Isn't it possible our primary system was designed assuming people would eventually drop out

[Johnny__Motown]

Edwards left after just 4 contests, for a reason.

Biden, Dodd and Richardson left even sooner.


Is it unreasonable to assume that our system expects candidates to drop out once they have fallen so far behind that there is no reasonable expectation that they can ever catch up, simply for the good of the party?



Most people (Including Sen. Clinton) expected this to end on Feb. 2nd. and for everyone to unite behind our nominee at that point. I see no reasonable explanation for her continuing to damage our party when she has no viable path to the nomination.


I am sorry if this is Flame Bait. I just think she is perverting the system.

[LulaMay]

1. You don't know much about the politics, do you? She doesn't have to quit for your peace of mind.

[Johnny__Motown]

2. For the good of the party. and no she does not need to, there are no rules saying she must

[LulaMay]

10. Women are tired of being told to step aside,quit, be quiet 'for the good of' whatever.

WE COUNT.

[Drachasor]

16. Men do it all the time. I don't doubt that women can do it too.

I hold all people to the same standard.

[cornermouse]

20. I doubt it.

Women or "mom" is the one who is always expected to sacrifice for "the family".

[Drachasor]

21. We ARE talking about elections here

It's a FACT that men drop out of elections all the time for the good of the party.

I'm going to avoid a debate about other matters.

[stevenleser]

32. Oh brother. Ignore!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[NashVegas]

23. But No One Goes On Freaking TV

Or to the press, anywhere to try to force it. You do it behind the scenes. You leave people with some pride. You leave men with their pride. It has always been this way.

[Drachasor]

30. I assume people have been talking to her behind the scenes; it seems fairly clear that's the case.

Given what many have said (such as Nancy Pelosi). Of course, it is behind the scenes so this can't be confirmed EITHER way. If she won't listen from behind the scenes then you have to go public.

Also, Huckabee had many people coming out against him in public telling him to drop out. So I don't think your basic premise is correct either.

[Lucky 13]

22. So are minorities. Black people are tired of being put in their place.

Especially by over-privilaged egomaniacal white establishment.

[ClassWarrior]

25. Therefore, women need favoritism?

:eyes:

NGU.

[ClassWarrior]

31. Hmmm... Why do people start discussions and then disappear?

NGU.

[XemaSab]

41. Why is everything seen through the lens of gender here?

As a woman, I am more than the sum of my genitalia.

[Middle finga]

3. The Dems had primaries that were close all the way into spring

and summer in the 80's so they should've been anticipating close primaries

[nadinbrzezinski]

4. My brother in law and I have discussed this... and the system was designed

to weed out weak candidates. This year we have two strong candidates... so it is not working as it should

Granted, at this point mathematically she should drop, but she is still a strong candidate

By the way, this current constitutional crisis has also uncovered some ugly problems with the Constitution, but that is a whole different ball of wax.

Suffice it to say, all systems have weaknesses and none is perfect.

By the way, the system has way too many problems,,, but hey, you will have partisans truly defending their preferred candidate and that is ... human nature

[Johnny__Motown]

8. That is a reasonable response. thank you for that

I am glad it isn't just me.

[HereSince1628]

19. The system let in Dukakis...it didn't protect from weak candidates at all

The SD's could quickly put an end to this bloodletting by declaring, but the SD's are about as courageous as the DCdems.
I quess that isn't surprising since a whole lot of them are DCdems.

My advice to them is that it's hard to test the wind with your finger when your thumb is up your ass.

[stevenleser]

33. To use the vernacular, If the choices all suck, then yes, a weak candidate will get in

your response does not account for that.

[KittyWampus]

26. Hillary IS a "weak candidate". Her campaign is broke & irreparably behind in pledged delegates

Just because she puts forth a good front and mediawhores allow her to go unchallenged doesn't mean she's a strong candidate.

[Diane R]

5. I can't remember a candidate refusing to quit just so he/she can spoil the party's chance in the GE.

Normal people would have dropped out by now. Not Hillary, though. It's all about Hillary.

[Drachasor]

17. I honestly think you should take the Clintons at their word on this

She (and Bill too for that matter) isn't thinking about the GE. She is only thinking about this election, and what she can do to win this election. That's their most important rule after all, as they have stated many, many times.

Hence she ignores the damage she is doing, and the divisiveness on both sides her continued campaign creates. This even though her own people only think she has a 10% chance of winning (which is likely optimistic). She continues because it is not a 0% chance. She continues against all odds, all reason, and without regard for the good of the party. Not because she doesn't care about those things per se, but because her perspective (and likely her campaign's perspective) is all about winning this single primary and has no view beyond it.

So they work to make Obama have a harder time winning a GE. They purposefully undermine him at times. Do they do this for 2012? No. They do this because if they make him less electable, then that increases the chance Hillary will win this primary.

I personally believe this is quite mad.

[EFerrari]

6. I don't think I've followed a primary season this closely as an adult

fwiw.

Clinton is not perverting the system, she's pushing on it. And although contrary to my wishes, she's doing what the rules allow.

This will be a power struggle right down to the mat. The Clinton machine vs. the rest of the party.

[grantcart]

7. Remember Iowa beautiful serious Iowa

Iowa that gave us Obama, Edwards and Clinton in third place


Let's redo they system and let Iowa do the whole thing.

[K Gardner]

29. You know, I honestly think if she had lost NH, it WOULD have been over by now.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

9. I wouldn't say she should have dropped out on Feb. 2, or even after that.

But when Obama won 11 races in a row after Super Tuesday, that should have been a wake-up call. Instead, the Clinton campaign decided on a "Kitchen Sink" strategy that is bringing down both of them, along with possibly the Democratic party's chances in 2008. She could have just run a straightforward campaign and let the chips fall where they may.

[housewolf]

11. This primary season was front-loaded under the assumption that coming out of

Iowa, NH,& NV there would be one candidate who was clearly a front-runner who would then sweep Super Tuesday and everyone ele would drop out by then, if not before.

Nobody counted on their being two strong candidates in contention for the nomination.

But in previous years, it wasn't like this at all. In 1992 when Bill Clinton won, there were 5 candidates and Bill Clinton didn't place first until the 3rd primary. There was no front-loading and the primary season stretched more evenly for several months. Three candidates dropped out somewhere fairly early in the process. Jerry Brown stayed in through the whole primary season and took his delegates to the convention. Bill Clinton didn't have the nomination loced up until the California primary in early June. So, it was quite different in other years.

Our whole nation seems to have ADD now, want's everything finalized "NOW" and move on to the next thing. Our tolerance for time and process has diminised to a large degree.

[davidpdx]

15. I agree with you in terms of the front loading

it did the exact opposite of what some states believe it would do. My state, Oregon, considered moving up their primary, but in the end decided against it. Oregon will get much more attention now because of their decision to wait.

[bluestateguy]

12. If she does not win a landslide in PA I will call on her to drop out after April 22

nt

[elleng]

13. Most people did not expect

the enormous interest in participation, and thought the first 'primaries' would be decisive; that didn't happen.

Its not 'unreasonable' to think the process expects candidates to drop out, and they have, indeed. It is not reasonable, IMO, for anyone to expect either of the remaining candidates to drop out at this time, because it is not true that either has no viable path to the nomination.

IMO, what is perverting the system is the media, which pretends to report the news but only 'reports' 'controversies' that result in beliefs in untruths, and unreasonable expectations.

To save the party and 'system,' IMO, both candidates should stand together to state that 'we're not going to take it any more,' tell the media to cut out the b.s., and tell their supporters to stop throwing brick bats at eachother.

[SoCalDem]

14. Most drop out because of money.. The small states go first

because it's cheaper to operate there, and wholesale politicking can go on. If a candidate "catches fire" , he/she will gain stature, and then can raise money, but if they cannot suicceed in optimum conditions, the handwriting's on the wall, and they drop out..

Only the extremely well-financed or personally wealthy can continue past the early states.

Huckleberry Squirrel kept on going, because he knew he had no chance in hell, but was enjoying himself..money was never an issue for him, because he knew he was not going to win.

The B & H saga continues because both have money, and access to MORE money, and the democratic method of apportionment of delegates keeps them artificially close.. It's artificial, because once one gets ahead, and the states dwindle in number, the one behind has to rack up bigger and bigger numbers to catch up, and probably cannot do it..

It reminds me of how slot machines keep lining up the jackpot symbols ALMOST in line, and you keep playing, thinking that the "next time" they will line up just right..but they rarely ever do :)

[flor de jasmim]

18. I still have a healthy dose of optimism...

not for Clinton, but for Obama in the general election.

First, I totally agree that Clinton should have dropped out either after the 11 wins or just after Texas. Instead, what have we had?


The continual moving of the goalpost sounds too much like a game: "Well, how 'bout the best 3 out of 5?"
The frequent denigrating of states and their populations who did not vote for her, as well as of former supporters!
Lies about the strength of her record.
Misrepresentation of the situation in FL and MI.
Statements that put the Republican opponent in a more favorable light than her Democratic challenger.
Projection of negative campaigning (NAFTA, "well, as far as I know...").

Other things are more common in an election cycle:
Putting the best financial picture forward, even if somewhat deceptive.
Putting a negative slant on the other candidate record.

OK, now on to the optimism. I think we should not underestimate the importance of the grassroots organization that Obama has built up and is continuing to build. People are much more involved this election cycle and probably have a better idea of what the local dynamics are, so people will be more alert to election results that do not reflect what they perceive to be true. In the general election, the match up between a young, vibrant, eloquent, inclusive person and an over-the-hill, somewhat forgetful, warmongering, looking-towards-the-past person will be stark.

The forces against Obama will be strong--however, as Obama said (I'm paraphrasing), there is more that is GOOD and RIGHT about America than is wrong.

It will be a case of spreading that message across the country and asking people: Do you want 4 more years of war or do you want peace? Do you want to keep "propping up" the rich, or do you want all Americans to have a share in the country? etc. etc. etc.

(sermon over)

[UALRBSofL]

24. Other pundits disagree with you

MSM is not counting her out. There are 10 states left. Obama is up about 120 delegates, 700,000 popular votes. By the time the primaries are over this will be much closer. Also, who knows exactly what FL/MI will do. As the counts get closer the superdelegates come in to play. The SD's are not obligated to any candidate. The momentum seems to be going with Hillary as we get closer to the end of the primaries much due to Wright issues. She has an argument she won the democrat states and Obama won Republican states which will stay republican. SD's are not obligated to back Obama. If it's as close as we think, SD's could go with Hillary. This stuff about the will of the people because you have a tiny bit more popular vote and just a few more seated delegates is not what the SD's were designed for. If that were the case SD's would not have been put into place. They would have just gone with who had the most popular votes and seated delegates. Then, this endorsement of Richardson will have very little impact for the upcoming primaries. So to say Hillary should drop out is purely out of greed and paranoia of Obama's supporters.

[cascadiance]

27. Though ultimately I might favor a better "system", I think in a way you are right...

The way it is now, it doesn't favor people staying in a campaign if the odds are against them, if they are only themselves trying to get nominated and not champion a cause.

I personally want a system that allows more for "issue" candidates to stay in the hunt and provide means for the party base to continue to have means of sending a message to the party itself what it considers are important issues that it wants its chosen leaders to support. The current system discourages this, which is unfortunate.

But having people stay in just for themselves where it is perceived that the only way they can win is by "gaming the system", that is destructive with this system, and hopefully it is discouraged in any other system selected to replace it.

[LWolf]

28. So the system is designed to

make sure that most of us don't get to vote for the candidate of our choice.

Great system.

:sarcasm:

[DontTreadOnMe]

34. Math 101

OK, let's all go over the math again...

Hillary needs how many votes in PA?
Let's get all the Hillary supporters to make their case with an exact number

and them after the PA primary we can hold then accountable.

Or will the goal posts be moved?... yet again.

[LWolf]

36. What, exactly, does that have to do

with the fact that the system is bad?

FYI: I am no supporter of HRC.

At least, not unless a vote for her in late May will help to force a brokered convention, offering the opportunity to nominate a candidate who is neither HRC nor Obama.

[NoBushSpokenHere]

35. I believe the news media up to this point in time

have fed the "Stay in and Fight" campaign. Maybe for ratings, maybe for control, maybe because she was the "Corporate Shadow Government Selection" but I do believe they understand clearly now that the Obama machine is unstoppable.

I did also just make a bet she will be McCain's VP running mate. I know it sounds crazy to some people, but I do believe it will happen if she cannot find any other way to win on the Democratic ticket.

Face it, why would anyone stay in the race so long when it was so obvious the race is over? She was selected long ago... the will of the people are overturning that selection... what is next? The will of the vote counting machines?

[blues90]

37. the system is flawed in many respects

Most of all the money spent to convince people who the candidte will be and the fact that it is all media driven for the media interest not the peoples interest .

Why should the people who support Hillary be discounted simple because of campaign distortions ?

This primary crap is all built on distortion and hype created from lies on both sides .

[Freedom Train]

38. If that was the case, then why do we have primaries all the way into June?

The system was designed for a candidate to be nominated at our party convention late summer. If the intent was for us to already have a chosen nominee then we should have a National Primary Day on January 3rd and then hold our convention the week after, but that's not how it is. I say let the system function as intended and everything will work itself out in the end. My primary is in a month, and I want to have a say just like everybody else. We should not let the impatience and short attention-span of the media dictate our process.

[krkaufman]

39. Interesting point... If the Clinton campaign said it would be over by Feb 5th ...

... then it is obvious that, before they had their asses handed to them, they had no concern for the voters in subsequent states. The hypocrisy would by hylarious if Hyllary weren't killing our November chances.

[2rth2pwr]

40. Ron Paul is still running.