<p>
</p>
<p>Oh, never fear. You can be sure the Clinton campaign is working on such a catastrophe, even as we speak. And barring a political catastrophe (seeing as the Wright brouhaha doesn’t seem to have the legs they’d hoped it might), there’s always the “Ron Brown solution”.;)</p>
<p>@afruff23</p>
<p>I’m voting Obama simply on principle (besides, although I know my vote “counts”, I still think Hillary will win in my state-PA is very… :/)</p>
<p>“They keep bringing up dirt on each other and the republicans just sit there totally amazed. Now that the 2 of them are destroying each other, the republicans think they may actually have a chance here”</p>
<p>Or quite possibly, they won’t have anything to throw in the ring for the last part. Everythings getting tossed out now. In our society if it’s a couple weeks old, it might as well be 2000 years old. I would think the gop is going to run short of material by the time we get to the “one”. 
</p>
<p>What if all they have is “old news”? How shocked are people going to be? Sniper fire? the rev? yea, I heard about that…I don’t think the 68 convention really applies to this situation.</p>
<p>Christcorp:</p>
<p>Given the primary calendar, whole states have complained about being irrelevant. The complaint arises because a front-runner usually emerges early, making the late voting states redundant. That’s why Florida and Michigan tried to move their primaries up. </p>
<p>It made absolute sense for Huckabee, Giuliani and Romney to drop out when they did. Nonetheless, their supporters were “disenfranchised” by not being able to vote for their favorite candidates. This is the way it usually is. Fighting through the very last primary and all the way to the convention is the exception, not the norm. That was my point. And at this point, casting a vote for McCain is redundant.</p>
<p>I predict that Clinton will drop out before the convention, probably after she wins the Pennsylvania primary, but not big enough to really put her back into the game. She will be able to go out on a high note and not burn her bridges with the party. And…
“Obama lies just as much as other politicians. For some reason though, nobody notices this.”
Probably because it isn’t so. But keep on repeating it. That’s pretty much your best tactic, I think.</p>
<p>What is the latest over and under on Hillary releasing her tax returns (from last year!) by April 15?</p>
<p>Maybe her dog ate the papers while he was dodging sniper fire? ;)</p>
<p>(Does she even have a dog? Never mind. It won’t matter.:D)</p>
<p>As a voter, I think Hillary (& all candidates) should stay in the race as long as possible. It allows more info to be reavealed about them. Then we can make better informed choices.</p>
<p>Of course it’s particularly difficult among the dems right now as they have to decide who is “least bad” - that’s a tough one! haha - jk!</p>
<p>marite; what you say totally makes sense and is a legitimate complaint. However, the alternative is probably worse. A candidate could basically run out of money for campaigning yet still stay in the race. It doesn’t cost anything to remain on the ballet. Romney is the perfect example. Even though he dropped out of the race almost 2 months before Huckabee, he STILL HAD MORE DELEGATES when Huckabee dropped out.</p>
<p>The problem however is that keeping all those names on the ballot means that the chances go up astronomically that by the time the convention comes, that no one will have the required number of delegates. They’ll continue to be spread among all of them. That will then lead to the convention choosing. Now, if they wanted to get rid of the minimum amount of delegates required, and change it to whomever has the most delegates; assuming them win by at least 10%; then that is workable. But under the current Dem and Rep delegate process, it’s pretty difficult to have a winner with all 5-8 candidates still in the race.</p>
<p>Christcorp:</p>
<p>I agree. I was trying to address the argument about disenfranchisement of voters only. In every presidential primaries, there are voters who are disenfranchised one way or another.</p>
<p>Agreed. The way I would do it; but my way makes sense so the political parties won’t do it; would be to have 4 super-tuesdays. Each super tuesday is made up of 12-13 states. The delegate count would also be split up in fourths. This way you don’t have 1 tuesday with california, new york, texas, florida, jersey, etc… Each of the super-tuesdays would be worth 1/4th of all total delegates. I would spread these super-tuesdays by 2 months. I.e. 1/4th states on 1 Jan. 1/4 on 1 March. 1/4th on 1 May. And 1/4th on 1 July. By that time, the candidate for the party will be selected. That leaves 4 month for campaigning for the general election. This would also make it where candidates would have to spread their campaign funds further and stay in the race longer. Obviously, if a candidate was able to win all the states, they could have the minimum required delegates by the 2nd super-tuesday, but they would have had to practically win every state. This makes the chances of all states and all people being important.</p>
<p>Anyway, that would work, but they won’t do it. They have made the primaries political and economic. That is why states like Florida are being penalized by the democratic national committee for moving up their primary and being told their votes won’t count. Typical DNC. They want to control the government, money, and the voters. If I was FLorida and Mich I would tell the DNC that they allow their voters to have a say so or they go on an all out campaign to their voters and tell them to cross party lines and vote for McCain in the general election. Do you realize how important states like florida is? Ask Al Gore. Force the DNC to go back in the corner and Color. They work for the voters, not the other way around. But that is part of our country’s problems. The citizens blame the politicians and the government, yet they have the ability to change that. They just don’t.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>She’ll probably dump them tonight; Friday night is the best possible time to release negative information into the 24-hour news cycle.</p>
<p>Has anyone noticed how good Google ads is at placing ads on this forum. The topic is whether Hillary Clinton should quite now and the ad in the upper left corner of the page asks Should Hillary Quite Now? and shows a picture of Hillary Clinton. The ad changes at times and I don’t think it appears once you are actually logged in. </p>
<p>Google is amazing.</p>
<p>Answer to OP: Probably around March 2012 when she doesn’t have enough delegates to become the democratic nominee who will challenge President McCain during his reelection.</p>
<p>I have shakespeare the manga edition ( guess it could have been the bittorrent ed)</p>
<p>I hope she doesn’t quit anytime soon. Let her air any and all dirty laundry she has on Obama (or can make up) - doing so means there will be less stuff for Mr. 100-Year-War-But-I-Don’t-Understand-Economics or the “Stay-the-Course Party of Family Values” to spring later.</p>
<p>Anyone seen Casablanca? Hillary is “shocked, shocked to discover” that Florida’s votes aren’t going to count. Where was her righteous indignation when the DNC made it so? Where was her righteous indignation when she signed the no-campaigning agreement (which was the candidates’ choice, NOT the DNC’s decision). </p>
<p>There is NO WAY to fairly count the Florida vote. What about the people who didn’t vote because THEY WERE TOLD THE VOTE WOULD NOT COUNT? How do you count the votes of others without disenfranchising the folks who believed the DNC?</p>
<p>The Republicans were SO much smarter on this one. Gave up 1/2 the delegates, end of story. Come, campaign, etc., etc., and DON’T tick off your party members in an important electoral state.</p>
<p>BTW, I’m in Florida. I had to inform my son, who was voting in his first primary ever, that his national party had determined that his vote wouldn’t count. He voted anyway, but way to go Dems. You had a young, enthusiastic, engaged young man who would have worked for one of your candidates. Had he or she bothered to campaign here. So, so dumb.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, as a Republican, I’m amazed at a party that seems so determined to snatch defeat from the mouth of victory. I’m just snacking on popcorn, watching the show.</p>
<p>I think Will Rogers said it best:
“I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat.”</p>
<p>This is the impression foreigners have of the Clintons:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/04/04/nposters104.xml[/url]”>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/04/04/nposters104.xml</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think this is a better idea. Perhaps FL and MI decided to go with their early dates because they were willing to risk the DNC needed their votes to reach the magic number, and would change their minds. But if you use a percentage, and states start messing with the rules, then they have no recourse if the nominee is chosen by a percentage vs. a given number.</p>
<p>I suspect someone will find flaws in this theory, though.</p>
<p>$109 millions over last 8 years. Can I be an ex-president without being a president first?
[The</a> Page - by Mark Halperin - TIME](<a href=“http://thepage.time.com/2008/04/04/the-tax-woman-cometh/]The”>http://thepage.time.com/2008/04/04/the-tax-woman-cometh/)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>momof2inca - how’d you know?</p>