Should Hillary Drop Out?
Side Score: 46
Side Score: 36
i don't blame her for sticking in until the 4th. If those states vote barack, essentially, that's game over... the people will have spoken, and that would be ripping apart the democratic party if she chose to take it all the way to the convention... but she would look a lot more like a gracious loser if she dropped out now...
She should drop out. The entire primary process is a joke. There's not much democratic about it. The longer she stays in, the longer she makes our system look bad. Besides, she would be a horrible president. She's a liar and a crook, corrupt as hell. She doesn't care about the American people, only her own power and wallet.
I'd like to think that I can look at this objectively, and say "yes", that regardless of who I support (Obama), Hillary's negative comments about Obama will either hurt him in the general election if he's the nominee, or hurt people's opinion of her if she manages to take it. Either way, the Democrats will deal with the consequences in November, besides giving McCain time to build up support.
Ok - I spent all day thinking about this, because I was initially feeling quite ambivolent. Part of me was thinking, the damage is already done - the party appears fragmented and non-decisive, how will dropping out this late help? And then I realized, that every day she prolongs dropping out is another day that Obama's campaign funds are spent fighting a war against Clinton instead of McCain. So yeah ---- it's time to drop out and support a campaign to win against McCain.
Heavens yes. It was mathematically impossible for her to win after the Texas and Ohio primaries - she had to get 65% in each state after that, which she's never done. It just keeps getting worse and worse odds from there. The last I heard, it was something on the order of 69% in the remaining states. Even when she was unopposed in West Virginia, she didn't attain it.
There is a time and place for everything. Her presidential aspirations for 2008 are well past that time.
Running as a third party candidate would doom her forever from political office. As it stands now, she can become governor of New York, Senate Majority Leader, Vice President, a host of options, keeping the presidential run viable in the future.
Of course she should. So should Obama, and so should McCain. The entire election is a sham and all of the people discussing it here have allowed themselves to be distracted and deceived by it. Wake me when you have independently verifiable pper trails. Until then you don't have a democracy. This is just a theatre, with McCain as the school yard bully, Clinton as the Ice Queen, Obama the cool, well adjusted all round nice guy, and a horrible continuation of Bush policies prepared under Bill Clinton with a more polite face.
Obama is the Tony Blair of the USA. Fake respectability ready to deliver more of the same tyranny we are used to. All we need now is "things can only get better" to be played at the democratic party convention.
For Americans who don't understand what fools they are being taken for, go and watch videos of Blair around the 1997 elections.
Umm...okay, so we should just have anarchy then?
It seems to me that the American Government and the leader of the free world is a bit more than "theatre" as you claim. How can you say that everyone is "distracted and deceived" by the election. Shouldn't we care who is going to be the next President of the US? Shouldn't we inform ourselves of the issues and the candidates take on the issues so we can make an informed voting decision?
Let me know when you get to elect the leaser of the free world. You actually think Bush is the leader of ANYTHING?
And no, until you have a verifiable transparent voting process, theres no point in making ANY voting decision.
Yes , we should have anarchy. To help you define it, go and look up 3 random anarchist philosophers.
Anyone who knows anything on the candidates knows that all of the ones promoted by a controlled media on TV have the SAME positions. Obama is pro-Israel, pro-war, pro NAFTA just like McCain and Hilary. The only difference is how they dress it up.
16,691,639 + 16,648,060 = 33,339,699
16,691,639 - 16,648,060 = 43,579
43,579/33,339,699 = 0.0013 or .13% Clinton lead--statistically meaningless
15,492,344 + 16,648,060 = 32,140,404
16,648,060 - 15,492,344 = 1,155,716
1,155,716/16,648,060 = .0694 or 7% Obama lead
2025 needed for Democratic nomination
Clinton 1171 or 57.83%
Obama 1903 or 93.98%
Source: ABC Delegate Tracker (www.abcnews.go.com)
There are a few simple facts that guide my argument here: Clinton is behind in the overall popular vote and pledged delegates and is very unlikely to catch up in either category and she needs an overwhelming amount of super-delegates in order to reach the 2,025 needed to clinch the nomination.
First of all, I think it would be very damaging to the Democratic Party if she were to win by a surge of super-delegate support. It would certainly play in the media as the party's elite "screwing over" the first viable black candidate. At the end of the primary contest, super-delegates should choose the candidate who receives the most overall votes.
Secondly, Clinton's remained presence in the race is going to hurt Obama in the fall general election campaign. A bloody fight for the next three months will have no result other than to make McCain a favorite for the presidency.
It bothers me when people want Hillary to win the nomination just so she can get beaten in the general election. I agree that she probably would not win the general election because she is such a polarizing figure, but I think the election that decides the leader of our country is too important to want the least qualified candidate to win the nomination just so she can be demolished. Go Obama!
She definitely should stay in. Every minute she's in means more stress and division in the dems. They're destroying themselves. All the Republicans knew when their time was up and dropped out, but Hill doesn't realize she's doing our job for us with her muckraking and sarcastic comments about obama.
The Republican race was MUCH closer than the Democrat race. When McCain emerged as the front-runner, there were few Republican candidates who could catch him. Hillary and Obama are only about a hundred pledged delegates apart, so I don't think Hillary's time is up in the same way it was for the other Republicans. As for her mudslinging, I think it's immature, but she's trying to win the nomination any way she can.
There's a reason each state has its own primary - the only reason a candidate should 'drop out' before a convention is if there's absolutely no way they could get the number of delegates needed to secure the nomination.
Clearly, large numbers of Democrats qould prefer Hillary over Obama. There's no reason to disenfranchise them because he's presently ahead. If he had garnered the number of delegates required, then of course, but he hasn't.
That's said without any bias toward one or the other.
Now Ron Paul? It's time he faced the music.