I get it, alright. Just pointing out that like every other Hillary supporter I’ve tried to have a substantive debate with, you have nothing substantive to add but your unfounded attacks on Obama. Yeah, I get it.
I thought you were going back to MPSIMS?
“Nationwide” means nothing. What counts is electors. And HRC will do better with Electors than Obama.
Mrs Clinton has won by decisive margins in every big state that the Democrats must win to send their candidate to the White House. Mr Obama’s lead in the delegate count is based on his success in small states with little electoral significance or in Republican strongholds such as Alabama and Nevada where the Democrats have no chance of success.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/tough_math_on_the_democratic_s.html
*Hillary Clinton is not the only Democrat with a math problem. But the arithmetical difficulty that Barack Obama faces is fundamentally different from Clinton’s: She doesn’t have the numbers that plot a clear path to the nomination. He doesn’t have the numbers that plot a clear path to a Democratic victory in the fall.
The spin-of-the-day from the Obama campaign on the morning after Clinton’s victories in three of the four states holding primaries on Tuesday is that the New York senator cannot possibly overtake her rival’s lead in “pledged” delegates – that is, those won in primaries and caucuses – and therefore has no chance of winning the Democratic nomination.
The arithmetic conveniently leaves out an essential part of the equation: Neither Obama nor Clinton can secure through the primaries and caucuses the 2,025 delegates necessary to win at the Denver convention without the votes of the superdelegates. …
Add up all the states he has won in his historic drive to become the nominee, including all of those small and deeply “red” Republican states where the Obama supporters boast of their candidate’s transcendental appeal, and so far Obama has won in places representing 193 of the 270 electoral votes needed to win the presidency. Add up Clinton’s victories thus far and she has triumphed in states representing 263 electoral votes.
Of course, some states in Clinton’s column – Texas comes most readily to mind – that have a large trove of Electoral College votes are highly unlikely to wind up Democratic in the fall. But the same holds true for Obama, whose strength in southern Democratic primaries has rested on the huge margins he has run up among African-American voters. African-Americans are a crucial constituency for Democrats, but their votes in recent contests haven’t been enough to win such states as Alabama, South Carolina or Georgia.
In a new memo, Clinton strategists Mark Penn and Harold Ickes point out that the 2004 Democratic nominee, John Kerry, lost these states and several others in which Obama has won primaries by 15 points or more. In Utah, Idaho, Nebraska, North Dakota, Kansas and Alaska – all states the Obama forces point to with pride as evidence of an emerging “50-state strategy” – no Democrat has won the general election since 1964.
So how has Obama fared in those states that are the crucial building blocks of a Democratic general election strategy? He’s won his home state of Illinois, plus Wisconsin, Washington and Minnesota. Together, these states account for 51 electoral votes. Clinton has won her home state of New York, as well as California, New Jersey and Michigan, representing a total of 118 electoral votes. This sum deliberately leaves out Ohio and Florida, which will be hotly contested in the fall.
*
Howard Dean sez differently:
“The states have two options, Dean says.
“They can come back to the DNC with a set of delegate selection procedures that do comply with the rules of the 48 other states, or they can appeal to the credentials committee at the Democratic National Convention,” he said.
“It’s not the voters’ fault in Florida and Michigan that they didn’t get included, so we think it’s a good thing to have these discussions going on.”
Note that “or they can appeal to the credentials committee at the Democratic National Convention” which is a perfectly legit option.
Why do you think Clinton will do better than in the swing states, such as Ohio? Personally, i think Obama would do better in swing states, and i could list many reasons if you wanted to hear them. But my last post was only to demonstrate why winning Ohio in the Dem primaries doesn’t necessarily mean that Clinton would do better than Obama in Ohio.
Read my cite.* It’s not me who sez so, it’s political experts.
Based on their predictions for the 2004 election, I would say “political experts” is an oxymoron.
“Political experts” and “nonaffiliated consultants” you see flapping their jaws on TV or tossing partisan commentary around on op-ed pages or blogs are free to do so because they’re not knowledgeable enough to actually be working on a campaign during an election year.
If we’re giving out credit to the people who introduce ideas, wasn’t it really the IDEA of Rep. Peter King (R-NY), who proposed it in the House a while back (he’s also a cosponsor of the HR that did become law)?
Right, because it’s not my job to debate her positions – it’s hers.
I’ll go where I please.
If that were the case, this would be a pretty empty forum. If she were here, then it would be fine for you to defer to her, but she’s not.
atomicbadgerrace, would you like to hang out with me over at Great Opinions That I Keep To Myself But I Promise They’re There?
It’s no one’s job here to defend their opinions, they just choose to.
I’m not keeping my opinion to myself, I consider Hillary to be the better choice. Not necessarily for anything that she’s already done, either.
To expand on this (missed the edit window), I’ll simply say that there are some topics I’m more open to discussing and debating. Beyond my endorsement of the candidate, this isn’t one of them.
Oh, my bad. I didn’t realize that you were simply witnessing, and you’re correct, this is the forum for that.
Ah, so it’s faith-based. That definitely fits with the witnessing angle. Roll with it.
If your implication is that I have more faith in Hillary than in Obama… you’d be correct.
No, my implication is that you are simply witnessing, not debating. Again, this IS the correct forum for that, so go for it.
Ah. Well, I think we just cleared that one up.
SurveyUSA released polls showing state-by-state numbers of who would win in a McCain vs DemocratX match-up. You can see a side-by-side comparison at Electoral-Vote or the details on Obama and Clinton.
Right now (with all the caveats that deserves) either Democrat would beat McCain, Obama more comfortably than Clinton. Clinton’s win depends on her taking Florida but that’s a fairly safe bet (she polled 10 points higher than McCain). Obama has a much broader collection of states including some swing states Clinton loses.
Either candidate wins the blue anchor states of New York, California & Illinois comfortably. Both take Ohio. Both lose Texas and the southern states (minus FL). Clinton loses the Northwest and the Plains States but gets Pennsylvania. Obama wins Virginia; Clinton wins West Virginia.
As it stands (again, 7 months out), the big states Clinton claimed victory to would be won/lost by either (notable exception of Florida) and Obama’s wide collection of wins would be cut down considerably in the general election. Interesting.
That’s very interesting, and sure to change once the nominee becomes evident and ultimately the party backs that candidate.
Well, Pennsylvania has 158 delegates, compared to North Carolina’s 115 and Mississippi’s 38, so part of it just might be that it’s a bigger primary.
Part of it also is that it’s a primary that Clinton was expected to win, so an Obama victory in Pennsylvania tells you more than an Obama victory in Mississippi (where he’s expected to win anyway)