It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Clinton seeks to go after Obama superdelegates

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Clinton seeks to go after Obama superdelegates


ap.google.com

RAPID CITY, S.D. (AP) — As Barack Obama turns to concentrate on his general election challenge, his rival Hillary Rodham Clinton is mounting a last ditch campaign to stay relevant in what is left of the Democratic presidential contest.

The former first lady enters this week with an insurgent strategy not only to win over undecided superdelegates but to peel away Obama's support from those party leaders and elected officials who already have committed to back him for the nomination.

"One thing about superdelegates is that they can change their minds," she told reporters aboard her campaign plane Sunday night.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 09:05 AM
link   
I spell desperation ... H...i...l...l...a...r...y C...l...i...n...t...o...n.

Its reaching the point where the only thing that can be said about her is pathetic.

I really think that she doesn't give a damn about the party or the election really... she's letting her ego run things now and if she can't be the Democratic nomination, she will be it's spoiler.

ap.google.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 2-6-2008 by grover]



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 09:14 AM
link   
She is destroying the democratic party... her "If I can't have it noone attitude" has to stop, shes childish. Give up alredy, if almost every debate starts with you saying "I can still win.. IF" and it has been like that for about 2 months, GIVE UP. she is a faker and a liar, she will say anything to try to get into the whitehouse. I personaly dont know where her votes are coming from, i know not a sole who likes her. I personaly hate her guts and cant stand to look at the bitch.



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 09:19 AM
link   
reply to post by tylerc25211
 


What I don't understand is the claim that she has the popular vote when the delegates are alloted by precentage based on the votes.

If that were true; that she has the popular vote, then why is she in the position that she's in?



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by tylerc25211
I personaly hate her guts and cant stand to look at the bitch.


Great.. I have an image of my ex-wife in my head now.


Hey, I guess you could think of her as America's ex-wife. That explains why everyone hates her..



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 09:26 AM
link   
It's funny how her chairman, McAuliffe talks about unifying the party...


"People are angry," he said. "This does not unify our party, this crazy, cockamamie thing they came up with in Michigan."





posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 09:33 AM
link   
For some reason I can imagine Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama starring in a modern version of Shakespear's "The Taming of the Shrew"


She would be perfect as Kate.

[edit on 2-6-2008 by grover]



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 09:47 AM
link   
reply to post by mythatsabigprobe
 


yeah Hilary is hold news, and she clearly changed from her younger days, (like most wifes). hate 1 liner rules.



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by grover


I really think that she doesn't give a damn about the party or the election really... she's letting her ego run things now and if she can't be the Democratic nomination, she will be it's spoiler.

[edit on 2-6-2008 by grover]


And that's what Republicans and conservatives have been saying for almost 20 years. The Clintons care about the Clintons. That's all they care about.

I think she's just setting herself up for a run again in 2012. To that end, she needs Obama to lose. In her mind, she's still got four years after the election to patch the rift in the party.



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 09:56 AM
link   
reply to post by vor78
 


I can assure you that if Hillary Clinton throws the election to McCain her political career is over... other than a few die hard's I don't know anyone who would vote for her after that.



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by grover
 


I agree, if she were to be open about her intentions, she'd be finished. But she won't do it overtly.



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by grover
reply to post by tylerc25211
 


What I don't understand is the claim that she has the popular vote when the delegates are alloted by precentage based on the votes.

If that were true; that she has the popular vote, then why is she in the position that she's in?


The claim is based on the absurdity of how the Democrats set up their system. Certain congressional districts were weighted with more delegates than others. The whole idea was to give more weight to inner city districts.

The best example is Texas. Clinton won Texas by over 100,000 votes, and yet Obama won more delegates. Nevada I think was the same. Clinton won Nevada's popular vote, and yet Obama was allocated more delegates.

Other examples:

Obama picked up 55 delegates just for winning Illinois in a romp. Clinton picked up a total of 52 delegates for winning the following 5 states:

Ohio
Pennsylvania
Oklahoma
Tennessee
New Jersey

So does it make sense that Obama's landslide win in Illinois counts more than Clinton's wins in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, Tennessee and New Jersey combined? I don't think so.

Or how about this example. Obama picked up a net 35 delegates in Georgia, a state where just over 1 million people voted.

Clinton LOST delegates in Texas, where 2.5 million people voted, and 100,000 more voted for her.

There is something seriously screwed up with a system where one candidate can pick up 35 delegates for winning a state where 1 million people voted, and another candidate can LOSE delegates by winning a state where 2.5 million people voted.

Or take the case of Louisiana vs. Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey. Obama picked up 12 delegates in this Louisiana where about 360,000 people voted.

Clinton picked up only 10 delegates in Pennsylvania where 2.5 million people voted, only 9 delegates in Ohio where 2.2 million people voted, and only 11 delegates in New Jersey where 1.1 million people voted.

So Obama's win in a small state like Louisiana was weighted more than Clinton's wins in PA, OH, or NJ. Does that make any sense?

The reality in the numbers in these primaries is that the black vote carried more weight than the white vote. This is just the math. Black districts were given proportionally more delegate weighting than white districts.

Break it down another way:

In Louisiana, a heavily black state, Obama got 1 delegate for every 6,000 people who voted for him.

In Pennsylvania, Clinton got 1 delegate for every 15,000 people who voted for her. In other words, Clinton needed 3 popular votes for every 1 popular vote that Obama got.

Or maybe the worst example is Washington D.C. Washington D.C. had a TOTAL of 110,000 people vote. Obama picked up a net gain of 7 delegates in Washington D.C. He got 1 delegate for every 8,000 popular votes.

In Texas, where Clinton won the popular vote by over 100,000 votes, she received 1 delegates for every 22,000 popular votes.

So the black vote in Washington D.C. was allocated 1 delegate for every 8,000 people who voted, while the white middle-class and hispanic voters were given 1 delegate for every 22,000 votes in Texas. Again, it's nearly a 3 to 1 ratio in the weight given to voters in the heavily black areas compared to the non-black areas.

Of course Clinton is ready to spit because she can't come out publicly and point this out about the disparity between the weight given to the black and white voters. She would be crucified in the media and within her own party.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join