Maybe Obama should drop out of the race

[no name 1]

By BONNIE ERBE

Here's a statement you're hearing all over the place: one of the Democratic presidential candidates should drop out of the race. Here's a suggestion you'll hear nowhere else: Why shouldn't that person be Sen. Barack Obama?

Before the sky collapses on top of me under the weight of livid Obama supporters who've propelled themselves into outer space fueled by uncontained fury, let me explain I'm not suggesting Sen. Obama drop out. I am instead making the point that spinning the math in Sen. Clinton's favor is just about equally plausible as spinning it in Sen. Obama's favor. Most media outlets have done the former while giving nothing like equal time to the latter.

The most sophisticated analysis in Clinton's favor comes from Michael Barone of U.S. News and World report. He points to the Clinton campaign's boast it has won more electoral college votes than Sen. Obama, with the follow on that means her chances for winning the general election are better than his. Obama's supporters (Leahy, Dodd, etc.) claim Clinton should drop out, because Sen. Obama has a larger tally of delegates and of popular votes.

But Barone posits an even better counter-argument for the Clinton campaign would be, "...to use population rather than electoral votes, since smaller states are overrepresented in the Electoral College. By my count, based on the 2007 Census estimates, Clinton's states have 132,214,460 people (160,537,525 if you include Florida and Michigan), and Obama's states have 101,689,480 people. States with 39,394,152 people have yet to vote. In percentage terms this means Clinton's states have 44 percent of the nation's population (53 percent if you include Florida and Michigan) and Obama's states have 34 percent of the nation's population. The yet-to-vote states have 13 percent of the nation's population."

Here is yet another theory that spins the math in her favor.

It is based on figures from the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey taken right after the November 2004 elections. That year some 125 million Americans told Census-takers they voted. Of those, 14 million plus were African-Americans (including 8.2 million African-American women) and 67 million plus were women of all races.

Let us assume for the moment that current schisms in the Democratic Party take their most extreme forms and all African-Americans refuse to vote if Sen. Clinton wins the nomination and/or all white, Asian-American and Hispanic women refuse to vote in November if Sen. Obama becomes the democratic nominee. Sen. Obama loses many more votes than Sen. Clinton under this scenario.

Of course some if not many white, Asian American and Hispanic women would vote for Obama if he wins, as would some African Americans for Clinton if she wins the nomination. But this proposition sets up the question of electability: If the two Senators extend their fight to the convention, which is more likely to be able to retain the support of more Democrats? Sen. Clinton could easily be the more electable of the two.

Meanwhile, mainstream media are making the case not so subliminally that this bruising dust-up between the two Senators is a reenactment of primaries past, which caused the Democratic Party irreparable damage in the general election. The New York Times, for example, reminded us this week that in 1980, "The Carter administration challenged Mr. Kennedy's patriotism and refused to debate, while Mr. Kennedy dragged out their fight for nine months, all the way to the Democratic convention. A weakened Mr. Carter prevailed and won the nomination, but he went on to lose in November.''

Memo to Sen. Clinton: If you don't drop out now, the same fate will befall Sen. Obama in November as did Jimmy Carter in 1980.

Apparently the Times has forgotten Ted Kennedy was not Jimmy Carter's biggest problem in 1980. Carter left office as one of the least popular presidents in recent history after fumbling the Iran Hostage Crisis and bungling a surprise military raid set up to rescue the hostages.

So next time you see a call for Sen. Clinton to drop out of the race, remember there are two sides to that story and you're only being given one.

link

[Sheriff Uling 3]

There are a few Obama haters on VJ. Not that I'm for him, but it's funny to observe the bias nature of folks when it comes to politics. Whoa!

[kaydee457 13]

I think it's indisputable that the media, mostly democratic liberals of their own admission, favor Obama over Hillary, and either over McCain.

Edited April 11, 2008 by kaydee457

[SteveLaura 0]

I wonder, if it were Hillary and not Obama that had won more delegates, more states and more votes, would her supporters be saying now, "Obama? Drop out? Ridiculous idea!" Just a thought.

[no name 1]

I wonder, if it were Hillary and not Obama that had won more delegates, more states and more votes, would her supporters be saying now, "Obama? Drop out? Ridiculous idea!" Just a thought.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

This nonsensical spin doesn't get better when it's posted time and again. The premise of this admitted spin remains as false as it were last time you brought it up. It is about as weak a case as I have ever seen. Got something new and convincing? This is getting boring, really.

[metta 0]

I wonder, if it were Hillary and not Obama that had won more delegates, more states and more votes, would her supporters be saying now, "Obama? Drop out? Ridiculous idea!" Just a thought.

Let's face it.

If either Hillary or Obama were way ahead of the rival, neither would be calling for the rival to drop out .

The race is getting more ferocious because neither is decisively ahead of the other.

Obama has the edge in delegate count and so forth but he has not been able to wrap up the race. Thus his campaign, through surrogates and adulating media punditry tried pushing Hillary to drop out.

If the situation were the reverse, it is likely that supers would have broken away toward Hillary by now.

The media had been sharpening their knives since Obama won Iowa itching to pop out the calls for Hillary to drop. You could see Mathhews and Olberman and the lot, itching to make their calls but then N H voters gave them a kick in the groin.

No matter what the pundits predict and the spin the campaigns are putting out, it is obvious that Hillary enjoys at least the solid backing of democrats who are the ones keeping Her campaign alive.

And that, is an irrefutable fact!

Edited April 11, 2008 by metta

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I wonder, if it were Hillary and not Obama that had won more delegates, more states and more votes, would her supporters be saying now, "Obama? Drop out? Ridiculous idea!" Just a thought.

If the tables were turned, of course the Clintonites would demand that Obama step back and "wait his turn". Hell they try hard and make that argument even though she's behind by every count that matters in the primary stage of the race.

[metta 0]

I wonder, if it were Hillary and not Obama that had won more delegates, more states and more votes, would her supporters be saying now, "Obama? Drop out? Ridiculous idea!" Just a thought.

If the tables were turned, of course the Clintonites would demand that Obama step back and "wait his turn". Hell they try hard and make that argument even though she's behind by every count that matters in the primary stage of the race.

If that were the case, the Clinton campaign would have offered him the VP slot in the dream team that would be a surefire winner in the general.

[Sheriff Uling 3]

I think it's indisputable that the media, mostly democratic liberals of their own admission, favor Obama over Hillary, and either over McCain.

I would presume that you are not a "democratic liberal" since you favor Sen Clinton or simply have disdain for Sen Obama. (((SHRUGS)))

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I wonder, if it were Hillary and not Obama that had won more delegates, more states and more votes, would her supporters be saying now, "Obama? Drop out? Ridiculous idea!" Just a thought.

If the tables were turned, of course the Clintonites would demand that Obama step back and "wait his turn". Hell they try hard and make that argument even though she's behind by every count that matters in the primary stage of the race.

If that were the case, the Clinton campaign would have offered him the VP slot in the dream team that would be a surefire winner in the general.

They did that even though the tables weren't turned. Which further proves my point.

[kaydee457 13]

I think it's indisputable that the media, mostly democratic liberals of their own admission, favor Obama over Hillary, and either over McCain.

I would presume that you are not a "democratic liberal" since you favor Sen Clinton or simply have disdain for Sen Obama. (((SHRUGS)))

Not for either...Just simply pointing out what should be intuitively obvious, that being for the first time in history, the media, given their admitted left bias and apparent lack of objectivity in their reporting, decidedly engineered and promoted a candidate that's of their own choice.....There's no other reason for his candidacy having had the amount of coverage, mostly all positive contrasted to all the other candidtes including Hillary, that also ran for the democratic nomination.

By Obama's own admission, if he were not black, he'd simply be just another white junior senator from the midwest.

Edited April 11, 2008 by kaydee457

[metta 0]

This nonsensical spin doesn't get better when it's posted time and again. The premise of this admitted spin remains as false as it were last time you brought it up. It is about as weak a case as I have ever seen. Got something new and convincing? This is getting boring, really.

Yeah, its getting boring and your guy still hasn't managed to close the deal. He is winning but not the winner yet. But his followers are already acting like he's already been anointed and crowned. That's the problem. B)

[GaryC 7]

Keep up the fight! I love watching the dem party implode!!

[simple_male 1]

It is amazing to see how these people think that the candidate who is leading in popular votes, number of pledged delegates should drop out. It is however fair to say the trailing candidate should drop out.

This nonsensical spin doesn't get better when it's posted time and again. The premise of this admitted spin remains as false as it were last time you brought it up. It is about as weak a case as I have ever seen. Got something new and convincing? This is getting boring, really.

Yeah, its getting boring and your guy still hasn't managed to close the deal. He is winning but not the winner yet. But his followers are already acting like he's already been anointed and crowned. That's the problem. B)

Yes, he is winning and no one said he is the candidate yet. But it is very unlikely that the trailing candidate will pass the leading candidate in terms of popular votes, pledged delegates.