Comments on: Hillary Clinton as an independent presidential candidate?

by: indo45

Fri, 16 May 2008 07:14:34 +0000

Many poeple regreted not see her and not vote her. now they seemed do not have a choice , they do not want vote McCain or Obama. Time have proved HRC will be a great president. Run third party Hillary. Give Obama all superdelegates, let DNC unite, But do not give your voters. We will win, I talked with many poeple they turned like you, Hillary. I will campaign for you.

Run an independent, Hillary . Obama can not wait. I can not wait too for you to be a woman president , I has been waiting for 16 years .

by: Sean

Tue, 29 Apr 2008 19:58:14 +0000

My hope is to get Hillary as McCain’s VP. Think of the goodness that would follow

by: Stefan

Sun, 27 Apr 2008 20:56:48 +0000

Yes, I go accord with this last statement. If she goes to another party, it will be clear that she is for her own power, and she would not like mothers to see that. At the moment, she is hoping that the superdelegates see Obama imploding and consider her as more viable and for a relative strong showing with the remaining primaries, otherwise she will ensure the so called “dream-ticket” and arrange something for BO, and blame it on white racists or even terrorists. (If Obama has been a Muslim at any time, he would be considered an infidel now by any Muslim).
Perhaps a good strategy fro them is to arrange something like this if BO is on visit in Iraq, or on the way per plane (e.g shot by a missile). She will do anything to be the president and would know she has to do a wise thing and not go third party. They could also stage an even where a sharpshooter supposedly fires on BO, but then the ambulance ensures that “he is taken care of”. This is unfortunately the reality of human greed and power.

by: Conspiracy Monger

Sat, 26 Apr 2008 17:31:32 +0000

No reason why Hillary wouldn’t take the VP nod.

If she did, I would take out a life insurance policy on B.O.’s life.

If Vince Foster can shoot himself in the back of the head with a black powder pistol that fired a 9mm, then roll himself up in a carpet just hours after a full dinner and sex…and if Ron Brown’s plane can crash during a “storm” with clear skies, then ANYTHING is possible with the Clinton machine.

There are literally HUNDREDS of similar cases related to the Clintons.

by: Catholic Trotskyist

Sat, 26 Apr 2008 07:43:02 +0000

Clearly, John Lowell is right that this is a terrible time for our civilization. Fortunately, the Barack Obama Revolution will overcome all obstacles. Hopefully this threat by hillary will encourage more people to adopt the Fringe Alliance Statregy.

by: G.E.

Sat, 26 Apr 2008 05:52:32 +0000

I’d rather have her than Bob Barr.

by: Michael Seebeck

Sat, 26 Apr 2008 05:46:30 +0000

Neither the CP or LP would have her, Pete. (except maybe in a stock to throw tomatoes at!)

by: Pete Kelly

Sat, 26 Apr 2008 04:13:54 +0000

Oh yes,...and she would be helped by winning the Independence Party’s ballot lines in about 10 or so states….Independent/ce Green Party would do it for her..Green Party is up around 25 state ballot lines now and growing…by the day..

by: Pete Kelly

Sat, 26 Apr 2008 04:08:08 +0000

Dear Mr. Rothstein,

Ballot access is the issue.

There is only one way for the lady to get on the ballot this late in the game.

Constitution Party convention is now. Libertarians are in May. She is too late for them.

The Green Party convention is July in Chicago. The Lady would have to join the Green Party. She would have seek and win the Green Party nomination to get on the ballot. Mike Gravel, Cynthia Mckinney, Jesse Johnson, and Ralph Nader are the most likely Green Party nominees now.

She simply doesn’t have time to get the signatures necessary to be on the ballot as an Independent.

Could she pull it off this late? Fun conjecture. Much more interesting than the boring two major party drivel major media keeps force feeding us.

by: G.E.

Sat, 26 Apr 2008 00:38:06 +0000

Michael – Yes, if the winner were determined by individual plurality in the Congress, then the Democratic nominee (Obama) would win. But that’s not how it works. Each state delegation gets one vote. Assuming Hillary can capture a few state delegations, they can threaten to defect to McCain if the Obama people don’t come her way. She has some “moral legitimacy” to taking such actions, due to the Michigan/Florida situation.

I don’t think Hillary has a chance in 2012 or 2016. The Clintons cannot lose. If they do, it’s over for them. This is unlike Obama. Hillary is a rat in a corner and she will fight harder than Obama. That’s why this scenario has even a 1% chance of playing out. It’s not likely, for sure, but if you understand the way the Constitution deals with Electoral College gridlock, it makes an attempt by a desperate Hillary quite plausible. Hillary would have a legit shot of winning the presidency if she ran independently.

In terms of Electoral votes, this election is going to be close. If Hillary executed the property strategy, she could avoid giving McCain any additional states. Then the only question is: Can she win any states? If she can, then she would almost certainly deny Obama a majority. From there on out, she has a shot. This is the equivalent of a basketball coach fouling on every possession when he’s down 10 points with a minute to go in a championship game. It is unlikely to work, but if there’s no turning back from defeat, why not give it a try?

by: Michael Seebeck

Fri, 25 Apr 2008 23:41:59 +0000

I think G.E. presents a plausible scenario, but there is a major X-factor involved here that wasn’t considered.

If Hillarious does a Lieberman (bolts the DP and goes independent), her influence in an election where the Electoral Vote is thrown to the House comes back to how well she or B.O. helps the Democratic Congressmen get or stay elected. Loyalty matters. Put another way, who PO’s the least Democratic Congressmen, Hillarious or B.O.?

But in any case the real question to answer is one of ballot access before the fact, and to be honest she hasn’t the cash or time to make it happen if she starts this after June 3. Right now, maybe, but not then. There’s also the question of which states (as outlined above).

The only thing I could see to propel her in that direction is her massive ego and makeup bill. But considering that she won’t get the conservative votes (they hate her!) and she’s split the liberal vote now and would do so with Obama and to a lesser extent Nader and the Green, I don’t see it happening from a practical point of view.

by: G.E.

Fri, 25 Apr 2008 22:40:05 +0000

Larry – I shouldn’t have said unanimous. What I meant by that was that each state gets one vote, and thus it’s treated as though it were unanimous. If the delegations cannot reach a majority (if a majority, rather than a plurality, is needed), then Clinton can be the compromise candidate. Also, Congress is elected and seated before the Electors vote (right?), which further compromises the ability of the Clinton camp to calculate whether they have the votes.

Here’s now it goes:

1. If no candidate wins a majority in the Electoral College, the top three candidates move on to a vote by the House.

2. The House votes by state delegation. It is not clear from the Constitution (although you could consult the historical record for a post-12th amendment case when the election was decided by the House—there was one, right?) whether a state’s vote is determined by plurality or if a majority is needed. It only says each state has one vote.

3. One candidate is going to have to win 26 states in this manner. The Constitution is silent on what happens if this can’t be done.

If Clinton could pick off just a few states, it could throw the election to the House, where she could be the compromise candidate. I mean, if she and her people hold tight, they can tell the Obama electors or the Obama House delegations—“Look, if you don’t vote for us, we’re gonna go with McCain. . . If you DO go for us, we’re going to give you posh spaces in the administration.” It is very possible.

by: Mike Theodore

Fri, 25 Apr 2008 21:27:14 +0000

I knew someone would suggest this at sometime. This happened before, back when Roosevelt ran against Taft and Wilson. Wilson won because the GOP was split. McCain, the worst of apparently 3 evils, will win. No, we’ve learned our lesson. Ah shit, who am I kidding? We never learn

Go with the serious choice.
Milnes/Theodore
The Key To A Better Tomorrow. What? Oh, You Have To Shake It A Bit. No, Push And Then Turn….Yes….Yes….No, Damnit, Let Me Try.

by: Larry West

Fri, 25 Apr 2008 21:01:42 +0000

GE - Of course I know the electoral college. The problem is whether Hillary believes in a “50-state strategy”. I am sure that they will do the math and see if they have the votes in Congress. (Unlike what you said earlier, a state does not have to be unanimous – it goes by majority vote of each state’s delegation, with a tie meaning the state doesn’t count).
She doesn’t have to win outright, just keep the others from getting 270 EVs.
The original article says that her strategy includes New Mexico. That is the only state she could compete in that she probably would not be able to get on (excluding any states with “sore loser” laws that applies to President).
I don’t think she’ll do it, but it would make this election year more interesting than it already is.

by: G.E.

Fri, 25 Apr 2008 20:16:58 +0000

Larry West – Why would it matter if she were on the Texas ballot? She wouldn’t win there anyway. Do you understand how the electoral college works? Do you understand exactly what happens if one candidate does not get a majority of electoral votes? All of those states you mentioned are sure-winners to likely-winners for McCain. They have absolutely no significance in this scenario whatsoever.