Predict when Clinton drops out

[Kaine for Senate '18]

June 3-30

[Frodo]

Depends. 

If she wins Indiana, makes it close in North Carolina, wins in Kentucky, West Virginia, and other states, as well as wins the popular vote (though still trailing in pledged delegates), she would have a very good case for continuing on through the convention despite the near impossibility of her prospects for winning the nomination. 

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

What do you mean?  She's Hillary Clinton!  She entitled to it!  She's been campaigning for the last 16 years!  Screw the voters!

[ChrisFromNJ]

I have news for you, even if the superdelegates give Obama the 2024 delegates required, Hillary will still take this to the convention. Superdelegates can change their minds and Hillary will bring her case to the credentials committee.

She will not drop out until the convention. She may never drop out. She may win the nomination.

[Michael Z]

I have news for you, even if the superdelegates give Obama the 2024 delegates required, Hillary will still take this to the convention. Superdelegates can change their minds and Hillary will bring her case to the credentials committee.

She will not drop out until the convention. She may never drop out. She may win the nomination.

If she wins the nomination this way, the Democratic Party will be split down the middle for the best part of a generation. It would be catastrophic, and I think many superdelegates realise this.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Teatime

[ChrisFromNJ]

I have news for you, even if the superdelegates give Obama the 2024 delegates required, Hillary will still take this to the convention. Superdelegates can change their minds and Hillary will bring her case to the credentials committee.

She will not drop out until the convention. She may never drop out. She may win the nomination.

If she wins the nomination this way, the Democratic Party will be split down the middle for the best part of a generation. It would be catastrophic, and I think many superdelegates realise this.

This is hyperbole. The same thing happened in 1972. Humphrey won the popular vote yet McGovern was nominated. Jimmy Carter then proceded to win the election in 1976.

You can't even rule out the Democrats winning this year, especially with a favorable political climate for them, unlike 1972.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I note that you don't mention quite what happend in the election of 1972.

[ChrisFromNJ]

I note that you don't mention quite what happend in the election of 1972.

The Democrats are in a more favorable political climate this year than in 1972, mostly due to the unpopularity of the incumbent. With a good general election candidate like Hillary, the Democrats have a chance to win this election.

[Alcon]

The Democrats are in a more favorable political climate this year than in 1972, mostly due to the popularity of the incumbent. With a good general election candidate like Hillary, the Democrats have a chance to win this election.

A few more months reminding people who would vote for her against McCain, but don't like her her about the latter half of that equation and we'll see.

[Verily]

I note that you don't mention quite what happend in the election of 1972.

The Democrats are in a more favorable political climate this year than in 1972, mostly due to the popularity of the incumbent. With a good general election candidate like Hillary, the Democrats have a chance to win this election.

People are also--far--less tolerant of the smoke-filled room today than they were in 1972. Clinton would lose the election terribly when no black voters showed up.

[Mr. Morden]

People are also--far--less tolerant of the smoke-filled room today than they were in 1972.

Exactly.  In the last ~30 years, it's seeped into the public consciousness that the nominee should be whoever "wins the primaries" (however that's defined).  Whether or not that's how it was intended and whether or not superdelegates were intended to be rubber stamps for the voters is kind of irrelevant.  That's what it's evolved into.

[Reluctant Republican]

I don't know. I think as of right now she'll win Indiana and will be able to stay in through the rest of the primary’s, but I’m unsure and somewhat skeptical if the supers will just rush in either direction when the primary’s are over. But as of right now I’ll say late June, early July, but probably before the convention. Forgive me for the rather evasive answer.

[ChrisFromNJ]

I note that you don't mention quite what happend in the election of 1972.

The Democrats are in a more favorable political climate this year than in 1972, mostly due to the popularity of the incumbent. With a good general election candidate like Hillary, the Democrats have a chance to win this election.

People are also--far--less tolerant of the smoke-filled room today than they were in 1972. Clinton would lose the election terribly when no black voters showed up.

No black voters would show up - that is quite an exagerration. And a hearty dose of wishful thinking.

[Verily]

I note that you don't mention quite what happend in the election of 1972.

The Democrats are in a more favorable political climate this year than in 1972, mostly due to the popularity of the incumbent. With a good general election candidate like Hillary, the Democrats have a chance to win this election.

People are also--far--less tolerant of the smoke-filled room today than they were in 1972. Clinton would lose the election terribly when no black voters showed up.

No black voters would show up - that is quite an exagerration. And a hearty dose of wishful thinking.

It's a slight exaggeration, but not much of one. Like I said, people won't stand for a coup from above today--black voters would be the most angry, the most uniformly, so I mentioned them, but plenty of other people would be angry, too.

It's not "wishful thinking"; I don't know who I'd vote for in such a race (probably write someone in).

[Alcon]

People are also--far--less tolerant of the smoke-filled room today than they were in 1972.

Exactly.  In the last ~30 years, it's seeped into the public consciousness that the nominee should be whoever "wins the primaries" (however that's defined).  Whether or not that's how it was intended and whether or not superdelegates were intended to be rubber stamps for the voters is kind of irrelevant.  That's what it's evolved into.

Which would be a (probably lost) irony, because Clinton's sole realistic remaining argument involves playing on an over-extension of that attitude.

[they don't love you like i love you]

I have news for you, even if the superdelegates give Obama the 2024 delegates required, Hillary will still take this to the convention. Superdelegates can change their minds and Hillary will bring her case to the credentials committee.

She will not drop out until the convention. She may never drop out. She may win the nomination.

Sure she can do this, but it doesn't mean she would have any realistic chance of being successful. She'd just look like a sore loser. If Obama has over 2024 delegates, the race is over. Hillary can whine all she'd like, but she'd be about as relevant as Paul is now or Kucinich was in 2004 after the nomination was locked up.

Plus once Obama breaks 2024, I'm sure many of Hillary's superdelegates will break for him. Many are already showing signs that the are wavering and want this over with.

[J. J.]

People are also--far--less tolerant of the smoke-filled room today than they were in 1972.

Exactly.  In the last ~30 years, it's seeped into the public consciousness that the nominee should be whoever "wins the primaries" (however that's defined).  Whether or not that's how it was intended and whether or not superdelegates were intended to be rubber stamps for the voters is kind of irrelevant.  That's what it's evolved into.

The super delegates came after 1972 and were intended to vote for their view of the best interest of the party.  If Obama becomes so inviable by the convention, he will be an absolute disaster, they will come into play. 

Will that happen?  I doubt it.

[Mr. Morden]

The super delegates came after 1972 and were intended to vote for their view of the best interest of the party.

I know that.  My point is that, regardless of what the superdelegates were intended for, it's gradually seeped into the public consciousness over the years that the voters are the ones who are supposed to be the ones who decide who the nominee is.  Such that it would be hugely politically damaging to the party for the supers to "overturn" whatever is commonly viewed as "the will of the voters".  This is vastly different from the situation some 30 years ago, when public opinion was not nearly so hostile to backroom deals at conventions.  Backroom deals at conventions were still considered somewhat normal back then.