Why Can't He Close the Deal?

[trumptman]

Maureen Down and AP both published stories making the same point today about the results from PA and the election in general. The question is simple, why if "everyone knows" Hillary has been out-fundraised, outspent, out-charismad, out-etc... can Obama not close the deal and put her away with just one win in a major state that would statistically make it impossible for her to catch up in any form or fashion?

We've had this same discussion after Ohio, Texas, and now Pennsylvania. It may be the only true thing to have come out of her mouth the entire campaign, but it is indeed true that once you get out of smaller states, Obama loses.

Dowd (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/opinion/23dowd.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin)

She’s been running ads about it, suggesting he doesn’t have “what it takes” to run the country. Her message is unapologetically emasculating: If he does not have the gumption to put me in my place, when superdelegates are deserting me, money is drying up, he’s outspending me 2-to-1 on TV ads, my husband’s going crackers and party leaders are sick of me, how can he be trusted to totally obliterate Iran and stop Osama?

Wow....

The Democrats are eager to move on to an Obama-McCain race. But they can’t because no one seems to be able to show Hillary the door. Despite all his incandescent gifts, Obama has missed several opportunities to smash the ball over the net and end the game. Again and again, he has seemed stuck at deuce. He complains about the politics of scoring points, but to win, you’ve got to score points.

He knew he tanked in the Philadelphia debate, but he was so irritated by the moderators — and by having to stand next to Hillary again — that he couldn’t summon a single merry dart.

Is he skittish around her because he knows that she detests him and he’s used to charming everyone? Or does he feel guilty that he cut in line ahead of her? As the husband of Michelle, does he know better than to defy the will of a strong woman? Or is he simply scared of Hillary because she’s scary?

Double-wow.

AP (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap_campaignplus/20080423/ap_ca/on_deadline_pennsylvania)

Why can't Barack Obama put Hillary Clinton away?

He's flush with cash. He oversees a high-tech political movement. His "change" message fits these anxious times. And, until recently, he had momentum. So why didn't he win Tuesday?

And why can't he close the deal?

Triple-wow.

So I ask you because not only do many of you support the man, but voted for him, why, among not the general election but within his own party can Obama not close the deal and win just one of the big races that put this thing out of reach? Does his charisma, while raising boat-loads of money, have limits that Hillary and larger states demonstrate? It is clear that he is great with a speech, but catch him in an unprepared moment or in a debate, and things go marginal at best.

My view, as I've said all along is that Obama, in portraying himself as once in a generation/lifetime change agent and not much else, has only to be proven normal and human to be rendered ineffective. Clinton may have tossed the kitchen sink at him but it took the bloom off the rose and now it is clear, there isn't anything he has to counter with. I mean he can toss the kitchen sink back at Clinton but it reinforces her own campaign point in that she has already had the kitchen sink and a heck of a lot more tossed at her and is still here punching. Everyone already has their vibe for Clinton. It is an "I loathe her but she checks my boxes and promises competence" vibe and tossing more dirt on it really won't change the level of loathing much worse.

What are your thoughts?

[franksargent]

Maureen Down and AP both published stories making the same point today about the results from PA and the election in general. The question is simple, why if "everyone knows" Hillary has been out-fundraised, outspent, out-charismad, out-etc... can Obama not close the deal and put her away with just one win in a major state that would statistically make it impossible for her to catch up in any form or fashion?

We've had this same discussion after Ohio, Texas, and now Pennsylvania. It may be the only true thing to have come out of her mouth the entire campaign, but it is indeed true that once you get out of smaller states, Obama loses.

Dowd (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/opinion/23dowd.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin)



Wow....



Double-wow.

AP (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap_campaignplus/20080423/ap_ca/on_deadline_pennsylvania)



Triple-wow.

So I ask you because not only do many of you support the man, but voted for him, why, among not the general election but within his own party can Obama not close the deal and win just one of the big races that put this thing out of reach? Does his charisma, while raising boat-loads of money, have limits that Hillary and larger states demonstrate? It is clear that he is great with a speech, but catch him in an unprepared moment or in a debate, and things go marginal at best.

My view, as I've said all along is that Obama, in portraying himself as once in a generation/lifetime change agent and not much else, has only to be proven normal and human to be rendered ineffective. Clinton may have tossed the kitchen sink at him but it took the bloom off the rose and now it is clear, there isn't anything he has to counter with. I mean he can toss the kitchen sink back at Clinton but it reinforces her own campaign point in that she has already had the kitchen sink and a heck of a lot more tossed at her and is still here punching. Everyone already has their vibe for Clinton. It is an "I loathe her but she checks my boxes and promises competence" vibe and tossing more dirt on it really won't change the level of loathing much worse.

What are your thoughts?

What "should" be an easy win for the Democrats in November, is starting to look like a major train wreck.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/33/44514845_572eb5d38a.jpg?v=0

Whomever "wins" the Democrat's nomination will lose key demographics from the "loser's" side of the fence.

[Fellowship]

We used to say "it's the economy stupid"

Now it looks like the conventional wisdom of the day is:

"It's the demographics stupid"

The demographics suggest that the country is NOT very liberal (anyone remember Air America and their financial situation), that the country is filled with a growing aging senior segment who seem more prone to go with Hillary or McCain. There are many in rural areas of the country in any state red, blue or purple and the writing is on the wall. They are not liberals and can't relate to the most liberal of candidates in this case Obama fitting this bill.

So America is facing a situation where we have a populace which seems to favor:

Bush Jr. McCain

and / or

Bush light Hillary

I would agree that the democratic party is headed for a train wreck.

Fellows

[SDW2001]

We used to say "it's the economy stupid"

Now it looks like the conventional wisdom of the day is:

"It's the demographics stupid"

The demographics suggest that the country is NOT very liberal (anyone remember Air America and their financial situation), that the country is filled with a growing aging senior segment who seem more prone to go with Hillary or McCain. There are many in rural areas of the country in any state red, blue or purple and the writing is on the wall. They are not liberals and can't relate to the most liberal of candidates in this case Obama fitting this bill.

So America is facing a situation where we have a populace which seems to favor:

Bush Jr. McCain

and / or

Bush light Hillary

I would agree that the democratic party is headed for a train wreck.

Fellows

I'll go a step further in repeating what I said a few years ago: John McCain is going to be the next President of the United States.

I, like many others, felt Obama was a tougher candidate than Hillary in the general election. I no longer feel that way. If Obama gets the nomination, I don't believe he has a chance. McCain will win solidly, if not by an outright landslide.

Why? Obama can't win the swing states. He won't win NJ and NY. He won't win FL and MI. He won't win Republican strongholds. Where will he win? He'll take the left coast and the liberal Northeast, like Vermont, Mass, etc. McCain will trounce him everywhere else.

No, I don't think Hillary will beat McCain either...but she has a better shot with working class voters. Her downfall will be conservatives who will come out to prevent her from becoming President, even if they don't like McCain.

[BRussell]

I'll go a step further in repeating what I said a few years ago: John McCain is going to be the next President of the United States. I'll go even further than THAT and say that McCain is going to win all 50 states!

[Flat Stanley]

It's obvious! Operation Chaos!

[groverat]

Short Version:

Why can't McCain put Ron Paul away?

Long Version:

The little catch phrase "put her away" is nonsensical. This is not a boxing match. He can't force her to do anything. The fact that she is as unlikely to win is as true today as it was three days ago. An 8-point win in Pennsylvania doesn't change anything. She lost. It's over. The fact that she hasn't bowed out graciously is her problem, not Obama's.

Obama has overcome tremendous disadvantages and built, from nothing, a political machine that outclasses Clinton's in every way. It's bigger, it's smarter, it's wealthier, and it is more enthusiastic. However, 1 year of amazing work by Obama isn't going to entirely erase 16 years of hard work by the Clintons.

This is David versus Goliath, and people are complaining didn't win impressively enough, completely ignoring the fact that David actually won.

- Hillary has the highest name recognition (Q-rating) of any non-incumbent presidential candidate in history.
- She has had a powerful political machine on her side (a political machine that backed a very popular, 2-term president) since 2000 with the sole intention of making her president.
- She is the wife of one of the most popular presidents of modern times; with that president out on the stump campaigning for her very vigorously.

The fact that Obama has beaten her in the vast majority of states (all states matter, not just the ones Hillary tells you) is a testament to the power he has as a candidate.

- He had no major connections, he forged those himself.
- He had no fundraising machine, he built it himself.
- He had no built-in alliances, he created those himself.
- He had no loyal constituencies, he convinced those himself.

So now that he is outspending her, it is a testament to the power of his attractiveness to average voters. He has 1.5 million donors and growing donating $50, not 50 donors donating $1.5 million.

Pennsylvania is a perfect example of this.

-The Democratic political apparatus of the state was firmly on Hillary's side. The Democratic governor has been building her and tearing him down for months. The mechanism under the governor has been staunchly arguing in her favor for weeks.

- But all the major newspapers in Pennsylvania endorsed Obama.

What does that tell you? What does that say about Obama's appeal and Clinton's appeal?



SDW2001:

I'll go a step further in repeating what I said a few years ago: John McCain is going to be the next President of the United States.

Please keep doing this. Do everything you can to get this message out and create that narrative. Build that coronation narrative just like Clinton did and watch Obama eat it alive.

[Jubelum]

It's obvious! Operation Chaos!

:lol: Someone had to say it...

[@_@ Artman]

I'll go a step further in repeating what I said a few years ago: John McCain is going to be the next President of the United States.

YES. With the help of Diebold voting machines, we will see, come November, that a 71 year old rapture ready, christian conservative who owns eight houses and wants to stay in Iraq (and Iran) for 100 years is just the "Change™" America is looking for.

I'd rather be embarrassed and have civil rights than have everyone love me and be in a fascist state.

McCain offers neither.

But what more of an endorsement from your president do you need than this? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knhErtMjC8k)

[mydo]

Mabye it's because Obama hasn't been doing well lately. Do we see the results of "Bittergate" in the PA results? Almost 10 points (rounding up) difference:wow: Obama doesn't even want to debate anymore. Poor baby.


The press was too easy on him too early.

[tonton]

With the help of Diebold, McCain will still win by no more than 2%. I'll send you, SDW2001BC a $25 iTunes gift certificate if I'm wrong. What will you offer if you are?

I was going to say "All 50 states!" but BRussell beat me to it.

Anyone who is predicting "landslide" is truly r3tRd@.

[hardeeharhar]

Mydo... check out the polls dating back forever, Obama was NEVER in the lead in PA, he went from a 20 point disadvantage four weeks ago to get within 10%...

This is a horse race not a sprint. His lead is nearly insurmountable.... And in two weeks will be insurmountable, I suspect. THEN Clinton has to get to work cleaning up her mess if she wants the best candidate to become president.

[trumptman]

Short Version:

Why can't McCain put Ron Paul away?

Another fallacy... McCain has put Ron Paul away and every other candidate. He has secured the nomination by winning the necessary delegates. When the Republican version of this happened with Huckabee refusing to bow out, McCain put him away and secured the nomination.

The little catch phrase "put her away" is nonsensical. This is not a boxing match. He can't force her to do anything. The fact that she is as unlikely to win is as true today as it was three days ago. An 8-point win in Pennsylvania doesn't change anything. She lost. It's over. The fact that she hasn't bowed out graciously is her problem, not Obama's.

It is not nonsensical at all. It is entirely possible to secure the nomination and if Obama was able to win the large states as he had done the smaller states, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Also from what I have read, Clinton, if you include Florida and Michigan vote totals now has the popular vote advantage again. (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html)

The fact that she is as unlikely to win is as true today as it was three days ago. An 8-point win in Pennsylvania doesn't change anything. She lost. It's over. The fact that she hasn't bowed out graciously is her problem, not Obama's.

A popular vote claim is a legitimate claim to the nomination. She has reclaimed this and that problem is absolutely Obama's.

Obama has overcome tremendous disadvantages and built, from nothing, a political machine that outclasses Clinton's in every way. It's bigger, it's smarter, it's wealthier, and it is more enthusiastic. However, 1 year of amazing work by Obama isn't going to entirely erase 16 years of hard work by the Clintons.

Well those of us that don't buy the nonsensical Clinton experience argument will note that Obama actually has more experience. He has held office since 1995 and while he may not have held a national profile that entire time was certainly able to work hard and build a fundraising apparatus. Additionally in being given a speaking spot at the Democratic convention, it certainly helped raise his profile, much like it did for (Bill) Clinton in 1988.

This is David versus Goliath, and people are complaining didn't win impressively enough, completely ignoring the fact that David actually won.

You keep forgetting that David hasn't won yet.

- Hillary has the highest name recognition (Q-rating) of any non-incumbent presidential candidate in history.
- She has had a powerful political machine on her side (a political machine that backed a very popular, 2-term president) since 2000 with the sole intention of making her president.
- She is the wife of one of the most popular presidents of modern times; with that president out on the stump campaigning for her very vigorously.


-She has always had and still has huge negatives.
-She was able to be elected by carpetbagging to a political liberal state.
Her husband never topped 50% of the vote and with her inability to easily beat Obama, Gore's inability to capture the electoral college or run on the Clinton record, the Clinton legacy is seriously at stake.
-Which lead to the last point, popularity doesn't necessarily translate to electability. Obama is hugely popular yet cannot secure the nomination. Bill Clinton was hugely popular but could not gain 50%. Bill Clinton has been declared a liability instead of an asset on the stump.

The fact that Obama has beaten her in the vast majority of states (all states matter, not just the ones Hillary tells you) is a testament to the power he has as a candidate.

- He had no major connections, he forged those himself.
- He had no fundraising machine, he built it himself.
- He had no built-in alliances, he created those himself.
- He had no loyal constituencies, he convinced those himself.

Many of us would argue that he has many major connections. He simply desires not to bring them up because there is questionable ethics involved with those people. (Tony Rezko anyone?!)

The rest is just absolutes. You don't get elected to office and hold it for 12 years with a bunch of no's.

So now that he is outspending her, it is a testament to the power of his attractiveness to average voters. He has 1.5 million donors and growing donating $50, not 50 donors donating $1.5 million.

Yet the money and donors don't seem to secure necessary wins so mentioning them while A point is certainly not THE point. He outspent Clinton two to one in Pennsylvania and still lost.

He has out-raised Clinton by $40 million yet cannot secure the nomination. He is tied in polls with McCain who he has buried in terms of money. Yet we can all site dozens of elections where fundraising hasn't translated to a win.

It is interesting because anyone else would cite this as a clear sign of weakness, but you cite it as a strength. When Romney couldn't close the deal despite having outspent other opponents, it was proof of him being a weak candidate. It is proof for Obama as well.

-The Democratic political apparatus of the state was firmly on Hillary's side. The Democratic governor has been building her and tearing him down for months. The mechanism under the governor has been staunchly arguing in her favor for weeks.

- But all the major newspapers in Pennsylvania endorsed Obama.

What does that tell you? What does that say about Obama's appeal and Clinton's appeal?

It says that the appeal is limited and divided which is exactly my point.

Nick, this insanely retarded meme you've been pushing for months has to stop.

Clinton and Obama are both extremely popular politicians in Democratic circles. There's nothing more to be said there.

Obama and McCain will also be very close. Whether his candidacy stands for change or not, no one can ignore U.S. electoral political realities.

It MUST STOP! ShawnJ has declared so and we don't want to make him bitter!

It isn't just me raising it. I sourced two articles today and could have easily added three more. I can find the articles because it is a relevant point being raise in a number of circles due to the reality of how the votes have shaped up. There are clear demographic lines and it is pretty clear that Obama doesn't seem to scale up well beyond a certain size state seeing as he has won NONE of them.

CNN and other news organizations (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/22/exit.polls/index.html) also noting this are not just pushing an "insanely retarded meme."

You are also welcome to show how "insanely retarded" is not a personal attack.

You do bring skip at the real point which is you cannot ignore reality. In reality money alone doesn't win elections, nor does charisma. At some point the empty suit has to be filled with something besides cash.

What do you mean hasn't been doing well?

There's no proof that *any* of the mini-controversies have had *any* affect on Obama's numbers. Clinton's big win was expected for months.

The problem is that the press keeps playing this as if Clinton still has a dog in this fight.

Yeah and "months ago" Clinton was expected to have locked away the entire nomination and consigned Obama to the dustbin by now. Only she didn't and this and several wins have been seen as reversals of fortune or proof Obama cannot grow beyond a certain base.

People aren't making it up. The exit polls have clear demographic delineations and people who aren't wearing blinders are discussing them.

[hardeeharhar]

Actually, the correct question is why DID McCain put away Romney?

The answer is that unlike the proportional representation intrinsic to the Democratic Primaries, Republicans have a winner takes all fight -- it makes it easier to put people away. And Clinton surely would have put Obama away a long time ago if this was the case, but therein lies the problem with this approach (after superdupertuesday). You end up getting a candidate chosen by the earliest nomination contests as opposed to the candidate who represents 'merica.

In addition, it is inherently, in the long run, better for the party to have several strong candidates running...

[Flounder]

Is a "meme' a person all of a sudden?

Remember, in Trumpt's eyes, attacking his ideas is incontrovertible proof that you think he's stupid and that you've personally attacked him.

[trumptman]

Is a "meme' a person all of a sudden?

:lol:

"insanely retarded meme," not person.

A meme (pronounced /miːm or mɛm/) consists of any unit of cultural information, such as a practice or idea, that gets transmitted verbally or by repeated action from one mind to another. Examples include thoughts, ideas, theories, practices, habits, songs, dances and moods and terms such as race, culture, and ethnicity.

However you are welcome to explain why you are assigning personal attributes to a piece of information. How can information have an IQ and thus be retarded? It can't and we all understand where and to whom those terms were supposed to transfer. You are calling my thoughts and ideas "insanely retarded" and claiming it isn't a personal attack which is just ridiculous.

Oh please.

I'm referring to the contests following Super Tuesday in early February. Being that it's almost May, that qualifies as, shocker upon shocker, "months ago." That's at least how long a large PA win for Clinton was predicted, which defeats mydo's ill-informed conclusion that he lost big as a result of more "critical" media coverage and/or Clinton's attacks.

We all understand that you want to have your cake and eat it too. Clinton was supposed to win PA when she was "inevitable." Now she has lost a lot of states since then and is clearly not "inevitable" but still won PA. Two different contexts but you want us to apply the old information to the new context.

Actually, the correct question is why DID McCain put away Romney?

The answer is that unlike the proportional representation intrinsic to the Democratic Primaries, Republicans have a winner takes all fight -- it makes it easier to put people away. And Clinton surely would have put Obama away a long time ago if this was the case, but therein lies the problem with this approach (after superdupertuesday). You end up getting a candidate chosen by the earliest nomination contests as opposed to the candidate who represents 'merica.

In addition, it is inherently, in the long run, better for the party to have several strong candidates running...

Actually the Democratic primary doesn't feature proportional representation either. It, like much of their thinking actually has a progressive structure to it that penalizes the winner unless they win by large margins. In most states you have to effectively win 60-40 to gain additional delegates.

As for your contention about how it works, we can see by the long legacy of Democratic presidencies since they adopted this procedures that it clearly MUST work well.:lol:

[trumptman]

:lol:

This post is brilliant satire!

Right? (It actually is)



"You are welcome to" show us polling data to support this view.

I would accept they have already happened and we have the results. We don't need to speculate about what has already happened. We don't need to poll about the past.

[Northgate]

This was supposed to Clinton's year, remember? I mean we spent years on this board speculating about when/if/inevitability of Clinton running for president. Until about four or five months ago Clinton was ALWAYS the presumptive front-runner.

Shouldn't the title of this thread be...Why Can't Clinton Close The Deal? Why did Clinton allow an underdog to rise up and pass her? Why did Clinton implode and lose her support?

McCain is the the actual nominee and yet he still lost 25% of the primary vote last night. So what. Big F'n deal.

The bottom line is simple. Clinton feels it is her god given right to be the nominee. Not only did she presume this was her nomination from the beginning, but she's acting like an incredulous candidate who can't believe she's be usurped.

But intellectually vapid threads based on dishonest premises are lame.

[groverat]

trumpt:

Clinton cannot win. I mean that in the "real world" sense, not the "make believe world" sense.

Theoretically she could still win. Theoretically I could end up in a threesome tonight with Salma Hayek and Natalie Portman. The odds of a groverat-Hayek-Portman ménage-a-trois are not far off the odds of a Clinton being at the top of the Democratic ticket.

She cannot catch him in pledged delegates. No one really argues that anymore.
She is not, has not, and will not pull away with superdelegates.

Look at the trend with superdelegates:
http://img501.imageshack.us/img501/3074/image001et6.gif

So two extremely unlikely things have to happen (as if hoping for 1 wasn't enough).
1 - Clinton has to win pledged delegates in numbers that she has shown a complete inability to thus far.
2 - Clinton has to dominate the remaining superdelegates, something she hasn't done since February.

Here on earth we don't assume (or even lightly expect) occurrences based on extraordinarily unlikely propositions.

No one is "put away" until they concede or the nomination becomes official.

A major scandal could break or McCain could die, making Paul a potential candidate for the nomination. I think McCain keeling over is just as likely as Hillary pulling the golden ticket out of her ass.

You're caught up in hysteria. The numbers and trends are what they are. Obama is the 2008 Democratic candidate for president.

Look upon my works, ye Mighty, and despair.

CNN and other news organizations also noting this are not just pushing an "insanely retarded meme."

You are also welcome to show how "insanely retarded" is not a personal attack.

Calling a meme "insanely retarded" is not calling the person using the meme "insanely retarded".

Do you really not see the difference?

[Northgate]

I might also add that Pennsylvania was ALWAYS Hillary country. it's where she hails from. About six weeks ago she enjoyed a 20 POINT LEAD in that state. In short six weeks Obama cut that number in half. If given a couple more weeks he would've reduced her lead by five more.

So this notion that Obama lost Pennsylvania because he sucks is so ridiculous one can only assume your playing political games.

The MSM had been predicting a 8-10 point win for Hillary for WEEKS AND WEEKS AND WEEKS. And now that Hillary won by exactly that margin the spin has become "Obama can't close the deal?" Are you fucking kidding me?

One thing is for sure. Don't stand next to goal post around here, it might be dangerous to your person. :lol::lol::lol:

[Northgate]

She cannot catch him in pledged delegates. No one really argues that anymore. She is not, has not, and will not pull away with superdelegates.

This has been the case for a couple months now. She cannot win and hasn't been in a position to win for a VERY LONG TIME.

Yet, it seems more important to spin this into an Obama problem. The media had no problem mocking Huckelberry when it was obvious he couldn't win. Yet the same media yapping dogs pretend that Hillary and Obama are in an honest horse race. It's utterly ridiculous.

You couldn't almost hear Trumptman giggling as he wrote this thread.

[trumptman]

trumpt:

Clinton cannot win. I mean that in the "real world" sense, not the "make believe world" sense.

No one can lock it up before the convention. They can only argue about what what set of variables should be used to claim a partial and incomplete victory should be a complete one. This is true for both candidates and is true in the "real world" sense, not the "make believe world" sense.

Theoretically she could still win. Theoretically I could end up in a threesome tonight with Salma Hayek and Natalie Portman. The odds of a groverat-Hayek-Portman ménage-a-trois are not far off the odds of a Clinton being at the top of the Democratic ticket.


Well the difference though is the odds for both Clinton and Obama are bad. Clinton might need to win an highly improbably 80% of all remaining delegates while Obama only needs to win 65% of all remaining delegates but it doesn't make either of the probably enough to call one realistic. To use your analogy it is like complaining that you ending with Natalie Portman tonight is "real world" while you, Natalie, and Salma are simply "make-believe."

Neither one of them will have the number of delegates and someone is going to have to find a way to extract a pound of flesh from the other in order to have the convention give them the necessary number. The fact that you are more inclined to buy the Obama reasoning doesn't produce a number.

She cannot catch him in pledged delegates. No one really argues that anymore.
She is not, has not, and will not pull away with superdelegates..

No one will pull away and that is what you refuse to deal with in the "real world" sense. No one gets to the magic number. No one.

Since we love analogies, it is like arguing that you and I both lost to the same team that won the Superbowl but in the "real world" you won the Superbowl because you played them a week later...or whatever other strange vagaries we care to put forth because that is exactly what will be happening at the convention.

Popular vote versus delegates
Big states versus small states
Who can raise more money
Etc..etc....

The trends with super delegates doesn't at all matter. They can all choose to switch at anytime. Until they have voted at the convention and had someone get the number needed to clinch it literally swing in an instance. All they have agreed to do is pledge their vote to one or the other before the convention but if the first ballot fails, after that, it is open season.

I'm sure at the end of the convention there will be a measure to make the votes unanimous anyway. The real issue is going to be in how much damage is caused in getting that pound of flesh from one candidate or the other. There is no clean way to do it.

So two extremely unlikely things have to happen (as if hoping for 1 wasn't enough).
1 - Clinton has to win pledged delegates in numbers that she has shown a complete inability to thus far.
2 - Clinton has to dominate the remaining superdelegates, something she hasn't done since February.

Here on earth we don't assume (or even lightly expect) occurrences based on extraordinarily unlikely propositions.

Again no one has produced the numbers that are necessary. Clinton has produced wins of 80%+ and Obama hasn't produced wins of 65-70%. No one gets there unless it is through extraordinary means that somehow occur before the convention. Stop focusing on Clinton being X% more extraordinary and show how Obama gets there in some fashion that ISN'T extraordinary.

Again stop arguing that Portman can happen because it isn't Portman and Hayak. Neither one is happening.

No one is "put away" until they concede or the nomination becomes official.

In the strictest sense this is true but if you have the votes, awaiting certification of them is just part of the process. It isn't at all like not having the votes which is what you are trying to claim.

A major scandal could break or McCain could die, making Paul a potential candidate for the nomination. I think McCain keeling over is just as likely as Hillary pulling the golden ticket out of her ass.

You're caught up in hysteria. The numbers and trends are what they are. Obama is the 2008 Democratic candidate for president.

Look upon my works, ye Mighty, and despair.

Yes and Obama could get caught sleeping with Clinton and both of them could die tomorrow as well when Bill shoots them in a jealous rage.

Hoping for the impossible for the Republicans won't make the impossible more likely for the Democrats. NO ONE gets to the number to clinch before the convention. No one gets to it without taking someone who is already pledged away from the other candidate. Claiming that one has 49.8% percent while the other only has 49.6% doesn't get you to 50%. It just doesn't.

Calling a meme "insanely retarded" is not calling the person using the meme "insanely retarded".

Do you really not see the difference?

Telling someone to take an action real or imagined is the not same thing as calling the person anything at all.

Do you really not see the difference?

BTW Grove your post is infantile and stupid. It isn't a personal attack because I'm only describing the post. Sure I am assigning the post personal attributes but apparently we really cannot see the difference. At least if that is the game you want to play, I can play it as well.

[jimmac]

I'll go a step further in repeating what I said a few years ago: John McCain is going to be the next President of the United States.

I, like many others, felt Obama was a tougher candidate than Hillary in the general election. I no longer feel that way. If Obama gets the nomination, I don't believe he has a chance. McCain will win solidly, if not by an outright landslide.

Why? Obama can't win the swing states. He won't win NJ and NY. He won't win FL and MI. He won't win Republican strongholds. Where will he win? He'll take the left coast and the liberal Northeast, like Vermont, Mass, etc. McCain will trounce him everywhere else.

No, I don't think Hillary will beat McCain either...but she has a better shot with working class voters. Her downfall will be conservatives who will come out to prevent her from becoming President, even if they don't like McCain.


I totally disagree.

None of this will matter by the time we reach Nov.

Whoever the democratic nomination is the rest of the party will stand with that person.

McCain won't win because he favors many of the same policies as Bush ( Iraq even more so " make it a hundred if we have to " ). Pure and simple.

The people will vote against him just to get out from under this situation. Anything else is just conservative wishful thinking and I really don't buy it.

The country is very tired now with the economy the way it is ( does McCain have a viable solution for this? ) and the war as Bush and CO. have almost run us into the ground.

The gas prices will stay high as long as we stay in Iraq. OPEC ( in case you need a reminder of how they operate :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OPEC ) sets the prices and as they said recently they won't up production. They sited American mismanagement but the real reason is that they really don't want us poking around over there. None of the people in control over here are motivated to change anything about it as they are seeing huge profits and won't feel the pinch like the average person will ( this includes our Texas Big Oil president ). Yes I know you'll say something about Tinfoil hat or some such nonsense but there's a very simple truth to this. We're getting shafted both ways big time!

[SDW2001]

I'll go even further than THAT and say that McCain is going to win all 50 states!

You guys love to bash me on that, but at the time posed it, Bush had an approval rating in the what...80s? All I was asking is "is this possible?" clearly it was, as Nixon won 49...so did Reagan. With those approval ratings, it wasn't impossible at all.



YES. With the help of Diebold voting machines, we will see,

That's hysterical. It really is. Clearly if McCain wins it will be fraud. And if Obama or Clinton win it will be the Will of The People.

come November, that a 71 year old rapture ready, christian conservative :err:


who owns eight houses

OMG! He has money! I don't hear anything about the 109 million Clinton has. Hmmm? No, instead I get to listen to Michele "Barack is Special" Obama bitch about their student loans and how tough they had it at Harvard. Yeah. Change!



and wants to stay in Iraq (and Iran) for 100 years is just the "Change™" America is looking for.

Excellent. Let's take something McCain said and then later explained...and just twist the shit out of it. That's fair.



I'd rather be embarrassed and have civil rights than have everyone love me and be in a fascist state.

So you're going to vote for Obama??? :lol:

McCain offers neither.

But what more of an endorsement from your president do you need than this? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knhErtMjC8k)[/QUOTE]

What do you mean hasn't been doing well?

There's no proof that *any* of the mini-controversies have had *any* affect on Obama's numbers. Clinton's big win was expected for months.

The problem is that the press keeps playing this as if Clinton still has a dog in this fight.

False. Obama had gone from 20 down in PA to pulling even a week before bittergate. Almost immediately he was down between 6 and 11 points. His margins were all screwed up. He didn't do as well as expected in urban areas, and got clobbered in the T and rural areas...way more than anyone thought he would. He was still probably going to lose, but prior to the bittergate thing, he had a chance to win...or only lose by 3-6 points. Don't get me wrong...10 was not a total disaster for him, but it was enough for Hillary to claim a solid victory. Everyone said she needed 10+, and she got it.

With the help of Diebold, McCain will still win by no more than 2%. I'll send you, SDW2001BC a $25 iTunes gift certificate if I'm wrong. What will you offer if you are?

I was going to say "All 50 states!" but BRussell beat me to it.

Anyone who is predicting "landslide" is truly r3tRd@.

As for the popular vote, I don't know that I'll take that bet. But I will bet that McCain gets at least 325 electoral votes, more likely 350. I did a quick estimate here (http://www.270towin.com/2008_polls/mccain_obama/). It's not looking good for Obama. He'll win CA, OR, WA, MASS, RI, CT, IL, VT, DC..maybe MN, IA, ME and MD. Add that up and then realize that McCain will win all the biggies...PA, MI, FL, NY, NJ, the entire south and southwest, the lions's share of the midwest, etc. Do the math. Obama's screwed.

Mydo... check out the polls dating back forever, Obama was NEVER in the lead in PA, he went from a 20 point disadvantage four weeks ago to get within 10%...

Well again..he was even in some polls before his fart-smelling San Francisco comments (South Park reference anyone?).



This is a horse race not a sprint. His lead is nearly insurmountable.... And in two weeks will be insurmountable, I suspect. THEN Clinton has to get to work cleaning up her mess if she wants the best candidate to become president.

I agree with that, unless he has a meltdown. Or, if she can somehow get close in terms of delegates (<50) and popular vote (<50,000), she might have a case. Actually, I think her best bet is to get MI and FL seated. She could even win the pledged delegates that way...I think. Need to check the math.

[trumptman]

I might also add that Pennsylvania was ALWAYS Hillary country. it's where she hails from. About six weeks ago she enjoyed a 20 POINT LEAD in that state. In short six weeks Obama cut that number in half. If given a couple more weeks he would've reduced her lead by five more.

So this notion that Obama lost Pennsylvania because he sucks is so ridiculous one can only assume your playing political games.

The MSM had been predicting a 8-10 point win for Hillary for WEEKS AND WEEKS AND WEEKS. And now that Hillary won by exactly that margin the spin has become "Obama can't close the deal?" Are you fucking kidding me?

One thing is for sure. Don't stand next to goal post around here, it might be dangerous to your person. :lol::lol::lol:

First of all I don't giggle when I post. I giggle when you reply.

Second, you really don't appear to realize you are reinforcing Clinton's argument for her. You are making the case that she should be PRESIDENT over Obama.:lol::lol::lol:

That sound you hear is giggling.

See Obama is a change agent, only he isn't. No amount of money will make him competitive or change the minds of people in large states, in states that aren't X percent black, that have X percent of people at certain economic levels.

You have just confirmed Hillary's premise. Obama can run well but he cannot close the deal. He cannot win big states. He cannot cross over and win certain independent voters. He can't win no matter what level of money raised or spent. This can be worked on for months and he cannot alter the outcome.

First we all know that numbers are fluid up until pretty close to the election. Then it takes a lot to budge them. Clinton wasn't really ahead by 20 a couple months ago because people just spit out the name they knew. Now when informed because of the election, it is equally wrong to claim that pending a major gaffe or change of events, the numbers would have radically altered from the +10.

People don't pay attention, but when they do become informed, it is harder to change their mind.

[jimmac]

You guys love to bash me on that, but at the time posed it, Bush had an approval rating in the what...80s? All I was asking is "is this possible?" clearly it was, as Nixon won 49...so did Reagan. With those approval ratings, it wasn't impossible at all.





That's hysterical. It really is. Clearly if McCain wins it will be fraud. And if Obama or Clinton win it will be the Will of The People.

:err:



OMG! He has money! I don't hear anything about the 109 million Clinton has. Hmmm? No, instead I get to listen to Michele "Barack is Special" Obama bitch about their student loans and how tough they had it at Harvard. Yeah. Change!



McCain offers neither.

But what more of an endorsement from your president do you need than this? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knhErtMjC8k)



False. Obama had gone from 20 down in PA to pulling even a week before bittergate. Almost immediately he was down between 6 and 11 points. His margins were all screwed up. He didn't do as well as expected in urban areas, and got clobbered in the T and rural areas...way more than anyone thought he would. He was still probably going to lose, but prior to the bittergate thing, he had a chance to win...or only lose by 3-6 points. Don't get me wrong...10 was not a total disaster for him, but it was enough for Hillary to claim a solid victory. Everyone said she needed 10+, and she got it.



As for the popular vote, I don't know that I'll take that bet. But I will bet that McCain gets at least 325 electoral votes, more likely 350. I did a quick estimate here (http://www.270towin.com/2008_polls/mccain_obama/). It's not looking good for Obama. He'll win CA, OR, WA, MASS, RI, CT, IL, VT, DC..maybe MN, IA, ME and MD. Add that up and then realize that McCain will win all the biggies...PA, MI, FL, NY, NJ, the entire south and southwest, the lions's share of the midwest, etc. Do the math. Obama's screwed.



Well again..he was even in some polls before his fart-smelling San Francisco comments (South Park reference anyone?).



I agree with that, unless he has a meltdown. Or, if she can somehow get close in terms of delegates (<50) and popular vote (<50,000), she might have a case. Actually, I think her best bet is to get MI and FL seated. She could even win the pledged delegates that way...I think. Need to check the math.[/QUOTE]








You're in for a big disapointment. But hold on to that last gasp of hope. Same for Trumpy.

You're baseing this all on the idea that Hillary can't win against McCain. I think you're wrong. I think people just won't want another aging republican as president at this time. One who'll do the exact same thing as Bush only in a little smarter way.

[jimmac]

He gets it!

"Groverat is a moronic, single-celled cretin who initially cheerleaded the Iraq War."

Personal attack, clearly.

"Groverat's moronic arguments in support of Iraq War Dos make him stupid."

Getting better, but you see, still personal attack!

"Groverat's moronic arguments in support of the Iraq War were quickly trumped by what ensued after the invasion."

Jackpot.

I seem to remember discussing the invasion with groverat at the time. I think he believed what they were selling at the time. That Iraq would be surgical and a quick in and out. Well alot of people were duped and I don't blame them. You want to believe the people you support. Especially if they are president. I never supported ( or believed ) Bush so I didn't suffer with that problem. The idea that people once supported this and we should not listen to them now because of that is just stupid.

[BRussell]

You guys love to bash me on that, but at the time posed it, Bush had an approval rating in the what...80s? All I was asking is "is this possible?" clearly it was, as Nixon won 49...so did Reagan. With those approval ratings, it wasn't impossible at all. It puts into some context your belief that McCain will win. You claim below that McCain will win NY. That's pure delusion, on par with the belief that Bush would win 50 states.

False. Obama had gone from 20 down in PA to pulling even a week before bittergate. Almost immediately he was down between 6 and 11 points. His margins were all screwed up. He didn't do as well as expected in urban areas, and got clobbered in the T and rural areas...way more than anyone thought he would. He was still probably going to lose, but prior to the bittergate thing, he had a chance to win...or only lose by 3-6 points. Don't get me wrong...10 was not a total disaster for him, but it was enough for Hillary to claim a solid victory. Everyone said she needed 10+, and she got it. No, Shawn is right. There was no movement after that "issue." Obama was trailing by 20, whittled it down to 10 points six weeks ago (a few weeks before bittergate), and then held steady until the election. Here are all the polls:

http://www.pollster.com/08PAPresDemsZOOMr600.png

[hardeeharhar]

As for your contention about how it works, we can see by the long legacy of Democratic presidencies since they adopted this procedures that it clearly MUST work well.:lol:
Look at the quality of the presidents from the two parties and you will see that my claim is correct...

[screener]

As an interested observer from the Great White North, I feel Obama wouldn't make a great president.

Change for the sake of change is the only message he seems to have, listening to some of his supporters.

I believe he doesn't have the balls to stick to whatever his agenda is.
Weak will comes to mind.

Just my impression of listening to him.

[groverat]

trumptman:

No one can lock it up before the convention.

Thank you for finally realizing the stupidity of the question that is the title of this thread. He can't close the deal because no one can close the deal before the convention. He can't "put her away" because she has no reason to go away, even if her chances are gone.

Even further, McCain doesn't have a single real vote right now. He's got pledges, which can change if something crazy happens.

Well the difference though is the odds for both Clinton and Obama are bad.

Not true at all. Obama's odds are great, hers are terrible.

Clinton, now behind by 150 delegates, got a net of 7 to 10 delegates from Pennsylvania. This is from the biggest state since Texas/Ohio in which she is favored.

She lost. That isn't even the question anymore. She lost.

The only question remaining is not whether or not Obama will win, but why Obama isn't winning bigger. And it's a good question, because it goes a hell of a long way into getting into real discussions about what is happening in this extended Democratic primary (without leaning on asinine sports/sex analogies).

No one gets to it without taking someone who is already pledged away from the other candidate.

Bullshit. Absolute bullshit. A 50/50 split of all remaining states (with the odd delegates going to Clinton) and superdelegates sends Obama well over the threshold.

[hardeeharhar]

As an interested observer from the Great White North, I feel Obama wouldn't make a great president.

Change for the sake of change is the only message he seems to have, listening to some of his supporters.

I believe he doesn't have the balls to stick to whatever his agenda is.
Weak will comes to mind.

Just my impression of listening to him.
Unfortunately, you haven't read his policy proposals, which of course isn't surprising given that all the media seems to care about is sucking off mccain (who grows more senile by the minute) and enticing the democrats into a cat fight... but whatever, when whomever mccain gets as a vp takes over when the old man keels over and launches nukes against the Sunnis in Iran for supporting Al Queda, we'll all be laughing our asses off...

[groverat]

I don't blame people for assuming a Democrat is weak-willed and unprincipled. That is exactly how the party acts and has acted for decades. Obama will have a hell of a time proving that he is different and willing to grab the key emotional issues (like a Republican) instead of try desperately to pretend they don't exist (like Gore, Kerry, etc...).

[SDW2001]

I totally disagree.

You can disagree, but you're still wrong.



None of this will matter by the time we reach Nov.

Care to wager?



Whoever the democratic nomination is the rest of the party will stand with that person.

Not according to the polls. As many as 15% will not, from what I've seen. McCain has independent and centrist appeal--don't forget that.



McCain won't win because he favors many of the same policies as Bush ( Iraq even more so " make it a hundred if we have to " ). Pure and simple.

No, that's simply your opinion. I don't deny that a perception that he's close to Bush will not help him. But it will be outweighed by other factors.



The people will vote against him just to get out from under this situation. Anything else is just conservative wishful thinking and I really don't buy it.

The country is very tired now with the economy the way it is ( does McCain have a viable solution for this? ) and the war as Bush and CO. have almost run us into the ground.

No doubt the economy should work in the Dems favor. But never underestimate their ability to lose elections.



The gas prices will stay high as long as we stay in Iraq. OPEC ( in case you need a reminder of how they operate :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OPEC ) sets the prices and as they said recently they won't up production. They sited American mismanagement but the real reason is that they really don't want us poking around over there. None of the people in control over here are motivated to change anything about it as they are seeing huge profits and won't feel the pinch like the average person will ( this includes our Texas Big Oil president ). Yes I know you'll say something about Tinfoil hat or some such nonsense but there's a very simple truth to this. We're getting shafted both ways big time!

First, it's "cited," not "sited." Secondly, OPEC does not "set the prices." They set the production quotas, which impacts supply. Of course, the problem is not with crude supply. High gas prices are being caused by lack of refining capacity, geopolitical tensions/speculation (like any other commodity), a weak dollar and third...demand.

As for Bush and "big oil," well of course I have to mention something. It's just silly. Bush has nothing to do with it. In fact, your friends in Congress have far more to do with it by their total lack of action.

[trumptman]

Look at the quality of the presidents from the two parties and you will see that my claim is correct...

I like that reply. It has a high snarkiness content.

As an interested observer from the Great White North, I feel Obama wouldn't make a great president.

Change for the sake of change is the only message he seems to have, listening to some of his supporters.

I believe he doesn't have the balls to stick to whatever his agenda is.
Weak will comes to mind.

Just my impression of listening to him.

Oh you could never get that impression. It doesn't exist. It is just an insanely retarded meme I've made up that doesn't exist anywhere else.

trumptman:

Thank you for finally realizing the stupidity of the question that is the title of this thread. He can't close the deal because no one can close the deal before the convention. He can't "put her away" because she has no reason to go away, even if her chances are gone.

He can close the deal. He could take her odds of getting to number of delegates needed and reduce them to zero just like McCain.

Even further, McCain doesn't have a single real vote right now. He's got pledges, which can change if something crazy happens.

Using the exception as a rule is a fallacy. The fact that "something crazy" could happen is true of every person in this race. You can't seem to get over the fact that having enough pledges to lock up the nomination but going through the formality of a convention is not the same is NOT having enough pledges to lock up the convention no matter how many times you toss that "something crazy" out there. Maybe McCain and Hillary will choose to run together, break from both parties and form a third party that becomes unnecessary after Obama declares himself to be from Saturn.

Or maybe "something crazy" shouldn't be used as a rule or as a way to make a point.

Not true at all. Obama's odds are great, hers are terrible.

Clinton, now behind by 150 delegates, got a net of 7 to 10 delegates from Pennsylvania. This is from the biggest state since Texas/Ohio in which she is favored.

She lost. That isn't even the question anymore. She lost.

It is not statistically impossible for her to get the nomination. I find it very interesting that every pundit and newspaper is remarking about the impossibilty for both, the reality of a brokered convention and yet you treat anyone mentioning this as being disconnected from reality. I can cite five articles today to make my point but it is just some insanity that I pulled out of the air that no one else thinks except for me... and Maureen Dowd, and AP, and...well most others get the point.

The only question remaining is not whether or not Obama will win, but why Obama isn't winning bigger. And it's a good question, because it goes a hell of a long way into getting into real discussions about what is happening in this extended Democratic primary (without leaning on asinine sports/sex analogies).

Can you address how Obama has won without question when the odds of Clinton still being able to get enough delegates is not zero? We aren't talking about impossible. We may be talking about NY Giants versus Patriots, but that isn't impossible. The odds may be a bit long but not impossible. I've read numbers like 80% Obama likelihood to 20% Clinton likelihood. No one says that looks great but it isn't impossible, zero, a foregone conclusion, etc.

Bullshit. Absolute bullshit. A 50/50 split of all remaining states (with the odd delegates going to Clinton) and superdelegates sends Obama well over the threshold.

Obama isn't guaranteed a 50% split (nor is Clinton) and the uncommitted super-delegates are in no form or fashion required to split along any particular lines with regard to percentages. Possible, even probable doesn't mean the same thing as actually having crossed the threshold.

[trumptman]

I'm not sure what your point is or why you're contesting this.

So her odds aren't zero. Big whoop.

We've been through this over and over again. First, there's a *chance* that Clinton will come out on top in terms of pledged delegates. But, being that she needs to win something like 70-80% of the vote in *each* remaining contest, Obama would have to suffer a complete meltdown for that to happen. Second, there's a "chance" that Clinton will come out on top at the convention with the help of superdelegates, but that scenario is extremely unlikely, again, barring a complete meltdown on Obama's part.

The reason why it has been gone over is because Obama has had the multiple opportunities with a win in pretty much any large state to take those odds to zero and has not been able to do it. I don't think anyone here has claimed Clinton is going to get the nomination. Rather it is the fact that super-delegates will have to bring about a result that Obama himself could not achieve.

The odds on catching on delegates are rather slim, but the odds of gaining or keeping a majority of the popular vote for Clinton are not at all slim. Imagine the blood spilled when the party of count every vote has to disenfranchise two states and have the backroom boys (and girls) pick their nominee. It will likely leave some very hard feelings indeed.

[jimmac]

You can disagree, but you're still wrong.



Care to wager?



Not according to the polls. As many as 15% will not, from what I've seen. McCain has independent and centrist appeal--don't forget that.



No, that's simply your opinion. I don't deny that a perception that he's close to Bush will not help him. But it will be outweighed by other factors.



No doubt the economy should work in the Dems favor. But never underestimate their ability to lose elections.



First, it's "cited," not "sited." Secondly, OPEC does not "set the prices." They set the production quotas, which impacts supply. Of course, the problem is not with crude supply. High gas prices are being caused by lack of refining capacity, geopolitical tensions/speculation (like any other commodity), a weak dollar and third...demand.

As for Bush and "big oil," well of course I have to mention something. It's just silly. Bush has nothing to do with it. In fact, your friends in Congress have far more to do with it by their total lack of action.


Sigh!

OPEC is where two thirds of the world's oil comes from. When they don't up production ( on purpose ) and demand is up prices will follow. They could increase production they just won't. This is not normal supply and demand. This is supply being shortened on pupose and higher demand. Once again the dead dinosurs are running out. It's just not that time for real yet. The stiuation we have here is political. Look at the link again. Specifically " Oil As a Weapon ".

Sorry about the typo. I'll be sure and " Cite " the next one you make.

That 15 % say that now but when it's crunch time it won't matter.

Bush has nothing to do with it? Ok. But he's not motivated to do anything about it either as I'm sure he's looking at the profits. Remember Bush used to own an oil company ( When he was friends with the Bin Lauden family ). He ran the company into the ground by the way. I'm sure he still has many other friends in the business.

" No doubt the economy should work in the Dems favor. But never underestimate their ability to lose elections. "

It won't help you this time.

And no it's not just my opinion about McCain being in line with Bush's policies. Republicans say that's not true to distance themselves from the Bush baggage.

As a matter of fact SDW it's you who are simply wrong about a great many things.

[groverat]

trumptman:

He can close the deal. He could take her odds of getting to number of delegates needed and reduce them to zero just like McCain.

McCain had the luxury of opponents whose desire for power was not so large as to prevent them from reading the writing on the wall.

Romney was not mathematically eliminated when he dropped out.
Giuliani was not mathematically eliminated when he dropped out.
Not even Thompson was mathematically eliminated when he dropped out.

Romney could still be in the race right now if he wanted, but he realized his chance of winning and stepped down.

It is not Obama's fault that Clinton lives for nothing but the acquirement of personal power.

Or maybe "something crazy" shouldn't be used as a rule or as a way to make a point.

If that were the case, you wouldn't have started this thread.

The only way Clinton could win the nomination is if something crazy happened, therefore she is put away in every rational sense.

It is not statistically impossible for her to get the nomination.

Of course. Many things are statistically possible that are not worth taking seriously. I could be Jesus, it is statistically possible.

Obama isn't guaranteed a 50% split (nor is Clinton) and the uncommitted super-delegates are in no form or fashion required to split along any particular lines with regard to percentages. Possible, even probable doesn't mean the same thing as actually having crossed the threshold.

That wasn't your argument. You said that one needed to take "someone who is already pledged away from the other candidate."

As I said, that argument was bullshit. You are attempting to move the goalposts.

The reason why it has been gone over is because Obama has had the multiple opportunities with a win in pretty much any large state to take those odds to zero and has not been able to do it.

What wins and states are you talking about?

Would winning California, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania by 15 point margins have reduced Hillary's odds to zero?

Even assuming that your logic is valid (which it isn't)... here's the answer: Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are popular! *mindblown*

[trumptman]

And in your view this is due to a deficiency in Obama's candidacy, rather than to the popularity of Hillary Clinton among Democratic primary voters. Newsflash: Obama can be a popular candidate who represents change and draws all kinds of new people into the political process *and* still have a popular opponent in the primary. There's nothing mutually exclusive about that.

I view it based off the fact that Clinton has insanely high negatives (55%) Obama has been able to out-raise and outspend her and that this isn't an isolated incident but has been repeated several times throughout the primary. You plot several points and you begin to be able to draw some lines or conclusions. I've not argued anything at all with regard to not being popular. I've simply said that regardless of all the positives he possesses, he hasn't won a single large state and thus has not been able to cinch the nomination. There are certain things you have to do as a candidate in terms of winning an election. You may not have to be perfect or do them every time, but to not be able to do them ANY time is troubling.

For example it is clear Obama was less than stellar at the last debate. It shouldn't and doesn't bother you because you have seen him have good debates and know he can and will do better in debates. Take the opposite result now though. Imagine he had a bad debate and throughout all the debates you had never seen him have a good debate. By now, you would find this troubling.

It should be seen as troubling that Obama appears limited in his appeal. It just appears not to scale up PERIOD. It doesn't scale up some of the time versus all of the time. It doesn't scale up most of the time but not as often as some other candidate. It simply doesn't scale up. Obama has won 27 states to Clinton's 17. The states he hasn't been able to bring home just so happen to be the states that Democrats need to win the presidency using the electoral college. The Democrats do not win as many states as Republicans have in the past few elections. They simply bring home the huge coastal blue states. The middle ground states, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, New Mexico, those are the ones that have given them a fighting chance after getting close with California, New York, etc. It is precisely those states that Obama appears limited in. You give up one or two of them and the election is over.

trumptman:
McCain had the luxury of opponents whose desire for power was not so large as to prevent them from reading the writing on the wall.

Well they each had a path to the nomination and when it was clear they weren't going to be going down it, most of them did drop out since it was winner take all and many of them were not winning where they claimed they would get their foothold and begin moving up.

Romney was not mathematically eliminated when he dropped out.

In a way he was because it was clear he was having to spend too much per vote to achieve a result and half the time still wasn't usually getting the result. He was basically being beat by Huckabee who was broke. He also lost several big leads early in the primaries and had McCain and Huckabee divide up victories that were supposed to be his. There is only so long fundraising will sustain spending twice as much to get half as many votes.

Giuliani was not mathematically eliminated when he dropped out.

Giuliani staked his entire campaign on being able to ignore the small states and bring home the big states. The problem was he didn't bring them home. McCain did.

Not even Thompson was mathematically eliminated when he dropped out.

He wasn't eliminated but he, like several others went through several contests and never gained a single delegate. When you go through several contests where you are supposed to be strong and don't win a single one of them, the writing is one the wall.

And this is the point I brought up about Obama, it is one thing to occasionally falter in an area of strength, but when you never perform there, it is a problem. Thompson was supposed to be a person who could bring home the Southern vote yet after several of the primaries, he had not won a single election or delegate. NEVER is a pretty strong indictment.

It is not Obama's fault that Clinton lives for nothing but the acquirement of personal power.


It is Obama's fault that he has not denied her a single large state that would stop her from pressing on.

If that were the case, you wouldn't have started this thread.

The only way Clinton could win the nomination is if something crazy happened, therefore she is put away in every rational sense.

It isn't crazy at all. 20% isn't crazy. .000002% is crazy.

Of course. Many things are statistically possible that are not worth taking seriously. I could be Jesus, it is statistically possible

If you have a 20% chance of being Jesus I would say go for it.:lol: 20% is still a serious chance especially with several weeks left for something to happen.

That wasn't your argument. You said that one needed to take "someone who is already pledged away from the other candidate."

As I said, that argument was bullshit. You are attempting to move the goalposts.

I think you and I probably see this different because I think Florida and Michigan will factor into the convention with it being so close. I think the party is very concerned about McCain being able to cleave off Hillary voters if she doesn't get the nomination.

Go here (http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/03/florida-and-michigan-by-numbers.html) and you will see the Obama delegate lead becomes only 9 when those two states are included. You see what the each need, 413 or 422 and see the remaining 803 which will probably be close to evenly split since the Democratic formula requires basically supermajorities to get disproportionate delegates from a contest. You split that 803 evenly and see that they are both short delegates.

So to get there in my view, yes someone must take away from someone else in the end. This type of stuff can easily come up at the convention which is why everyone is praying it doesn't get there. If Obama doesn't get there on a first ballot, basically all bets are off.

You may not think this scenario likely but at least understand that I'm not lying about it.

What wins and states are you talking about?

Would winning California, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania by 15 point margins have reduced Hillary's odds to zero?

Even assuming that your logic is valid (which it isn't)... here's the answer: Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are popular! *mindblown*

How popular will the party be if it "disenfranchises" all women (especially older white women) when Hillary could win IF they sat the delegates from Florida and Michigan? How popular will the party be if Obama could have won if they didn't change the rules about seating those delegates?

Both are spin for a brokered convention, but people will buy what they want to buy and vote accordingly afterwards. Each candidate is profoundly popular within their various demographic groups, but appear not to have enough reach outside of that which is what this thread is basically about.

[addabox]

Just out of curiosity, what does a Democratic candidate's capacity to win a state in a primary, against another Democratic candidate, have to do with their ability to carry states in a general election, against a Republican opponent?

[Akumulator]

That's exactly right Addabox.

My question is... why does anyone reply to posts created by Trumptman, SDW and the like? They are not looking for honest answers. They are posting loaded questions.... like their only goal is to ruffle feathers, nothing more. It's a waste of time and energy to respond. Has either of them ever conceded a point? There is no real discussion where they're involved.

My other question...... do either of them even own a Mac? :\

[screener]

Unfortunately, you haven't read his policy proposals, which of course isn't surprising given that all the media seems to care about is sucking off mccain (who grows more senile by the minute) and enticing the democrats into a cat fight... but whatever, when whomever mccain gets as a vp takes over when the old man keels over and launches nukes against the Sunnis in Iran for supporting Al Queda, we'll all be laughing our asses off...
My impression of him has nothing to do with his policies, but can he get them realized.
I just don't think he's strong, or tough enough.

As for the rant against McCain, I can't see what you're seeing in regards to the media.
I'm no fan of his policy wise as I lean more to the left.

[jimmac]

Well one thing that's funny about all of this on a side note. Oregon's primary usually doesn't count for much. By this time things are pretty well lined up. Finally we can stand for something!:D

[Jubelum]

the key emotional issues (like a Republican)

What would you consider emotional issues?

[Jubelum]

Just out of curiosity, what does a Democratic candidate's capacity to win a state in a primary, against another Democratic candidate, have to do with their ability to carry states in a general election, against a Republican opponent?

It's a question of support, and the energy, or lack thereof, for the nominee.

One might think that the voters are picking the strongest candidate for their party... and turnout is the key to winning elections. The real question is wether the 20% or so on each side will or will not carry through on their threat to stay home or go McCain if their candidate does not win the Dem primary.

The inability to win a state convincingly means that there will still be work after the primary within the party, "healing" and such. Trust me, after watching what happened at my local Dem caucus in March, there is a huge problem that is not currently getting much better. It's getting worse. It's interesting to see a party hung up on race being divided along racial lines. Beyond just the HRC/hispanic bloc, there is the black vote, and the dixiecrat vote. One hell of a tap dance is going to be necessary.

It's a problem when you have to be concerned about still winning over your own party members, when you should be focusing on swing and independents in the general. It means fighting a two-front campaign where there should only be one.

Will blacks stay home if it is not Obama, after all this?
Will the bitter, feminists, and lower class whites stay home if it is not Hillary?

I think it is time for us to post a poll on PO... "Who are the superdelegates going to hand this to."

[addabox]

It's a question of support, and the energy, or lack thereof, for the nominee.

One might think that the voters are picking the strongest candidate for their party... and turnout is the key to winning elections. The real question is wether the 20% or so on each side will or will not carry through on their threat to stay home or go McCain if their candidate does not win the Dem primary.

The inability to win a state convincingly means that there will still be work after the primary within the party, "healing" and such. Trust me, after watching what happened at my local Dem caucus in March, there is a huge problem that is not currently getting much better. It's getting worse. It's interesting to see a party hung up on race being divided along racial lines. Beyond just the HRC/hispanic bloc, there is the black vote, and the dixiecrat vote. One hell of a tap dance is going to be necessary.

It's a problem when you have to be concerned about still winning over your own party members, when you should be focusing on swing and independents in the general. It means fighting a two-front campaign where there should only be one.

Will blacks stay home if it is not Obama, after all this?
Will the bitter, feminists, and lower class whites stay home if it is not Hillary?

I think it is time for us to post a poll on PO... "Who are the superdelegates going to hand this to."

OK, but if that's true it's true for both candidates. It's not an argument for Hillary being the stronger national candidate.

And, I don't buy it for a second. What a Hillary or Obama supporter is saying now about refusing to support the other candidate will be ancient history by the time the general rolls around.

The idea that there are substantial numbers of "bitter feminists" that would usher in a McCain presidency, just for spite, strikes me as primarily an artifact of your ill informed opinions about "feminists" capacity for "bitterness"-- and you might want to steer clear of ascribing "bitterness" as an attribute of anyone, elitist scum.

Anyway, the concern trolls have gotten a little thick on the ground, hereabouts. I think we can trust that the Dems will get their candidate, that there will be a certain percentage of the population that will find it difficult to vote for a black guy, and that when it's all said and done McCain is going to be running on a platform of extending Bush's war and economic policies.

Meanwhile, the extended campaign is getting many, many new Dem voters registered and energized and strengthening party infrastructure across the contested states.

[groverat]

Emotional issues are the ones that foster great emotion.

Abortion is the #1 example.

[trumptman]

Falsehood #1.

Aside from how the idea is not to contradict yourself in the same post, her "insanely high negatives" among all voters have nothing to do with a Democratic primary race. She's extremely popular among Democrats, and that's why she's getting votes.

I would argue if she actually were as popular as you claim then it wouldn't have been so easy to make her lead collapse so quickly in the polls. It evaporated so quickly because Obama simply represented a more palitable choice. Clinton with debate and various gaffes manages to make the issue about Obama because the second it is about her, she loses. Clinton claims the policy wonk role but has high negatives. Obama claims the change agent role is mostly an empty suit. This is why neither have closed the deal.

So I haven't contradicted myself. The race dynamics move between popularity and experience/policy. Clinton cannot control the ebb and flow of that but it explains quite a bit about the back and forth between the two.

Falsehood #2.

Obama won Illinois, the 5th most populous state.

It would be pretty much impossible for him to lose his home state. Name another top 10 state he has one. You can't.

Falsehood #3.

Obama and Clinton put different states into play in a prospective general election matchup with McCain.

You should honestly read TPM and Matt Yglesias.

I prefer reading sources that are not filtering the news for me thank you. Polls in Florida and Ohio swing 10-12% in favor of McCain depending upon whether it is Obama or Clinton. There are several more states that are this way as well. Obama loses big ground in many of the battleground and midsize states.

Just out of curiosity, what does a Democratic candidate's capacity to win a state in a primary, against another Democratic candidate, have to do with their ability to carry states in a general election, against a Republican opponent?

If they can't capture their own base over another candidate, it is unlikely they can win the state and thus the election. Obama for example does very poorly in Florida and Ohio against McCain compared to Clinton. We aren't talking a margin of error type of difference, we are talking 10-12 point difference that essentually hands the state over to McCain. You get of these, the election is lost.

That's exactly right Addabox.

My question is... why does anyone reply to posts created by Trumptman, SDW and the like? They are not looking for honest answers. They are posting loaded questions.... like their only goal is to ruffle feathers, nothing more. It's a waste of time and energy to respond. Has either of them ever conceded a point? There is no real discussion where they're involved.

My other question...... do either of them even own a Mac? :\

I own three Macs. MacBookPro, and two G4 towers.

If you don't want to reply, then don't. A search around here will note I've said that to others several times.

[Northgate]

Wrong, wrong, wrong. And intellectually dishonest to boot.

Dean supporters in 2004 vowed that they would NEVER support John Kerry if he were the nominee. They were passionate and fully supported Dean even after that infamous Dean-scream.

Guess what?

They ALL voted for Kerry. The alternative was simply unacceptable.

And it still is.

[groverat]

Relying on national polls in April to predict voting habits in November is stupid, to put it mildly. Voters are not like that. Allegiances are not like that. People are generally loyal to parties, not people. Those who are not loyal to parties are independents.

All this rage Hillary voters feel over Obama won't last long after she drops out and starts telling them to get behind Obama. They'll kiss and make up and the vast majority of Americans will forget they were ever fighting. Not only that, but she will get out on the stump for Obama and start gleefully attacking John McCain, comparing him to George Bush and attempting to gather some of the reflected glory for herself as someone who battle-tested Obama and helped get him elected. There's no reason for her to do anything else; it is in her interest as a power-seeker.

We won't know until those first McCain/Obama debates how this will shape up. They haven't gone toe-to-toe yet and that is what the independents will make their decision based on.

[Jubelum]

OK, but if that's true it's true for both candidates. It's not an argument for Hillary being the stronger national candidate.
And, I don't buy it for a second. What a Hillary or Obama supporter is saying now about refusing to support the other candidate will be ancient history by the time the general rolls around.

So you think that blacks will come out for Hillary, when the first viable black presidential candidate has just been defeated by Hillary? I guess there is a case to be made for that. I think some are going to stay home. And you think that hispanics are going to vote for Obama, after this turmoil AND a republican in the race that supports amnesty? Interesting.

The idea that there are substantial numbers of "bitter feminists" that would usher in a McCain presidency, just for spite, strikes me as primarily an artifact of your ill informed opinions about "feminists" capacity for "bitterness"-- and you might want to steer clear of ascribing "bitterness" as an attribute of anyone, elitist scum.

Go back and re-read... the bitter AND feminists. Not bitter feminists... except Geraldine Ferraro. "Ill informed opinions"? I did not make a statement concerning feminists and their bitterness, or any other trait about them. Come on adda... I'm throwing out questions for honest debate here... just asking about what extent who is going to support who. And as far as ascribing bitterness, that is a Democrat trait apparently, and calling me "elitist scum" is far below your usual high standard of debate. When I refer to the "bitter" as a group (as I did here) I was obviously referring to those who may have been offended by Obama's remarks.

Meanwhile, the extended campaign is getting many, many new Dem voters registered and energized and strengthening party infrastructure across the contested states.

Nevermind 13.5 million people who are being urged to cross party lines and vote for HRC. Meh. And as far as party structure being strengthened... that is not at all what I saw at the Dem caucus here in Texas. There were cops between the factions in the lecture hall.

[Jubelum]

Because he's not, I consider this a deficiency in his campaign.

It's hard to get up by very many points with the endless tantric Obamagasms that are only now starting to subside... It's all but impossible to discuss the mechanics of Obama's solutions when someone is in the middle of enjoying the "Big O." I've tried on numerous occasions... and it usually descends into "McCain is old. Obama is young, and articulate, and he has hope, and he loves people" being the so-called substance of the argument.

I just can't wait for Obama to show me something CONCRETE I can believe in. Still waiting...

[midwinter]

I'm a little curious about how, precisely, Obama hasn't "closed the deal." Looks to me like in Act V of the Presidential nomination, the part of Huckabee will be played by HRC.

[addabox]

So you think that blacks will come out for Hillary, when the first viable black presidential candidate has just been defeated by Hillary? I guess there is a case to be made for that. I think some are going to stay home. And you think that hispanics are going to vote for Obama, after this turmoil AND a republican in the race that supports amnesty? Interesting.



Go back and re-read... the bitter AND feminists. Not bitter feminists... except Geraldine Ferraro. "Ill informed opinions"? I did not make a statement concerning feminists and their bitterness, or any other trait about them. Come on adda... I'm throwing out questions for honest debate here... just asking about what extent who is going to support who. And as far as ascribing bitterness, that is a Democrat trait apparently, and calling me "elitist scum" is far below your usual high standard of debate. When I refer to the "bitter" as a group (as I did here) I was obviously referring to those who may have been offended by Obama's remarks.



Nevermind 13.5 million people who are being urged to cross party lines and vote for HRC. Meh. And as far as party structure being strengthened... that is not at all what I saw at the Dem caucus here in Texas. There were cops between the factions in the lecture hall.

First of all, Obama is the nominee. Any talk of some kind of Hillary coup, at this point, is just the natterings of her campaign press, a national media that knows a horse race, no matter how contrived, pushes ratings, and the RNC.

So we can set aside any notions of African Americans sitting out the national election. And, again, there is virtually no chance that any sizable number of Hillary supporters are going to sit it out for spite, either. They know what's at stake.

It's a fact that the primary is swelling registration numbers and putting ground troops into place. The fact that you saw a fractious caucus in your neck of the woods doesn't gainsay that, as the Dems are a fractious peoples by nature and come November have their best motivation in a generation to close ranks.

The Hispanic vote is certainly in play, but a prolonged primary doesn't have much bearing on that, I don't think, and I can't imagine that there would be a sizable contingent that would have voted for Hillary that will now vote for McCain. Hispanics aren't one dimensional voters that can be herded entirely on immigration.

Elitist scum was a joke, you humorless dog.

[Jubelum]

I'm a little curious about how, precisely, Obama hasn't "closed the deal." Looks to me like in Act V of the Presidential nomination, the part of Huckabee will be played by HRC.

Yea... I've kinda wondered that myself... where is the finish line for this thing... when HRC finally concedes? I'm not holding my breath for that one. At least not any time soon. I see this going until the convention or *maybe* until enough Supers answer Howard Dean's prayer and end it.

"Closing the deal" means defeating a Clinton... which is hard within the Democratic party. It is impossible for either of them to "close the deal" because the party elite are going to make the final decision. That's the only "close" there is going to be to the "deal." Short of either one of them (Clinton) dropping out.

[Jubelum]

Elitist scum was a joke, you humorless dog.

oh, so now I'm a dog, too?... a yippy little Fancy Feast, no, human-food-eating, little purebred with a Starbucks dog bowl. Well I never... :devil: ;)

[midwinter]

Yea... I've kinda wondered that myself... where is the finish line for this thing... when HRC finally concedes? I'm not holding my breath for that one. At least not any time soon. I see this going until the convention or *maybe* until enough Supers answer Howard Dean's prayer and end it.

"Closing the deal" means defeating a Clinton... which is hard within the Democratic party. It is impossible for either of them to "close the deal" because the party elite are going to make the final decision. That's the only "close" there is going to be to the "deal." Short of either one of them (Clinton) dropping out.

She's going to push this to the convention. She has said as much. They're obviously hoping for a brokered convention, but that's likely not goign to happen, considering Obama's commanding lead in all metrics.

[Northgate]

If Hillary is so much better, why is Obama kicking her ass? Why?

Because IF Obama wasn't black, and IF millions of people weren't supporting him, and IF he didn't raise all that money, and IF his campaign hadn't been run better than hers, and IF Red states hadn't had the gall to vote, and IF those damn activists didn't disagree with her on war in Iraq and nuking Iran, and IF MoveOn wasn't so effective, and IF latte sippers didn't vote, and IF we had the same system as Republicans, and IF the news networks weren't more like Fox News, and IF small states that don't matter didn't count, and IF Keith Olbermann didn't have it out for her, and IF Pennsylvania was the only state that mattered -- then Clinton would be the nominee.

This a quote from a site I'd rather not name so the point is not lost into a meta-argument about bias.

[Northgate]

Yea... I've kinda wondered that myself... where is the finish line for this thing... when HRC finally concedes? I'm not holding my breath for that one. At least not any time soon. I see this going until the convention or *maybe* until enough Supers answer Howard Dean's prayer and end it.

"Closing the deal" means defeating a Clinton... which is hard within the Democratic party. It is impossible for either of them to "close the deal" because the party elite are going to make the final decision. That's the only "close" there is going to be to the "deal." Short of either one of them (Clinton) dropping out.

Wow, we finally agree completely on something. :lol::lol:

[Jubelum]

Wow, we finally agree completely on something. :lol::lol:

<clutches chest>

[addabox]

Gentlemen! You can't get along in here! This is Political Outsider!

[Jubelum]

Gentlemen! You can't get along in here! This is Political Outsider!

Sorry... California SUCKS! ;)

(There, that'll set things straight ;) )

[Jubelum]

His or yours?

:p

Hmmmmm.. that's a toss up... :lol:

Naahhh, I wouldn't want to wrinkle his shirt. Dry cleaning is expensive, gives the wealthy an advantage in business, and harms the environment. Sure to be banned in California very soon.

[jimmac]

Wrong, wrong, wrong. And intellectually dishonest to boot.

Dean supporters in 2004 vowed that they would NEVER support John Kerry if he were the nominee. They were passionate and fully supported Dean even after that infamous Dean-scream.

Guess what?

They ALL voted for Kerry. The alternative was simply unacceptable.

And it still is.

Yup! That's what will happen this time. Sure they have a lot of rabid support for their favorite now but when comes down to it and there's only one to stand behind they're not just going to not vote. And they're not going to vote republican. That's just a conservative's wet dream at best. If it's a choice ( after what we've had for 8 years ) they're going to support their platform. Even if that means supporting the other candidate that they once slung mud at.

[jimmac]

Gentlemen! You can't get along in here! This is Political Outsider!

Oh! Really? I thought it was the " War Room "!:lol:

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Anyone want to join me in this... really great video session?

Johnmccain71 in your Skypes.

[Frank777]

This question (http://www.thestar.com/News/USElection/article/417770) was the Front Page article in today's Toronto Star. Yes, in Canada.

The Star is as left-wing a daily paper as you can get here in T.O. They're known as the Liberal Star.

I think the Clinton camp has put out this talking point across the board in an all-out attempt to reframe the issue.
She's definitely not going out quietly.

[Jubelum]

an all-out attempt to reframe the issue.

A Clinton? Reframing the debate? Naaawwww...

I think a huge wildcard in this is the fact that there are still about 10% of the Supers that have not been selected. I'm not sure how Dean, Reid, Pelosi, and crew plan to get people do decide, when no one yet knows who all of them are? :err: Anyone have any insight on that aspect?

And as far as defections... Gallup (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CypQZJ_ZkU&eurl=http://prezvid.com/2008/03/26/sore-losers/)... 28% of Clinton voters would shift to McCain if Obama wins while 19% of Obama voters would do likewise if Clinton wins.

I'm not sure we'll see those kind of numbers... but with the country this closely divided... who knows if it could turn an election.

[BRussell]

And as far as defections... Gallup (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CypQZJ_ZkU&eurl=http://prezvid.com/2008/03/26/sore-losers/)...

I'm not sure we'll see those kind of numbers... but with the country this closely divided... who knows if it could turn an election. If it's just normal party in-fighting there's no way the numbers are that big and there's no way it's going to keep Obama out of the White House. But if it's racial, and I think it would be naive to assume it's not, it could turn the election. If 5% of voters who would otherwise vote for a Democrat (i.e., Hillary) in 2008 instead vote for McCain because Obama is black, that's trouble. On the other hand, I doubt Hillary would get many Republican cross-over voters, but Obama could.

[Jubelum]

If it's just normal party in-fighting there's no way the numbers are that big and there's no way it's going to keep Obama out of the White House. But if it's racial, and I think it would be naive to assume it's not, it could turn the election. If 5% of voters who would otherwise vote for a Democrat (i.e., Hillary) in 2008 instead vote for McCain because Obama is black, that's trouble. On the other hand, I doubt Hillary would get many Republican cross-over voters, but Obama could.

I think there is something to the idea that some moderate HRC voters would go for McCain. He's not saying all that many things that sound different from Hillary. :err:

[jimmac]

I think there is something to the idea that some moderate HRC voters would go for McCain. He's not saying all that many things that sound different from Hillary. :err:

Hillary's not saying we should stay in Iraq for a " hundred years " if necessary.

[addabox]

I think there is something to the idea that some moderate HRC voters would go for McCain. He's not saying all that many things that sound different from Hillary. :err:

Wait till the general. His "maverick kinda/sorta a liberal sometimes if you squint" thing can't hold up to scrutiny (yes, I know that by your lights he's practically a Democrat, but your lights go to 11).

At any rate, what BRussell said. Hillary does better with the base, Obama pulls in the periphery.

Really, think about it: in the midst of a heated campaign, you're a loyalist for the beleaguered underdog, and someone asks you if you'd vote for the other party if your candidate loses. And you're all like "Hell yeah! I'm warning you! Do it our way or we'll blow the whole thing up!"

Which is just bravado, and not that surprising, given the tenor of the moment. The people who are voting for Hillary now are probably the least likely McCain voters in the country.

[midwinter]

WHillary does better with the base, Obama pulls in the periphery.


Is this actually true, though? I thought she did better amongst white non-labor folks than she did with labor folks.

I honestly don't know.

[Frank777]

And if an Obama-Clinton ticket, issue resolved.

Obama is a leftie, but he's not a totally crazy leftie.

Being the one person standing between a Clinton and the Presidency is not a safe place to be.

[midwinter]

:lol:

I know. That long line of Clinton presidencies is just soooo formidable.

[Jubelum]

Closing the deal... by closing up shop (http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/trailhead/archive/2008/04/24/drop-out-obama.aspx)? :lol::lol::lol:

[midwinter]

Oh laugh.

I realize that law school required a humor-ectomy, but I was laughing, dude.

[vinea]

Closing the deal... by closing up shop (http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/trailhead/archive/2008/04/24/drop-out-obama.aspx)? :lol::lol::lol:

Wow is that a dumb scenario...

[trumptman]

Yes, you're right about that fact.

Obama hasn't won a single large state except for his home state of Illinois.

That aside, one of the hallmarks I think of productive discussion is a give and take.

If you say "Obama hasn't won a single large state" and then are provided with evidence that Obama has in fact won a large state, most people would acknowledge that mistake before launching into an argument. "Ah. I stand corrected. But my point still stands. Except for his home state, Obama has trouble winning large states against Clinton." It's just the good-faith thing to do.

I have no idea what this means.

If you want to argue that Clinton isn't a popular politician in Democratic circles, then I'm going to have to scratch my head.

Ah. I stand corrected. But my point still stands. Except for his home state, Obama has trouble winning large states against Clinton.;)

I have no idea what this means.

If you want to argue that Clinton isn't a popular politician in Democratic circles, then I'm going to have to scratch my head.

I would get to scratching. You are registered with the party of identity politics. Hillary Clinton meets the criteria of one of those groups and she does so competently. It doesn't however mean that she is the first choice or most popular within that group or the party. One of her primary tactics in this campaign has been to basically scold women for not thinking of their own when they go with Obama for charisma, policy, or whatever reasons. If I had a nickel for everytime I had read a female columnist type "I desperately want a woman president, and I want to vote for a woman over a man all things being equal, but I can't vote for Hillary," I wouldn't need to work this year.

Relying on national polls in April to predict voting habits in November is stupid, to put it mildly. Voters are not like that. Allegiances are not like that. People are generally loyal to parties, not people. Those who are not loyal to parties are independents.

All this rage Hillary voters feel over Obama won't last long after she drops out and starts telling them to get behind Obama. They'll kiss and make up and the vast majority of Americans will forget they were ever fighting. Not only that, but she will get out on the stump for Obama and start gleefully attacking John McCain, comparing him to George Bush and attempting to gather some of the reflected glory for herself as someone who battle-tested Obama and helped get him elected. There's no reason for her to do anything else; it is in her interest as a power-seeker.

We won't know until those first McCain/Obama debates how this will shape up. They haven't gone toe-to-toe yet and that is what the independents will make their decision based on.

While you are absolutely correct about 95% of the people out there, we are talking about elections where that 5% can easily turn the tables or perhaps even less than that. I can't find them anymore but the "every vote counts" articles that popped around after the last election did a good job of noting how many votes in how many districts would have altered entire states and thus the electoral college. You lose a couple hundred thousand nationwide and the ramifications can be huge.

I'm a little curious about how, precisely, Obama hasn't "closed the deal." Looks to me like in Act V of the Presidential nomination, the part of Huckabee will be played by HRC.

Apparently you didn't understand that we are in act seven of a five act play.

She's going to push this to the convention. She has said as much. They're obviously hoping for a brokered convention, but that's likely not goign to happen, considering Obama's commanding lead in all metrics.

I think commanding is overstating it a bit. If it were commanding the super-delegates wouldn't have to be deciding this.

If it's just normal party in-fighting there's no way the numbers are that big and there's no way it's going to keep Obama out of the White House. But if it's racial, and I think it would be naive to assume it's not, it could turn the election. If 5% of voters who would otherwise vote for a Democrat (i.e., Hillary) in 2008 instead vote for McCain because Obama is black, that's trouble. On the other hand, I doubt Hillary would get many Republican cross-over voters, but Obama could.

It could be about more than being black though. Clinton has clearly triangulated the war and several others issues. Yes she stands on both sides of those issues. It doesn't have to have fooled everyone but X percent could be voting for her and then switch to McCain due to them having a similar view justified or not.

I realize that law school required a humor-ectomy, but I was laughing, dude.

He wanted to laugh, but then he would have to charge you. If it isn't billable, it doesn't get attention anymore. ;):lol:

I don't want to start a new thread but this interesting piece by right-wing hack, Paul Krugman (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/25/opinion/25krugman.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin) came up.

Mr. Obama was supposed to be a transformational figure, with an almost magical ability to transcend partisan differences and unify the nation. Once voters got to know him — and once he had eliminated Hillary Clinton’s initial financial and organizational advantage — he was supposed to sweep easily to the nomination, then march on to a huge victory in November.

Oh damn, it is that "insanely retarded meme" that I made up and that no one else anywhere has thought, stated or said.

Well, now he has an overwhelming money advantage and the support of much of the Democratic establishment — yet he still can’t seem to win over large blocs of Democratic voters, especially among the white working class.

As a result, he keeps losing big states. And general election polls suggest that he might well lose to John McCain.

Or perhaps this was the "insanely retarded meme" I was pulling out of my butt having read it at Faux News.

From the beginning, I wondered what Mr. Obama’s soaring rhetoric, his talk of a new politics and declarations that “we are the ones we’ve been waiting for” (waiting for to do what, exactly?) would mean to families troubled by lagging wages, insecure jobs and fear of losing health coverage. The answer, from Ohio and Pennsylvania, seems pretty clear: not much. Mrs. Clinton has been able to stay in the race, against heavy odds, largely because her no-nonsense style, her obvious interest in the wonkish details of policy, resonate with many voters in a way that Mr. Obama’s eloquence does not.

Here, let me edit that down a bit for you. Empty suits and platitudes have limited appeal.

The question Democrats, both inside and outside the Obama campaign, should be asking themselves is this: now that the magic has dissipated, what is the campaign about? More generally, what are the Democrats for in this election?

Do you mean how are they going to govern? They can't answer that!! The answer is... we aren't George W. Bush and that is how we are going to govern.

Wait.. that wasn't an answer?!?

That should be an easy question to answer. Democrats can justly portray themselves as the party of economic security, the party that created Social Security and Medicare and defended those programs against Republican attacks — and the party that can bring assured health coverage to all Americans.

They can also portray themselves as the party of prosperity: the contrast between the Clinton economy and the Bush economy is the best free advertisement that Democrats have had since Herbert Hoover.

This would be a good line to take, except the reality is that the party is all about identity politics and victim grievances.

But let's ignore this. Paul Krugman and the NY Times are just another part of that right wing echo chamber. His points are all made up nonsense that no one else out there is thinking or saying. He just was emailed his talking point from Karl Rove and is passing them on.:p

[groverat]

While you are absolutely correct about 95% of the people out there, we are talking about elections where that 5% can easily turn the tables or perhaps even less than that. I can't find them anymore but the "every vote counts" articles that popped around after the last election did a good job of noting how many votes in how many districts would have altered entire states and thus the electoral college. You lose a couple hundred thousand nationwide and the ramifications can be huge.

Sure, but there might be 6% who currently support McCain that decide Obama is the kind of all greatness and vote for him. Discussing vague potentialities 7 months away is pointless and stupid.

[@_@ Artman]

Done deal. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120899521565139921.html?mod=rss_Today's_Most_Pop ular)

Maybe. But I trust Rupert Murdoch and the Wall Street Journal. Really I do. :rolleyes:

[Jubelum]

Done deal. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120899521565139921.html?mod=rss_Today's_Most_Pop ular)

Maybe. But I trust Rupert Murdoch and the Wall Street Journal. Really I do. :rolleyes:

I think that article is pretty close to perfect analysis of the situation.

If Hillary ends up the nominee... I believe that all hell is going to break loose within the party. I can't imagine that the Democratic party is stupid enough to override the delegate and popular vote, to put up someone who has 50% personal disapproval numbers regardless of who she is pitted against. That number alone makes her a read electoral dud.

Unfortunately, her not being coroneted will not be the end of the Era of Clinton. Not by a long shot.

[addabox]

Chris Matthews (http://thinkprogress.org/2008/04/25/matthews-whites-are-willing-to-support-obama-in-the-same-way-they-root-for-black-athletes/), of the Liberal Media, thinks that Obama need to act more like a trash talking black athlete, since white people will root for a black guy if he's winning for the home team:

You got to talk like a firebrand because if you‘re carrying their fight for them, they‘re going to like you. You know, a lot of white people root for black athletes because they‘re winning for the home team. People are quite willing to pick up black heroes, if they‘ll win for their side.

That would be the same Chris Matthews who likes to make a distinction between black Americans and "regular people". Mr. Matthews is very impressed with his own status as a regular Joe, who speaks for the other regular Joes, like the ones Obama offended so grievously by calling them bitter. Black people have no business characterizing normal people. They should just keep dancing, and maybe normal people will be entertained enough to like them.

Yep, sure is grotesque for Obama to "play the race card", since he's the only one who's even noticed that he's a negro. Trying to take politics and turn it into some kind of booga booga thing, shameless darkie that he is.

Why the fuck does a creepy idiot like Matthews even have a pulpit from which to spout this gibberish? Is he supposed to be the national id, just blurting whatever comes to mind?

[Jubelum]

Chris Matthews (http://thinkprogress.org/2008/04/25/matthews-whites-are-willing-to-support-obama-in-the-same-way-they-root-for-black-athletes/), of the Liberal Media, thinks that Obama need to act more like a trash talking black athlete, since white people will root for a black guy if he's winning for the home team:

That would be the same Chris Matthews who likes to make a distinction between black Americans and "regular people". Mr. Matthews is very impressed with his own status as a regular Joe, who speaks for the other regular Joes, like the ones Obama offended so grievously by calling them bitter. Black people have no business characterizing normal people. They should just keep dancing, and maybe normal people will be entertained enough to like them.

Yep, sure is grotesque for Obama to "play the race card", since he's the only one who's even noticed that he's a negro. Trying to take politics and turn it into some kind of booga booga thing, shameless darkie that he is.

Why the fuck does a creepy idiot like Matthews even have a pulpit from which to spout this gibberish? Is he supposed to be the national id, just blurting whatever comes to mind?

Mr. Matthews is a former Carter speechwriter, one of Tip's boys, failed Dem candidate, Bush voter, and all around windbag. Think Carter's Malaise speech... what a masterpiece. Regardless of which side he is taking at any one time, his "arguments" usually begin with