[Dornado]

Originally Posted by maxiep

Well, if the Blazers stopped playing in the 4th quarter in a close game, they would lose their fanbase.

There's zero reason for her to quit right now. The race is really close, momentum is on her side, she's winning the states the Democrats need to win in the Fall and more importantly she's getting the kind of swing votes that Sen. Obama may not be able to get in November.

He'll eventually reach 2,025 or 2,209 or whatever the number is. At that point, I'll be on the side that she should drop out. Until then, I'll defend her right to be in this race and to promote the policies and ideas she holds.

She's got less than a 1% chance of getting the nomination... and by staying in the race she may hurt the chances of the actual nominee in the general election... how is that not a reason? She's part of a party... if she wanted to run as an independent she could do whatever she wants, but as a member of a party you have certain responsibilities, and one of them is to not help the opposition in a pretty significant election.

[maxiep]

Originally Posted by Dornado

She's got less than a 1% chance of getting the nomination...

Would you please provide the equation that gave you this figure?

Originally Posted by Dornado

and by staying in the race she may hurt the chances of the actual nominee in the general election... how is that not a reason?She's part of a party... if she wanted to run as an independent she could do whatever she wants, but as a member of a party you have certain responsibilities, and one of them is to not help the opposition in a pretty significant election.

How is she hurting Sen. Obama or the Democrats? She's helping to mobilize the base and bringing millions of voters out who would otherwise have tuned out. And for the record, who's to say that Sen. Obama isn't hurting the Democrats? Sen. Clinton brings along the more traditional base and has won the swing states. Sen. Obama has won primaries where the Democrats are going to win anyway or they have no chance of taking.

Again, you're asking her to do something that no other candidate has ever been asked to do before--drop out when the person leading the race cannot win a the nomination without the superdelegates.

[barfo]

Originally Posted by maxiep

The process of dropping out means releasing your delegates.

Not necessarily. One can "drop out" by suspending the campaign, and keep the delegates. See, e.g., John Edwards, who still has his delegates despite having "dropped out" long ago.

barfo

[HB]

Originally Posted by maxiep

Would you please provide the equation that gave you this figure?



How is she hurting Sen. Obama or the Democrats? She's helping to mobilize the base and bringing millions of voters out who would otherwise have tuned out. And for the record, who's to say that Sen. Obama isn't hurting the Democrats? Sen. Clinton brings along the more traditional base and has won the swing states. Sen. Obama has won primaries where the Democrats are going to win anyway or they have no chance of taking.

Again, you're asking her to do something that no other candidate has ever been asked to do before--drop out when the person leading the race cannot win a the nomination without the superdelegates.

Well for one this race has been turned into a race issue. Starting from South Carolina, her campaign has suggested that Obama has been the black candidate.

Secondly, go to any political site right now, and read up the vitriol Hillary supporters her spewing against Obama. You have them saying they wont vote for him come November, and whats crazy is they dont even have legitimate reasons for doing so. They say the media has been sexist towards Clinton and somehow blame Obama for that. Nevermind the fact that he refused to stoop to her level and mud sling.

[Ed O]

Originally Posted by HB

Well for one this race has been turned into a race issue. Starting from South Carolina, her campaign has suggested that Obama has been the black candidate.

Isn't he the black candidate, though? Both in terms of being the only african american AND in terms of having almost universal support amongst african americans AND in terms of struggling in some states where the african american vote is less important?

Clearly not ONLY black people vote for him, but I don't think that the Clinton camp (or anyone else) has ever said that.

Are you saying that the Clintons were factually wrong or insensitive?

Ed O.

[HB]

Originally Posted by Ed O

Isn't he the black candidate, though? Both in terms of being the only african american AND in terms of having almost universal support amongst african americans AND in terms of struggling in some states where the african american vote is less important?

Clearly not ONLY black people vote for him, but I don't think that the Clinton camp (or anyone else) has ever said that.

Are you saying that the Clintons were factually wrong or insensitive?

Ed O.

He has won states where the majority of voters are white. She hasnt even come close to denting his support with African Americans. He has done a better job of coalescing different groups, from all spectrums of the economy, she hasn't.

Besides its the way she said it, that ruffled some feathers. Middle class white voters arent the only ones voting, for her to make it sound like they are the only ones that matters is whats problematic

[maxiep]

Originally Posted by HB

He has won states where the majority of voters are white. She hasnt even come close to denting his support with African Americans. He has done a better job of coalescing different groups, from all spectrums of the economy, she hasn't.

Besides its the way she said it, that ruffled some feathers. Middle class white voters arent the only ones voting, for her to make it sound like they are the only ones that matters is whats problematic

Yes, but those "different groups" are all solidly in the Democratic camp anyway. The voters Sen. Clinton is getting are those that crossed over and gave Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush victories in 80, 84, 00 and 04.

[Ed O]

Originally Posted by HB

He has won states where the majority of voters are white. She hasnt even come close to denting his support with African Americans. He has done a better job of coalescing different groups, from all spectrums of the economy, she hasn't.

So why HASN'T she been able to make inroads with african americans? Might it be because Obama IS the "black candidate"?

I don't have statistics to back me up on this, but given his dominance in such a significant group of the Democratic primary electorate AND his alleged "coalescing" of different groups... how is she managing to even stay as close as she is?

Besides its the way she said it, that ruffled some feathers. Middle class white voters arent the only ones voting, for her to make it sound like they are the only ones that matters is whats problematic

I can see what you're saying here. I think you're presenting a straw man, but I don't care enough to really pursue it

Ed O.

[HB]

Originally Posted by Ed O

So why HASN'T she been able to make inroads with african americans? Might it be because Obama IS the "black candidate"?

I don't have statistics to back me up on this, but given his dominance in such a significant group of the Democratic primary electorate AND his alleged "coalescing" of different groups... how is she managing to even stay as close as she is?

True on the first paragraph

On the second, its because she is a pretty good candidate and the Clinton name is the best brand name in politics. I dont think Obama would have the same problems he has with any other democratic candidate not named Clinton.

[e_blazer1]

Originally Posted by HB

On the second, its because she is a pretty good candidate and the Clinton name is the best brand name in politics. I dont think Obama would have the same problems he has with any other democratic candidate not named Clinton.

Which begs the question: Would Clinton have a significant problem defeating Obama if he weren't black? Would a white candidate with the same message and the same skills of oratory be able to sew up the black voting block in the manner that Obama has? If not, given how close this race is, wouldn't that tip the nomination to Hillary?

[HB]

Originally Posted by e_blazer1

Which begs the question: Would Clinton have a significant problem defeating Obama if he weren't black? Would a white candidate with the same message and the same skills of oratory be able to sew up the black voting block in the manner that Obama has? If not, given how close this race is, wouldn't that tip the nomination to Hillary?

Well how have other black presidential candidates fared? If being black was so beneficial why have we not seen other black candidates get as far as Obama or even come close to what he has done.

The man had 75,000 come to see him in Portland, I am sure there is more to him than just his color.

Both Hillary and Obama are to some extent helped by their gender and race, but I do think Obama's message resonates more with the people, especially after Bush's horrible tenure.

[e_blazer1]

Originally Posted by HB

Well how have other black presidential candidates fared? If being black was so beneficial why have we not seen other black candidates get as far as Obama or even come close to what he has done.

Obama has been able to succeed where his predecessors failed by having a message that appeals across racial boundaries. He's well-spoken, smart, and has avoided making his candidacy one that is limited solely to black issues. However, he's also got a huge advantage in gaining support of 90 percent of the black population. Having that much control of one demographic is clearly a difference maker when he and Clinton are so close with other demographics.