I don't like to say it, but the strategy of declaring victory simply as a means of influencing the narrative is very Bush 2000. On a gut level, it strikes the wrong chord with me.
always, ALWAYS, hearalding the importance of coming together as a party behind the eventual nominee. I have always said I will proudly get behind Obama if he is the nominee, and that he would make a fantastic President. But I happen to believe very strongly that Hillary is more electable against McCain and that this process needs to play out. If Obama comes out and declares himself the winner before Hillary concedes or any delegates have cast actual votes, I will be totally turned off to him. Completely. And that's putting it mildly. Take all the nasty things some of the more "colorful" Obama supporters say about Hillary around here and multiply that times 10 and that's how I would feel. I would probably hold my nose and pull that lever in Nov., but that's it. I would bow out after that and wait for 2012.
The problem with waiting until Clinton concedes or delegates cast votes, is that that means we could be sniping until late August. How would that be good for our chances in November?
if he hits the 2025 mark (the mark that everybody has been touting as the mark and was only changed Tuesday), you think that he shouldn't get to celebrate a little? What is he hits the 2209 mark assuming he gets some of those MI delegates (what the compromise was) and his allocation of the FL delegates? Is that not fair game?
combining his elected delegates with SD's who have declared, then absolutely, he is the winner. But not until. Unless Hillary concedes, which I don't forsee. If he declares himself the winner before he IS the winner, he is doing exactly what Todd suggests:
moving the goal posts and changing the rules in the middle of the game, something Obama supporters have long chided the Clinton campaign for doing
Wait a second...since when are nominations determined by when the other candidates concede? This has gotten utterly ridiculous. By that logic, I guess John McCain has a lot of damn nerve pretending to be the nominee when Ron Paul never conceded.
It's that kind of pretzel logic that produces gems like this:
So, while the Obama campaign will try to end it after Oregon and Kentucky vote on May 20, I suspect this thing will only end when Senator Clinton says it does.
No, it ends when Obama has enough delegates to be the nominee. That's how these things work.
comes to chances of winning their respective primaries really has me laughing loudly all by myself in my home office. Yea, right.
At this point, their chances are awfully similar.
Look, if you don't care about unifying the party, if you don't care about alienating potential Obama voters for November, then celebrate whenever the fuck you want. You're completely missing the point.
I'm not celebrating anything, and I have no idea what you're talking about. I haven't posted a single comment rubbing anything in anyone's face, so back off.
I find it absurd that now people are arguing that Obama is only allowed to consider himself the winner if Hillary concedes. So if indeed he ends the primary season with more pledged delegates, popular votes, superdelegates, states won, etc., he still needs Hillary's permission before he can be the nominee?
That's exactly why I mentioned Ron Paul--by the same logic exhibited in Todd's post and many of the comments, McCain is being undemocratic/illegitimate/unfair/whateve r by acting like he's the nominee when Paul never really conceded.
I'm not suggesting we should gloat about Obama's likely victory, but it's equally asinine in the other direction to demand that we all humor her and pretend she has a real shot at winning. She wants to stay in? Fine. But don't get angry at us if people no longer consider her candidacy to be viable.
(And as far as unifying the party, that's a two-way street. The Obama-bashing has been ceaseless, and to no surprise, those rants still rocket to the top of the rec list.)
