Will Clinton still be in the race next week?

[Ravi]

I will be very conflicted if I have to pick between McCain and Clinton. I'd vote Obama over McCain without a second thought. I don't think I'm particularly unique in this regard.

What would your conflict be?

 

[JimH52]

I guess I don't understand why the person who won every major blue state that she'll have to win in a general election should be the one to walk away. This annointing Obama when he's halfway to the necessary delegates and when their delegate count is so close is really offensive to me. I didn't like it when people called her "inevitable" either.

I'd also point out that the person who's up by 20 points in Ohio (though that's a tentative result and they're still saying it's too close to call) really has no business walking away since we're never winning Texas, but we absolutely DO need Ohio to win.

I totally agree. No one should write the Hill off. She is tough and a fighter and...I feel she is the better General Election candidate. I might be wrong but..

Obama's slogan has been "We Can!"
Her's is now "We will!"
(there is a difference you know)

HHhhmmmmm, we may look at last night and see it as a turning point.

 

[manifold]

What would your conflict be?

Who I'd rather see as our next president. I thought that would've been obvious.

 

[JimH52]

Not all Republican Primaries are winner take all. Enough are though to ensure someone with enough momentum doesn't have the problem the dems have now, the Convention will be split most likely.

Actually the strongest ticket I see for Dems is Hillary as President and Obama as Vice President. But it won't happen. No one is going to tell Obama to step aside because he is black. And in my opinion the only reason the press is on his side is again, because he is black. This close a race is not something anyone should be declaring winners right now, yet the Press has been doing it right along and the Dem power brokers are starting to try and pressure Hillary out.

I think Obama might run as Vice with Haillary but Hillary would never run as Vice with Obama.

It is going to be interesting!

 

[Ravi]

Who I'd rather see as our next president. I thought that would've been obvious.

That isn't what I meant...what issues would cause you to be conflicted?

I was just reading on Yahoo News that Howard Dean may step in and force Hillary to give up her campaign because she might be too hard on Obama.

 

[manifold]

That isn't what I meant...what issues would cause you to be conflicted?

I like McCain more than I like Clinton. However I'm also motivated by a desire to see the republican party pay for the sins of the Bush administration.

Therefore: If the person trumps the party, I'd go with McCain. If the party trumps the person, I'd go with Clinton.

I wouldn't need to prioritize if Obama wins the nomination. He beats McCain on both counts.

 

[Ravi]

I'm not understanding you.

 

[manifold]

I'm not understanding you.

I guess that's your problem, no offense.

I thought I was pretty clear. I'd have to weigh my desire to see a democrat in the Whitehouse against my desire to see the individual for whom I have more respect in the Whitehouse. And decide which matters more this time around. Therein lies the conflict.

It's not about alleged positions on the "issues" for me on this one since I don't really believe what either of them are claiming anyway.

 

[Ravi]

I guess that's your problem, no offense.

I thought I was pretty clear. I'd have to weigh my desire to see a democrat in the Whitehouse against my desire to see the individual for whom I have more respect in the Whitehouse. And decide which matters more this time around. Therein lies the conflict.

It's not about alleged positions on the "issues" for me on this one since I don't really believe what either of them are claiming anyway.

It's White House, btw. No offense.

 

[manifold]

It's White House, btw. No offense.

None taken.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

the election process makes me want to slap someone!! seriously. She's won every big blue state that she needs for the general election...

it's incredibly interesting, though, if I can step back long enough for my stomach not to turn! lol...

there is something I need to ask, because it came up yesterday? why on earth is our process like this? The repubs have it right... winner take all, no mr niceguy, sudden death elimination. obviously had something to do with mcgovern, but what?? (sorry, you got me on that!)


I have been saying, though, NEVER count out Hillary Clinton! Never! The broad is tough... seriously. (And I say that with respect and awe!)

McGovern pretty much wrote the bylaws that govern the Dem Party's nomination process. I believe in 1974, but I am probably wrong on the date. He did so because he thought it was more fair and held the inherent belief that a nominating convention is just that. Right now he is smiling somewhere because his work is actually going to make watching the Democrat Convention worthwhile.

 

[jillian]

McGovern pretty much wrote the bylaws that govern the Dem Party's nomination process. I believe in 1974, but I am probably wrong on the date. He did so because he thought it was more fair and held the inherent belief that a nominating convention is just that. Right now he is smiling somewhere because his work is actually going to make watching the Democrat Convention worthwhile.

He just had great campaign ideas, didn't he?

Thank you, btw... didn't know that about McGovern.

*Edit*

I just went and did a google on McGovern writing the convention rules... and it seems there may have been good reason for changing things, though I still think it may not be in our best intersts to do proportional delegate sharing anymore.

A few, mostly Western states adopted primary elections in the late 19th century and during the Progressive Era, but the catalyst for their widespread adoption came during the election of 1968. The Vietnam War energized a large number of supporters of anti-war Senator Eugene McCarthy of Minnesota, but they had no say in the matter. Vice President Hubert Humphrey—associated with the unpopular administration of Lyndon B. Johnson—did not compete in a single primary, yet controlled enough delegates to secure the Democratic nomination. This proved one of several factors behind rioting which broke out at the convention in Chicago.

Media images of the event—angry mobs facing down police—damaged the image of the Democratic Party, which appointed a commission headed by George McGovern to select a new, less controversial method of choosing nominees. The commission settled on the primary election, adopted by the Democratic National Committee in 1968. The Republicans adopted the primary as their preferred method in 1972. Henceforth, candidates would be given convention delegates based on their performance in primaries, and these delegates were bound to vote for their candidate.

As a result, the major party presidential nominating convention has lost almost all of its old drama. The last attempt to release delegates from their candidates came in 1980, when Senator Ted Kennedy sought the votes of delegates held by incumbent Democrat Jimmy Carter. The last major party convention whose outcome was in doubt was the 1976 Republican National Convention, when former California Governor Ronald Reagan nearly won the nomination away from the incumbent, Gerald Ford.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_nominating_convention

 

[CrimsonWhite]

He just had great campaign ideas, didn't he?

Thank you, btw... didn't know that about McGovern.

*Edit*

I just went and did a google on McGovern writing the convention rules... and it seems there may have been good reason for changing things, though I still think it may not be in our best interests to do proportional delegate sharing anymore.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_nominating_convention

I find it reasonably comical that without McGovern's reforms he would have never won the party's nomination in '72.