Originally Posted by ShawnJ
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.
Originally Posted by groverat
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.
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
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.