Reid: Race Should Be Over in June

by Jonathan Singer, Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:13:47 PM EST

A week ago I noted that both Clinton campaign chair Terry McAuliffe and key Clinton congressional backer Barney Frank were talking about the race for the Democratic nomination being over in June, seemingly agreeing with the sentiment of many in the party that the primary battle should not extend all the way to the convention in the hopes of maximizing the party's ability to win back the White House in November. It looks like you can add Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, as well as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean to the list pushing for the process to end when balloting finishes in June.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said Thursday that three of the party's most influential figures might join to convince Democratic superdelegates to make up their minds on which presidential candidate to support.

Reid said he, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean might write a joint letter, or individual letters, to superdelegates after the last primaries in early June, "unless something comes up."

Reid rejected suggestions that the nominating fight may extend to the Democratic Convention in August, and expected superdelegates to make up their minds before the beginning of July.

"I've said for several weeks now that this matter will be over by sometime in June, or no later than the first of July. I still believe that that's the case," he told reporters.

Some Clinton supporters online are unhappy with the news that there might be an end in sight to the nominating process. However, this end (though not necessarily with these means) is exactly what some in the upper echelons of the Clinton campaign were calling for just this month. As alluded to above and discussed at greater length here, Congressman Barney Frank, a strong Clinton supporter, said recently that he believed the candidate with "no practical chance of winning the nomination" should drop out by June 3rd, at the latest, and "probably sooner" than that. Even Clinton campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe said last week that he thought "it will be over in June."

So, it seems, a consensus is building -- the race for the Democratic nomination should be over long before the convention in late-August, probably as early as June, a few weeks from now.




Tags: Democratic Primaries, Harry Reid (all tags)

Display:
Permalink :: 105 Comments :: Post a Comment


I think that after his humiliating loss (2.00 / 1)

in Pennsylvania, Senator Obama must be contemplating dropping out of the race for the good of the party.


That's it, baby; let's go win this election!
by Beltway Dem on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:15:21 PM EST

Re: I think that after his humiliating loss (2.00 / 3)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2008_ Democratic_Primaries_Popular_Vote.png

Obama has won 13 states with margins of higher than 30%... (a thing Clinton only achieved in Arkansas) now he's supposed to be humiliated because of a defeat of 9.1%?

I am starting to lose the ability to see you Clinton supporters as sane, let alone intelligent.


by Aris Katsaris on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:27:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Man, if OBAMA was humiliated (none / 0)

Then Hillary was... 13-tuple humiliated, huh?


by beholderseye on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:34:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Elitist ###'s and Fancypants %%%'s (2.00 / 1)

Good points Aris.

Not being of the "Hillary Math" school, you can count on it to be totally ignored.

Get ready for:
"She won Michigan hands down - WAY more than 30%!!She cleaned his clock like he wasn't even on the ticket! HEH!"


by edmandspath on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:37:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That is so yesterday. He's doing far worse (none / 0)

than Hillary versus McCain now. He needs more experience and more years to pass to further distance himself from his dubious associations.

McCAin asked a reasonable question on Sunday: "Why would Obama continue to associate with Bill Ayers, who is an admitted terrorist who set off bombs that killed people in the U.S.?"

The man is unrepentent. When asked on Sep 11, 2001 whether he regrets setting off all those bombs, he said "I only wish I would have done a lot more".

That is a deal breaker. Obama will not adequately explain that and it should have come out 4 months ago. But it means that Obama will have one tough time winning in November. Especially if he keeps trashing Bill Clinton. Terrible strategy. Knock Hillary, but don't downplay BC's accomplishments, even if the big dog attacks you. Or keep doing what you're doing and go down in flames.


by mmorang on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:40:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That is so yesterday. He's doing far worse (2.00 / 2)

It's Clinton who pardoned the convicted killers in the Weathermen -- isn't that "association" important?

And btw Wikipedia writes on the issue of regrets:
---------
Ayers wrote a Letter to the Editor of the New York Times on September 15, describing the interview as: "This is not a question of being misunderstood or 'taken out of context', but of deliberate distortion." He has explained multiple times that by "no regrets" he meant that he didn't regret his efforts to oppose the Vietnam War, and that "we didn't do enough" meant that efforts to stop the war were obviously inadequate as it dragged on for a decade; the two statements were not intended to elide into a wish they had set more bombs
------------


by Aris Katsaris on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:49:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The sound you hear (2.00 / 1)

will be the sound of crickets chirping.

Bill Ayers was the cheapest of cheap shots - the height of hypocrisy.  But you won't find any Hillary supporters on this site who'll acknowledge it.

One thing you should check out, if you haven't already - after several days of refusing to answer reporters' questions about whether she approves of Bill's decision, she now says she never knew about the pardons.  Let's leave aside her sidestepping the question (which was what she thought of the decision, whether or not she knew at the time) - what's interesting is that she's almost certainly lying.

The pardons happened late in 2000, the year Hillary was running for Senate in NY.  In October, word leaked that a pardon might be in the works, and the victims' families staged a public memorial service - attended by Chuck Schumer - in which Schumer vowed he would fight the pardon.  Shortly thereafter, 60 Minutes ran a story on the pardon.  This story was on the front page in NYC newspapers.

This was in the state where she was running, it was very high profile, and Schumer told the press this was a big deal for him.

Now maybe Hillary Clinton doesn't pay attention to front page political news in the last few weeks of a campaign.  And maybe the Easter Bunny is on his way to my house this week.

Check out TPM.


by TL on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:50:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That is so yesterday. He's doing far worse (none / 0)

McCain is the one who brought it up on Sunday. this is not about Hillary versus Obama its about Obama versus McCain.

It will be hard to say that Hillary isn't patriotic because she's been first lady and a senator for so long. Obama is a rookie who is still new to many voters. He can be painted as unpatriotic by the right.


by mmorang on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:28:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That is so yesterday. He's doing far worse (2.00 / 1)

The man is unrepentent. When asked on Sep 11, 2001 whether he regrets setting off all those bombs, he said "I only wish I would have done a lot more".

That isn't true.  There was an article that quoted Ayers that happened to come out on Sept 11th.  They were not comments he made after the attack.  Also, Ayers never set off any bombs.


Lost rate and rec for issuing a '1' to a trollish comment. The troll, not so much.

by map on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:57:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

C'mon, we can't be bothered by facts... (none / 0)

after all we're Republicans!

Whoops, we're not the GOP. What the hell is happening here?


Clinton Democrats care about the same things I do, most importantly beating John McCain.
by TrueBlueCT on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:48:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That is so yesterday. He's doing far worse (none / 0)

Bill Ayers is a Patriot. End of story. Stop buying into the Republican noise machine.


Jeremy Bentham sucks!!
by Forward with Feingold on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:24:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That is so yesterday. He's doing far worse (none / 0)

Why would Obama continue to associate with Bill Ayers, who is an admitted terrorist who set off bombs that killed people in the U.S.?"

In what way does Obama associate with Ayers?


by Socraticsilence on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:28:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That is so yesterday. He's doing far worse (none / 0)

HEAR, HEAR!
I was watching O'Reily tonight, and he had some right wingnut on trying to link Ayers and Obama. Even O'Reily was not buying the attempted association. He said Fox news tried to dig up all they could and the best they could come up with is that both were at a fundraiser sponsored by Obama's predessor, and that both served on a board at the same time.
Bottom line, O'reily gave him the pass (grudgingly).....

A thought just occured to me as I was typing this: maybe McCain is smarter than I thought. His campaign hasn't piled on any of the attacks that are weak on substance, like Ayers and Wright, because if they did, Obama will have more than enough time in the fall to debunk....


A PROUD Hopium user!
by xodus1914 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:53:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think that after his humiliating loss (2.00 / 3)

Oh yeah.
Man, the fact that Hillary needs 71% instead of 66% in the remaining states...

Why couldn't Obama just make it so that Hillary needs 100% instead of 66% int he remaining states.

He's such a dismal failure.

Those 10 net delegates are gonna hurt Obama so much.


by beholderseye on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:32:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Isn't it telling how each time Obama fails at (none / 0)

something, the shrill voices insisting that Hillary drop out rise in volume.

If Obama becomes President, can you imagine him doing THAT with our other problems?

The mind reels..


Universal healthcare IS a core Democratic value
Comprehensively cover 100%, not only the healthiest 80%
by architek on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:19:38 PM EST

Re: Isn't it telling how each time Obama fails at (2.00 / 1)

After the voting is over, and if enough superdelegates have announced their support for Obama, what's the point of Clinton staying in the race? I'm not trying to push her out, I just want to know, what's the point?

If there's a clear winner-- if someone has a lead in delegates that is insurmountable-- why on Earth would the other candidate stay in the race?

Right now, Obama has the lead in pledged delegates, and chances are, that won't change. He's nearly caught up on superdelegates, and will probably match or overtake Clinton in the coming weeks. The only thing left to fight over is Michigan and Florida, but since Clinton would only gain a handful of delegates (most Uncommitteds went to Obama heavily in the district conventions), the math really is leaning against her.

She can make a case to the voters and she can keep going up until the last primary. It'll build the party, and that's good. But when there aren't any elections left, what do you suggest she do? If the roles were reversed, yeah, I'd tell Obama to drop out. It would be stupid to take it to the convention.

It just doesn't make sense to keep fighting after you've already lost.


Walberg Watch - Following Radical Conservative Rep. Tim Walberg in MI-07
by Fitzy on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:31:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The point is to stick up for yourself (none / 0)

and the people who voted in Florida and Michigan. Either count those votes or have a revote.

She also believes that Obama won't win against McCain. I think that's becoming more clear every day.

Obama will be destroyed for his Bill Ayers and Wright associations.

The Clinton's have been overly easy on Obama and he doesn't seem to know it. His trashing of Bill Clinton's record and general lack of respect he's shown him will be his downfall if he doesn't make it right with them.


by mmorang on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:45:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The point is to stick up for yourself (2.00 / 2)

Thank god Hillary is here to save the party from the assholes who voted to nominate Obama. It's not for them to decide, it is for Mother Hillary and Father Bill.


I just flipped off President George, I'm going to Disneyland
by alvernon on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:53:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The point is to stick up for yourself (none / 0)

I hate to say this...but who the heck cares about FL/MI? You people are drama queens.


by Democratic Unity on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:24:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The point is to stick up for yourself (none / 0)

I'm not from either of those places but the reason they are important is because are must win states.


by mmorang on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:13:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Isn't it telling how each time Obama fails at (none / 0)

I'll tell you why. Because this primary process is deeply frustrating. If there was a real path to victory for Hillary then nobody would be telling her to drop out. But her campaign is completely quixotic at this point. She needs 74% of all remaining superdelegates to win, as long as the rest of the primaries go according to current polling. If things continue as they have, the DNC can seat all the Florida delegates as is and it will make no difference in the final outcome. The Michigan delegation is Stalinist joke so some arrangement would need to be worked out there. But there is no viable path for her to the nomination.

Is she willing to destroy the party just to fight for the nomination? What is her intention?


by elrod on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:31:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Isn't it telling how each time Obama fails at (2.00 / 2)

Her intention is to hurt Obama as much as possible so that she has a chance to get the nomination in 2012.

The more time passes with Hillary consistently falling short of the margins she needs to achieve and yet still refusing to withdraw, the more people will come to acknowledge that must be her one goal, that nothing else makes sense.

It will become pretty obvious when Obama is finally nomination, and her thong of supporters will be switching slogans not from "Hillary 2008" to "Obama 2008" but rather to "Hillary 2012"


by Aris Katsaris on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:37:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hillary was outspent 3-1 in PA and clobbered (none / 0)

Obama as she's done in every other big state (he's not from).

All the money in the world can't buy Obama experience or a big state victory. That is just a fact.

He either wins Indiana or he's finished.


by mmorang on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:50:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary was outspent 3-1 in PA and clobbered (2.00 / 2)

Mmm, what I'd say is that her inability to reach 60% anywhere other than Arkansas ( a percentage he's instead reached 20 times) indicates the quite limited nature of her appeal.

And I think you're confusing the sizes -- North Carolina's a bigger state than Indiana.

Therefore if it's a victory in a big state you demand of Obama, you ought be arguing about North Carolina, not Indiana.


by Aris Katsaris on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:05:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary was outspent 3-1 in PA and clobbered (none / 0)

North Carolina is a big state. So you agree then that if Obama wins in NC, then HRC's big state argument is nullified, and then she should drop out?

In fact, NC is quite a bit bigger than Indiana. If HRC doesn't win NC, she should drop out.

See how easy it is when you throw darts at a map?


by tysonpublic on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:02:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

It's that darn math. (2.00 / 1)

As of today, Obama needs 41% of the remaining delegates (pledged and 'automatic') to push him over the 2024 number.  Hillary needs 61%.  So anytime she doesn't win a 60/40 victory it's a loss for her.

BTW:  It doesn't add up to 100% because Edwards retains 18 delegates.

Think about that -- what is the chance that she will win 60/40 in every single state from here on PLUS 61% of the uncommitted superdelegates?

Obama supporters aren't saying she should give up because we are afraid of her, it's because we see the handwriting on the wall.  She can go on to compete in the remaining states, I have no problem with that, but it won't change the final outcome.  The primary has gone on for over a year now and she is beating a dead horse at this point.  Whether or not she would beat McCain, whether she is a terrific person, whether she would make a great president is irrelevant...she isn't going to win the nomination.

I don't expect to win over the hard-core Clinton supporters just as all the talk about Obama's pastor and neighbors, etc. isn't winning over any hard-core Obama supporters.  It's just there comes a time (as when I was supporting Biden) when a person has to realize that as fabulous as their candidate is, they are losing and it isn't going to turn around.


No Way, No How, No McCain!
by GFORD on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:16:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary was outspent 3-1 in PA and clobbered (none / 0)

"Clobbered".....
Interesting term. Are you aware that she didn't even beat him by 10%?
Don't fret though, she has clobbered him in Arkansas, and ...
Right, just Arkansas.
Kinda like how Obama beat her in Illinois.

However, Obama has 'clobbered' her in other places.

See how that works?


A PROUD Hopium user!
by xodus1914 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:59:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Isn't it telling how each time Obama fails at (none / 0)

It will become pretty obvious when Obama is finally nomination, and her thong of supporters will be switching slogans not from "Hillary 2008" to "Obama 2008" but rather to "Hillary 2012"

I don't mean to be an ass, but given her behavior during this campaign ("Hamas," "Farrakhan," and "Ayers" was the breaking point for me), Hillary Clinton has no chance of ever winning the Democratic nomination again. If Obama loses the general election in '08 and she even attempts to run again in 2012, the Anybody But Clinton forces will abort Rosemary's Baby faster than you can say "Tulza". Besides, Brian Schweitzer would clean her clock; unlike Obama, he's much too brash to avoid shanking her.


by RP McMurphy on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:03:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'd also like to say... (2.00 / 1)

the shrill voices insisting that Hillary drop out rise in volume.

I don't like this, and I find it a little troubling that you would use it. "Shrill" is one of those terrible little words that Republicans use to belittle Democrats, to "feminize" them, as some have explained it. They want to make their side seem tough and powerful and our side to seem weak and, well, "shrill."

Considering the number of times folks at Free Republic have flung "shrill" at Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi, I think Democrats should know better.


Walberg Watch - Following Radical Conservative Rep. Tim Walberg in MI-07
by Fitzy on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:35:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Isn't it telling how each time Obama fails at (none / 0)

And when those shrill voices are coming from Hillary supporters (the ones with brain matter still intact), it suggests....what?


by edmandspath on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:40:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Isn't it telling how each time Obama fails at (none / 0)

Him? You said voices but clearly you didn't mean his. Then you blame him? Why?


John McCain on social security.
by heresjohnny on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:02:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You missed the end of that interview with Reid... (none / 0)

"The Senate majority leader also hinted that another high-profile superdelegate could be making an endorsement in the coming days.

Reid said he met Wednesday with all of the Senate committee chairman, and that one chairman told him  he was going to make an endorsement decision "soon."

When asked in the hallway if he was the committee chairman in question, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joe Biden (D-Del.)  delivered an emphatic "no."

any guesses?


We don't need a thinker. We need a doer: someone who'll act without considering the consequences. (H.J. Simpson)
by Newcomer on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:25:50 PM EST

Re: You missed the end of that interview with Reid (none / 0)

byrd?


by ab03 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:41:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Maybe... (none / 0)

I was thinking Harkin - I seem to remember something about him possibly endorsing.

?


We don't need a thinker. We need a doer: someone who'll act without considering the consequences. (H.J. Simpson)
by Newcomer on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:45:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Maybe... (none / 0)

Yes, Harkin.


by myddfree on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:32:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reid: Race Should Be Over in June (none / 0)

Why is it that Jon tries to make the point that even some upper-level Clinton people think the race will be over soon, and some people immediately attack him, Obama, and everything else in sight as "insisting that Hillary drop out"?


by quixote27 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:27:29 PM EST

Re: Reid: Race Should Be Over in June (none / 0)

Are you looking for a phrase more sophisticated than "knee jerk reaction"...?


Like the nominee, don't like the nominee... Our nominee is still better than John McCain...
by JenKinFLA on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:33:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Good (2.00 / 2)

Hillary is in her her rights to fight through June 3. But if she is behind in pledged delegates and popular votes at that point, she has no case.


by elrod on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:27:40 PM EST

Re: Reid: Race Should Be Over in June (none / 0)

I'm no longer sure that either of our candidates can win after this plays out.  This primary is ugly.  As an Obama supporter I think her need to win in spite of having lost is destroying his candidacy.  Her supporters will probably feel the opposite, but anyone who thinks that either can now go into the general election unscathed, I think is dreaming.  I'm getting very very discouraged.  There is something wrong with this process.  The superdelegates are just spineless beyond belief.  If they are supposed to be the party elders, the wise ones, the ones who keep the party from going off a cliff, let them do that now, because we are running right for it, lemming-like.


by mady on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:29:16 PM EST

Re: Reid: Race Should Be Over in June (none / 0)

If both were unelectable they'd each be losing to McCain in polling right now. They aren't.


by elrod on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:31:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reid: Race Should Be Over in June (2.00 / 1)

Right now is the key to that.  McCain has started campaigning, and well.  If this goes to the convention he will have a 3-month head start on the Democratic candidate while all the voting public sees is our party tearing itself to bits with GOP talking points.  Of course that is goint to affect the outcome.


by mady on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:34:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reid: Race Should Be Over in June (none / 0)

But - both Obama and Clinton are still very competitive in all polling, no matter how you splice it. National head-to-heads, state polling and EC vote counts, favorability. And the Dem candidate will have a huge money advantage to go along with their gargantuan registration advantage.

There will be bumps after we have a nominee and after the convention. Voter registration will continue. The DSCC and the DCCC will pump ridiculous amounts of money into state races.

And John McCain is an ill-tempered, elderly nutjob who is loathed by the far right and attached at the hip to George W Bush - the most disliked president in modern history.

I'm not so worried.


www.thingsyoungerthanmccain.com
by LandStander on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:14:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reid: Race Should Be Over in June (none / 0)

No, you do not get anywhere by underestimating your opponent.  He is not an elderly nut job.  He has a substantial resume and life history.  He has a good sense of humor and a nice deprecating style when he campaigns.  He is a war hero, which means personal courage.

Platform means a lot, but if people are turned off the person they will not listen to the platform.  We are turning them off; hey, look how we are turning each other off at this point.  Look at the rancor here.  McCain seems soothing by comparison, and most people choose calm and sunshine over these kinds of storms.


by mady on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:10:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Maybe the wise ones have determined that (none / 0)

Obama can't win or probably won't win against McCain but they don't want to anger blacks and lose them. So they have a problem.

Many of them will chose to lose in November. If they screw this election up the party will be over.

I have always voted Dem and support a progressive agenda but if they go with Obama and lose big as I expect them to then I'll be a man without a party. I will not waist my time with people who are not serious about winning and governing. There is too much at stake, especially this time.

If Obama wins fairly (meaning they either count the FL and MI vote or have a revote) then I will support him, but if not the party is over.

We cannot lose this one. It can't be an option. If super delegates determine that Obama has no chance of winning then they better do the right thing and take the heat for it.


by mmorang on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:57:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Maybe the wise ones have determined that (none / 0)

That appear to be internally inconsistent. If you understand that Obama supporters would be angry (and likely leave the party to be honest) should he be denied the nomination after finishing with the most delegates then choosing Clinton would result in generations worth of loses not just one race. So they would be choosing to win even if they're rolling the dice on one election.


John McCain on social security.
by heresjohnny on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:01:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Maybe the wise ones have determined that (none / 0)

"If Obama wins fairly (meaning they either count the FL and MI vote or have a revote) "

What about if he wins with enough of a margin of delegates that it doesn't matter whether they count them or not?


by Aris Katsaris on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:08:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Maybe the wise ones have determined that (none / 0)

If they count FL and MI the amount of needed delegates for the nomination goes up.

So, either count the original vote or have a revote. Otherwise the nomination is a sham.


by mmorang on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:56:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Maybe the wise ones have determined that (none / 0)

Um, my question was clear enough. You didn't really answer it. What if he wins with enough difference that it doesn't matter whether the FL and MI delegates are counted or not?


by Aris Katsaris on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 12:46:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Maybe the wise ones have determined that (none / 0)

You don't understand. He cannot mathematically win enough delegates, even if all the remaining super delegates support him. Because you need 2,208 delegates for the nomination when ALL of the states are included.


by mmorang on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:19:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Maybe the wise ones have determined that (none / 0)

"Because you need 2,208 delegates for the nomination when ALL of the states are included."

Mmorang, your math isn't making sense. The difference between 2208 and 2024 is a mere 184 pledged delegates.

That's not a big number at all:

In the case we count FL, he'll ofcourse be getting the 67 delegates he won there. If you count MI as is, then even if you only give Obama half the uncommitted vote, he'll still have 23 more delegates from there. So that's 90 delegates -- even in the ABSURD scenario where one only gives Obama half the uncommitted delegates of Michigan.

Do you understand what this math means? It means that if, without Michigan and Florida, he has more than 94 delegates difference from Clinton, then it DOESN'T MATTER if MI and FL are seated or not.

And if counting MI you give him the full 55 uncommited delegates from there, then we only need (without counting MI and FL) to have Obama only achieve only 72 delegates more than Clinton, to have MI and FL not matter one bit.

So once again I ask you -- if Obama achieves 100 delegates more than Clinton (without counting MI and FL) will you accept his nomination as legitimate? Since his lead would be great enough that it wouldn't be affected even if MI and FL were counted?

You can't have it both ways -- say that Obama wouldn't achieve 2208 but not count the delegates he'd get from MI and FL that would indeed be counted if he actually had to reach that number.


by Aris Katsaris on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:05:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Maybe the wise ones have determined that (none / 0)

Clinton can't win or probably won't win against McCain but they don't want to anger older white women and lose them. So they have a problem.

Many of them will chose to lose in November. If they screw this election up the party will be over.

I have always voted Dem and support a progressive agenda but if they go with Clinton and lose big as I expect them to then I'll be a man without a party. I will not waste my time with people who are not serious about winning and governing. There is too much at stake, especially this time.

If Clinton wins fairly (meaning she follows the rules she agreed too) then I will support her, but if not the party is over.

We cannot lose this one. It can't be an option. If super delegates determine that Clinton has no chance of winning then they better do the right thing and take the heat for it.


by tysonpublic on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:06:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Maybe the wise ones have determined that (none / 0)

:-)


A PROUD Hopium user!
by xodus1914 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:07:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reid: Race Should Be Over in June (2.00 / 1)

No end will/can happen until a decision has been made on MI/FL.  Especially if the difference of seating MI/FL even after Supers have been forced to decide put Hillary over.  

Also such forceful talk from Pelosi, Reid and Dean when they don't yet have cojones to endorse.  Kind of you like you "go first" when requested to walk across an old foot bridge.  Hmm.  

My guess is this goes to the convention.


by huntese on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:29:31 PM EST

Re: Reid: Race Should Be Over in June (none / 0)

If this goes to the convention the Democrats will not win this.  


by mady on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:31:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reid: Race Should Be Over in June (none / 0)

How the freakin Hell are you expecting any of those people to endorse...?  Dean is the party chairman... he can't endorse.


Like the nominee, don't like the nominee... Our nominee is still better than John McCain...
by JenKinFLA on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:34:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Well by then the information (none / 0)

will be in...the votes, the pledged delegates, the analyses of demographics, the downticket races...all of that.  And, how much of each candidate's "negatives" might hurt them vs McCain.

I am hopeful. I don't think I'd want to be an SD right now, though!  


by 4justice on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:29:45 PM EST

Re: Reid: Race Should Be Over in June (1.00 / 0)

Seems there is a desire to change when the convention is and hold it in June.

The nominee is decided in the convention.

ONLY VOTES AT THAT TIME MATTER.

I will repeat

ONLY VOTES AT THAT TIME MATTER.

Only at the convention will we have a winner by definition of the rules of the Democratic party.

Let those who fear democracy be forewarned...


by DTaylor on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:29:49 PM EST

Re: Reid: Race Should Be Over in June (none / 0)

Do you really know this little about American politics. The convention is in August. You cannot change that. If we have no nominee until August, after the media has a field day mocking our convention and all kinds of craziness unfolds in the streets, the winner will emerge in worse shape than Humphrey in 1968.

Clinton needs to consider the party's success over her own ambitions. If she has no lead in pledged delegates or popular vote (excluding the Michigan farce) then she should withdraw at that time.


by elrod on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:34:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

How about Obama who is a ROOKIE (none / 0)

He is young and relatively inexperienced. He will have other opportunities. He also has to put more distance between his dubious associations and himself (like about 4 or 8 years distance).

He cannot win the presidency this time. It will not happen. He will be destroyed on the Bill Ayers one alone.

Obama supporters don't seem to know how easy the Clinton's have been on Obama. They think she's thrown the kitchen sink at him. That is the most naive thing I've ever seen. You would think he was their son considering how restrained they've been.

I think the SD's know quite well that Obama can't win it, but they have a problem: how can they give it to Hillary and not piss of the AA community? Guess what? Blacks are mature adults. Give her the nomination and make him the VP. That is the only way he will get to be president anyway. Once people see him as VP then he won't have to worry about the patriotism attack he will be destroyed with if he's the nominee.

Obama can only win by losing. Is he and his supporters smart enought to get that fact. He is I'm sure (I hope).


by mmorang on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:06:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How about Obama who is a ROOKIE (none / 0)

"He cannot win the presidency this time."

Look here, repeating something doesn't make it so.

Clinton supporters keep repeating the "he can't win" mantra as if force of repetition will lend strength to their non-argument.

And your opinions aren't "facts" by any stretch of the imagination. If people thought he couldn't win against McCain they wouldn't have voted for him.

And "mature adults" generally don't appreciate it when their opinions are discarded.


by Aris Katsaris on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:15:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How about Obama who is a ROOKIE (none / 0)

He will be destroyed on the Bill Ayers one alone.

What Bill Ayers thing? Seriously, I don't see any thing there, I mean I kind of got the Wright thing but the Ayers thing seems odd there is no "there" there.

Do you think he needs to address his attendance of the million man march also? I mean there were a lot of black people together at one time then!


by Socraticsilence on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:53:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How about Obama who is a ROOKIE (none / 0)

Yes, a rookie who is beating the Clinton machine. So much for experience.

I will continue to read your posts if you can make a legitimate connection between Ayers and Obama.
Attending the same same fundraising event doesn't count, and neither do being on the same board.


A PROUD Hopium user!
by xodus1914 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:10:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reid: Race Should Be Over in June (none / 0)

Let those who fear democracy be forewarned..?

Is this yet another lame attempt to say people will riot in Denver if they do not get their way...?

Gee, that will help us win in November...  how did 1968 turnout again...?


Like the nominee, don't like the nominee... Our nominee is still better than John McCain...
by JenKinFLA on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:37:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reid: Race Should Be Over in June (none / 0)

Repeat this until you are blue in the face, but if there is a clear winner by June 3 (with the SDs finally swinging this one way or another) the following will happen:

1.  The pressure on the loser to drop out will become unbearable

2.  The winning candidate will move on to the general election race

3.  The MSM will discredit and ignore the loser

4.  Some sort of settlement will be reached regarding MI/FL.

5.  The loser might be jeopardizing their political future to continue fighting.

So yell, kick, scream, do whatever you want.  This will all be settled no later than Mid June.


by Why Not on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:42:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reid: Race Should Be Over in June (none / 0)

You can threaten temper tantrums all you like.

The convention is where the winner will be determined.

The Convention Is Where The Winner Will Be Determined

THE CONVENTION IS WHERE THE WINNER WILL BE DETERMINED

Fear the process all you want you are powerless to stop it.  Throw temper tantrums.  Call for media pressure.  Cry.  Riot.

You are powerless to stop it.


by DTaylor on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:46:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reid: Race Should Be Over in June (none / 0)

Hm. If Obama is the nominee at the convention what will you  do?


John McCain on social security.
by heresjohnny on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:59:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reid: Race Should Be Over in June (2.00 / 2)

"Throw temper tantrums.  Call for media pressure.  Cry.  Riot."

You resemble that remark.


by edmandspath on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:00:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reid: Race Should Be Over in June (none / 0)

I state facts.


by DTaylor on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:02:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reid: Race Should Be Over in June (none / 0)

I remember how Edwards fought all the way to the convention in 2004, and Bill Bradley in 2000. That's how it always goes. The Democratic nominee is always decided with as much of a floor fight as possible. It shows our fighting spirit.

Oh wait- no, that never happened. The last floor fight was in 1980, wasn't it?

Obviously, the delegates will vote at the convention, and I don't think anyone will be upset when Clinton's delegates vote for her. The point is that if Clinton can't win over enough SDs by early June to win with half votes from MI and FL, that she will stop actively pursuing SDs, won't try to convince Obama's pledged delegates to vote for her, won't push a minority report demanding that MI and FL be seated in full, won't push for procedural fights at the convention. That is what it means for everyone to say that the race will be over in early June.


by alephnul on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:48:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reid: Race Should Be Over in June (none / 0)

Well maybe, fine, you may very well be right, but win that case the nominee will not win the general election.  Scorched earth.  


by mady on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:08:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reid: Race Should Be Over in June (2.00 / 1)

Holy shit what is your problem?

EVERYONE has said the nominee will be decided in June. Clinton says it and the Party leadership says it.

The convention is where the nominee will be elected, but early June is when the nominee will be decided. All signs point to this, as the above post explains.


www.thingsyoungerthanmccain.com
by LandStander on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:17:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reid: Race Should Be Over in June (none / 0)

THE CONVENTION IS WHERE THE WINNER WILL BE DETERMINED
Yes, that's true. But well before the convention, it is extremely likely that all the delegates, including those delegates who are going to vote for Clinton, will know for certain what the outcome is going to be. I mean, she could drop out, and all the delegates to the convention, including Obama's, could decide on their own to cast their votes for her anyway, and technically that would be within the rules and structure of the convention. But it's not going to happen. Short of that, she could stay in the race, and technically enough of the superdelegates could switch their votes last-minute to make her the nominee, but it's not going to happen. Technically, a bunch of Truman's electors in the electoral college could have thought, Hey, wouldn't it be cool if we made that Chicago Tribune headline true after all? and cast their votes for Dewey instead. But it wasn't going to happen. Yes, the convention is where the winner will be determined, but it will almost certainly be obvious well before the convention who is going to get the majority at the convention.
by beowabbit on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:42:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

By that logic (none / 0)

The race for the Republican nomination isn't over yet, either. Are you seriously trying to make that claim? Are you seriously that silly?


by Angry White Democrat on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:13:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

If enough delegates go over to Obama (none / 0)

then it will probably be over in June. But if they don't adequately resolve the Florida and Michigan problem it will go to the convention.

Who's supporters in FL and MI have so far sucessfully stopped a revote? Obama. If the man doesn't win it fairly with everyone's votes counting he is toast in the general election.

Let's fact it, he's scared that Hillary will rack up another big win. I'm not afraid of a revote. If Obama wins fair and square I'll support him even though I think he's a terrible choice at this early stage in his national career.


by mmorang on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:32:04 PM EST

Re: If enough delegates go over to Obama (2.00 / 1)

Hillary didn't want a re-vote back in February because she thought she could strong-arm the DNC. She only pushed for a re-vote when she started losing a ton. It turned out a non-caucus re-vote was impossible given Voting Rights Act issues (not Obama's blockage) and so it didn't happen.


by elrod on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:35:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Both sides (2.00 / 1)

Both sides stopped the re-vote in Michigan, and both sides have been moving the goalposts for their own purposes.

A lot of Obama supporters crossed over and voted in the GOP primary, and a lot more stayed home. Michigan was one of the few states that didn't have record turnout, because pretty much everyone knew it didn't matter. Clinton's side in the re-vote wanted to exclude anyone who didn't vote on January 15th. That wouldn't create a biased result or anything, would it?

Obama's side said no, Clinton's side wanted unreasonable restrictions, and state and party leaders decided it wasn't feasible. A second caucus would have been practical and desirable back in February, which is exactly what Obama and Edwards supporters were arguing for in December and January. Everybody has been changing positions to suit the politics of the day.

I'm just saying, don't pin it on Obama alone.


Walberg Watch - Following Radical Conservative Rep. Tim Walberg in MI-07
by Fitzy on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:43:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reid: Race Should Be Over in June (2.00 / 1)

Given the "leadership" Dean, Pelosi, and Reid have shown so far, I wouldn't hold my breath on this.


by mlr701 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:35:24 PM EST

Re: Reid: Race Should Be Over in June (none / 0)

Obama has won more States!!  QUESTION.  Since as metric States are meaningless.  Lets substitute COUNTY for States.  How would that look for Hillary.  When Obama supporters do the whole number of state thing, it is as bad as when we saw those Red blue maps by County and Repubs tired to show how much SPACE was RED.  

BFD folks - it is about ELECTORIAL COLLEGE votes.  And specifically FL and OH.  Everything else will defualt with non material exceptions.

So obama won WY,MS,GA - Red states.


by huntese on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:36:18 PM EST

Re: Reid: Race Should Be Over in June (none / 0)

"it is about ELECTORIAL COLLEGE votes."

Not the primaries, they're not. They're about pledged delegates.


by Aris Katsaris on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:40:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reid: Race Should Be Over in June (none / 0)

no, its about delegates total.  ask mcaullife circa january,clinton circa january.  it's always been about the delegates, pledged and super.  

they can do what they want.  but, make no mistake, it's about he delegates, not anything else


by ab03 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:45:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reid: Race Should Be Over in June (none / 0)

And to be even more specific.

Its about the delegates AS THEY VOTE AT THE CONVENTION.

Many of they are free to say one thing and do another and thats Democracy.


by DTaylor on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:49:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reid: Race Should Be Over in June (none / 0)

Correct. And they're not going to go against the pledged delegate winner absent some extraordinary revelation. There are no more back rooms. We all can see what's going on.


John McCain on social security.
by heresjohnny on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:57:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reid: Race Should Be Over in June (none / 0)

I would say they won't go against the popular vote winner.

But once you count Florida and Michigan at face value both of those are Hillary and thats how it will be sold.


by DTaylor on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:59:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reid: Race Should Be Over in June (none / 0)

Especially as the popular vote winner will have a 1 million vote margin among registered democrats...


by DTaylor on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:00:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reid: Race Should Be Over in June (none / 0)

The DNC rules say a lot about delegates and how they're allocated. Do you have a cite showing that the popular vote is the measure?


John McCain on social security.
by heresjohnny on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:04:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reid: Race Should Be Over in June (none / 0)

The popular vote can be a consideration, of course, but delegates decide the nominee. If you haven't been paying attention, you will notice Superdelegates flocking to Barack Obama. You will also notice that Obama has a lead in pledged delegates - an insurmountable lead at that.

If you are so certain that the Supers will choose Clinton - based on electability or popular vote or whatever - then why do they continue to endorse Obama and shun Clinton?


www.thingsyoungerthanmccain.com
by LandStander on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:20:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reid: Race Should Be Over in June (none / 0)

The general election is about popular vote within states.  The democratic party has clearly spoken and they have chosen Hillary by ~1,000,000 votes.

Putting our party's future in the hands of the crossover voter in caucuses is not wise and enough super delegates understand this that Florida and Michigan will count at 100% Hillary will win.

With Florida and Michigan counting 100% Hillary currently leads in  pledged delegates...

The closer we get to the convention the more team Obama comes to believe they are losing and the more they cry for her to drop out.


by DTaylor on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:47:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reid: Race Should Be Over in June (none / 0)

Your arguments just aren't rational...
The general election is about popular vote within states.  The democratic party has clearly spoken and they have chosen Hillary by ~1,000,000 votes.

The Democratic Party established the Democratic primary and all voters have participated according to the rules set forth by the national and state parties. So, as far as the Party is concerned, the voters who are eligible to determine the Democratic nominee have voted. Those votes have been translated into delegates, as the rules dictate, and Obama has won more delegates. The Democratic has spoken - and the nomination contests have proceeded as the Party's rules dictate.
Putting our party's future in the hands of the crossover voter in caucuses is not wise and enough super delegates understand this that Florida and Michigan will count at 100% Hillary will win.

The state parties determine who is eligible to vote or caucus in their contests. So, if you have beef with the process you can take it up with your state's Democratic Party. Clinton, who is intimately knowledgeable about these processes by virtue of her husband's experiences, did not challenge these rules at any point prior to the beginning of these contests. As for the superdelegates, they are free to vote for whoever they choose. So far, they continue to flock to Obama. You seem to think that the Supers should be supporting Clinton - yet they are not. Do you ever wonder why?
With Florida and Michigan counting 100% Hillary currently leads in  pledged delegates...

If you haven't been paying attention, many of those MI delegates have already been given to Obama. More will follow. There is currently NO count that exists wherein Hillary Clinton has a lead in pledged delegates.
The closer we get to the convention the more team Obama comes to believe they are losing and the more they cry for her to drop out.

But.... they are winning.
www.thingsyoungerthanmccain.com
by LandStander on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:06:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reid: Race Should Be Over in June (none / 0)

The rules say George Bush can vote for Obama twice.

The rules as written are messed up.

The rules give a republican in alaska 10 times more say than a democrat in California

Its things like that which have got us in this mess.

If it was just democrats Hillary would have put this to bed ages ago.


by DTaylor on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 03:53:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You bring up a good point, but it's not the one (2.00 / 2)

you wanted to make.

It's true that Obama may not have won some of the big states that a Democrat needs to win in November to be successful. But look at those county maps. Hillary has barely won ANY of the big cities that a Democrat needs to win, and win BIG, in order to have a chance in those states!

Why does this fact consistently get ignored by Clinton supporters?


by Angry White Democrat on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:19:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

As good as Harry Reid (2.00 / 1)

and Nancy Pelosi are at keeping their caucuses together to stand up to Bush, those superdelegates will probably fall in line pretty quickly once they get that letter. Especially if Howard Dean signs it, too. The leadership he has shown in handling the Florida and Michigan situation will really increase his influence throughout the party.


by georgiapeach on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:45:19 PM EST

Re: As good as Harry Reid (none / 0)

No, Dean's leadership in supporting the state parties over the last four years, even in states that "don't matter," will influence the SDs. Surprisingly, many of the SDs come from states that don't matter to Clinton and didn't matter to Terry Macauliffe when he was head of the DNC. A Clinton victory means the end of the 50 state strategy that won the froshling representatives of '06 their position as SDs, and has helped to support funding for the state parties that provide many more of the SDs.

Besides, what exactly will keep the SDs from declaring their intentions in June? If Clinton can get enough SDs in June to win with half votes from MI and FL, then Obama should drop out. If she can't, she should drop out. The only nightmare scenario is if the difference between an Obama win and a Clinton win is smaller than the difference between splitting MI 50/50 and counting MI half.

Then it might go to the convention.

Actually, then huge pressure would build on Edwards to endorse and ask his pledged delegates to follow his endorsement. Edwards has more pledged delegates than Clinton's net from MI, particularly with MI counted half, so his pledged delegates would settle that dispute.


by alephnul on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:03:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reid: Race Should Be Over in June (2.00 / 0)

I think everyone would be fine with the continuing primary if Clinton would promise to suspend her campaign if she is behind after the final contests on June 3. But she will never do that.

When the Clinton camp says things like this, they are simply trying to tamp down all talk about making the race end in May, like after Indiana. They make soothing noises to say, "What's the rush? Just a few more weeks and it will all be over." It will not be over.

This race is over when the party bigwigs visit Hillary and tell her to stop. It's over when Reid puts together enough people to threaten to strip her seniority unless she quits.  Until then, the selfish person will burn the party down because she can't get what she wants.


I just flipped off President George, I'm going to Disneyland
by alvernon on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:51:03 PM EST

They Bore Me. (none / 0)

These politicians who come out day after day and continue to repeat that it'll be over by June.  It's just old.  


This administration is not sinking. This administration is soaring! If anything, they are rearranging the deck chairs on the Hindenburg!
by venavena on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:51:15 PM EST

Re: They Bore Me. (none / 0)

Yes, they've been proven wrong so many times!


by alephnul on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:04:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Um, is it June yet, or did I miss something? nt (none / 0)


by myddfree on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:57:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Only the invisible snark tags. nt (none / 0)


by alephnul on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:51:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

If true, then the fights over MI & FL will be (none / 0)

decided before the convention as well. Clinton needs to take that fight to the convention if she hopes for an outcome that favors her. If it doesn't go that far then MI & FL won't be decided in a way that helps her in any substantive way.


John McCain on social security.
by heresjohnny on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:56:08 PM EST

If true, then the fights over MI & FL will (none / 0)

They have already been decided. MI and FL didn't follow the rules. When given a chance to try again, both decided not to re-vote. Game over. They will get seated for general party business, but they will not have any say in determining the nominee. It was their choice to make.


by myddfree on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:55:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: MI and FL (none / 0)

My bet is that they will be seated with half votes, which won't be enough to make a difference in the outcome. Cut in half, FL and MI will provide about 25 extra net delegates for Clinton (since the uncommitteds have been overwhelmingly turned into Obama delegates in MI), which is far from enough to matter.

Half votes is clearly allowable under the party rules, and it kills off the injustice meme that might have an influence if they were given no votes. I hope the MI and FL SDs will be left vote-less, however.


by alephnul on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:06:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Race already over (2.00 / 2)

Listen guys. Obama says that it's delegates that
count. Clinton says it's popular votes.

Now clearly Clinton has more popular votes than Obama has delegates.

Besides, Clinton comes before Obama in alphabetical order and she's older. When you don't know who to pick you either pick the older guy or the one who comes first in alphabetical order. Here both concur, Halleluia!

If he were a decent guy, Obama would have dropped out before Iowa. After Iowa he could have apologized and withdrawn honorably. He didn't. If only for that he doesn't deserve the nomination.

Even he says he's not perfect. Clinton is perfect. At any rate she never said she wasn't. And even if she did say she's not perfect, as like as not she misspoke.

If Clinton and Obama were republicans, Clinton would be the nominee. What's the problem with the democratic party?

Therefore you see this is all wrapped up. In june the SD's will see the writing on the wall and this will be over.

At this stage Obama's best option is to step down for the good of the republican party. One other nice solution would be for the democrats to convince the republicans that McCain is no good and to exchange him with Hillary, so she can fight  Obama until November.


by french imp on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 03:33:00 AM EST

Re: Race already over (none / 0)

I'd definitely favor the last option. :)


by alephnul on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:08:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reid: Race Should Be Over in June (none / 0)

""no practical chance of winning the nomination"

Nowhere in the Party rules does it stipulate that the pledged delegate winner (or any other quantitative measure) gets the nomination automatically, so how do you define "practical chance" now?  With a race this close, superdelegate discretion and autonomy is appropriate.

My Democratic Party, I am afraid, is the refuge of good-hearted dummies.  The outstanding example is Nancy Pelosi.


by