Originally Posted By RoadTrip Hillary Clinton should without a doubt be the democratic candidate for President. Sure, Obama has more delegates. Obama has more popular votes. Obama has more states. But as we all found out in 2000, none of those make a bit of difference. What elects our Presidents? Electoral votes. I decided to look at the electoral votes that would be awarded based on the states each candidate has won in the primaries and caucuses. It wouldn't even be close; Clinton is ahead by almost 50%. I'm amazed that the press hasn't looked at this or that the Clinton campaign hasn't pointed it out. Maybe they have and the press is ignoring it because they like to prolong the battle. I've been a strong supporter of Obama. I still am. But Hillary is without question the stronger candidate. What do you think? Clinton Arizona 10 Arkansas 6 California 55 Florida 27 Indiana 11 Massachusetts 12 Michigan 17 Nevada 5 New Hampshire 4 New Jersey 15 New Mexico 5 New York 31 Ohio 20 Oklahoma 7 Pennsylvania 21 Rhode Island 4 Tennessee 11 Texas 34 West Virginia 5 Total 300 Obama Alabama 9 Alaska 3 Colorado 9 Connecticut 7 Delaware 3 District of Columbia 3 Georgia 15 Hawaii 4 Idaho 4 Illinois 21 Iowa 7 Kansas 6 Louisiana 9 Maine 4 Maryland 10 Minnesota 10 Mississippi 6 Missouri 11 Nebraska 5 North Carolina 15 North Dakota 3 South Carolina 8 Utah 5 Vermont 3 Virginia 13 Washington 11 Wyoming 3 Total 207
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 Since jon idn't here anymore I will make one comment, Obama will not win the Presidency for the simple fact that he cannot get a large majority of the white vote as proven by the slaughter in West Virginia. The media is basically handing Obama the election, treating him like a "Golden Child", only to watch him lose to McCain in November. IMO, Hillary stands a better chance against McCain than Obama, especially looking at the numbers above.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan If she were the stronger candidate, she'd be winning. She isn't. Team Clinton likes working the numbers all sorts of different ways. Never have I seen so much spin as what they dish out every day. It's the Calvinball Candidacy -- the goalposts for "winning" are moved at the convenience of the candidate.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>decided to look at the electoral votes that would be awarded based on the states each candidate has won in the primaries and caucuses. It wouldn't even be close; Clinton is ahead by almost 50%.<< That won't matter much this fall. Keep in mind, several of those states had votes split between Clinton, Obama, Edwards and several other Democrat candidates. In the end, few Democrats will jump party lines to vote for McCain (or Bush's 3rd term -- I like that line). Few Republicans will jump over to vote for Clinton or Obama In fact, what your analysis doesn't show is that the anti-Clinton venom out there would actually get MORE GOP voters to vote, they hate her so. She can't win.
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 Let's be real, Obama will cause MORE GOP voters to vote, especially in the south where race still matters to an extent....
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 and no I did not mean to call the GOP racist, just most racists will vote Republican this year.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I hope that if Obama loses, it is because of policy maters and not race. If he wins, I hope it is policy matters, and not race. I know that is naive perhaps, but I am hoping that people vote for whoever they want for the right reasons, and not for fear of having a person of a different color or gender in the White House. I hope we're better than that.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< Hillary Clinton should without a doubt be the democratic candidate for President. Sure, Obama has more delegates. Obama has more popular votes. Obama has more states. But as we all found out in 2000, none of those make a bit of difference. What elects our Presidents? Electoral votes. >>> This isn't Hillary's fault. It's not Obama's fault. The Democratic party's primary system is not aligned with the Electoral College. Arguing the fairness of such a system after the game is in play is senseless. Maybe this year's situation will cause the powers that be in the D party to reconsider their primary rules.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Let's be real, Obama will cause MORE GOP voters to vote, especially in the south where race still matters to an extent..<< I think it's exactly the opposite. I think the GOP has such an irrational hatred of Hillary, that they'd turn out in droves to vote against her. Witness Rush's Operation Chaos. On the other hand, while there's still racism in America, it's a subtle racism, by and large. I don't see anyone going out to vote against Obama because of his race - at least not in numbers big enough to make a difference. But on the other hand, I do see "white guilt" playing a role. In fact, I think white guilt would play a much larger role than white racism. I see Obama causing far more GOP to stay at home than Hillary. And like I told jonvn time and time again, the fact that blacks support Obama does not translate into whites don't. Hillary has blue collar support, that's why she did so well in West Virginia. Obama does well with upper-class democrats and college students. Which is why Obama is currently leading Hillary by 20 points in Oregon, not exactly a state known for its giant African-American population.
Originally Posted By ecdc And like superdry, I find the OP logic to be flawed. It's certainly the kind that Hillary's employing, but it doesn't cut it. The fact that Hillary won certain states in a primary against Obama does not mean Obama can't win them in a general election against McCain. Quite the contrary, no one expects Obama to lose California or New York, two of the biggest electoral prizes, against McCain.
Originally Posted By ecdc One last thing - I find the title of this thread to be most curious. The only one trying to do the robbing at this point is Hillary Clinton. Obama, unlike Hillary, obeyed his party's rules and did not campaign in Michigan or Florida and did not have his name on the ballot in Michigan. It is nearly mathematically impossible for Clinton to win, yet she continues to finesse numbers to show that she's somehow doing great. She wants the superdelegates to go against the will of the Democratic party voters and anoint her the nominee. Barack Obama has followed his party's rules and campaigned for votes, not for a coronation.
Originally Posted By mele >>Let's be real, Obama will cause MORE GOP voters to vote, especially in the south where race still matters to an extent.. I think it's exactly the opposite. I think the GOP has such an irrational hatred of Hillary>> Yikes, I hope more than hatred is on most conservatives' agendas! One thing about this race, I am okay with just about anyone of the 3 winning. I don't dislike any of them too much (although Hillary is working my last nerve-I am not sure how much of her voice I can stand listening to anymore). It's a nice feeling to not be completely disgusted with our choices and not to feel too much dread about it. I almost feel less inclined to get out and vote this year because I'm comfortable with whomever wins. I will still vote, but I'm not dying to cast my vote for or against anyone in particular.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << And by the way, the South is where Obama did very well. >> Have we had a general election in the South yet? Any Democrat will be hard pressed to win in the South. Here's the real question -- can Obama carry Florida? Florida has essentially decided the last two presidential elections. I don't think a Democrat can win without Florida. I still think it will be nearly impossible for a Republican to win this time around, but the Democrats are trying to do everything they possibly can to ensure a tighter race than necessary. RoadTrip's analysis is pretty much spot on with how things might go in November. There will be states that voted for Hillary that will likely go for Obama -- California comes to mind. But there are also Red states in the Midwest and South that neither Democrat would be able to carry in the Fall.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Yikes, I hope more than hatred is on most conservatives' agendas!<< And I know there is. You're right - it's not fair to portray conservatives as simply "against" someone, especially for such shallow reasons. McCain isn't a bad candidate - I think Republicans have every reason to feel good about him. Of course, there's also no denying that a lot of conservatives really, really hate Hillary Clinton. It's also no secret that some are not happy with McCain as the nominee - he's not conservative enough for their tastes. So my contention is that, when viewing this particular segment of the GOP - the dittoheads and Hannityites - they would come out and vote against Hillary, but many of them would simply stay home when Obama is on the ticket. We've even had people on these boards acknowledge that they may vote for McCain, but they'll be "holding my nose" when they do it.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Obama, unlike Hillary, obeyed his party's rules and did not campaign in Michigan or Florida and did not have his name on the ballot in Michigan.<< Exactly. When we look back at this election years from now, we'll see a series of shady moves by the Clinton campaign throughout, the constant moving of the goalposts, the "finding her voice" ever-shifiting tone of her campaign. It's the worst, most obvious sort of pandering, and for once, it didn't work. Instead of accepting reality, however, they keep slugging away, hurting the party. It's about the Clinton ego, always was. They agreed to a certain set of rules when they felt the nomination would be an easy victory lap through Super Tuesday for Hillary, and instead, a series of clumsy moves, outbursts and flip-flopping caused more Democrats to vote for Obama. Accept reality. Own up to the fact that you ran a terrible, expensive campaign.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Winning a state in your primary does not necessarily mean you will win it in the general election. Losing a state in your primary does not necessarily mean you will lose it in the general election. This is true for Republicans and Democrats both, and it's true every election cycle. And by the way, I HAVE heard Clinton (or her surrogates) use the "if we did this like the republicans and had winner take all, I'd have won by now" and/or "if you look at the states by electoral votes, I'd have won by now" (which is essentially the same argument). The reason this hasn't held much water with people is because those aren't the rules everyone in the party agreed to. And you can't change the rules after the fact. All the candidates played by the same rules, and Clinton had every chance to win the nomination as she assumed she would. She's being beaten fair and square.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>And you can't change the rules after the fact<< Unless you're a Clinton. Her whole campaign is filled with guys that really did believe the whole "it depends on how you define 'is'" argument. They quite willing to change the rules in regards to Florida and Michigan. No way would they have wanted to if Hillary had been trailing in those states. Of course, she violated the rules and that's partly why she is ahead in those states.
Originally Posted By sun-n-fun First I am not a "political" person. I am not as well informed as I know I should be. I also am not even sure which candidate I like the most. But I do live in western NYS where the population continutes to decline. It's old steel plant country where plants continue to close and businesses continue to move south. Hillary has only been to this part of our state maybe 4 or 5 times, always promising something and NEVER delivering. I know that is part of the politcal game and a lot of NYers are tired of it (but not enough to change it apparently). I'm sure others would argue, especially if they live closer to NYC, but IMHO she is probably one of the worst Senators we have ever had. If she does for the country what she has (or hasn't done in this case) for the state look out!!!
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Wow... you guys are a little excitable! The title of the thread uses a little hyperbole to get attention. But I think the argument I present is valid. At this point neither candidate can win without superdelegates. Superdelegates are there to provide high level party input in the event they think the primary voters got it wrong. There would be no use for them otherwise. If they were just supposed to mirror the primary vote they would be unnecessary. It's not a bad concept. The Jesse Ventura experience in Minnesota shows just how far off the voters can be. Superdelegates provide checks and balance to the primary system. So the job of a superdelegate is to determine who the best candidate is. To a large extent that is a determination of who is most electable. First and foremost the party wants to win elections. They would rather win with the "wrong" candidate than lose with the "right" one. So I don't think you can say Clinton is out of line when she makes the argument that superdelegates should vote for her because she is the more electable candidate. The data I presented showed that Hillary was clearly stronger in the states with large electoral votes. Some here argued that not all of the states Hillary won would be won by the democrat in the general election. That is a fair criticism and I thought it deserved a response. So I went through the list and asterisked those states that were won by Kerry in 2004. I think it is pretty safe to say that the Democratic nominee should carry those states in 2008. Clinton still comes out ahead and by an even larger margin; 159 electoral votes to 76 electoral votes. Does that mean that Obama could not carry those states too? Of course not. But it would be hard to argue that Hillary is not the stronger candidate in the big democratic states where it really counts. Don't get me wrong. I still want Obama to win. I think he can provide the change that this country needs. I would love to see someone in the White House that was not a Bush or a Clinton. But when people criticize and mock Hillary for staying in, I don't think they are treating her fairly. She makes a valid claim that she is the stronger candidate. Clinton Arizona 10 Arkansas 6 California 55* Florida 27 Indiana 11 Massachusetts 12* Michigan 17* Nevada 5 New Hampshire 4* New Jersey 15* New Mexico 5 New York 31* Ohio 20 Oklahoma 7 Pennsylvania 21* Rhode Island 4* Tennessee 11 Texas 34 West Virginia 5 Total 300 States won by Kerry in 2004 159 Obama Alabama 9 Alaska 3 Colorado 9 Connecticut 7* Delaware 3* District of Columbia 3* Georgia 15 Hawaii 4* Idaho 4 Illinois 21* Iowa 7 Kansas 6 Louisiana 9 Maine 4* Maryland 10* Minnesota 10* Mississippi 6 Missouri 11 Nebraska 5 North Carolina 15 North Dakota 3 South Carolina 8 Utah 5 Vermont 3* Virginia 13 Washington 11* Wyoming 3 Total 207 States won by Kerry in 2004 76
