Once Obama gets over the 2,024 delegate limit, she will concede. And it won’t be up to her.
At least some of her superdelegates will no longer fear her retribution, and in fact will look ridiculous for continuing to support a dead candidacy. They will be able to switch to Obama at little cost aside from an angry phone call or two. Her money will dry up, if it hasn’t already.
This day will come sooner if Obama wins Indiana on Tuesday.
You might have legitimately decided that he was right in some areas, but wrong in others.
I believe he’s right in his entire argument that he made to the other supers on this issue. And understand, I’m saying this as someone who’s on record here as having previously said that Hillary should not bow out of this race. She’s entitled to run it to the end if she wants, and in some ways, staying in has given Obama the opportunity to beef up his ground campaign in the remaining states.
But like most reasonable people, I can be swayed to reconsider based on new evidence and changing circumstances. I have not changed my opinion that she should bow out of the race, but I do agree that the superdelegates need to unite behind Senator Obama between now and June 3rd so that we have a nominee by the end of the primaries. And at the point, when he has reached the 2024 delegates that will give him the nomination, Hillary needs to accept that and not drag this out to the convention.
By even the most generous calculations, even if Hillary Clinton wins every single upcoming contest, she will still not have surpassed Barack Obama in pledged delegates. Based on my own calculations (estimates, obviously, and making certain assumptions that may not hold), even if the Rules Committee seats the Florida and Michigan delegates, she still will not be able to surpass him in pledged delegates, having only narrowed the difference to about 100.
I do not believe for a moment that Democratic Party Leadership will overturn a pledged delegate lead in this political climate. Even if Hillary Clinton has a legitimate argument to make that she would fare better against McCain, I simply do not see the Party handing her the nomination over Obama’s lead. She could be 100% right in her assessment, but it is my opinion, primarily based on many articles I’ve read from prominent members of the Democratic Party, that they simply will not allow that argument to give her the nomination if Obama has the clear lead in pledged delegates.
With all that in mind, and with the thoughtful and educated opinion of a former DNC Chairman (who is clearly in a better position than I to make such an assessment) to back my opinion up, my response to the OP is that this nomination will be decided by June 4th.
I’m not as sanguine about that myself but concede that MMV and that it’s a possibility.
And if Hillary wins? Or if Obama only wins by a very thin margin and thus they essentially split the dels?
-XT
You can’t see that as being a good thing to the Clinton’s right? If he wins but only by one or two percent???
If Obama wins by one or two percent in IN that coupled with NC will boost his entire campaign in the publics eye and in the eyes of the superdelegates and will most likely slingshot him right to the nominee. We’re at endgame here…
No, I don’t see that as a good thing for Clinton. IMHO her goose is cooked. Unfortunately she hasn’t asked my opinion on the matter…
-XT
I agree. If the delegate/superdelegate is above 2024 by that point, it is decided. How could she legitimately continue to fight? The same goes if the delegate count goes toward Hillary.
Wouldn’t that mean the point spread remains the same? A 100+ lead for Obama, given that he’s predicted to win in NC?
My question to you is: what will you do if, in spite of your prediction, this happens?
I know you’ve answered this question before, but in light of
…I thought I’d ask again.
I would wonder how on earth it happened. It’s that implausible to me. [and quite a few others.]
Yes, exactly. But…she would still be in it from her own perspective. Which was my point. He STILL wouldn’t have knocked her completely out of the race. Because of how delegates are awarded neither candidate is likely to get enough of a margin to get an overwhelming number…so, it’s still likely (in my own mind at least) to come down to the convention and the supers. Which means that Hillary is likely to continue on even if Obama wins thin or marginal victories…and certainly if SHE wins thin or marginal victories.
I guess time will tell…perhaps she will duck out gracefully if Obama wins any of the remaining contests, no matter by how thin a margin. I’m just not going to hold my breath on that.
-XT
Yes, I’ve answered that question before. I see no reason to hijack this thread, since we’ve been over that elsewhere.
If HRC wins Indiana, it will simply mean that Obama has lost a chance to deliver a knockout blow.
But I agree with Phlosphr. If Obama wins Indiana, even by one percentage point, then the game is coming to a close. He will have won a Rust Belt state whose demographics favored her. Including North Carolina, he likely will have negated her Pennsylvania gains in pledged delegates and popular vote totals. She will be even further away from the nomination; the question will be why this is so, given all the silly scandals that have pecked at his campaign.
I misunderstood. I thought meant it simply in terms of Hillary gaining ground.
Like I’ve said, technically she has a right to stay in it until a delegate/superdelegate count of 2024 is reached. And like I said, I think that will be before convention time.
I don’t think she’ll bow out until a clear declaration of 2024 in favor Obama is reached. I can also see her having the chutzpah to attend the convention, still running, hoping changes of mind will occur in her favor.
Chutzpah to attend the convention. Are you kidding?
There will be a red carpet out for both the winner and loser.
There are a lot of fences to mend.
True, fence-mending will need to be done, but what I said was:
“the chutzpah to attend the convention, still running, hoping changes of mind will occur in her favor.”
To get to 2,024 both candidates need the Supers to put them over the top. Remember that while a Super may pledge their support tomorrow they can change their mind at any time. Until they cast their vote at the convention the results may be considered in doubt.
As such Clinton may well decide to continue to tempt Supers to her side regardless of the outcome of the primaries. The Clintons, I think, are far better setup with a good ol’ boy network and able to play the quid pro quo game better than Obama. It is one of the reasons I prefer Obama frankly but I am cynical enough about our politicians to think most at the end of the day look out for themselves and not us and could be bought in this fashion. Likewise I fear Obama would be reduced to having to do the same thing to preserve his candidacy undoing some of what makes him an attractive candidate.
Let me perhaps naively suggest here and now that any quid pro quo Obama, or Hillary, engages in to sway superdelegates is not the same thing as declaring a candidancy and delivering on a promise to be for change, and to be different when it comes to running the government and working with both sides of the aisle to get things done for the good of the people.
Does it sound hypocritical to be able think a candidate should be able to do that, while declaring himself to be different. I don’t think so. Obama is in politics and, after all, a politciian. I don’t think that undoes what makes him an attractive candidate, if it enables him to get to where he can effect the actual change he is espousing and running on.
Obama, like Clinton, has been contacting superdelegates all along. Unlike the negatives Hillary talks about during those meeting, what else do you think is going on behind closed doors in both instances, if not quid pro quo?
And, no, I don’t mean the ends justified the mean.
Oh. You want me to read the whole sentence before responding. Well. 
Certainly horse trading is a fundamental feature of democratic politics and Obama does it just like any other politician and in no way am I suggesting campaign promises to the electorate is part of that.
The issue is to what degree does a candidate prostitute themselves to gain office? How beholden to others are they upon assuming office? If it comes to having to make a million and one political promises to other politicians to get elected how much have they compromised their own vision to get certain things done? As it stands I think Obama is far less beholden to the establishment than Clinton is. Having to fight for Supers by making endless promises to other politicians to me damages him as a candidate rather than being able to say he is beholden to the voters who got him there.
What’s the rationale for considering the popular vote over the delegate count?
The answer, I’d say, is that the popular vote more accurately reflects the majority opinion of the populace.
Except, in this case, it doesn’t, because Obama wasn’t even on the ballot in Michigan. Meaning plenty of people who would have voted for Obama (like myself) stayed home, knowing (1) We couldn’t vote for our candidate of choice, and (2) Our vote wouldn’t count for anything anyway.
So at least in the case of Michigan, the popular vote doesn’t mean jack.