Practically.
My reaction was laughter. It’s impossible to take a comparison like that seriously.
Compete? What do you call what has been going on over the last three months? I think the difference is that Obama supporters want to get the win on a level playing field.
Pash
It strikes me that more of Clinton’s primary voters will vote for Obama in the general than the reverse.
People seem to be taking it for granted that everyone who’s voting in a democratic primary is going to vote for whoever takes the nomination, but I don’t think that’s true. Obama is mobilizing an amazing number of people who are usually apathetic when it comes to voting. They’re not out there supporting a generic democratic canditate, they’re out supporting Obama specifically. Whereas some Clinton voters (again, just my impression) are just voting for the establish democratic canditate - the familiar name, entrenched in the democratic party politics, essentially the default democratic candidate.
I get the impression that almost all the Clinton voters will vote for whoever represents the democrats in the election, whereas a lot of Obama voters are specifically supporting Obama, and would stay home if he weren’t the nominee (especially if it happened in a way that seems unfair).
That’s one of the reasons it seems more likely to me that Obama will get bigger numbers in the general.
In addition, many moderate independents will vote for Obama over McCain but will vote for McCain over Clinton. Finally, there will be people who would stay home but will come out to vote against Clinton.
I think that either Clinton or Obama will beat McCain but Clinton is a closer call.
Actually, I hate to say it, but the likelihood is great that Obama would lose. Although the poll numbers seem to show him doing better than Clinton, polls lie when it comes to race issues, and trust me, there are plenty of Americans out there who still don’t view an African-American the same way they do a non-African-American. Sadly.
I agree somewhat. I don’t think that people would like about whether or not they would vote for Obama. I think that people might lie about why they weren’t voting for him. Someone who wouldn’t vote for a black man would have no shame in saying that they would choose McCain but would say that their reason is Obama’s “lack of experience.”
The polls say differently, HRC would have won anyway:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/fl/florida_democratic_primary-261.html
+16.7% **overall
**
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/mi/michigan_democratic_primary-238.html
Clinton +15.5% overall.
Give Obama a month to actually campaign in those states (which he has not done yet), and those poll numbers will probably change in his favor. You’re setting up an equivalence between them, and that can’t work. Clinton still has the familiarity advantage, especially to people who aren’t as politically curious as most of us in this thread. Obama can close those numbers up quickly given a chance to stump.
Could be. Still, those are the kind of states where HRC generally does well. I admit she might not win by those rather large margins.
That’s the elephant in the room, and it worries me a bit. Sooner or later we’re going to have to find out if we can elect a woman or a minority. Seems like we can’t even elect a Catholic or a Jew.
Which is something that counts, A LOT, in non-winner-take-all primaries.
An analysis I read yesterday said that the Democratic race is pretty much inevitably going to go all the way to the convention at this point (barring a withdrawal by Clinton or Obama). Due to the Democratic policy of delegate splitting, they said that Obama would need to get 77% or Clinton would need to get 94% in each of the remaining primaries in order for either to have sufficient delegates to get the nomination - and neither is going to get those numbers. So it’ll come down to the convention and which way the independent superdelegates vote.