HIllary Supporters: Do You Want Hillary To Stay In And Fight

[cali]

even if she loses TX? Say, Hillary ekes out a win in OH and RI, and loses TX and VT, on Tuesday, as now seems likely, do you want her to stay in to fight it out in PA, where she's now only 6 pts ahead? What would her path to the nomination be, if Obama comes out of next Tuesday with more pledged delegates than Clinton? Wy and MS come before PA and he's strongly favored in both those states. Where do you see Hillary picking up enough delegates to close a 150 or so pledged delegate gap? Do you think that SDs will endorse her en masse in the coming weeks?

It's close but it's not neck and neck and it's hard to see how she can get the nomination at this point, so do you think she should fight it out to the convention on the off chance that the SDs will award her the nomination?

[JohnnyLib2]

1. Y'know---she has the facts available and I'm going to trust her judgment

Kind of an odd moment in time, isn't it?

[Arkansas Granny]

7. Yes, I'll respect her judgment.

One thing for sure, she's not a quitter.

[Rockholm]

2. Yes, especially after watching the debate last night.

I thought her command if the questions was excellent.

[Independent-Voter]

3. Medvedmedvedwhatever - quite a command of the question.

[KittyWampus]

13. Obama didn't know his name either.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

51. I'll assume you are joking, since it was plain Obama didn't know the guys' name at all

[cooolandrew]

4. I just found out Hillary voted against habeas corpus (the right to fair trial) omg

[cooolandrew]

5. Radio caller(femail)"women maybe obliged to vote 4 a woman but vote 4 their kids 1st antiwar"

[tpsbmam]

29. Obama supporter checking in here.....

When did HRC vote against habeas corpus? That's contrary to every record I've seen (still, I could have missed something).

She was a co-sponsor of the Habeas Corpus Restoration Act of 2007
http://bobgeiger.blogspot.com/2007/07/some-democratic-senators-still-not.html

She opposed the Military Commissions Act:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ari-melber/clinton-backs-habeas-corp_b_75509.html
http://www.senate.gov/~clinton/news/statements/details.cfm?id=264722

Could you provide a link showing where you read that she opposed the restoration of habeas corpus?

Just trying to be fair to BOTH candidates.

[question everything]

44. Thank you (nt)

[paperbag_ princess]

6. fight on

If she wins Ohio and Penn. then she will make the case that she has carried these must have states...plus Fl.

It is a fair case to take to the superdelegates. It would be a better case if she had carried Missouri and/or Wisconsin.

If she loses Ohio, I want her to concede. I hope she either wins big or loses....a small win in only Ohio and not Texas will probably just drag the inevitable out longer. If she wins Ohio big or both Ohio and Texas (even small) then I think that the MSM will pull for a comeback and the tone will start to change in her favor and that could mean the momentum for future states that Obama is leading in now.

[cali]

8. Makes sense to me. If she wins TX and OH

she has a case for moving forward, but if she loses TX and only ekes out a win in OH, I don't think she has a case for staying in it.

[grantcart]

20. Because of the way delegates are divided up she cannot

start to gain in delegates unless she starts winning more congressional districts by more than 65%

[trueblue2007]

71. I want her to keep fighting. I WANT TO SEE A WOMAN PRESIDENT

THIS IS NOT A CHICK THING. If we had a woman president....most of the wars would not have been fought.

Just imagine what this would would be like if we hadn't gotten into the Vietnam and Iraq war!!!

[napi21]

9. Yes, she should stay at least through next Tuesday. If she

doesn't win big then, I believe she wll bow out.

[cali]

11. well, unless upcoming polls and her internals show her losing big

in Ohio and Texas. It would be understandable if she withdrew if that's the case.

[workinclasszero]

10. The Big Dog said

Hillary HAD TO win Texas or shes through.:shrug:

[Mezzo]

12. yes.

[terrya]

14. It's up to her and her family.

I wouldn't presume to make that decision.

[Independent-Voter]

15. Please keep driving the bus through the ditch, and over the bridge.

Her Shrillness's implosion is incredible.

[Name removed]

Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[terrya]

18. dupe

[cali]

22. "Her shrillness"? Disgusting sexist bullshit

that reflects your bigotry. It's that simple.

[Independent-Voter]

37. Shrillness is sexist? A guy can't be shrill? It's bigoted too?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

52. And "Barack Hussein Obama" is just saying his name...

If you don't recognize shrill as sexist then you have major problems.

[Bake]

63. You can take your sexism and stick it where the sun don't shine.

"Her Shrillness." I expect that kind of shit from a freeper.

Bake

[Fluffdaddy]

16. Never surrender Never give up

Make Obama work for the nomination. Because the GOP and Wing-nut Radio are going to fight dirty

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

65. .

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

67. ..

[Hoof Hearted]

72. Galaxy Quest?

Well, it did have a happy ending.

I can live with that.

[Fluffdaddy]

75. Yes, Galaxy Quest.

Hahahahha

[suston96]

17. For crying out loud: in primaries you do not win or lose states.....

You win or lose delegates. Obama won Wisconsin by a huge margin but the delegate breakdown was Obama 36 to Clinton 29.

Get it?

[cali]

24. Actually, it's both. It's perception about winning and losing states

and it's the delegate allocation. But your answer was non-responsive. How do you see her winning the nomination now that she's down 155 pledged delegates? Do you foresee her winning OH and TX by 20 pts to start to make up that difference? Where? OH and TX will not be big wins for her. She may well win RI, but she'll lose VT by 30 pts, and due to the wierd delegate allocation breakdown in VT, he'll get almost all the delegates.

[rodeodance]

19. My opine is irrelavant on this topic. I trust her to make a decision when and it that day comes.

[texas_indy]

21. IMO, she's staying in till the convention. After all, she believes she is the best choice for

president, and this is the best chance for her to get the nomination.

1. If Obama wins and goes for 8 years then she'll be 68 years old. Also, the "favored" person for the democratic nominee will be the person who was Obama's VP.
2. If McDud wins then she will not have as good as a chane as she did this time, and she'll be running against Obama again in 4 years.

I don't blame her at all for taking it to the convention. I would do the same if I was here. After all, it ain't over till the cows come home! :)


Texas is Obama country! VIVA OBAMA!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fd-MVU4vtU

[RiverStone]

40. Staying in till the convention when the math is not there would be crazy

It would hurt the party, her credibility, and our chances in the GE.

Simple as that.

[SeaLyons]

23. Whatever Hillary decides

to do, she will do it right!!! I support her all the way.

[xchrom]

25. i'm don't particularly support mrs clinton -- i voted absentee

here in cali for edwards -- and i'm very happy with that.

but i want to see her stay in --

[oasis]

26. The super delegates should choose the candidate they believe would best serve America. Period.

[cali]

28. I don't have any problem with that

It's pretty clear that many of them don't believe that Clinton is the best candidate at this point. Her SD endorsements have slowed to a trickle over the last 10 days. He's getting more and more. The SD gap is narrowing quickly. That's a trend you'll see continuing. They're only seperated by about 65 now. By next week it'll be less than 50. And if he wins TX, the floodgates will open for him.

[oasis]

50. "IF" (eom)

[totodeinhere]

45. Regardless of how the rank and file votes?

If the supers overturn the will of the people that will destroy the Dem party and hand the election to McCain.

[oasis]

49. The Dem Party will overcome the exodus of a bunch of Johnny-Come-Latelys if

it should come to that.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

59. Why do people presume the SDs want to lose?

If the SDs go with Clinton it will be for reasons that will be obvious at the time... like if Obama stomps on a puppy on TV or something.

As things stand, the SDs are clearly going to go with Obama.

Either way, the SDs are all committed to the success of the Democratic party, and will know more in August than anyone knew in January. They are there to deal with the big picture and evolving events.

(Obama can ask Ted Kennedy about that... in 1980 Ted tried to get all delegates freed on the argument that Carter had become less popular than he had been when the primary votes were cast.)

[RememberWellstone]

27. Yes

and she will.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

30. ABSOLUTELY....TX is an open primary

[cali]

31. So what?

And what if she loses OH? You do reaize that that's now a distinct possibility?

[ElsewheresDaughter]

35. this speaks for me......

[Greyskye]

41. A cancelled show speaks for you?

Good luck with that analogy! :rofl:

[JuniperLea]

69. A canceled show only means it was cancelled...

It has no bearing on how good the show is, or what it has to say. Much like a box office win does not guarantee great cinema.

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JuniperLea]

73. Personal attacks are not allowed on DU

So I won't post your sign.

[tigereye]

32. why should she bow out?

she won a lot of votes and delegates. Lots of folks support her.

It ain't over yet.... :shrug:



for the record, I haven't decided whom to vote for here in PA, but I don't see why HRC should fold her tent yet.

[cali]

38. Because she's now back by a 155 pledged delegates and if

at the end of the day Tuesday, that number has increased, there's really no path to the nomination left to her. SDs will not support her if she's lost the vast majority of states and is behind by an insurmountable number of pledged delegates. At that point, staying in would be fruitless.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

43. Your analysis is based on a supposition

"SDs will not support her if..."

If she clearly beats Obama in match-up polling with McCain in May there is not telling what SDs will do.

I am not saying that will happen. I am saying that it is not an absurdity, so if suppositions are the thing one can suppose a variety of developments.

Let the Republicans rough presumptive nominee Obama up a little and see where we are. Will America reject their smears, or embrace them?

We have an unprecedented opportunity to road test a national candidate without being locked in. (This is what gamblers call a "freeroll.")


I cannot overstate the degree to which my interest is in winning in November. I find Clinton painful to watch... I really dislike her. But I cannot allow my gut (so different that the American gut, as has been proved in election after election) to over-turn the fact that we have an opportunity to see how Obama develops as the presumptive nominee while retaining an emergency option, which is why te SDs are there in the first place, and why they are a good thing.

We are talking about the obvious need to dispose of a candidate who is in a tie nationally among likely Democratic voters in the largest sample polling available. (The cumulative Gallup tracking poll averaged over weeks is the sturdiest data set we have, an the two candidates cycle around a tie.)

In fact, we are talking about the need to dispose of a candidate who probably still leads among registered Democrats! That doesn't mean she should be the nominee, but who drops out of a primary race while leading among party members?

This is unprecedented stuff. Clinton has lost ELEVEN contests in a row, the press hates her, and her opponent is beyond charming. Why is she still drawing so much support?

Beats me... but we have an opportunity to learn more before jumping. What did we gain by Kerry's early win in 2004? In retrospect, it is obvious that going to the convention would have been better for Kerry than what happened. There would have been no end of blanket media of Kerry and Dean and Edwards and Clarke trashing Bush, for months.

Instead, we got right to "Okay, what's wrong with Kerry?"

The SDs will not thwart the primary results unless there is on compelling reason to do so. And if anyone thinks one candidate or another should be the pick in contradiction of a compelling reason isn't thinking straight. The SDs want to win as much as anyone else... more in fact.

[ericgtr]

33. This is a good thread

it's nice to see people discussing and not attacking for the most part. :)

IMO it's not only the uphill battle that she faces but the expense of it as well. I'm not sure if she is raising enough to keep up the good fight, to be fair though I haven't looked lately but I know it's been a problem all along.

My guess is that if she doesn't make a good enough showing next tuesday that she'll drop soon after.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

34. yes. if she thinks she is viable i want her to stay in.

[cali]

36. Sure, but what is viability?

I just can't see her as viable if she loses TX and only ekes out a win in OH by a few points. If she wins TX and OH- no matter how slightly, I can understand her forging on, but if she loses one of those states, I can't see that she has any viability left.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

39. i just think she is brighter than most/all of us. if she thinks she is viable i will support her.

i suspect when she knows she is not, she will drop out.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

42. Cali, consider this eventuality...

Leaving aside who is objectively the better person, better president, etc.

There are some indications that the bloom could come off the Obama rose, in terms of public perception. It makes no sense to me that Clinton would be leading anywhere, since she is Snowball from Animal Farm at this point, but she continues to run stronger than Obama in some state match-ups with McCain, and her floor of support is rock solid. And she continues to do surprisingly well among the most reliable blocks of voters--registered Democrats and older people.

People reading polls need to condition themselves to look at raw numbers, not the horse-race difference number. In the CBS/NYT poll that seemed to show a total collapse for Clinton, her support went down only one point from the previous poll. The Obama lead was entirely due to coalescence of previous undecideds. So the lead is based on the softest support cohort. (The description that Clinton "lost" support from men, or old women, or whoever, is an illusion. Obama gained while she stagnated.)

The point is, though it is "obvious" even to me that Obama has swamped Clinton, he is weak by the standards of someone who everyone says has the nomination locked up.

Most concerning is that as of today (polls being snapshots in time, etc.) 17% of Democrats say they will vote for McCain if Obama is the nominee. Obama makes that up among independents and Republicans. It is fair to note that picking a Democratic nominee who is weaker among Democrats on the expectation that he will retain support among Republicans is extremely risky.

How much of McCain's weakness is transferred Bush weakness? Will that remain in place? One group that McCain won in every single primary has been Republicans who do not approve of George W Bush. Will independents who do not approve of Bush so automatically stay with Obama?

We do not know.

I appreciate that Obama supporters have reached a point where they want him to win the nomination as a thing in itself... as the prize that has been contested for so long. Obama supporters should concede that some of their itchiness to get this over is a desire to install Obama even if subsequent developments reveal it was a mistake.

I don't see the urgency... Clinton being in the race is much of what is maintaining Obama's positive press.

Every good thing that has happened for Obama is in the context of a race with Clinton. Some assume that when he's the presumptive nominee even better things will happen for him. There's no historical reason to think that, and a vast body of evidence that Dem nominees sag badly between primaries and conventions. (Name one from the last 40 years who didn't.)

One can reject the theory that Obama's support is frothy and subject to deflation, but why would anyone want to stake the nation's future on their own theory if it is not necessary to do so?

I am seeing a real possibility that Obama's support could grow from here, or, a month from now, he could look like a weak candidate. We do not know. We have guesses, but we do not know.

It looks to me like everyone wants Obama to lock it down before the buyers' remorse phase sets in. That is understandable from Obama's perspective, but is not ideal from a party perspective.

What if they split March 4 and she nets only 20 delegates? Very bad math for her, but we could be looking at a situation where she's within 135 delegates, and neither of them anywhere near 2025, and with important states yet to vote.

Who drops out of a race in that situation? It has NEVER happened.

Sure, it is 90%+ that she will lose, but I would suggest that no candidate has EVER dropped out of a race in such a position. Not ever.

I keep coming back to this... Why are people voting for her at all? If Obama is so clearly the winner, why is Ohio in play?

Winning either Florida or Ohio cinches the presidency. Clinton is running stronger than Obama vs. McCain in both states.

I don't know why. I don't know if she's loved, or if those states are racist, or what the deal is...I do not know.


And Obama gains everywhere he campaigns. So what's the down-side to him contesting Pennsylvania? It's a state we need. He has plenty of money to run ads in PA, free of general election financing issues.

The reason Obama will win is that the super delegates are eager to go to Obama. If something changes their minds, is that a bad thing? I would suggest that the only thing that might change their minds down the road would be a CLEAR indication that Clinton had a better chance of beating McCain.

So what's the argument? That Obama needs to be made the nominee before anything happens that might lead people to believe he's a weaker candidate than he looks today?

Not saying that will develop, merely that it could.

Again, there is an untested assumption that Obama would benefit from locking down the nomination today, even though his entire rise has been in the context of contesting races versus Hillary Clinton. There is no indication this campaign is weakening him in any way!



How much of Obama's support is anti-Clinton? The NYT/CBS poll (his best national poll) has him at 64-23 among men and tied with women, so it seems like attitudes toward Clinton are defining him somewhat. McCain runs very well with men everywhere.

The "get it over" side is saying that we need to get to the Republican 527s about how Obama isn't a US citizen as soon as possible. Why? A long as the race goes on, Obama continues to be defined against Clinton, who the media hates, rather than against McCain, who they love.

I doubt Clinton will win, but the best course for the party is to retain the insurance for a while.

This is not a prediction of where Obama will go in the next month. Just noting that proper humility should show people that there are genuine unknowns. Obama is an unprecedented sort of candidate.

Again, people are acting as if being the Democratic nominee is a position of strength that Obama needs to lock down. But being the Democratic nominee is actually a position of weakness, historically. Obama will lose some of his insurgent appeal as someone running against the Democratic party.

I want the convention to produce the strongest candidte. That looks like it will be Obama. But there shouldn't be such a hurry.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

46. See... this is the sort of thing I'm talkin' about > > >

Wednesday, February 27, 2008

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows John McCain leading both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in general election match-ups. McCain now leads Obama 46% to 43% and Clinton 48% to 43%.

_____________________

Seriously... who looks at that and says, "We need to wrap this up right away!!!"

We have two candidates who, in the big picture, haves strengths and weaknesses.

Why are they both at 43%? Obama should be ten points ahead of Clinton in matchups with McCain! We know Obama does MUCH better with Republicans and Independents, so why are they both at 43%???

And how much of Obama's 43% is in states we can not win?

Folks are acting like we know a lot of things that we don't know... that we merely assume. If, as seems likely, Obama is the stronger candidate versus McCain that will manifest itself over time, and we do have time.

[lumpy]

53. Thanks for the level-headed posts. Political numbers can

be confusing.

[Kittycat]

62. Part of what I think is going on there is this...

We're arguing within our party, instead of uniting behind a candidate and promoting their platform to defeat McCain. I think the longer this drags out, a few things will happen...

1) It will be more difficult for our party to fully unite behind the nominee in time for the GE (and go after the RW machine).
2) Money that is being spent on two primary compaigns is taking away from the other campaigns currently running, and will impact some local politicians and congresscritters. Look at IL-14 for example. We're electing our Hastert replacement on March 8th. Foster vs. the Milk Nazi (Oberwies) - O is loaded.
3) We are focusing on the RW. Each of our candidates are going after each other, and having to deflect McCain at the same time. We come off as disorganized and fighting amongst ourselves - they roll with it.

[cali]

54. it's a great post and you make some sound observations

but I keep coming back to wanting us to buckle down to fight McCain and the Republicans. If Clinton does well on Tuesday, I absolutely think the contest should go on, but if, on the other hand, she loses TX and OH, I think we- and she- are better served by having the process wind down before PA. After having watched Obama for some time, I'm convinced that he is a strong candidate. I've been saying for monthts that he's a rare fighter- one who fights smart and doesn't telegraph his pugnacity (pugnaciousness?) or his next move. I could be wrong, but then I've also reached the conclusion that Clinton is not a terribly strong candidate.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

56. I agree there are some upsides to getting it over, but check this out > > >

It is obvious that Obama is likable and inspirational and exudes honesty, and that Hillary does not. He is a GREAT candidate in many ways.

I cite the following not as a reason why everyone should vote for Hillary, but as a data-point suggesting that we might need to be a little more cautious before sealing the deal. (You and I have agreed, I believe, that the economy will drive this election)

In head-to-head contests, the (LA Times from today) poll found, McCain leads Clinton by 6 percentage points (46% to 40%) and Obama by 2 points (44% to 42%). Neither lead is commanding given that the survey, conducted Feb. 21-25, has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

The Arizona senator is viewed favorably by 61% of all registered voters, including a plurality of Democrats.

The survey showed that McCain's potential advantages extend even to domestic issues, where he is considered to be most vulnerable. Even though McCain has joked about his lack of expertise on economic issues, voters picked him over Obama, 42% to 34%, as being best able to handle the economy. However, Clinton led McCain on that issue, 43% to 34%.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

61. .

[Tom Rinaldo]

47. If she wins OH decisively and loses TX narrowly, maybe

That's all I have time to write right now. Mostly I just wanted to make a post somewhere in this forum today to mention that I will be on a business trip that will tie up all my time until late Sunday night.

I am busy today getting ready to leave. Maybe I'll have time to pop in for a few moments a couple of times untill then, maybe not. But I don't want anyone to think that I am intentionally avoiding this place for any reason.

Try not to blow up this joint before I get back :)

[LadyVT]

48. Yes! Go Hillary!

[Fredda Weinberg]

55. She's competing, not fighting. I'm entirely pleased w/the process n/t

[juajen]

57. An excellent thread. No matter who you support, this is one

hell of a fascinating election. Obama's charisma and fundraising is daunting; as is Hillary's tenacity and brilliance. I can't imagine how it would feel if she or he dropped out. When our other candidates left us, especially John Edwards, I felt a huge letdown. The tight race has brought the world's attention to the democrats and these two people. I can't determine yet whether I believe that's a good thing or not. I imagine, as in all things, it has its pluses and minuses.

Economically speaking, this race could not be more important. The world awaits an American who can lead us out of this morass. It has to be frightening to all of the candidates, except, maybe Huckleberry. Our new leader needs to have the ability to press forward confidently, even when things look very dark and impossible. Hmmmmmm, wonder who that would be?

[anamnua]

58. Right on, fight on

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

60. I Don't Mind If She Fights Right Up Until The Moment Obama Gets Enough Delegates To Win The Nom.

[JoFerret]

64. Of course

Someone has to teach Obama how to do it.

[Maddy McCall]

66. I do. I want her to stay until she's ready to go.

[JuniperLea]

68. That's her business, and none of ours...

She should do as she sees fit with her campaign. HER campaign. Belonging to HER!

Despite the RW talking points being spewed here on DU, keeping her campaign alive is NOT hurting anything... except her own damn pocketbook.

[demo dutch]

74. Absolutely, this campaign shows where the country is at with gender issues! and it ain't pretty!