Obama had a tiny chance of winning last year, and was a long shot. Should he have dropped out then and saved the party all this turmoil? :dubious:
Ok, let me set the stage with this scenario: Hillary does very well in PA, etc. When the Primaries end, Obama still has a slight lead in Delegates. However, Hillary now has a small lead in the Popular vote.* Should Obama then concede to Hillary?
Those are all Pre-decided. We’re talking Fla, WI, Iowa, and other key states that can go either way in the general. And, you should know that. :rolleyes:
There is nothing “slight” about either his pledged delegate lead or his popular vote lead. He’s ahead by over 700,000 votes. She can’t come close to closing the gap on either.
This is just getting stupid.
There are states the Dems are going to win, there are states Republicans are going to win- period, no matter what. The others which could go either way and may well be the key to the election, HRC does better in overall. How anyone can think its better for the party to nominate Obama with this knowledge, no matter if he has won every primary and leads by millions in primary vote and hundreds of superdelegates is beyond me.
Just because Hillary does better than Obama in a primary doesn’t mean she woudl do better than Obama in a the general election.
I’ll answer this seriously. No because the issue is not saving the party from “turmoil” but from harm. Running early on as an allegedly long shot candidate has no significant risk of causing the party harm at that point. Turmoil early on is actually a good thing. You need an early horse race to get the country to take notice. Running a campaign that is getting progressively uglier and divisive while the Republican nominee gets to coast along this late in the process does cause serious harm to the party. And risks not only the Presidency but Congressional seats as well. At some point I suspect even her staunchest supporters will see that her chance has become too small to justify that ongoing cost.
If the primaries were held the day after Clinton’s White House schedules with her Pro-NAFTA moments was released and right after Clinton’s Bosnia trip was shown to be a joke, the results would have been different as well. should we just make guesses at revisionist history as it suits our agendas?
I’ll play!
If she could get the pledged delegate lead to “slight” (which I would take to be well under a 100 deficit) and was able to inch ahead in the popular vote, then the supers would be entirely justified in deciding who would be more likely to win the general and in considering going against the pledged count. I wouldn’t quite expect a concession from Obama as he was ahead in a count by the rules, unless it became clear that there was no realistic scenario in which he’d win the super support he needed, then yes, he should concede and throw his support to Hillary.
The reality is that there is no realistic path that gets Hillary to that circumstance however.
It’s a hypthetical scenario. And, you clearly haven’t looked at the numbers involved. Hillary can easily win the polular vote.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html
Obama is only ahead by some 400K votes, leaving aside WI.
Pa has something like 2Mil votes. Hillary can close the gap just with that state, and a 60/40 victory. One poll has it 56/30, Clinton.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/pa/pennsylvania_democratic_primary-240.html
There’s no way she’ll close the Delegate gap (without Superdelegates), but that wasn’t my scenario.
**
IF** the Primaries are over, and Obama is still ahead by a small but solid lead in Delegates, but Hillary has a slight lead in the overall Popular vote- should Obama concede, as that’s the “will of the voters”? :dubious:
I think the Obama-ites here will say “of course not, it’s not the popular vote, it’s the delegates”.
Hmmm. Hard to count FL at all, but to count it and not the caucus states? Not so legit. I can understand arguing to count FL as is in a super’s mind, but you’ve got to at least use the 532K one (counting caucuses too). And it is a stretch to count FL at all and not use the 827K lead one. But let’s. A turn-out of 2 million voters is certainly possible. To make up the 532K she’d need to win 63 to 37%, ie by 26%. And then not lose ground in NC and hold even on the rest.
Is that remotely likely?
If she fails to do the step one would you say then it’s time?
Maybe not with just PA, but there are several other states. And if we count WI and the Caucuses, the lead is only 204K.
No, I don’t any candidate should just quit as long as there’s a chance.
I’m not talking about public reaction to a one-off gaffe- I’m talking about the revelation that Obama is very close to someone who thinks that white people are the devil.
No, I will not knock off my characterizations, any more than you appear willing to stop your ranting about stupid issues. If you don’t like your behavior compared to that of something you dislike, then don’t commit that behavior. Else, simply disagree with the characterization.
Indeed, this response is a prime example of the sort of tone and message I’m talking about. :smack:
Touchy, touchy.
No, this is decidedly not true. For example, there are many things people are saying about the candidates that I don’t agree with. However, they aren’t being advocated in a stamp-my-foot-on-the-ground-and-have-a-tantrum approach.
For example, we can look at the whole debate about what Sen. Clinton said about her visit to Bosnia and what happened there. Most of what is being posted accusing her of deception isn’t done in a childish way; by contrast, at least one poster in our threads here responded defending Sen. Clinton in a very childish way. I’m not convinced that all that much of importance can be made about what Sen. Clinton said, but the more measured attacks there by Sen. Obama supporters certainly makes me pay more attention to and look more carefully at the attacks. The childish defense of Sen. Clinton makes me simply roll my eyes.
So, you see, making reasoned arguments about an issue is not acting childishly, regardless of what side of the battle you are on. But simply sticking your fingers in your ears and insisting that you are right regardless of what others may say, and especially doing so using petulant tones (like those used by another poster not too far above your last to me) is acting childishly. I work with kids daily, so I have some reason to understand the comparison is apt.
And just so we are clear, your last post to me (of which I have excerpted only the final part) was an example of a much more measured response (other than the rather emphatic first sentence; really, using words of that sort do little to bolster an argument).
And as for me “whining” about your “whining,” well, you could always be the first to stop, right? 
Shayna has repeatedly brought facts to the table to back up her assertions. She is passionate, but not without basis. I have seen people write her off time and again simply because of the passion; the facts go ignored. Personally, it’s no great surprise to me that she’s getting frustrated with being stonewalled.
I think you mean MI, not WI. It confused me for a bit. Nah, MI is polling as a split and would be counted as that in the minds of supers. If they counted it at all. Or FL at all. So your scenario depends on solid to overwhelming victories from here on but no matter what the cost and no matter how remote the possibility, a candidate shouldn’t quit if there is any chance at all.
Okay. That is clear enough. We disagree. But I appreciate that you have answered the question. Thank you.
I heard on the radio this morning that 40,000 republicans switched parties to vote in the primary. I wonder if that bodes well or ill for Hillary.
I think you could pretty well bet your last dollar that, to the extent that the numbers are significant, it bodes ill for Hillary.
ETA: Sorry, I retract that. I misread the question as pertaining to the general election. Some Republicans did cross over in the primaries so as to support Hillary in the belief that she would be the candidate most likely to lose to McCain in the fall. Whether the numbers were significant or not, I couldn’t say.
Well, as I said earlier…if Hillary IS forked I think she should move and sacrifice Bill. Maybe she can still castle…
Oh, FORK IT! She’s done. Her goose is cooked and all that. But at least she wasn’t gunned down by a dog by sniper fire in Bosnia…
-XT