Howard Dean: Obama Or Clinton Must Drop Out In June

[trumptman]

Huffington Post - Dean (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/28/howard-dean-obama-or-clin_n_98916.html)

WASHINGTON — Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean said Monday that either Hillary Rodham Clinton or Barack Obama must drop out of the Democratic presidential race after the June primaries in order to unify the party by the convention and win the election in November.

But Dean didn't say which candidate should drop out, only that it should happen after primary voters have been to the polls.

"We want the voters to have their say. That's over on June 3," Dean said in an interview on ABC's "Good Morning America."

Dean also said that while the party rules say Democratic superdelegates can wait until the party's August 25 convention to make up their minds, that would be too late to unify the party and defeat the presumptive Republican nominee, John McCain.

So the question of course becomes what happens if Clinton or Obama refuse to drop out in June and instead drag this thing out through the long hot summer of slow news cycles.

Claiming it will hurt the parties prospects in the fall isn't just some "insanely retarded meme." It is a claim made by the chairman of the DNC as well as many others.

Clearly the remaining superdelegates cannot have their hands forced and so far have not felt the inclination to end this already. Do you think that will change at the end of June? How will the party handle it if the delagates and popular vote ends up split between the two candidates? Do you forsee this causing any loss of enthusiam or turnout in the fall?

[Northgate]

It seems to me that Dean can't win for losing. If he forces the issue then he's called anti-Democratic and he needs to butt out. If he sits on his hands then he's called "the worst DNC chairman ever."

He can't seat delegates from Michigan and Florida because Hillary was the only one on the ballot. If he does he hands Hillary an unearned nomination. If he doesn't then he's disenfranchising voters in two major states. Fark!

If he enforces the rules that were set in place prior to the campaign then he's being stubborn. If he ignores the rules and seats delegates then he's weak and cowing to the Clinton machine.

So...given all that...I think he should do whatever he wants to end this thing. He's gonna be given a ration of shit regardless.

Perhaps self-preservation should be a factor in his decision. If Clinton wins the nomination then they'll throw his ass out as fast as you can say his name (it's well known the Clinton's not only hate his ass, but played a big part in derailing his 04 campaign...just ask Paul Begala). If Obama gets it then he might have a chance at remaining the chairman for another four years and finish his 50-state strategy. And, to be honest, I'm more interested in the 50-state strategy staying in place for as long as possible before the Blue Dogs reclaim the party again.

[mydo]

It's kind of a stupid thing for him to ask for. What is the point of the convention if everyone has dropped out before then? The convention is exactly for these situations. Otherwise call it the national pep rally.


I see Dean's point and he's right but .... gimme a break.

[Northgate]

I've often wondered the same thing. Are they really aren't conventions in the traditional sense anymore? Kinda just a kick-off party.

[franksargent]

Huffington Post - Dean (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/28/howard-dean-obama-or-clin_n_98916.html)



So the question of course becomes what happens if Clinton or Obama refuse to drop out in June and instead drag this thing out through the long hot summer of slow news cycles.

Claiming it will hurt the parties prospects in the fall isn't just some "insanely retarded meme." It is a claim made by the chairman of the DNC as well as many others.

Clearly the remaining superdelegates cannot have their hands forced and so far have not felt the inclination to end this already. Do you think that will change at the end of June? How will the party handle it if the delagates and popular vote ends up split between the two candidates? Do you forsee this causing any loss of enthusiam or turnout in the fall?

... on Meet the Press.

MI and FL will be seated at the DNC, I'm guessing a 50/50 split, neither candidate gains an advantage, other than the leader (presumptively Obama) inches that much closer to the required minimum delegate total.

Popular vote? What popular vote?

Obama wasn't even on the MI ballot. Both MI and FL bureaucrats broke the DNC rules, the voters in those states had no control over those states politicians primary date decisions. How does one weigh caucus states, some of which have a three/four tiered system. Caucuses aren't popular votes, Obama even gained an "unfair" advantage, since most (if not all) of the caucuses were disproportionately in his favor, over what would have been closer races, if all of these caucuses had instead been openly contested primaries.

Note also, that at the time of the MI and FL primaries, there were what, ten Democratic candidates. Counting the MI and FL "popular vote" is a moot point, if anything, if these had been openly contested, I'm quite sure that Obama would have come much closer to Clinton's vote totals. In other words, Obama's "popular vote lead" would have been much greater than it is now, by several hundred thousand "popular votes" at a minimum.

The only "popular vote" I'm counting are the Democratic primaries, excluding MI and FL.

In fact after May 6th, Obama is likely to have a larger total delegate lead, than he had prior to PA. :D

I'm guessing by the end of the June delegate selection process, Obama will be closer to a 200 delegate lead, than a 100 delegate lead.

At this point in time, the harm Clinton has done to herself (with the help of Slick Willy of course), can't be undone, if the DNC nominates Clinton, it will virtually guarantee a McCain victory come November.

[mydo]

....

At this point in time, the harm Clinton has done to herself (with the help of Slick Willy of course), can't be undone, if the DNC nominates Clinton, it will virtually guarantee a McCain victory come November.

Yea but the harm she's done to Obama, and has yet to do, is significant. Bill has black voters ready to split. Dean is right but only because Hillary plays so dirty. The only good thing is that it gets Obama ready for the repugs.

[Jubelum]

Mydo, since you've repeated this in several threads now, can you actually demonstrate how clinton's candidacy has had *any* negative impact on obama's campaign other than the opportunity cost of the party not having a candidate yet to attack mccain? I've repeated this several times already in response to you.

What is this "significant damage?"

I'd say bittergate and HRCs response to it would be a nice place to start...

[Jubelum]

How about what it has literally co$t him?

I mean, I don't really care either way... but it seems to me that she has to have had at least some effect on The Big O. I mean, really... she's put him in a position of being questioned (gasp!) and such real questioning does tend to take the Obamagasmic sheen off of his messianic persona.

[mydo]

Mydo, since you've repeated this in several threads now, can you actually demonstrate how clinton's candidacy has had *any* negative impact on obama's campaign other than the opportunity cost of the party not having a candidate yet to attack mccain? I've repeated this several times already in response to you.

What is this "significant damage?"

Who do you think is digging up this bullshit on Obama and throwing at the wall? Who's getting this tripe to the media? Who drummed up Bittergate?

Significant damage is a Wright that is now looking to extend his 15 minutes. Significant damage is a Bill Clinton that's doing his level best to alienate the black community. Significant damage is the press latching on to an Obama label that will stick forever, Elitist? Flip-Flopper? Liar? Muslim?


The media label may be the worse thing. If Obama is tagged as an "Elitist" (or something worse) because Clinton drummed it up then better hope McCain gets a far worse zinger go with him.

What news are you watching man?:???:

[SpamSandwich]

I heard Dean on the news this morning. He made no such insistence of either Democrat dropping out. He said his job was to make sure the "rules" of the party were being followed.

In a much more interesting, tangentially related development... (http://www.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080427/NEWS/804270360/1321)

You'd never know that Ron Paul is still in the Republican race based on news coverage and the McCain propaganda saturating our air waves.

[mydo]

I heard Dean on the news this morning. He made no such insistence of either Democrat dropping out. He said his job was to make sure the "rules" of the party were being followed.

In a much more interesting, tangentially related development... (http://www.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080427/NEWS/804270360/1321)

You'd never know that Ron Paul is still in the Republican race based on news coverage and the McCain propaganda saturating our air waves.

Not exactly. I just watched the GMA interview and he said he wants it to be over in June with all the delegates committed by then. Super or otherwise. Which basically means one will have more votes than the other.

[mydo]

Um, no.

You're not quite getting what I'm talking about. Where is actual *proof* that Clinton's attacks have caused *any* damage. Nevermind the "significant damage" you insist must exist. Can you point to any objective measures at all? People talk about bittergate as damaging, yet his poll numbers didn't change at all!

Yea let me generate a hypothesis and design a method to collected data and produce some statistics with a p-value that will satisfy you.:rolleyes:

[mydo]

Well, you've just admitted that you have no actual evidence that her attacks have damaged Obama.

Most people (pundits excluded) would at the very least rely on, oh, I don't know, poll numbers at least! Perhaps you should consider such things before making baseless claims. (But that's too yawn-inducing and eyeroll inducing, right? You shoot from the gut, like Stephen Colbert!)

You're just being difficult. Simple question. Do you think Wright dancing around and making a fool of himself at the National Press Club helps or hurts Obama?

[Fellowship]

The way I see it is very simple.

Nothing has changed,, Hillary is thirsty for power and is playing what you might call the "North Korea" card. This means she makes all kinds of noise and plays hardball but not because she expects to be the next president. She "expects" "something" to be given to her for her to take her exit out of the democratic primary race. She could have had an exit long ago as we all know but then she would simply "look like a looser". No, rather than that image Hillary is playing her "card" to get something in return for her hard fight. If she indeed receives "her something" at the end of the Dean deadline then she does not look so much the "looser" but more a "shrewd" politician.

In the fall the country will be left with a choice between McCain and Obama. Hillary will put her support behind Obama and indeed behind her party.

Fellows

[Jubelum]

Well, you've just admitted that you have no actual evidence that her attacks have damaged Obama.

First we have to define what qualifies as a "Hillary Attack." She's a Clinton, which means she does quite nicely to keep her hands clean, while sending out others to take care of things.

As I posted in another thread re: HRC-

Hmmm.. the NY Daily News (http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/columnists/louis/index.html) is saying a Hillary supporter is at least somewhat behind the Wright "non-apology tour" at the NPC. :err:

And Harold Ickes, one of HRCs top dogs, it actually admitting (http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/04/ickes_confirms_hes_been_pushin.php) that the Wright issue is going to be used as ammo for swaying the Supers.

[mydo]

The way I see it is very simple.

Nothing has changed,, Hillary is thirsty for power and is playing what you might call the "North Korea" card. This means she makes all kinds of noise and plays hardball but not because she expects to be the next president. She "expects" "something" to be given to her for her to take her exit out of the democratic primary race. She could have had an exit long ago as we all know but then she would simply "look like a looser". No, rather than that image Hillary is playing her "card" to get something in return for her hard fight. If she indeed receives "her something" at the end of the Dean deadline then she does not look so much the "looser" but more a "shrewd" politician.

In the fall the country will be left with a choice between McCain and Obama. Hillary will put her support behind Obama and indeed behind her party.

Fellows

I think you're partly right. I think she thinks she could still get it. If she can dig up more Obama dirt and get her press cohort to run with it.

Given a good offer of say Senate Majority Leader she may go away. Obama wouldn't have her in the White House in any position. Why would he?

[mydo]

What do you mean do I think?

It does or it doesn't. I'm not sure how this concept is so difficult to grasp. What *you think* or what *I think* doesn't necessarily indicate how the public at large views something. That's one objective arbiter for whether an attack causes damage. I think Obama's comments about McCain thus far in the campaign absolutely destroy McCain, but I don't labor under the delusion that the public feels that way as well. You're saying Clinton's attacks have caused significant damage and you can't point to any objective measure to prove it. That's not being difficult; that's basing opinions on, oh I don't know, facts. You don't have to be John Zogby to do that.

Still being difficult. think means I want your reasoned opinion. WHAT DO YOU THINK, HELPS OR HURTS OBAMA? Otherwise stop replying in this tread.

You must think there some sort of quantification that proves that "flip flopper" hurt Kerry or "liar" hurt Gore.

[mydo]

The proof you want may not exist now, may not exist in the future, may not show up in the poll, may have a lag affect where what happens now shows up in three months. There is no science to this. The polls are know to be bias against Clinton. I'd rather not us a biased estimator. It's the uncertain squish of the electorate.


What you're doing here is setting a bar that you think can be topped. If it's topped then you'll change the rules or set it higher or declare the hight to be insignificant. I'm not going to play your pointless game to prove what most people know is obvious. Wright and Bittergate have hurt Obama. Obama's superstar momentum is lost. Clinton(s) is hurting Obama's chance.

Dean knows it and do I. Clinton has to be stopped and Dean set the first week of June for that.

[trumptman]

I'm not familiar enough with a campaign from 4-8 years ago.

Let's stick with what happened in this campaign. And yes, I would *love* to see a reasoned opinion. But to me, claiming the Clinton campaign's attacks have *hurt* Obama without any objective proof like poll numbers (or even conclusory claims that poll numbers have changed) is not a reasoned opinion. If the poll numbers haven't changed, then how can the attacks hurt Obama? They didn't change after Bittergate. I know that's not the only objective measure of what "helps or hurts" a candidate, but at least I'm dealing with reality as opposed to "let's just guess-land"

Shawn, I don't know if there are enough points to plot like the very fine graph you presented but the main harm that appears with regard to Obama, at least to me, has been in polls involving head to head against McCain in rust belt and large states. The difference between Clinton running against McCain and Obama running against McCain in places like Ohio and Florida is 10-12 points in favor of the Democrat when it is Clinton and swings to a few points in favor of McCain when it is McCain versus Obama.