ELEPHANT-DONKEY.com

The youth vote is never substantial anyway, so that's virtually a non-factor. Every year the talk show hosts and pundits get excited about the ''vibe'' and ''energy'' they feel on college campuses, and at speeches and rallies, due to new voter registration and fervor; and then come the general election, the youth vote falls flat. Hillary wouldn't need to make an excuse to compensate for lost youth votes.

USA Pit Bull 63 | 04/28/08

Personally I'm for McCain.... I'd like to see those two go at it for as long as they can sice it gives McCain a better chance of winning. Plus, Hillary wants power. She won't get it by dropping out of the Presidential race. She might, though, by staying in it and winning the Democrat's nomination. She'll never give up, just wait and see.

KittyCatRep | 04/28/08

I firmly have to disagree - the youth vote often doesn't turn out because they do not find the candidates appealing, or are generally disillusioned with the politics that they see. However one of the factors that has made Obama's campaign so successful is that the youth vote is turning out in larger numbers, and they are turning out for him. But the youth vote is more fickle, they are in this campaign to back Barack, not to back the Democratic Party, and if the Democratic party reject him, then most of these people will reject the party. If they stay at home it may not cripple the party in November, but to sacrifice this block of voters could be a deciding factor in a close race.

Tickers | 04/28/08

Agree with Tickers' last comment 100%. Ironically, that's party of why I disagree with his argument on this debate. The party is worried that, were superdelegates to give HRC the win, tons of voters will have the perception that she stole the election. They won't turn out in November, and it will have a strong impact all the way down the ballot. Another reason the Dems can't give it to Hillary is the whole Kobe vs. Shaq thing. Sure, Hillary's a strong candidate and might be able to beat McSame, but they don't want to turn off the extraordinary number of first-time voters (mostly for Obama) that might become party loyalists for life.

DonkeyDude | 04/28/08

Tickers has a good point, in order for Clinton's withdrawal to unify the party Clinton's supporters must believe that she did so willingly and w/o coercion. If they begin to believe that there is any hint of foul play in her leaving the race they will also leave the race.

MorgMcA | 04/29/08

Donkey: I'm a bit confused by your comment about why you disagree with my argument. I'm not trying to make the point that Clinton will or should claim the nomination, but that simply according to the rules she can still win. I do think it would be a disaster if Clinton clinched the nomination in this manner, but they are in the rules.

Tickers | 04/29/08

Polls show how many people won't vote for Obama if he is the nominee, he needs time to work and rally support, waiting until Denver will not only take time away, but many supporters away. We all know Clinton has the right to stay in, and she can still win, but it is like saying, two teams are playing soccer, there is only 2 minutes left, and one team is ahead by three goals. There is a chance for everything. There is a chance I may one day be president, there is a chance Michael Jackson may turn black again. My statement was asking why she just doesn't drop out, since it is hurting the party (this is unfortunate but true) and also she has an extremely low chance of winning. You're arguing that she has a small chance of winning due to the rules, my argument is that she should drop out for all the factors against her and her party that occur by staying in. It is true she has a miniscule chance and the right, but it would be better if she dropped out.

theyoungdem | 04/29/08

Tickers: I was just saying that the only way HRC has a chance at all is if the supers flock to her in droves, but that won't happen because of the political consequences of giving her the nomination over Obama. I agree that the party rules say they can (and in fact I argued that point in another debate), but at this point, it is extremely unlikely and would be a very ill-conceived idea.

DonkeyDude | 04/29/08

Youngdem: Sorry about the maths comment, I edited my reply and accidentally left that at the start. Donkey: I'm not claiming that such a scenario is either likely or a wise move for the democrats, but that's looking objectively, in the world that Hillary Clinton inhabits such a move is probably not considered a remote possibility, and in the world of her supporters such a move is considered quite likely. It is this that threatens the party, for all the talk of how damaging it would be to 'steal' the nomination from Obama a lot of Clinton supporters would feel exactly like this is Hillary was forced out of the race or simply withdrew. She has managed to achieve all of the (admittedly low) goals set by the media. She won Texas and Ohio and won Pennsylvania by ten points (depending on how you count). I think Obama can get the nomination on May 6th, either by winning both states or achieving a huge win in North Carolina, a victory allows superdelegates to flock to him, unlike the previous 'big' elections, where a flock of superdelegates to Obama after losing to Clinton would have failed to have the same impact.

Tickers | 04/29/08

You said: "a premature exit is the worst thing for the democrats", why is that? Wouldn't bestowing more time upon the leading candidate, to unite the party and go against McCain full on instead of partially, be more beneficial? A premature exit is exactly what we need. Many Hillary supporters will argue, on the perspective that she can still win. Quite frankly we all stated here it's unlikely. Hillary staying in, would only prevent Obama from advancing on McCain, it would prevent the Hillary supporters to begin their shift to the Obama campaign, it would prevent Obama from saving money on the general election itself. Clinton is still in this out of pure stubborness, and does not want to give up after so long of planning to be president one day. The fact of the matter is she needs to open her eyes to reality and shut her mouth to insanity. She needs to drop out.

theyoungdem | 04/29/08

No. Simply No. The question is not really when or if Obama will win, it is a question of how he wins, this is what is crucial to preventing a party split. If Clinton goes now, having attained the goals set for her by the media, then the reaction from Clinton's supporters who believe that she will be the nominee will be deeply negative because they will believe that the party has thrown out a candidate who had a good shot at winning the nomination. They may be utterly wrong, but people believe a lot of things in this world even if the evidence says otherwise. But if Obama actually crosses the finishing line with Clinton still competing then questions about this small chance of her winning the nomination are immediately eliminated from the discussion. Efforts to unite the party do not have to begin with convincing a crucial block of voters that their preferred candidate had no chance at the nomination, this is an insanely difficult thing to do given the current media narrative.

Tickers | 04/30/08

Your reply consists of stating Hillary has a "fair chance of winning", while that is true, it still is a much lower chance. Also I agree with youngdem, that if Hillary drops out and supports Obama, that would be much better than her leaving kicking and fighting, her supporters would be less reluctant to join the Obama camp.

strongleader | 04/30/08

No Strong, my reply is not that Hillary has a 'fair chance at winning' but that a large number of her core supporters THINK she has a fair chance at winning. The two are very different points and the inability to comprehend this is what could undermine the democratic party in November.

Tickers | 04/30/08

Though those who think she has a fair chance at winning, would not only strengthen but increase, the longer waited, the stronger her support would be, do you think her support will weaken? She is rallying for support everyday, it will only expand to undecided voters, thus giving making it harder for Obama later on.

theyoungdem | 04/30/08

ahhh one minute left and I'm for votes behind. I think you won, congratulations Ticker.

theyoungdem | 04/30/08

Voting is over. My view is she should drop out, but my reason is not due to the primary outcomes. As a matter of fact, IF she were a good candidate, and Obama a good candidate, I believe there is high value in having both have every primary show voting results and have state by state impact and voice in the election. However, I believe BOTH Hillary and Obama are so bad they BOTH are a disservice and embarassment and worse. And, recent NEWS that ABC tendered an unwarranted and nasty question which Hillary COULD HAVE answered correctly but certainly did not, and netted a FORMAL request from the U.N. for an apology from her, IF Israel attacked Iran, what would she do? Obliterate, she replied. A horrific reply. Nukes are not on the table and she should have stated a peace stand for IF she were President she would turn Bush agendas around immediately, which, clearly she is NOT ready to do. She should apologize as asked, and then resign as unqualified. SHE DOES NOT represent the American People. Neither does Obama. Both have offered threats instead of proper peace policy and intentions to govern the United States under the proper Oath to Uphold the U.S. Constitution. Congress declares war, and assumed IF warranted. THEY both ignore this tremendous duty and issue of proper view of a President is for the United States and legal honor for domestic and foreign policy.

Elizabeth | 05/03/08