Better hope if he catches fire, it’s not his pants!
Ok, so let me see if I get the meaning of the following statement.
This means that Hillary is a generic Democrat who underperformed in the 2008 primaries.
It definitely does not mean that Hillary was not as good as Obama at getting votes despite the fact that they received about the same number of votes (no way to say for certain either way) in the 2008 primaries.
OP, are you sticking with this prediction no matter who is the Republican nominee?
That link you provide a page earlier (thank you for that) shows that Hillary only won when Michigan *and *Florida votes were included.
We’re all free to interpret that how we want, but to me, her winning in states where everybody agreed not to campaign, and one where Obama wasn’t even on the ballot, supports the contention that Clinton is a generic Democrat who wins when there’s nothing else to get excited about.
While Obama, with his near-equal vote total, must be one too, right? If you’re arguing from evidence, that is. Are you?
Let me be absolutely clear in the point I’m trying to make.
Even if you look at the the popular vote totals from the 2008 primaries in the way that is most favorable to Obama, Hillary was within 3%. For this reason, the idea that Hillary was “not so good” at getting Democrats to vote for her is ridiculous, because it would also imply that Obama was only slightly less “not so good” at getting democrats to vote for him.
She was about as good at getting Democrats to vote for her as Obama was, which was really damn good.
Elvis, read the damned article, since you don’t remember the 2008 primary.
Clinton had 16 years of national name recognition, and every state Obama targeted, he destroyed her. A lot of that is not apparent in the primary vote totals because of caucuses.
Still, Clinton could only claim to have gotten more votes than Obama when adding in two states that were supposedly disenfranchised, and even then when Obama is given a vote total of 0 in Michigan.
He did?
Oh. 
About that “arguing from evidence” stuff, then …
17,293,205 votes = voters are eneregized, feel involved
16,846,534 votes = generic Democrat, yawn
Is that what you’re going for?
I don’t think this is quite right. He destroyed her in caucus states, which are a very different beast than primary states and which allowed him to get a large lead.
He did not destroy her in primary states, even when he was trying. He did not win in Ohio, for example, despite trying hard. I know because I was part of the effort in Ohio.
Obama ran a better campaign than Clinton, but there is no evidence that she was a bad candidate. She just lost to someone with a better strategy.
I agree. Hillary just didn’t plan the campaign well and more or less blew off all the caucus states. Obama was able to pick up lots of delegates because his ground game was better. But she still beat the crap out of Obama in places like Pennsylvania and Ohio and I think would easily carry these two crucial states vs Jeb.
I thought Democrat-to-be-Named-Later could have won in 2007. I absolutely think Hillary can win in '16. And I think her chances are even better if the other name on the ballot is Bush.
adaher’s favorite poll site confirms that.
Confirms that she has lost ground despite still having total name recognition compared to relatively unknown GOP opponents.
Gosh, if that trend continues, Hillary will only win by 3%.
That’s certainly a possibility. But no one should be fooled by her big leads. She had big leads in 2007.
snerk Yeah, that’s been happening a lot lately.
Setting aside the atrociously low voter turn-out and the insanely heavy gerrymandering, you’re comparing a soapbox derby to the Indy 500.
IT IS ALREADY HAPPENING. Pence is continuously trying not to step on his own tool and talking out of both sides of his mouth, with “It’s not discriminating against gays!” towards the general pop and “Yeah, this is the discrimination bill you were looking for” towards the Repub base.
The Republicans are all endorsing this law because it throws red meat to the God, guns and guts crowd who are their bread and butter. (Weird food-porn metaphor there, I know…) They’re trying to distract from their utter foreign and domestic policy blunders. What the media is doing, besides having a field day watching the Repubs try to scramble around to placate the masses, is inadvertently helping the Repubs discreetly wipe the brown applesauce off their shoes.
Freedoms like being treated with the respect that one American owes another? Perish forbid.
As a democrat who voted for Obama twice, I really hope someone steps up and runs against her in the primaries. I’ve never really cared for her at all, she’s too hawkish for me, and way too many people have an unreasonable, gut-level loathing for her for her to ever get anything actually accomplished. We thought Obama was blocked at every turn; I don’t think we’ve seen anything compared to what Hillary would face. Plus, it really, really bothers me that we may be forced to vote between two immediate family members of three out of the last four presidents.
I won’t vote for Clinton in the primaries. If there’s a reasonable Democratic alternative, I’ll vote for them. Hell maybe campaign for them. If there’s no alternative, I’ll vote in the Republican primary instead – although I can’t imagine any Republicans getting my vote in the general, even against Clinton.
Obama was riding a wave in 2008. Clinton had no way of stopping it; McCain, even less.
I think he was riding a wave because he had the better initial strategy against Clinton, not because he could not have lost. Hindsight likes to make certainties out of things that happened, but he wasn’t a given.