Will Hillary run as an Independent
@eclecticsteve (253)
United States
May 24, 2008 11:43pm CST
As more and more news sources have projected Barack Obama the winner of the Democratic Party nomination, I hear more and more talk about Hillary Clinton running as an independent. I don't think she will, but that sounds intriguing. If she does, I think she has a longshot chance of winning outright if she were to pick a moderate republican leaning independent like Michael Bloomberg as her running mate. She would most likely carry California, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Arkansas and Michigan, which is about half the electoral votes needed, and a about a quarter of the total electoral votes available. Even if Obama and McCain were to split the remaining 44 remaining states and DC, it would be likely that none of the three would get the required number of electoral votes - which would throw the election to the House of Representatives - at this stage, each state would get one vote determined by the representives of the state - Logically, it is here where Clinton would lose as the states would either vote for Obama or McCain, but as they say in sports when an "obviously" weaker team wins a game, "that's why they play the game." As unlikely as it would be, I just think it would be a fascinating scenario if she were to bolt the Democratic Party and ran as an Independent.
3 people like this
5 responses
@bobmnu (8157)
• United States
25 May 08
She won't run as an independent. If Obama get the nomination, not a given at this time, she would support him and make sure he lost. She would them come back in 2012 and say I told you I was the best one as he could not wind the big race.
She will go in to the convention pressing that she can get the vote. She is either close or has more popular vote than Senator Obama. She will also push for the vote in the states that held cacuses to say how many people had a "vote". In the Cacuse you need to be there from beginning to end. It only takes a majority of the people present to win the delegate. For example there may be 10,000 registered Democrat voters in a district. They vote and the final vote is 52% to 48% for Senator Clinton. Now the district holds their cacuse and 500 people show up. If you are a trained orginizer (like Senator Obama) you will make sure there are many items to be discussed and if you have the majority you will insist on a quick vote and go home. IF you don't have a majority you will drag the meeting out forcing people to leave and reducing the number of votes you need to take control. Four hours later you are down to 350 people and you have convinced a few to switch to your candidate You now have 180 votes and enough to vote for a delegate for your candidate (Senator Obama) In Texas Senator Clinton won the popular vote but did not get the same number of delegates. Texas has both a popular vote and a Cacuse.
It will be examples like this that Senator Clinton will use to point out that she is the better vote getter and Senator Obama is better at organizing for the Cacuses. In the election it will be winner take all with each state. Here Senator Clinton will point that in terms of the Electorial College she has won 2 to 1 over Senator Obams. She will claim that she can get the vote. The message to her supporters is that she was cheated and if Senator Obama loses she will appear as the new star. If Senator Obama wins she helped him and needs to be paid back for her support.
2 people like this
@tigertang (1749)
• Singapore
25 May 08
Independent's don't have a very successful history in US elections unless they're planning to be "King Makers," or they just feel like they need to teach the main parties a lesson - look at Perot in 92 and Nader in 2000. Running for election is an exceedingly expensive process and not only does it require money, it requires an infrastructure.
Yes, Hillary and Bill do have plenty of money to lend to her campaign but it's one thing to lend it to a primary campaign but another to lend it to the election itself. Even Ross Perot with his endless source of funds has been very quiet and not gotten himself into the election game since 1994.
The Clinton's also see themselves as key players within the Democratic Party and as much as Not winning the primary would hurt their ego and pride, they would not want to be seen a destroying the party, which is the source of their fame and fortune, so to speak. Even if she loses and does not get anything out of Obhama, she'll still have a behind the scenes role as the Democrat Senator of New York. If she goes out on her own, nobody will speak to her.
1 person likes this
@eclecticsteve (253)
• United States
26 May 08
At the convention, Clinton will argue passionately that she is the stronger candidate against McCain. If Obama ends up winning the nomination and she accepts the loss, she will give lip service support to Obama, but I doubt she will actively work to get the 25% or so of her supporters who say they will not support Obama in the general election to vote for Obama.
@rpegan (596)
• United States
25 May 08
The American people are hesitant to abandon their two-party system, and it doesn't matter how fed up they are, they think that the devil they know is better than the devil they don't. If Hillary Clinton ran as an independent, I quite seriously doubt she'd be able to win. Americans would assume that their vote wouldn't "count" if they voted for an independent, so they'd stay with the Democratic or Republican party.
@eclecticsteve (253)
• United States
26 May 08
Yes, I agree - that is a problem independents and "third party" candidates have. Many people consider a vote for a candidate that is neither Republican nor Democrat a wasted vote and that is something the independents need to overcome. But in the event Hillary Clinton does, she will invoke Jesse Ventura's name when stating that it can be done.
1 person likes this
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
26 May 08
This is the first I'd seen or heard of Hillary running as an Independent and I watch a lot of political coverage so I must ask, where did you hear this? I really can't imagine this happening, the Clintons are way too tied to the Democratic party and I can't imagine her being accepted as anything but and I can't imagine her being anything but. I'm not sure what her real motives are for staying in the race this long but I have to admit some of the reasoning makes sense, that if she were to drop out some of her most staunch supporters would feel she'd been "forced out" whether it was true or not and would therefore be unlikely to support Obama in November. However, I will continue to say I don't believe there's going to be a huge switch of Democrats to the McCain camp because the difference on the issues are too great.
Annie
1 person likes this
@eclecticsteve (253)
• United States
27 May 08
I haven't heard anything about this in the mainstream media, but a co-worker mentioned this to me, and then I did an internet search. I found several speculative articles that suggested that she is considering a run as an independent. At first I dismissed it, and although I still think it is improbable, I now think it is possible, especially when I thought about how she can win - and I think she has a good chance of at least taking it to the House of Representatives. I ended up writing an op-ed about it and had it published it in Associated Content. Her reasons for staying in the race seem kind of suspicious to me unless she is in denial, or has a back-up plan or two - and today, Bill Clinton accused an unnamed "them" as covering up Hillary's lead among Democrats - is this him foreshadowing a break from the Democratic Party? Probably not, but an interesting comment nevertheless.
@psyche49f (2502)
• Philippines
25 May 08
If she does, I consider it as a desperate move to grab the Presidency by hook or by crook...or does the US Constitution allows it? She can do anything she likes, but ultimately, the people will be the best judge. We just have to look at motives here...she really likes to stay in power come hell or high water? Why the sudden detour in case she would not make it? What gives, if I may ask?
1 person likes this
@eclecticsteve (253)
• United States
26 May 08
Originally, the United States Constitution set the Presidential election up so that there was no political parties, but by the 1803 election, political parties had formed and the candidates were running with running mates. The way it was set up, each electoral voter put two names in - the candidate who got the first vote became President and the candidate who finished second became vice-president. So in 1803, Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr tied even though Jefferson was the Presidential candidate. Burr argued that he should be president because he received the same number of electoral votes as Jefferson. The Constution provides for the choosing of the president in the event the electoral college cannot. After this election, the electoral college separated the voting for President and Vice-President.
@spalladino (17891)
• United States
25 May 08
I agree with those who say Hillary would never leave the Party to run as an independent. This is about power to her and she knows that running against Obama will split the vote and guarantee a win for McCain, leaving her an outsider with Democratic Party forever.
