If it is all about recapturing the WH, then why would we continue to support a divisive candidate???

[NoodleyAppendage]

Regardless of who you support as the Democratic nominee, isn't it all about recapturing the White House? If so, why would we continue to throw large portions of support behind the candidate who will BRING THE REPUKES OUT IN DROVES TO VOTE AGAINST HER and not necessarily to vote for their candidate?

Some things to consider if you truly are interested in recapturing the WH:

1.) Which Dem candidate would be more likely to carry Southern states?

2.) Which Dem candidate will galvinize the African-American vote?

3.) Which Dem candidate has the lower negatives?

4.) Which Dem candidate polls better with independents?

5.) Which Dem candidate would be harder to pull into a hypocrisy trap over the Iraq War?


So, there you have it. I fully expect the Clintonite robo-posters to innundate this thread, yet fail to honestly or substantively address the questions above.

J

[joeybee12]

1. You know, saying someone is divisive is a subjective comment,

not fact, like all you Obama-ites seem to think. If Obama ISN'T divisive, why isn't he polling higher? They're both disliked by a numebr of people...BO isn't a saint.

[NoodleyAppendage]

5. As I fully expected. Don't address the questions...too uncomfortable for ya?

Just the facts please.

Which candidate has the higher negatives?

Which candidate polls lower with independents?

[joeybee12]

7. Why do you think that is? There are other reason...the word divisive

like most of what Obama-ites post is a subjective comment based on what you have written. Hilary ahd even higher negatives before this election and she's done quite well in winning people over...that's not a divisive p

[msongs]

16. you post opinions and expect hillary fans to provide facts? ok. nt

[NoodleyAppendage]

18. The questions I posed are not opinions. You just don't like the answers. n/t

J

[UALRBSofL]

2. I disagree with your assessment of Clinton

But that's your opinion and your welcome to it. Frankly, I see Hillary being able to defeat any republican but that's just my opinion.

[NoodleyAppendage]

9. DUers are a restricted bunch. What about the mass of the voting populace?

We need to look at how those who are not DUers are likely to vote. Without these individuals NO Dem has a chance.

J

[frogcycle]

3. too late for that logic

the "Dems should nominate a winner" ship done sailed. Get ready for four more years.

[bigtree]

4. You're dreaming if you think Obama won't be muffed up

and, he's mostly unknown to most Americans right now, despite all of the energy in our own primary.

[SoFlaJet]

6. And NoodleyAppendage

if she IS the democratic nominee they will be the ones to blame when John McCain and Mike Huckleberry take up residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue...you're right about the "Clintonite robo-posters" who are quick to inundate every thread. I have long suspected they are actually paid Clinton surrogates whose charge it is to monitor the blogs and message boards spewing their bullshit day in, day out. Have you noticed all of these people with HRC banners in their sigs with less than a 1000 posts starting all these threads?

[NoodleyAppendage]

8. The "invaders" arrived shortly after the Iowa primary...since then nothing but Clinton kool-aide BS.

As a DU "oldie" I tend to notice the trends, and you are absolutely correct. No way to prove if they are paid surrogates, but no matter. As a generality, they are unquestioning, delusional, and destined to fuck up the general election.

[papau]

10. when Obama injected race in the Presidential race - as he had done in the Senate primary in 04, I

wondered if the crowd would reject him - but he did the usual and claimed victim status and pretending it was the innocent comments of the Clintons that injected race.

The man is a divider.

[BlackVelvet04]

11. We don't really know

yet about all of Obama's negatives. If he gets the nomination we WILL.

As for hypocrisy about the war Obama is wide open for that accusation. Don't forget the majority of people in this country supported the war at the beginning.

[OmahaBlueDog]

12. Both have weaknesses

1.) Which Dem candidate would be more likely to carry Southern states?

None. Whomever the GOP nominates will still carry the Confederacy and the Heartland, with the possible exceptions of Florida (and that would be Hillary country), Virginia, and Georgia on a really good day with the wind at our back. Bottom line; non-AAs don't want Hillary, but they aren't going to be keen on an AA with a foreign sounding name.

2.) Which Dem candidate will galvinize the African-American vote?
Either. At the end of the day, whomever we nominate will be a better prospect for improving the lives of the economically disenfranchised AAs.

3.) Which Dem candidate has the lower negatives?
Hillary has the negatives of being known, being a woman, and not being particularly likeable. Obama has the negatives of very little meaningful experience, a troubled past, an Islamic heritage, and a church that is already getting torched by the rightys.

4.) Which Dem candidate polls better with independents?
Obama. You do win that point. However, McCain will likely win Indys over Obama,

5.) Which Dem candidate would be harder to pull into a hypocrisy trap over the Iraq War?
1) The war is the major issue here at DU, but at this point most voters care more about the economy. 2) Hilary is more likely to fall in the trap, but it needn't be a trap if she'd simply say "I was wrong, but I was wrong because George W. Bush lied to me"; that's it! That's all she needs to say. Don't be John Kerry; don't try to equivocate or explain; just blame George -- it's his fault, anyway.
3) Obama is equally flamable from the rightys --"Barrack Hussein Obama never voted to support our troops overseas, and clearly has forgotten the lessons of 9/11"

I see where you're spinning this, but Obama is no slam dunk either.

[NoodleyAppendage]

17. Thank you for the reasoned response. A rare thing on DU these days.

And, I agree, if Hillary had admitted about 8 months ago that her IWR vote was a mistake, we wouldn't be arguing over her position. Her obstinence on this point hurts her, though I understand she was worried about appearing "weak." Now, however, she's faced with constant questions about something she could have put to bed months ago.

J

[peacebird]

13. my 2 cents...

1 - uncertain - there are still a lot of KKKrs down here
2 - also uncertain - Bill was very popular
3 - Obama
4 - Obama
5 - Obama

Also WashPost had a poll today, showed Obama beating all Repub candidates, and HRC losing to McCain, but beating the others. As McCain is likely going to be the Repub, it seems to me that Obama should be the Dem. There are Repubs who would vote for Obama over McCain (it says in the article). There are a lot of Dems who won't vote for Hillary.

I think if Hillary gets the nomination we will lose the White House.

[NoodleyAppendage]

15. BINGO.

It is idiocy for the Dem Party to nominate Clinton given the present polling data and what we ALL know deep in our hearts...that Hillary will rally the Repuke base better than any of their own candidates.

J

[polichick]

14. And which candidate has the BIG MO???

That counts, because it's about activating the public ~ this election is about THE PEOPLE!

[1corona4u]

19. What? You said;

2.) Which Dem candidate will galvinize the African-American vote?



Please. Explain.

[NoodleyAppendage]

20. African-American voters are a huge block....without them the Dems don't fair so well in the general.

South Carolina proves that African-Americans are not completely in the Clinton camp. I suspect similar in other Southern states.