Subscribe by RSS
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...Visit the You Decide 2008 Store »
(No Ratings Yet) Loading ...Visit the You Decide 2008 Store »
Related Posts:
- Clinton Talks of Swaying Obama’s Pledged Delegates
- Carter: After June 3 “It Will Be Time For Her to Give It Up”
- Hillary Clinton’s Last Best Chance: The Popular Vote
- Gore and Carter Might End Clinton’s Bid
- Florida Dems on verge of seating delegates
- New Mexico still waiting for a Super Tuesday winner
- Obama Claiming Majority in Texas Caucus
- (Video) Clinton victory speech, claims popular vote lead
- Clinton willing to fight all the way to convention
- Video: Schumer & Durbin debate on Meet the Press
Note: The comments section below contains
opinions and views from the online community at YouDecide2008.com, read
at your own risk! Please don't assume that YouDecide2008.com agrees with
or endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand, this is an open forum. Be
respectful or posts will be removed.
32 Responses to “Jimmy Carter: Clinton should drop out June 3rd”
Leave a Reply
Visited 1449 times, 3 so far today
Loading ...
As distinguished as Mr. Carter is, he’s assuming facts not yet in evidence here. He’s assuming that Hillary will lose the coming primaries, and he’s assuming that there is no Buyer’s remorse to previous primary voters concerning Obama. He may be right in the end, but not even Mr. Carter can know that yet. What he’s proposing is undemocratic. And I’ll not add anything smart about his recent vacation.
I’m not sure how bold a statement he’s making Babs. Hillary is about 160 pledged delegates behind in the count. It’s not ENTIRELY impossible that Hillary could catch up, but if PA was a big win for her, she still only gained only 12 delegates. She may get a few more from FL and MA when it’s all said and done, but enough to jump that gap? It’s hard to imagine.
I have trouble envisioning a world in which Hillary wins this contest through pledged delegates in the primaries. Buyers remorse wouldn’t describe that change in voting trends that it would require. But for anyone who wants to toy with the idea, Slate has a cool little Delegate program that lets you predict different outcomes.
http://www.slate.com/id/2185278/
This is a somewhat foolish comment to make. The superdelegtes are free to back whomever they want, and should not have to choose who has the greatest number of delegates.
The process in which the DNC has ratified is that both pledged and super delegates are used to make the 2,024 required for the nomination.
No one candidate will achieve this by the pledged delegates alone, and so each will rely on the super delegates backing. If the pricess in which the DNC has agreed is going to cause controversy, then surely this is a matter best dealt with in four years, however as it stands, Hillary Clinton has just a legitimate claim as Barack Obama to the nomination.
The biggest decision i which the superdelegates should be making is who will be the most electable in the fall? The clear answer o this is going to Hillary Clinton. The opinion polls are showing this, the states in which she has won show this.
Barack Obama is showing more than ever he is flawed and with baggage. DO the democrats really want to risk nominating him and then to loose the general election? Vice-President Obama is a major promotion to someone who is severly inexperienced in politics,and a position he should be greatly proud of. 2016 is when we will see President Obama and rightly so, just do not risk nominating him for him to fall at the last hurdle. This will not only damage his chances in 2016 but also allow another 4-8 years of republican administrations.
I have serious doubts that these opinion polls really lend us much insight in to what will happen in November. They change constantly and should not be used as evidence of who will prevail months from now.
I agree as such that opinion polls do not really mean anything, however the arguement is; Hillary has just as legitimate claim to becoming nominee as Barack. In my opinion, if the Democrats did not allocate the delegates proportionately, then given the bigger states in which Hillary has won, the nomination would already be in the bag for her.
I think at this stage in the process, comments like this should not be incouraged.
Carter’s comment wasn’t that the superdelegates should be forced to back a particular candidate, or that it would be against the rules if they did not.
His “foolish” comment was “It would be undemocratic if the super-delegates blatantly went against the decision of Democratic voters across the nation.” Which strikes me as being obviously true - it WOULD be undemocratic to do so. Of course your point is well taken, the superdelegates are not in any way bound to democracy in this democratic process.
The DNC needs voters to return to the booths for the general election however, so it would seem advisable to heed, rather than spurn their will in the primaries. I do sincerely believe that if the superdelegates refuse the candidate who has won by every measure - particularly a body of largely white men rejecting the first black candidate in our country’s history - there will be a great political spectacle, and many voters will not wish to participate in the next round of voting.
I think this manner of electing Hillary would actually render her significantly less electable than she is today.
Suerly the main objective for the DNC should be to nominate the person more likely to win the general election.
Even though the delegates are not to be seated in Michigan and Florida, the public votes should at the very least be looked at, epecially those in Florida.
I accept that Barack was not on the ballot in Michigan, but he was in Florida, why can’t Florida delegates be seated as they voted then? This would then allow for the delegate deficit for Hillary to be reduced, and awards her the greater number of actually votes cast?
What is your opinion on this?
Even if the Florida delegates are seated roughly as they were voted and she nets some delegates in Michigan (which I think is likely) that still doesn’t put her in a particularly good situation to come out with the most pledged delegates at the end of all this. There would still need to be a very significant change in voting trends for the remaining contests - he would have to blow NC, and / or she would have to win most of the remaining contests by 25 - 30 point margins. Of course anything could happen…
Seriously, check out this delegate calculator, it’s a lot of fun to play around with. http://www.slate.com/id/2185278/
When I read the article on here that Carter and Gore were going to either speak with Hillary in private or publicly endorse Obama I though it might just be a rumor.
This is definitely something to marvel at. I wonder if Gore is going to make a similar statement? Seems that would be a one-two punch to her..
Jimmy Carter…haha boy that guy was one of the worst presidents ever. He is a complete joke.
There is really nothing “democratic” about the super-delegate process. If we understand that democracy is a political ideology and governance for and by the people, having over 300 unelected people casting deciding factors on who is going to be one of this country’s only two options for presidency is antithetical to democracy.
I understand Carter’s stance, and he is arguing what is best for the Democratic Party. But there is nothing democratic about the way the system is set up.
Babs, I have personally spoken with some of the contacts that enabled Carter to do what he did. What he did was legitimate. If you want to get into this, fine, but realize h managed to build important bridges between three divided groups at the moments– for that area. What he did was good for that region. If you want to spin it into something about protocol for U.S diplomacy, that’s an angle, but that’s all there’s really room for at this moment.
By Sion Griffiths:
‘Barack Obama is showing more than ever he is flawed and with baggage. DO the democrats really want to risk nominating him and then to loose the general election? Vice-President Obama is a major promotion to someone who is severly inexperienced in politics,and a position he should be greatly proud of. 2016 is when we will see President Obama and rightly so, just do not risk nominating him for him to fall at the last hurdle. This will not only damage his chances in 2016 but also allow another 4-8 years of republican administrations’
Obama’s message is change and that scares you and other voters. You’re scared so you choose the safe route and vote Hillary.
Obama would finally solve some problems in Washington and will use our tax dollars for the sick and the poor in stead of sending young americans in to countrys where they are sitting ducks for the people who (logically) oppose an occupation.
Have you seen the deposit?
Have you seen the money that goes to war every year?
Have you seen the poverty ratings in America?
They are BIG problems that wont be solved quickly but at least the government could try to do something about it.
Who cares about some weird pastor?
Are you afraid of Obama?
Please vote for change, America and the world need it
carter been smoking too much pipes with the hammas. one thing for sure, he knows how to lose a election in a lndslide.
Right you are gregg haha its very true he does. Frank I have just one question for you and I want a good strong answer ok..So what is this change that Obama talks about. He always says hes going to change washington so it makes me wonder what is this change because hey the man has never given any examples of what it is. SO please enlighten me on why i should vote for a eloquent but empty call for change.
Wow. As Clinton rises above Mccain in the polls and Obama sinks below Mccain in the polls, the democrats STILL wish to nominate obama. No wonder this party loses EVERY election. They don’t know how to choose a nominee that can actually win.
O_S, I hear this criticism a lot of Obama but I’ve never fully understood it. Obama talks about the specific goals of his campaign, and what he would do as president as much as any other candidate. He doesn’t speak in terms any more vague than McCain or Hillary (though he does stutter more).
His talk of “Change” is really just a way for him to refer to the summation of his goals as president. It’s why many other candidates, both democrat and republican began to call themselves the “change” candidate as well - it’s sounds nice, and any politician can apply it to themselves.
But of those goals and how he plans to achieve them, I don’t think he’s been particularly vague. I just think it bothers you (as it bothers me) to have a candidate running on such a gimmicky catch-phrase platform as “Change”.
It’s not necessarily a reason not to vote for him, because he’s not being vague about his, stances, goals, or strategies, it just seems sort of distasteful. Maybe a little patronizing.
But if you’re like me, and you happen to really like the substance that Obama offers - beyond his stump speeches and catch phrases - then you’ll probably want to vote for him, because he does offer some striking differences from the other candidates running. But if that were the case, you probably wouldn’t choose to post under the O_S name
Correct,
Obama has offered more plans, in PDF format even, than any other candidate that I can remember. They are all plans based on sound economics and sound fiscal policy. All McCain and Hillary can come up with is the stupid gas tax holiday, which is neither economically or fiscally sound policy.
For instance, McCain loves to talk about “pork barrel spending”, but has no plan to stop it other than to veto everything he sees as “pork”. Judging by McCain’s knowledge of economics, I’d rather he not be the one making that decision. Obama believes that lowering earmarks to less than 2001 levels, and making the whole system far more open to the public will make the difference, and I agree! Obama also wants to end this ridiculous war, Unlike McCain. Talk about “pork barrel spending”! The Iraq war is costing us literally thousands of time more than all of these earmarks put together. McCain has repeatedly shown that he does not have the intellectual “chops” to be president with his short-sighted ideas (like the gas tax holiday). Clinton has shown repeatedly that she cannot make good on her plans, and that she lacks the character to be president (she exudes “old politics” even more than McCain does!). Only Obama has solid plans to back up his claims, and if his presidency is anything like his life has been, he’ll make good on them.
Josh, I hadn’t heard that Obama believes in lowering the earmarks to less than 2001 levels, but that’s very interesting if that’s his intentions. 2001 earmarks were $18.5 billion, 2008 was $17.2. What’s his point, it’s already lower than 2001.
Michael, that’s why I didn’t make a comment on Carter’s trip. I’ve heard too much controversy over the right/wrong authorized/unauthorized aspects, and also different takes on whether it was productive/unproductive. What I’m not sure of, I don’t take a stand on. =)
I will stand by my comment that it’s undemocratic to even imply that a candidate drop out of a race before all votes are counted for the same reasons that I previously stated. Hillary has a lawful right to see it through to the convention if she wishes. Whether it’s a good idea or not, that’s her right.
She has a lawful right, but I think what Carter and others are suggesting is that it’s not a good idea. To that end, it is their right to be able to speak that opinion.
Touche, Whobody. =)
Delegates / Super Delegates the entire thing is a joke. What ever happened to the concept the country was founded on; EVERY PERSONS VOTE COUNTS. The delegates, and electoral college are all a sham and need to be abolished.
The fact that one state is “bigger” or more important than another is the sad joke here. The people are what is important here. Every single individuals vote should count. Not as a portion of a state, but a single individual vote stating what that persons choice is. More and more over the decades our beautiful country has be fouled and sullied by finding ways of making the single voter’s opinions count less.
What ever happened to “…and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”
Well I hate to say it but as long as we have delegate counts, and electoral colleges our nation is doing just that.
I personally deplore the way people are asking Hillary to drop out of the race because every single person has not had a chance to vote, but I also believe that the super delegates should count for no more than what they are people like the rest of us that breath air and drink water. Unless any of them are allergic to Kryptonite they are no more super than my grandmother.
Now if by popular vote Hillary doesn’t have a chance of winning then that is on her i she chooses to bow out gracefully or not, but I can’t believe all of the debating over who’s winning or losing in what poll, or what delegates, or what big or small states.
We need to be debating the legality of this system of voting and why we are taking away the power of the people to decide for themselves.
I agree with you, Melvin. I think the process is all about micro managing the people, and manipulating the elections to please the few, not the many. Nothing democratic about that.
Now since we wont ever get back to a system where the people matter and we are stuck with what we have. I have seen a few mentions of MI, and FL votes counting. In our current system they broke the rules; THAT’S IT. Sorry try again in 4 years. They knew what would happen it is in the DNC bylaws. I read them, I’m sure a few party legislators may have done the same.
The best thing the voters in those 2 states can do is to get rid of those that decided to break the rules and negate their votes.
If you argue for one person one vote, then surely you would be infavour of the FL votes counting as they stand, and then allow the MI delegates a free vote. They can turn up at the convention and vote for whomever they choose?
Actually, Sion, they can turn up at the convention and vote as they choose now. If you’ll recall a month or so ago Clinton and Obama started lopping off delegates out of a fear that they had changed their allegience. Obama lopped off about 900 I believe in Calif., and under protests from those delegates rethought his position and allowed them to stand.
I do believe Florida votes should count in spite of the state’s party breaking the time rules. Because the people voted when they were delegated to by those leaders, they had no choice. And I think that MI should have been allowed to revote, and that the state party should have picked up the tab for that.
But as long as they seat delegates, no matter who they are SUPPOSED to vote for, in reality they may cast their vote as they wish, just like the Superdelegates. And I’m not so sure that’s not the driving force behind the party leaders who are touting Hillary to step down.
Babs, I completely agree with you. I know rules are rules, however given that the race is so close, the current position of refusing them to sit by the DNC should be reconsidered.
Also, given the current turn of events, it makes more sense now that there is pressure for Hillary to stand down. They are worried that the delegates will switch their support in favour of Hillary
I agree with you in principal Melvin, until you get around to the idea that a vote is something our government officials should have the ability to take away from us.
That’s what happened in the two states in question: politicians playing politics deprived the people of their voice. Perhaps certain politicians should be penalized for this, but depriving the people of their ability to vote is not an acceptable punishment. This should not be within our governments’ power to do. WE grant THEM power, not vice versa.
This only happened in 2 states and in the democratic primaries. But if it had been in 10 states and during a general election - think how outrageous it would be to tell all those people “Sorry try again in 4 years”. The very concept is extremely harmful to free election.
Here’s an example of my point. Mr. Carter says the Superdelegates should vote “the will of the democratic voters”, right? And they should be able to do this after the coming primaries, right? So why then, has 8 out of 17 superdelegates already endorsed a candidate in North Caroline, where there has been no primary yet?
In North Carolina, according to Politico at http://www.politico.com/superdelegates/ Clinton has 2 superdelegate endorsements, Obama has 6, 9 are undecided. Now, how did these 8 SD’s know they were voting the will of their people? And will the remaining 9 vote according to the primary results, or however they please as the first 8 have done?
In Indiana, Obama and Clinton each have 4 endorsements already, with only 3 left undecided. Is it up to those 3 to vote the will of the democratic voters after the primary?
See the point?
I no longer like him.
Sign for Hillary.
http://www.thepetitionsit.....or-hillary
I have a question…… Why should I sign for Hillary?
Carter has brought dis honor to the office and shame to our country by going to met killers over east. To me his voice to unstable and unwise.
So… negotiators in a hostage crisis are a SHAME? Negotiators that deal with the enemy to prevent more killing and injustice from happening… are a shame?
What Carter says is right… is not democratic from the superdelegates to support the candidate with less populare votes. By definition.
And he his stating of this haven’t losed my respect for him at all, nor his recent talks to Hamas. People should listen to anyone regardless of what they previously think of them, just for the sake of openmindness.