What went wrong for Hillary Clinton?

[bush_cheney2004]

With due respect, I think you're totally wrong. In many respects we're the same country as we were at any time since the introduction of black and female suffrage.

Agreed..and at the risk of being patronizing...how could they really know first hand. I often refer to the "shocking" 2004 election results as ample evidence of skewed windage from those who look on from afar. Others are wise enough to just say there will be an election with unknown outcome, maybe while expressing a preference.

[jbg]

Agreed..and at the risk of being patronizing...how could they really know first hand. I often refer to the "shocking" 2004 election results as ample evidence of skewed windage from those who look on from afar. Others are wise enough to just say there will be an election with unknown outcome, maybe while expressing a preference.

They consider us ignorant about Canada, and themselves knowledgeable about the US. They don't like the shoe being reversed.

[Guest American Woman]

Agreed..and at the risk of being patronizing...how could they really know first hand. I often refer to the "shocking" 2004 election results as ample evidence of skewed windage from those who look on from afar. Others are wise enough to just say there will be an election with unknown outcome, maybe while expressing a preference.

Some of us here found the 2004 election results to be shocking, too. Because of that election, and the screwed up 2000 election prior, there's no way I'll say with confidence what the results of this election will be. And that's not a good thing, nor is it being "wise." It's the result of having a lack of faith in our country as it now stands.

[bush_cheney2004]

Some of us here found the 2004 election results to be shocking, too. Because of that election, and the screwed up 2000 election prior, there's no way I'll say with confidence what the results of this election will be. And that's not a good thing, nor is it being "wise." It's the result of having a lack of faith in our country as it now stands.

Actually it is a very good thing. The day you can call results with certainty beforehand is a far more difficult proposition. Bush supporters did not stamp their feet and threaten to move to Canada if Kerry won.

[Guest American Woman]

Bush supporters did not stamp their feet and threaten to move to Canada if Kerry won.

Why would they?? Canada would have been even less Bush-like than the U.S. under Kerry would have been.

And fyi, "stamp their feet" makes you sound like every other idiot out there parroting that same phrase over and over again.

Edited June 1, 2008 by American Woman

[bush_cheney2004]

Why would they?? Canada would have been even less Bush-like than the U.S. under Kerry would have been.

And fyi, "stamp their feet" makes you sound like every other idiot out there parroting that same phrase over and over again.

See...you're doing it again.

[Shady]

As of yet, I have not voted. However, when attempting to do so, I noticed an option that wasn't available. Two reasons why Hillary lost the nomination. Michigan and Florida. If they hadn't moved up their primary, as a result disqualifying them from participating, she wins both by large margins. As a result, grabs a large amount of delegates, as well as fund-raising, and as important, momentum.

However, at no fault of her own, they wanted to have a bigger impact, and move up in the process. And even worse, it was the Republican legislature in Florida that did her in. It's pretty obvious that her winning both big states by double-digits on super tuesday would have seriously crippled Obama. Unfortunately for her, two of her biggest prizes aren't going to count for as much as they should have.

Just think if instead of Michigan and Florida, it was Georgia and North Carolina that decided to skip to the front of the line. Does anyone think that Obama would be the nominee if those two states would have been disqualifed and counted for half of their value? Of course not.

In conclusion, Hillary was done in by the process, not the opponent. That's undeniable.

[Guest American Woman]

Michigan was disqualified even before the vote, so many people didn't bother to vote. Why vote when the vote didn't even count and Hillary was basically the only candidate on the ballot? One could have voted "non-committed," but were those votes for Obama or Edwards? The whole thing was quite pointless IMO, and it's impossible to say who would have won the Michigan primary if it had been a normal election.

Edited June 1, 2008 by American Woman

[bush_cheney2004]

...In conclusion, Hillary was done in by the process, not the opponent. That's undeniable.

The biggest opponent was herself. Senator Clinton was done in by her own arrogance, and internecine Clinton fighting for control of the DNC didn't help either. It is like herding cats.

[Shady]

, and it's impossible to say who would have won the Michigan primary if it had been a normal election.

That's not true. Hillary consistantly polled much higher than Obama in Michigan and Florida at any time during the primary process. And voter turnout was up significantly in both states. So I don't think many people stayed home. Especially with all the hype.

[jbg]

Some of us here found the 2004 election results to be shocking, too. Because of that election, and the screwed up 2000 election prior, there's no way I'll say with confidence what the results of this election will be. And that's not a good thing, nor is it being "wise." It's the result of having a lack of faith in our country as it now stands.

I believe that both countries have a bit of over-representation of rural and thus more often Conservative/Republican areas. In part this is because if there were a "tyranny of the majority" at the outset of the formation of a country the people controlling the majority of the land would refuse to join in the formation of the new country. While land doesn't vote, keeping large amounts of territory under involuntary control is a daunting task.

Just ask the ROC about controlling Quebec.

[BubberMiley]

Just ask the ROC about controlling Quebec.

At the risk of being patronizing, how could you really know firsthand?

[Guest American Woman]

QUOTE=American Woman: and it's impossible to say who would have won the Michigan primary if it had been a normal election.

That's not true. Hillary consistantly polled much higher than Obama in Michigan and Florida at any time during the primary process. And voter turnout was up significantly in both states. So I don't think many people stayed home. Especially with all the hype.

Yes it is true, and voter turnout was low in Michigan-- not up, much less significantly-- and it was lower among Democrats than Republicans, even though Michigan is a blue state . As I said, a lot of people didn't vote because it didn't count and because Hillary was the only one of the three main Democratic contenders on the ballot.

As for the polls showing Hillary higher than Obama in Michigan-- even if that's true, and I question whether it is, polls can be, and often are, wrong.

Edited June 2, 2008 by American Woman