A vote for Clinton is a vote for a convention battle which divides the party?

[TheWebHead]

I pose the topic as a question because I am curious, as some have already begun to ask, what is the Clinton game plan to get the nomination given their current delegate deficit. Even if HRC turns the tide, at this point there is no pre-convention math that I'm aware of that would avoid a convention fight for super delegates. This of course would divide the party more than it already is now, to the point the Democrats would snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

I almost get the feeling that this current tag team from Clinton and McCain on Obama is Hillary playing now for 2012, driving up Barack's negatives from her supporters so that they'll stay home, or in the case of her older supporters, actually vote for McCain out of spite.

[JVS]

1. absolutely

[democrattotheend]

2. You make a good point

but you are going to get flamed. Just warning you.

[dkf]

3. I always thought they deep sixed Howard Dean because they didn't

want a Dem to win the 2004 election.

[Johnny__Motown]

4. Beyond any doubt, A vote for Hillary is a vote for a divided party.

although it may not go all the way to the convention.


I also agree that she may have come to grips that she has lost this round and wants another shot in 2012.

[LadyVT]

5. Of course the same could be said about a vote for Obama.

[NastyRiffraff]

6. A vote for Hillary is unpatriotic!

And will destroy the Democratic Party!

Please. My vote is my own, and no one has the right to tell me the results of it.

[Johnny__Motown]

13. Except that more people have voted for him.... DEMOCRACY, go look it up

This should link to the LadyVT post, sorry

[Sadie5]

7. A remedy for your confusion

would be for BO to start making plans to drop out. Just so we don't frustrate you Obamites any further it would settle everything. If BO really cared he would drop out for the good of the party. Remember:Bo is a uniter not a divider.

[Johnny__Motown]

14. Except that more people voted for him... it won't settle anything to have the winner drop out and ..

the loser represent our party


An Illegitimate nominee will be doomed from the start.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

8. The process is what the process is.

A vote for Hillary is a vote for Hillary.

:shrug:

[DFW]

9. I don't see the 2012 aspect

If Obama is elected this year, he'd have to screw up badly to
lose a re-election bid, and if he does screw up badly (if elected),
then the Republicans will get back in. I don't know when the last
time was that a party in the USA failed to nominate a sitting president
for re-election (who wanted the nomination, that is), but it certainly
hasn't been in my lifetime, nor in that of my parents. The Democrats
will not deny a sitting incumbent president the nomination for re-election
unless he or she makes more of a mess of things than we can imagine.

Hillary won't even raise a peep about 2012 if she loses the nomination
this year. She will try for Senate Majority Leader instead.

[Johnny__Motown]

15. The ponit is the Hillary is trying to damage him so badly he will lose in '08 so she can run in '12

[DFW]

22. I don't see that one either

She is not Ralph Nader. If Obama gets the nomination, she will
be out there campaigning for him like the rest. If she doesn't,
her chances of Senate Majority Leader go up in smoke. Hillary
cares that the Democrats take the White House, unlike Nader, who
couldn't care less. Obviously she prefers that it be her, but if
the last straw has been grabbed and she still loses, she'll accept
it and be a team player.

[thoughtcrime1984]

20. The point is that the poster believes Hillary would help McCain

win now, so that she can run against him in 2012. That wouldn't surprise me, given her actions lately. I hope that is not the case, as the party would be injured badly, and the Repubs will run rampant another 4-8 years.

[DFW]

24. I don't believe that of Hillary any more than I believe that of Obama, if the shoes were reversed

[saltpoint]

10. The nomination process could use a serious rehaul, and I hope Howard Dean

will support doing just that before he steps down.

In the meanwhile, this is how it's done, warts and all.

I don't see grounds to punish Senator Clinton for remaining in the race so voters supporting her in OH, TX, RI, VT, WY, MS, PA, Guam, IN, NC, WV, KY, OR, MT, SD, and Puerto Rico can have their chances to cast votes in support of her candidacy.

I wish all 8 of our announced candidates were still in the race, for that matter.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

16. The best change would be having the first primaries in progressive states.

Say WA, CA,or NY.

Let's see what progressives think before we hand it off to red states.

[saltpoint]

21. Hi, RUMMYisFROSTED. What would you say to a 17-17-remainder

rotation, the states randomly selected each cycle so no one state has any strategic advantage over the others?

The whole thing across a 3-week stretch from mid-April to early May of the nominating year, to give all candidates equal time to raise some money and to buid grassroots ground operations.

One Saturday, 17 states. The next Saturday, 17 more. Third Saturday, remaining states plus territories. Nominee decided in 21 days by a randomly rotating national vote on much more competitive grounds economically and operationally.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

29. My first thought is ""Sounds good."

My second thought is "Money."

My third thought is "It would work great with public financing."

My fourth thought is "Barring finance reform, it would eliminate voices from the debate that we need to hear from."

My fifth thought is "My own idea sucks. NY and CA are prohibitively expensive to campaign in under the current system."

My sixth thought is "With public financing, my idea is great!"

Guess ya got me thinking. Overall, I'm for a shortened primary season. 2 years is ridiculous. 3 weeks might be too short. Maybe 10-10-10-10-10 with proportional delegates and proportional political geography?

[cyclezealot]

33. My ideas. A constitutional amendment

A national primary. Since the TV networks rents our airwaves. A national demand, networks give certified presidential candidate free air time. Real debates. No Blitzer's controlling questions. A national run off should the top candidates not get a majority. That would be democracy. Just like most other countries. These four month primary seasons are ridiculous. We are sick of it by the time this horse race is over. And it makes for more divisiveness. And of course the need for special interest money in order to buy those ridiculous TV spots that don't inform. I'd say the primary season with a National primary should be no more than three months, under my plan. / Of course my plan won't happen. The thirty some 'small states,' will hold the other 20 hostage, since they want to be the ones to select the president.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

34. IRV?

Under those conditions there would be dozens, maybe hundreds of candidates. There would have to be some litmus test(50,000 signatures?) of viability for a candidate to receive free airtime. Instant runoff voting would clear the clutter for a second vote.

In principle I agree with you, though.

[cyclezealot]

37. At present the best means to determine a 'certified' candidate

is the FEC saying that candidate has raised enough money to qualify for federal matching funds.That would be a fair assessment. A fair standard, that the media refuses to accept. The addition of x number of petitions would be a good addition.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

38. Money.

That probably wouldn't be my qualifier. Class access to the system is a non-starter... in the perfect world.

[cyclezealot]

39. Consider how Maine and Arizona

go about determining who is a worthy candidate. Excessive money raising should not be necessary. Just some means to show a base level of support. Specifics will need be worked out. Basically, I think public financiing is the best means to bring about democratic elections and rid the US of the power of lobbyists. That would end up saving US taxpayers, billions in pork barrel projects.

[Hippo_Tron]

41. How about gathering a certain amount of signatures to determine baseline support?

[cyclezealot]

42. that too.

[cyclezealot]

27. The essence of the Michigan/ Fla. DNC conflict

over who goes first. The whole nation should go first. Not New Hampshire. The whole process is gamed. Set up a new primary schedule, think the results would have been the same. I doubt it. Since our democracy is weak. If we have to have such a fragmented system. Lessen the impact of red states. Why can't New Hampshire be paired with Oregon or Washington State on the same day. Or better yet, Hawaii. / We need more Michigan's or Florida's to say, enough. But, too many Democrats don't see the forest for the trees. Had it not been for Michigan , Florida nothing would be done. And very likely that is still the case.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

31. See #29.

[Hippo_Tron]

40. So you're saying that Democrats in blue states are more important than Democrats in red states

Not only is that attitude arrogant but a sure fire way to lose elections.

[bigtree]

11. A vote for Clinton is a vote against math

Clinton supporters are anti-math!

[gerrilea]

19. You are kidding, right? Who needs math anyways!

[ElsewheresDaughter]

12. get ready to rumble then cuz Hillary has my vote

[Johnny__Motown]

18. fair enough, you are voting to divide the party, thanks for being honest about it

[NMMNG]

28. On the contrary. Obama has divided the party.

Some are just unwilling or unable to recognize it.

[jlake]

17. Oh good God. What will you think of next?

If you vote for Hillary - you clearly hate Democrats and America.

[AZ Criminal JD]

23. Next is a vote for Hillary is vote against Motherhood, Apple Pie and all that is good in humanity.

[Johnny__Motown]

26. Not motherhood or apple pie, But........

[NMMNG]

25. You seem to think this is all about HRC

I can't speak for other HRC supporters, of course. But I can speak for myself and my SO. For us it is not and never has been about HRC. We only came to HRC because she was the last person left standing against Obama. * IOW, it has been about not wanting Barack Obama in the GE. Neither of us will vote for McCain (though her mother might), but we will definitely not be voting for Obama.











*We both had no particular like nor dislike for Obama. I myself began to feel creeped out by his incessant pandering to the evangelicals but I'm used to politicians doing that so I waited to see what was going to happen. Then with the McClurkin fiasco we both began taking a much harder look at Obama and we didn't like what we saw. Once we were ultimately forced into Hillary's camp we still aren't her greatest fans but overall we're satisfied with her.

[SaveOurDemocracy]

30. If HRC's still in it 4/22 ... she has my vote. n/t

[jlake]

32. Mine too.

[paulk]

35. which party is that?

the one were Obama's delegate lead exists because of the large numbers of imdependents and Republicans who voted for him?

[Mezzo]

36. The same thing applies to Barack.

Even if he wins it all, he can't get to that magic number no how.

This is goin' to the convention, and implying she doesn't belong there, or that he belongs there more, is a specious argument at best.

[TexasObserver]

43. In 8 days, it'll either be over or it won't. I think it will be over. It's over when she concedes.

I don't have a problem with Clinton or her supporters wanting to give it their last, best shot on March 5th. But when the results come in, and if she doesn't win Texas and Ohio (which I don't think she will) then it's time for Senator Clinton to be a real Democrat and think about the party and not herself.

I don't care for the way she has run her campaign, particularly the past three weeks. The further she falls behind, the more desperate and disorganized her effort becomes. It's sad to see her go out like this, particularly after she seemed to indicate at the end of the last debate that she understood the end was near, and she wanted to have a little class.

She's got zero chance of winning the nomination in 2012, no matter what happens with Obama. She's so thoroughly offended so many party members, from the rank and file to the top, that she's burned HER bridge back to the Democratic party. Her campaign will end badly in debt, and that will offend all the vendors they stiff, all the campaign workers they stiff. All that money she raised as the presumptive nominee will never come back.

This is it for her, and she knows it. That's why she's fighting like someone in her death throes.

I want to see the intraparty warfare end, because it is harmful, and it does take time to get over. We have other races besides this one race, and if we win the presidency and don't have a filibuster proof senate, we won't have what the new president needs. If we don't have a large enough margin in the House, we won't have what we need to pass out the bills we need.