Hillary Clinton is Done: part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
Loss Leader said:
Forget what I just said. Looking at the numbers, Sanders would have to win nearly every delegate at stake today to be able to be competitive. Unless she's arrested by aliens for violating some alien child porn act and promptly beheaded before the Galactic Senate - and unless this all happens before 9:00 a.m. California time - she will be the nominee.
Click to expand...

Why do the media count superdelegate votes based on polls? Why don't they wait until the actual vote happens, like they do for primaries and caucuses?
 
sunmaster14 said:
Why do the media count superdelegate votes based on polls? Why don't they wait until the actual vote happens, like they do for primaries and caucuses?
Click to expand...

Because their "polling" is done by asking each of the actual delegates how they will be voting.
 
PhantomWolf said:
Because their "polling" is done by asking each of the actual delegates how they will be voting.
Click to expand...

Isn't polling of primary races done by asking each of the people polled how they will be voting? Why not just declare the delegates based on the results of the polls? Sure there's a little bit of statistical error, and perhaps some small systematic bias, but if you average several different polls, you get a pretty good result.
 
Tricky said:
Because it is news and they are newspapers.
Click to expand...

Well, it's reasonable to report the result of a poll of superdelegates, but I think it's misleading to imply that the vote is a forgone conclusion. The Democratic nomination process is different from the Republican one. In the Republican process, the delegates are bound to vote for their pledge on the first ballot. The superdelegates in the Democratic process can change their mind right up until the moment they vote. Just like real voters in a real election.
 
sunmaster14 said:
Why do the media count superdelegate votes based on polls? Why don't they wait until the actual vote happens, like they do for primaries and caucuses?
Click to expand...

Wait wut ? Since when does the media wait for all the actual votes to be counted prior to making a "call" ?

Also, polling super delegates seems rather straightforward , doesn't it ? Not. Lot of mystery or guess work.
 
sunmaster14 said:
Isn't polling of primary races done by asking each of the people polled how they will be voting? Why not just declare the delegates based on the results of the polls? Sure there's a little bit of statistical error, and perhaps some small systematic bias, but if you average several different polls, you get a pretty good result.
Click to expand...

Friendly advice:

Don't try to figure out the US Electoral system, for either party. If you do, bring Tylenol.
 
PhantomWolf said:
And yet you are the one that is rewriting it by blaming Hillary. Yes Hillary convinced Obama, but that was irrelevant to whether the West was going to intervene in Libya. The French were already on the ground, they had already started pushing to have a coalition and an resolution in the UN to allow them to start Airstrikes. Nicolas Sarkozy and David Cameron had things in motion in February, mostly via the French President but Cameron was publicly pushing from the end of February onward.

On the 1st of March the US senate voted to support a UN sanctioned no-fly zone, but the US still wasn't committed to providing aircraft for it.

On the 2nd the Canadian Government committed to joining any UK/French coalition to enforce the No-Fly zone.

On the 11th the UK publicly and come out that they would be involved and operating in Libya to enforce the no-fly zone as soon as the UN agreed to it.

On the 14th Obama sent Clinton to Paris to meet with the leader of the Libyan Rebels and Sarkozy. Both Sarkozy and then later Cameron pushed her to agree to support intervention pointing out that they had Arab leaders in agreement as well. In fact your only link states this in that she relayed to Obama and the cabinet what she had been told and that she was "surprise[d] that Arab leaders not only supported military action but, in some cases, were willing to participate. Mostly, though, she warned that the French and British would go ahead with airstrikes on their own, potentially requiring the United States to step in later if things went badly."

Sarkozy and Cameron also warned her that if the US failed to help, then it would potentially be damaging to NATO.

It was not until Clinton returned after this meeting on the 15th that the US Cabinet met and voted to be involved in the intervention.

Also from your own link....

Dennis B. Ross, then a senior Middle East expert at the National Security Council, said he remembered listening to her and thinking, “If she’s advocating, she’s advocating in what I would describe as a fairly clever way.”

He recalled her saying: “‘You don’t see what the mood is here, and how this has a kind of momentum of its own. And we will be left behind, and we’ll be less capable of shaping this.’”

Yes, so very "vocal" that even those in the room questioned if she was actually advocating for intervention.

On the 17th the UN passed the resolution to act.

Clinton was only instrumental in convincing the US Cabinet that they needed to support their allies in actions that were going to happen anyway, because if they didn't:

a) They'd likely have to get involved if things went wrong
b) It would give them a chance to actually determine what was done
and c) Because not doing so could harm their NATO alliances

Had the US not been involved, Libya still would have been attacked by the European, Canadian, and Arab Coalition forces. The US might have been drawn into it later than they were, but the end result would have been the same.

Your focusing entirely on the US's part and Clinton's minor actions in the entire things totally misses what really happened and who were really responsible for it all.
Click to expand...

U.S. involvement was by no means a sure thing:

"But a far more formidable lineup was outspoken against an American commitment, including Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.; Tom Donilon, the national security adviser; and Mr. Gates, the defense secretary, who did not want to divert American air power or attention away from Afghanistan and Iraq. If the Europeans were so worried about Libya, they argued, let them take responsibility for its future.

“I think at one point I said, ‘Can I finish the two wars I’m already in before you guys go looking for a third one?’” Mr. Gates recalled. Colonel Qaddafi, he said, “was not a threat to us anywhere. He was a threat to his own people, and that was about it.”

...

On the same March afternoon when Ambassador Rice was telling her French colleague at the United Nations to back off, President Obama and his security cabinet were arrayed in the White House situation room. Speaking on the video screen from Cairo was Secretary Clinton, just arrived from Paris.

The day before, at lunch with President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, she “was tough, she was bullish” on the idea of intervention in Libya — the “perfect ally,” recalled Mr. Sarkozy’s senior diplomatic adviser, Jean-David Levitte.

...

I’ve always thought that Hillary’s support for the broader mission in Libya put the president on the 51 side of the line for a more aggressive approach,” Mr. Gates said. Had the secretaries of state and defense both opposed the war, he and others said, the president’s decision might have been politically impossible.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/us/politics/hillary-clinton-libya.html?_r=0

"Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, national security adviser Thomas E. Donilon and others were against military action, contending that the United States had no clear national interests at stake and that operations could last far longer and cost more lives than anyone anticipated.

But Clinton joined U.N. Ambassador Susan E. Rice and White House adviser Samantha Power in pressing Obama to back a U.S.- and NATO-led military campaign, arguing that the United States could not let Gaddafi butcher his citizens."

Clinton has repeatedly defended the Libya military intervention as U.S. “smart power at its best.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/2016/02/03/a-tough-call-on-libya-that-still-haunts/

What really bothers me is the person who wants me to vote for her thought a military adventure in Libya was a good thing and pressured Obama to get on board. Obama was under no obligation to get involved in any of this. Article V wasn't invoked, and if the New York Times article is accurate (and I see no reason to dispute it, or Gates' account), Obama was on the fence about getting involved, had plenty of political cover to not get involved, and Clinton convinced him to do it. Maybe we would have been sucked in anyway...but maybe not. All we know is that Clinton pressured Obama, we got involved, and it turned to ****, as pretty much every Middle Eastern involvement does.

It's one thing to reluctantly support your allies, it's quite another to be a cheerleader for regime change. That's what you get with Clinton. "Smart power at its best", am I right?
 
Last edited:
applecorped said:
Bernie should run as an Independent. everyone loves a spoiler
Click to expand...

I think any other year he might. But this time around, making Trump a viable option by taking votes away from Hillary is too dangerous. I trust he'll make the right decision and ask (beg?) his hardcore supporters to vote for Hillary and we'll regroup this little revolution thing in 4 years.
 
Hillary was going to be the presumptive nominee when NJ's vote came in, so none of this is exactly shocking. It just happened earlier than we thought.

I will point out that both Trump and Clinton are presumptive nominees and both face unique obstacles in actually becoming the nominee of their party. It's quite possible Trump could say/do something so vile it disqualifies him and even his pledged delegates abandon him.

In Clinton's case there's the FBI investigation, and a recommendation by the FBI to the DoJ for criminal charges would probably finish Hillary. No party has ever nominated someone under indictment and I doubt the Dems want to be the first.
 
Fudbucker said:
Hillary was going to be the presumptive nominee when NJ's vote came in, so none of this is exactly shocking. It just happened earlier than we thought.

I will point out that both Trump and Clinton are presumptive nominees and both face unique obstacles in actually becoming the nominee of their party. It's quite possible Trump could say/do something so vile it disqualifies him and even his pledged delegates abandon him.

In Clinton's case there's the FBI investigation, and a recommendation by the FBI to the DoJ for criminal charges would probably finish Hillary. No party has ever nominated someone under indictment and I doubt the Dems want to be the first.
Click to expand...
Denial, she ain't just a river in Egypt, is she?
 
sunmaster14 said:
Why do the media count superdelegate votes based on polls? Why don't they wait until the actual vote happens, like they do for primaries and caucuses?
Click to expand...
They say they talked to every single superdelegate multiple times in the last six months. They also say there's no history ofsuperdelegates switching their allegience.
 
wareyin said:
Denial, she ain't just a river in Egypt, is she?
Click to expand...

Right, because no FBI investigation has ever toppled a major politician, certainly not one as squeaky clean as the Clintons have been all these years.

I almost expect to be called a "nattering nabob of negativity" at some point.
 
Fudbucker said:
Right, because no FBI investigation has ever toppled a major politician, certainly not one as squeaky clean as the Clintons have been all these years.

I almost expect to be called a "nattering nabob of negativity" at some point.
Click to expand...
They're only presumptive nominees, the Republican delegates can break their own party rules and not vote for Trump, while the FBI can topple Clinton, even though they've found no evidence of criminal wrongdoing. Right. Accept the reality of the situation, stop dreaming of meteor strike like events that might get your candidate back in it.
 
Fudbucker said:
Right, because no FBI investigation has ever toppled a major politician, certainly not one as squeaky clean as the Clintons have been all these years.

I almost expect to be called a "nattering nabob of negativity" at some point.
Click to expand...

Nagging nutjob of naivete, maybe, but I don't use Safire quotes. I'm still smarting from the mobilization of the fake Silent Majority.

You know how politics works. Obama is gearing up to campaign for Hillary and has expressed his interest in so doing through his people. The FBI does not indict. The DoJ indicts. Can you picture the DoJ embarrassing the boss like that? It isn't going to happen.
 
Foolmewunz said:
Nagging nutjob of naivete, maybe, but I don't use Safire quotes. I'm still smarting from the mobilization of the fake Silent Majority.

You know how politics works. Obama is gearing up to campaign for Hillary and has expressed his interest in so doing through his people. The FBI does not indict. The DoJ indicts. Can you picture the DoJ embarrassing the boss like that? It isn't going to happen.
Click to expand...

Yes, I can picture the DoJ embarrassing "the boss" like that, because they've done it before. When Nixon fired Archibald Cox, the attorney general and deputy attorney general immediately resigned.

What do you think the reaction from top FBI officials will be if they recommend charges and the DoJ doesn't indict? As I've said, we've been down this road before...

It probably doesn't matter if the DoJ tries to protect Clinton. At this point an FBI recommendation of criminal charges would be sufficient to derail Clinton's nomination.
 
Fudbucker said:
Yes, I can picture the DoJ embarrassing "the boss" like that, because they've done it before. When Nixon fired Archibald Cox, the attorney general and deputy attorney general immediately resigned.

What do you think the reaction from top FBI officials will be if they recommend charges and the DoJ doesn't indict? As I've said, we've been down this road before...

It probably doesn't matter if the DoJ tries to protect Clinton. At this point an FBI recommendation of criminal charges would be sufficient to derail Clinton's nomination.
Click to expand...

The Cox situation is not comparable. It was a desperation move by Nixon. A Democratic special consul, appointed to appease congress who then refused to obey "the boss" who he felt he didn't report to. Where is the Cox-comparable character in these "investigations". Where is the desperate-and-drowning Nixon in this scenario? Until those people are on the scene, there's no such Saturday Night Massacre scenario.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom