Should Clinton bow out?

greenboy13 · 03-05-2008

I don't see any reason for her to concede at this point in the race. Regardless of Obama's lead among delegates, she's taken the popular vote in nearly all the large state primaries and several of the smaller ones. Her fundraising has been more than adequate to support her continuing on, even if Obama has raised significantly more. I think it would be a mark against her if she gave up so easily, which I really don't think she'll do regardless of pressure from Obama's supporters.

Industrialsize · 03-05-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by transformer_99

As close as they both are she'll run until Obama beats her outright with delegates period. As it should be ! This is like being down by a td or fg in football, and then just giving up at the half or end of the 3rd quarter. I believe Hillary leads with superdelegates though and Obama has delegates vote lead, both slim margins for either.

Now McCain's opposition, McCain secured the necessary votes.

Margins are Not slim
Pledged Delegates Obama 1307 Clinton 1175
Superdelegates Obama 208 Clinton 250

Plus Obama has a cache of 50 previously uncommitted superdelegates that he will "roll out" over the next few weeks as reported by Tom Brokaw, a respected newsman who would not have said this if he didn't have confirmation in my humble opinion

Quote:

Originally Posted by becominghorse

She's actually got a real chance despite the delegate count. The media has been strongly chastised for the obvious bias, and her win was in no way expected, given how much more money he had to spend. He was yesterday babyish telling refs that they shouldn't have paid attention to the accusation of 'media bias'. Of course--they had been in his favour, he liked that, and then they were called on it. If he keeps acting like a baby, and his tiresome wife keeps up her usual bullshit, a holding pattern is what she can bank on, although not guaranteed. He already cut down a lot of his 'inspiration', as Seelye put it in her NYTimes Live Blogging, even by the time he was faced with the reality of the Ohio results. No way if she didn't bow out when the Obama people tried to really push at her last week she's going to do it before trying out Pennsylvania. She's on another roll, and the Obama people are not able to be as thrilled as they'd wish. He's a 'wonky lawyer like Hillary', according to Maureen Dowd and others, which means that nobody is going to be half-literate like Bush, but he's more of a permanent campaigner and showboy than he is a born governing type ready to do the unglamorous work of hammering out policy.

She may still not win, but I've lost confidence in him, and if she does not get the nomination, I'll vote for McCain, who is a good man even if I think his policies are often full of shit. His not some little frat boy like Bush, and although I wouldn't vote for him because of his elegant wife, she certainly is a beauty.

Obama could easily become petulant, because he thought everything was in the bag last night. He has no idea what a general election would feel like, according to most. Hillary already knows what that is, and knows what is to be embarrased in front of the entire world; and yet her guts always show up at unpredictable times. I've never been more sold on her than last night. She's just plain gorgeous in that Ohio speech. The woman is fucking brilliant.

Think the talk about appointing her Chief Justice is meaningless and far-fetched, because there are no impending vacancies. Sort of like hoping they'll match up Tom and Nicole in a movie now that they're divorced--unlikely.

Justice John Paul Stevens is 88
Justice Antonin Scalia is 72
Justice Anthony Kennedy is 72
Justic Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 75

All likely to be replaced during the next 8 years

MischievousOne · 03-05-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Industrialsize

Margins are Not slim
Pledged Delegates Obama 1307 Clinton 1175
Superdelegates Obama 208 Clinton 250

Plus Obama has a cache of 50 previously uncommitted superdelegates that he will "roll out" over the next few weeks as reported by Tom Brokaw, a respected newsman who would not have said this if he didn't have confirmation in my humble opinion

Actually, just under 53% of the pledged delegates to her just over 47% is pretty slim. I know it's late in the game, and that the percentages aren't likely to shift much, but they really are close.

As to the Superdelegates - Even if you count the extra 50 superdelegates (Is he holding them like trump cards?) he has pledged, that only puts him up by a total of eight in that category. Also, those people are under no true obligation to stick with him. Or Clinton. So it really still is either candidates race.

So in response to the original question, no, she should not drop out of the race just yet. If nothing else we get a chance to see what ideas are out there and keep people talking about the democrats!

HazelGod · 03-05-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by suavesalvaje

She will fight to the death!

One can only hope.

rexcasual · 03-05-2008

Negative campaigning has shown how well it works. For Clinton to succeed, her campaign will have to stick to that strategy for many weeks to come. Even so, the math is really against her.

It's fair for Obama to finally face some of this. People need to see how he fares under pressure, as he would tested more severely by the Republicans in an election campaign in any case.

Florida and Michigan delegates are desperately needed by Clinton. Her spokesman is strongly arguing that Florida and Michigan deserve their chance to be heard, so there will be a big fight within the Democrats to get those states into the count — perhaps by rerunning those primaries.

None of this is good for the Democrats if it drags on acrimoniously all spring and summer into the convention. They will need to be unified, not bloodied, to decisively win in November. The winner is going to need the support of the loser's troops. There is some puzzling number of supporters on both the Clinton side and Obama side who have indicated they may cross over to McCain if their candidate loses the nomination.

I think the Democrats will have to consider how this process is working toward enhancing their election chances in November. Heed Nader's admonishment that the election is their's to lose.

becominghorse · 03-05-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Industrialsize

Margins are Not slim
Pledged Delegates Obama 1307 Clinton 1175
Superdelegates Obama 208 Clinton 250

Plus Obama has a cache of 50 previously uncommitted superdelegates that he will "roll out" over the next few weeks as reported by Tom Brokaw, a respected newsman who would not have said this if he didn't have confirmation in my humble opinion

Justice John Paul Stevens is 88
Justice Antonin Scalia is 72
Justice Anthony Kennedy is 72
Justic Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 75

All likely to be replaced during the next 8 years

Being 'a respected newsman' as a credential is about as impressive as saying an 'unnamed official', except the latter usually can be trusted to be telling the truth since they have immunity.

No interest in the Supreme Court Justice business, it's all fantasy anyway. You're just being an Obama supporter, I'm being a Hillary supporter, we neither one care that much what the other thinks, and are just fighting for our candidate.

Gonzo3 · 03-05-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeffery_stelesvyle

Now that McCain has officially secured the republican nomination, the democrats are looking at a protracted battle (the next big knock-out race is on April 22) which could hurt the party in the end.

Should Hillary Clinton leave the race? Yeah, she won Ohio and Texas but it is still not enough for her re-take the delegate lead. Is it time for her to concede the race or still go on?

Or do you think she should keep at it until all of the primaries are finished (because at this point it is impossible for anyone to secure the nomination in a two- way race based on pledged delegates alone)?

............Yes.

becominghorse · 03-05-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by greenboy13

I don't see any reason for her to concede at this point in the race. Regardless of Obama's lead among delegates, she's taken the popular vote in nearly all the large state primaries and several of the smaller ones. Her fundraising has been more than adequate to support her continuing on, even if Obama has raised significantly more. I think it would be a mark against her if she gave up so easily, which I really don't think she'll do regardless of pressure from Obama's supporters.

Yes, that's it, the BIG STATES, all of which big urban states she's one except his home state. While many are saying it's unlikely that she can pull this off, that's just bullshit prediction without knowing anything about the future. If popular feeling goes toward her and she wins in Pennsylvania, which many compare in some ways to Ohio, and he looks like a weakling, then she may prevail. But, since in primaries you can win delegates due to apportionment (as Obama did in several primaries) even if you lose the race, we see how electoral vote doesn't count in more ways than just what was proven with the evil of 2000.

becominghorse · 03-05-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by rexcasual

Negative campaigning has shown how well it works. For Clinton to succeed, her campaign will have to stick to that strategy for many weeks to come. Heed Nader's admonishment that the election is their's to lose.

I certainly do hope it works against Obama, as he's doing plenty of it too. But anybody who would advise someone to 'heed Nader', world's homeliest and most full-of-shit egomaniac (in a way worse than Cheney or Bush by now, like a turd out of Kafka, a dungbeetle like Gregor Samsa into eating shit) is from another planet. What an asshole to be giving advice since it's largely his fault that the world has turned into poison; what he did before in his 'good works' period pales in comparison to the damage he's done because Gore and some of the others hurt his little-girl feelings by condescending to him. Reminds me of Karl Fucking Marx.

becominghorse · 03-05-2008

Clintons Mission Not-Impossible - Campaign Stops - 2008 Elections - Opinion - New York Times Blog

This is excellent by David Brooks, Republican, on what Hillary can do. A must-read.

This is the part to keep in mind when trying to decide today what can't be decided today: "she can move to Pennsylvania. It’s a long time before April 22nd. Over the next few weeks, media interest in that primary will build and build. Obama’s string of primary victories will recede into the deepest recesses of memory. Pennsylvania will begin to look like the crucial deciding state and a win there will carry climactic weight. We are used to narratives in which the climax comes at the end of the story, not the middle."

tim36 · 03-05-2008

The Democratic raace is going to be long and drawn out, I think we all need to get some popcorn and watch how this event will unfold. It will be interesting.

rexcasual · 03-05-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by becominghorse

I certainly do hope it works against Obama, as he's doing plenty of it too. But anybody who would advise someone to 'heed Nader', world's homeliest and most full-of-shit egomaniac (in a way worse than Cheney or Bush by now, like a turd out of Kafka, a dungbeetle like Gregor Samsa into eating shit) is from another planet. What an asshole to be giving advice since it's largely his fault that the world has turned into poison; what he did before in his 'good works' period pales in comparison to the damage he's done because Gore and some of the others hurt his little-girl feelings by condescending to him. Reminds me of Karl Fucking Marx.

LOL. Don't hold back, tell us what you really think.

You seem to have difficulty acknowledging the essence of truth and separating that from the fact it comes from a distasteful source. The election is the Democrat's to win if they don't fuck it up. Nader happened to say that in relation to his little threat to their chances, but it is still the truth.

hotbtminla · 03-05-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by VinylBoy

They were saying on CNN that Bill Clinton didn't secure the Democratic nomination till June of the 1992 election year.

'92 and '08 aren't comparable though. People are forgetting that on today's date in '92 only 6 states had had primaries/caucuses. So far this year 40 states and DC have already voted.

A month ago I would have thought this impossible for all sorts of good reasons, but... this is going to end with a Clinton-Obama ticket. I don't think either of them honestly want to run together, but I don't think they'll be given a choice.

The superdelegates are going to have to pick the nominee, which is something I suspect most of them don't want to do. Hillary can't realistically overtake Obama in pledged delegates, but at the same time his argument about "the will of the people" doesn't carry muster (mind you I am an Obama supporter) because its reflective of W's "the American people have given me a clear mandate" speech (since when does being on top of an extremely narrow popular vote give anyone a "mandate?"). The Democrats are split almost evenly.

So the superdelegates are going to step in behind closed doors and I think push the least risky decision. Put Hillary and Barack in a room together and tell them not to leave until they've decided which one is going to be VP. They'll both be given assurances they have the party's support of them as its leaders for the foreseeable future... but only if they agree to joint ticket.

I don't think it's necessarily the best finale for Clinton or Obama, but it's what the DNC is going to force them to do.

senor rubirosa · 03-05-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by becominghorse

But, since in primaries you can win delegates due to apportionment (as Obama did in several primaries) even if you lose the race, we see how electoral vote doesn't count in more ways than just what was proven with the evil of 2000.

But apportionment surely ensures that individual votes count more, not less, than in a winner-take-all system.
Or have I misinterpreted what you meant, becominghorse?

senor rubirosa · 03-05-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by hotbtminla

The superdelegates are going to have to pick the nominee, which is something I suspect most of them don't want to do. Hillary can't realistically overtake Obama in pledged delegates, but at the same time his argument about "the will of the people" doesn't carry muster (mind you I am an Obama supporter) because its reflective of W's "the American people have given me a clear mandate" speech (since when does being on top of an extremely narrow popular vote give anyone a "mandate?"). The Democrats are split almost evenly.

We'll see. It looks to me now like Obama will definitely have an edge.
And everything I read suggests that he may overtake her lead among superdelegates by the time the convention rolls around, if indeed she still has a lead today.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hotbtminla

So the superdelegates are going to step in behind closed doors and I think push the least risky decision. Put Hillary and Barack in a room together and tell them not to leave until they've decided which one is going to be VP. They'll both be given assurances they have the party's support of them as its leaders for the foreseeable future... but only if they agree to joint ticket.

Well, what's the party going to do if they don't agree? Support McCain?

Quote:

Originally Posted by hotbtminla

I don't think it's necessarily the best finale for Clinton or Obama, but it's what the DNC is going to force them to do.

I think at best they can make a strong recommendation.
You can't force this kind of cohabitation.
(My opinion, anyway, hotbtminla.)