Aileron Posted May 16, 2008 Report Posted May 16, 2008 Ace, this election has been rigged in her favor since 1996 at latest. Ever since her husband was elected, there's always been talk about Hillary Clinton running for president. Mostly, the rigging has more to do with the names that never made it on the ticket. There are plenty of Democratic Senators and Governors with more hard experience than Hillary, but not once was it even suggested they run. Mostly, the plan was to nominate 6 no-name opponents for her to chew up. It is also apparent in 2004 when they selected a weak candidate like John Kerry to run against Bush. They almost wanted their guy to lose. Clearly, it was rigged before it started. Now, granted, it appears as though it stopped being rigged for the race. But, the possibility of a rigged outcome has still not been eliminated yet. For all we know, the 'decided' super-delegates are planning on suddenly voting Hillary in the last minute, just so they can portray her as the "Come-back kid" (again). Probably not, but at this point it is not 'definitely not'.
FMBI Posted May 16, 2008 Author Report Posted May 16, 2008 (edited) ROFL.. Clearly, it was rigged before it started. Now, granted, it appears as though it stopped being rigged for the race. It wasn't rigged in the first place, she was just favored by a bunch of self-proclaimed party leaders. All the talk about logic in the other thread, and now you're making insane statements like this? But, the possibility of a rigged outcome has still not been eliminated yet. For all we know, the 'decided' super-delegates are planning on suddenly voting Hillary in the last minute, just so they can portray her as the "Come-back kid" (again). That's a joke. Obama is 170 delegates ahead, she has to make up more than 300 while he only has to get 140 more. For months now, we've heard nothing but "WILL IT CONVINCE THE SUPER-DELEGATES", and we've heard the same inane statements repeated over and over by all the networks. Well, let me answer that. If they tried to switch allegiance to her now, it'd have to be a massive number (think 40% of the super delegate total or something along that line), and they'd all have to do it at the exact same time. You'd need billions (which, in case you hadn't heard, she does not have) of dollars in bribes and 5,000 riot police at the DNC. It ain't gonna happen. Edited May 16, 2008 by Finland My BorgInvasion
Aceflyer Posted May 16, 2008 Report Posted May 16, 2008 It wasn't rigged in the first place, she was just favored by a bunch of self-proclaimed party leaders. This seems to be the most logical thing to assume. Generally one !@#$%^&*umes polls aren't rigged unless there is reasonable evidence indicating they actually are rigged. All the talk about logic in the other thread, and now you're making insane statements like this? Which other thread?
AstroProdigy Posted May 17, 2008 Report Posted May 17, 2008 It seems to me that there is no evidence the powers that be ever tried to rig the nomination for Clinton. There was plenty of time to start pulling strings between Iowa and mid-February (up until around early- to mid-February' date=' IIRC, Clinton still had a lead in pledged delegates); clearly no strings were pulled, as Obama steadily caught up to and then overtook Clinton first in pledged delegates and more recently in superdelegates as well. If strings had been pulled one would have expected Obama to never have overtaken Clinton in pledged delegates; he would've been stopped by rigging after Iowa or, at the latest, after Super Tuesday.[/quote']Well not rigged in the literal sense of stuffing ballots and such, but the DNC is what decided the order of primaries. The Super Tuesday contests were essentially meant to knock Obama out with all of the big states that would go for Hillary. It's highly unlikely that the people in charge of the Democratic party would be willing to overturn a clear electoral mandate to nominate Obama because that would spell doom for both the presidential race and the congressional races. The Democrats are set to increase their majority in both the House and Senate so a major scandal is the last thing they want. I don't know what "strings" they could have pulled after Iowa short of cheating. He was below her in superdelegates even when he was clearly ahead in the votes. It took his strong showing in Kentucky and Indiana where it became clear Clinton couldn't win without giving all of the remaining delegates as well as counting Florida and Michigan at face value (even though Obama's name wasn't even on the Michigan ballot) before he took the lead in superdelegates.
Recommended Posts