Reply
Tue 3 Jun, 2008 08:59 am
NBC reports Hillary will "acknowledge that Obama has the delegates necessary" to secure the nomination (assuming he gets them.)
Finally!
Right, it's not necessarily a given that he'll have the delegates by the end of the day.
I saw that quote from Terry McAuliffe, I wasn't sure what to make of it.
The quote I saw:
Quote: Terry McAuliffe, chairman of Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign, said today that once Obama claims the majority of convention delegates: "I think Hillary Clinton will congratulate him and call him the nominee."
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/06/barack_obama_countdown_to_nomi.html
First Read:
Quote:Hillary to recognize Obama nomination
Posted: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 10:55 AM by Mark Murray
Filed Under: 2008, Clinton, Obama, Delegates
From NBC's Mark Murray
Breaking news from the AP: "Officials say Clinton will acknowledge Tuesday
night Obama has the delegates for the nomination."
So that sounds less conditional.
Wow.
This phase might actually almost be over...!!!
One thing I don't get yet -- does "acknowledge ... Obama has the delegates for the nomination" mean "drop out"?
I meant to put the word "concede" in quotes. It sounds like she is leaving the door open. I really think that Hillary is still hoping that something will happen to Obama (I don't think that she hopes he will be assassinated though) between now and August.
(The report is coming form the AP for the record)
sozobe wrote:One thing I don't get yet -- does "acknowledge ... Obama has the delegates for the nomination" mean "drop out"?
Nah, she'll suspend her campaign. That way if Obama messes up somehow, she can swoop in. She has fantasies to that effect, I would think.
Cycloptichorn
Still -- suspending is major.
Edwards officially just "suspended" his campaign rather than dropping out entirely -- but he was out of the picture once he did that.
In her case, I don't see the need to suspend since if something DID happen (knock on wood), she'd be the presumptive replacement anyway.
Breaking: Terry McCauliffe says the AP report is false, Hillary will not make concession(s) tonight. Speculation is that there are two camps now in her campaign, one to quit now, the other to hang in.
IMO, once all of the primaries are finished is when the real damage could start in the Democratic party. Very smart to suspend now, rather than turn it into a dogfight at the convention.
If the fight continues and the superdelegates go against the popular vote, then the party is vulnerable to charges of elitism. If the superdelegates go with the popular vote, then the question arises as to why there are superdelegates to begin with.
Ickes saying right now...Obama won't have the necessary delegates tonight...that dog just won't die.
DrewDad wrote:IMO, once all of the primaries are finished is when the real damage could start in the Democratic party. Very smart to suspend now, rather than turn it into a dogfight at the convention.
If the fight continues and the superdelegates go against the popular vote, then the party is vulnerable to charges of elitism. If the superdelegates go with the popular vote, then the question arises as to why there are superdelegates to begin with.
There is no rule in place within the party to calculate the "popular vote." You are drinking Hillary's kool-aid. The delegate count is the deciding factor. The popular vote can't even be accurately tallied. For instance, how do you factor in cuauces? If the popular vote meant anything, Obama would have run his campaign differently.
I'm proud of Hillary's tenacity...
Roxxxanne wrote:DrewDad wrote:IMO, once all of the primaries are finished is when the real damage could start in the Democratic party. Very smart to suspend now, rather than turn it into a dogfight at the convention.
If the fight continues and the superdelegates go against the popular vote, then the party is vulnerable to charges of elitism. If the superdelegates go with the popular vote, then the question arises as to why there are superdelegates to begin with.
There is no rule in place within the party to calculate the "popular vote." You are drinking Hillary's kool-aid. The delegate count is the deciding factor. The popular vote can't even be accurately tallied. For instance, how do you factor in cuauces? If the popular vote meant anything, Obama would have run his campaign differently.
"Popular vote" is slightly misleading. "Delegates selected by voters" is more accurate, I suppose.
Cycloptichorn wrote:DrewDad wrote:IMO, once all of the primaries are finished is when the real damage could start in the Democratic party. Very smart to suspend now, rather than turn it into a dogfight at the convention.
If the fight continues and the superdelegates go against the popular vote, then the party is vulnerable to charges of elitism. If the superdelegates go with the popular vote, then the question arises as to why there are superdelegates to begin with.
What damage, exactly?
Cycloptichorn
Right now, the media attention is on how the contenders are wooing voters. Once the primary season is over, the media focus will be on wooing superdelegates. Some of that wooing is going to come across as strong-arming and/or bribing. That'll turn off the swing voters.
DrewDad wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:DrewDad wrote:IMO, once all of the primaries are finished is when the real damage could start in the Democratic party. Very smart to suspend now, rather than turn it into a dogfight at the convention.
If the fight continues and the superdelegates go against the popular vote, then the party is vulnerable to charges of elitism. If the superdelegates go with the popular vote, then the question arises as to why there are superdelegates to begin with.
What damage, exactly?
Cycloptichorn
Right now, the media attention is on how the contenders are wooing voters. Once the primary season is over, the media focus will be on wooing superdelegates. Some of that wooing is going to come across as strong-arming and/or bribing. That'll turn off the swing voters.
Uh, I doubt it. Very much. Clinton isn't going to be wooing anyone, and Obama no longer needs to.
Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn wrote: Uh, I doubt it. Very much. Clinton isn't going to be wooing anyone, and Obama no longer needs to.
Ah, the clarity of hind-sight.
I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at, DrewDad -- I was about to break in and say that Roxxxanne and Cycloptichorn were getting it wrong but on re-reading I'm not confident enough that I get it.
Are you saying that Obama still needs to get more superdelegates to his side, and that if he's too strong-armed in his tactics, he'll turn off swing voters?
Or that if Hillary is too strong-armed, she'll turn off swing voters? (But which ones? No more primaries...)
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace