Hillary Clinton and her supporters continue to argue that if she cedes the Democratic primaries to Barack Obama she will be depriving the voters in the remaining primary states of a voice, and is refusing to be "bullied" out of the race.
A little history to put this in to perspective:
So Democratic primaries almost always end before all states have held primaries. This is nothing new. When Bill Clinton secured the nomination in early April, he certainly didn't complain about all the voters in later states whose voice would not be heard.
There is, however, a new wrinkle this year. In the past, the race has generally ended when one candidate wins enough delegates to win the nomination outright at the convention. This year's race is close enough that neither candidate will achieve this, due to the 794 superdelegates that are not selected through the primary process. Thus, while it is now clear that Obama will win both the popular vote and the delegate count, neither candidate will win enough delegates to put a lock on the nomination. And thus Clinton's only hope is to win enough superdelegate support that she will win the nomination even though she has lost both the delegate count and the popular vote.
So there are conflicting claims to the democratic high ground here:
Logically, Obama's claim would seem to be the stronger. There are years of precedent of voters in the latest states not voting, while there is no precedent at all for superdelegates handing the nomination to a candidate who lost both the popular vote and the delegate count. Also, the contradiction of a candidate simultaneously insisting that the final states should vote on democratic principle, yet the superdelegates should overturn the final results of the overall voting, should be obvious.
Logic, however, rarely prevails in politics. Politically speaking, it is conceivable that a primary race could continue in such circumstances without damaging the party's chances in November. For this to happen, the candidate in Clinton's position would have to make clear that she is running on principle. There is ample precedent for this. Candidates often keep their hat in the ring even after the issue has been effectively settled, to "give their supporters a voice" and to strengthen their hand at the convention even though they acknowledge they will not win the nomination.
Clinton could do this. She could shift gears, stop attacking Obama, stop pressing the superdelegates to override the popular vote, and instead work on promoting the policies that are most important to her in preparation for the national convention. And she would keep her hat in the ring in the event Obama makes some horrendous misstep or gets mired in a disastrous scandal.
But what she is doing is the exact opposite, throwing Don Imus references and Republican National Committee talking points at the man who will almost certainly be the party's candidate, and relentlessly pursuing superdelegates.
On CNN's Lou Dobbs:
The press HAS been PRO OBAMA!
She does not say this. She talks about the voters in FL and MI being disenfranchised and she does say, as do her supporters, that since there is no clear winner, she should go all the way until there is.
Is there any Obama supporter, well-known or B or C or D list, who has not written a ridiculous post about how Hillary should just give up. You should all know that doing so makes you look scared and insecure. You're afraid something's going to happen and she's going to win, and you should be.
Be afraid, be very afraid.
Obama '08
The Clinton campaign is out of gas monetarily and that isn't going to be sustainable for very much longer. All of their donors have hit the legal limit and their credit is pretty much tapped out. How can you conduct a poltical campaign when you create a reputation among staging companies and other essential vendors of freeloading on your bills? Without the services of staging companies there are no rallies or fundraisers. Do Hillary, Bill and their handlers really think they're going to be able to mount a successful persidential bid shouting through bull-horns in the parking lot of Safeway? That strategy didn't work too well for Lyndon LaRouche!
Obama has a much broader funraising base that makes it possible for him to get smaller contributions from a much larger pool of people in a way that's far more sustainable over the long haul; plus his campaign has been paying their bills.
In my opinion, the Clinton supporters are exaggerating Clinton's chances of winning and the Obama supporters are equating Clinton's slim chance of winning with no chance of winning.
Either way, the Clintons will exit this race when they choose to exit this race and I don’t think anyone can change that. Debating the merit of the Clintons staying in the race is like debating the merit of having the sun come up in the morning: it’s going to happen whether you like it or not.
“Stay in or Get Out?†The Clintons have the right to stay in the race as long as they want.
Obama supporters that call for the Clintons to leave the race are actually just helping them justify not leaving the race and this also gives the media another empty issue to babble on about ad nauseam.
Under McCain:
1. Anyone with a pre-existing healthcondition, or unable to afford insurance, will NOT get coverage.
2. Climate Change will be backburnered. Arctic Wilderness will be destroyed in favor of oil exploration. Ice masses the size of Ireland will continue to fall into the ocean at ever increasing rates, as a result of our failure to act.
3.The top 2% of the nations earners will continue to receive the lions share of tax benefits.
4. People struggling with scams from mortgages, and credit cards, will see no relief, and foreclosures will continue.
5. The Supreme Court, with the impending retirement of 2 judges, will most likely tilt completely conservative, jeopardizing RoeVWade and numerous other decisions yet to be made.
6. The Iraq war will continue for 100 years. We most likely will invade Iran.
So, get real. Vote Democratic. Hold your nose if you have to. But it's our only hope.
I understand that, but I shall NOT reward Hillary Clinton for stealing the nomination IF she ends up with less pledged delegates, less of the popular vote and fewer states won. I can NOT vote for someone like that, who changes the rule because she feels entitled to the nomination, which she would not have won; I am sorry, I will let Roe v Wade go before I reward Clinton. I ain't gonna happen.
"Logically, Obama's claim would seem to be the stronger. There are years of precedent of voters in the latest states not voting, while there is no precedent at all for superdelegates handing the nomination to a candidate who lost both the popular vote and the delegate count. Also, the contradiction of a candidate simultaneously insisting that the final states should vote on democratic principle, yet the superdelegates should overturn the final results of the overall voting, should be obvious."
What else can be said? Logically, nothing.
We've learned. Really. Do NOT count Hillary out.
The more the surrogates race around demanding she drop out, the more excited I am that she must be really doing well. There's a reason he's desperately trying to convince her supporters to give up.
She is further behind now than she was before March 4th.
If you think HRC should stay in, tinker with Slate's delegate counter. It proves pretty effectively that she can't win.
http://www.slate.com/id/2187679/
If there weren't a cost to HRC staying in the race, I'd say, sure, why not? But there are costs:
1) Every week, the Dems negatives go up while McCain's positives go up.
2) The tens of millions of dollars being spent on the primary could go to the general election. I know I don't have unlimited funds, and I'll bet there are lots of people who will feel tapped out by the time the primaries wrap up.
3) The intra-party divide increases each week; the tension is real and the bad blood won't entirely go away. The more time to heal, the better.
There are numerous precedents for wrapping up the nomination before all the states have voted. There's no precedent for the superdelegates to overturn the votes of the voters.
There are 10 states and in spite of the RUMORS that its is like, "impossible" for her to surpass him in votes that is simply not true.
750,000 votes betweeen them and 4 million registed dems in PA. YOU do the math.
If you think HRC should stay in, tinker with Slate's delegate counter. It proves pretty effectively that she can't win.
http://www.slate.com/id/2187679/
If there weren't a cost to HRC staying in the race, I'd say, sure, why not? But there are costs:
1) Every week, the Dems negatives go up while McCain's positives go up.
2) The tens of millions of dollars being spent on the primary could go to the general election. I know I don't have unlimited funds, and I'll bet there are lots of people who will feel tapped out by the time the primaries wrap up.
3) The intra-party divide increases each week; the tension is real and the bad blood won't entirely go away. The more time to heal, the better.
He can't reach the magic number.
Live with the truth. It sets you free. :)
All rationalizations or agenda driven false equivalencies should not be reported as someone is hurting the party over another. Clinton could still win. Obama is less electable in the EC. There are serious decisions to be made.
From a democratic perspective Clinton has the moral and ethical high ground until MI and FL become relevant and all the voters speak.
Delegates are apportioned to each state in a fair approximation to their population. Delegates won are awarded through proportional representation. This means the delegate count is the closest thing to the popular vote, because the 'popular vote' you are talking about fails to reward caucus victories as well as primary victories.
All this is a moot point anyway. Like i read somewhere else, you cannot, in the middle of a basketball game, start arguing that to win it is now no longer about scoring the most points. It's now about shooting percentages? Or most shooting attempts? Or most dunks? Democratic primary has always been about winning the most delegates.
So when we say delegates, they cannot clinch it. When we say voters what about MI and FL being relevant. When we say Super Delegates we want to change the rules.
I will Not vote for her, as much as I will Not vote for Mac (two sides to the same coin- Corp Opertives.this 2x Bill supporter has had her Rose Colored Glasses Knock Off by HillaBillie and I have looked Back- seeing in 20/20 beyong the Smoke & Mirrors. Add to that the Obvious Rigging by th e'leading Dem's' I'm not only disgusted I'm Pissed!
the last thread holding me to my 26 yrs Reg Dem Status is Obama. And I'm out to Throw out every psuedo Dem who has crawled out from under their Camoflague of Blue- I'm ready to Expose the m to the Legal Light- nancy Diane Harry - even Carl, Deb, Jen and Terri in MI
I'm ready to no longer consider the Red Or Blue as major players in Our Democracy Anymore. This Two party System has had Their last Dance! I plan to give Obama a whole new Guest List in Congress. So 'bi partisanship' will be an Irrelevant Term from the 20th Century