Clinton is ahead in the electoral vote count & in public opinion

[OzarkDem]

The rest of the country is willing to vote for a woman because she's the most qualified candidate. She has the most detailed agenda and policy positions. She's already done her homework and can run the country from day one. She's also an experienced and successful campaigner with a strong base of support.

Why can't the minority of Obama supporters come to grips with the gender issue?

Obama may be ahead today in delegate counts, but in the big picture its meaningless when Clinton is ahead in the electoral vote count and in public opinion polls.

The majority of voters have decided she's stong enough, qualified enough and they feel she will represent their interests.

She's already hinted at the VP slot for him. Take a hint, Obama and put the needs of your party and your country ahead of your ego.

[TAWS]

1. LOL since when did electoral votes decide our primary.

[OzarkDem]

7. They decide the GE and that's what matters

Not counting MI and FL votes, plus some early razzle dazzle in caucus states has given Obama an illusion of a lead - but it doesn't translate to winning the GE, period.

Get over the sexism and back the best Dem candidate.

[Joe the Revelator]

12. It seems you've never heard of the electorial college

So sad that people so dumb are allowed to post like they know something.

[OzarkDem]

35. Read my post - its about the electoral college

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/about.html

[Name removed]

85. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Exilednight]

140. According to polls, Obama would get more votes in the electoral college over McCain than.....

Hillary would.

[OzarkDem]

169. Nope

They put California under the Obama win category and he lost the primary there.

That's a very big if, particularly when he also loses MI, OH, PA and FL. Can't win the EC without those.

[nsd]

172. That's absurd. Of course, he'll win California against McCain. /nt

[OzarkDem]

174. Sure, right

Sorry, but I'll choose the better qualified Dem candidate who actually had enough support to win the primary in that state.

[Exilednight]

176. Are you serious? Polls show that Obama wins Ohio and Hillary loses it in a GE.... you're serious...

aren't you?

If you are, then I feel bad for you. There is no way CA would go for McCain.

[OzarkDem]

181. Got a link? Cause I don't believe what you're selling

Clinton just beat Obama's ass in Ohio the other day, with a huge turnout.

Please do provide me with the link that now shows Obama would win Ohio. This I have to see.

[Exilednight]

187. Here's your link....

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=4374

[OzarkDem]

191. SurveyUSA making a big assumption not based in fact

Obama lost to Clinton in Ohio. McCain is still polling very strong here.

Obama will not beat McCain in Ohio, no matter how much SurveyUSA wants to guess that he will.

[Exilednight]

197. I get it, it doesn't fit your closed mind so it must be wrong. Ignore anything that doesn't fit ...

your perfect little world.

At first you were funny, now you're just showing your ignorance.

[OzarkDem]

202. Obama can't win key states he lost to Clinton in the primary

and that's a bad thing for states that are necessary to win the electoral vote.

Parse it all you want, but SurveyUSA is simply guessing when they assume Obama will win states like Ohio in the GE.

Prove it if you can - show me some valid polls that Obama will beat McCain in Ohio after he lost to Clinton in the primary.

[Exilednight]

208. Prove that SurveyUSA is guessing. They've been the most accurate at projecting elections thus far.

[OzarkDem]

210. Show me a poll

taken after the Ohio primary that shows Obama beating McCain there in November.

[Exilednight]

213. Dude, you're fricking thick headed. That poll was published on the 6th, two days after Ohio.

[OzarkDem]

216. That wasn't a poll, it was a map

show me the link to the poll itself then we can talk.

[Exilednight]

218. It was a map with the poll data at the bottom - keep lugging those goal posts.

[OzarkDem]

221. They're in the same place

Show me the link to the ones that show Obama beats McCain better than Clinton in Ohio, taken after the day when Clinton beat Obama's ass in Ohio.

Its called evidence based politics. The decision needs to be based on the best evidence, not on hopes and dreams and spin.

Ok, I'll help you out

The poll Survey USA is using that says Obama could win Ohio in the GE is based on a poll taken BEFORE Clinton beat him in the Ohio Primary. Even then, before Clinton beat his ass in Ohio, his odds of winning against McCain were no better than hers 50-40.

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=cba94d6c-f1b7-4a85-8ef2-812406a2c17c%20

So what do we know now? That Clinton beat him in the Ohio primary and that, if you think Obama is better than Clinton in a matchup against McCain in Ohio in November when you have no polls to prove that, you are wrong.

[Exilednight]

214. Go ahead, move the goal posts again.

[OzarkDem]

217. No, just holding you accountable

stop whining or stop arguing.

[slick8790]

18. Too bad you have no idea what you're talking about.

Winning a state or losing a state in the primary has little to do with losing or winning a state in the GE. No Dem will lose CA, NY, NJ, MA, etc. No Dem will win Texas, Wyoming, Oklahoma. Head to head matchups, per SUSA, put Obama as the strongest GE candidate.

[OzarkDem]

39. Key electoral states are OH, PA, CA, MI and FL

Those are the states not guaranteed to Dems that must be won to win the electoral vote.

Winning the guaranteed Dems states isn't enough.

[TAWS]

50. Your saying Obama will lose California. Wow n/t

[Voice for Peace]

79. I think Obama has a much better chance than Hillary of winning in red states in the GE. nt

[Hepburn]

92. Ummmmmmmmmmm...

.....you really think Calif would go for McCain over Obama???

I don't know whether to :rofl: or to :cry:

Please....like I said above, get some education about the subject BEFORE you put finders to your keyboard and prove to everyone you are a complete fool.

[OzarkDem]

134. Yes, its possible and no I don't feel like risking it on a virgin candidate

especially when the candidate who won the primary in California is better qualified and a known fighter of the GOP.

Don't be afraid to support a woman, especially when she's the better candidate. You shouldn't worry about "what the men will say".

[VolcanoJen]

138. Those fickle Californians, "known fighters of the GOP," elected Swarzanegger twice.

No offense to the hardcore Dems of California, who are national treasures. But when Californians vote statewide, they're apt to do anything.

[OzarkDem]

143. Schwarzenegger is a Republican

Didn't you know that?

[VolcanoJen]

146. Clearly.

You're starting to worry me. :-)

[davidinalameda]

237. Ahnuld ran against the worst candidate that the Democrats could have put in in 2006

Phil Angelides was a horrid candidate

his campaign ranked up there with Kerry's in terms of how poorly it was run

[OnionPatch]

74. Thank you.

Our blue states are in no danger of turning red in this GE, regardless of the Dem candidate. Given that, it seems pretty obvious we'd be wiser to select a candidate that can do better in the purple and red states. :shrug:

[VolcanoJen]

22. Sexism?

Get over your bigotry and back the best Dem candidate, Barack Obama, then.

See? My post makes about as much sense as yours. :silly:

[Andy823]

26. So you are saying

That Obama would not get any more "electoral votes" in the GE? That those who support Clinton now would not vote for him to give him those "electoral votes" that you say Clinton now has? I am confused!

[OzarkDem]

48. Primary victories don't translate into electoral victories

Winning the Dem primary in Wyoming or Utah won't result in winning those states in the GE if you don't also win states like OH, PA and FL in the GE.

Big states with lots of electoral votes are an essential part of the equation in winning the GE. Without it, you don't win.

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

118. You just contradicted the entire premise of your OP

:rofl:

[OzarkDem]

163. Dude, that is my premise in the OP, actually reading before commenting helps

or you can just make a fool of yourself. Your choice.

Sexism rawks, right! :sarcasm:

[mckeown1128]

189. Let me get this straight...

You are saying...


That Obama's primary sounds victories are not guarenteed to translate to the GE....

And that Obama's primary state losses are proof that he will lose them in the GE...



Do you even understand how stupid that sounds???

[OzarkDem]

198. Obama hasn't won enough primaries in key electoral states

and he has lost primaries in key electoral states that are needed to win the GE.

All states are not created equal when it comes to the electoral college. In a close race against the GOP, you must win enough electoral college votes and there are certain states you cannot afford to lose. Ask John Kerry.

[mckeown1128]

201. Do you not understand that there is not a connection

between primary results and the GE??? You can't be serious. No one is that dense... The primaries and the GE are completely different.


All the polling shows Obama doing better in the GE against McCain.


Your basing your whole argument on MI and FL... both of which have questionable results do to the fact that people were told the vote didn't matter...(can you prove everyone showed up that would have had they been told it would matter)


Regardless Obama has one more primaries in key electoral states... CO, WA, WI, IO, MO, VA. Hillary has OH and NV.

[OzarkDem]

203. How does a guy who lost to Clinton in the primary of a key electoral state

stand a better chance than she does of beating McCain in that same state in the GE.

What your saying is we should support Obama even though he's less likely to win than Clinton against McCain in key electoral states. Why is such a risky strategy necessary?

Why should Dems handicap themselves in the GE, just to support Obama? This goes back to my original premise that Obama supporters would rather take a bigger risk of losing the GE than support Clinton - simply because she's a woman. Period.

Sorry, that's bs and I'm happy to call you on it.

[mckeown1128]

215. Two problems here...

1. You have yet to list which states you are talking about...so I can't show you polling to prove you wrong.

2. You are still making the mistake of trying to paint the voters in a primary as symbolic of those in the GE.

In many primary contests...ONLY democrats vote in the primary.... In the GE Republicans, Democrats, and Independents vote... by your logic Obama and Clinton should win Alabama, Georgia, Michigan, Wyoming, Nevada, Maine, Alaska, Colorado, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota, and Tennessee, since McCain lost all of those states.


You need to stop trying to defend the crap you posted.

[OzarkDem]

219. Already have a dozen or more times in this thread

but I will be happy to indulge you:

States Dems MUST win in the GE to win the electoral college:

OH, PA, MI, FL, CA

You can win other states, but if Dems don't win these they lose.

Clinton has (or will in the case of PA) all of those states in the primary. As such, she is the strongest candidate Dems have to win those same states in the GE.

[mckeown1128]

224. Well.... Let me take you post apart piece by piece...

You say that those are states that "dems MUST win"....FALSE

Survey USA just did polling of all 50 states... and they found this:


Obama wins OH, MI, and CA and still comes out well ahead 280 +10 better than he needs to win...

because Obama picks up(compared to Kerry)... Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, Iowa, Ohio, North Dakota, Virgina, and Splits the Delegates in Nebraska(which apparently isn't winner take all)

http://www.surveyusa.com/


but let me break this down for you further:

1. You claim that Hillary's win in MI (the results were suspect..but for the sake of proving you wrong... I will concede MI for Hillary for my point) The polling shows Hillary LOSING MI and Obama WINNING MI. How do you explain that?

2. The polling shows Obama doing better against McCain in CA than Hillary does. So that ruins your argument further.

3. The polling further shows that Obama's impressive 280 win against McCain would not include PA or FL.. so much for NEEDING those state.



I could post on and on but the link really lays it out.... sorry to burst your delusional bubble.

[mckeown1128]

227. Uh oh...did i get all FACTy again.... ohh well... N/T

[OzarkDem]

233. No sale

See below

[OzarkDem]

232. The Ohio poll you link to is the same one I debunked

Taken before the primary in Ohio.

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=cba94d6c-f1b7-4a85-8ef2-812406a2c17c%20

Bring me some fresh, post primary data and we'll see who does better against McCain - Clinton or Obama.

Your Michigan poll has Clinton v McCain and Obama v McCain w/in the margin of error. Sorry, that's not enough to convince me that Obama can win Michigan when Clinton has already won there.

If Obama is doing so well in Michigan, why is he backing away from a re-vote?

[mckeown1128]

245. You are so thick headed......

Winning or losing a primary does not mean that a win or loss is likely in the General Election.....

What "debunking" are you talking about. So what if the poll was taken before the Ohio primaries... the Ohio results won't change that much.... You are really grasping at straws.

[movonne]

Well your last statement was very creepy...how about if I said get

over you prejudices and vote for Obama...would that upset you..just because you don't like one person don't through in the sexism or prejudices...thank you

[OzarkDem]

51. He's the least qualified and least experienced

of the two candidates. Its pretty obvious those Dems who "hate Hillary" have issues with her gender. If she were a man with the same experience and qualifications, there wouldn't be an argument.

[Hepburn]

96. I am female....and I have been active in women's rights issues since the 1960s.

I freaking hate Hillary Clinton. I hate her because she is a lying, insincere, phony, opportunist bitch. If she were a male, I would still hate her because she basically is a lousy human being.

So don't make an even bigger fool of yourself by telling me that I hate Hillary cuz she is female.

[OzarkDem]

117. Sorry, but sounds like

you need some counseling or something. You're projecting a lot of unreasonable and irrational hate into a woman you don't know personally and that's often a sign of self-hate. You might want to consider it. It could help.

[Hepburn]

243. LOL....

...a cyberspace shrink. Care to match your masters in psychology against mine? Project much?

:rofl:

[Danger Mouse]

104. Fuck that. I dislike Clinton because of her dishonesty, divisiveness, and opportunism.

It has NOTHING to do with her gender.
Cute that you're playing the gender card, though, do you whine about it when Obama supporters play the race card?

[OzarkDem]

120. Sorry, but those are traits I and many others see in Obama

particularly his willingness to lie about health care reform and to use GOP talking points about it that would not only hurt passage of Clinton's plan, but also his own.

There is something terribly wrong with a candidate who is willing to destroy the chances of his own health care plan's passage just to win points against an opponent. Very wrong and very telling of Obama.

[Danger Mouse]

123. Let's just say that I disagree with your premise...

and leave it at that.

[OzarkDem]

127. Same here.

[verges]

158. No.

I have serious problems with changing the rules after the game. I have serious problems with betraying the party by saying the presumptive Republican candidate is better than a potential Democratic candidate. It's ethical questions. Not sexism.

[PseudoIntellect]

177. Clearly...if you hate Hillary, you must necessarily be sexist? Okay.

[alteredstate]

43. Where's the sexism?

[TAWS]

52. I'm wondering how that was sexist too...

[OzarkDem]

60. Check the answer above

Clinton is most qualified and experienced. If she were a man, she would have won this primary already. Its the resistance of some Dem voters to accept the idea of a woman presidential candidate that is holding us back.

[TAWS]

66. Ok, If I'm a sexist by saying someting totally not gender related, then you are a racist

See how much sense that makes?

[OzarkDem]

72. So you're saying Obama is more qualified and has more experience?

Nope, not buying it.

If Clinton were a man with the same experience and qualifications, this primary would be over by now.

[TAWS]

80. Heck, Richardson and Biden have more experience than her and they are men. I don't see them winning

Must mean it takes something more than experience, don't you think?

[OzarkDem]

204. How many primaries did they win?

[rateyes]

87. Give me a damned break...

Joe Biden is a man, and has a HELLUVA lot more experience than Hillary Clinton. Sounds like you are the sexist.

[Danger Mouse]

101. By your (idiotic) logic, Joe Biden would've easily taken the nomination.

[OzarkDem]

205. How many primaries did Biden win?

[alteredstate]

108. Give me a break.

So you're saying that all who believe that Senator Obama is most qualified and experienced for the job, are sexists?

I'm a feminist. I support Obama.

[RazBerryBeret]

70. It has NOTHING

to do with Sexism. I am SO tired of this accusation.

[Danger Mouse]

100. Oh come on. 'Get over the sexism'?

Bullshit. Steaming bullshit.

[JerseygirlCT]

164. I'm backing the best candidate

And once more: winning the state in the primaries does not mean that only the winner *between the two Democratic candidates* can win the state later in the GE. There's absolutely no logic to that! None!

The real question is whether the damage done by the nastiness of the campaign now will hurt our Democratic candidate in such a way that people just stay home, and we lose the GE.

Democratic turn-out at the primaries and caucuses has been record-breaking, across the board. We have two qualified candidates. Whichever comes out of this the winner should have an excellent shot at the presidency.

[boston bean]

9. Since when did a small elected delegate lead decide our nominee. That is what SD's are for

like it or not.

This has happened before and that is why they have a role.

Come to grips with the fact that Hillary actually has more democratic support. The caucus system is undemocratic and is screwy. It is not representative of reality, which is Hillary actually has a stronger position.

[OzarkDem]

17. Winning the general election is most important

Early stumbles in not counting MI and FL primaries has created an illusion of support for Obama and props to him for exploiting it in a creative way with caucuses in states that will still end up voting GOP in November.

But its an illusion, and what counts is winning in November.

[sellitman]

34. Where does she have more support?

She is behind in

1) Delegates

2) The popular vote.

3) The State vote count.

What alternate universe are you looking at?

[boston bean]

41. He cannot win a big state and he's to scared to have a re-do in FL or MI.

Racking up caucus delegates and vote is not quite the same as winning a primary where millions have voted.

[sellitman]

67. Racking up delegate votes is how you win a Primary

Last I checked?

[OzarkDem]

121. Winning the primary doesn't win the GE

[OzarkDem]

68. She's ahead in the electoral vote and in popular opinion

those are the key factors needed to win the GE. Sorry, but its true.

[sellitman]

82. There isn't an electoral vote until the GE.

And who's "popular opinion" are you talking about?

Yours?

[OzarkDem]

137. Losing key electoral states in the primary means losing them in the GE

and winning in the GE is the ultimate goal. The odds are against Obama doing it, but Clinton can.

Country and party before candidate.

[sellitman]

236. This isnt winner take all.

this is for delegates.

D-E-L-E-G-A-T-E--S

Obama actually got more Delegates. Lots more. Your whole premise is fately flawed.

[Shae]

156. she's ahead in popular opinion

but she got less of the popular vote?
How does that work?

[OzarkDem]

166. Primary vs GE

Also try adding in MI and FL. They don't count in the primary so far but they do count in the GE.

[sellitman]

235. Earth to Ozark

The electoral vote hasnt happened yet.

This is a primary. By every measurable account Hillary is loosing.

I know the past 7 plus years have been tough but come back to us.

[saracat]

10. My my , same folks who are complaining about the SD'a not

representing the voters dismiss the popular vote when it doesn't reflect what they want.

[movonne]

45. Well if we went by popular vote Gore would be president...

[stray cat]

2. Majority of voters - since when?

[Joe the Revelator]

15. SInce they decided to add the "results" of MI and FL to the count in order to prove their point

Its not hard to build a lead when you're the only person on the ballot.

[slick8790]

20. AFAIK, I think he's still ahead, although negligibly, in the popular vote with MI and FL included n/

[OzarkDem]

160. MI and FL votes will be counted in the GE

and they are key states in the electoral college math.

[OzarkDem]

113. Women have been the majority of Dem voters for the last dozen years or more

During the late 80's to 90's the constituted between 52-55% of Dem voters. The numbers fell off prior to and during the Bush years (but was still over 50%) when the Dem Party stopped trying to communicate with women voters.

With renewed interest in the presidential elections, the tide of women voters has turned again to the Dems.

[FreakinDJ]

3. when pigs fly

[still_one]

4. It has nothing to do with gender, it is about judgement

whether it was the IWR or clinton portraying she and mccain as qualified to be president, while Obama is just a speech, says everything about her judgement.

Nothing about gender in my criticisms, it is all about Clinton as a person, and why I don't trust her

[sellitman]

5. Huh?

Obama has the delegate count and the popular vote. There isn't an electoral vote in the primaries. What are you talking about?

[VolcanoJen]

6. Which public opinion polls?

http://www.pollster.com/08-US-Dem-Pres-Primary.php

This is most certainly your Shark-Jumping Post. Each sentence of your post is patently revisionist.

[Joe the Revelator]

8. So much wrong with this post

1. Do you have any links showing Clinton ahead in "electorial vote" that do not include the invalid results in FL and MI? Its not hard to make up ground when you're the only person on the ballot.

2. Delegate count is the ONLY thing that matters. It is the system that we work under. Although Obama is going to get to the covention with more of the popular vote and more states won, the only stat that will matter is the fact that he has more pledged delegates.

3. The only thing this sore loser rhetoric of trying to find ways that Hillary is ahead does is strengthen McCain.

[slick8790]

11. Alright I don't even know where to start.

If the rest of the country really thought she was the most qualified candidate, then why is she losing the popular vote, the delegate count, and number of contests won?

If she's such an experienced and successful campaigner, and Barack Obama is beating her, then what does that make him?

Third, Obama supporters are a majority. Both here on DU and in the nation at large, check the popular vote count, even with FL and MI included.

Show me one public opinion poll with Clinton ahead. I'll accept anything, beating McCain more than Obama in a GE matchup, or even having a larger net positive opinion than Obama.

The majority of voters have, not, in fact, voted for her. It's that simple.

Take the hint, Hillary. You cannot realistically win without superdelegates overturning the will of the people.


....This is satire, right Ozark?

[OzarkDem]

30. MI, FL, OH, PA and CA are essential to winning the electoral vote

Obama hasn't won any of those states in the primary. Sure, he's made an impressive campaign out of winning primaries in caucus states that normally go GOP, but that doesn't add up to a win in November.

Link to polls:

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08dem.htm

[slick8790]

38. Do you have some sort of disconnect in your brain?

Primary votes in a lot of cases have no impact of a state's desire to vote in November. Obama will win CA and all the other Dem states, and pick up new ones as well. Poll data supports this. The only thing the data you linked shows is that roughly equal amounts of Dems support both.

[OzarkDem]

44. Got a link?

There is no guarantee Obama could win in states like OH, PA or FL. And those states must be won to take the GE.

[slick8790]

47. No, they're not.

That's how he wins.

[OzarkDem]

56. That's a pipe dream

How will that map look once the GOP starts "vetting" Obama?

He's a virgin candidate, he hasn't yet been tried and that map, which already relies on some very dodgy statistics and borderline polls will crumble quickly.

Obama will not win Ohio and California is also very questionable.

[slick8790]

62. Whatever. It must be fun living in your little world.

Where your opinions are more correct than polls and statistics and Hillary is always winning.

[OzarkDem]

73. Polls show Clinton ahead

and Obama has lost many of the key electoral states a Dem candidate needs to win - MI, FL, OH, PA, CA.

[caledesi]

133. Here in FL we were told that the Dem votes did NOT count....so

very few came to vote.

[OzarkDem]

136. They will count in the GE

and Obama is opposing seating those delegates, so he must not be confident of having much support there.

Even he knows he's not likely to win there in November.

[Exilednight]

147. This is something you need to look at.....

National polls do not equate to an electoral win.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4985040&mesg_id=4985040

[OzarkDem]

165. Electoral votes do

and Obama can't deliver

[Exilednight]

170. Yes, electorals do. Polls show that Obama wins more electorals than Hillary does.

[OzarkDem]

173. Only by adding CA, which he lost in the primary

Sorry, but that's a very big assumption and a double standard where Clinton is concerned.

[Exilednight]

179. Honest question, what makes you think McCain can win California against Obama. Give me....

a solid statistic like the last time California voted repug, or that repugs had a larger turnout in California than Dems did in the primaries.

Seriously, leaving Hillary out of the equation, tell me how McCain wins.

[OzarkDem]

184. McCain vs any Dem in California

Odds are the Dem who won the primary has the best chance against McCain. That was Clinton.

Now tell me how Obama will beat McCain when he lost to Clinton in MI, OH, FL, and PA (likely Obama loss), other states that must be won to win the electoral vote.

[Exilednight]

190. Because more voters turned out for Obama than McCain in California in the primary....

California hasn't voted repug since Reagan was President, and the only reason he won is because it was home state.

LA, SF, and SD are the three largest populated areas in the state, and represent most of the vote and are all heavily Democratic.

[OzarkDem]

196. Then why did Obama lose to Clinton?

Sorry, but I choose the candidate who has:

Already won the primary in the key states needed for the electoral vote

Is ahead in public support for the GE

Is the better qualified candidate who has a better campaign



Assuming Obama will win against McCain in key electoral states where he lost to Clinton and relying on that risky scenario to carry him to electoral college victory is ridiculous.

Why take a risk when you can go with a candidate who is already a proven success in the states needed to win? Unless you just really don't want to vote for a woman.

[krawhitham]

132. COME ON

You start a post stating a fact that is not true

When called on it with real facts you SPIN SPIN SPIN

What is wrong with people

He is ahead in delegates
He is ahead in states won
He is ahead in Pop Vote
Recent polls show him winning more Electoral votes than HRC in Nov.

The PEOPLE have spoken

What rock did you people crawl out from under?

[OzarkDem]

142. He's not ahead in the public opinion, nor in the electoral vote

Survey USA adds in California, which Obama did not win in the primary.

Bottom line - Obama has lost the primary vote in the key electoral states that Dems need to win but are not guaranteed to win:

Ohio
Pennsylvania
Florida
Michigan

He cant win those in the GE. Slice and dice the numbers all you want, but without them he will lose in November.

[stillcool]

154. I hate when people lie

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html

States that Obama has won...
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/...
Alabama
Alaska
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Iowa
Kansas
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Minnesota
Nevada
North Dakota
South Carolina
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
Wisconsin
Wyoming
+Democrats abroad

states that were tied
New Hampshire
Missouri
Texas
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_delegate_count.html

Delegate Count (2,025 Needed to Win)
Obama-1588
Clinton-1465

[OzarkDem]

171. As do I - Primary win doesn't equal GE win

are you ignorant of that fact or just lying about it?

[Garbo 2004]

228. And inverse is also true: primary loss doesn't equal GE loss. n/t

[tinrobot]

64. Then why did MI and FL choose not to have their votes count?

Before you start lumping those states into Hillary's grocery cart, you need to have real elections.

[OzarkDem]

110. MI and FL votes will count in the GE, guaranteed....

Say what you want about the legal arguments of seating delegates at the Convention, but the rubber meets the road in November and those states will be voting and their votes (and electoral votes) will count.

Arguments about seating delegates and revotes for MI and FL won't mean anything in November - when their votes will be counted.

[Exilednight]

149. Polls show that Hillary loses Michigan and Obama wins Michigan, same with Ohio.

[OzarkDem]

175. Got a link?

[Shakespeare]

222. If you think for one second that CA won't vote dem, you're deluded.

That's one of the big reasons the Obama v. electoral map argument that Hillary supporters keep throwing out is just completely bogus.

[BlueIdaho]

13. Grasping

at straws - nice try though.

[bicentennial_baby]

14. Ah, another one who has reached the "bargaining" stage

:hug:

[BlueJac]

16. The need of this country........

Is to rid the people of the terrible spin cycle of filth coming from the Clintons.


Change is in the air, I like women but I have had enough of the Clintons.

[Joe the Revelator]

19. Remember, Hillary has lost 29 of 43 states

That is what the SD's are going to remember.

[last1standing]

21. Edwards polled best against repubs so is this really an endorsement of him?

If not, then I'd have to call this a silly, self-serving post that is purposely trying to twist the facts.

[MadBadger]

23. She's ahead in Public Opinon? I didnt know that.

[Andy823]

33. Well she may be ahead

In "public opinion", but I think the "opinion" most people have these days, is not a very good one! My son made a good comment today, he said " if she just shut up for a change, people might not hate her so much"! I had to agree with him. The more she speaks these days, the more I can't stand to listen to her!

[CoffeeCat]

88. That's why I'm looking forward to a long stretch...

...into Penn.

The more people get to know her and they more they get to know Obama--she loses
support and he gains.

It happened in Iowa. She came into our state with her inevitability strongly intact.
She had the unions, our former Dem governor and many Iowa politicians falling in line
with her. She was up 20.

The caucus campaign season was a long one. Slowly, she reveals who she is. People
don't like it. The more he campaigns, the more voters break for him.

He will take Penn, when all is said and done, because she can't sustain her leads.

If Ohio and Texas had been one week later, he would have crushed her in both states.
She had 20+ point leads in both states, and every day she lost support.

[OzarkDem]

84. Yes, she is

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08dem.htm

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm

[MadBadger]

94. Actually, Gallup has Obama up two today

And that Newsweek poll has him beating her by 1. Not to mention the RCP average for Matchups with McCain are Obama up 5.5, and Hillary up 1.7

[OzarkDem]

144. Clinton is ahead in other polls and she has won the key electoral states

those two things matter the most, regardless of the delegate math.

[sellitman]

240. Dont cloud this argument with facts.

Clearly they have no bearing on Ozark.

[cali]

24. No shs's not and YOU, didn't provide any evidence whatsoever

that she's ahead in the electoral count or in popular opinion. As usual you pulled crap out of a dark orifice and expected people to take your word for it. I wouldn't take YOUR word if you told me the sun rose in the east.

She's run a for shit campaign and is BEHIND by every measure. It's just bizarre to see these false claims put forth.

Take a look at reality. Obama is winning. Period.

[Dinger]

25. K & R. But

Obama followers are (in my opinion) hopeless, tunnel vision like a sonofabeyotch!

[OzarkDem]

89. True that, they need a reality check now and again

[lmbradford]

27. I don't understand why people keep saying this...

There are caucuses that don't record votes because they are there to elect delegates. Please consider that since these voters numbers weren't recorded that you cannot extrapolate that Clinton is ahead because nobody has counted and included caucus numbers. Why can't we all just be truthful and honest about the numbers. (I'm not saying you were being untruthful) But this message is misleading and not inclusive.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

28. Trails in delegates by 155. 600k behind in popular vote.

Wake up!

[undeterred]

40. Da Nile aint just a river in Egypt.

[OzarkDem]

161. Electoral vote and GE

winning primaries in WY don't get you anywhere in November.

Unless Obama can win OH, FL, PA and MI, he loses the GE.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

225. False. There are many ways to win.

Good luck. :hi:

[musiclawyer]

29. Ahead in public opinion?

Bullshit call. Perhaps in some other timeline. HRC has now managed to become hated by the left and the right. The supers will nor overturn the delegate leader--Obama. She could win Penn. by 100% and it would not matter. She's behind and CANNOT catch up. In essence the party supers who are inside the beltway and are trying to be loyal to her for one last firewall, are merely postponing the inevitable and risking real harm if she continues to go ape on Obama in the interim.

[OzarkDem]

32. Yep, believe it or not, the public votes in the GE

not just college students in caucuses.

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08dem.htm

[slick8790]

42. That's why she's doing so well with independents and disgruntled republicans

that'll help us win in the GE, right? ...Oh wait. That's not her.

[OzarkDem]

69. Popular vote and electoral vote are all that matters

[Quixote1818]

49. She may have pulled ahead by one point after her campaign sent out all the Obama is a Muslim

emails and her campaign called him a drug dealer and she endorsed McCain. Imagine if Obama had done the same to her. And there is a lot of legitimate scum that he could go after, not made up crap. She is a disgrace to the party. Disgusting!

[VolcanoJen]

55. Look at all those college students caucusing yesterday in Laramie, WY

[OzarkDem]

75. Bless their hearts, its not enough

Wyoming's electoral votes will likely go to McCain in November.

[VolcanoJen]

102. Remember when Dukakis won OH, TX, CA, PA, FL and NJ in the primaries?

And went on to lose ALL Of them against George HW Bush in November?

I remember.

[OzarkDem]

114. ROFL, Clinton is no Dukakis

and you know that. Good try, though, no cigar.

[VolcanoJen]

119. Dukakis lost because he ran a shitty campaign in the general election.

The Clinton campaign has offered us no indication that they are capable of running any kind of campaign, at this juncture.

I loved Mike Dukakis and worked my ass of for him, by the way. It was my first presidential campaign.

[OzarkDem]

124. I rest my case

Chill out.

[VolcanoJen]

128. Quit baiting people.

You never stop. Do you even get who's doing the laughing?

[OzarkDem]

148. Yeah, and Paul Hackett would have won the Ohio senate race

and he would have been a better senator than Sherrod. :rofl:

[VolcanoJen]

151. OK.

Do you need a bowl of soup, or something? I found shoveling snow to be kind of relaxing this morning.

[Mooney]

31. The electoral vote count is irrelevant in the primary

Since Obama will carry the exact same "big states" that Clinton won in the primary --- unless you honestly believe New York State will go Republican this fall.

As far as public opinion, that's unconfirmed and subject to change.

You don't have an argument here.

[HeraldSquare212]

36. So electoral count and polls trump vote and delegates?

Gosh, why did we even bother....

[NanceGreggs]

37. If the majority of voters have decided on Hillary ...

... why is she losing to Obama?

She's already hinted at a VP slot for him? How incredibly gracious of the candidate in second place "hinting" that she'd offer the VP position to the guy who's ahead.

But, yeah, of course it's the fact that she's a woman. There couldn't possibly be any other explanation for why she's losing.

Jesus wept.

[movonne]

46. Yes and you sure do not want to be sexist...

[sellitman]

53. Nance... Don't you know up is down?

Wow....these kinds of posts really have me scratching my head. With what little hair I have left that is not good.

[NanceGreggs]

58. I completely forgot about that up/down thing ...

I blame it on Daylight Savings Time. I think losing that hour last night must have addled my brain.

:hi:

[Mz Pip]

168. When did this

General Election for electoral votes happen? I think I missed something.

I thought it was supposed to be in November. How silly of me to actually expect a real election. We should choose our candidate on speculation. :crazy:

[boston bean]

57. Nance, you just don't want to look at the other side. the FL and MI

thing is the only thing that keeps him in the lead. he cannot win by default that way.

[tammywammy]

83. You said it much better than I could

:hi: Good post.

[OzarkDem]

130. Majority of voters & electoral vote

Those are the keys to winning in the GE.

Winning Dem caucuses in states that will go GOP in November doesn't help win the GE.

Slice and dice it all you want, the bottom line is winning the popular vote - of all voters, not just Dems - and winning the electoral vote. Those are the things the superdelegates take into consideration when voting at the Convention, as they should.

[NanceGreggs]

131. Yes, and there is no 'electoral vote' at play in the primaries ...

Is your suggestion that the fact that Hillary is losing to Obama in the primary process somehow means she will win the GE?

I'm really not following that logic ...

[OzarkDem]

178. Sorry but the facts are there

and yes, you can win the popular vote of Democrats who vote in the Democratic primary (Obama is not ahead by much in that case) and still lose the GE by not winning enough electoral votes.

Sorry, its reality.

[NanceGreggs]

185. Thanks for the education.

Of course, I never realized that. :sarcasm:

But this still has nothing to do with your original contention that Hillary has won more electoral votes in the primaries - where there are no electoral votes in the equation.

That is what I was commenting on.

[OzarkDem]

188. She has won more

and in additon, she has won the key states that are required for winning the electoral college

MI, OH, PA, and FL.

She also won California.


Please tell me again how Obama will win the electoral vote in the GE when he lost all those states in the primary.

[NanceGreggs]

192. One has nothing to do with the other ...

The primaries are (D) v (D), the GE is (D) v (R).

The only way how many votes Obama or Hillary win in the primaries in each state would impact anything is if every Obama supporter refused to vote for Hillary, and vice-versa in the GE.

I note you're counting Hill's votes in MI and FL. They don't count.

[OzarkDem]

209. MI and FL and their electoral vote count in the GE

Let me see if I can make this simpler for you:

Certain states are necessary to win in the GE in order to win the electoral vote

Of the key electoral states that every candidate must win, and of which the Dems have a more likely chance of winning, Obama has lost to Clinton in every one of those key states.

Logic dictates that, in order to win the key states needed for electoral and GE victory, Dems should run their strongest candidate in those states in the GE, ie the Dem candidate who won those states in the primary

The Dem candidate who, in the primary, has won more of the key electoral states Dems need to win in the GE stands the greatest odds of winning.

Winning Wyoming does not equal winning Ohio

Losing the California or Ohio Dem primaries does not equal beating McCain there in the GE, but winning the Dem primary in CA and Ohio and MI and FL and PA DOES mean greater chance of carrying those states in the GE.

Running Obama and expecting him to win the GE in key electoral states he lost in the primary when Dems have a candidate who won them is an unnecessary risk.

[NanceGreggs]

212. You need electoral votes to win the GE!!!!

WOW!!!! Again, I never knew that!

Let me make it simpler for you: If Hillary is the stronger candidate, why is Obama winning? Or is she still in her "getting warmed up" phase?

[yourguide]

54. Is that all you have left?

sad.

[Thepricebreaker]

59. Wow Hillary supporters are REALLY grasping now.. ITS OVER FOR HER...

[OzarkDem]

65. Sorry, but we can't rely on pipe dreams

Obama cannot win key electoral states in the GE that he has already lost in the primary, some by considerable margins. Spin it all you want, but our Dem candidate has to win the GE to get in the WH.

Last time I checked, having the majority of delegates in the Dem primary wasn't enough.

[Thepricebreaker]

77. LOL your spinning so much you have come 360 about 100 times... GE votes mean nothing in the primary.

[AlertLurker]

61. You have to win the delegates before the electoral votes, remember?

Sheesh. Talk about putting the cart before the horse.

[John Q. Citizen]

63. I live in Montana. We voted the first woman to the House of Representatives. We will vote Obama this

year. Obama will win here handily on June 3rd when we hold our primary.

We will add to Obama's lead in delegates, the popular vote, and in the number of contests won.

Posting bogus information may make you feel good, but it is destroying your reputation on this board, Ozark Dem. Why should anyone ever believe you about anything ever again?

Obama is leading currently in popular vote, in contests won, and in delegates. If you define that as losing, you have zero integrity.

While I respect your right to prefer whichever candidate you choose, I do not respect your right to make up a bunch of BS.

I am bookmarking your post, and will cite it liberally into the future on this board long after the primaries have come and gone. People should be held accountable for purposely distorting facts.

[OzarkDem]

86. That's very nice, but its not enough to win the GE

Sorry, but our candidate needs to win the electoral vote.

[John Q. Citizen]

105. I will remember. You may feel propaganda will win the day for you, but it won't work this time.

[OzarkDem]

223. Evidence based politics are the basis of my argument

what is the basis of yours?

Its time to move the discussion beyond parsing wins of Dem primaries in Wyoming to putting the pencil to which candidate can win the necessary states and electoral votes in November.

Toss the SurveyUSA map around all you want, but get down in the links and look at the data in the polls and you will see they are not up to date in most cases. The poll that shows Obama being able to beat McCain in Ohio was taken BEFORE he lost the Ohio primary to Clinton.

Those are the facts that win in November.

[Rocky2007]

186. Is your last name Bush by chance?

[DerekJ]

71. Where did you get the information that she is ahead in electoral votes? N/T

[sellitman]

76. It must have been here....

[Starbucks Anarchist]

78. She couldn't even run a campaign from day one.

[rateyes]

81. How the HELL can anyone be ahead in electoral votes...

when there has been no election deciding them? Wishful thinking.

[OzarkDem]

97. Winning the primary in those states

w/ enough support to also carry the state in the GE.

Key "borderline" states that are MUST WIN for the electoral vote in the GE are MI, OH, PA and FL, among others. Obama has not won any of those states, but Clinton has (or in the case of PA, is likely to)

[rateyes]

103. Bull.

If Kerry had carried Virginia in the last election he would be President. Obama can lose all the states Kerry lost, pick up one red state, and he will be POTUS. And, he will pick up Virginia and a couple of others. Hillary will have a tougher time doing that. And, if you think Obama can lose California, you're on drugs.

[OzarkDem]

115. Some of us care about this country

and we're not willing to take a gamble on candidates who can't win big electoral states.

[rateyes]

152. Thanks for insinuating that I don't care about this country...

Where did you get that line? Some right-wing blog?

But, since you feel the need to insult, let me return the favor.

Some of us care about this country and we're not willing to take a gamble on Hillary Clinton, who is less electable in the GE than is Barack Obama.

[OzarkDem]

167. We agree to disagree

and I'm proud to be a woman who is not intimidated by men.

[ebdarcy]

90. If she's such the better candidate, then why isn't she winning?

She's behind in both the delegate count and the popular vote. And the VP slot isn't hers to offer, because she's the second place candidate. But, since you were kind enough to offer some advice to Senator Obama, I'd would like to return the favor and offer some advice to Senator Clinton.

Take a hint, Hillary and put the needs of your party and your country ahead of your ego.

[OzarkDem]

234. She is

[Spider Jerusalem]

91. This is a stupid argument.

It's completely moronic to think that Obama would LOSE California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, etc. in a general election.

Opinion polls change from day to day, and it's delegates that decide the nominee. There ARE NO ELECTORAL VOTES IN A PRIMARY.

[Bluerthanblue]

93. Sorry, this isn't even a 'good try'- Hillary can never win the GE-

and she's had her turn in the WH.

peace~

[PetraPooh]

95. Not by any public opinion I've seen. Please provide links to this opinion.

[krkaufman]

98. Great book to read: "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them"

It would appear that a much smaller percentage of the country is willing to vote for Hillary than Obama, given both her Democratic primary & caucus results, as well as nearly ubiquitous national polling estimates.

As for the electoral vote count. None of the three candidates are ahead, as the voting is not until November. As for electoral college estimates, again you're in error (unless referencing another source from those seen on DU). Try this one on for size.

http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/2008/03/06/electoral-math-as-of-030608-obama-280-mccain-258/

Obama fares better than Clinton, though both are estimated *barely* ahead of St. McCain.

Your spin doesn't fit, you must admit.

[Upton]

99. You are wrong

according to this: http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=4374 Obama gets more potential electoral votes versus McCain, not Clinton.

[krkaufman]

122. Thanks for that link. The underlying data is even more telling.

Obama's numbers are much more solid than Clinton's. 163 solid Obama votes, to just 77 for Clinton.

Solid Obama--163 (eleven or more points)
Lean Obama--66 (six to ten points)
Toss-up--186: (five points or less)
Lean McCain--25 (six to ten points)
Solid McCain--98 (eleven or more points)

Solid Clinton--77 (eleven or more points)
Lean Clinton--126 (six to ten points)
Toss Up--135 (five points or less)
Lean McCain--136 (six to ten points)
Solid McCain--65 (eleven or more points)

'nuff said.

[OzarkDem]

126. Major flaw there

Obama didn't win the primary in California. Clinton did.

Take out California, where there is no guarantee he would win in the GE, and the equation changes.

[kid a]

106. OK...Now you are sounding MORANISH11!!11

Are you fucking serious?

Ozark Dem? For real?

[Suzie57]

107. I am not a sexist or a racist

Gender and Race mean nothing to me in picking a candidate. I preferred Edwards and see Clinton and Obama as too far to the right with very similar policies. Forced to choose between the two I prefer Obama. Your logic is quite flawed, Obama will win the blue states in the GE and may gain a few that Clinton won't.

[VolcanoJen]

109. Let's apply the Dukakis Model to your "Clinton ahead in electoral count" argument.

In 1988, Mike Dukakis beat Jesse Jackson, Paul Tsongas and Al Gore for the Democratic nomination, in part by winning "Big State" primaries in Ohio, Texas, New Jersey, Florida, Michigan, California, and Pennsylvania.

In the November election against George H.W. Bush, Dukakis lost 41 states, winning victories in only 9 states plus DC.

Dukakis lost all of those big primary states in November. Every single one.

It's always been my feeling that this historic 2008 Election is a different animal entirely, so applying past elections to this one is nothing more than sport & entertainment. This race has surprised at every turn, and is likely to continue doing so.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

112. Hmmm.

:thumbsup:

[Deja Q]

111. She also sends out flyers about Bush allowing jobs going offshore.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Hillary+Clinton+offshoring&btnG=Search

How can she try to shame any other politician for doing so?

Will she address future needs instead of empty pandering?

I liked her talk on 'green' jobs, but she didn't say much on details -- like wages.

If she can reform the insurance system, so much the better. People who pay into something all their lives and then get canceled due to actually needing what they paid in for...

[Quixote1818]

116. Latest Gallup Poll shows you are wrong. nt

[bowens43]

125. Wow. What a misleading post.

Hillary is NOT ahead in the 'electoral vote count. There isn't an electoral vote count and you know that but still you post this ridiculous bullshit. Hillary is a loser. Hillary can not beat McCain. If by some miracle or vote fraud, she did beat McCain, her presidency would be disaster. Her love of power would make bushes constitutional abuses look like child's play.

Trying to make this into something about gender just makes you foolish.
\Clearly, if the choice is between Clinton and McCain , McCasin is going to win easily.

[whatchamacallit]

129. Tenacious aren't we?

Like a rabid pit bull.

[berni_mccoy]

135. Clinton supporters continue to make DU look DUMB.

[AtomicKitten]

139. She's losing the popular vote, delegate vote, and states won.

She's losing. Period. And she can't catch up.

[saltpoint]

141. Obama has two daughters and a wonderful wife. Looks to me like he's come

to grips with gender some time ago.

[Gore1FL]

145. Request for ands\wers and links links

Clinton is ahead in the electoral vote count & in public opinion

Do yo have a link?

I have one that shows the opposite:

http://www.surveyusa.com/

The rest of the country is willing to vote for a woman because she's the most qualified candidate.

He has more experience as an elected official. By what standard is she more experienced?

She has the most detailed agenda and policy positions.

Please compare and contrast their positons

She's already done her homework and can run the country from day one.

Please provide a linkthat shows Obama hasn't and can't.

She's also an experienced and successful campaigner with a strong base of support.

Based on election results in thenomination phase, he beats her in this regard.

Why can't the minority of Obama supporters come to grips with the gender issue?

There is probably a minority of Hillary voters who have a race issue. It's wrong to judge and enitre campaign by a negligable faction from either campaign.

The majority of voters have decided she's stong enough, qualified enough and they feel she will represent their interests.

The majpority of representatives of a larger amount of voters say e's stong enough, qualified enough and they feel she will represent their interests.

She's already hinted at the VP slot for him. Take a hint, Obama and put the needs of your party and your country ahead of your ego.


Why should the 1st place candidate quit to allow the second place candidate?

[OzarkDem]

153. Links here - Survery USA adds CA for Obama

He didn't win the Dem primary there and there is no guarantee he would win in the GE

Survey USA's calculation gives California to both Obama and Clinton - dubious at best

http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/2008/03/06/electoral-math-as-of-030608-clinton-276-mccain-262/

You must also include the states of OH, MI, PA and FL, which must be won in the electoral vote for any Dem to win.
Obama has lost in all of them and, again, is not guaranteed to carry them in the GE.


Clinton has:

Already won the key states that need to be won in the electoral vote

Is the best qualified candidate

Is ahead in public opinion polls

Is a known (versus unknown) quantity

Obama is too risky, why take the chance when you can have a better candidate. Men (and a few women) need to get over the fact that she's a woman. If she were a man this primary would be over by now.

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08dem.htm

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm

[Gore1FL]

194. Let's see here

He didn't win the Dem primary there and there is no guarantee he would win in the GE

He won lots of primaries. He won:

South Carolina
Louisiana
The Virgin Islands
Alabama
Connecticut
Georgia
Delaware
Illinois
Missouri
Virgina
Wisconsin
Maryland
Vermont

He also won most of the caucuses:

Iowa
Alaska
Colorado
Kansas
Minnesota
Idaho
North Dakota
Washington
Maine
Hawaii
Texas
Wyoming

Even if you only include states that have gone blue in the last two elections, and have electoral votes her was won 11 compared to Clinton winning 6 such states.

The overall contests won are 29-13.

He leads in Popular vote -- and that discounts the the Caucuses. Though not a rationale scale touse, he is still winning it.

Survey USA's calculation gives California to both Obama and Clinton - dubious at best

Using Polling information this far out is dubious, or saying that Obama can win CA is dubious?

To rebut the first, I agree but the Clinton argument relies on Obama not being able to win states based on current polling or primary/caucus results. If you use the this argument, hat sort of shoots the orinal argument in the foot. To rebut the second, show me polling that gives any indication that McCain would win CA.

You must also include the states of OH, MI, PA and FL, which must be won in the electoral vote for any Dem to win. Obama has lost in all of them and, again, is not guaranteed to carry them in the GE.

Not necessarily, but current polling shows Obama winning in MI, and OH. Neither is winning FL, and neither is likely to because Gov Crist is a poipular Governor and will likely be McCains VP. PA will likely go to the Democratic Candidate who ever it is.

Hillary isn't guaranteed to win any of these four either.

Clinton has:

Already won the key states that need to be won in the electoral vote

Obama has won key states needed to be won by the democrats in an electoral vote too. Unless you consider:

Connecticut
Delaware
Illinois
Missouri
Virgina
Wisconsin
Maryland
Vermont
Iowa
Minnesota
Washington
Maine
Hawaii

To be of no value in this regard.

Clinton has:

Is the best qualified candidate

It depends on what makes one qualified. Obama,for example has more experience as an elected offical.

Clinton has:

Is ahead in public opinion polls

She leads in negatives. Buit she does;t havea lead in the national polls vs Obama based on what I saw on Meet the Press today.

Clinton has:

Is a known (versus unknown) quantity

I don't think this is true, exaclty, but I know some of the things her quanity is known for--Authorization to use force in Iraq, declaring the Iranian military terrorists, opining the need for aflag burning amendment...etc.

Obama is too risky, why take the chance when you can have a better candidate.

Why, is he too risky? please quantify how she is better.

Men (and a few women) need to get over the fact that she's a woman.

If that accounts for any portion of the vote, does that not mean it will make her risky by your own argument? Or do you expexct sexism to dissappear in the U.S. in the next 8 months?

If she were a man this primary would be over by now.

That is sort of like saying if Obama were white this would be over by now. She is not a man, he is not white, and there is no documentationto show that either statement is true.


I'm sorry, but your arguments are either false, based on speculation, or based on ideas you reject when the same standards are applied to the the candidate.

If nominated, either Clinton and Obama are going to win the general election against McCain.

To argue otherwise assumes people are going to place party nomination over Health care,civil rights,endless and expanded war, joblessness, deficits, bad schools, a declining economy, horrid foreign policy, the privatization of everything, a radical swing of the Supreme Court to the right wing, continued shredding of the constitution, implies that Democrats are not intelligent enough or patriotic enough to save the country from four more years of such trends.

[stillcool]

150. Lie!!!

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html

[Drunken Irishman]

155. Do you understand the primary process?

Or are you that ignorant to the whole system?

I pity you.

[OzarkDem]

159. Do you understand the GE process and the electoral college?

The reason we have super delegates and conventions is so Dem leaders can make mid-course corrections needed to win the GE.

Parse your primary math all you want, it doesn't have any meaning in the GE. And we must get a Dem elected, whether its Obama or not.

[Drunken Irishman]

182. So why is Obama doing better in the EC than Clinton?

You're foolishly speculating and it's making you look desperate.

[Gore1FL]

199. Yeah...

The mid-course corrections would be to change the outcome in light of a major scandal.

Primary math has an impact in the GE in the sense that it provides the candidate for the GE.

And yes we must get a Dem elected. Lucky for us, the first place and second place candidates we have could both put McCain away.

[icnorth]

239. "...we have super delegates

and conventions...so Dem leaders can make mid-course corrections..." This would work somewhat in the same manner as SCOTUS back in 2000?

[CyberPieHole]

157. K&R for Hillary Clinton the 44th President of the U.S. of A. n/t

[JerseygirlCT]

162. I am so sick and tired of having my support for Obama classified as

sexism!

Do you not understand that that in itself is a symptom of sexism? The idea that I'd need to vote for a woman because I'm a woman is ridiculous. The idea that Clinton can't stand on her own, regardless of gender is ridiculous. The idea that when she does, and someone doesn't much like what they see, the reason is always sexism is ridiculous.

[slinkerwink]

180. Actually, polls show Obama would get electoral college vote MORE

than Clinton with his wins so far.

[City Lights]

183. Did you order her crown already?

She's ahead in the Electoral Vote count. The Electoral Vote isn't counted until votes in the GE are cast. :eyes:

Between your classic crowd-size-envy thread and this one, you are quite the entertainer!

:rofl:

[fujiyama]

193. Then maybe, just maybe

she should have run a better ground game and won those damn delegates early on.

But she didn't. And she doesn't have a chance in catching up. So now your only chance is to have Super Delegates decide this your way. Good luck with that!

[donheld]

195. What an idiot

It has nothing to do with gender, it has to do with Hillary.
She'd lose us more blue states than gain us anything at all.


You belong on my ignore list.

[OzarkDem]

211. When the better candidate who has the greater odds of winning the GE

is spurned in favor of a candidate who is less qualified and less likely to win the GE, sexism is a pretty fair assessment.

Get used to it. You're going to have a Dem woman president.

[anonymous171]

220. She's not the better candidate. So you're premise fails.

They are evenly qualified on terms of experience. Obama actually has more experience than she does.

[jzodda]

200. Too bad you forget that in the General the Republicans get to vote too

shocked huh? They are angry and may stay at home if Obama is the nominee, but if HRC is the nominee they will come out in large numbers in Ohio and Florida and we lose again. Obama might actually be able to change the blue and red state thing in ways HRC could not. They were talking about that on Late edition today. For instance Obama may put Virginia in play, and some other traditional red states. Fact is there are people who will not vote for HRC because she is who she is. Obama does not have that baggage.

O and in the latest national polls Obama is creaming McCain in General. HRC is not....


General Election Democrats Republicans
Obama vs. McCain Obama 48.0 McCain 42.5
Clinton vs. McCain Clinton 48.0 McCain 46.3

[Name removed]

206. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Splinter Cell]

207. Bullshit

Hillary wouldn't have a snowball's chance in HELL of winning in November. PERIOD. She needs to step aside. This is beyond old.

[Froward69]

226. youve made a mistake in your logic

The same as hillary... that is that smaller states dont matter. (coupled with if not hillary, mcaint would be a better prez than Obama) whomever gets the nom gets to battle mcaint for those electorial; votes. GOOD dems would vote for whomever gets the nom.

SO Hillary your logic follows Bush hand and hand. (like how he treated Louisiana) ALL States Matter.
so to correct your last line...
"Take a hint, Hillary and put the needs of your party and your country ahead of your ego."

[Political Heretic]

229. Obama is also ahead in electoral vote count and public opion

over McCain, according to surveyUSA and other polls.

other polls show neither ahead.

:shrug:

[uponit7771]

230. In all due respect you can't be serious?!!? If Hillary supporters are this desperate I can imagine.....

...what Hillary's campaign is doing now.

[itsrobert]

231. So you think Obama's not going to win New York and California in the general?

Let's forget you even posted this.

[jmg257]

238. Yep, she is wonderful! She's running #2 - in the "BIG picture" she WON'T get the nomination!

The majority of votes and delegates in the primaries are going to Obama. Everything you fantasize happening AFTER is mute.

[BenDavid]

241. great and hrc is on the way to 1/20/09

[sellitman]

242. On the to what?

Being Senator of NY is all she is on the way to do.

[yewberry]

244. Riiight. Supporting Obama makes you sexist.

:eyes:

And given the fact that Obama is ahead in both delegate count and popular vote, how did you come to believe that Clinton is supported by "the majority of voters?"

[RBInMaine]

246. Gee, another person voting mainly on gender. Give us a BREAK!

Strong base of support? When HALF the nation despises her?? When our MANY down-ticket Dems in the "red" and "purple" states don't want to be seen with her? When Obama is AHEAD in delegates, states won, and popular vote. When she uses the "kitchen sink" "scorched Earth" and SICKENING PARTY-DESTROYING "McCain has more experience than Obama" tactics. How you can support Hillary and her sickening "sell my soul to try and win and election" tactics is utterly beyond.

And PS: This is election is NOT about gender. You are supporting her MAINLY because you want a female, NOT because you want who is obviously the best national candidate who can help our ENTIRE party north south east and west. And that's pretty damn sad.