My prediction for the remaining months of primary season:

[AP]

Clinton is probably not going to win, but she could. It's a long shot, and it will require her to stay in up to the end (unless she decides that she is hurting Democratic chances in the fall).

Obama is not going to waste his war chest trying to blow her out. He's just going to spend enough money to win so that he has money to compete with McCain. And Hillary is going to spend just about everything she has to beat Obama.

So, whoever wins, will do it by the skin of his or her teeth.

This means that the public perception of the Democratic primaries will be that nobody came out of it strong, which will offset the Democratic advantage that they've had up until now of being perceived as the choice of a large majority of Americans (thanks to the last 8 years of Bush).

All this means Democrats are going to go into the general election without the upper hand and will have to work extra hard to be perceived as the choice of the overwhelming majority.

I didn't read what Gore and Carter said about the primaries, but I'll guess that this is their concern.

[davidpdx]

1. Carter said he won't endorse anyone until the convention

on This Week. To my knowledge, Gore hasn't said anything public.

[AP]

2. Didn't both say something yesterday about Clinton needing to evaluate the ramifications of staying

in the race?

[davidpdx]

4. I don't know

I only saw Carter's interview on This Week. I didn't see any interviews with Gore.

[sniffa]

3. I think there may be one thing wrong with your prediction

Can Obama's warchest be transfered to the GE?
I know that GE money can't be touched for the primary, but I don't know if it works in the reverse?

If not, then good show. He's already forcing her to spend every last dime in PA, a state she should have not had to compete so hard in. He's bankrupting her faster than she can.

[AP]

5. I suspect that that limitation only applies to gifts over $2100, but I don't know.

If you only get $100 from someone, I don't think you (the candidate) have any restrictions on when it can be used.

[cali]

6. um. wrong.

at least about his financial resources. He'll spend what he has to spend to win it. And his ability to continue raising massive sums is strong. Most of his donors can give repeatedly. Furthermore, the SD trend of the last two months is a strong indicator that Obama will be the nominee, as is the fact that he has an insurmountable pledged delegate lead.

And let me add that people forget just what a weak candidate McCain is. When we have a nominee- as long as that happens at least a couple of months before the convention- I believe you'll start to see that picture. The near catastrophic economy is also a heavy duty hit against McCain.

[AP]

7. I think you missed my point (because you're affirming it).

Yes, "he'll spend what he has to win it." He will not waste his money for a blow-out. This race is now economically and strategically geared to be a close call, which means that the winner will not come out of it being perceived as a giant-killer, which will send him or her into the GE without the advantages Democrats had a couple months ago. This is a matter completely unrelated to whether the nominee will have a lot of money to fight the GE.

Also, if Obama does have a lock, and Clinton is still in the race nonetheless, I feel my point is even more important. Why would Obama spend a lot of money in the remaining states if he has a lock? If Clinton fights on, and fights harder than Obama, and hangs in until the end, it further erodes the perception of his victory, sending him in to the GE without the "come from behind" or the "giant killer" aura that most elected presidents have cultivated at that point in the campaign.

BTW, I thought Bush was a weak candidate in 2000. Don't underestimate the Republicans' ability to be strategic and to do whatever it takes to win. Furthermore, it is very bad strategy to pick your candidate based on the reliance of weakness in the Republican candidate.

[cali]

8. BTW, I didn't think bush was a weak candidate in 2000

I'll never forget watching the debate that Al blew. There were 14 of us crammed into a sick friend's bedroom, and we all collectively groaned at his infamous sigh.

This is not 2000 or 2004. It is 5 years into a disasterous war and several months into a catastrophic economy that will be worse 6 months from now- as we enter another winter with exorbitant fuel prices.

No, my post didn't prove your point- unless you completely distort what I said. Yes, I agree that the long primary season has done some damage to the nominee, but you completely discount that there are still strong advantages for the dems.

Oh, and your contention that most elected presidents have been viewed as "giant killers" is a bit inane. You can't possibly know what "aura" he'll have 5 or so months from now.

[AP]

10. Just for the sake of precision...

I didn't "completely discount" anything. And "inane"?

Be careful of using hyperbole as a rhetorical device, unless you're more interested in shouting down debate than engaging in it.

Furthermore, when I introduced this post by saying it is my "prediction", that should be a big clue that I agree that I "can't possibly know." However, I haven't see the word "prediction" on the list of words that are forbidden at DU. And by the same logic you use, how can you say, "uhm. wrong" to my prediction? How could you possible know?

[cali]

11. You're a bit oversensitive here. You made some absolutist predictions

which by their nature, discounted other scenarios. And inane is hardly hyperbole or the use of a rhetorical device. I'm unclear as to why you take such umbrage simply because someone disagrees with you. And I was hardly shouting you down, or slamming you with harsh one liners.

Cheers.

[AP]

12. Table turner.

:)

[Alter Ego]

9. ...My teeth don't have any skin on them any more.