Obama '08?

I think that Clinton should drop out once it becomes apparent that she will not be able to close the delegate gap. It's the math that matters, see; her campaign can't keep taking money and trucking along, in good faith, when she is so far behind that there is no realistic chance of her catching up and winning this thing.

sozobe wrote:

She's not mathematically out of it.

It seems extremely unlikely, and we've been pointing to some of the reasons why. But if everything aligns perfectly, she could still get the nomination, yes.

Sure it's unlikely. I've already resigned myself to as much.

That does not mean that she should drop out of the race.

maporsche wrote:

sozobe wrote:

She's not mathematically out of it.

It seems extremely unlikely, and we've been pointing to some of the reasons why. But if everything aligns perfectly, she could still get the nomination, yes.

Sure it's unlikely. I've already resigned myself to as much.

That does not mean that she should drop out of the race.

Before this creation gets any more straw stuffed up it's a$$; I believe the original contested point was whether she should quit if she takes a beating tomorrow... and even then it was with an assumption/understanding that her chances would likely be dismal thereafter.

Tipping Their Hand on Ohio?

According to the Obama's official schedule, he has no events in Ohio either today or tomorrow. He's in Texas the whole time.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

maporsche wrote:

sozobe wrote:

She's not mathematically out of it.

It seems extremely unlikely, and we've been pointing to some of the reasons why. But if everything aligns perfectly, she could still get the nomination, yes.

Sure it's unlikely. I've already resigned myself to as much.

That does not mean that she should drop out of the race.

Before this creation gets any more straw stuffed up it's a$$; I believe the original contested point was whether she should quit if she takes a beating tomorrow... and even then it was with an assumption/understanding that her chances would likely be dismal thereafter.

And I believe I am speaking as though she get's an ass beating tomorrow.

In until the convention, regardless of what else happens.

maporsche wrote:

My statement was that she could still win with enough superdelegate support. The SDs could swing either way. I do not need to post any data to prove that fact (I could, but to do so would be a waste of my time since 1) I'm right, and 2) you're the only one who seems to want to argue this small point).

1) No, you are not.
2) He is not the only one.
Post the data.

maporsche wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:

maporsche wrote:

sozobe wrote:

She's not mathematically out of it.

It seems extremely unlikely, and we've been pointing to some of the reasons why. But if everything aligns perfectly, she could still get the nomination, yes.

Sure it's unlikely. I've already resigned myself to as much.

That does not mean that she should drop out of the race.

Before this creation gets any more straw stuffed up it's a$$; I believe the original contested point was whether she should quit if she takes a beating tomorrow... and even then it was with an assumption/understanding that her chances would likely be dismal thereafter.

And I believe I am speaking as though she get's an ass beating tomorrow.

In until the convention, regardless of what else happens.

Finn? ... George?... Tico? Who's behind this silly avatar with the crappy football team?

a pattern I've seen from a lot of Hillary supporters [..] of late has basically had it that despite Obama's wins in February, a couple solid [Hillary] wins on March 4th means he has to get out. I'm not kidding. I hear this a lot. It's a weird mindset. There was a lot of it after Super Tuesday. I cannot tell you how many emails we got here at TPM on February 6th arguing that it was over and obvious that Obama had to bow out after Super Tuesday. And I've started seeing a series of similar emails this morning: if Hillary wins Ohio and Texas, she's got the nomination.

Meanwhile, Hillary supporters are apparently suddenly arguing that if Hillary wins Ohio and Texas, it's Obama who should bow out of the race.

nimh, I agree with soz, nicely put. It's more than just one issue; and Hillary keeps telling us she has extensive foreign policy experience, but it's contradicted by her own decision to give Bush the authority to go to war. If others did the same, it means most made the mistake, and never admitted they made a mistake; wrong headed at best.

Stubbornness is not an asset when big mistakes takes on too many consequences for the American people and the world.

Iraq is a boondoggle with no end in site; we don't need another huge mistake like this one, because Hillary and so many other democrats gave Bush the go-ahead "as he saw fit." Bad decision all around.

Older women continue to be swept aside for younger women and men in every arena of business and public life. It's not a new story.

WAS HILLARY NEXT IN LINE?

"For some women," reports The LA Times, "the rise of Obama rips open a persistent wound: an older, more experienced woman is pushed aside for a younger male colleague."

I've heard that a lot this election. And I don't deny the reality of that dynamic in the workplace, or the validity of the fear. But it seems like an awkward fit. The presidency is not a seniority based position. And even if it were, Hillary Clinton would not be first in line. Biden, or Dodd, or even Richardson would have been far in front of her. Indeed, insofar as one of the subplots of the race has been for younger, more charismatic contenders to vault ahead of experienced workhorses, it's manifested in the prominence of Clinton, Obama, and Edwards over Biden, Richardson, and Dodd. Clinton has benefited from that dynamic, not been disadvantaged by it.

When it's specifically applied to Clinton, however, it suggests a fundamentally strange view of how the presidency works. This is not an appointed position. The American people did not enter into a pact with Hillary Clinton promising her the White House in return for eight years of elected service, and decades more as the unelected half of a political team. When one of the underlying presumptions becomes that she was somehow owed this office, it creates a false sort of "equality blackmail" at the center of this election -- vote Clinton or you're fitting into a long history of misogyny. But there is nothing misogynistic, or unfair, about choosing the candidate whose politics you find most appealing, and whose political approach you find most compelling. That's how this presidency thing is, in theory, decided.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I think that Clinton should drop out once it becomes apparent that she will not be able to close the delegate gap. It's the math that matters, see; her campaign can't keep taking money and trucking along, in good faith, when she is so far behind that there is no realistic chance of her catching up and winning this thing.

She should stay in until the convention. She should stay in because almost 50% of the democratic voices in this country support her financially and ideologically. If her supporters keep sending her money to allow her to truck along then in good faith she should keep trucking.

A brokered convention may be her only shot and winning this thing and she needs to stay until that time. She needs to lose at the convention, not a minute before.

maporsche wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:

maporsche wrote:

sozobe wrote:

She's not mathematically out of it.

It seems extremely unlikely, and we've been pointing to some of the reasons why. But if everything aligns perfectly, she could still get the nomination, yes.

Sure it's unlikely. I've already resigned myself to as much.

That does not mean that she should drop out of the race.

Before this creation gets any more straw stuffed up it's a$$; I believe the original contested point was whether she should quit if she takes a beating tomorrow... and even then it was with an assumption/understanding that her chances would likely be dismal thereafter.

And I believe I am speaking as though she get's an ass beating tomorrow.

In until the convention, regardless of what else happens.

Finn? ... George?... Tico? Who's behind this silly avatar with the crappy football team?

I think it's real enough; just not what I would normally call a 'democrat.'