Just to make RM mad....
Tuesday night put Obama over the top in terms of pledged delegates. He's ahead now in superdelegates. As Hillary has said, the superdelegates are elected officials that know what it takes to win an election. Yet, the majority of those elected officials have endorsed Obama. In fact, the only group of superdelegates in which Hillary has more endorsements is the "distinguished party leaders". Who the heck are they? How did they get to be "distinguished"? Who voted for them?
Obama still has more states, and more money, while Hillary continues to fall deeper in debt. Nationally, he does better against McCain than Hillary. State by state analysis shows that Obama still beats McCain in Pennsylvania, is competitive in Ohio, and does better in Wisconsin, Iowa, Colorado, and Oregon.
Overall, Hillary's argument that she is a stronger candidate makes no sense. So on what basis should the superdelegates take the election away from Obama and give it to Hillary? (other than bad math).
I think you might be overstating Obama's ability to walk on water, heal the sick and make perfect apple pie.
More Americans have voted for Hillary than Obama,overall. If the states were counted as winner take all (like the general election will be) Hillary would be ahead in the delegate race.
The last two elections have come down to voters in Florida and Ohio. At the last poll Hillary wins Florida 49% to 41% while McCain beats Obama 44% to 43%. In Ohio, Clinton beats McCain 50% to 43% while Obama loses 45% to 44%.
These are the reasons why Hillary is the stronger candidate against McCain.
Yes, Obama has done a better job than Hillary this primary season, but he has failed to close the deal. He gets weaker and weaker against her everyday, losing popular votes and elected delegates every Tuesday. He does beat McCain in many key states and is closer in some of the red states, but states don't usually just change in the electoral college overnight. Only two states changed in the Al Gore vs. John Kerry comparison. Getting close ain't enough. The states that matter the most, in the ones that if you win, you win it all, Hillary is stronger.
I have no delusions about my candidate. I know that my candidate is going to have a hard time capturing those "hard working white people," not in Iowa, Oregan, Wisconsin, Colorado or numerous other states, but in those appalachian states.
Maybe next time we should just skip the rest of the country, and ask Ohio and Florida whom they want as president?
What has happened in the past is not necessarily what will happen in the fall. Different states may be in play. And even if Ohio and Florida are the critical states to win, how can you invalidate the will of the democratic members based upon a poll (those have been so accurate this year) six months before the actual election?
If we were going to base choices on polls taken 6 months before the election, Hillary would be our democratic candidate now.
I love how you say "more Americans have voted for Hillary." [I assume you mean democrats, because, quite frankly most Americans don't even vote]. It ignores the caucus states, and lets you count Michigan, even though Obama wasn't on the ballot. Reminds me of Bill Clinton's "I never broke any laws" when asked about marijuana. Not a lie per se, just not the full truth.
How about this--overall, many, many more people who have participated in the democratic selection process have said they want someone other than Hillary to be the president.
How about we be completely truthful and say "more people have voted for Hillary in this presidential primary season than have voted for any other candidate in the history of our country."
Since we are talking about the votes...Obama won in Chicago/Cook County by over 500,000 votes. Yes, the same Chicago that is known for such squeaky clean politics.
I am fine with Obama being President of Chicago. That is where his mob friends are.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
The last two elections have come down to voters in Florida and Ohio. At the last poll Hillary wins Florida 49% to 41% while McCain beats Obama 44% to 43%. In Ohio, Clinton beats McCain 50% to 43% while Obama loses 45% to 44%.
[/b]
In trying to prove a case that Hillary has the momentum and Obama is fading you play loose and fast with the figures. What polls? What dates? And more importantly, how are they trending? What is their margin of error? Your McCain/Obama matchups being within a single percentage point don't show any preference at all. Basically, voters in those two states haven't made up their mind about the candidates as Hillary refusing to fold and continuuing to attack is creating doubt.
He could be building momentum but for her efforts to become another Ralph Nader. That will be her status in the party. She out Nadered Ralph.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
I think you might be overstating Obama's ability to walk on water, heal the sick and make perfect apple pie.
More Americans have voted for Hillary than Obama,overall. If the states were counted as winner take all (like the general election will be) Hillary would be ahead in the delegate race.
The last two elections have come down to voters in Florida and Ohio. At the last poll Hillary wins Florida 49% to 41% while McCain beats Obama 44% to 43%. In Ohio, Clinton beats McCain 50% to 43% while Obama loses 45% to 44%.
These are the reasons why Hillary is the stronger candidate against McCain.
Yes, Obama has done a better job than Hillary this primary season, but he has failed to close the deal. He gets weaker and weaker against her everyday, losing popular votes and elected delegates every Tuesday. He does beat McCain in many key states and is closer in some of the red states, but states don't usually just change in the electoral college overnight. Only two states changed in the Al Gore vs. John Kerry comparison. Getting close ain't enough. The states that matter the most, in the ones that if you win, you win it all, Hillary is stronger.
RM....you are NOT the Devil's advocate. But you are a wolf in sheeps clothing.
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/05/oregon_exit_polls_obama_handil.php
Oregon Exit Polls: Obama Handily Beat Hillary Among Whites, No-College, Less-Than-$50,000 Voters
By Greg Sargent - May 21, 2008, 9:21AM
The Oregon exit polls lend a bit more weight to the theory that Barack Obama's real problem is more with Appalachia than it is with working class whites in general, as the Hillary campaign has repeatedly suggested.
In Kentucky yesterday, Hillary slaughtered Obama among these voters. But the Oregon exits show a different story.
Obama beat Hillary by sizable margins among all ages of white voters except those 60 and older. And he beat Hillary among voters with no college degree, too -- and since the state is overwhelmingly white, these voters are the ones he's supposed to have trouble with.
Late Update: The exits also show that Obama also beat Hillary by seven points among voters making less than $50,000 (though she won among voters making between $15,000 and $30,000).
What's more, Obama also won among voters from a household with a union member. I've edited the above to make that point.
Clinton Needs 181% of Remaining Delegates
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/33560
The Devil predicts Obama wins by %20 over McCaint. The repugs are getting what comes around.....
New polling out today.
Hillary wins over McCain in Missouri 48% to 46%. Obama loses Missouri to McCain 48% to 45%.
Hillary wins North Carolina 49% to 43% while Obama loses 51% to 43%.
Obama does better than McCain in Colorado, 48% to 42% and Hillary loses to McCain 47% to 44%.
The democrats lost all three of these four years ago with John Kerry and North Carolina was republican by a 13% margin.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
New polling out today.
Hillary wins over McCain in Missouri 48% to 46%. Obama loses Missouri to McCain 48% to 45%.
Hillary wins North Carolina 49% to 43% while Obama loses 51% to 43%.
Obama does better than McCain in Colorado, 48% to 42% and Hillary loses to McCain 47% to 44%.
The democrats lost all three of these four years ago with John Kerry and North Carolina was republican by a 13% margin.
Wanna bet?
What's your source?
Doh!
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/05/16/270/print.html
How will Barack Obama get to 270?
This November, a Democratic victory will probably hinge on the Electoral College votes of a handful of swing states. Howard Dean's pollster examines 17 fall battlegrounds, one by one.
By Paul Maslin
Mod's note: Your post on this thread has been edited for sake of brevity. Let this serve as an example to others who are tempted to post entire articles in a thread when a link is sufficient.
This is annoying to other forum members and adds little to the discussion. If you wish to place a link and add your own comments that is fine. If you wish to keep cutting and pasting 10,000 word articles which are the published work of someone else, it will be summarily edited and/or deleted from now on.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
more people have voted for Hillary in this presidential primary season than have voted for any other candidate in the history of our country except Obama, unless we only count votes that help Hillary
Fixed it for ya'.
She can't win by the rules she set up, so now she has to try to change the rules. You can't win the popular vote if you attempt to be fair (even if you want to count FL and Michigan, you have to ignore potential votes for Obama and discount the caucuses). It is simply not a sound argument.
The Bills were Super Bowl Champions in 1991!*
* if the goal post was move 2 yards to the right and/or an almost made field goal counted as 2 points or several other rules changes were implemented so the score math favored the Bills.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
New polling out today.
Hillary wins over McCain in Missouri 48% to 46%. Obama loses Missouri to McCain 48% to 45%.
Hillary wins North Carolina 49% to 43% while Obama loses 51% to 43%.
Obama does better than McCain in Colorado, 48% to 42% and Hillary loses to McCain 47% to 44%.
The democrats lost all three of these four years ago with John Kerry and North Carolina was republican by a 13% margin.
Source?? I can cite polls, too:
From Battleground:
Clinton v. McCain--McCain wins by 8%
Obama v. McCain--Obama wins by 2%
TIPP:
Clinton v. McCain--Clinton by 5%
Obama v. McCain--Obama by 11%
State by state analysis shows both winning Pennsylvania, and Obama remaining competitive in Ohio & Florida. All of the polls show winning & losing within the percentage of undecided, so I don't think they have much relevance.
I thought Hillary's argument was that, since she won certain swing states in the primary, she will win them in the fall. Obama won NC & Missouri. Just goes to show you, which candidate wins at the primary level has nothing to do with who will win six months from now. The way to become the democratic candidate is not based upon inaccurate polls of what might happen in the fall. It's based upon who gets 2025 delegates, and Obama only needs 60 more, while Hillary needs 250.
Forget the swing states PMCALK, how about "reliably red" Virginia?
McCain (R) 42 (52)
Obama (D) 49 (44)
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=9901f8fc-034e-4a1d-ab36-f6e5c918614e
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
New polling out today.
Hillary wins over McCain in Missouri 48% to 46%. Obama loses Missouri to McCain 48% to 45%.
Hillary wins North Carolina 49% to 43% while Obama loses 51% to 43%.
Obama does better than McCain in Colorado, 48% to 42% and Hillary loses to McCain 47% to 44%.
The democrats lost all three of these four years ago with John Kerry and North Carolina was republican by a 13% margin.
Wanna bet?
What's your source?
Survey USA.
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=56a201bd-db14-4567-bba2-dffea45ee60e
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
How about we be completely truthful and say "more people have voted for Hillary in this presidential primary season than have voted for any other candidate in the history of our country."
Since we are talking about the votes...Obama won in Chicago/Cook County by over 500,000 votes. Yes, the same Chicago that is known for such squeaky clean politics.
I am fine with Obama being President of Chicago. That is where his mob friends are.
Wow. Now you're just being an idiot.
I assume once Obama wins, you'll be voting for McCain in the fall...
unless you're a hypocrit.
I will not vote for McCain. I promise.
One of the things that the Obama supporters don't get is how eager Clinton's supporters are for her to remain in the race. Your criticisms of Clinton can be applied to each of her many supporters that want her to continue.
She ain't out there by herself, and it ain't just us working people supporting her. She has supporters like a Rothschild urging her to remain in the race.
Recently I've been thinking about the parallels between the current campaign and the campaigns that resulted in the first term of Daddy Bush. There had been a feeling among the Democrats that the since Reagan was leaving office the time had come to take back the White House. There was a very bright candidate named Dukakis from Massachusetts that was adored by the left wing of the party. Dukakis won the primary and lost the general election big time.
When Dukakis bombed I think a consensus formed in Democratic leadership what we would win the next one come h*** or high water. No risks were to be taken. Every advantage exploited. I can remember Ann Richards shepherding the party and lecturing us and keeping us disciplined and united. Bill Clinton's presidency was the product of that focus on winning. Bill Clinton and Al Gore were the no risk "southern" candidate ticket.
What troubles me now is that we have forgotten hard lessons that we had learned. We have no memory and apparently no loyalty.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
I will not vote for McCain. I promise.
Should Obama win the primary and the vice-presidency is not offered to Clinton, I might abstain. A lot depends on his outreach to Clinton supporters.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
How about we be completely truthful and say "more people have voted for Hillary in this presidential primary season than have voted for any other candidate in the history of our country."
Since we are talking about the votes...Obama won in Chicago/Cook County by over 500,000 votes. Yes, the same Chicago that is known for such squeaky clean politics.
I am fine with Obama being President of Chicago. That is where his mob friends are.
So is this what it comes to, RM? You are going to start implying that Obama has mob connections? If you really want to start going negative, we can do that. How 'bout if we start with Hillary's connections to the Puerto Rican terroist group, FALN? Or maybe her connections to Abramoff? Or the money her brothers received for Presidential pardons? Thank goodness she has already been "vetted."
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Doh!
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/05/16/270/print.html
How will Barack Obama get to 270?
This November, a Democratic victory will probably hinge on the Electoral College votes of a handful of swing states. Howard Dean's pollster examines 17 fall battlegrounds, one by one.
By Paul Maslin
Mod's note: Your post on this thread has been edited for sake of brevity. Let this serve as an example to others who are tempted to post entire articles in a thread when a link is sufficient.
This is annoying to other forum members and adds little to the discussion. If you wish to place a link and add your own comments that is fine. If you wish to keep cutting and pasting 10,000 word articles which are the published work of someone else, it will be summarily edited and/or deleted from now on.
A Pee Sir!
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
One of the things that the Obama supporters don't get is how eager Clinton's supporters are for her to remain in the race. Your criticisms of Clinton can be applied to each of her many supporters that want her to continue.
She ain't out there by herself, and it ain't just us working people supporting her. She has supporters like a Rothschild urging her to remain in the race.
Recently I've been thinking about the parallels between the current campaign and the campaigns that resulted in the first term of Daddy Bush. There had been a feeling among the Democrats that the since Reagan was leaving office the time had come to take back the White House. There was a very bright candidate named Dukakis from Massachusetts that was adored by the left wing of the party. Dukakis won the primary and lost the general election big time.
When Dukakis bombed I think a consensus formed in Democratic leadership what we would win the next one come h*** or high water. No risks were to be taken. Every advantage exploited. I can remember Ann Richards shepherding the party and lecturing us and keeping us disciplined and united. Bill Clinton's presidency was the product of that focus on winning. Bill Clinton and Al Gore were the no risk "southern" candidate ticket.
What troubles me now is that we have forgotten hard lessons that we had learned. We have no memory and apparently no loyalty.
Hometown, we all see history through our own perspective. Despite your claim of Clinton being a "no risk" candidate,
Bill Clinton did not win the majority of the population when he first ran. Most people thought he was entirely too liberal. Every democrat I knew thought he couldn't win. Between his infidelity, his issues with the draft, and his marijauna use, democrats were terrified he would cost them the election. His "calculated" win was accomplished with one factor: Ross Perot. And I firmly believe, were it not for many of Bill Clinton's actions, there would be no question as to Al Gore's winning the 2000 election. In exit polls after Gore's election, the majority of voters said that Bill Clinton would ultimately be remembered for his scandals, not his accomplishments. Did we really have a winning candidate with Clinton? Why then did Democrats lose the House under his administration?
Dukakis was a bad candidate, period. And he ran against the vice president to a president who (for whatever reason) was adored.
I have no problem with Hillary staying in the race. What bugs me is her distortion of the party rules in an effort to take away the nomination from the person who has won it by playing by the rules. You can lamment all you want that the people have made a bad choice in the candidacy. The fact is, they have the right to make that choice. Of course Hillary has supporters behind her, as well she should. But the fact is, Obama has more states, more delegates, more money, and more supporters. He will be the Democratic Candidate, and, with your support, the best president we have had in a long time.
Hillary and he are only slightly different on most positions, so I don't know where you get the impression that he is "too liberal" and she is not.
Any polls taken recently that tried to describe the electibility of Obama/Clinton vs McCain is absurd. McCain has been given a neutral or positive press for the past three months. No one has challenged anything he has said, with the exception of the Democrats in the past week. Once the election is actually underway and McCain receives the same scrutiny and the same pressure,THEN tell us about polls. Obama and Clinton are stepping out of the ring battered and bruised and the pundits are saying that they are in worse shape than McCain when he hasn't been in a fight in months.
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
One of the things that the Obama supporters don't get is how eager Clinton's supporters are for her to remain in the race. Your criticisms of Clinton can be applied to each of her many supporters that want her to continue.
She ain't out there by herself, and it ain't just us working people supporting her. She has supporters like a Rothschild urging her to remain in the race.
Recently I've been thinking about the parallels between the current campaign and the campaigns that resulted in the first term of Daddy Bush. There had been a feeling among the Democrats that the since Reagan was leaving office the time had come to take back the White House. There was a very bright candidate named Dukakis from Massachusetts that was adored by the left wing of the party. Dukakis won the primary and lost the general election big time.
When Dukakis bombed I think a consensus formed in Democratic leadership what we would win the next one come h*** or high water. No risks were to be taken. Every advantage exploited. I can remember Ann Richards shepherding the party and lecturing us and keeping us disciplined and united. Bill Clinton's presidency was the product of that focus on winning. Bill Clinton and Al Gore were the no risk "southern" candidate ticket.
What troubles me now is that we have forgotten hard lessons that we had learned. We have no memory and apparently no loyalty.
My memories and loyalties are based on POLICIES and EFFECTIVENESS, not winners or losers...
My criticism is of both Bill and Hillary's two-faced political tactics and their ability to distort and obfuscate the truth like nobody else on either side of the aisle...
"Lanny Davis to the white courtesy phone plz... Mr Davis to the hardworking-white-voter courtesy phone..."And don't compare Obama to Dukakis.... that only betrays your ignorance. Obama's speeches are more inspirational than anything Dukakis could dream of... Obama has vision, Dukakis had none... Dukakis was a noted "technocrat" whose major achievement was the "Massachusetts miracle"-- which BTW, wasn't a moral issue or an anti-war issue... it was all about how Dukakis could astutely manage the economy.... and Bill Clinton adopted some of those same tactics four years later, only with a southern drawl... remember "it's the economy, stupid"...???
Clinton and Obama are very close on most issues... or at least that's the way the Clintons wish to appear when it matches their poll driven agenda... your candidate's surrogates infiltrated a closed-door Obama fundraiser and singlehandedly turned "Bittergate" into a fake issue when my candidate is NOT an elitist... yet the Clinton campaign was already passing out "I'm not Bitter" stickers in North Carolina the very same day the media broke the story (with the help of HRC's campaign, of course).... http://weblogs.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/politics/blog/2008/04/hillary_bitter_bumper_stickers.html
...your candidate and her slick Nixonian husband are consumate lawyeristic LIARS...
I remember Paul Tsongas accurately portraying Bill Clinton as a "panderer." Tsongas even brought a "Pander Bear" to prove his point.
What did Bill Clinton do for gay people, HM??? Don't ask, don't tell? The Defense of Marriage Act? Giving America a Republican house and senate that George H.W. Bush would have loved to have.... and George W. Bush took full advantage of...
You've now proved that YOU are the one with no loyalty... your candidate REFUSES to play by the rules her own surrogates put into motion.
And Obama has been extremely nice....... I, however, will not be nice.
IMO, the Clintons should be to the Dems what Richard Nixon is to the Republicans... thank god Pat Nixon had no political aspirations...
HILLARY CLINTON SINGLE HANDEDLY RUINED ANY CHANCES FOR HEALTHCARE REFORM FOR A GENERATION.
I am in that generation... I will never forgive her for screwing up managed care through her high-handed tactics.
If you don't like Obama, don't vote for him... end of story.
Bill and Hillary will say anything. They will say anything to keep their legacy intact. They will say anything at the expense of hurting their own party's chances in congressional elections. They will polarize their own supporters (using both gender & race as motivators) into believing Obama is unelectable to satisfy their craven desire for power.
And I do not feel that way about any other previous candidate for prez...
An oldie but a goodie from one of the gazillion primary debates, this one courtesy of the John Edwards campaign...
November 02, 2007 -- The Politics of ParsingHillary Clinton responds with double-talk during the Democratic candidates debate on October 30, 2007. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qggO5yY7RAo
"Gallup notices that Sen. Barack Obama is surging precisely among those voting groups who had resisted his charms to date."
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/the_party_coalesces_around_oba.php
Obama's beating Clinton among Hispanics NOW!
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
The last two elections have come down to voters in Florida and Ohio. At the last poll Hillary wins Florida 49% to 41% while McCain beats Obama 44% to 43%. In Ohio, Clinton beats McCain 50% to 43% while Obama loses 45% to 44%.
[/b]
Obama up by 9% over McCain in Ohio (//%22http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/05/todays-polls-523.html%22)