the few crooks being forced on everyone now. Wouldn't you?

[edit on 4/23/2008 by RabbitChaser]

[edit on 4/23/2008 by RabbitChaser]

posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 11:37 AM
Hillary can't win except through a miracle .. and I can't see God coming down out of heaven to help Hillary.

However, she has a right to stay in the race until someone gets the delegates that they need for the nomination.

The article says - Hillary is a liar.
But so is Obama.

Hillary is corrupt. But so is Obama.
Hillary 'misspeaks'. But so does Obama.
Hillary evades answering questions. But so does Obama.

The choices stink all around.

[edit on 4/23/2008 by FlyersFan]

posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 02:54 PM
I don't agree with you often flyerfan but I do on this... its going to get ugly but when you mention Rove and race baiting tactics I am reminded that you called Obama racist... the knife cuts both ways ya know... the Republicans use race or any other knee jerk hot buttons like sexuality or imigration, whatever, when ever they can and it is just plain obscene.

posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 06:04 AM
This article makes an interesting point:

So, Hillary claims a victory in Pennsylvania. Who could have predicted that?

Maybe Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

"I’m not saying anything bad about my candidate but I– it is funny at New Hampshire that all the ones that were hand-counted went for Obama and all the ones that were machine counted went for Hillary."

Any thoughts?

posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 11:28 AM
I don't understand budski. What is the implication?

Hand count v machine count. Who is he implying is cheating?

posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 11:31 AM
From what I gathered, he's saying that the machine counts may be a little less than 100% reliable.

I don't really have any thoughts about this one way or the other (unless there IS cheating) as I don't know enough about the process, but I do know machine votes are something of a contentius issue.

I just thought I'd throw this in the mix to spark things up a bit

posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 11:34 AM
Ah ... okay.

I remember in the last election that some of the machines here in Philly already had a few thousand kerry votes on them when the poll workers arrived for election day. Those machines were removed and replaced. The tainted machines were taken away for 'investigation'. (never heard anything more about it)

I would imagine that if machines have irregularities, then it would be caught by the poll workers - as long as there are at least a few from the dems and republicans on hand - keeping an even balance of poll workers.

posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 11:39 AM
I've read quite a number of articles that have expressed concern about voting machines, and might have even posted a couple.

From memory, they have been tagged as being a little unreliable - as have postal votes in the UK.

It seems that there will always be doubts whenever people don't vote "by hand"

posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 01:02 PM

Originally posted by FlyersFanI would imagine that if machines have irregularities, then it would be caught by the poll workers...

Well, imagine a rural distrct with irregular machines, matched with rurally 'irregular' people...

"'dey's aint's katchin' nutin'... and wat's a irgegularty?

u2u me if you want my post about my experience at the polls on Tuesday in PA.

posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 03:49 PM
Here are some articles about the alleged problems.

I know alternet isn't everyones cup of tea, but in some articles there are links to original articles, and they are interesting despite the political spin.

posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 10:11 AM

Originally posted by RabbitChaser
imagine a rural distrct with irregular machines, matched with rurally 'irregular' people...

Geee thanks for that image RabbitChaser ... I'll sleep well tonight. NOT!

You do have a point. It IS definately something to think about.
But what do we do? Chads? Machines? I dunno' ...

new topics

top topics


log in