Wednesday, June 4, 2008

On Clinton Dropping Out

Post 14:



I had a different post all ready for tonight, but then SD and Montana had to go and vote, causing me to jump to this post. Yes, I know it is biased. Yes, I know it is small. And, yes, I expect a lot of flack for it. I DO NOT THINK THAT CLINTON SHOULD DROP OUT. There, I said it, I took my stance, now, read my reasoning before you attack me. Clinton should not drop out for three different reasons: Neither candidate has the number needed to be the winner (pledged) - Obama will loose in November to McCain without her, so she should stay for the veep offer - Dimaio is still out there, think about the case law that could create (plus, she still has an argument to the credentials committee).

Neither Candidate has the Number Needed to be the Winner (Pledged):
According to CNN's Election Center Obama has 1,761 pledged delegates, Clinton has 1,636 pledged; that means that Obama is 350 or so pledged from the 2,118 pledged needed (assuming Florida/Michigan do not change at some point). Clinton is 470 or so away from the same mark. Clearly neither candidate has the numbers needed. This argument does ignore the fact that Obama does have more delegates than needed provided you count supers. I do not think that we should consider Obama/Clinton supers until the convention, as a lot can happen in that time that would make them wish to switch.

Obama can not Win in November Without Her:
28% of Clinton supporters (which means 14% of the party) are willing to vote for McCain over Obama in November. Without this 14% Obama has no chance in the primary, plus, he has little chance in pulling the independents and moderates to his side. By placing Clinton in the veep spot he should be able to keep most of her group (losing maybe 1-3%) and pull the moderates/independents that Clinton holds strong. Plus, Clinton helps Obama keep the party base loyal to the party so that they will not switch over to McCain. This move alone might help keep me voting blue in November.

Dimaio is Still Out There, Plus the Credentials Committee:
Dimaio V. DNC is still floating out there, just waiting for SCOTUS (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/) to pick it up and make great case law out of it. As much as it might seem like it, the Florida and Michigan cases are still not settled. While Florida might stay as it is, Clinton has a great argument in front of the Credentials Committee that Michigan should give no votes to Obama (which push him over the edge) as he was not on the ballot there. Nobody voted for him there; HE TOOK HIMSELF OFF!!!!! Obama deserves no votes from Michigan as he voluntarily removed himself, and I think that Clinton will win that.

Clearly there is no winner in this race yet.







As always, please leave any comments, no matter how large or how small about the contents of this blog post. Also, please leave any comments/suggestions about this site/post as a whole.
Thanks,
Barga,
Editor of http://whalertly.blogspot.com/
barga.24@osu.edu


Digg my article

16 comments:

Ben said...

Thanks to the democrats system, you are right, there is no winner yet.

Jason said...

Robert - We've created a mess with this "democratic system." What happened in Michigan should be taken to the Supreme Court, Florida concerns me much less.

He is really not a smart man if he doesn't pick her as VP.

Brendan said...

I have to disagree. These two pieces sum up why the best, in the Economist (http://www.economist.co.uk/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11375813) and this Harvard organizational blog (http://socialcapital.wordpress.com/2008/06/04/baracks-nomination-and-finding-a-trustworthy-veep/).

I write a bit more about it here: http://election2008options.blogspot.com/2008/05/die-dream-team-die.html

Barga said...

Jason -

Both should be taken to the court and both should be found as the DNC violated election law

Barga said...

Brendan -
I counter that with a very specific point that i made in my post, Obama needs the 14% of the party to win

Empress of Flind said...

Actually, Obama does have the needed # of delegates (unless all the super-delegates change their minds). Didn't you hear that the Florida and Michigan delegates were halved and given out? Not that I like either candidate; they both suck. And in response to "jason." If he takes her as VP, then he also gets Bill, and we all know how that turned out last time. Enjoy screaming at my comment.

Her Majesty, The Empress of Flind

PS: If you people don't know what on earth i mean by my name, check out NationStates. It's awesome. End of story.

Brendan said...

Gots to disagree Barga.

I don't think your 14% is correct. Many have pointed out that after a fierce primary battle the voters generally say they will not support the winning candidate (if their candidate loses). Yet they come back.

The agree stands under basic reasoning too though: people are in a party not b/c of an individual, largely, but b/c of what the party is about. 14%, or basically 1 out of every 6 Dems is not going to depart from their ideals simply b/c Clinton's out; i just don't think that people will, in essence, vote against their interests like that.

Additionally, i think i have to take issue w/your point that Hillary's the one that is bringing in important independents. Obama has polled much higher among independents than Hillary and is the one that brings those in to degrees that matter, in my view.

Good dialogue, appreciate it.

Barga said...

empress

Do notice that i specifically mention that one should not count the supers as they can change quite easily.

Barga said...

Brendan -
The problem with looking at those results are the amount of people who said they would deflect and the amount of support that candidate had, This case has no precedent.

The thing is, I think most of us democrats who would deflect were not looking for universal health care, we were looking for a good solution in Iraq, Moderation, and Bipartisanship, something we can not find in Obama

Brendan said...

Hola, a few quick thoughts in response:

You said, "The problem with looking at those results are the amount of people who said they would deflect and the amount of support that candidate had, This case has no precedent."

We just disagree then, as i think the numbers you mentioned are unrealistic, as many supported Clinton b/c of her Dem. values, and i don't think they'll vote against them in any substantive numbers.

And then you said: "The thing is, I think most of us democrats who would deflect were not looking for universal health care, we were looking for a good solution in Iraq, Moderation, and Bipartisanship, something we can not find in Obama."

You'll have to tell me how you find a better solution on Iraq, more moderation or more bipartisanship in Clinton than Obama, as i think that has no basis.

Barga said...

In 2000 McCain had roughly 20% of the rep support and 4% voted/didnt vote for the other side

In 2008 Clinton had 48% of the vote... think about that, 8% voting or not voting, assuming the same difference.
Plus, only 12-15% of McCain's said they would switch, 25% of clinton's are saying that

Barga said...

My difference in Iraq is the most recent post

Look at their ratings and what they have done, then tell me that Obama is bipartisan

Brendan said...

Hola again Robert,

I'm sorry, but i just don't see that the number you mention change anything, in terms of the number that voted for him in primaries in 2000 vs. the number that voted for Clinton in 2008. Similarly, i don't think it's anything that a number are saying they'll vote for McCain instead, as i just don't think many will. And while i can understand why some would do so, i don't think that an exercise in logic alone could lead any that subscribe to many of the Dems policy positions to do so.

Brendan said...

Then w/your second response--you said: "most of us democrats who would deflect were not looking for universal health care, we were looking for a good solution in Iraq, Moderation, and Bipartisanship, something we can not find in Obama."

Clinton did not have any significant difference w/Obama on Iraq, so Iraq is no reason to defect then. What you mention in your Iraq post would have been in disagreement w/Clinton too; that's fine, but that's now a diff. arguement than you were making above, if you see what i'm saying.

But in terms of your Iraq post, i hear what you're saying, and will throw a comment there

Barga said...

What i was showing is that based on the same percentage flip there should be a larger number as there are more Clinton supporters than there were McCain in 2000... Also, based on the heat of the battle...

Obama has said quick withdrawl, clinton wants slow with benchmarks
I am better with clintons

Anonymous said...

I do agree with democracy.
I merely prefer republics.
Thats me done.
Hey Robert.
/b/
Damon, ROP

Redirect

You will be redirected shortly to our new website. If you are not redirected within 5 seconds please CLICK HERE!

Copyright Notice

(C) All articles, postings, images, etc. on this site are protected by relevant copyright law, unless otherwise specified. To use any original material in totality please ask for author permission.

(C) 2009, all rights reserved by whalertly.blogspot.com, Robert M. Barga, and all contributing authors.