Should Hillary Quit?

What do you think?

She's starting to employ the gender card now for a last ditch effort claiming that people only want her to quit because she's a woman threatening the traditional male power structure. I saw an article yesterday about how her campaign can't believe the types of attacks they are facing, from..... for example, the facebook group "Hillary drop out of the race and make me a sandwich". The fact that she puts any weight any a facebook group is rather amusing in itself.

But looking at it from a politics standpoint, she's trailing in national polls, Obama just won the Texas delegate majority (which no one seems to be reporting) and neither candidate is gaining any real group going forward. Hillary is only weakening Obama's position by making him out to be inept, and she's coming off as the whiny woman who refuses to leave the party when she's had too much to drink. From an opposition standpoint I love that she's still in it. I don't particularly love any of the three candidates, but McCain right now gets my vote, so this is only helping.

I think if candidates start the political process they should continue until the last primary. I hate the fact that a candidate is chosen by the middle of Feb. and half the states haven't even voted yet.

I would also be for shortening the primary system. Jan to June is too long.

Scooby01_98 wrote:I think if candidates start the political process they should continue until the last primary. I hate the fact that a candidate is chosen by the middle of Feb. and half the states haven't even voted yet.

I would also be for shortening the primary system. Jan to June is too long.

A national primary day would be good ... all 50 states plus what ever islands get to vote.

Bman wrote:

Scooby01_98 wrote:I think if candidates start the political process they should continue until the last primary. I hate the fact that a candidate is chosen by the middle of Feb. and half the states haven't even voted yet.

I would also be for shortening the primary system. Jan to June is too long.

A national primary day would be good ... all 50 states plus what ever islands get to vote.

I also like the 4 region plan where there is 3 or 4 weeks between regions. Then the regions rotate as to who goes first. The only bad thing about 1 national primary is the candidates will skip over the smaller communities, not that it wouldn't happen with the 4 region plan.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/lawmakers-look-to-revolutionize-primary-plan-2007-07-31.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotating_Regional_Primary_System

Bman wrote:

Scooby01_98 wrote:I think if candidates start the political process they should continue until the last primary. I hate the fact that a candidate is chosen by the middle of Feb. and half the states haven't even voted yet.

I would also be for shortening the primary system. Jan to June is too long.

A national primary day would be good ... all 50 states plus what ever islands get to vote.

I completely agree... get organized and get it overwith.

I completely agree with some of the above. Either a national primary day or a region plan would be good. When did this Jan - June primary nonsense start? Probably before the information age. In this day and age, with the 24 hours news networks letting us know every time a candidate sneezes, the whole primary system needs overhalled.

And to answer Card's question...even though I don't want Hillary to win, I don't want to see her drop out until the primaries are done. Otherwise, those state's with upcoming primaries will feel cheated b/c the candidates will essentially have already been chosen.

What's the point in running if you can't win? Hillary keeps saying that the people should be allowed to decide, and they have, and she's not the one the majority of the people want. The odds of her winning the popular vote are only slightly larger than the odds of myself or bman winning.

I guess to me I just see it as you reach a point where you can't win, so why keep going? It's like the basketball teams that foul with 10 seconds left when they are done 15 points. You can't win, there is no 15 point shot and Reggie Miller isn't on your team.

I wonder if Hillary felt that Jesse should have kept running in 1988.....

She should drop out... mostly because I am tired of looking at her and want to see Obama and McCain go at it... I'm really looking forward to the general election. I think that should Obama's apparent victory hold, the best of both parties have made it through the primary (arguably). Some of you may remember years ago I said that if Hillary gets the democratic nomination I would vote for McCain...

cardinal5150 wrote:I guess to me I just see it as you reach a point where you can't win, so why keep going?

Exactly, but she's a Clinton. Yesterday, she claimed to be like Rocky Balboa, she never gives up.

LTRT2 wrote:

cardinal5150 wrote:I guess to me I just see it as you reach a point where you can't win, so why keep going?

Exactly, but she's a Clinton. Yesterday, she claimed to be like Rocky Balboa, she never gives up.

I saw that too... then I think they switched to another speech (or maybe it was the same) where she mentioned quiting and you could hear a bunch of old women without their dentures mumbling no..... good luck with that demographic.

I do have to wonder though.. at what point will her job in the Senate take priority.. or will it ever? Last I checked she was still holding office to represent her state, i find it hard to believe she can do so by being in Indiana. And it's forcing Obama to get out of the Senate as well, so her little party is taking out 2% of our Senate at the least.

cardinal5150 wrote:What's the point in running if you can't win? Hillary keeps saying that the people should be allowed to decide, and they have, and she's not the one the majority of the people want. The odds of her winning the popular vote are only slightly larger than the odds of myself or bman winning.

I guess to me I just see it as you reach a point where you can't win, so why keep going? It's like the basketball teams that foul with 10 seconds left when they are done 15 points. You can't win, there is no 15 point shot and Reggie Miller isn't on your team.

I wonder if Hillary felt that Jesse should have kept running in 1988.....

the people should be allowed to decide....LONG AS THEY DECIDE ON HER

floridafun wrote:

cardinal5150 wrote:What's the point in running if you can't win? Hillary keeps saying that the people should be allowed to decide, and they have, and she's not the one the majority of the people want. The odds of her winning the popular vote are only slightly larger than the odds of myself or bman winning.

I guess to me I just see it as you reach a point where you can't win, so why keep going? It's like the basketball teams that foul with 10 seconds left when they are done 15 points. You can't win, there is no 15 point shot and Reggie Miller isn't on your team.

I wonder if Hillary felt that Jesse should have kept running in 1988.....

the people should be allowed to decide....LONG AS THEY DECIDE ON HER

So you are discrediting every prior election primary process that ended at Super Tuesday because not everyone was allowed to vote?

I've changed my opinion on this. Well, I'm still tired of looking at Hillary... but she should not drop out. The process should continue as it was designed... The idea that Hillary should drop out for the sake of the party is putting the party ahead of the candidate, which is probably one of the greatest problems with our political system as it stands...

pez wrote:The idea that Hillary should drop out for the sake of the party is putting the party ahead of the candidate, which is probably one of the greatest problems with our political system as it stands...

Cheers! An excellent point. Long live Ron Paul!

pez wrote:I've changed my opinion on this. Well, I'm still tired of looking at Hillary... but she should not drop out. The process should continue as it was designed... The idea that Hillary should drop out for the sake of the party is putting the party ahead of the candidate, which is probably one of the greatest problems with our political system as it stands...

So using this logic, every candidate should stay in then?

If they have the means to do so, yea... Hillary isnt mathematically eliminated yet. Once she is out she should be out (same would be true for other candidates). I'm just opposed to the notion that "for the good of the party" a candidate should drop out.

pez wrote:If they have the means to do so, yea... Hillary isnt mathematically eliminated yet. Once she is out she should be out (same would be true for other candidates). I'm just opposed to the notion that "for the good of the party" a candidate should drop out.

I hear you, it sure would make things interesting for all those crunching numbers on the primary nights.

LTRT2 wrote:

pez wrote:If they have the means to do so, yea... Hillary isnt mathematically eliminated yet. Once she is out she should be out (same would be true for other candidates). I'm just opposed to the notion that "for the good of the party" a candidate should drop out.

I hear you, it sure would make things interesting for all those crunching numbers on the primary nights.

My prediction: If Hillary drops out, it will secure the victory for McCain.

Note: I'm not "pro" any of the candidates at this point, I just see the writing on the wall. I doubt that the majority, or the electoral college will give the office to a near rookie, who entered office through a vacancy.

meta4 wrote:

LTRT2 wrote:

pez wrote:If they have the means to do so, yea... Hillary isnt mathematically eliminated yet. Once she is out she should be out (same would be true for other candidates). I'm just opposed to the notion that "for the good of the party" a candidate should drop out.

I hear you, it sure would make things interesting for all those crunching numbers on the primary nights.

My prediction: If Hillary drops out, it will secure the victory for McCain.

Note: I'm not "pro" any of the candidates at this point, I just see the writing on the wall. I doubt that the majority, or the electoral college will give the office to a near rookie, who entered office through a vacancy.

WTF ... who entered through a vacancy? Barack Obama, McCain and Clinton are ALL sitting Senators of which the two nominees will be nominated by their respective parties. Granted, they have each served differing lengths of time in the Senate and granted each has a different level of intelligence too. That was meant as a dig at McCain and a prop for Obama and Hillar.

Bman wrote:

Granted, they have each served differing lengths of time in the Senate and granted each has a different level of intelligence too. That was meant as a dig at McCain and a prop for Obama and Hillar.

One served as a POW and another had to battle sniper fire during a visit. Except only one of those is true.

Markwes wrote:

Bman wrote:

Granted, they have each served differing lengths of time in the Senate and granted each has a different level of intelligence too. That was meant as a dig at McCain and a prop for Obama and Hillar.

One served as a POW and another had to battle sniper fire during a visit. Except only one of those is true.

Nice... get one of those POWs over here to serve me some coffee before I get my sniper rifle out...

Bman wrote:

meta4 wrote:

LTRT2 wrote:

pez wrote:If they have the means to do so, yea... Hillary isnt mathematically eliminated yet. Once she is out she should be out (same would be true for other candidates). I'm just opposed to the notion that "for the good of the party" a candidate should drop out.

I hear you, it sure would make things interesting for all those crunching numbers on the primary nights.

My prediction: If Hillary drops out, it will secure the victory for McCain.

Note: I'm not "pro" any of the candidates at this point, I just see the writing on the wall. I doubt that the majority, or the electoral college will give the office to a near rookie, who entered office through a vacancy.

WTF ... who entered through a vacancy? Barack Obama, McCain and Clinton are ALL sitting Senators of which the two nominees will be nominated by their respective parties. Granted, they have each served differing lengths of time in the Senate and granted each has a different level of intelligence too. That was meant as a dig at McCain and a prop for Obama and Hillar.

My wife and I were having coffee this morning talking about how Hannity is a tool. *yeah, I guess I should qualify that I was stating that Hannity (and Rush) are both tools. But anyhow, she said Barak Obama is a professed Muslim, and he entered the senate through an office vacancy... she forgot which tool he replaced...

Is this true?

I don't think so, Barack Obama won his senate seat by beating Alan Keyes in the election. Obama faced a primary challenge too. The republican contest was a mess, the leading candidate got mired in a sex controversy (messy divorce) and dropped out and the republican party picked Alan Keyes to be their candidate in that election.

and yes ... Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh are tools and Ann Coulter is a $#%^ (4 letter word that I know would offend people on here, so I will refrain).

Jack Ryan was undone by the release of his child custody hearing records. They contained sexual allegations (which were not proven) by his ex-wife Jeri Ryan AKA 7 of 9. Keyes was recruited by the GOP to take over and accepted the challenge with less than 90 days to the election and did not even live in Illinois at the time (he established residency to run for office). So while not technically true, these facts added to his unsuccessful primary election in 2000 for the US House so could see how some would like to spin it.

i have to ask...how does having survived a pow make one qualified for president?