Please. Please. Stop making this ridiculous argument.

[FlyingTiger]

You can debate the vices and virtues of Obama and Hillary until November for all I care.

You can argue about race, gender, height, width, shoe size, and favorite spouse.

You can go back and forth about who's more "liberal" or more "progressive" or more "secretly right-wing."

But I've never, ever been so dumbfounded as when I've seen the truly obsessed Hillary supporters try to claim that Clinton is "more electable" in a general election.

Look, Obama's entire strength comes from drawing in Independents, fed-up Republicans, and people who have never voted before. Those are the people he's shown that he can work magic with. He crushes Hillary in those categories, and no one here, even the most blind followers, should dispute that.

That gives him a better chance in every swing state come November. He just has bigger numbers to draw from.

So, please... stop kidding yourselves by trying to figure out some convoluted way of arguing that Hillary is "more electable." She isn't. That doesn't mean that she CAN'T be elected, only that the ultimate pool of potential Hillary votrs is smaller than the ultimate pool of potential Obama voters, and therefore the election would be a lot closer. But she doesn't draw more people in, and she certainly isn't going to dramatically expand the Democratic base like Obama. It's just a fallacy to think otherwise.

[mtnsnake]

1. Well then quit making the ridiculous initial claims that she isn't electable at all.

Good grief is it that hard for you to figure out?

[KittyWampus]

4. go back and read the opening post and then comment. It'd help you seem more relevant.

[mtnsnake]

15. I did. It's time for you to get new goggles. n/t

[Catherine Vincent]

33. There's that cry again. nt

[krkaufman]

68. Sorry. Nowhere in the OP did the OPer say Sen. Clinton "isn't electable at all" ...

... or even "unelectable."

[mtnsnake]

70. No shit, genius. "Initial claims" means the claims by everyone on this forum 24/7 who always claims

she's unelectable, not the claim of the OPer. That's why I said "initial". The claims of the Hillary supporters are only in response to the idiotic claims by everyone else (not the OPer) that she's unelectable.

[krkaufman]

76. You failed to make that clear, by using the imperative in your subject line.

My apologies for failing to accurately read your mind.

And your profanity and rudeness is unnecessary and ugly, and does nothing to further the aims of the website.

[niceypoo]

75. The poster uses the exact arguement he says he is sick of

Pitiful

:rofl:

[scheming daemons]

2. Bingo

[WillyT]

6. Double Bingo !!!

:shrug:

[Tom Rinaldo]

3. It is arrogant to assume that only your analysis can possibly be correct. n/t

[KittyWampus]

8. And yet a multitude of Hillary supporters are trashing Obama for taking caucus states

where indies and GOP'ers can vote.

[Tom Rinaldo]

25. That is a tangental can of worms

I was commenting on anyone simply decreeing that a line of argument that runs counter to their own on something must be considered ridiculous because they are so confident of their own opinion being air tight.

There are several reasons to question the relative usefulness of caucus results, the fact that some are open to non Democrats participating is only one. Also there are arguments being made on this board about which candidate is more progressive; Clinton or Obama, and some Clinton supporters think that it is relevent that Clinton tends to do the best when only Democrats vote, since on the whole Democrats are more progressive than Republicans or Independents.

[Cant trust em]

20. Analytical arrogance is what DU is all about

That's why most people sign up with their gloves off.

[Tom Rinaldo]

27. Can't argue with that analysis, lol n/t

[FlyingTiger]

28. This is math. Nothing more.

Obama's numbers throughout the primary season have had several times more "non-traditional Democratic voters" than Hillary. Those numbers are the point.

[Tom Rinaldo]

30. It is much much more than that

Michael Dukakis had very high favorable numbers with the public all throughout the primary season in 1988. He matched up very well against the prospective Republican nominees. And then the actual Presidential campaign began and the Republicans combed through his record that the General public had only been previously exposed to as "The Massachusetts Miracle" during the non-hard hitting primaries, and they opened up on Dukakis with heavy artillery. And he folded like a pup tent under real fire. I know that Hillary stands up to Republican fire.

That is just one of several possible responses to your "mathematical certainty".

[FlyingTiger]

31. We're gonna try this again.

Your argument is based in so many hypotheticals that it's impossible to empirically prove one way or another.

On the other hand, this is the entire point of what I'm saying:

Obama will pull from a much larger pool of voters than Hillary. Period. The end.

Everything else is speculation. You can speculate that Obama will not be able to survive a right-wing attack machine despite the fact that he's survived the Clinton machine for a year, and Obama supporters can speculate that Republicans will be so disillusioned with a McCain candidacy that a majority of them will vote for Obama. It's a ridiculous game of Calvinball that no one can win.

This, on the other hand, is just numbers. Potential Obama voters > Potential Hillary voters.

[Tom Rinaldo]

36. Fine. Women are a majority group in America

No woman has ever run for President as a major Party Candidate before. Therefor you can not possibly claim to know with any certainty how potential female voters in America will relate to this Election by November of 2008. You don't know how many of them will come out to vote for Hillary. You don't know how many Republican women will vote for her in the secrecy of the polling booth. You can guess, I can guess, but we can not know for sure.

[FlyingTiger]

44. Exactly - you're just guessing.

I'm pointing to the numbers that Obama and Hillary have consistently posted over the entire primary season. When applying those numbers to the general election, Obama's pool of voters is substantially larger than Hillary's. These are numbers based on votes that have ACTUALLY HAPPENED. For you to counter with, "Well, many Republican women might vote for her in secret" is just... well, I don't really think I should have to tell you how weak that is.

[Tom Rinaldo]

45. No, I'm extrapolating from the real indications of a strong gender gap

supporting Hillary, and from consistently high female voter turn out in every Democratic contest held to date. You are doing the same with your "facts" to support your own contentions. I am not the one who said it is "ridiculous" to claim that one candidate was more electable than the other. Different cases can be made, some will view one as stronger than another. But I would never call the opinion of someone who concludes that their candidate is more electable than mine "ridiculous".

[FlyingTiger]

48. The gender gap that was all of 5% yesterday?

Clinton only won 5% more of the women overall, and, again, Obama won the independent women. The women who could go either way in a national election.

Where is this mystical onrush of Hillary-only female support that you speak of?

[Tom Rinaldo]

53. Before we get lost in this let me just repeat

I rejected your call of arrogant certainty, that is how we started. I never claimed that arguments could not be made either way.

5% is not at all insignificant when we are talking about by far the largest "voting block" in America, one which also happens to vote in disproportionally higher numbers than their actual literal percentage of the electorate.

This part is pure speculation. I think the high water mark of Obama fever was reached prior to the Super Tuessday results coming in. The build up about Obama's surging momentum was relentless. MoveOn.org hastened to trot out a last minute endorsement process, rushing to get it started without even letting members watch the last debate first. The media was in 7th heaven, waxing poetic about Camelot and dragging up every comparison to anything Kennedy that they could find. Suddenly Ted Kennedy was back in vogue, after being ridiculed as the poster boy of outdated over indulgent liberalism for the last decade by the main stream media.

I think that fever has broken, not Obama's campaign. He may well go on from here to win the nomination. But the breathless anticipation of making history on Super Tuesday by throwing off the shackles of the 90's past with the help of the 60's past reached its climax. Lets watch to see how this contest now plays out in a slightly more sober light.

[creeksneakers2]

63. I don't see all the numbers for Obama

He and Hillary poll about equally against McCain, with only a slight advantage to Obama. Their Rasmussen approval/disapproval stats favor Obama, but not by huge margins. Obama is 51% favorable and 45% unfavorable. Hillary is 47% favorable and 51% unfavorable. Many things can happen between now and November that could help or hurt either one of the candidates. I don't see a definite advantage for Obama even those he has a little better chance at present.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

69. Mike Dukakis Had A Seventeen Point Lead After The Convention In Atlanta. He Lost By Eight Points

That's a twenty five point decline...That suggests to me that Obama's lead over McCain which is anywhere from one to five points in some polls is anything but certain...I would also add there are polls showing him trailing...

[jeffrey_X]

57. Maybe it's not an analysis, maybe it's based on real world feedback.

I completely agree with the OP. I was raised conservative and I'm now surrounded by co-workers and "friends" from the past who are conservative, republican or independent. I've seen a lot of people over the past two months back home and while traveling for work and they have ALL said the exact same thing. "I would vote for Obama, but not for Hillary."

This idea is based on fact. Go out and look at other non-political message boards where there is a "water cooler" or "free for all" forum. You will see it for yourself. I've seen it online and I've heard it from people in person. I HAVE YET TO MEET AN INDEPENDENT OR CONSERVATIVE WHO SAID THEY WOULD VOTE FOR HILLARY CLINTON.

[joeybee12]

5. Please, please, please, stop it yourself...

...If Obama can pull more people in, he'd be way ahead in the delegate count. he isn't. It's the fanatcism of his supporters that believe he will somehow transform the Dem party...

While Hilary has high negatives, they had been even higher...this argument was made before her first senate race in NY, and she defied that also. Saying she is less electable than Obama is a fallacy. She knows how to win, and Barak "MSM Free Pass" Obama and his thin-skin will get eaten alive once the Repukes get ahold of him.

[dmallind]

23. The truth is in between

Obama can attract more independents NOW - no way to argue otherwise.

The question however is whether he can continue to do that when he has endured six months of constant non stop Swiftboating and smearing. There's already a huge swathe of the ill informed (who DON'T vote in primaries but are much more likely to in GEs) out there who think he's a Muslim crack dealer. That percentage will only go up after $80MM worth of attack ads and unflinching focus on him from the Reps. Clinton on the other hand is a known quantity and is at a disadvantage in drawing Indies and Reps precisely because that's ALREADY happened to her.


It's a crap shoot - nobody knows how hated Obama can be made by that kind of attention. We do know how hated HRC can be made, because it's obviously working even on DU.

[FlyingTiger]

24. What?

There is no "if" when it comes to Obama pulling more people in. Just look at the numbers. He does. It's not even close. The reason the delegate count is tied is because Hillary has won more of the traditional Democratic base.

[leftynyc]

34. People can't change their minds?

Especially after months of Rove driven lying, spin and dirt (and it wont matter if it's true or not). I know you think Obama has the general all locked up but you are being very unrealistic. It'll be a brutal battle no matter who our nominee is - anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional.

[FlyingTiger]

41. Same question could be asked of those who support Hillary. It's a non-argument.

This is Logic 101. You can't try to prove Person A is better than Person B by throwing a hypothetical argument against Person B and pretending the same exact hypothetical argument couldn't also apply to Person A.

[leftynyc]

58. Of course it can work both ways

that was my point.

[creeksneakers2]

64. Separate the apples and oranges, then the IF shows up.

All the facts and stats about the Independents and Republicans Obama pulls in are for his race against Hillary, not for the future race against a Republican. We don't know how well either one will end up doing against Republicans. Right now they are polling about equally against McCain so one probably isn't doing much better than the other right now.

[gateley]

7. We won't know who's electable until after the voting in November. nt

[Quixote1818]

9. I agree. nt

[TexasObserver]

10. You're right. Obama is much more electable.

And that is why Republicans want and need Hillary Clinton to run against.

They are terrified at the prospect of running against Barack.

[WinkyDink]

14. Yes, because America is readier for a Black president than a woman as one.

Riiiight.

[TexasObserver]

16. No, because America is ready for a great president

And it's not ready for a mediocre candidate who is considered a pariah by 2/3 of the DU membership.

[leftynyc]

35. I've asked dozens of posters

where they get the idea that the pukes want Hillary. Nobody has answered. You want to give it a try?

[Samantha]

66. Yes, the Clintons have a LONGSTANDING reputation of being

polarizing. In that regard, Hillary Clinton has 35 years of experience.

[vi5]

Exactly....

Can she win? Sure. But assuming that whoever the nominee is wins "the base" (whatever that means at this point) regardless then there's just no logic to the idea of someone who the voters have known on a national stage for 16 years is suddenly going to win over new voters.

I'm not saying Obama is DEFINITELY going to do it, but looking at the voting trends the way they are now it's at least more of an outside chance that he will than she will.

[WinkyDink]

11. "she certainly isn't going to dramatically expand the Democratic base like Obama".

Okey-doke, Nostradamus.

Tell that to the Independent WOMEN.

[FlyingTiger]

21. Hate to break it to you, but...

Obama actually won MORE Independent women yesterday than Hillary did.

[Tom Rinaldo]

46. Expanding the base ultimately means bringing out more people to the polls

to vote for your candidate. I think women will vote in record numbers if Hillary becomes the nominee - and that includes nominally Democratic women who don't always get around to voting. Self indentified Independent women who decide to go out and vote in a Democratic primary are a pretty narrow demographic.

[FlyingTiger]

47. So, by the actual numbers....

Clinton only won 5% more of the women overall, and, again, Obama won the independent women. The women who could go either way in a national election.

Where is this mystical onrush of Hillary-only female support that you speak of?

[Tom Rinaldo]

54. I wrote about this above in another reply to you. n/t

[K Gardner]

12. Cha ching ! K&R

[MadBadger]

13. SurveyUSA poll out of WA shows him beating McCain by 18 and Hillary tied.

[RiverStone]

17. good post - good points....n/t

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

18. I Absolutely Think She's More Electable. The Only Thing Ridiculous Is The Way You Put Forth The

notion that there's no chance she is.

When it comes down to it, whoever the dem nominee is, they will need to fight strong and hard against what will amount to a huge rw attack machine. They will need to not sway, not get flustered, be able to address them right out of the gate, turn them back around, and offer a swift and damaging counter attack. That with the best chance of winning the GE is that which has the most likely ability to mount such a defense. I'm of firm position that Hillary will by far be stronger in that area, and that when subjected to the pressure and scathing attack, that Obama would falter a bit and make too many mistakes.

It is perfectly reasonable for me to think so, and perfectly reasonable for anyone else to find her as more electable due to those or other reasons.

The only fallacy here is the perception you've created in your own mind.

[FlyingTiger]

19. So, what you're saying is, Obama couldn't handle going up against a political "machine."

But he sure seems to have handled it pretty well so far.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

38. If You Think What He's Been Through So Far Is Even Close To What's Coming, Then I Question Your

ability to view things in a rational and objective manner.

Personally, I actually thought Obama looked really silly earlier claiming that handling the Hillary machine means that he can handle the RW machine. But I can understand why he would want to portray that, since strategically saying such a thing makes sense. But you're not him. You should be able to view things a bit more realistically, in this sort of a situation. What he's been through so far isn't an iota of the level of what he will need to defend against. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a bit in a bubble.

[cali]

26. yes, she's electable. But virtually all the independent evidence

suggests he's more electable. He beats McCain in head to heads by a much higher margin. Her negatives are higher. His appeal amoung independents and disaffected repukes is much stronger. He brings far more new voters into the system. Furthermore, he's obviously a hell of a smart fighter or he wouldn't be where he is now. And finally and most critically, no one but no one can act as the kind of catalyst for getting out the repug vote as Hillary can- and will if she's the nominee.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

39. I Don't Know Why People Keep Trotting Out These Head To Heads. They're Monumentally Irrelevant.

Right now, before the campaigning against each other has even really started, those head to head matchups are literally worthless. They're going to change by huge degrees once the media begins actually FOCUSING on the head to head. Using them now as a gauge of anything is an act of foolishness in my opinion.

[cali]

52. then forget the heads to heads and focus on all the other

points. Seriously, there's a lot of info that suggests strongly that she's less electable. I don't think that's any reason not to nominate her, but I wish Clinton supporters could be honest about her electability issues.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

56. What Evidence?

[creeksneakers2]

65. Not by a "much higher margin"

RCP averages

John McCain (R) vs. Hillary Clinton (D)
Poll Date Sample McCain (R) Clinton (D) Spread
RCP Average 01/18 to 02/03 - 46.3% 44.5% McCain +1.8%

John McCain (R) vs. Barack Obama (D)
Poll Date Sample McCain (R) Obama (D) Spread
RCP Average 01/18 to 02/03 - 44.4% 45.1% Obama +0.7%

[Auntie Bush]

32. Obama doesn't take criticism well and I'm not convinced he could successfully handle

the horrible RW attack machine. Look what happened and how rattled and off message he got when his claims of always being against the war was called a fairytale. And also just because Hillary said MLK and Johnson helped with civil rights. If that perceived criticism threw Obamites into such a frenzy....what do you think would happen when he gets some real...not perceived criticism from the likes of Limpballs et al.

We NEED someone strong and experienced getting swiftboated and Hillary is the best/strongest one to take it. And, maybe even give it out if necessary. Obama may actually be afraid to dish it out to Republicans when he depends on Indy's and Rethugs for votes.

Here's another reason your premise is wrong. What makes you think all those Indi's and Rethugs will vote for Obama when they can vote for McCain who really appeals to them? Just wondering...and worrying out loud.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

40. I Take It You Responded To The Wrong Post?

[Auntie Bush]

60. I did respond to the wrong post.

So sorry!

[incapsulated]

62. And try crying "racism" to the republicans when it starts

THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT THE BLACK VOTE.

THEY DO NEED THE WOMEN THAT MAKE UP HALF THE VOTERS.

[bigtree]

22. The equation is a familiar and simple one

Obama is mostly unknown to the majority of Americans.He has the potential to be labeled and marginalized by those labels as Hillary has been, and as Kerry was.

[BootinUp]

29. You realize that the Obama strategy in the primary

is the only reason he is attracting that vote. It does not necessarily follow that Hillarys GE campaign cannot attract them as well.

[GreenTea]

37. I doubt if there's one "fed-up" racist fucking republican voting for Obama...Get reatl.

perhaps for an extremely moderate to right, Hillary...but NEVER for Obama.

All republicans are greedy sick scum it's their ideology they believe in and live by!

[FlyingTiger]

42. Wow... that's just sad.

I honestly don't even know what to say to that. I have good friends that are Republican. I have family members who are Republican. They're all very good people, and many of them are incredibly disillusioned with their party for the reasons you apparently apply to epublican voters instead. Many of them have expressed to me how they would vote and under what conditions.

For you to broadly paint 50% of America with the "ignorant racists" brush, including many people I know very well, is just... pathetic, really.

[Strelnikov_]

43. You attack the opponents strength

With McCain, it is his appeal to independents.

Clinton drives independents to McCain.

Obama takes independents from McCain.

You are correct. Obama is a better bet to win in the general.

[krispos42]

49. Opinions about Clinton are more or less settled

in people's minds. It's been sixteen years of her in the national spotlight in one way or another. I think people as a whole have had their brain pathways pretty much settle on their views and opinions of her. Because of that she's the fixed standard by which others are judged.

McCain is much the same way. Known. Even if they change positions or have new visions of how they will be, there is still a big "meh" factor.


Where there is still room for movement is when people have to think about new candidates, like Obama, Huckabee, Paul, and Romney. You can see that even in known people like Guiliani and Thompson, who most of the country was aware of but most people didn't know. And when they found out, they either soared (like Obama) or tanked (like Rudy and Freddie).

[Barack_America]

50. Best post in a long time!

Every one of your points is oh-so-true.

[mondo joe]

51. At least one problem with your analysis: it assumes 0bama can hold up

his numbers and his appeal under a GOP onslaught.

I don't know that he can.

[ctaylors6]

55. And isn't turning out the base the foundation of a win? Hillary has shown she can do that

I'm already worried enough talking to various independent/moderate friends who like mccain and point to mccain/feingold, mccain/kennedy etc and ask when obama's voted "moderate."

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

59. This OP displays amazing ignorance of political reality

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4438197

[incapsulated]

61. Thank you, I've been saying this until I'm blue in the face

I mean jesus, a lifer politician like Kerry, a war hero, was able to be swiftboated but some rookie who has barely been vetted by the media before crowning him King, who bristles at the love taps in a primary from his own party, barely any experience running a national campaign, who is relying on votes, like the black vote, that the republicans don't even care about is somehow more electable?

Everything that people have bitched about the Clintons, that they are mean, ruthless, old school.... is *exactly* what will be their strength against the repuke destruction machine when it gets into gear.

This is the problem with personality cults. They truly believe everyone will convert and find Jesus.

Until crucification day.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

67. Obama will be destroyed by McCain on national security.

[mtnsnake]

71. This is why the MSM is setting this entire McCain/Obama catastrophe up.

In a time of war, the bottom line is that the Independents and fence-sitting Republicans will always go for the one who they feel will best protect them from that terrible boogeyman.

In a General Election, can you imagine Barack Obama trying to convince those people that he'll protect them better than McCain? Gimme a break.

[rucky]

72. I don't mind the "more electable" debate at all.

What I do mind is the notion that we'll lose if one candiate is nominated over another - that's bullshit fearmongering.

What I do mind is the "I won't vote if _____ is the nominee" arguement. More fearmongering.

What I do mind is "_______ supporters are __________". We have record turnout. All _________ supporters are TYPICAL AMERICANS.

Anybody who doesn't see how strong of a position we're in for the GE is cheating themselves out of the first good reason to feel optimistic in a long time.

[demokatgurrl]

73. good point. Here's my dilemma

I believe that Obama has a slightly greater chance of beating McCain in a general election. I KNOW for a fact that pleny of democrats, probably some right here on DU, will vote for McCain, regardless of whether the Dem nominee is Clinton or Obama.

But I prefer Clinton. So in my mind I have to decide between the more "electable" (Obama) and the most progressive candidate remaining in the race (Clinton). In the end, in the general election, I'll vote for the Dem because I can never again vote for a Republican no matter what.
At this point (I don't vote until April), I'm leaning toward voting for the candidate I honestly prefer, screw electability.

[MethuenProgressive]

74. Hillary is more electable.

It's just a fallacy to think otherwise.