Why Clinton will win the nomination

[Uben]

She has won the states that will give the party more electoral votes! This was just explained on MTP.


Obama has already lost? Could be.

Discuss amongst yourself!

[mrmx9]

1. So Obama wouldn't win CA, MA, NY, NJ - this argument is nonsense!

[Ravy]

7. Same nonsense as him winning WY, ID, NE, etc.

[Abacus]

54. We split our EVs in NE -- he does have a shot of picking up a few. /nt

[elixir]

31. He won't hold them as strongly and may not pull enough votes to take the state.

[Andy823]

72. Why not?

Won't those who voted for Clinton vote for him, giving him all those electoral votes Clinton now has? Or will they all stay home and not vote? This just makes no sense to me!

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

33. Nonsense is right - bullshit meter is off the scale. Stats show Obama would win MORE states in GE.

[Uben]

36. But those states represent fewer electoral votes

....making him the weaker candidate in the GE.

[Exilednight]

46. All polls conducted show him winning more electorals than Hillary, making her the weaker candidate.

[zabet]

2. I posted that in a thread yesterday.

She has won the states that
are historically needed to
win the GE.

[JerseygirlCT]

10. What that misses is that she won those in a contest against another

democrat. When the choice is a Democrat and McCain, you can't use that to extrapolate the results.

How many of even the most partisan people here will vote for the other Dem come GE time?

[ROakes1019]

16. winning

This is what I first thought when I heard this argument. Winning against another Democrat in a state proves absolutely nothing about whether a Democrat can win that state in the GE. I really wonder about the ability of people to use logic or is it that the Clinton people think people can think logically? Bill Clinton is on the TV right now saying that put together Clinton and Obama and they can win everywhere. This is the most fallacious argument I've ever heard--a fairy tale?

[JerseygirlCT]

64. I think of it like this:

suppose you're offered a choice between vanilla and mint chip ice cream. 60% of the people choose mint chip in that head to head. (Yeah, yeah, I know probably all sorts like vanilla. Not me!)

It's like saying then that vanilla lovers would choose brussel sprouts over mint chip in the general. Given the choice between a slimy, nasty thing that's being sold to us as "virtuous" and any ice cream at all, what are you going to do?

I'm not a vanilla fan, but I'd take it happily and add my own fudge sauce if necessary, lol!

[zabet]

21. Take into consideration that

he outspent her 2 to 1 and
did not put her out of contention.
Her political baggage is 1000 times
heavier than his, and he has not
been able to put her out of contention.

You worry about Dems voting for our
nominee and seem to think the crossovers
that skewed open primaries will still
vote Dem. :crazy:

Dems will support the dem nominee for
the most part. Most people are not political
junkies and do not pay too much attention to
the trivial back and forth BS in the campaign
season between the supporters of the candidates.

"How many of even the most partisan people here will vote for the other Dem come GE time?"
Will you? Even if it is not your candidate that
comes away with the nomination?

[Carolina]

57. Take into account how he narrowed her margins of victory

Many Dems will not support HRC. PERIOD. And it started before Obama even entered the race. It started with her cowardly, calculating IWR vote and her going along with Bush so often. Now with her kitchen sink campaign, even more Dems oppose her.

Add the repukes who will mobilize in droves against her and the indies will don't lean her way and Shrillary Hypocrillary McClinton = DEFEAT in the GE. PERIOD.

[Ronnie]

80. "Many Dems will not support HRC."

"Many" is a weasel word. It has no real meaning.

[Carolina]

81. true, appropriately vague but

nonetheless when added to the pukes and indies, HRC is a loser.

[JerseygirlCT]

61. Of course. Absolutely I will

Even if I have to do so a bit less enthusiastically, I will.

What's the alternative? McCain???

[joeprogressive]

35. Don't use words like extrapolate with HRC supporters

They are less educated and can't grasp the concept much less reality.

[sueragingroz]

52. uhm... this hillary supporter has two degrees.. one of them in law

Stop making assumptions. They just make you look foolish.

[Carolina]

58. but her demographic is the downscale, less educated, rural

working class according to Bill. :shrug:

[sueragingroz]

76. you were making a slam against HRC supporters on this board

Apologize.

[Carolina]

82. just repeating what Bill and the pundits say

and I will apologize when HRC does so for her IWR vote which menas NEVER!

[SoCalDem]

63. They will hear "strap" and immediately think somebody's gonna spank her

:rofl:

[Window]

22. They are also the states that historically vote democratic in the GE.

[youknowmenotdlc]

3. Didn't Barack get more votes in those states then

Mcain?

Are all those Democrats who came out and voted going to flip to Mcain when they can't have Hillary?

[NDambi]

4. If the SD's and Dem party want to risk losing the black vote for generations to come...sure give it

to her.

If they want to turn off all the new voters and young voters he's bought into the party...sure give it to her.

If they want to see non-violent demonstrations and protests in the streets, sure give it to her.

If they want turn off a large percentage of the American electorate with unfairness then sure give it to her.

If they want to see tons of voters stay home in GE, or flip to the other side just for revenge, then sure give it to her.

So you see, it's not such simple thing to do...all actions have consequences...and some have severe and dire consequences...this situation falls under the latter.

Those in my democratic circle have already spoken on what can and will be done should there be BS!

[Olney Blue]

40. NDambi- I second your desire that there be NO BS in this primary.

The winner has to win cleanly.

[NDambi]

49. Thanky. It needs to be clear, fair and above board or Hell will surely break free

and the Dem party will lose in a huge way

[Ravy]

5. Elections are supposed to measure the people's will.

If you measure the Democratic primary the same way we do the electoral college (how we measure the people's will for the US Presidency) then she only needs one more state for victiory.

Alas, that is now how we measure for the Democratic primary. However, the rules provide that if no one gets enough pledged delegates, then the superdelegates can put them over the top. They can use any measurement they want. I would guess that most of them will look at popular vote, but I think at the moment Clinton is campaigning for a spot on the "Dream Ticket"

[tekisui]

13. I see it coming to that.

I have been opposed to the idea of the Unity Ticket. But, I am beginning to realize there may be no other way.

And, I think it would blow McSame out of the water.

[Ravy]

28. I do, too. And I think the conventional wisdom of the naysayers is in error.

But I could be wrong, too, of course.

A lot of people say that the more divided the camps are, the less likely a dream ticket is.

That makes a superdelegate vote for either of the two that much harder. Many of these superdelegates need to win this November in their own elections. If the two camps are frothing, they (superdelegates) will be insisting on a dream ticket to avoid alienating relatively half of their own supporters. And, in the end, they will decide this thing.

[earthlover]

26. Yes they do. And for that reason, every delegate is equal. No matter what state

Obama has won twice as many states as Hillary. This represents more voters than Hillary too, particularly when you take into consideration that fewer people from a state go to caucuses and Obama's vote totals in these states would be higher if they were primaries.

The electoral college idea is superfluous. Obama has won more delegates in more states than Hillary. He also has received more votes.

What IS sad, with regard to the electoral college is that Hillary has spewed her venom against Obama in states, such as OH making it more difficult for him to win these electoral votes in November. On to PA where she will no doubt do the same scortched earth campaign slime.

You don't change the rules in the middle of the game. All 50 states' delegates count. Not just the big states. Not just the Hillary states.

This is starting to resemble George Orwell's Animal Farm. All delegates are created equal. Some delegates are more equal than others.

The Hillary Herd and its lapdog media are simply rationalizing.

[Ravy]

38. Delegates are assigned by some arbitrary figure. In the electoral

college, this is intended to favor the small states.

Popular vote, however, is absolute.

Delegates being equal is part of the problem. 7 delegates for WI with 59k Democrats in the state means each delegate actually represents only about 8,500 voters, even if every Democrat of the state voted. But sadly, their vote will count the same as a delegate from NJ who is actually representing hundreds of thousands. It is politics, and the way we do it.

Superdelegates will have a hard decision.

[earthlover]

48. Obama won twice as many states. More pledged delegates. More votes.

By all means this is such a hard decision. SARC

[Ravy]

50. Less votes, atm. But he might take popular vote. nt

[mckeown1128]

55. No he won more votes....

You can't count MI and FL since the results were suspect, do to people being told that the vote didn't count for anything.

[Ravy]

59. You *can* count them, and I think people will.

Florida particularly had high turnout and both names on the ballot. And there was a provision in the DNC rules for them to count, so to say that they are invalid is a stretch. They should not have listened to people who said that they would never count.

[mckeown1128]

68. People who told them they wouldn't count?!

Who? People like Hillary:

NHPR's Laura Knoy: "So, if you value the DNC calendar, why not just pull out of Michigan? Why not just say, Hey Michigan, I'm off the ballot?"

Hillary Clinton: "Well, you know, It's clear, this election they're having is not going to count for anything"

http://www.nhpr.org/node/13858


The count in Fl and MI are suspect because we don't know how many would have shown up had they known before hand that it would count toward delegates. Unless someone has a crystal ball that can tell us the FL and MI primaries are suspect. You have to have HONEST(as in knowing the vote will count) elections.

High turnout means nothing... There were other things on the ballots that determined "real" outcomes.

[earthlover]

66. it is a joke to count michigan when Obama dutifully was not on the ballot....

[GodlessBiker]

6. You insult the Dem voters in those states when you say they won't vote for the eventual nominee.

If the nominee is Obama. Are the voters who voted for Clinton in those primaries that shallow?

[splat]

14. They're Republican states; either Dem loses there

[GodlessBiker]

25. You mean NY, NJ, and MA?

[MadBadger]

8. Obama will win those important democratic states...PLUS

Obama won states like Colorado, Virginia, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Washington, etc.

[cali]

9. unlikely to happen.

Of course, unlike you, I'm not an MSM bot. I don't watch TV. I actually read and research. Odds are that Obama will win the nomination. It's certainly possible that Hill will get it, but the odds aren't in her favor.

[joshcryer]

23. Agree with you there, he's played a wonderful campaign.

And a lot of peoples voices weren't heard. Obama is essentially the status quo candidate of "new liberals" and he can't lose, as far as I can tell.

[tekisui]

11. It couldn't be any tighter.

I am amazed and impressed at how close they each have kept it. Out of 25 million+ votes, they are separated by about 500,000, or around 2%.

They are separated by about 100 Delegates of 2955, so far, or 3.4%.

When Hillary lost 12 contests and then went on to get over 1 million votes in two different states, I saw that we most likely will not have a clear winner.

The Unity ticket, which I have reservations on, may be the answer. I don't see a clean resolution any other way.

[zulchzulu]

12. But wait! First, the Clinton campaign needs to change the rules in the middle of the game

The Democratic nominee is based on the delegate count. It's not based on states won or popular vote.

That's what is called rules.

It's also a near-mathematical impossibility that Hillary Clinton can get more delegates than Obama. But thanks for playing!

[Uben]

18. These ARE the rules

A candidate must get 2025 delegates. Neither can do that without the SDs, whose responsibility is to floor the best candidate to win the GE. If Clinton wins the states that will give them more ELECTORAL VOTES in the GE, one could argue she is the best choice.
Right now, she has a considerable lead in states with more electoral votes than Obama.

So, if it comes down to the SDs, she might very well win the nomination. Obama could always be her VP or an intern or something.

Don't that just chap yo ass?
!

[earthlover]

34. Short sighted, blind....the SDs are smarter than that!

They are highly unlikely to go against the pledged delegate totals. They know how this would wedge the Democratic Party into a Great Divide.

They also know Hillary is the candidate who is behind. They are not so STUUUUUPID as to think the candidate who is losing gets to be on the top of a dream ticket. I mean, that is downright insulting to think they would be that friggin DUMB!

[Uben]

39. This was said by a super delegate

....uh, who is blind?

[Spangle]

51. SD;'s understand politics

Do you? They WILL be considering which one is more winable in the GE.

Which means they will be considering lots of things. Things we might not even know. Like how many republicans crossed over to vote demo in the primary. And who the vote was for. Is their a 'movement' to get people to crossover for the primarys and vote demo, but to vote repug in the GE. STuff like that. <wink>

[earthlover]

they know that we can't win in november if there is a divided party

they also know that if they go against the results of the caucuses and primaries they will see a divided party. The massive number of new voters will get turned off and go away. The AA vote will go back to low turnout in November. The youth vote will go back to staying home. Many will be disgusted and turned off to the whole process.

You live in a dream world if you don't see each of these things as a direct result. And the SDs (many of them anyway) will see this too.

It is too bad. This was a primary season with record turnouts. Lots of this is because of Obama, btw.

So are we to throw all this excitement away by not abiding by the results of the primaries and caucuses?

If we make that choice, there will be consequences. One of them is an old man who will be called President McCain.

[zulchzulu]

45. Again, nice try to change the rules...but that's not what is going to happen

If you think Hillary Clinton can cheat her way into the nomination without an incredible effort to stop her, you don't have a command of reality.

I'm going to introduce a term that is taught in colleges. This concept would probably be over the head intellectually of a lot of the standard Hillary supporters, since it's been proven many are just flat out stupid or never had the intellectual capability to darken the door of a local community college.

It's called mathematical impossibility. That's what Hillary Clinton faces in terms of getting the nomination IF she wants to play by the rules. If she wants to cheat and lie, then we'll make quick work of her pathetic efforts.

[Uben]

62. No one can cheat

What I posted was said by a super delegate, who is much more qualified than you to determine our future, thankfully!

You can insult me all you want, son, it doesn't bother me a bit. It only serves to show your immaturity.

[zulchzulu]

69. So by your inference, most super delegates are going to vote for Hillary over Obama

Super delegates, for the most part, are party hacks. They in no way want to put their head out and decide on something controversial that will land them in a contentious election race the next time around.

It will be plainly obvious that most super delegates will vote for the nominee with the most delegate votes. It is a near mathematical impossibility that candidate will be Hillary Clinton. Count on that.

[Uben]

70. No

I merely staed what one super delegate said. I'm sure he doesn't represent anyone other than himself, at this point, but it shows what super delegates MAY be thinking. Nothing more.

[paperbag_ princess]

32. it is not against the rule

to argue the superdelegates to your favor....based on any reason

[Benhurst]

47. Under the rules, a plurality means nothing. A majority and the

magic 2025 means everything. Anything short of 2025 elected delegates is a loss which has to be bolstered with the votes of unelected super delegates.

That's THE RULES.

Good ones? No, I don't thinks so. I would like to see open primaries, caucuses, super delegates and other democratic practices eliminated, and a national runoff between the top two contenders for those primaries where no one manages to obtain a majority. Unfortunately it's too late for such reforms. Perhaps we can institute them for 2012.

But all the bickering about the relative standings of our two biggest losers means nothing under the rules agreed upon by our candidates at the start of the primaries.

All the so-called moral high ground claimed by both campaigns are bullshit. 2025 is the only number which counts, and ALL our candidates, from Mike Gravel through Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, failed to achieve it. They are all, under the rules, losers.

Compromises are going to have to be made and the super delegates will have to push one of our losers over the 2025 threshold. But if all the absurd posturing doesn't stop, whichever loser, as defined by our primary rules, is given that final push to the nomination, he or she will be a loser in the general election as well if this party isn't reunited.

As of now, the prospects do not look very good.

[Nitrogenica]

15. Bunk. Since when do we bend the rules to fit us?

On the one hand we can change the rules to re-do Michigan and Florida, On the other hand the superdelegate rules they are important.

[galaxy21]

17. Even if there was an argument for giving Hillary the nomination she woulnd't win in November anyway

Blacks, young people and other die hard supporters would vote for McCain out of spite because they think she's stolen it from Obama.


A democratic candidate can't win without African American or youth support. It's as simple as that.

Hillary's supporters:Hispanics, old people, working class may come round to Obama. But Obama's supporters will never vote for Hillary now.

[earthlover]

37. More likely they would just stay home....

And another result of that would be fewer votes for our congressional candidates all down the line.

Hillary has a 0% chance of winning in November with a divided party.

The tragedy is that nominating her would also drag down other good Democrats to defeat down the ticket.

I think the SDs know this.

[ramapo]

42. Hillary-hate trumps racial/religious bigotry

Hillary came to the campaign with strong negatives, attributed to the basic Clinton-fatigue, Hillary-hate phenomena. She hasn't made many friends recently amongst Obama supporters.

Obama will certainly have a problem when the racial/religious hate machine really gears up. However, many people who listen to that crap wouldn't vote Dem anyway.

Obama absolutely appeals to moderate Republicans sick of what Bush has done. No way those voters ever go for Clinton.

Obama will win the usual blue states and take some red ones too.

[Vinca]

19. I sometimes want Hillary to be crowned the nominee just to watch

her crash and burn in the general election. It seems that's the only thing will ever convince the rabid supporters what a mess she's making of this "sure thing" election. The influx of people to the party isn't because of Hillary, it's because of Barack. She might pull it off if she convinces him to be VP, but it's still a long shot. Nothing will galvanize the Republicans like a Hillary candidacy. It's very discouraging, especially just listening to people like Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, who seem to feel seating delegates won as a result of an unfair election is just fine. When asked if it isn't true Obama closes the gap significantly when he campaigns in a state Hillary is leading in, Wasserman-Schultz sits there like a deer in headlights. After 7+ years of democracy being trampled, it would be nice to find it again. Apparently, if the Clintons have their way, that won't happen.

[Carolina]

60. totally agree with your post!

[Sulawesi]

20. You are a hack, welcome to my ignore list.

[Uben]

29. Are you that easily flustered?

I just posted something that was said on MTP. Blame them, not me. Jeez! If you want to hide your head in the sand, go ahead. That's just one more troll I don't have to deal with! Ha ha!

[randr]

24. Obama as the Democratic nominee will win the blue states

that HRC has taken. Note she has only won Blue states with a well organized political machine left over from the Clinton years.
Obama has won and will win in the November election RED states that democrats need to win in order to bring an end to the years of bipartisan bickering.

[Spider Jerusalem]

27. The Democratic Party wins those states anyway.

California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts...not going red in the general election (and Ohio's not likely to go blue, either).

Only a moron could think there's an argument there; a primary is not a general election, and the big states that are safe for Democrats aren't going to switch.

[burythehatchet]

75. that might require a degree of nuance...a second dimension to the issue

tough to handle for some folks.

[Kittycat]

30. Another sore loser thread, buying in to the M$M Ratings Push

[Exilednight]

41. In every poll I've seen, Obama wins more electorals than Hillary.

[C_U_L8R]

43. There is absolutely no historical basis for that claim

there is zero correlation between primary delegates won and electoral vote won.
The Clintons are distorting once again. It's getting pretty funny.
I seem to remember 8 years of this shit. They really have a problem with the truth.

[Honeycombe8]

44. Obama's wins in the red/purple states would force Repubs to spend $ where they

normally wouldn't have to. And further more, SOME of those states just might turn blue (again).

Of course the Dem. nominee will win the normal blue states the nominee always wins.

[Armstead]

53. IF CLINTON PLAYS BALL if Obama is the nominee and actively supports him in the General....

...why wouldn't she be able to translate that into support for Obama in the General?

[Carolina]

56. Pyrrhic victory

- since she'll lose the GE against the experienced McCain whose experience is longer and truly His not derived from his spouse.

- since she'll lose the GE because repukes loathe her and will come out in droves to vote againt her as will many indies. based on her campaign, many Dems will simply vote down ticket/local races.

Shrillary Hypocrillary McClinton is a loser who will have to take the low, cheating road to the nomination.

[Swamp Rat]

65. Tim Russert is a potatohead

:D

[Emit]

67. I watched this show and I don't recall that being "explained"

I clearly heard Russert, as a matter of fact, explain that Obama has the most delegate count to date, has the popular vote, and needs only 40% of the SD vote to win the nomination compared to Clinton needing 60% of the SD to win.

[Dinger]

71. Any Open-Minded Obama Followers Out There? Weigh In, Please (nt)

[burythehatchet]

73. discuss amongst yourself!

what a douche!

[thoughtcrime1984]

74. Dumb argument

He'd take those states just as easily if not more easily. It'd be Obama vs. McCain, an entirely different opponent. I am not going to re-hash what has been said a million times on here, but just had to let you know how convoluted your logic is. The fact that he'll have considerably more delegates than her probably doesn't hurt him much in all of this either. It may take until June to figure this out, but it sure as hell isn't going all the way to the convention, bookmark it and bank it.

[Thepricebreaker]

77. Its not about states or popular vote, its about delegats....

[tinrobot]

78. It's not about the big blue states, it's about the purple states.

Either candidate will win California and New York, for example.

You need to worry more about those states that could tilt either way. Those are the ones that will make the difference this fall.

[greyghost]

79. That is the bottom line...

Clinton/Obama 2008

[fujiyama]

83. Yeah, let's just ignore all those delegates that voted for Obama

because some states are most important than others.

Never mind that she had a lousy strategy of targeting only large delegate rich states.

Never mind that she had the poorer ground and failed to mobilize her supporters to the caucuses.

Never mind that her husband - a FORMER PRESIDENT - went around trashing the competition.

Never mind that she ignored and then later dismissed all states she didn't win as irrelevant or doing so because of black voters.

Never mind that she has a smaller base of donors and has trailed for months in fund raising.

Never mind that she wants MI and FL's delegates to be seated even if they knowingly broke the rules before hand (and even if in one state she had no viable competition on the ballot).

Never mind that she has ran a nasty negative campaign basically implying that the republican nominee is more qualified for president than her party rival.

Never mind that she's trailing the actual pledged/elected delegate count.

If she wanted to win this fairly she could have. It's no one else's fault she had hacks like Penn on her team and then ran nasty, sleazy scorched earth tactics.