What does Hillary hope to gain by staying in the race?

[RiverStone]

I ask this not in a snarky way, and with all due respect to the dedicated Hillary supporters that have worked so hard for her. I empathize with how damn tough it is to let go a candidate you have fought for emotionally and volunteered for extensively.

That being said, many pundits both here and in the M$M have affirmed that the only way Hillary can win is if her Super Delegates over-ride the will of the pledged delegates. Even if she were to win every remaining contest by a 60% or so margin - she would not catch up with Obama. He probably has a lock on North Carolina, Mississippi, and Wyoming (at the least) and maybe more. Many SD's have stated privately, they will not bypass the will of the popular vote.

A bloody convention floor fight would not only alienate a new and very enthusiastic generation of Democratic voters (and lots of old ones too) but it could very well cost us the GE. Tossing out the primary and caucus results in favor of a back room Super Delegate decision would cause many Dems to walk away from the party in disgust. It could even cost us majorities on The Hill.

People here know I do not diss Hillary supporters - you guys are loyal Dems and we need you in the fall! Oh, I'll rake Hillary over the coals for her tactics - but my anger is directed at her.

I appreciate the need for all states to participate and I hope we see re-do's in FLA/MI (no way they will be seated as is) - and if Hillary concedes before the convention we would still be OK. I think that would generate lots of political good will. Yet she said Tuesday night that she plans to go all the way. What does that mean?

Again I ask with all due respect, what does Hillary hope to gain by staying in the race? I truly see no up side.


On edit: kant spel

[DURHAM D]

1. The Presidency. eom

[stahbrett]

6. in 2012 (eom)

[calico1]

2. The nomination n/t

[stahbrett]

7. in 2012 (eom)

[Nine]

3. She hopes to win.

Neither Clinton nor Obama has reached the magic number. But your timing is perfect. Care to answer this for me? http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4927526

[jmg257]

4. THE PRIZE. If not now, then 2012.

[Pachamama]

43. There can be only one....

(sorry...I couldn't resist)

[grantcart]

5. money

when she ran for the Senate she accumulated a war chest of $20 million. That is gone now. She raised $35 million in Feb but for Ohio and Texas her ad buys were only $ 6 million. There is no reason to leave. Her contributions go up ($ 3million in one day by her own campaign). She repays the loan and leaves the campaign in a month on a high note proclaiming that she is leaving for the sake of the party. She has $ 20-30 million primary funds and $25 million GE funds that she can now use to replenish her war chest.

She can use that to dole out for favors and become the majority leader or never have to do another fund raiser the rest of her Senatorial career.

Also if she can damage Obama enough so that he loses in 08 that money will be real handy in 2012.

[progdog]

9. Bingo!

n/t

[grantcart]

14. where is my prize for noting what is obvious?

[RiverStone]

18. I'm not sure this is the totally right answer, but here is a prize anyway

Actually, a pretty plausible possibility. I wonder if on some calender in her war room, there is a date already marked to withdraw down the road. But I suspect there is more, as said down-thread - maybe she hopes Obama has a major gaffe or scandal - then she would jump in as the nominee.

That strategy makes me a little nervous - the beltway in DC has a way of digging up all sorts of dirt. Just like this NAFTA bullshit that came out of Canada - it was not Hillary's fault - but the damage had already been done by the time they (Canada) said ooops, we fucked up. The Clinton campaign still spun the lie - before they knew it was one - so they say. Too bad it was not before OH voted.

I hope Obama has many eyes looking out for him. People are digging as far back as they can to come up with something bad.

[grantcart]

31. Well we know that it will not be going past April 14th.

Because then the tax returns will be released. If they were serious about it they would release the returns now so that they could deal with the blow back during the time before PA. I don't think its a matter of time as a dollar amount they have in mind.

And of course they are waiting to see if there might be a complete fall down by Obama but I think that off the stage they are pretty objective about it and can see this guy is not going to make a major gaffe. I suspect that they are either having talks now or are in some way in communication with the powers at be for a scripted withdrawal. Gov. Richardson said it would be clear on Mar 5th. A lot of big names like Edwards and Gore will step in if they see her taking the party over the cliff. Everyone will be happy for her to fleece her flock and then let her leave in a blaze of glory and praise for having taken such a sacrificial step for the greater good of the party.

[corkhead]

44. my first thought re your mention of 2012 is NO WAY! But Nixon looked washed up in 1964

after getting stomped trying to run for governor of CA, but it ended up that in spite of what he said, we ended up having 10 more years to kick Dick Nixon around some more.

Conventional wisdom leads me to believe she would be washed up after destroying the party in 2008, but I guess anything is possible.

[gravity]

8. Dividing the party so the only solution is an Clinton/Obama ticket

to get them out of this mess.

[joshcryer]

10. Ding ding.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CyberPieHole]

12. The Presidency. What else?

There is plenty of time for Obama to continue to stumble...Michelle alone does a great job of holding her husband back. Let's see what develops with the Rezko issue and let's see if something juicy turns up. If Obama stumbles and falls, Hillary Clinton will be there to help him get back up.:evilgrin: I'm praying the MSM focuses on Obama and gives him the scrutiny he so richly deserves. It'll happen if, Goddess forbid, he gets the nomination, so it might as well happen before the GE.

[dchill]

15. She wants to destroy Obama now...

so that she can either steal the nomination, or get it in 2012. That's all she can "hope" to achieve at this point.

[Iris]

19. Yes. probably been her dream since she was a little girl.

:sarcasm:

[AtomicKitten]

16. I think she's trying to force herself onto the ballot as VP.

That would be a mistake on Obama's part of epic proportions if he allowed that. Her divisive behavior in this contest to date isn't something the SDs are likely to reward.

[debatepro]

35. Yep... with enough delegate she will have a compelling arg... to be the VP

[RiverStone]

36. DU polls anyway ....

Have suggested an overwhelming sense that Hillary would not "settle" for the VP slot. Some have also felt Bill Clinton wants back in the White House, and does not want Hillary to be in the no 2 slot.

Are these impressions or truths? I don't know.

[AtomicKitten]

37. I cannot fathom a combined ticket.

Not after the way she has conducted her campaign. And perhaps I'm not being particularly pragmatic, but I'm fine with her not settling. It doesn't matter what her aspirations are. She has reached Lieberman status and I expect her to be full-on Zell by the time her behavior and the party's interests crash head-on. And Obama will rise from the wreckage. I really believe he's got the right stuff to survive this freakshow and validation of that premise one way or the other is apparently forthcoming.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

17. I will say this politely. Many Obama supporters are missing the point

There is no guarantee that Obama will not collapse as a candidate in the next month. That doesn't mean he will... it's not a prediction. But his appeal is faddish... that does not diminish him as a person, it is an observation about national media psychology.

Obama may be the greatest man in American history and it doesn't change the dynamic. "The People" are a funny bunch. The people turned on Jesus and crucified him.

Things that go up fast go down fast. Things driven by emotion are subject to wild swings, because emotion is labile.

The preoccupation with the numbers is worthwhile, but if Obama collapses it is irrelevant.

The point that is missed is that the majority of Obama voters are not zealots, they're ordinary Dems trying to pick a winner. They are not interested in a suicide pact.

If it is obvious to the vast majority of observers that the Obama bubble has burst he will not be the nominee, no matter what the numbers say. And if Obama looks like a sure loser, the "will of the people" will be to pick a winner.

The delegate count is peachy, but it is not what is going to decide this thing.

The question is whether Obama collapses. That is the only determinative thing worth talking about.

If he doesn't collapse he will be the nominee. If, however, he is 25% behind Clinton in all national polling of Democrats and getting whipped by McCain in all polling (including the Democratic party's own voluminous commissioned and private polling), and looks likely will lose Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania in the general election he will not be the nominee.

The convention will pick a winner, using all avaialable information at the time.

It's really simple. If Obama remains a viable national candidate he will be the nominee. If not, no rational Dem will favor his nomination.

[Tom Rinaldo]

20. Perfectly stated

If Obama even only roughly holds his own from here on out, he will be the Democratic nominee. Probably he will. Probably there is enough real grit and substance in both the man and his campaign to handle some potentially stormy weather. If that is true, then Obama supporters need not worry. But if the air starts leaking fast out of the Obama baloon all bets are off. If when the excitement and newness of his amazing rise from relative obscurity to the threshold of the presidency subsides some, Obama starts to look like a weaker candidate than Clinton afterall, his candidacy will get a hard second look. If Obama can't run strong when the days of his being hailed as David to Goliath are history (when he isn't the inspirational underdog), when the momentum no longer is driving the race strongly in his direction, that will be telling, and that will be noted.

This is Obama's last test, and it is a fair one. He doesn't have to outshine Clinton from here on out. He doesn't even have to tie her in perceived strength as a candidate. She can edge him in the final rounds and Obama will still win this one on points. But this is a historic race, it isn't just about pledged delegates, it will be relitively close there no matter what happens from here on out. It is about who can carry the Democrats to victory in November and bring about the social changes this nation needs. If Clinton clearly outshines Obama over the next three months - she will win and deservedly so. The burden of proof is now on Clinton, which is fair. But if she effectively makes the closing case while Obama wilts under the pressure, he will not deserve the nomination.

[RiverStone]

24. Well said - I wonder who will be the judge?

You mention the burden of proof is on Hillary now. And you speak of making a strong closing case.

If this is like a courtroom analogy - who will be the judge?

This marathon is about not only who finishes strong, but who ran well from the start to the end and every step in between. I hope that Obama's strong case is obvious and there will not need to be any lengthy deliberations.

In a way, he has already won on points. The people have already spoken and at least the latter voting states will have a voice this year. I just sure as hell hope people agree what constitutes the merits of being the victor. Cause anybody can spin that too.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

32. That's exactly what the SDs are for... to arbitrate close cases

If anyone has a lead over 20% of delegates the SDs are moot. They only come into play when it is close enough to be swung by their 20%.

The system isn't actually bad. The system defers to the CLEAR will of the people, but does not defer to the ambiguous will of the people.

It seems reasonable to me. I don't get the paranoia some have that SDs would pick Clinton without compelling reason to do so... the SDs are well informed and eager to win.

(And pushing the Clintons aside opens up room at the top for the ambitious. Most SDs would probably like to shake-up the party power centers.)

The SDs will vote for whoever they really, truly believe is likeliest to win, and will benefit them down-ticket.

That argument has favored Obama for a while now, and if it continues to favor him the SDs will go for him in big numbers.

[RiverStone]

22. Lets say Obama remains viable...as I think he will...

Would you suggest Hillary remain in competition all the way to Denver in August?

I can understand hoping he will be tripped up for a little while longer, but there comes a point where our party and chances in the GE would be far better served to focus exclusively on that war mongering puke McCain.

The distraction of a protracted trench war in our party --- waiting for an unexpected Obama scandal ----ultimately does not seem like a good strategy to win the GE. When the last primary votes, I hope Hillary withdraws. I'd rather it be sooner, but I hope that would be the latest.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

30. The schedule is unfortunate. It would ne nice if PA was next week.

If she does well in PA it's hard to see a reason for her to drop out, and that takes us into May and June.

And if FL and MI come up with the money for sanctioned primaries, it's hard to see why she would drop out before those contests.

Since you seem to be a very reasonable person, here's a scenario that really challenges the imagination...

Let's say FL and MI schedule primaries for the same day as Pennsylvania. And let's say Hillary wins all three by the same margin as in Ohio. (Not predicting here, but that's a rational possibility)

It would be obvious in national perception that she was the nominee (having won five super-states in a row and with NY, CA and NJ already in her bag), yet she would still be behind in delegates, and unlikely to catch up.

That's the point where she could offer Barack the VP and he would be wise to take it, even though he was still ahead on paper. Because the supers just aren't going to go against NY, CA, NJ, FL, OH, MI, MA and PA. Only IL is missing... That's probably 75% of the electoral votes a Dem ever wins. And we have to win seven of those eight states to win the election.

And I'm guessing those eight states account for a majority of Dems in congress.

So, though I understand the math as well as anyone, this thing is still up in the air. Advantage Obama, yes, but up in the air.

[sueragingroz]

38. excellent post

It reminds me of Gary Hart

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Hart

[Justitia]

21. It's all about the Clinton Legacy, baby. Democratic Party be damned! -eom

[Life Long Dem]

23. Then there is the VP spot.

Which she wants if she loses. Probably one of those one way roads with her where she'll dismiss Obama if she were to pull this win out.

[RiverStone]

26. I would not mind if she was the VP

I know I'm in the minority for that position as an Obama supporter - but I think it would heal the party and it offers the easiest way to move ahead and unify.

And BTW, they would kick ass in the fall.

[Armstead]

25. My tin foil thoughts....2012

Elaborated here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4927070&mesg_id=4927070

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

27. The Nomination. Duh.

Any more obvious questions you're having trouble with?

[RiverStone]

28. Why would she want the nomination...

...if it tears the party apart to get it?

Tell me there is a way she can get the nomination without an implosion on the floor in Denver and without a huge block of the Dem electorate telling the party to fuck off. Tell me she can do it another way and I'll concede the nomination for Hillary makes sense.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

29. The Party Will Be Just Fine.

You may not be, but you do not the party make.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

33. You presume that Clinton's supporters are sheep

Tearing the party apart requires two sides.

Why would picking Obama not "tear the party apart"?

This is the "Clinton supporters will fall in line, Obama supporters will not" argument.

The problem with the argument is that it's not based on the hard facts. By everything we know today, picking Obama drives exactly twice as many Democrats to McCain as picking Hillary. He is the more divisive candidate in the party.

That doesn't mean he's a divisive person or anything... it's just that he is, in practice, more divisive for whatever reason.

This is like Solomon and the baby. Everyone assumes that Dems will accede to Obama because they love the party too much to see Obama supporters tear it up, and assume that Clinton supporters will not tear it up.

For all the talk of Obama being the next Reagan, he does not win Reagan Democrats. He wins some Reagan independents and maybe some Reagan Republicans.

But Hillary wins the actual Reagan Democrats... registered Democrats who voted for Reagan. Older white blue-collar rust-belt people above the Mason-Dixon line who have enough subtle racism in them to have voted for a bigot like Reagan. And they are susceptible to being McCain Democrats.

[RiverStone]

34. And this is where reasonable people disagree...

And here we are - both political junkies to some degree - both trying to stay aware and educated as to process and fact - and yet we can agree to disagree which candidate will be the most divisive or polarizing.

In my world, Obama's appeal across party lines and to Independents makes him far more electable in the fall. A majority of polls (not all, but most) point to Obama doing about 4-5 points better against McCain than Hillary.

Too many folks have a visceral reaction to her - a knee jerk (no fucking way) I'd vote for her reaction. I'd vote for her - but many will not.

Who is most electable is up for debate. I simply go back to the most simple and obvious answer:

LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE!


peace~:

[Not the Only One]

39. by any means necessary

She will steal the nomination if that's the only way to acquire it. And she'll worry about November in November.

[ShaWee]

40. She wants the destruction of the democratic party!

Or something like that....

[krkaufman]

41. New theory... Destroy Obama and the Dems' chances in November...

... so that the DLC/Clinton approach to politics can remain on life-support.

If Obama were to be the nominee and Dean's 50 State Strategy helps reap big gains in both the House and Senate, we'd be damn close to being DONE with the DLC.

[Neshanic]

42. Getting a pony for Obama when she wins.