Obama leads in delegate count

Would you feel differently if she did a mea culpa like Edwards?

The only real problem I have with another Clinton in the White House is that she carries a lot of negative baggage. She also has a lot of reasons to resent Republicans and it makes you wonder how well everyone is going to get along.

I have heard this rationale before and well, we NEED to turn at least one red state into a Blue state and I see more ways to get there with Obama than with Hillary.

There are a disproportionate number of Republican senate seats up for re-election this time around so having Obama at the top of the ticket in some of the more purple and light red states might go further in getting a greater majority in the Senate. The Democratic House members in many of the redder states would prefer to keep Hillary off the top of the ticket because they think she will have a negative impact lower on the ticket in red and purple states.

GWB’s negative’s are much higher than Hillary’s but yet he still manages to get stuff done with a Dem-run Congress.

Note that I was replying to spoke- who claims that as Prez Hillary couldn’t get anything through Congress: “Bill had better than 60% approval rating through much of his presidency, which allowed him to get some things done. Hillary, on the other hand, has negatives so high that Congressional Republicans could earn points with their constituents by blocking any initiatives she tries.” If GWB can get things done now, then Prez Hillary can get more done. Do not try to tell me that GWB has a better rating with Democrats than Hillary does with Democrats. And, the GoP hated Bill with a passion.

As far as electability goes, McCain does beat Hillary, although barely- but Obama does only slightly better. Overall, counting all polls it’s McCain vs Hillary by a mere 1.6% and Obama over McCain by a slight 3.5%. That’s so close that neither can be said to be the clear leader in electabilty. Of course, if you pick and choose what polls you want, you can get them to say anything.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html

The idea that super-religous- right Repubs are going to come out of the woodwork to vote for McCain over Hillary is ridiculous and not supported by any facts. (The RR doesn’t like McCain much)

I think we’ll see the superdelegates break for Obama right after the Texas and Ohio Primaries. Clinton stinks right now of a shot animal trying to make to the promise land…she’s got a serious limp and I just don’t think she’s going to pull it off. I don’t dismis her gusto and the power that she once had, but Obama’s gain is very significant, and I think we are witnessing the slow demise of the Clinton Campaign.

Have you read the impassioned letter written by Janet Napolitano, Kathleen Sebelius and Claire McCaskill that was published a few days ago in the Wall Street Journal? Three pretty powerful “red state” women saying pretty powerful stuff. . .

I’m pretty sure these women didn’t write this simply to get their name in lights. They believe this to their core. I’m confident these women will work hard to influence many of their fellow superdelegates to endorse Obama.

Good morning Phlosphr!

:slight_smile: Good morning! Can I just say I LOVE Kathleen Sebelius. Though my wife and I won’t be in Maine, our relatives are showing up to bring great support to Obama.

Me, too! Me, too! Me, too! I hope with all my heart that he chooses her as his running mate. That would be a dream ticket!

FIRED UP! :slight_smile:

A little light on the delegate count mess:

Today’s local paper carries a New York Times story (bylined Mike McIntire) that explains the delegates chosen by caucus. Apparently it isn’t just a simple matter of divvying up delegates on the basis of the caucus counts. Most state parties go through additional steps (unexplained) before dividing the booty. McIntire puts it: “A caucus . . . is just the first stage of a process that can drag on until late spring before producing reliable numbers. As a result, some news organizations do not incorporate caucus results . . . until delegates are officially certified.”

So apparently the “low” counts are just the certain counts. The higher ones are guesses as to what the process eventually may yield.

Mebbe we should just wait to see what actually happens.
(As a Kansan I guess I have to comment on the Sebelius love fest going on in the rooms above this one. She’s OK, but I’ll be hanged if I can think of anything she has done of any significance.)

You quoted the part that had spoke- saying Hillary had high negatives and called it an anti-Hillary lie that comes from “you dudes.” I’d say you’re backtracking quite a bit if you want to now say you merely disagreed with spoke-'s particular conclusion about the effects of that high level of negativity (which is actual).

I suspect you’ll have to backtrack from this too, since it is also false. One such fact, you already cited in your post. A difference of two points is in the margin of error for a single poll, but when nearly every poll has Obama doing better, there is something to it. Moreover, there is an empirical relationship between the negatives of the opposition candidate the turnout of your party.

You’re right that McCain himself suppresses the Republican vote since he isn’t as conservative as some would like. I think that means exactly the opposite of what you think it means. These people aren’t going to be coming out to vote for McCain unless they have some additional motivation (i.e. Hillary).

(And I would say, at bottom, that much of the Republican unhappiness with Clinton is undeserved, but it is nevertheless real.)

True dat, at least in the SoW. After the dust settles in the caucus, delegates are selected for the county convention; the county convention selects delegates to the state convention, which selects delegates to the national. In theory, all this is done in proportion to the caucus results, but I have no idea whether it works out that way in practice.

(I went to the county convention once as an alternate. I would say that it was chaotic, but that wouldn’t be fair to the denizens of the Formless Void.)

Three hours to caucus, and already I’m feeling the butterflies . . .

No, that wasn’t the entire point of my post but that was the brunt of it. spoke- insisted Pres Hillary wouldn’t be able to get anything done due to her negatives. That’s ridiculous, and there’s the fact that Hillary’s “negatives” are that much different thn Obama’s or McCain, both of whom are also disliked strongly by many. No doubt, the Hilster gets the top place, but the other two are not far behind. Do you agree with spoke- or not? :confused:

Indeed, Obama is doing better overall vs Mccain, as I said, but only by a very small margin. It’s not like Obama= landslide and Hill= certain loser. The difference between the 2 vs McCain is less than 2%.

Let’s look at the actual numbers I cited for you. Hillary’s unfavorable is 42, among the general population. Obama’s is 30, which has held steady even as millions more Americans have gotten to know him. This gap has been present since polling of these two began. +/- 12 points is a significant gap.

But let’s look at the gap among Republicans. Hillary’s unfavorable is 82. Obama’s is 52. That’s a 30 point gap. There is also a 20 point gap in independents’ view of each candidate.

I think those are important numbers that genuinely affect Hillary’s electability and ability to govern. But I also accept that reasonable people can disagree. Which would be fine, except you’re calling everyone that disagrees with you a liar.

No, it isn’t landslide vs. certain loser. But it might be winner vs. loser.

Ah the old “I have nuttin, so I am just going to put words in your mouth and then beat up on the stawman” tactic. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

You said:

So what words, exactly, did I put in your mouth?

“… you’re calling *everyone *that *disagrees *with you a liar.” Not calling everyone a liar, nor those that simply disagree with me. Just those that are indeed- lying. Hardly everyone, in fact only a couple.

**I wasn’t even replying to you in the first place. **

Yeah, yeah, I know, if you can’t win a debate with facts or arguments, turn the debate into about what your opponent said. :rolleyes: :dubious:

Stop it.

This little diversion is a deliciously ironic response to be thoroughly refuted.

You said spoke- and others were lying about the negatives, and their effect. You were wrong. Get over it.

Yo, BOYS! Back to the issue of the delegate count. . .

Early returns from the Nebraska caucuses indicate that Obama is wiping the floor with Hillary. See my post here for details.

And in Washington, too, by about 2 to 1. Big deal, that, especially with the high Hispanic population there. But the early early early data from Louisiana says almost dead even- what gives? There’s a big black population there- why isn’t Obama crushing Hillary?

In part because the black turnout was relatively low. Keep in mind that a disproportionate number of blacks moved after Katrina.