Clinton camp sees swift end to Democratic race

[Ron Burgundy]

AFP - Hillary Clinton's campaign predicted Thursday a rapid end to the Democratic White House race next month as the press read the last rites to her quest to be the first woman president.

With more party elders drifting to Barack Obama's camp and the media declaring the nominating battle all but over, Clinton aides battled back with appeals for voters to be heard and for new donors to come forward.

Even as he vowed no surrender from the former first lady, Clinton campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe said party bosses known as "superdelegates" would coalesce behind a candidate once the final primaries are held on June 3.

"I think it will be all over. I don't see it going to the (August) convention. We'll have a nominee in June," the legendary fundraiser said on NBC television.

"We've all said we'll be together at the end. If Hillary doesn't win, Hillary, president (Bill) Clinton, myself, we'll be over there helping Senator Obama," McAuliffe added.

"And, likewise, Senator Obama will come together to help Hillary if she's the nominee. We'll all be together."

Obama held a private meeting with several undeclared Democratic "superdelegates" in Washington, before rejoining the campaign trial in Oregon over the next two days.

"I think our goal is going to be to try to bring this party together as soon as possible, but we still have contests remaining," the Illinois senator told reporters.

"And so in no way am I taking this for granted. We're going to have to keep on working."

McAuliffe pinned her campaign's hopes on edging ahead in the national popular vote, if the voided results of primaries in Michigan and Florida are reinstated at a May 31 meeting of the Democratic National Committee.

"She's proven she can win the blue-collar workers. She can win the states we need to win in the general election," he said.

"But why should Hillary Clinton -- until there's a nominee with the number of necessary delegates, why should she get out?"

Obama's thumping win Tuesday in North Carolina, and his narrow defeat by Clinton in Indiana, has rewritten the narrative of this gripping Democratic contest.

But Clinton herself was back in campaign harness with a full slate of campaign stops in West Virginia, South Dakota and Oregon, a day after declaring: "I am staying in this race until there is a nominee."

Editorialists, however, crowned Obama as the Democrats' champion-elect for the November election against Republican John McCain.

"And the winner is..." said Time magazine on its cover, over a photograph of Obama with a million-watt smile. "Over the Hill," blared the front page of the New York Post.

In an editorial, The Washington Post said that after the New York senator's "disappointing showing Tuesday, she has no plausible route to victory." The Los Angeles Times opined: "She has run a fine race, but she has lost."

Clinton has been forced to lend her campaign 6.4 million dollars over the past month to keep it afloat, and aides have not proclaimed any bumper take of fundraising since Tuesday, unlike after previous primaries.

In an appeal to donors, Bill Clinton wrote: "I know something about coming back to win after you've been counted out. So does Hillary.

"It's up to us to make sure that the voters in West Virginia and the other states yet to come are given a choice. I urge you to act now to help Hillary keep fighting."

Meanwhile Obama, who would be the first black nominee of a major US party, has been winning over more of the superdelegates -- nearly 800 Democratic grandees who look set to decide the nomination.

Four more have come off the fence since Tuesday to back Obama and the Democrats' 1972 presidential nominee, George McGovern, has also deserted Clinton.

David Bonior, who was the national campaign manager for failed presidential hopeful John Edwards, became the latest Democrat to join the Obama camp.

Former president Jimmy Carter remains formally neutral but on "The Tonight Show" with comedian Jay Leno late Wednesday, he dropped another heavy hint in favor of Obama.

For Democratic insiders to strip the nomination from the candidate with the most votes and states would be a "catastrophe" for the party, Carter said, while also dismissing Clinton's attempts to reinstate Florida and Michigan.

source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080508/pl_afp/usvote [link]

[mvy]

If only the parties honored the national popular vote for nominations . . .
The National Popular Vote bill being discussed state-by-state, is a promising approach for mending the Electoral College system, to make every vote equal in presidential elections. The bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and D.C.).


Under the Constitution, the states have exclusive and plenary (complete) power to allocate their electoral votes, and may change their state laws concerning the awarding of their electoral votes at any time. Under the bill, all of the states' electoral votes in the interstate compact would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and D.C. The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes -- that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538).


In less than two years, the National Popular Vote bill has been signed into law in the small and large states of Maryland, New Jersey, Hawaii, and Illinois -- states possessing 19% of the electoral votes necessary to bring it into effect (50 of 270). The bill has passed one-sixth of the legislative chambers in small and large states of the U.S. -- one house in Arkansas, Colorado, Maine, North Carolina, and Washington, and both houses in California, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, and Vermont.


For more information, see www.NationalPopularVote.com

[motivez]

I also don't really like the idea of a national contest for the nomination, I think each state has its own character, its own issues, etc.. and the candidates would be able to ignore more of the country than they do now when seeking the nomination

They'd visit the population centers and that's it, ignoring the small towns, smaller states, etc..

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by motivez

I also don't really like the idea of a national contest for the nomination, I think each state has its own character, its own issues, etc.. and the candidates would be able to ignore more of the country than they do now when seeking the nomination

They'd visit the population centers and that's it, ignoring the small towns, smaller states, etc..

I agree, I think the electoral college works very well for a country as diverse as ours.

[kombayn]

Yeah, I enjoy the Electoral College, we have a National Vote and we end up with Socialism in probably less than 3 elections. Then you'll have a bunch of pissed off and isolated people.

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by kombayn

Yeah, I enjoy the Electoral College, we have a National Vote and we end up with Socialism in probably less than 3 elections. Then you'll have a bunch of pissed off and isolated people.

So are you implying that most Americans are naturally Socialist? Wow

[kombayn]

No just when you look at states like California, Mass. and New York with high population, they are very socialist states and by socialist I mean using social programs like state-wide health-care, welfare (social or corporate), gun control laws, banning smoking in public or private businesses (should be left up to the business) etc. Sorry for making the term way too general but I agree that a lot of blue states have socialist leanings and I'm not trying to use it in a negative term (ex. communism). But you can't allow states with high population to control the race of an entire country.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by kombayn

No just when you look at states like California, Mass. and New York with high population, they are very socialist states and by socialist I mean using social programs like state-wide health-care, welfare (social or corporate), gun control laws, banning smoking in public or private businesses (should be left up to the business) etc. Sorry for making the term way too general but I agree that a lot of blue states have socialist leanings and I'm not trying to use it in a negative term (ex. communism). But you can't allow states with high population to control the race of an entire country.

I'm inclined to agree but sometimes I think too much emphasis is put on the size of the map. you look at the size of a state like MOntana and then at the size of a state like say NJ. If Montana is red and NJ is blue, why should NJ have more say, look at how big montana is? Well.... There are more people in NJ. People vote. Land does not vote. A person has vested interest in the outcome of an election. Land does not. If there is one guy living in montana and 1000 people living in NJ, why should one man's vote count more than the thousand people living in NJ? Why should where you live make your vote count more or less? It's silly. if the vast majority of the people in this country live on the coasts ( which is true) why do we care so much about giving certain people more of a vote just because they live in the central portion of the country?

[northhunter]

Let's not forget it is after all the "United States of America", one reason for them to remain united is each state has a voice. Get rid of the electoral college and that voice is gone. And then a few large states decide everything.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

I'm inclined to agree but sometimes I think too much emphasis is put on the size of the map. you look at the size of a state like MOntana and then at the size of a state like say NJ. If Montana is red and NJ is blue, why should NJ have more say, look at how big montana is? Well.... There are more people in NJ. People vote. Land does not vote. A person has vested interest in the outcome of an election. Land does not. If there is one guy living in montana and 1000 people living in NJ, why should one man's vote count more than the thousand people living in NJ? Why should where you live make your vote count more or less? It's silly. if the vast majority of the people in this country live on the coasts ( which is true) why do we care so much about giving certain people more of a vote just because they live in the central portion of the country?

The was the compromise, you guys get more house seats so its not completely unfair.

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

The was the compromise, you guys get more house seats so its not completely unfair.

Its equalized in the Senate

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by David Octavius

Its equalized in the Senate

as it should be.

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

as it should be.

Yea Nevada should have 17X the voting power of Cali

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by David Octavius

Yea Nevada should have 17X the voting power of Cali

they don't.

[nbiggershaft]

Originally Posted by David Octavius

Yea Nevada should have 17X the voting power of Cali

I don't actually have a problem with that. Urban states shouldn't be 20X more powerful just because they breed more. The electoral college is pretty balanced. Though I think they should do away with electors and split the states votes. You get 45% of a 7 elector state, you get 3.15 votes.

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

I don't actually have a problem with that. Urban states shouldn't be 20X more powerful just because they breed more. The electoral college is pretty balanced. Though I think they should do away with electors and split the states votes. You get 45% of a 7 elector state, you get 3.15 votes.

I am not advocating changing the EC at all, though a more proportional EC votes allocation makes sense as you stated above, but it is exceedingly ridiculous for small populations to have that much of a stronger voice over large populations as they do now in both the presidential race and in the senate. That kind of swing of power is not "checks and balances" its a burden when it swings that much to one side (or the other in which big states have too much power over small).

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by motivez

I also don't really like the idea of a national contest for the nomination, I think each state has its own character, its own issues, etc.. and the candidates would be able to ignore more of the country than they do now when seeking the nomination

They'd visit the population centers and that's it, ignoring the small towns, smaller states, etc..

I tend to agree.

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by David Octavius

Yea Nevada should have 17X the voting power of Cali

ummm in the senate both states have equal power, unless of course your basing it on population...thats what the house is for...each state is represented by theirpopulation...I'm glad the crazies in cali dont control this nation.

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

ummm in the senate both states have equal power, unless of course your basing it on population...thats what the house is for...each state is represented by theirpopulation...I'm glad the crazies in cali dont control this nation.

I guess you didn't read my above post? I am not saying to change anything, there should be a Senate and an EC, just pointing out that just as it is absurd for a few big states (ie NY, Cali, TX) to dictate policy to all, its equally absurd for very small states (ie WY, NV, DE etc) to have such power for a very small population to dictate policy to a very large one.

I don't think there should be an issue to bring both of those to light