Richardson says Leader In Delegate Count After This Week's Primaries Should Be Considered Nominee

[Peikko 1,575]

You are arguing why Hilary shouldn't get the nomination, not why extending the race to be all inclusive somehow isn't valid.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Serious question and not rooted in support for either candidate but...imagine the figures were reversed and Clinton had this narrow lead over Obama and there were some delegates suggesting that for the good of the party Obama should drop out of the race, would you still think this was the 'right' thing for the person in second to do?

I have to say that I don't understand the logic. They are very closely tied and the only thing that seems to be significant is if somehow continuing the race plays into the hands of the Republican party (which may or may not have as much import as some give credence to). Obama may be the best man for the job but surely it's ok for this to be decided by all states and not just by those who have had their say up to now? Or is there somehow some rule that makes the first past the post at this point the inevitable winner because...

Obama won the majority of the contests adn received the majority of the votes thus far. He has the majority of the delegates and has been closing the gap on the committed superdelegates. If Hill would have had this type of performance to this point, she'd be calling - screaming - for Obama to call it quits. Much more so if she would have gotten to this point from way, way behind.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

You are arguing why Hilary shouldn't get the nomination, not why extending the race to be all inclusive somehow isn't valid.

The Party needs to get behind one candidate and while there will be no candidate with a huge lead, the statistics, the trend and the momentum is behind Obama. We'll see what happens tomorrow.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Obama has peaked too soon. Hillary will take 3 out of 4 tomorrow.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Obama has peaked too soon. Hillary will take 3 out of 4 tomorrow.

Perhaps. Perhaps all the fear mongering and scare tactics might be enough for her to tip the scales.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Yup.

He isn't Muslim... as far as I know *ominous*.

Only thing missing was the xfiles theme music.

[Alex+R 0]

I'm a little worried.

On the other hand, I don't care who gets the nomination as long as they can win the whole thing.

[Peikko 1,575]

The Party needs to get behind one candidate and while there will be no candidate with a huge lead, the statistics, the trend and the momentum is behind Obama. We'll see what happens tomorrow.

You say that, but I don't know why you are saying it not, logically anyway. As for what Hilary would do in the reverse situation, again, that's not my point, my point is, democratically why shouldn't the election go through to the end so that all states get their say when a race is this close? If the situation were reversed I would have liked to see Obama fight to the end too.

Saying things like, Ohio voters are stupid which is why Hilary will win doesn't really make for a good argument either.

I am also curious as to this insistance that 'charisma' should be enough to persuade one that this is the best candidate (both candidates are eloquent). It isn't of itself a good thing. Many charismatic people are incredibly selfish and have the ability to persuade people to do things they wouldn't ordinarily do. They don't need to explain themselves because their followers don't need to understand why they should do them. They do them because this charismatic figure tells them that they should. That is not the quality I look for in a politician.

I am not saying that Obama will/does use his 'charisma' in this way, I am just pointing out that for me, this is not a quality that is essential. I would prefer a more dogmatic character who consistantly explains why the policies they put forward are good for me and for the country.

[Peikko 1,575]

Yup.

He isn't Muslim... as far as I know *ominous*.

Only thing missing was the xfiles theme music.

Again, I don't think that was a good example of Hilary 'scare mongering' but of course saying as far as I know could in fact have a much more sinister meaning than I had previously realised.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The Party needs to get behind one candidate and while there will be no candidate with a huge lead, the statistics, the trend and the momentum is behind Obama. We'll see what happens tomorrow.

You say that, but I don't know why you are saying it not, logically anyway. As for what Hilary would do in the reverse situation, again, that's not my point, my point is, democratically why shouldn't the election go through to the end so that all states get their say when a race is this close? If the situation were reversed I would have liked to see Obama fight to the end too.

Saying things like, Ohio voters are stupid which is why Hilary will win doesn't really make for a good argument either.

I am also curious as to this insistance that 'charisma' should be enough to persuade one that this is the best candidate (both candidates are eloquent). It isn't of itself a good thing. Many charismatic people are incredibly selfish and have the ability to persuade people to do things they wouldn't ordinarily do. They don't need to explain themselves because their followers don't need to understand why they should do them. They do them because this charismatic figure tells them that they should. That is not the quality I look for in a politician.

I am not saying that Obama will/does use his 'charisma' in this way, I am just pointing out that for me, this is not a quality that is essential. I would prefer a more dogmatic character who consistantly explains why the policies they put forward are good for me and for the country.

PH, perhaps a better understanding of the DNP's selection process would help. For example, if Sen. Clinton doesn't win tomorrow by a large margin, there is no statistical way that she'll get the 2025 delegate votes to win the nomination, however, if they both stay in the race after tomorrow's Primary, neither will Obama. He will however, have the lead in popular votes as well as delegates going into the Convention which would make it the right thing to do, to nominate Obama at the Convention. Meanwhile (if Clinton stays in after trailing tomorrow), both candidates will have to continue spending huge sums of money campaigning when the nominee will need money for the general election.

More than likely, Hillary will continue to trail behind Obama with no chance of capturing the needed delegates to win, so staying in any longer would just be defiant.

[Peikko 1,575]

Leaving aside the money question, does that make this process democratic? Again, if the situation was reversed would you agree that Obama should pull out? You have suggested that it's possible that neither candidate might get the necessary delegates so first past the post at some point is acceptable? It just doesn't seem very democratic, although if one is supporting the leader at this point I can see why one would want it to be so.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Leaving aside the money question, does that make this process democratic? Again, if the situation was reversed would you agree that Obama should pull out? You have suggested that it's possible that neither candidate might get the necessary delegates so first past the post at some point is acceptable? It just doesn't seem very democratic, although if one is supporting the leader at this point I can see why one would want it to be so.

Yes. If Hillary had been the underdog and Obama the strong favorite, and she swept through state after state, coming from behind in polls to then win decisively 11 Primaries in a row. If she had that kind of momentum and the polls showed her growing popularity, and then would win tomorrow, enough that Obama couldn't catch up or statistically win nomination with the remaining Primaries, then people would be saying he should bow out and I would agree.

What I find peculiar is how so many positive factors about Obama's surge seems to glide over people's head. This is American politics. Again, they both are very close in terms of their positions, so charisma and eloquence does matter...and Obama (like a long of line of presidents before him) has trumped Hillary in that area. I'm sorry if you get turned off by that notion, but in American politics, likability is an important factor.

[Peikko 1,575]

There is a difference between charismatic and likeablity. Be that as it may, I was just trying to understand the 'democratic' process and it just doesn't seem well, democratic.

If he gets the nomination, and if he goes on to become president, I would expact a lot more from him than that he's an affable chap. Huckabee is affable too, but he's also quite nuts!

Edited to add something that I have completely forgotten now!

Edited March 3, 2008 by Purple_Hibiscus

[Peikko 1,575]

Oh, yes, my point was, it's little suprise that so many states want to be first because in this kind of a race, then only certain states get to make the decision as to who should be the candidate which moves it further and further away from being truly democratic in my eyes.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

There is a difference between charismatic and likeablity. Be that as it may, I was just trying to understand the 'democratic' process and it just doesn't seem well, democratic.

If he gets the nomination, and if he goes on to become president, I would expact a lot more from him than that he's an affable chap. Huckabee is affable too, but he's also quite nuts!

Edited to add something that I have completely forgotten now!

What's not democratic about winning the popular vote? And do you really believe that Obama has come from behind and one won decisively, Primary after Primary, simply because he's likable? Somewhere, I think my point was lost.