If Obama is so fucking unelectable...

[jgraz]

what does that say about the candidate who is currently LOSING to him?

[berni_mccoy]

1. *crickets*... Hillary supporters running away faster than Clinton can complement McCain.

[Yossariant]

5. 'Cause they've has a full minute to respond here.

:rofl:

[skater314159]

57. Scattering like freaks at a rave when the DEA shows up...

[ossman]

2. forward to David Axlerod and the Obama communications dept!

Sounds reasonable to me

[uponit7771]

126. Can you give contact info for them, I think I'll follow up later today with same thing. Thx

[jlake]

3. Don't you think that Edwards was more electable than Obama or Hillary?

Because I did... and he lost a long time ago.

[babylonsister]

8. No. He'd be there otherwise. nt

[jlake]

10. lol. now THAT is funny. The Democratic Party has a history of casting out our most electable

candidates early on.... Biden and Edwards both would have won in a walk.

Last go 'round Clark and Dean would have won in a walk.

[babylonsister]

21. LOL. He's not there. What does that tell you, braintrust?

We'd be talking about Edwards, no?

[jlake]

22. It tells me that big money & purity tests push out our most electable candidates.

[babylonsister]

29. Jeeze. You were a Clinton supporter, were gonna leave, now you're

an Edwards supporter? Oye! You are as I envisioned you! And BTW, I thought you got so appalled you left!
And what happened with Clinton?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5027581&mesg_id=5028120

[jlake]

34. I was for Biden and Edwards before I came to Hilly as a last resort against the cult of Obama.

But I have grown to love Hillary and will be devastated beyond repair if the Obama cultists manage to steal the nomination from the Hillblazer.

[babylonsister]

45. How old are you and how impressionable? Seriously.

I was never for Biden or Edwards. Do you remember when Biden was a blowhard? Has anyone mentioned that lately? Come on. Are you reacting? You've 'grown to love' Hillary. How did you do that? :rofl:

[jlake]

52. The same age as you. 26. I love me some Biden - he is a blowhard - a brilliant and loveable blowhard

I see the powers that be aligning behind Obama and know that he is the true establishment candidate.
His religious/savior/preacher aura is very off-putting to me.
Hillary has shown her fighting spirit and her true self and my respect for her grew and turned into great admiration.
She has devoted her life to bettering the world - and she deserves a shot at the presidency. Obama's arrogant entitlement attitude is very much a negative to my opinion of him.
'

[babylonsister]

84. Do you know what's weird to me?

I see NONE of that religious stuff you're talking about; if I did, I wouldn't like Obama. Honestly, I am not religious and have no use for people who are fans for that reason.

You've been on DU; if you value Clinton, good for you. I never have, and she's done nothing to convert me.

And how old are you really? I'm 52. Let's get real. You probably know nothing about Biden.

[jlake]

No, that is unfair. I am 24. I think it is disingenuous of you to question

my knowledge of Biden. I admire him greatly and feel he was the most qualified person for the job.
And I do honestly see very heavy overtones of religious rhetoric/images/thought in the Obama campaign.
If you don't, you don't.... but I am clearly not alone in that thought considering the number of newspaper and magazine articles on the subject.
I really do like Hillary, and much of that has to do with her personality -- the same reason that many gravitate towards Obama.
I actually think Obama is a decent guy with very high potential... what I am not buying is the whole PR campaign of "hope, change, transformation" etc... that is simply not something I can get behind. (not the ideas, but his claim that he and only he can deliver those things) I think Obama is incredibly naive, and that he is NOT a fighter.... which is what we desperately need against the GOP.
i have no illusions that they will mercilessly attack Hillary.... but it seems many Obama supporters think he will be immune and win in a landslide.

[babylonsister]

120. Okay.

And damn, I could be your mother. :cry: If you really do like Hillary, good for you. That's certainly allowed. But I really don't, and never really have. I think I can attribute that to Clinton overload, having paid attention and defended the family when they needed defending.

Do you know why I like Obama? Precisely because of his message (and his background, which I have researced exhaustively). Hope, change, transformation, he may not be the only person who can deliver, but he's the only one who has ever even tried to change the political dialogue in my lifetime, since I've been of voting age. And you don't know if he's naive or a fighter, do you. Your assumptions are premature. I think he's an elegant fighter, using words instead of invective. Just wait and see.

[jlake]

92. Dupe - Delete.

[akbacchus_BC]

139. You have the audacity to call Senator Obama's supporters a cult? The venom you spout is unbelievable

But hey, we still supporting Senator Obama and he is going to be the nominee! Wow, venom is an understatement the likes of you spout!

[Umbram]

39. You know how it goes - "That's it, I quit!" - then wait desperately for attention. (nt)

[skater314159]

60. Yep, attention seeking behaviour. nt

[dchill]

26. Keep on trying, jlake.

:)

[MagsDem]

72. Obama supporters don't understand basic electoral politics

Like for instance that a candidate can win every red state in a democratic primary and win none of them in a GE. They all need a civics class in electoral politics, and have the news broken to them that the GE doesn't include caucuses.

[jgraz]

83. This from someone who still doesn't know her candidate is BEHIND in the popular vote

:eyes:

[last_texas_dem]

104. And there are a number of Clinton supporters who apparently don't, either

You know, the ones who claim that because Clinton is winning the big, (mostly) blue states in the primaries, that means that she is the only potential Democratic candidate who can win them in the general election?

[jmg257]

112. Apparently his campaign does - they are kicking Hill's ass. Of course his supporters help.

We understand you must become the nominee (and w/o pissing off your own party), and THEN you can worry about the GE.


Ya think Hillary, with all her "vast experience", would understand THAT! She doesn't, so she will lose.

[QC]

123. They think that when Obama hits the Republicans with his faith healer tent revival routine.

then will be as blown away by it as the Obama crowd themselves were and will join hands for some old fashioned unity 'n change.

No need to know anything about electoral politics in that scenario.

[NMMatt]

151. It's the polls

He consistently outpolls her in many of the so called red states (CO, NV, NC, VA) vs. McCain and even makes a number of them competative. And yes... winning a primary does prove a certain level of electablity. Of course the reverse is true. I mean Bill Clinton came in third in Iowa and still carried it in the GE. So all this BS spin about Hillary being more competative in OH based on a primary is crap. The fact is that current polls show them equally competative with McCain.

[John Q. Citizen]

74. He had the grace to bow out when it became apparent he wasn't winning.

Shame that others in simular situations aren't as intuitive or caring about the party or the country.

I suppose if McCain exploits the situation and he appoints judges who are anti -choice and he continues to rape the poor, things are bound to get a lot worse for women and children in this country.

I guess the lust for power blinds some people to the higher greater good sometimes.

[jlake]

96. Your points have nothing to do with the question posed...... Typical Obama.

[Voice for Peace]

111. I thought at first he was most electable but was concerned that his anti-corporate

stance was too threatening, and he would be powerfully opposed by people on both sides of the aisle who are invested in corporations. I think this is why he was so marginalized by the media, and therefore didn't get the exposure to get the votes.

I would love to see him as VP or attorney general (even better).

Jlake I have read so many of your posts and I wish you would get to know the man Obama. I don't like using the word "should" or telling anybody else what to do. But I wish you would. You seem smart and you're passionate, yet you're overlooking the substance of what this man is about. If you would be willing to look more deeply into the substance of what he says, and what he has done in his life, your perspective may shift, you may even start to respect him.

He doesn't make claims to be the only one who can bring hope, this is a misreading. All of us need to believe in possibilities, ie, that the things that need urgently to be changed in our world CAN be changed. It isn't up to him, it is up to all of us, and I hear him emphasize that point. What he is doing is inspiring and empowering people to take responsibility for this.

He is a fighter, but more than a fighter, he's got a gift for motivating others. If you've ever worked with a really great manager or organizer, you know what a difference it makes in accomplishing difficult tasks.

[Independent-Voter]

117. Edwards couldn't even win reelection as a senator in North Carolina

[akbacchus_BC]

137. What's your point? Didn't Edwards voted for the invasion and

occupation of Iraq? Obama did not!

[JVS]

4. She just suffers under the hardships of being white and a family member of a former president.

It's a fucking miracle that W was able to overcome those obstacles and achieve the presidency. What are the odds of it happening again?

[babylonsister]

Oye. I don't want to know. nt

[BzaDem]

6. Electable in the GE is very different than electable in the primary.

I definately give him credit for doing well in the primary. But huge landslides in states Bush won by 40 points doesn't get him anywhere in the GE. It certainly doesn't make up for his problems in FL/PA/OH, of which we need to win 2.

So that is the difference. In the primary, huge landslides are very important due to proportional representation. In the GE, huge landslides are mathematical equal to one point victories in either direction.

[Exilednight]

Neither candidate will win Florida, polling shows that both will win PA, and......

Hillary win Ohio, but polling shows that he doesn't need to. He can pick up other states that Hillary will lose to offset Ohio.

Polling shows that Hillary will currently win Florida, but if McCain picks Crist as his running mate, then it's a loss.

[Birthmark]

7. That she's not as popular with...

...35% - 40% of the electorate as Obama. It means very little.

[Double T]

9. The GE is NOT a F-ing manipulated caucus.

obama doesn't stand a chance in HELL in a straight up vote in a voting booth or station. No cheerleaders to intimidate, manipulate or create peer pressure THERE!

[ingac70]

11. Keep ignoring all the primaries he has won. n/t

[Zhade]

12. Keep telling youself that, it must be the only balm soothing you over Clinton's LOSS.

NT!

[krawhitham]

15. She is behind in primary states too

SPIN THAT, nut job

[dbonds]

If you only value primaries, Obama has won more of them than Hillary too.

There is no metric which has Hillary in a lead other than selecting only the states she won and saying that is the grouping that counts.

[jgraz]

30. Wrong.

Hillary is kicking Obama's ass in the COMPLETE BULLSHIT metric

She's also waaaay out in front on WHINING and PLAYING THE RACE CARD. I don't see how he can ever catch her.

[dbonds]

37. I stand corrected :)

I was actually referring to 'winning the nomination' metric. But you have a great point.

[jgraz]

40. Are you kidding? Those ARE the metrics she's using to "win" the nomination

God knows she ain't gonna get it on votes.

[dbonds]

129. You misunderstand.

My post was about metrics that can be used to determine the winner, not tactics. Everyone knows she is playing dirty, but it isn't getting her anywhere.

[boppers]

46. Whoa... Snap!

Take that, Obama<insert diminutive here>!

[dbonds]

130. I don't understand.

He was slamming Hillary's tactics, I don't see how your response applies.

[boppers]

131. Sorry, forgot this:

:sarcasm:

[skater314159]

64. Its like drawing a bull's-eye around a dart. nt

[MagsDem]

73. And no bussing in kids on a temp payroll to pretend they live...

in a precinct they don't live in.

[jgraz]

125. Still hurts that he ate your lunch in Iowa, eh?

:rofl:

[goclark]

13. I can just see Obama saying that without the *****

[jgraz]

19. Wanna bet he throws in a **** when the cameras aren't around?

:D

[Yossariant]

14. He is hoist on the petard of his own primary strategy.

His inabilty to win in the states the Democrats NEED to win is why he can't win the general election.

South Carolina hasn't gone to the Dems since Carter in 1976 --- ditto most of the states where he has had his biggest success.

THAT'S WHY WE CALL THEM "RED STATE CAUCUSES."

Obama can't win Ohio and, if you look at an electoral map, he MUST win Ohio to beat McCain.

[ingac70]

18. Hillary lost DC, Maryland, Delaware...

I'm suppose to believe the loser of the primary in a blue state won't win it in the GE? :eyes:

[jgraz]

23. Wisconsin, Illinois, Connecticut, Hawaii

[Yossariant]

32. He should win those states AND HE STILL NEEDS OHIO.

[jgraz]

33. Then I hope you're planning on working your ass off for him

But I'm guessing... no.

[Yossariant]

41. I don't live in Ohio and have no plans to go there. The chance of my state going GOP is nonexistent.

[jgraz]

49. You can phone bank from wherever you are

I've probably called 35 states from my house in California.

[jgraz]

71. * cricket noise * cricket noise * cricket noise * cricket noise *

Just as I thought.

[Yossariant]

79. You and the horse you came in on, Jiminy.

I'll probably spend the rest of my life using my time however I please -- not however YOU please.

:evilgrin:

[jgraz]

81. Yep, listening to Rush and watching Glen Beck

[Yossariant]

25. You're being silly.

Obama MUST win MD, VA and DE in the general and I expect he will win them.

He also MUST win Ohio.

He will lose Ohio to McCain.

[ingac70]

31. It isn't a given Hillary can win it...

Ohio has a history of voting against its economic interests.

[Drachasor]

43. Eh

Given that Hillary would motivate and energize the Republican base, she might fair a lot worse than Obama in the Ohio election in the general.

[Yossariant]

53. Obama's problem is motivating and energizing the Democratic base:

The vast majority of Democratic voters say they would support either Obama or Clinton over McCain. But in an Obama-McCain matchup, 14% of Democratic voters say they would support McCain, compared with 8% who would do so if Clinton is the nominee...

In addition, female Democrats look at the race differently depending on the matchup. While 93% of women in the party say they would vote for Clinton over McCain, just 79% say they would support Obama over McCain.

A quarter of Democrats (25%) who back Clinton for the nomination say they would favor McCain in a general election test against Obama. The "defection" rate among Obama's supporters if Clinton wins the nomination is far lower; just 10% say they would vote for McCain in November, while 86% say they would back Clinton.
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=1254

[jgraz]

61. Yeah, those 30,000-person rallies point to a real problem in motivation and energizing

:eyes:

[Drachasor]

62. Again

That poll has a pretty small difference between Obama and Clinton, just 5% overall. With female democrats it is a bit more, but I wager a lot of that is just heat over the current nomination.

In any case, Obama makes up all losses in the Democratic party by bringing in more voters and in that poll he has the advantage against McCain. So your own poll shows that Obama is a better match against McCain! And it doesn't and can't take into account the fact that Hillary is going to increase Republican base turnout, because she will energize and rally them in a way McCain can't (like it or not, they really hate her). That gives a further advantage to Obama.

[Yossariant]

82. HUH?! What part of

"A quarter of Democrats (25%) who back Clinton for the nomination say they would favor McCain in a general election test against Obama."

are you failing to comprehend?

[Drachasor]

103. I acknowledge that, but Obama is still beating McCain by a larger margin than Hillary in that poll

What part of WINNING, don't you understand?

What part of Hillary energizing the Republican base, don't you understand? With her, more Republicans are going to vote than without her, and the polls won't reflect that (they aren't so hot when it comes to this).

[goclark]

124. Which polls are we suppose to believe and how do

we know exactly how they polled and got data input?

Ex: I am an African American woman/ do I count twice or once
in every single poll.

So many questions ~ don't know what to believe

[SunsetDreams]

69. about OH...

FDR and Kennedy didn't win OH

[Yossariant]

93. The electoral map shows Obama winning with 280 votes ONLY IF HE WINS OHIO.

If he can't win Ohio, he loses.

He can't win Ohio.

[msallied]

20. WOW what a logical fallacy

There is no reason to think that the Democrats that voted for Hillary wouldn't vote for him in November, and it discounts the fact that he was won MORE traditionally Democratic states than she has AND that they have merely split on swing states. Keep humming on that stupid Clintonian soundbyte. It makes you look just as pathetic as she does.

[Yossariant]

27. Sooo, ya got nothin'...

[progressive_realist]

28. Actually, the electoral votes from Virginia + Iowa equal Ohio's

And Obama is the favorite to win both of those. Those two plus the states Kerry won would win the Presidency. Not that I think it will be that close in actuality.

[Yossariant]

35. Obama MUST win Iowa and Virginia AND HE STILL NEEDS OHIO.

[ingac70]

38. If he wins those states, he doesn't need Ohio. n/t

[Yossariant]

44. Wrong. He MUST win those states AND HE STILL NEEDS OHIO.

[ingac70]

47. How so?

All the states Kerry won + Iowa and Virginia would put him over the top.

[Yossariant]

58. McCain is projected to win PA, if Obama is the nominee.

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

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

[Hawaii Hiker]

122. I wouldn't write off PA that quickly, PA hasn't gone red since 1988

Sure, PA will be close, but I certainly wouldn't hand it to that old dope McCain just yet.....There's damn good chance Obama would win it...

[boppers]

54. I'm not following.

What electoral vote calculator are you using?

Or is your position that Obama could win 49 states, and only lose Ohio, and thus lose the GE?

[jgraz]

56. It makes perfect sense.

After all, these are the people who want to give Hillary the nom if she only wins Pennsylvania and Rhode Island.

[ingac70]

59. The poster is a Jan. 2008 troll.

A dittohead promoting Hillary.

[jgraz]

85. Thanks. That's becoming blazingly obvious.

:puke:

[Yossariant]

63. Obamatoons sure post some nonsense.

:rofl:

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

[ingac70]

67. Uh.. that shows an Obama win, chucklenuts! n/t

[Yossariant]

86. UH! It shows an Obama win ONLY IF HE WINS OHIO, dumbnuts.

[ingac70]

107. Apparently SurveyUSA polls have him up over McCain there. n/t

[Spider Jerusalem]

77. Math not your strong point, I see. Or logic.

Keep repeating 'HE MUST WIN OHIO' over and over. Deny the reality of the electoral math. You're still wrong.

[progressive_realist]

48. Uh. No.

Kerry got 251 electoral votes. Virginia + Iowa = 20 electoral votes. 251 + 20 = 271. 270 are needed to win. 271 > 270. Ergo, it is enough to win. No Ohio needed.

Again, not that I think it will come down to a 50% + 1 strategy. This is just one scenario where Obama could win without Ohio.

[Yossariant]

65. AGAIN, PA is projected for McCain, if Obama is the nominee.

[ingac70]

70. ....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5035202

[Yossariant]

88. Pssst, you linked to McCain winning PA -- like I said. DUH!

[MagsDem]

91. They obviously aren't too good with numbers

[Yossariant]

97. Logic isn't exactly their strong suit, either.

[progressive_realist]

94. Typical. Move the goalposts when someone proves you wrong.

That was not part of your original claim. Besides, current polling shows Obama ahead of McCain in both Ohio and Pennsylvania (and shows Clinton losing to McCain in Pennsylvania, incidentally).

But this is academic. We already know Ohio and Pennsylvania will be battleground states in the GE, no matter who the nominee is. McCain absolutely has to take one or both of those states to have any hope of winning, especially against Obama.

If you want to talk about weakness, how about the fact that Clinton will have a hard time holding OR, WA, MN, and WI, to say nothing of trying to capture NV, NM, CO, and IA. Her profound weakness west of the Mississippi would doom her in the GE.

[MagsDem]

99. The goalpost is winning the GE election, and he can't to it...

except in fantasy land. And no, he is not polling to beat McCain in PA.

Clinton will have no problem whatsoever winning OR, WA, MN, or WI. NV, NM, CO, and IA are toss-ups no matter which of the two least electable dem candidates we field.

[progressive_realist]

106. Well, there is this...

If you look over on the right-hand side of RCP's homepage, they do in fact show what I said. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/

We can play dueling polls all day long, but in the final reckoning both RCP's and SUSA's are so close as to be meaningless. As I stated, these are going to be battleground states no matter what. McCain needs them to win.

[Yossariant]

102. I could spell "liar" in caps for you, but I prefer to tell you that you're "mistaken."

Please post "my original claim" where I have moved the goalpost.

Meanwhile, I will consider the rest of your babble to be as asinine as that claim.

[boppers]

105. "Obama MUST win Iowa and Virginia AND HE STILL NEEDS OHIO."

You're welcome.

[Catherina]

16. Victim of "sexism"? n/t

:sarcasm:

[babylonsister]

17. Thanks for this thread, because I have a question. What happens if

he wins so much, and she cheats, trashes the opponent to the benefit of the rethug (done), does so many dirty deeds by her subordinates (done), flashes around that racism {done), and wins? What about respect? Who would support her? And if she won, who'd believe it?

[Awsi Dooger]

24. It doesn't always translate to November

I suffered through an example in 2006. Dina Titus destroyed Jim Gibson in the Nevada gov primary. The liberal base preferred Titus, along with the left wing blogs. Those of us who knew the demographics of the state wanted Gibson. Titus won easily in the primary, then was dismissed by 4 points in the general election against a scandal-plagued boob named Jim Gibbons (similar name, different guy). At that point the outcry was why had Democrats essentially forfeited the race by nominating the less electable candidate? I could only scream, and wonder what if.

This is somewhat similar, the more progressive wing preferring Obama. Unlike Titus, he is the more likable nominee. But it's rank foolish to deny his demographic weakness in specific vital states like Florida, Ohio and probably Pennsylvania.

He needs a significant edge in the national polling to overcome it. As long as Obama leads McCain by several points nationally he'll be fine. A tight race presents peril toward a GOP edge in the electoral college, similar to 2000.

[XemaSab]

42. I think trying to handicap the GE is a sucker's game

The 2004 primary should tell you everything you need to know about this.

Edwards, Clark, Dean... all also rans who would have RIPPED GW to SHREDS in the GE.

I'm not bagging on Kerry, I'm just saying that politics is like the weather, and you can't tell how it's going to be 8 months down the road. :shrug:

[MagsDem]

80. Kerry led Bush by 10% nationally

But he lost. National polls don't mean anything, nor do primaries. The fact that our base doesn't understand these very basic facts are why they consistently nominate unelectable candidates.

[Cha]

36. It says she

lies a lot.

[arthritisR_US]

50. lol! How wonderfully astute! :) n/t

[MagsDem]

76. LOL - yeah astute if you're clueless about electoral politics

[ShadowLiberal]

51. It's especially disturbing looking at the polls based on political party

What's really disturbing about Hillary's support is where her general election support lies. Two groups, republicans and independents hate her in large numbers (not quite as high for independents, but still a significant number). Democrats are the only group that doesn't hate her, and if she can't even win the nomination in a contest where a large part of the people who hate her can't vote, then there's a serious problem with her support.

At the same time though, to be fair, support in the primaries doesn't necessarily mean general election strength. But the fact that Obama grabs so much independent support is very telling of his appeal in a general election in some places.

When it comes to elections, despite what people may think because of Bush's recent 51% strategy to win the presidency, you do NOT win general elections by rallying your base and getting them out to vote. That may help certainly, but the real way you win elections is by increasing your party's appeal into new areas, and getting people to switch over to your party. Obama does just that, grabbing a bunch of young votes and motivating them to vote for the first time, as well as grabbing a lot of more wealthy people. Hillary does little at all to expand the democratic votes.

[bhikkhu]

55. Butting in on a flamebait thread with a link to projections...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html

Obama does just fine. So does Hillary.

[MagsDem]

68. It says nothing, because the primary is not the GE

And the GE is not run by caucuses and arcane rules that make no sense.

[jgraz]

78. And yet you keep flogging the bullshit meme that he can't win states that Hillary has won

"He is demanding to be the nominee even though he can't win the states we need such as OH, FL, PA, MI."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=5033387


:rofl:

[MagsDem]

87. Sorry, but it's simply moronic to make the claim you make

That winning red states in a primary means we will win them in the GE. It's beyond dumb, and belies the fact that you don't have a clue about electoral politics. And frankly it's almost unbelievable that you are so ignorant about it that you would start a thread announcing your ignorance.

I stand by my prediction that he will not win OH, PA, or FL, and not MI either if he keeps acting like they shouldn't have a voice in the nomination. And there is no scenario in which he wins without 3 of those 4.

[jgraz]

90. Hillary is the one fanning the FL and MI flames

She should be helping to mend fences there instead of hamstringing Obama's chances.

[ingac70]

89. This is the same asshole that claims Obama hasn't won a single closed primary.n/t

[MagsDem]

95. Well I know Obama supporters have "special" definitions

But in the REAL world a closed primary is one where you had to be registered as a party member 6 mths prior to the primary.

[ingac70]

98. ....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4897587

You are a fucking liar.

[MagsDem]

101. No, I'm not

[Froward69]

119. Obama won Colorado

a CLOSED primary. true Dems are voting for Obama. turncoat republicans are voting for hillary. Hillary is whom the GOP WANTS to run against.

They know, (Just like Hillary is now), they will loose to Obama.

[BigBearJohn]

169. .

[GoldieAZ49]

108. Right and the 20 million turnout for the dem primary

means nothing compared to the 100 - 140 million or more that will turnout for the GE

no comparison whatsoever

[cooolandrew]

100. So true these are the qutstions tobe askend We must keep asking them.

[VotesForWomen]

109. uh, it says that dem primary/caucus voters are not representative of GE voters? you do know that, do

don't you?

[TheDonkey]

110. *GULP*

[codeindigo]

113. the fact is..

she's NOT! you just don;t get what shit storm will hit Barack! People are comfortable with Hillary...they know her. But Barack H Obama is yes, STILL an unknown..with the media's help, Barack is doomed IF he is the nom. another fact.

[LisaL]

114. Why didn't Obama finish his senate term before running?

Do you think republicans are not gonna notice that fact in GE?

[high density]

115. What are you talking about?

McCain is in the same exact position, running for president while keeping his senate seat.

[LisaL]

116. Obama is on his first senate term.

Which he didn't finish before running.

[high density]

118. Yeah, McCain has more years in the senate

If people are going to vote based on that it seems we've already lost, because neither of our candidates beat him on that. This is what makes Clinton's comments about experience puzzling to most of us.

[akbacchus_BC]

140. So what? Wanna keep a good guy back? As if

George Bush is an opponent! Go Obama and even Senator Clinton do not have your experience. She gets her lackeys to spout racism! Oh the fairness!

[AtomicKitten]

121. yeah

[GOTV]

127. If only there were a way to test electability? .... hmmmm.... I KNOW.....

... let's hold a bunch of elections and see who wins most of them?

How about that as a measure of electability.

[jgraz]

128. Yep, that used to be the function of the primaries before Hillary ran

Now they're just a backdrop for the real contest: who can whine and play the victim more.

[karmicglee]

132. That is bad logic

Just because a candidate Y is losing to candidate X, it doesn\'t mean that X is more electable in a general election than Y.

[jgraz]

133. One idea behind the primaries is to see which candidate can run a campaign

Running a campaign and building a coalition are all parts of electability. Hillary has failed, Obama has cleaned up.

[smalll]

134. What does that say about the the fact that your god can't put it away against

some 60-year-old lady? In today's America, where nothing is stronger than sexism but ageism? Hmmm???? Because of inexperience maybe? Because he's Hussein? Because those of us with historical memory (viz: not Obama supporters) can look at Barack, and know that even if he takes the White House, he'll get Carterized, and be a one-term President, and nothing more than a lead-in to YET ANOTHER era of Republican dominance?

Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, thy name is Obama!

[jgraz]

141. It says that Hillary is a delusional farce

The nomination has been "put away" since Wisconsin. Hillary and her supporters are just too fucking stupid to realize it.

[aquarius dawning]

135. It says Hillary isn't black enough or liberal enough to win a Democratic primary

But that won't be the case in the general election. that's what it says about the candidate currently losing to Obama.

[jgraz]

142. Nicely played.

[aquarius dawning]

145. Are you saying I'm wrong?

[jgraz]

149. No, I'm saying you're wrong and you're a bigot

[aquarius dawning]

153. I'm neither. I'm just unapologetically honest in my assessments.

Oh, and I forgot to add, she's also too female to win a democratic primary.

[jgraz]

159. You're unapologetically full of shit

Prove anything you just said. One bit of actual data is all I ask.

[aquarius dawning]

162. He's receiving 80-90% of the AA vote and the left most liberals hate her guts for the IWR vote.

What's left to prove dipstick?

[jgraz]

164. Again, the level of bullshit just keeps rising

A) He was not winning 80-90% of the black vote until Hillary started channeling David Duke.

B) In case you haven't noticed, Democrats ALWAYS do well among blacks. And Obama is undeniably the prohibitive favorite for the Democratic nomination.

C) Your "liberals hate her guts for the IWR vote" is not data, it's your silly little opinion (learn the difference). But I will grant that most liberals do tend to dislike racist, lying, warmongering, corporate-fluffing crapweasels.

[aquarius dawning]

165. Maybe you should quit piling it up then.

:shrug:

[jgraz]

167. Hmmm... the Rubber/Glue response. I guess we're done with the data portion of our program

[aquarius dawning]

168. yup.

[akbacchus_BC]

136. Well, she just has to shed some tears and bingo, she is electable!

[jgraz]

143. I don't think tears are going to do it this time

Maybe she should try peeing herself.

[jackson_dem]

138. Ask the guy in your avatar. He knows why even though he lost a PRIMARY to him

[jgraz]

146. Let me guess: something, something black dude.

Am I close?

[jackson_dem]

152. Are you calling Edwards a racist?

I am not surprised...

[jgraz]

155. No, not Edwards

Wait... it'll come to you.

[akbacchus_BC]

144. You know, all she has to do is shed some fucking crocodile tears and bingo, she winning.

SEnator Obama has inspired young voters to come out and listen, they are our future and kudos to the young voters and Senator Obama. Am backing the young voters, listen young ones, you are our future and thank goodness you all do not have that baggage. Am backing the young voters and all the other voters who see that Senator Obama is and will make a difference. This is a long struggle but together, this struggle is gonna win. Viva Obama

[stolidus]

147. Brilliant...

winning (barely) the democratic primary in the "red states" is not going to help this man win the red states in the General Election. Simple.

[jgraz]

148. Did Rush send you over here?

Because only his listeners are stupid enough to believe that Obama has only won red states and that he's only won them (barely).

[stolidus]

154. Huh?

Barely wining this dem primary yes, just barely. Yes, most of his "big" wins are coming from red state liberals. He is having success in the urban areas because of the black vote turn out. Not very impressive to anyone paying attention.

[jgraz]

158. Pure crap. Pure race-baiting crap.

Obama:

Iowa, Nevada, South Carolina, Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, North Dakota, Utah, Louisiana, Nebraska, Washington, Maine, Washington, D.C., Maryland, Virginia, Hawaii, Wisconsin, Vermont, U.S. Virgin Islands, Democrats Abroad, Texas, Wyoming and Mississippi.


Clinton:

New Hampshire, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Ohio, Rhode Island and American Samoa.



Now go educate your damn self.

[stolidus]

160. You just made the case for me.

Review your own info. Foo.

[jgraz]

161. Not unless your case is that you're an illiterate hillbilly.

[stolidus]

163. Now how did you know that I's a hillbilly?

Looky here boss...you right...Da Bama gonna take over duh world. mmhmmm.

It is a simple unassailable fact that Sen. Obama has not won the states that will matter in the General Election. By-the-by, Obama didn't win Texas.

AND, success in the caucus will not translate very well in the GE either.

Sen. Obama is a mess come GE time, we will not even delve into his "mentor."

[akbacchus_BC]

150. Go fly a kite! Nasty as nasty does!

[stolidus]

156. Is that anything like...

pounding sand? If so, no thanks. ;-)

[aquarius dawning]

157. He loses all his advantages when we start talking general election politics

And then McCain wins. It's already as good as done if you ask me. It's all about the battleground states. The solidly red states really don't matter when it comes right down to it.

[mythyc]

166. jgraz you always nail it. k&r

nt