They not only have to consider the will of the people but they must consider who is more electable right now against McCain. And as it stands I would think Clinton would have a very difficult time against McCain right now, where Obama would bring somewhat of a rallying point to the general that a broader demographic of the population may appeal to.
That may be her game plan, but it’s absolute nonsense to think that the DNC will allow the superdelegates to overturn even a small pledged delegate lead, let alone one as wide as 100+.
Besides which, they’d be wrong to think she has the better chance to beat McCain in the general election.
They’re not idiots. The nomination will go to Obama. All that’s left is the bullshit Hillary intends to fling in between.
How would the DNC prevent that? I’m genuinely curious about that, not necessarily doubting you. But it’s unclear to me that the DNC has the power to do what you say they will.
Except may of “her” states will vote Democratic regardless of who is running. NY, CA and most probably OH are blue states no matter if it is BHO or HRC running. Obama has the advantage of gaining a few red states that she could never get.
You’ve obviously never read the story of how Walter Mondale was nominated for the Presidency.
Did you follow the 2004 elections at all? Kerry was ahead on the electoral-vote prediction website for many weeks but I think we all remember how that ultimately turned out.
When it comes down to it I think Obama supporters are really being unrealistic if they think Obama is going to win in a landslide. He may win by a comfortable EV margin (I think he could win Ohio, Iowa, New Mexico, Colorda, Nevada and really put a spanking on–but he could also lose in any of those states) but showing me polling data taken this far in advance, before he is even nominated–is ludicrous. Even looking at such polling data strongly suggests one is generally not well informed about American presidential politics.
I’ve never seen a Presidential election which could be accurately predicted by any type of polling this many months in advance.
No. That makes the faulty assumption that those who supported Clinton will not support Obama. If you have data that indicates that is likely, I would like to see it, but everything I have seen shows that most Democrats will support Obama or Clinton, whoever is nominated.
Like what red states? The red states (meaning states Bush won in 2004, I presume) that Obama could win are Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, and Iowa. I don’t think Obama has a serious shot of winning serious red states like Texas, South Carolina, et cetera. He may be competitive in Virginia and Florida but I’d be surprised if he won either state.
By their nature all of the red states Obama could win are essentially battleground states that pretty much any competent candidate could win.
Of course Ohio is going to be key and while I agree that it’s very likely going to go Democratic I think Clinton has the best chance of making that a certainty.
I never said they would not support Obama. We simply don’t know. In that case, it makes Obama more risky. Unless, of course, you know that they will support him. Do you?
Not to mention the calls for Republicans to get out there and vote for Clinton. How much of her take in Ohio was Republicans who would go vote for McCain in the general? Or am I thinking of a different state?
I am an Obama supporter and I think the supers should go with their original intent… to do what is best for the Party to win the election. I strongly believe that an Obama ticket would be magnitudes better than a Clinton one.
I am not voting Democrat… I am voting for Obama.
Depends on which polls you believe. I will try to locate the ones I have seen that indicate Democrats are overwhelmingly going to support the nominee, whether it is Obama or Clinton. I think to suggest otherwise is the position with the burden of proof.
Well there was an obvious big winner in last night’s Democratic races…John McCain.
Not voting Democrat in November is essentially voting for McCain. While I’ll certainly welcome your support, I honestly want the person who is elected President to be the person who rightfully represented the wishes of enough states to win–and that would be undermined if a lot of people foolishly throw their votes away or don’t vote simply because their pet candidate doesn’t get nominated.
I don’t know. I still think it likely Obama wins the nomination (I just don’t think it’s near as certain as the Obama-fundamentalists.) It’s certainly possible that the extended primary means Obama will continue to get more media attention. By and large McCain isn’t going to get as much attention as long as the person he is running against isn’t set in stone.
What is at issue is how will that attention affect Obama, will it highlight his weaknesses or highlight his positives? That’s what will decide whether or not this protracted primary helps or hurts McCain. If it gets ugly and Hillary ends up losing but still hurts Obama’s candidacy, then yes it helps McCain immensely.
If Obama can simply “hold the course” and not suffer loss of public image then he probably comes out without losing or gaining relative to McCain.
If he comes out looking really good image-wise, then obviously it helps relative to McCain.
Clinton and McCain are the same so it won’t matter. They will both continue invading other countries, weakening the economy and alienating world opinion of America. I don’t care which of these two hold power, as I will not be returning to the US with either one at the helm… but I will try to make sure they don’t bomb me.
I think he (or Hillary for that matter) could also be viable in MO. We have an open race for Governor with a popular Democratic candidate. It has traditionally been one of the swingiest of swing states.
Because that’s closer to the way the general election will work?
Voters may be ignorant of the system, but how much has the party done to make it clear how the system works? It seems to me that they’ve been quiet about it because they don’t want their own supporters to know that their votes could be overturned if they make the wrong choice. It’s a combination of ineptness and elitism that probably serves as an apt metaphor for the Democratic Party.
I’ve said, ever since Edwards bowed out, that I didn’t care who the nominee is 'cause it wasn’t going to be my guy. I thought I was equally fine with either Obama or Clinton. But I’ve noticed that I’ve been a little discouraged in the past few days by Obama’s apparent undefeatability. And this morning when I saw that Clinton had won in Texas and Ohio, I was greatly enouraged. And I don’t know why. It’s purely an emotional response with no grounding in logic. Maybe I just don’t have enough faith in the American people to have adequately suppressed racial bigotry to the point that Obama actually has a chance in a general election.
I agree with you here… there’s no reason to do these now that we have modern technology. Why depend on human delegates (who can freely change their vote) at all? If people want to game the system, they would pretend to be a delegate for the other side at the caucus, then conveniently change their vote.
The appropriate time?