"She's ahead in the electoral college."

[jenmito]

:wtf: So now Hillary's supporters want delegates to judge by which states she won in the primary as if that means Obama can't win those states against McCain, too? What about the states Obama can win that she can't? This is getting pathetic!

[HereSince1628]

1. LOL, at this point it is IN FACT a dead even tie Clinton-0, and Obama-0

The Rendell machine has absolutely no respect for the intelligence of the public.

[jenmito]

17. Yup-in Hillaryland!

:rofl:

[JayFredMuggs]

2. Hey, Jen You should know by now....

Hillary's folks change their tune, change the rules, change the goal posts, as often as Hillary changes her dresses.

:hangover:

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

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

[iamjoy]

8. That's Uncalled For

That's gross, crude and completely undeserved. It's beyond sexist - it's nipping at outright misogynistic.

I'm no fan of Hillary, but I would never expect to see such remarks on a Democratic board - not even as a joke.

[dysfunctional press]

10. boo-hoo.

:eyes:

[JayFredMuggs]

34. OH EXCUUUUUSE ME!

I'll re-state it then''

.....as often as Obama changes his suits.

Geeze lighten up and grow a little tougher skin if you want to be in political discussions.

[jenmito]

37. They weren't saying that about you...

but the poster whose post got deleted. :hi:

[tammywammy]

12. That's not even funny

That's disgusting. :puke:

[Bigleaf]

14. She was spotted wardrobe shopping with Kim Jong Il the other day. Here is what they bought:

[DeadElephant_ORG]

84. LOL !

[jenmito]

18. Does she OWN any dresses? Seriously-not a "sexist" remark...

I've just never seen her in a dress.

[Texas Hill Country]

26. here...

[jenmito]

31. Wow-she looked nice in those dresses.

:)

[JayFredMuggs]

36. I agree, she's a nice looking woman!

[jenmito]

39. Yup...

but that doesn't mean she should be president. :D

[VotesForWomen]

73. i'm sorry, is a woman under some obligation (to you?) to wear dresses? just askin'. nt

[jenmito]

79. Did I SAY that? No.

[CreekDog]

80. no but she doesn't have to steal Dr. Evil's wardrobe

sheesh.

[Mooney]

4. It's a completely invalid, bullshit argument, and the Clinton campaign knows it.

[TahitiNut]

11. Indeed. The algorithms for apportionment of delegates ALREADY takes it into consideration.

Precincts, districts, and states in which the election track record indicates greater frequency of Democratic wins have a greater apportionment of delegates. Thus, the primary/caucus system is already SUPPOSED to 'reward' electoral strength. Under that system, the "establishment" candidate has always had an advantage ... an advantage that hasn't been enough for Hillary.

Too bad so sad. :nopity:

[jenmito]

19. I agree. But why do some news people play their game?

[Mooney]

20. It keeps the illusion of a horse race going.

[jenmito]

24. Yeah, but come on already....

it's gone on long enough. They can have just as much fun covering McCain vs. Obama.

[Mooney]

33. That's going to have a lot less "sturm und drang."

Hillary Clinton is a much more entertaining figure than John McCain, and the only "play" that the McCain/Obama contest would offer is just in the polling. With HRC still in the race, there are still a bunch of contests coming up, so that offers multiple opportunities to act as though this thing isn't basically over.

[jenmito]

35. Well, if you put it THAT way...

you have a point. :hi:

[Mooney]

42. Yeah, I mean, look at the fact that we're all still here,

talking about this thing like it isn't already over. I honestly don't believe that there's any way HRC can win the nomination at this point, and that's really the prevailing view now. Waiting for her to drop out is a mere formality. But here we are anyway, kicking this thing back and forth anyway. There must be something compelling about it that keeps us coming back here for more punishment every day, despite the fact that our rational brains know it's been over for two months.

The media keeps acting like this thing isn't over because we keep tuning in for updates on it. I'm actually kind of alone in the world in that I don't actually believe the media drives news consumption that much. I think it's driven by what the consumers want to see. If something's not demanded by the consumer, I don't think they're going to provide it. So really, we only have ourselves to thank/blame for the fact that the media is pushing this story the way they have. If we didn't tune in for it, they wouldn't cover it. There's no advertising revenue in news programs that don't get watched.

[jenmito]

44. Good points...

I know I continue to watch this coverage every day. Hey-at least it's better than covering Britney Spears!

[Mooney]

46. Britney Spears actually got taken to the psychiatric lockdown right after Iowa.

Maybe if she were still free and behaving like a lunatic on a daily basis the media would have stopped covering the primaries? God knows I would kill to see some good Britney meltdown footage, and none of the other celebrity train wrecks (Amy Winehouse, Lindsay Lohan, etc.) have been doing their jobs either. They've been keeping a very low profile and I'm suffering from withdrawals.

[jenmito]

48. Sorry...

I wish I could help you with your "withdrawals." :)

[Mooney]

49. Only Britney can help me with Britney.

[jenmito]

51. I understand completely.

:D

[ClassWarrior]

5. It's the liberating magic of speculation. Why let nasty facts get in the way?

NGU.

[jenmito]

21. I wish the people reporting this stuff would CALL it what it IS-ridiculous.

[Bensthename]

6. Hillary announces she is ahead in an Arkansas county so she should be the nominee.

At least this isn't close enough for Obama to worry about the nomination. We can all just sit back and watch Hillary become the Huckabee of the dem party.

[Lucky 13]

7. Good googa mooga.

Logic and sense are becoming distance specks on the horizon for her campaign.

They couldn't argue their way out of a paper bag at this point.

Just because Hillary won a state in the primary doesn't mean they will automatically go for McCain in the fall if Barack is the nominee. That doesn't even make sense! The traditional blue states will stay blue regardless of the nominee.

Will someone please explain to them that we're not totally stupid and can smell bullshit from a mile away?

[SoonerPride]

9. People have tried but they have their fingers in their ears.

They continue to ignore reality.

[jenmito]

25. I agree...

I just wish the people of PA could see through all their BS and END this already! I wish women would stop feeling sorry for her and voting for her because she plays the victim.

[Hepburn]

13. Hillbot think....

...it takes NO account for reality, but attempts to spin as tho it was a motorized top!

Heya, Jen! :hi:

K&R

[jenmito]

22. Kind of like the Bush admin...

Hey, Hepburn! :hi: Thanks!

[lutefisk]

32. Seems that way sometimes, doesn't it?...n/t

[wowimthere]

15. Those Goal posts... LOL

[bobbert]

16. I can think of 50 systems that would give Obama the win

and 50 that would give Hillary the win. Too bad there are things called 'rules' that are set before a contest starts. Hillary agreed to the delegate system so her supporters can shove it.

[not_too_L8]

23. the electoral college is dead to me

[wowimthere]

27. Some of these antic... You ever get the feeling you're looking at more of the Bush Administration?

remember the changing rationales for why we invaded Iraq? Hillary supporters, "Wake Up!". Her defining moment is what we are looking at... this kind of insane behavior that resembles Bush... It's as if they've taken oh 30 or 40 pages right out of bush's playbook because they don't think their own was good enough to compete.

[jenmito]

28. Yup. I said so a few posts up!

:hi:

[harun]

43. I do, and I don't want another president doing this alternate reality charade (n/t)

[woolldog]

99. No, more like the Nixon administration.

[Orsino]

29. Old framing, never coherently supported.

Losing a state's Democrats to a fellow Democrat simply doesn't equate to losing all voters to a Republican in the GE.

[jenmito]

30. They MUST know that. Seems like they're just throwing everything on the wall

to see if anything will stick. Instead, it looks like the stuff they're throwing has hit the fan and come back in their faces.

[LynneSin]

38. Wow - What dumbass thinks that Obama can't win New York, California or Massachusetts

:eyes:

[jenmito]

40. I guess they're hoping the SDs are stupid!

But they won't buy it.

[JayFredMuggs]

41. Several Clinton supporters think this

But I'm not calling names

[Mooney]

47. I don't think they really believe it actually.

They're just clinging to it in the hopes that they can get other people to believe it.

[harun]

45. I think you answered your own question, only a complete dumbass could think that (n/t)

[LynneSin]

50. Well someone out there makes claims that Obama can't win 'Hillary States'

so someone is a dumbass and I know it's not me

[goodgd_yall]

76. Uh...think FL and Ohio

Are you completely sure Obama would win those 2 states? Are you completely sure Hillary wouldn't?

[LynneSin]

82. First off - NO ONE WON FLORIDA in the primaries

remember, Florida doesn't seat delegates because they insisted on going out of order.

Second - doesn't matter who the demo candidate is if the election system is fixed. I think Obama and/or Hillary would win either one if all the votes counted. Hell I think Gore and Kerry would have won if all the votes were counted

[jenmito]

91. Uh, why SHOULD I think FL and OH? Obama didn't campaign in FL, and HE could win states she CAN'T.

[myrna minx]

52. I believe you mean the "electrical college".

"All right, we're going to have to start all over again with the electrical college." -- Homer Simpson

[jenmito]

55. That can't be far behind!

:D

[myrna minx]

63. Ha.

This has to be one of the most irrational "arguments" I have heard so far. My state, Minnesota, is going to vote for the Democratic nominee, regardless of who it is. So is the Clinton campaign implying that since Obama won Minnesota, she would naturally lose the state to McCain by default?Oy Vey.

[jenmito]

64. I agree...

and yes, that IS what they're implying-whether they realize it or not.

[Major Hogwash]

53. Hillary was so mad she threw her bookbag across the room when she was in the electoral college

LoL

[jenmito]

56. ...

:rofl:

[SoCalDem]

62. That DAMNED Electoral College..It's not even one of the 7-Sisters or the Ivy League

How dare they refuse HRH?

[jenmito]

54. They just showed the clip of Rendell saying what I said in my OP and they're discussing

it as if it's a valid argument. :eyes:

[Debi]

57. Poor Ed, but then again wasn't he the guy who compared Obama's candidacy to

Lynn Swan's? x(

[jenmito]

59. Yup-that's the one!

It's ridiculous how much they keep moving the goalposts!

[SoCalDem]

58. Of course.. New York would NEVER vote "blue" if she's not the candidate

:rofl:

or Kelli-for-nyah

or Minnesota

or
or
or
or

[jenmito]

60. You mean MY state? The one that voted for KERRY after 9/11? Yeah, I'm

sure Rendell is right in saying Hillary is THE one who can win NY and other blue states. MY question is-who will HILLARY vote for? My money's on McCain.

[powergirl]

61. Only votes talk, everything else walks

A Dan Ratherism

:dem:

[Sparkly]

65. Who said that? nt

[jenmito]

67. Ed Rendell for one.

[Sparkly]

93. Geeez...

Did he qualify that at all, like "in polls" or is he talking about the sum of electoral college votes per state they won in the primary, which is still nonsense?

(Which is why winning a "red" state or losing a "blue" state in a *primary* doesn't necessarily mean anything in terms of the general. So the electoral college votes of the primary aren't at issue.)

[jenmito]

94. At first, no, he didn't qualify it. He was talking about the states she beat Obama in...

and then when pressed, he said she ALSO does better against McCain than Obama does against him in the "important states." :eyes:

[Sparkly]

95. I think people conveniently forget

that there has been no general election campaign yet.

[jenmito]

96. I don't think they forget...

I think they're just desperate to come up with ANY possible argument to persuade the SDs.

[redqueen]

66. "getting"? *ahem*

:hi:

[jenmito]

68. Good point.

"Been got"? :D

[redqueen]

70. I'd say...

it has gone from pathetic to downright delusional. :)

[jenmito]

71. Is there...

a stage lower than that?

[crankychatter]

69. she went to elekturkull college?

i thought she wuz a lawyer

edited fer spellin' n such

[VotesForWomen]

72. Clue: O's not going to win UT an WY in the GE. FL on the other hand could be won by hillary, but

it's much less likely that Obama could win it. as i recall, a presidential election once turned on FL. i think it would be a bad strategy for dems to try to win a bunch of little red states that don't have a chance in heck of going blue, rather than picking a candidate who can really win the big purple states.

[goodgd_yall]

74. I might add Ohio to that too

I'm not so sure Obama could win there either whereas I think Hillary has a better shot at it.

Thanks for posting a reasonable thread. Refreshing among the many knee-jerk responses upthread.

[jenmito]

75. Clue: He WILL win NY, CA, and CAN win MO, CO, VA, and other states she CAN'T win.

The "electoral college" argument makes no sense. Do you think Hillary could win TX? Because they included that in big states she won in the primary and therefore could win in the GE, :rofl:

[goodgd_yall]

81. The Electoral College argument is a valid one

Winning MO, CO, and VA wouldn't make up for losing OH and FL. We're all just speculating, both you and I, but the argument is valid. If you don't agree, fine, but you needn't be so dismissive.

[jenmito]

83. It is NOT a valid one. The person with the most delegates wins and the SDs won't overturn the will

of the people. Obama doesn't even NEED OH and FL if he wins other states she can't win. The different scenarios were shown on Sunday shows. Hillary supporters can try to change the rules as much as they want-it doesn't make the arguments valid. Just desperate.

[bhikkhu]

88. If it is valid, it still doesn't change things

They are tied

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

[crankychatter]

92. Dem on Dem primaries indicate nothing RE Electoral College

The argument is a ruse used by the losing camp for a front so people will still vote for them

YOU KNOW IT

your assertions to the contrary are disingenuous pap

[BlueIdaho]

77. All this hyperbolic nonsense

assumes the democratic party will knowingly go along with HRC - cannibalize its own rules and processes - basically ignoring everything that's come before in order to crown her Queen for a day. The party won't do that because its a suicide mission. There is one small problem with all these hypotheticals - its too little too late.

Its over - Hillary has lost - deal with it.

[jenmito]

78. Exactly.

:hi:

[AmericanUnity]

85. Hmmmm We win the big states anyway. Forget Florida. We won't win that anyway.

[AtomicKitten]

86. Maybe they mean she's heading the electrical parade.

Which would be pretty cool if it was true. :hi:

[hedgehog]

87. This all begs the real question: while attending to the Electoral College,

does Hillary carry her books in a book bag?

[Arkana]

89. I love this argument for its sheer absurdity.

If this were the defining argument for selecting a nominee then John Kerry would be President.

[jenmito]

90. Same here...

and good point about Kerry! :hi:

[ShortnFiery]

97. But wait, let's consider ALL other metrics that can point to C - L - I - N - T - O - N ?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/06/AR2008040601661.html

Metrics That Point to 'C-L-I-N-T-O-N'
By Peter Funt
Monday, April 7, 2008; Page A17

Desperately seeking a metric with which to declare a lead over Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton's backers have tried to float the notion that she leads in "electoral votes" from states where primaries and caucuses have been held, 219 to 202.

Never mind that electoral votes have absolutely nothing to do with picking the Democrats' nominee. And never mind that 86 of Clinton's "electoral votes" come from New York and California -- where both she and Obama would be winners in the general election.

The Electoral Vote Metric is likely to last about as long as the failed Caucus State vs. Primary State Metric or the Red State vs. Blue State Metric. So the Clinton campaign will soon need new talking points. These are the metrics they should be pushing:

Clinton has a remarkable lead over Obama in all the "New" states. In addition to her home state of New York, she has won in New Jersey, New Hampshire and New Mexico -- giving her a clean sweep of the states that start with "New." Obama has failed to win a single New state. (Stump line: "She wins the states where being new really matters!")

:crazy:

[jenmito]

98. Yup...

I remember Obama's campaign laughing off her latest metrics a while ago saying next she'll declare that only states starting with an "N" count! :D