Who can't win?

[BL611]

Would any body like to clue me in as to what exactly is the Clinton campaign's case that Obama can't win?

Because he's black? Because of Wright? So now its out and his national numbers held stable, and he is surging in Penn which is supposed to be Hillary Country, and the type of white working class voters that are supposed to be mortified by Wright.

Where is there any proof suggesting this is the case? National polls? As of typing this the RCP composite has both Clinton and Obama trailing McCain by 0.2%, not exactly compelling. Electoral map breakdown? According to MSNBC's projections today:

Obama vs. McCain
Base Obama: CA, CT, DE, DC, HI, IL, ME, MD, MA, NY, RI, VT, WA (168 electoral votes)
Lean Obama: NJ, MN, OR, WI (42)
Toss-up: CO, IA, MI, MO, NV, NM, NH, OH, PA, VA (112)
Lean McCain: AR, FL, GA, LA, MS, MT, NC (81)
Base McCain: AL, AK, AZ, ID, IN, KS, KY, NE, ND, OK, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, WV, WY (135)

Clinton vs. McCain
Base Clinton: CA, CT, DE, DC, HI, IL, ME, MD, MA, NJ, NY, RI, VT (172)
Lean Clinton: AR, MN, OR, WA, WI (44)
Toss-up: FL, IA, MI, NM, NH, OH, PA (101)
Lean McCain: CO, LA, MO, NV, VA (47)
Base McCain: AL, AK, AZ, GA, ID, IN, KS, KY, MS, MT, NE, NC, ND, OK, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, WV, WY (174)

Again nothing there compelling when you combine base and leaning Obama actually has a slight lead on McCain, while Clinton trails slightly.

So what is it? Some deep dark secret? Again Wright is out, it pissed of conservatives who weren't going to vote for him anyway, but hasn't done any real harm otherwise. So what then? Does she think he really is a terrorist? or a drug dealer? Is it he's bad at bowling?

Sorry, but this seems to be nothing but Hillary & Co. trying to rationalize their tactics to others and most of all to themselves. Again if anyone has any evidence to the contrary I'd love to see it.

[lisa58]

1. McCain

[JuniperLea]

2. There you go... this should be the thread-killer...

That's all that needs said here.

[walldude]

16. So you think Obama can't beat the man who plans to continue

these policies:













Really? Can you back that up with something other than your opinion or some polls, which change every 5 minutes?

[zonmoy]

18. Diebold or whatever mechanism they plan to use to rig the vote this time.

[walldude]

20. Ok well that has nothing to do with "Obama or "Hillary"

that has to do with the process itself. And I think McCain is such a crappy candidate that anyone breathing could beat him in a landslide so big no amount of cheating could stop it.

[zonmoy]

24. Which means that all dirty tricks in the primaries are used

to damage the opposition party so they cant win.

[Carrieyazel]

26. Rigging the vote won't be needed this time. McCain looks like he'll win without it.

This primary nonsense has basically shut down any shot for Hillary or Obama. People are not seeing them in the best light, and it can't go on much longer.

[JuniperLea]

22. What the hell are you talking about?

Jesus Fucking Christ on a cracker...

Would you please take my post to which you responded and tell me where the hell I said anything that warrants your asinine insults and stupid assumptions?

[loyalsister]

3. Second

:thumbsup:

[Texas Hill Country]

4. so clinton is more electable?

[BL611]

7. What are you talking about?????

This is what I mean what is this "vetted" crap. What do you think they have on Obama, you seem to have this mystical faith there is some deep dark secret. What is it??? "Vetted"? Where's her tax returns, she hallucinates combat situations when she's sleep deprived. Please, this is just a talking point a la Bush. Nothing more unless you can substantiate it.

On edit: The post I responded to was completely altered after I responded.

[JuniperLea]

23. My dogs shit...

or his water bowl are more electable than McCain.

[Mooney]

5. It's total horseshit.

The mantra that Obama can't win is not what they really mean to say. What they really mean to say is that HRC is the Anointed One and anyone who dares challenge her ascendancy must be pilloried.

[Texas Hill Country]

6. No, she is saying that it is a much bigger gamble, and it is.

[Hugabear]

13. And why exactly would that be?

Obama is leading Hillary in the popular vote so far in the primaries.

McCain is an old has-been. He represents the status-quo, 100-years in Iraq, etc. He admits that he doesn't have a clue about the economy. Once you get past his "war hero" status, he's pretty much an empty shell.

So why do you think that Obama would have a hard time beating McCain?

PS - I forgot to mention that many neocons loathe McCain.

[Mooney]

15. No it isn't.

The only way in which it's a bigger gamble than nominating Hillary Clinton is because there's some question about whether or not Obama could win. But there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that Hillary Clinton will lose. It's as certain as death and taxes.

Hillary Clinton is a guaranteed general election loser. She's about as popular with Republicans and independents as Tom DeLay is with Democrats. And she's done her best to alienate as many Democrats as possible over the last couple of months. By November, she'll be as welcome to the American electorate as a herpes outbreak. She would be lucky to get 35% of the vote in the GE.

People loathe her, and every argument that she's using to advance her candidacy, such as her many years of experience and her vast foreign policy credentials, are absolutely laughable compared to McCain. The Tuzla footage was tailor-made for John McCain campaign ads, and you can bet he will bring it up every thirty seconds like a fucking egg timer.

Everything about HRC's campaign is designed to hand John McCain all 50 states in November, with a bow tied around them and a Hallmark "Congratulations" card. It will be a violent, ugly, bloody massacre. Hillary Clinton describing herself as "electable" is a sign that she hasn't been paying attention for the last 16 years to how people perceive her.

[grantcart]

8. To the argument about the GE you have spent a great deal of time and effort

laying out a convincing air tight case. Thank you for your effort and the time involved.


I prefer a more simpler analysis

below:

































Debates: Obama vs McCain - are you kidding me?

He doesn't know if a condom stops STDs? He isn't sure who is going to Iran for training but is pretty sure that we should be planning to bomb them.

I don't think so.

[texastoast]

9. McCain n/t

[Capn Sunshine]

14. BOO-YAH

This poster gets it

[Deep13]

10. Mets

[lisa58]

11. lol

[frazzled]

12. What does "can't" mean?

I can see a campaign trying to convince that their opponent is less likely to win ... but "can't" win? What does that mean?

Does it mean the electoral math is impossible? (I think we've seen that is wrong; and it would be way to early to make such a prediction anyway.)

"Can't" sounds to me like there is something inherent, some secret thing we don't know about, that would make it impossible for that candidate to win. Something incontrovertible. Something so significant that the candidate cannot possibly win. What is that thing?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

17. Contraction of "cannot. "

can't (kānt)
Contraction of cannot.

:D

[Milo_Bloom]

19. Got some errors in there...

WA and OR actually lean McCain

Washington: McCain vs. Clinton Rasmussen McCain 46, Clinton 43, Und 11 McCain +3
Washington: McCain vs. Obama Rasmussen McCain 43, Obama 48, Und 9 Obama +5


Oregon: McCain vs. Obama Rasmussen McCain 42, Obama 48, Und 10 Obama +6
Oregon: McCain vs. Clinton Rasmussen McCain 46, Clinton 40, Und 14 McCain +6


And CA is not a base for Clinton... she doesn't even beat McCain in the MOE

California: McCain vs. Obama PPIC McCain 40, Obama 49, Und 7 Obama +9
California: McCain vs. Clinton PPIC McCain 43, Clinton 46, Und 7 Clinton +3

[kentuck]

21. Nobody knows who can or can't win.

The ony measurement we have is the primary process. If the majority of the Democrats say that they favor one candidate over the other, who would be so arrogant to say the people don't know what they are talking about?

Whomever we, the voters choose, if they lose, it was the wrong choice. If we choose Hillary and she unites the Republicans and we lose, then that would be the wrong choice? If we choose Obama and he gets defeated because he does not have enough "experience", then that would be the wrong choice? Unfortunately, we cannot know who will be the stronger candidate in the general election.

We can second guess and stare at our navels or we can all agree to get behind whomever the majority chooses to be the nominee, and support him/her wholeheartedly as the nominee of our Party. We have picked such giants as Mondale, Dukakis, and McGovern in the past. We do not know that another Democrat would have been stronger. It is all conjecture. We can only choose a nominee and then unite behind that person. That is all we can do. We cannot know which will be the stronger in the General Election.

[Carrieyazel]

25. McCain's opened up a lead over both of them in the popular vote.

There are only 8-10 battleground states at the most. This isn't looking good.