Is Clinton's campaign doing a disservice to the DNC?

[RoxStar]

It appears that this Democratic Presidential Primary may go all the way to the DNC in late August. My question to the community is this: Is Hillary Clinton’s refusal to not back down and fight for her nomination bad for the Democratic party as a whole? As of today (March 5, 2008), John McCain has officially been named the GOP Presidential primary candidate. Senator McCain has nearly eight full months to campaign against the two-headed democratic monster. This may only give the democratic presidential nominee approximately 3 months to campaign nationally. If the two Democratic presidential hopefuls continue to snipe at each other, are they essentially giving the election to McCain?

[El Sitherino]

I personally believe Hillary Clinton has turned into a huge disgrace to the Democratic party, and needs to be stopped immediately. Not just for political good, but for the sake of humanity.

[Jvstice]

Her behavior's turned me pretty much against her and unconditionally for Obama. If she wins the primary, there's a good chance I'd still vote for her to get us out of Iraq but if not for that, I wouldn't give her the time of day.

[tk102]

The reason the GOP already have their candidate is because the Republican primaries and caucuses are, for the most part, winner-take-all in terms of delegates. The Democrats meanwhile use a proportional system. This makes securing the Democratic nomination much more difficult. If the Republicans had the same system, it's likely Romney, McCain, and Huckabee would be still fighting it out as well. I don't see how you can blame Clinton in this situation.

[Achilles]

Yes, her campaign is hurting the party but not because she's still running and not because the GOP has already identified their candidate.

 

Could the fact that the Democratic nominee hasn't been decided potentially make things more difficult for their party come November? Sure, but being objective as possible, I don't know that I would want my candidate dropping out if there were still a chance of them winning, so I won't begrudge my fellow citizens their campaign. With that said, I think we are very quickly approaching a point where Hillary will literally have no chance in hell of winning and I sincerely hope that she will have the good graces to bow out quietly when that occurs, although I will suspect that she will not.

[Kylilin]

The problem with the Clinton campaign is that she is running against someone who is almost universally likable, and the Obama campaign has been nothing less than flawless. If you look at their stances on the issues, they are almost identical in every way, so the only thing Clinton has to campaign on is her experience in the White House and as a New York State Senator (a job at which she has performed very well) and on character. This leaves Senator Clinton in a tenuous spot because of that past experience in the White House has left her as much of a maligned figure as she is a loved one. Senaor Obama on the other hand, has no negative past to speak of, and is seen (rightfully so) as the more positive candidate.

 

Senator Clinton I believe will continue her campaign, and I think she should, they are virtually even in the number of delegates they have, and as long as that is close, I don't see any reason why she shouldn't continue to press her case to the public. But if the time comes when she start losing primaries bigtime, I believe Clinton will bow out graciously, and make an outstanding Vice-President too!

[Achilles]

The problem with the Clinton campaign is that she is running against someone who is almost universally likable, and the Obama campaign has been nothing less than flawless.

Haha! As Obama's foreign policy adviser announces her resignation after calling Hillary a "monster" (guess that's what they mean about the truth setting you free).

 

If you look at their stances on the issues, they are almost identical in every way, so the only thing Clinton has to campaign on is her experience in the White House and as a New York State Senator (a job at which she has performed very well) and on character.

You'll have to explain to me why you feel this is true. You might want to start by researching their Senate records.

 

This leaves Senator Clinton in a tenuous spot because of that past experience in the White House has left her as much of a maligned figure as she is a loved one.

This is probably true.

 

Senaor Obama on the other hand, has no negative past to speak of, and is seen (rightfully so) as the more positive candidate.

Probably true as well. I wish we had more info on the Rezko thing. I trust Obama far more than I trust most politicians but the whole smelly mess does give me pause.

 

Senator Clinton I believe will continue her campaign, and I think she should, they are virtually even in the number of delegates they have, and as long as that is close, I don't see any reason why she shouldn't continue to press her case to the public.

Huh?

By most counts he's about 100 delegates ahead. Considering that you need thousands to secure the nomination, that might not seem like a lot but consider how many delegates are still up for grabs and the fact that Hillary doesn't have a lot of "big wins" under her belt (granted the ones she does have are in big states, however how many of those are left?) and it would seem that her *only* chance is if the superdelegates start flocking to her in droves.

 

...even though she's running a dirty campaign and Obama is destroying her in fundraising.

 

...and he's ahead in pledged delegates.

 

PS: if this happens, the DNC can take me off their mailing list because that will be the last time this Independent will participate in a Democratic contest.

 

But if the time comes when she start losing primaries bigtime, I believe Clinton will bow out graciously, and make an outstanding Vice-President too!

You mean like the entire month of February (obviously excluding Feb 5th). She went 29 days without a victory. He beat her by nearly 300% in two contests. Is anyone here still thinking that this *isn't* about her ego?

 

And FWIW, Obama better have one doozy of a pitch prepared because if he invites her to be his VP, he's going to look like a hypocrite.

 

John Edwards, if you're reading this, that goes for your endorsement too.

[Heavyarms]

Well, Clinton I believe should stay in. She has every reason to. The delegate count is close, and I think she can get the superdelegates if she wins PA and wins Michigan and Florida (who will revote, and she will get at least one of those, Florida.)

 

The problem with the Democrats is the proportional district voting system. If you win 58% of the vote, you don't get 58% of that state's delegates. You get whatever district's delegates you won. The idea is so that you need a broad base across the state, not just concentrated areas. Upon reflection, this may have been used to stop minorities from running up votes in their districts for certain candidates (particularly Jesse Jackson). Same reason there's superdelegates: a check on who's being elected.

 

Sound ridiculous? It shouldn't. It's very obvious that racism is alive and well. However, now the system will change, and it will be gone because of this election. Expect in 2012 (if there's a democrat primary) to be a system that mirrors the GOP.

 

Will this hurt the Dems? Maybe. It could push McCain's campaign off the radar, and then the Dems have total control of what's going on. In the end, it may really help them. On the other hand (and I think this is much more likely), Clinton will close the delegate gap enough so that the difference is less than 50. She also could possibly shrink the popular vote lead Obama has and turn it in her favor. She's got a good case: she's won every major state but one, I think. Obama's won small states.

 

Oh, and I like McCain. I want someone who's gonna go after the bad guys, not like Clinton who wants to leave Iraq, and not Obama's (really) strange foreign policy ideas.

[Achilles]

Well, Clinton I believe should stay in. She has every reason to. The delegate count is close, and I think she can get the superdelegates if she wins PA and wins Michigan and Florida (who will revote, and she will get at least one of those, Florida.)

I think you're assuming that it's closer than it really is. Hillary is not going to win the race by chipping into Barack's lead 4 delegates at a time. She needs landslide victories, not 3 percentage point wins that are touted as "comebacks" by mainstream media.

 

Yes, you're absolutely correct that superdelegates have a lot of sway in this race, but ask yourself why so many SDs are still uncommitted. Could it be because they are waiting to see who has the delegate lead? Why? So that they can turn around and throw their support behind the person who's losing and not raising as much money as their opponent? It could happen, but I'm not betting on it.

 

The problem with the Democrats is the proportional district voting system. If you win 58% of the vote, you don't get 58% of that state's delegates. You get whatever district's delegates you won. The idea is so that you need a broad base across the state, not just concentrated areas. Upon reflection, this may have been used to stop minorities from running up votes in their districts for certain candidates (particularly Jesse Jackson). Same reason there's superdelegates: a check on who's being elected.

First, not every Democratic primary is proportional; a handful are winner-take-all. Second, a "problem" for who? I personally don't like it when 49% of the population is told to shut up and take it by the other 51%. And yes, I'm willing to stick up for that system even when I'm seeing results I don't like. My 2 coppers.

 

Sound ridiculous? It shouldn't. It's very obvious that racism is alive and well. However, now the system will change, and it will be gone because of this election. Expect in 2012 (if there's a democrat primary) to be a system that mirrors the GOP.

That could be. Do you have something that makes you think that this is particularly likely, or are you simply sharing your opinion? Not trying to be snide, just trying to gauge how seriously you want me to take your comments.

 

Will this hurt the Dems? Maybe. It could push McCain's campaign off the radar, and then the Dems have total control of what's going on.

February fundraising numbers:

Hillary - $35 million

Barack - $55 million

John - $12 million

 

In the end, it may really help them. On the other hand (and I think this is much more likely), Clinton will close the delegate gap enough so that the difference is less than 50.

I would be very interested in seeing your math on this, if you're willing to share it. There are 561 delegates still up for grabs (not counting unassigned delegates from Tuesday's contests).

 

That means she'd need to win 59% of every contest (on average) between now and the finish line (assuming that Obama has an exact 100 delegate lead on her today, which he doesn't. His lead is actually larger). What makes you think this is going to start happening all of a sudden (her largest margin was 70% in Arkansas, the state her husband was governor of. Rhode Island and Missouri tie for 2nd with 58%. New York, the state she represents, was 57%. She isn't winning by big numbers in the states she does carry)? And why are the SD going to back the underdog? Again, it's possible, but you definitely seem to think is more likely than I do.

 

She also could possibly shrink the popular vote lead Obama has and turn it in her favor. She's got a good case: she's won every major state but one, I think. Obama's won small states.

I'll repeat my earlier question: How many more "big states" are there? (Hint: after Pennsylvania, the next largest contest before the end of the race is N. Carolina with 91 delegates. Barack beat Hillary 55% to 27% in S. Carolina). Oh and make that 59% number I just mentioned *much* larger if you want to project her taking the lead, not just maintaining a 50 delegate trail.

 

Oh, and I like McCain. I want someone who's gonna go after the bad guys, not like Clinton who wants to leave Iraq, and not Obama's (really) strange foreign policy ideas.

Best of luck to you and your candidate in the general election.

[Heavyarms]

Couple of things:

 

1. Dems don't have any winner-take-all states that I know of.

2. Remaining big states: Michigan, Florida, AND Pennsylvania. There's no way anyone's going to legitimately claim the nomination if those two states are not represented, and they will revote.

3. The superdelegates certainly could be waiting to see who's got the lead. It is very plausible. My theory is that Hillary Clinton is currently working in the back room to get as many as she can to narrow the gap, and will get quite a few.

4. My bad, it's 119 delegates. Barack must've gotten some from the Texas caucus. Still, that's what? 5% of the delegate count? Don't you think there's something wrong if she needs to win by 10% popular vote to shrink a 5% delegate lead to nothing? I suppose you could call it democratic, but to me it's a few fries short of a happy meal. And I think it's possible. We'll see what happens. Few people saw Obama doing what he did in say, December.

5. I'm sorry, didn't clarify the racist remark. It's something called institutional racism. It's a policy that is not necessarily designed to hurt a minority, but does. Minorities tend to be concentrated in specific districts, like blacks, hispanics, etc. I believe this is the case, because they tend to be highly concentrated in some areas, and therefore a huge turnout in a specific district can't help you, and you need to blanket it. If anything, it sure sucks up more money from the campaigns.

6. John's gonna take his $12 million and put it away for his general election campaign. Are either of the Dems going to do that? Conservatives are starting to come around to the guy, too. He'll quietly fundraise and have a lot by the time the real fireworks start.

 

It's going to at the least be very interesting . I'm really looking forward to seeing what happens.

[Achilles]

Couple of things:

 

1. Dems don't have any winner-take-all states that I know of.

You might be right. I thought I had heard otherwise, but it was in passing.

 

2. Remaining big states: Michigan, Florida, AND Pennsylvania. There's no way anyone's going to legitimately claim the nomination if those two states are not represented, and they will revote.

$25 million to revote in Florida and the DNC has already said they won't foot the bill. No idea what the estimated costs of revoting in Michigan will be but I suspect they will have to pay their own way as well. And Hillary has already stated that she won't "allow" a caucus.

 

Regardless, there are many compromises that could allow Michigan and Florida to have their seat at the table come Denver, however none of the ones that I've heard discussed will favor Hillary. If they agree to a 50/50 split (the most Hillary-favorable suggestion mentioned to date), that won't *hurt* her, but it won't help her either.

 

3. The superdelegates certainly could be waiting to see who's got the lead. It is very plausible. My theory is that Hillary Clinton is currently working in the back room to get as many as she can to narrow the gap, and will get quite a few.

And Barack Obama isn't?

 

My point is that he has the delegate lead and fundraising momentum in his corner. Hillary has America's love of the underdog story going for her and that's about it. And every time she sullies the party by backing McCain in favor of slinging mud at Obama, I think what little she does have going for her immediately carries less weight.

 

No doubt that Hillary will continue to capture some portion of the SDs, however I think the odds are very much against her that she will be able to suddenly draw the numbers she will need to make this miracle scenario happen.

 

4. My bad, it's 119 delegates. Barack must've gotten some from the Texas caucus. Still, that's what? 5% of the delegate count? Don't you think there's something wrong if she needs to win by 10% popular vote to shrink a 5% delegate lead to nothing? I suppose you could call it democratic, but to me it's a few fries short of a happy meal. And I think it's possible. We'll see what happens. Few people saw Obama doing what he did in say, December.

Yes, without the final caucus numbers to compare against everything we hear is speculation. With that said, I've heard a few sources state that Barack may have lost the election by 3 percentage point but won the caucus by double digits. Which would mean that he took more delegates from Texas than she did. But that doesn't really matter because the delegate lead that he enjoyed Tuesday morning was pretty much unchanged Wednesday. So it's not at though his lead suddenly materialized because of the Texas caucus.

 

Do I think it wrong (and by "wrong" I'm assuming you mean "undemocratic") that Barack Obama gained a huge lead by winning 11 contests in a row and now Hillary has to post bigger wins to catch up? No, not at all. Pretty sure that's how democracy is supposed to work. People vote and then that vote counts and stuff. The person who gets more votes get be called the "winner". I wish I could say that I was sorry Hillary lost all those primaries and caucuses in the spirit of consoling you, but I'm not so I won't.

 

PS: What does "do what he did in December" mean?

 

5. I'm sorry, didn't clarify the racist remark. It's something called institutional racism. It's a policy that is not necessarily designed to hurt a minority, but does. Minorities tend to be concentrated in specific districts, like blacks, hispanics, etc. I believe this is the case, because they tend to be highly concentrated in some areas, and therefore a huge turnout in a specific district can't help you, and you need to blanket it. If anything, it sure sucks up more money from the campaigns.

It would be interesting to say the least to see the democratic process abandon democracy to address this issue. Not commenting on the validity of your argument one way or the other, simply stating that I think this course of action might be akin to cutting off one's nose to spite their face.

 

6. John's gonna take his $12 million and put it away for his general election campaign. Are either of the Dems going to do that? Conservatives are starting to come around to the guy, too. He'll quietly fundraise and have a lot by the time the real fireworks start.

Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are collecting money for a general election fund too

 

John's potentially in some hot water regarding clean elections funding, had a campaign that was completely broke 6 months ago, and (as I tried to point out above) clearly isn't raising the kind of money that the Democratic nominees are. Keep in mind that Hillary's base is largely true-blue Dems. If she gets knocked out of the race, they'll either close their wallets or contribute to Obama. I don't see anyone jumping ship from the S.S. Clinton to back McCain. Unless maybe she endorses him, then the OP can feel good knowing that he hit the nail right on the head with his concerns, because then there will be no doubt that Hillary doesn't give a rat's ass about the party.

 

But I appreciate your commitment to looking at the bright side of things. Thus far, you've shown an amazing willingness to do so for both Hillary Clinton and John McCain. Which makes me wonder if you haven't spread the love to Barack Obama yet because you just haven't gotten around to it, or because you have some sort of serious bias against him that prevents you from being objective. Or maybe you suspect that he's going to win the presidency in November and you enjoy playing devil's advocate for the underdogs. Nothing wrong with that either. Who knows?

 

It's going to at the least be very interesting . I'm really looking forward to seeing what happens.

Indeed. Take care.

[Heavyarms]

Yep, I'm not a fan of Barack Obama. Comes from a few things.

 

1. Way too much political symbolism. "Change change change change, some more change. How about some change for a change?"

2. Very inexperienced. Hasn't done much really.

3. Won't kill the bad guys. On that I'm sold.

4. Very inconsistent in foreign policy. I will explain.

A. Wants to bomb our allies (Pakistan remark).

B. Wants to strongarm Canada and Mexico unilaterally to basically end NAFTA, but apparently is "a champion of multilateralism."

C. Has stated he'd leave Iraq and then go back if there was trouble. Why wouldn't you make sure things are working right before you did that?

D. Has stated we need peace and diplomacy in numerous ads. Besides Iraq, has be paid much attention to American foreign policy lately? It's not like we're going around the world bashing in people's skulls. Then again, some would just say only Iraqi skulls.

5. Doesn't sound very original. Sounds like he's just saying whatever's "good" and "popular."

6. Crazy supporters, including the media. Then again, they aren't Ron Paul supporters, but they sure are getting close.

 

Is that enough for me not to like him?

[Achilles]

Yep, I'm not a fan of Barack Obama. Comes from a few things.

Oh, okay. Now we're at least being honest.

 

1. Way too much political symbolism. "Change change change change, some more change. How about some change for a change?"

Are you similarly opposed to rhetoric from the other campaigns or are you discriminating specifically against his? Keep in mind that Hillary has tried to show that she's the true candidate of change throughout this campaign, so if you aren't similarly turned off by "her" message, then it might be time to admit that you're not being objective about this.

2. Very inexperienced. Hasn't done much really.

Can I safely assume that you've determined this *after* researching his record, reading either of his books, etc? Or should I chalk this up to you "drinking the kool-aid" and move on?

3. Won't kill the bad guys. On that I'm sold.

Okay, this smacks of something that might actually be your own opinion. Fair enough that this is an important point for you. FWIW though, keep in mind that both he *and* Hillary have said that they will bring the troops home and *he* was the one that said he would fire missile into Pakistan if he had actionable intelligence against Osama bin Laden and *Hillary* criticized him for it. If that really is the way you feel, then you should be support him and bashing her.

Hillary: 0-2

Obama: 1-2

4. Very inconsistent in foreign policy. I will explain.

A. Wants to bomb our allies (Pakistan remark).

B. Wants to strongarm Canada and Mexico unilaterally to basically end NAFTA, but apparently is "a champion of multilateralism."

C. Has stated he'd leave Iraq and then go back if there was trouble. Why wouldn't you make sure things are working right before you did that?

D. Has stated we need peace and diplomacy in numerous ads. Besides Iraq, has be paid much attention to American foreign policy lately? It's not like we're going around the world bashing in people's skulls. Then again, some would just say only Iraqi skulls.

I would invite you to consider that perhaps it's not him being inconsistent so much as you not understanding the point. If you disagree with it that's fine, but to accuse someone of being inconsistent because you don't understand/agree isn't being intellectually honest. Nor is it being objective.

 

I might be tempted to ask how you feel about Hillary's inconsistencies regarding Florida/Michigan or McCain's inconsistencies on torture, but in case it wasn't obvious, I don't think you're interested in objectively comparing all the candidates using the criteria you've decided are important.

5. Doesn't sound very original. Sounds like he's just saying whatever's "good" and "popular."

Assuming that this is true, would similar behavior from the other candidates be similarly disqualifying? For example, Hillary's adopting how "personal" everything is after tracking polls went through the roof when Edwards used the term in a debate?

 

If you'd like to bring up specific examples, I'd be more than happy to read whatever you have to share.

6. Crazy supporters, including the media. Then again, they aren't Ron Paul supporters, but they sure are getting close.

I'd need specific example to understand what you mean. Also, I'd be interested in knowing what criteria you use to determine which campaign supporters are "crazy" and which ones aren't.

 

Is that enough for me not to like him?

Sure. But as I've pointed out here, if you aren't applying your criteria consistently, then you might be guilty of being a hypocrite. Hopefully that isn't the case though.

 

Take care.

[Totenkopf]

Until one or the other is chosen, there isn't a real need for either to pull out till the results are final. If HRC decided to run as an independent, then she might be doing the DNC a disservice.