Clinton claims to lead in 'every poll'

[jendf]

Clinton Casts Wide Net of Exaggeration, Claims to Lead in “Every Poll”

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/05/28/politics/fromtheroad/entry4130842.shtml

BILLINGS, MONT. -- During an evening rally in Montana’s largest city Tuesday night, Hillary Clinton explained to the crowd why she should be the Democratic Party’s nominee, but what ensued was a list of overstatements and exaggerations as she made her case. “You have to ask yourself, who is the stronger candidate? And based on every analysis, of every bit of research and every poll that has been taken and every state that a Democrat has to win, I am the stronger candidate against John McCain in the fall,” she said.

The problem is, there are a number of polls that show Clinton in a close race with John McCain, many within the margin of error, not including a few that show Barack Obama beating McCain by a larger margin than Clinton. The comment was intended to prove to voters that despite Obama’s popularity, she has what it takes to beat John McCain. Clinton said that voters have to ask themselves, “Who is the stronger candidate against John McCain? We have not gone through this exciting, unprecedented, historic election, only to lose,” she said.

For days, Clinton has been grasping at almost anything to make her case to voters as the clock in the campaign winds down. Most recently Clinton compared the plight of Florida and Michigan voters to the struggles of the early suffragists and likened the primaries of those states to the fraudulent election that took place in Zimbabwe.

Video at link...

Mrs. Clinton wouldn't stretch the truth for personal gain would she?!   

[Lauri]

well, here is the problem for me. it appears she has won more states and they are still so tight - she could possibly pull it out with SDs and a few more wins.

its not likely... but who among us thought McCain would wind up in the lead? I sure didnt.

i think they have to take it all the way to the convention in Denver in August... dont give up Hilary! 

[jendf]

well, here is the problem for me. it appears she has won more states and they are still so tight - she could possibly pull it out with SDs and a few more wins.

its not likely... but who among us thought McCain would wind up in the lead? I sure didnt.

i think they have to take it all the way to the convention in Denver in August... dont give up Hilary! 

I agree with you completely. Fight to the death! (That might have been a poor choice of words. I forget who we are dealing with here.) 

[Miss Mia]

well, here is the problem for me. it appears she has won more states and they are still so tight - she could possibly pull it out with SDs and a few more wins.

its not likely... but who among us thought McCain would wind up in the lead? I sure didnt.

i think they have to take it all the way to the convention in Denver in August... dont give up Hilary! 

She hasn't won more states and Obama's within 50 delegates of securing the nomination. 


BTW, of course Clinton leads in "all the polls" she only counts the ones where she's winning.  Any other poll is bunk. 

[Lauri]

well, here is the problem for me. it appears she has won more states and they are still so tight - she could possibly pull it out with SDs and a few more wins.

its not likely... but who among us thought McCain would wind up in the lead? I sure didnt.

i think they have to take it all the way to the convention in Denver in August... dont give up Hilary! 

She hasn't won more states and Obama's within 50 delegates of securing the nomination. 


BTW, of course Clinton leads in "all the polls" she only counts the ones where she's winning.  Any other poll is bunk. 

are we counting Florida and Michigan, or not? that may be where the math is off..

i overheard Hannity yesterday stating, "I hate to say this, but I think the Clinton's have a case here" .. pertaining to the Dems asking her to step aside right now..

unless Hannity is a covert OC soldier..

[Wretched Excess]

well, here is the problem for me. it appears she has won more states and they are still so tight - she could possibly pull it out with SDs and a few more wins.

its not likely... but who among us thought McCain would wind up in the lead? I sure didnt.

i think they have to take it all the way to the convention in Denver in August... dont give up Hilary! 

She hasn't won more states and Obama's within 50 delegates of securing the nomination. 


BTW, of course Clinton leads in "all the polls" she only counts the ones where she's winning.  Any other poll is bunk. 

that's not-so-indirectly questioning the basis, or indeed, the validity, of his inevitable nomination.  there's "never say die", and then there is this . . .

[Miss Mia]

well, here is the problem for me. it appears she has won more states and they are still so tight - she could possibly pull it out with SDs and a few more wins.

its not likely... but who among us thought McCain would wind up in the lead? I sure didnt.

i think they have to take it all the way to the convention in Denver in August... dont give up Hilary! 

She hasn't won more states and Obama's within 50 delegates of securing the nomination. 


BTW, of course Clinton leads in "all the polls" she only counts the ones where she's winning.  Any other poll is bunk. 

are we counting Florida and Michigan, or not? that may be where the math is off..

i overheard Hannity yesterday stating, "I hate to say this, but I think the Clinton's have a case here" .. pertaining to the Dems asking her to step aside right now..

unless Hannity is a covert OC soldier..

Not counting MI & FL he's within 50.  We'll have to see how they're going to split MI & FL, but there's not enough for her to overcome him in delegates.  She wants all of the MI delegates, and that's just not going to happen. 

[Wretched Excess]

well, here is the problem for me. it appears she has won more states and they are still so tight - she could possibly pull it out with SDs and a few more wins.

its not likely... but who among us thought McCain would wind up in the lead? I sure didnt.

i think they have to take it all the way to the convention in Denver in August... dont give up Hilary! 

She hasn't won more states and Obama's within 50 delegates of securing the nomination. 


BTW, of course Clinton leads in "all the polls" she only counts the ones where she's winning.  Any other poll is bunk. 

are we counting Florida and Michigan, or not? that may be where the math is off..

i overheard Hannity yesterday stating, "I hate to say this, but I think the Clinton's have a case here" .. pertaining to the Dems asking her to step aside right now..

unless Hannity is a covert OC soldier..

Not counting MI & FL he's within 50.  We'll have to see how they're going to split MI & FL, but there's not enough for her to overcome him in delegates.  She wants all of the MI delegates, and that's just not going to happen. 

another reason that she has abandoned discussing the delegates (aside from the obvious one ) in favor of the "popular vote argument".  but it's interesting how she is phrasing it;  "More people have voted for me in the primaries", and "I have the most votes in the primaries", which is typically clintonian phraseology.  she is making a more or less true statement, but leaving aside the DNC ruling on FL an MI.  and then, she dances around the fact that obama wasn't even in the freaking ballot in MI by only referring to people that DID cast votes for HER.

I dunno.  I just thought that was altogether too clever.  not on the level of "the definition of 'is'", but typically clintonian nonetheless.

[Wretched Excess]

Not counting MI & FL he's within 50.  We'll have to see how they're going to split MI & FL, but there's not enough for her to overcome him in delegates.  She wants all of the MI delegates, and that's just not going to happen. 

and her last chance to even set up a chance at a "hail mary" evaporated in IN.  we all realized it here.  maybe her staff is reading the wrong websites.

[Miss Mia]

well, here is the problem for me. it appears she has won more states and they are still so tight - she could possibly pull it out with SDs and a few more wins.

its not likely... but who among us thought McCain would wind up in the lead? I sure didnt.

i think they have to take it all the way to the convention in Denver in August... dont give up Hilary! 

She hasn't won more states and Obama's within 50 delegates of securing the nomination. 


BTW, of course Clinton leads in "all the polls" she only counts the ones where she's winning.  Any other poll is bunk. 

are we counting Florida and Michigan, or not? that may be where the math is off..

i overheard Hannity yesterday stating, "I hate to say this, but I think the Clinton's have a case here" .. pertaining to the Dems asking her to step aside right now..

unless Hannity is a covert OC soldier..

Not counting MI & FL he's within 50.  We'll have to see how they're going to split MI & FL, but there's not enough for her to overcome him in delegates.  She wants all of the MI delegates, and that's just not going to happen. 

another reason that she has abandoned discussing the delegates (aside from the obvious one ) in favor of the "popular vote argument".  but it's interesting how she is phrasing it;  "More people have voted for me in the primaries", and "I have the most votes in the primaries", which is typically clintonian phraseology.  she is making a more or less true statement, but leaving aside the DNC ruling on FL an MI.  and then, she dances around the fact that obama wasn't even in the freaking ballot in MI by only referring to people that DID cast votes for HER.

I dunno.  I just thought that was altogether too clever.  not on the level of "the definition of 'is'", but typically clintonian nonetheless.

Her popular vote meme is bunk.  That completely discounts caucus states.  There's no accurate count of popular vote in a caucus, since some states only report the number of delegates to the state and not the number of votes. 

This was a race for delegates not popular vote.  The super delegates know that.  Hillary knows that.  Bill knows that.  It's just like the General is a race for the electoral votes, not the popular vote.   

[Wretched Excess]

well, here is the problem for me. it appears she has won more states and they are still so tight - she could possibly pull it out with SDs and a few more wins.

its not likely... but who among us thought McCain would wind up in the lead? I sure didnt.

i think they have to take it all the way to the convention in Denver in August... dont give up Hilary! 

She hasn't won more states and Obama's within 50 delegates of securing the nomination. 


BTW, of course Clinton leads in "all the polls" she only counts the ones where she's winning.  Any other poll is bunk. 

are we counting Florida and Michigan, or not? that may be where the math is off..

i overheard Hannity yesterday stating, "I hate to say this, but I think the Clinton's have a case here" .. pertaining to the Dems asking her to step aside right now..

unless Hannity is a covert OC soldier..

Not counting MI & FL he's within 50.  We'll have to see how they're going to split MI & FL, but there's not enough for her to overcome him in delegates.  She wants all of the MI delegates, and that's just not going to happen. 

another reason that she has abandoned discussing the delegates (aside from the obvious one ) in favor of the "popular vote argument".  but it's interesting how she is phrasing it;  "More people have voted for me in the primaries", and "I have the most votes in the primaries", which is typically clintonian phraseology.  she is making a more or less true statement, but leaving aside the DNC ruling on FL an MI.  and then, she dances around the fact that obama wasn't even in the freaking ballot in MI by only referring to people that DID cast votes for HER.

I dunno.  I just thought that was altogether too clever.  not on the level of "the definition of 'is'", but typically clintonian nonetheless.

Her popular vote meme is bunk.  That completely discounts caucus states.  There's no accurate count of popular vote in a caucus, since some states only report the number of delegates to the state and not the number of votes. 

This was a race for delegates not popular vote.  The super delegates know that.  Hillary knows that.  Bill knows that.  It's just like the General is a race for the electoral votes, not the popular vote.   

I didn't say I bought it.  I think the dems need to get rid of this "proportional allocation of delegates" (which is one of the simpler variants, without even getting into weighting delegates for particular congressional districts) thing, and implement a "winner take all" system.  that's the biggest reason that their primary has drug on forever.

did you follow mine and frank's thread about the primaries vs caucuses in the nebraska primary thread?  I am sure you commented in it . .. .

[Miss Mia]

I didn't say I bought it.  I think the dems need to get rid of this "proportional allocation of delegates" (which is one of the simpler variants, without even getting into weighting delegates for particular congressional districts) thing, and implement a "winner take all" system.  that's the biggest reason that their primary has drug on forever.

did you follow mine and frank's thread about the primaries vs caucuses in the nebraska primary thread?  I am sure you commented in it . .. .

I did follow that thread.  I'm sure there will be changes to the primary system.  Wait, I'm not sure, because that would be logical to make changes, so now I'll assume that nothing will change.

[Wretched Excess]

I didn't say I bought it.  I think the dems need to get rid of this "proportional allocation of delegates" (which is one of the simpler variants, without even getting into weighting delegates for particular congressional districts) thing, and implement a "winner take all" system.  that's the biggest reason that their primary has drug on forever.

did you follow mine and frank's thread about the primaries vs caucuses in the nebraska primary thread?  I am sure you commented in it . .. .

I did follow that thread.  I'm sure there will be changes to the primary system.  Wait, I'm not sure, because that would be logical to make changes, so now I'll assume that nothing will change.

those superdelegates bother me.  they were invented so that the party could keep "the people" from getting carried away and nominating a guy that the party elders considered unelectable, or, more likely, "unacceptable".  but their existence was also compelled because of the proportional allocation plan . . .

the SDs are apparently going to do the right thing in this case, but that doesn't mean that they aren't anti-democratic in their very nature.

[Miss Mia]

I didn't say I bought it.  I think the dems need to get rid of this "proportional allocation of delegates" (which is one of the simpler variants, without even getting into weighting delegates for particular congressional districts) thing, and implement a "winner take all" system.  that's the biggest reason that their primary has drug on forever.

did you follow mine and frank's thread about the primaries vs caucuses in the nebraska primary thread?  I am sure you commented in it . .. .

I did follow that thread.  I'm sure there will be changes to the primary system.  Wait, I'm not sure, because that would be logical to make changes, so now I'll assume that nothing will change.

those superdelegates bother me.  they were invented so that the party could keep "the people" from getting carried away and nominating a guy that the party elders considered unelectable, or, more likely, "unacceptable".  but their existence was also compelled because of the proportional allocation plan . . .

the SDs are apparently going to do the right thing in this case, but that doesn't mean that they aren't anti-democratic in their very nature.

I agree about the super delegates not being very democratic in nature.  I understand, yeah if Obama is found with a dead girl/live boy they're a back up and could nominate Hillary.  But really, if a candidate is going down in flames like that, I just say let all the pledged delegates have the freedom to vote for who they want at the convention.

The caucus system also needs to change, as well as the system of what states go when. 

[paladin0]

It's not the number of states that matter, it's the delegates that matter. States like CA and NY have much more delegates than the smaller states, and unfortunately for Clinton they aren't winner take all in the democratic primary like the general election. Unless something happens, the weaker democratic candidate is going to take the nomination, and with Hillary opposing him, Barak will not win the election. She's setting herself up for 2012.

Paladin0