Originally Posted by groverat 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.
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.
Originally Posted by ShawnJ
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
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.
Originally Posted by ShawnJ
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.