Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Clinton 'Confident' After Keystone Win
Topic Started: Apr 23 2008, 10:32 AM (250 Views)
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
Quote:
 
Clinton 'Confident' After Keystone Win
N.Y. Senator's 10-Point Win Gives Campaign Push Forward
By JAKE TAPPER, GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS and EMILY FRIEDMAN
April 23, 2008 

Basking in her 10-point victory in yesterday's Pennsylvania Democratic primary, Hillary Clinton told ABC's "Good Morning America" today that her win gave her a great "vote of confidence" moving forward.

Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., was victorious in the Pennsylvania primary Tuesday, winning by 10 points.
(Elise Amendola/AP Photo)"We were outspent and it was a tough campaign but people really came through and gave me a great vote of confidence, telling me I could keep going," Clinton told "GMA's" Diane Sawyer, adding that she'd had a "great time" celebrating with supporters and staff last night.

But even her victory celebration speech revealed weaknesses, as she all but pleaded for financial contributions for her cash-starved campaign.

Prior to Tuesday's vote, the Clinton campaign had said it had $9 million on hand but $10 million in debts. Barack Obama's rival campaign, meanwhile, has $41 million dollars ready to spend.

But Clinton, who won 55 percent of the vote in Pennsylvania to Obama's 45 percent, may have climbed out of the red with a surge of post-election donations. As of 11:30 p.m. Tuesday, the Clinton campaign claimed it had raised nearly $2.5 million since the state was called for the New York senator. Eighty percent of that money came from new donors to the campaign, it said, calling it their "best night ever."

Related
Clinton's 'Big' and 'Sweet' Pa. Win Sends Democrat Brawl to N.C. and Ind.Still the Favorite, Will Obama Strike Back?BLOG: Recap the Pennsylvania PrimaryEchoing that sentiment, Clinton called Tuesday's win "very big and very sweet" and stressed that her win should send a message to unpledged superdelegates.

"The road to the White House does go through Pennsylvania," she said, adding that Tuesday's win proves that she can win the large and swing states, crucial to a November victory.


Clinton declined to endorse a call to let undecided superdelegates pledge to whoever wins the popular vote — where Obama still enjoys a half-million vote lead — saying that the popular vote is only "one of the most important factors" voters should consider.

"If you include Florida and Michigan, then the popular vote is very close," said Clinton, counting contests not sanctioned by the Democratic National Committee, where the candidates did not campaign and where (in Michigan) Obama's name did not even appear on the ballot. "In fact, I actually have more votes from people who actually voted for me."

Minus the two disputed states, Clinton is approximately 500,000 votes behind Obama in the popular vote.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/Vote2008/sto...=4709460&page=1


Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
Obama gave a much better lossers speach then Clinton's victory speach. Now if only I could beleave what Obama says.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ds9074
Member Avatar
Admiral
Quote:
 
"If you include Florida and Michigan, then the popular vote is very close," said Clinton, counting contests not sanctioned by the Democratic National Committee, where the candidates did not campaign and where (in Michigan) Obama's name did not even appear on the ballot. "In fact, I actually have more votes from people who actually voted for me."

Sounds fair to count votes in a state where you opponent wasnt even on the ballot paper. :rolleyes:
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
HistoryDude
Member Avatar
Shaken, not stirred...
Quote:
 
"In fact, I actually have more votes from people who actually voted for me."


I think I'm missing something from this Clinton quote? If they voted for her, why wouldn't she get them...? :headscratch:
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
HistoryDude
Apr 23 2008, 01:15 PM
Quote:
 
"In fact, I actually have more votes from people who actually voted for me."


I think I'm missing something from this Clinton quote? If they voted for her, why wouldn't she get them...? :headscratch:

Maybe she it pointing out the fact that Obama has had a strong showing in Caucus States as compared to her. There for Obama has more delegates who represent people who did not actually vote for him and so the flip side, Clinton has more delegates then Obama that represent people who actually voted.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
HistoryDude
Member Avatar
Shaken, not stirred...
I see.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ds9074
Member Avatar
Admiral
Maybe I'm wrong but this seems like Clinton trying to change the rules of the game during play. I doubt she would be complaining about these States where their contests wont count or trying to play down the importance of caucus based contests if she was benefiting from the way the rules stand.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
ds9074
Apr 23 2008, 12:49 PM
Quote:
 
"If you include Florida and Michigan, then the popular vote is very close," said Clinton, counting contests not sanctioned by the Democratic National Committee, where the candidates did not campaign and where (in Michigan) Obama's name did not even appear on the ballot. "In fact, I actually have more votes from people who actually voted for me."

Sounds fair to count votes in a state where you opponent wasnt even on the ballot paper. :rolleyes:

In Michigan Obama suporters where asked to "Vote Uncomited".

Quote:
 
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/15/mic...tted/index.html

(CNN) -- While Sen. Hillary Clinton won a majority of Michigan Democratic primary votes Tuesday, blacks and the youngest voters favored the "uncommitted" choice.

Sen. Hillary Clinton did not remove her name from the ballot in the Michigan Democratic primary.

According to CNN exit polling, 68 percent of blacks chose uncommitted, compared with 30 percent for the Democratic front-runner.

Forty-eight percent of all voters ages 18-29 voted uncommitted, compared with 43 percent for Clinton. The former first lady took more votes than uncommitted in all other age groups; the older the voters, the wider the margin was.

The racial disparity could be a bad sign for Clinton going into the South Carolina primary, where half of all Democratic voters are black.

Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama -- along with their surrogates and supporters -- have been engaged in bickering since last weekend over comments Clinton made about President Lyndon Johnson's contributions to the Civil Rights movement.

Some African-American leaders criticized the remarks as dismissive of the civil rights movement and of King. On Sunday, Obama described Clinton's comments as "ill-advised" but rejected any suggestion that his campaign has been behind the complaints.

By Monday, both candidates were calling for a truce.

Clinton was the only top-tier presidential candidate on the ballot in the Democratic primary, and she carried 58 percent of the overall vote, while 37 percent of the voters in the Democratic primary chose to vote uncommitted.

Michigan's decision to move its primary to January 15 angered national Democratic Party officials who were trying to slow the "front-loading" by states of the primary process.

Obama of Illinois and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards withdrew from the ballot as a show of solidarity, leaving a ballot of Clinton, Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, former Sen. Mike Gravel of Alaska and Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut, who later withdrew from the race.

Some Democratic leaders had urged Obama and Edwards supporters to vote "uncommitted" as a sign of support for their candidates.

If at least 15 percent of the voters in a congressional district opt for "uncommitted," delegates not bound to any candidate could attend the national convention.

That could allow supporters of Edwards or Obama to play a role in candidate selection -- if the national party changes its mind and decides to count Michigan's delegates.

"The bottom line is the Clinton people have managed to circumvent the process," former Michigan Sen. Don Riegle -- an Obama supporter -- told The Detroit News.

"Democrats should show there is a large number of people who don't like the railroad job they're trying to do for Hillary Clinton," he said.

A new group, Detroiters for Uncommitted Voters, started a grassroots campaign to promote the "uncommitted" option.

Democratic Rep. John Conyers and his wife, Detroit City Councilwoman Monica Conyers, said they would launch ads calling for "uncommitted" votes if there was no other way to register support for Barack Obama, The Detroit News reported last week.

The option was also endorsed by Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan and state Democratic Party Chair Mark Brewer as a way for Democrats who do not support Clinton to participate in the vote.

Neither man has endorsed a presidential candidate.


In 2008, more than in recent campaigns, the delegate count may prove important.

Narrow losses -- which still add to a candidate's delegate total -- could keep more than one hopeful in contention. "For the first time since 1988, this is a delegate race," Clinton aide Howard Wolfson said last
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
ds9074
Apr 23 2008, 01:39 PM
Maybe I'm wrong but this seems like Clinton trying to change the rules of the game during play. I doubt she would be complaining about these States where their contests wont count or trying to play down the importance of caucus based contests if she was benefiting from the way the rules stand.

Of course that is true, she is fitting to get any thing she can and is even trying to change the rules after the fact. But on the other hand she has some good points;

First Florida and Michigan would have helped her, they are states more closely aligned with her demographic voter base. She would have most likely picked up the majority of the delegates from both those states even if Obama was on the ballet in Michigan and they where allowed to campaign in both states. Not to mention (because it is not quantifiable) the unrealized effect of momentum Clinton would have had if she where given the proper delegates she would have won in Michigan and Florida.

The Florida and Michigan issue is even more complicated, because can it really be said that she is trying to brake the rules or is she standing up for what's right (even though what's right helps her out). By all reasoning the people of Florida and Michigan should not be punished for what their dopy party leaders are doing and they have no say in. There voices should be heard and they should be counted. And if they are it and somehow they could go back and do it all right, Clinton would benefit hugely from it. She might even be in the top spot now not the losing spot.

Caucuses are just another wrinkle with the same result. The will of the people in a state is not properly measured with a Caucus. What is measured is the ability of a candidate to energize their base. There is no doubt that Obama has the more energized base (which is why he did well in the Caucuses) but does that really mean he as a mandate from those states to be the parties nominee? It could actually mean that Clinton supports just did not have the time or energy to go and participate in a confusing Caucus; with Clinton supports being the elderly, woman (and so moms), and union lower class workers you can see why she would show poorly at a Caucus as these people are less likely to participate because they don’t have the time or energy. However with Obama locking up the college aged kids and upper income people, you can see that these people have the time and energy to spend at a Caucus and so why he did well. But it seems that the Caucus system has a certain way of disenfranchising a lot of voters (which by the way is the reason they where adopted)

If the party is truly worried about the will of the people, Clinton should be in a much better position then she is now. So when she makes the claim that she is the more electable candidate she isn't coming completely out of left field, it may very well be true. That might mean the Party should follow the will of the people and give her the win as she wants them too.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ds9074
Member Avatar
Admiral
^^^
Your making the assumption that she would have done well in those states or done better had the caucuses been regular votes. That may well be true but its a hypothetical that isnt provable one way or another.

My opinion is that you set the rules before the contest begins and then once you start you stick to them. You don't change part way through, particularly when you can be accused of pushing for changes to your own advantage.

To me the whole process of holding contests over such a long period and with different systems in place doesnt strike me as particularly democratic or efficient. Perhaps Clinton should have been making the case for reform a few years ago rather than right at the end of the nominations campaign? Perhaps she was I dont know.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
ds9074
Apr 23 2008, 03:31 PM
^^^
Your making the assumption that she would have done well in those states or done better had the caucuses been regular votes. That may well be true but its a hypothetical that isnt provable one way or another.

It is not necessarily true that its simply hypothesis that can't be proven; statistics are taken during these events a million different ways, and while of course you can never be 100% sure what the outcome would have been had a vote been taken correctly from the start in Florida or Michigan, you can make educated guesses and reasonable assumptions. And that leads to the next point bellow.

Quote:
 
My opinion is that you set the rules before the contest begins and then once you start you stick to them. You don't change part way through, particularly when you can be accused of pushing for changes to your own advantage.

To me the whole process of holding contests over such a long period and with different systems in place doesnt strike me as particularly democratic or efficient. Perhaps Clinton should have been making the case for reform a few years ago rather than right at the end of the nominations campaign? Perhaps she was I dont know.


"If" (I have no idea my self) it is reasonable to assume that Clinton would be the front runner at this point in time if the peoples will was correctly measured during the process; then the Democratic party has a way to both stick to the rules and carry out the will of the party members at the same time. They can do this with the Supper Delegates; both Obama and Clinton will need the majority of the Supper Delegates where they to win the election, that means the Supper Delegates can sway the party vote. "If" it is reasonable to assume that Clinton has the majority support of the parties members (taking into account the electoral system that divides support power by state) then it is reasonable to expect that the Supper Delegates give her the nomination. In this way they need not change the rules about Florida, Michigan and Caucuses and still the parties majority support is exercised.


Clinton is hoping to persuade the Supper Delegates that it is reasonable to assume she would other wise be the winning party if the collective will of the parties members where countered with out undo-hindrances where in the way; and that because of this that they should give her their support even if Obama has the most delegates going into the convention.

What would happen then, where she to get her way, would be that they would count Florida and Michigan in a symbolic gesture. Followed by the party fracturing doe to people not agreeing with the sway imposed by the Supper Delegates.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus