It doesn’t sound like Clinton’s going anywhere anytime soon

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

In case there was any doubt at all about Hillary Clinton's intention to keep fighting for the Democratic nomination, as long as it takes, the senator made her objectives clear in an interview with Time's Mark Halperin. When Halperin asked about her "most likely path to victory," given the very high hurdles in front of her. Clinton said:

"Well, first I think that it's important to point out that the premise of the whole discussion that some people are engaged in is off base because this is a very close race and neither of us will reach the magic number of delegates. We're both going to be short, and when you think about the many millions of people who have already voted, we are separated by a relatively small percentage of votes. We're separated by, you know, a little more than a hundred delegates. I've won states that Democrats need to win in the general election in order to win the White House and obviously the strategy on the other side is to try to shut this race down, but I don't think voters want that."

Some of these points strike me as more persuasive than others. When Clinton emphasizes that she and Obama are "separated by a relatively small percentage of votes," she's quite right. Obama will end the process with more pledged delegates, and almost certainly more popular votes, but the margins are going to be modest. As far as Clinton's concerned, there's a key difference between a 3-point margin and a 23-point margin. Fair enough.

When she emphasizes having won key general-election states, I'm far less impressed. The link between primary victories and general-election victories is very weak, and this whole line of thinking seems flawed.

As for Clinton's Democratic rivals trying to "shut this race down," I'm fairly certain the Obama campaign hasn't ever said this, or even anything close, but is it really that bad to talk openly about ending the process? In January, Clinton talked about ending the race on Feb. 5. Obviously, things didn't work out as she planned, but no one accused her at the time of wanting to "shut this race down."

What's more, voters don't want the race to end? Are you sure? (That's only half-way intended as a rhetorical question. I haven't seen any recent polls indicating whether Dems would prefer this to be over, but if anyone has, let me know. My guess is most Dems just want it to be over, but I'd like some empirical data to back that up.)

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/

[Dan J 277]

Certain states are not just going to go red if Hillary is not the candidate, even if she won them during the primary. The strong democratic states are going to stay that way.

[no name 1]

So she won't roll over & drop out even though she hasn't lost? And poeple don't want her to?

Fascinating.

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

So she won't roll over & drop out even though she hasn't lost? And poeple don't want her to?

Fascinating.

What does hope will happen in order for her to win the Party's nomination?

[GaryC 7]

[Don_Joy's Prince 0]

The super delegates will decide at the convention. If they deem Obama unelectable they will switch. That is their purpose in the DNC nomination process. The will of the Democratic voter is secondary to winning of the elections.

Edited March 27, 2008 by Don_Joy's Prince

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

The super delegates will decide at the convention. If they deem Obama unelectable they will switch. That is their purpose in the DNC nomination process. The will of the Democratic voter is secondary to winning of the elections.

If that happens, I'm leaving the Party.

[Dan J 277]

The super delegates will decide at the convention. If they deem Obama unelectable they will switch. That is their purpose in the DNC nomination process. The will of the Democratic voter is secondary to winning of the elections.

If that happens, I'm leaving the Party.

If Hillarys win is determined by superdelegates, that act alone will likely make Hillary unelectable in Novemeber.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The super delegates will decide at the convention. If they deem Obama unelectable they will switch. That is their purpose in the DNC nomination process. The will of the Democratic voter is secondary to winning of the elections.

If that happens, I'm leaving the Party.

If Hillarys win is determined by superdelegates, that act alone will likely make Hillary unelectable in Novemeber.

I've said it before and I say it again: The Clintons are working on getting McCain elected (by actively destructing the Democratic party and Obama) and will be back in 2012 after Obama has lost the 2008 general election. Mark my words.

[Dan J 277]

The super delegates will decide at the convention. If they deem Obama unelectable they will switch. That is their purpose in the DNC nomination process. The will of the Democratic voter is secondary to winning of the elections.

If that happens, I'm leaving the Party.

If Hillarys win is determined by superdelegates, that act alone will likely make Hillary unelectable in Novemeber.

I've said it before and I say it again: The Clintons are working on getting McCain elected (by actively destructing the Democratic party and Obama) and will be back in 2012 after Obama has lost the 2008 general election. Mark my words.

I don't know about that. But i think Hillary is playing the right game, but for the wrong year. If this was 2000, or 2004, she would likely already have the nomination.

But this year, there is a canidate of a type she didn't expect. The way she runs her campaign isnt having the same effect as it would on other types of candidates. So its gotten a bit nasty. The race has pushed on, and many people are getting very emotionally involved with thier candidate. There will be at least some on both sides, who will not vote democratic or not vote at all if thier candidate is not nominated. (Hillary can also claim support of some DINO's who defeintly will not vote for her even if she wins the nomination )

I think the Democratic party has alot to gain out of this election, but at the same time, alot to loose. Is the voice of the people going to matter? Or will it be overridden by a small minority?

[dalegg 143]

When asked if the three presidential candidates could be successful in uniting the country if they were elected president, 60 percent of all voters believed Obama could be successful at doing this, 58 percent of all voters said McCain could unite the country while only 46 percent of voters said the same about Clinton.

------------------------

One thing about these head-to-head matchups: Our pollsters found that for the second poll in a row, more than 20 percent of Clinton and Obama supporters say they would support McCain when he's matched up against the other Democrat. There is clearly some hardening of feelings among some of the most core supporters of both Democrats, though it may be Obama voters, who are more bitter in the long run.

Why? Because among Obama voters, Clinton has a net-negative personal rating (35-43) while Clinton voters have a net-positive view of Obama (50-29).

Source

Edited March 27, 2008 by dalegg

[metta 0]

The super delegates will decide at the convention. If they deem Obama unelectable they will switch. That is their purpose in the DNC nomination process. The will of the Democratic voter is secondary to winning of the elections.

If that happens, I'm leaving the Party.

If Hillarys win is determined by superdelegates, that act alone will likely make Hillary unelectable in Novemeber.

I've said it before and I say it again: The Clintons are working on getting McCain elected (by actively destructing the Democratic party and Obama) and will be back in 2012 after Obama has lost the 2008 general election. Mark my words.

I don't know about that. But i think Hillary is playing the right game, but for the wrong year. If this was 2000, or 2004, she would likely already have the nomination.

But this year, there is a canidate of a type she didn't expect. The way she runs her campaign isnt having the same effect as it would on other types of candidates. So its gotten a bit nasty. The race has pushed on, and many people are getting very emotionally involved with thier candidate. There will be at least some on both sides, who will not vote democratic or not vote at all if thier candidate is not nominated. (Hillary can also claim support of some DINO's who defeintly will not vote for her even if she wins the nomination )

I think the Democratic party has alot to gain out of this election, but at the same time, alot to loose. Is the voice of the people going to matter? Or will it be overridden by a small minority?

yeah, like the people of Florida and Michigan. Disenfranchized by Obama lawyers who manipulated behind the scenes to prevent a revote....

[GaryC 7]

When asked if the three presidential candidates could be successful in uniting the country if they were elected president, 60 percent of all voters believed Obama could be successful at doing this, 58 percent of all voters said McCain could unite the country while only 46 percent of voters said the same about Clinton.

There is something I just don't understand. Obama has the most liberal voting record in the senate. Not once has he included reps in any of his bills. He is so liberal he make Hillary look like Reagan. Just how is he supposed to unite us? IMO he would polarize the nation even more than it is now.

[Peikko 1,575]

I think the assumption is that his charisma and 'likeabiltiy' will somehow act like a magnet and members of the GOP will find themselves agreeing with him/voting with him just because he represents the 'new face' of politics. I personally think this is one aspect of his campaign that is utter bull. One of the many things he says to win voters without any proof of how he would achieve the outcome he claims he desires.

[Dr. A ♥ O 203]

When asked if the three presidential candidates could be successful in uniting the country if they were elected president, 60 percent of all voters believed Obama could be successful at doing this, 58 percent of all voters said McCain could unite the country while only 46 percent of voters said the same about Clinton.

There is something I just don't understand. Obama has the most liberal voting record in the senate. Not once has he included reps in any of his bills. He is so liberal he make Hillary look like Reagan. Just how is he supposed to unite us? IMO he would polarize the nation even more than it is now.

I tend to agree. In my political science classes we're learning that during times of war an unseasoned leader will be tested more by other leaders in the world to see what these new leaders are made of. For example look at the Kennedy's presidency and all the havoc that reigned during his presidency. Do we really want to repeat the 60's?

Personally the fact that people are supporting Obama shows what an uneducated nation we are in regards to our position and tactics in handling our world affairs currently. I used to believe in some of the conspiracy theories that lead us into this war but that's changed after reading the required load of literature for my college minor by some of the best Political Scientists of our time. I now can admit I came from a place of political ignorance and I recognize that many Americans are in that place of ignorance still.

When push comes to shove Hillary has the experience needed out of the two and the alliances within the political system that comes with a seasoned leader. She's even has the home court advantage of formerly being in the White House as the first lady and meeting world leaders and being aware of the insider information at the highest levels of operation in our country.

McCain's foreign policy is weak. Obama's leadership is weak. Some people don't like somethings about Clinton but she really is the lesser of all the evils in regards to the current affairs our nation faces.

Edited March 27, 2008 by Olivia*