If she can't win...why is she still trying? - Tech Support Forums

outlaw2001it · May 8th, 2008, 03:48 AM

Alright, I don't want to make this a political frenzy of race/gender...so keep it out of this thread. Clinton (as of right now) has no way of winning the democratic presidential nomination...so why doesn't she just drop out? The only thing she is doing is dividing the democratic party, and making McCain a stronger candidate for the Republican party. June 3 is the deadline for Senators Obama, and Clinton for primary delegate votes for the presidential nomination. Regardless of how many votes they have...it will go to the super delegates to choose the winner. Senator Obama is winning in every category, including the peoples choice. For Clinton to win after June 3rd...the super delegates would have to go against the people, and vote for her instead of Obama. If that was to happen...the results would be very tragic not only for Obama, but for the people of the United States of America. The best thing for Clinton to do is drop out, and support the Democratic party/Obama for the Presidential post. The only thing she is doing is ruining her career at a later time for Senator re-elect. Maybe she'll fight on (I wont quit), and Obama chooses her as his Vice President.

osprey4 · May 8th, 2008, 08:11 AM

Obama cannot win before the convention. At the convention, there's still a chance the dealmakers will allow the votes from Michigan and Florida to count. Therefore, Hillary chances are still very much alive. I would not advise her to concede anything until all the ballots are counted.

The pundits, although outwardly skeptical of her chances, are actually increasing her resolve to stay in.

MTAtech · May 8th, 2008, 08:33 AM

Yeah, a trailing baseball team should give up in the eighth inning. But wait, I've seen a trailing team pull out a ninth inning victory.

I don't see why Clinton has a duty to drop out now. Obama leads Clinton by 159 delegates out of 2,024. In popular vote (without MI and FL) Obama leads by 3%. With Mi and Fl, it's tighter. By any measure, this is still a close contest.

Moreover, there are still several states left to have primaries. I don't see why those states shouldn't get a voice. There are 217 delegates left in those States and 267.5 undecided Super Delegates. If she should win overwhelmingly in those states she can catch Obama.

Apart from the spin, there is plenty of time between the last primary and November to get a candidate's message out. Bill Clinton didn't clintch the nomination until June 1992.

The deciding factor will be money. If Clinton's donors stop giving she's pull out.

EDIT:
The closeness in this race is tribute to how the Democratic voters like both candidates. Their policy differences are minimal.

Fortunately, there is a stark difference between both Clinton/Obama and McCain. As the New York Times editiorial board said:

Quote:

On a day when Mr. Obama won a decisive victory in North Carolina and Mrs. Clinton eked out a win in Indiana, Mr. McCain spoke about his judicial philosophy. He is determined to move a far too conservative and far too activist Supreme Court and federal judiciary even further and more actively to the right.

Mr. McCain predictably criticized liberal judges, vowed strict adherence to the Founders' views and promised to appoint more judges in the mold of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito. That is just what the country does not need.

Since President Bush chose Justices Roberts and Alito, the Court has ordered Seattle and Louisville to scrap voluntary school integration, protected employers who illegally mistreat their workers, and constrained women's right to choose and voters' right to vote.

The last thing that we need is more judges in those two's mold.

Take the Bush McCain Challenge. Can you tell the difference?

outlaw2001it · May 8th, 2008, 08:44 AM

So what you're saying is that they can still recount the ballots in Florida, and Michigan (sounds like Bush/Gore). Where are you getting your information from? You're right that Obama, and Clinton can't win before the the June 3rd deadline...but the super delegates have to vote (on what the people want), or there will be hell to pay. If they go against Obama, and he is still ahead in all categories...why even bother to vote, or why drag on this Presidential nomination for this long? She is staying in for pure ignorance, or maybe hoping some dirt will show on Obama before June 3rd causing him to drop out of the race. Maybe the Clinton camp has investigators looking at anything/everything on Obama...maybe trying to find some dirt that they missed before. Or maybe she is hanging on to prove something to the people/Obama...hey if I can't win... at least look at me for your Vice President.

jokostel · May 8th, 2008, 08:47 AM

I simply think of it as "playground" rules.
She's just making the final move... and if SHE can't run for the democratic candidate, shes going to screw up any chances of Obama getting into the white house.
It's quite ingenious.

outlaw2001it · May 8th, 2008, 08:54 AM

Let me add this...while she is still around, and has no chance of winning (which she doesn't at this point) the only thing she is doing is splitting the Democratic party.

outlaw2001it · May 8th, 2008, 08:59 AM

Sorry Jokostel, you posted before I had a chance to add my last post. You're correct. While Clinton/Obama slug it out...McCain's chances for getting to the White House appear better than any of the Democrats. He's being campaigning as the Republican Presidential Elect, and not a nominee.

jokostel · May 8th, 2008, 09:01 AM

Not too mention, all other decent candidates threw in the towel FAST, once they saw where the majority of the electorate went, and basically backed one man... instead of bickering.

MTAtech · May 8th, 2008, 09:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outlaw2001it

...but the super delegates have to vote (on what the people want), or there will be hell to pay.

If the Democratic Party rules' goal was to be democratic, there wouldn't be any Superdelegates. There are Superdelegates precisely so in a close contest the party insiders can overrule the popular concensus. So to say that Superdelegates must follow the same pattern as the other delegates negates why they exist.

I personally don't think there should be Superdelegates but I don't get to decide that and I certainly don't get to decide that at the end of the race. As long as there are Superdelegates, they should decide by taking all factors into account.

Regarding FL and MI, I think Fl should be seated and not MI. MI's Democratic leaders decided to hold the primary early. Contrarily, Florida's Republican Legislature set the primary date. The DNC shouldn't let Democratic voters in FL be disinfrancised by the Repubicans.

Pexster · May 8th, 2008, 09:07 AM

Clinton's speech Tuesday night sounded like a concession speech. Wednesday morning she sounded like a fighter again. The test will be whether she begins to attack Obama again.

Adding Florida and Michigan delegate counts to the mix, even using her preposterous methodology, would not gain her enough delegates to change anything. In two weeks, Obama will have a solid majority of the pledged delegates. If enough superdelegates have not shifted by then for it to be over, they will at that point. So it's just a matter of time. Two days or two weeks; doesn't matter much.