That’s nice, Maeglin.
Regards,
Shodan
The deal is as closed as it can be given the state of the deal.
But as to why? I think generally it’s the older white women that make up Hillary’s most reliable support. As long as Hillary is in the race, they will vote for her. If she drops out, they will be Obama’s to court, but not until then. Imagine if the situation was reversed, we would be looking at Obama getting 9-1 from the african american community- would we be thinking, man those voters are going to go to McCain? I think there are a ton of women that want to vote for Hillary for both logical and emotional reasons* and will do so as long as they have an opportunity, regardless of the math or her chances- as is their absolute right to do so. And I trust Hillary voters in general, and democratic women specifically, to fall in line with the Dems moreso than the new Obama supporters would, despite the polls.
So, nah, I don’t really think that Hill is tearing the party apart, but I understand completely why Obama is not winning these contests in a blowout- people want to support their gal and they will do so as long as they can.
Compare this to the numbers who came out to vote for Paul or Huckabee in a totally meaningless republican primary in Penn and you start to wonder which party is really in trouble.
*For the record, I stipulate to heck and back that people are voting for Obama for emotional reasons as well- I don’t mean this as a slight
This is exactly right, and of course there is an emotional element - however, I know quite a few white women in their 50-60’s and most if not all of them are voting Obama at this moment. However, I live in CT so take that with a little salt, we do things a bit differently around here…
Thanks! Things are especially nice when they are true.
This has been answered several times but you have ignored it.
As a practical matter he does have it wrapped up as regards the popular vote. HRC just will not go away.
The question to me is why the Democratic leadership allows this to continue.
The Democratic leadership can’t do much of anything. The superdelegates can, but if you’re a Congresscritter whose precinct strongly favored Clinton, do you want to risk your political future by saying you’re going to support Obama?
I think we can all safely assume that there will be some serious changes made to the nominating process by this party before '12 rolls around!
Not necessarily. Obama could sail to renomination and reelection in 2012 and they won’t bother to modify the rules.
Insofar as the leadership cannot force anything I agree. They can however lean on people and they are not leaning that I am seeing.
As for the Congresscritters I agree but then by that measure Obama should get more super delegates than HRC anyway.
Obama can’t close the deal because despite the Satruday Night Live sketches, the media is nothing but a Clinton echo chamber that overstates her meager chances and parrots her talking points. Look at the mockery of a debate the other day. I don’t think it is because they like Hillary, I think it is because they like politics.
As you know, I have continued this in the Pit. Here’s the link, for anyone who missed its brief and accidental appearance in GD.
Well, they like the horse-race and People-magazine aspects of politics.
What they don’t seem to like much are the political issues that are the whole point of politics.
Wrap it up? Isn’t that rather like asking why the guy ahead in the marathon hasn’t wrapped it up by mile 18?
To expand a bit on this: the winner has always wrapped it up earlier in the past because there’d come a point at which only one candidate had the money to keep on playing. Sometimes there’d be an established frontrunner, dismissing an insurgent who simply couldn’t field an organization and run ads in enough states to stay even with the frontrunner. Sometimes the season would start off without a frontrunner, but one would quickly emerge (e.g. Kerry 2004) and would quickly race way ahead in the fundraising wars, thus being able to be everywhere at once when Super Tuesday rolled around.
2008 is different in that the established frontrunner with all the money and connections is now running behind, and the insurgent candidate is the one who’s raised enough money to play everywhere at once.
With the possible exception of McGovern, the insurgent candidate has never been able to turn the tables before.
But that still means that TWO candidates - the frontrunning insurgent, and the dethroned queen - have both had the money to go this deep into the campaign season. That’s unique to this campaign season in the post-McGovern Commission era, at least on the Dem side. (In 1976, Reagan went this deep into the primaries on the GOP side. I imagine he was well-funded too.)
Not very much, no. This isn’t a race over a scheduled distance; it is a contest which ends when a specified set of conditions is met.
There is no way to end a marathon early. But there is a way of ending a boxing match early. And if the last ten bouts have ended inside the distance, then “why hasn’t Barack “The Chicago Kid” Obama been able to put Hilary “Thriller Diller” Clinton on the canvas?” becomes a reasonable question.
Regards,
Shodan
It was a reasonable question. It’s been answered, multiple times and in multiple ways. It’s no longer a reasonable question in this thread, except as part of an honest response to those answers.
OK, so don’t read those posts either.
Regards,
Shodan
Some people would say it is a reasonable question. And if it is not a reasonable question in itself, it certainly raises tough questions. When will Senator Obama answer to these tough questions raised by the reasonable question of why he has not driven the wife of a former Democratic president out of a Democratic presidential race? The fact that he has not answered these questions raises some serious questions, and Senator Obama needs to answer them. If he refuses, some people will start to wonder what kind of tough questions that will raise.
Riiight! 
BTW-Obama answered it nicely himself today on camera.
RTFirefly and Shodan, your sniping is getting personal. Back off, both of you.
Phlosphr, adding editiorial comments to statements inside the Quote tags is not permitted. I appreciate that you set off the comments with bolding and asters, but it is still not permitted on the SDMB.
[ /Moderating ]
Good question.
I think that is precisely what she’s suggesting be done. The idea being that the reason she’s behind is largely due to the ‘brand new shiny toy’ frickin’ delusion that took the country by storm with Obamamania, that the mismanaged campaign gave her further fine-tuning of her political acumen (as can also be said for Obama in going through it thus far) so an asset insofar as that (success being judged as how many times you get up after falling down, etc.), and who has shown that even while careening from disaster to disaster, being seen as dishonest, etc. she STILL WINS when crunch time happens.
That’s what’s needed in the fall. I believe that’s the idea.
Obama refused to speak to the press in the last couple days before the PA votes, doesn’t want any more debates, and seems to be a shielded (by money) candidate that folds like a cheap suit when forced to stand and deliver (unless he can just talk and talk and nobody asks follow-ups). The idea is he’ll fall in the fall so go with the tried and true that has HUGE negatives. And **still **survives and wins.