PDA

View Full Version : Obama's Weakness in the General Election Against John McCain


plantman
Apr 24th, 2008, 04:31 AM
The Top Ten List of Undisputed Facts Showing Barack Obama's Weakness in the General Election Against John McCain

Posted April 23, 2008 | 04:15 PM (EST)

Let's forget about the spin on all sides and not use any adjectives to modify the following 10 Facts that should not be in dispute:

1. Hillary Clinton won by 10%, 220,000 votes, despite after most of the polls in the last several weeks on RealClearPolitics, including its RCP all-poll average, showed her ahead by single digits and dropping. The exit polls showed her winning by +5. (It's easy to forget that she won if you listen to the Obama spinners last night and today. Believe it or not, Pennsylvania's Rep. Murphy, a freshman congressman who supported Barack Obama, actually said last night on Larry King that Senator Obama did so well in losing to Senator Clinton yesterday that he has a "wind at his back." I am not kidding.

2. Senator Obama tried hard to win the state, campaigned intensely throughout the state for most of the last six weeks -- and was trying to win, not just lose a narrow margin.

3. He spent $11 million on media -- about three times more than Senator Clinton.

4. Most of his ads were personal negative attack ads against Senator Clinton, meaning attacks on her character and integrity.

5. There were no personal attack ads run by Hillary Clinton in Pennsylvania.

6. Barack Obama hasn't won a single major industrial state that historically constitute the key "battleground" states for both parties, i.e., the states in the last three or four presidential elections have switched back and forth between the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates.

7. The reason that he lost can be found in the demographic data: He lost -- and Senator Clinton won -- by substantial margins blue collar and middle class white voters earning under $50,000 a year, senior citizens, rural voters, Hispanic voters, and women voters -- all core constituencies in the Democratic base that must be won if a Democrat is to win the White House. For example, yesterday in Pennsylvania she won Roman Catholics by 32 percent (66034), union households by 18 percent (59-41), and those most concerned about the economy by 16 points (58-42). Only 60 percent of Democratic Catholic voters said they would vote for Mr. Obama in a general election.

8. Barack Obama has lost these same demographic groups in Massachusetts, Ohio, Texas, California and New Jersey and other major states that Senator Clinton won. There is a factual pattern of his weakness among these demographic groups in virtually every primary state that cannot be disputed.

9. Barack Obama is currently in a dead heat with John McCain, according to a recent respected poll, in Massachusetts (actually, the results were McCain 46% and Clinton 44%), while Senator Clinton leads in Massachusetts by 15%. The last time a Democrat did not win Massachusetts by a substantial margin was 1980, when Ronald Reagan defeated Jimmy Carter. Even in the historic landslide election of Richard Nixon in 1972, when he won 49 states, only Massachusetts supported Senator McGovern. Senator Obama currently runs considerably behind Senator McCain in Florida and Ohio, while Senator Clinton is ahead in both of those key battleground states.

10. Current polls show Senator Clinton runs ahead of John McCain nationally or dead even -- and Senator Obama runs only dead even. For example, in the most recent USA Today national general election poll, Senator Clinton leads Senator McCain by +6; Senator Obama leads by less than the margin of error, +2.

Those are the facts. To all Super Delegates: you decide who is riskier as a general election candidate. The candidate whose negatives, driven by the right-wing hate machine in the 1990s in particular, are all out there and already taken into account. Or a candidate who is still virtually unknown to most of the electorate, with Republicans clearly looking forward to filling in the blanks with the facts about his record of which many general election voters still are not aware.


You know who the republicans are hoping get's the nod!

In The Zone
Apr 24th, 2008, 04:37 AM
Exactly why I don't buy the whole Obama is better. He'll be taken down and he'll be taken down hard. Both Hillary and Obama should win but he is much more vulnerable.

plantman
Apr 24th, 2008, 04:44 AM
Exactly why I don't buy the whole Obama is better. He'll be taken down and he'll be taken down hard. Both Hillary and Obama should win but he is much more vulnerable.

I agree!

Volcana
Apr 24th, 2008, 06:00 AM
http://www.pollster.com/08USPresGEMvO600.png
(http://www.pollster.com/08USPresGEMvO600.png)
http://www.pollster.com/08USPresGEMvO600.png


http://www.pollster.com/08USPresGEMvC600.png

http://www.pollster.com/08USPresGEMvC600.png

drake3781
Apr 24th, 2008, 06:09 AM
^^ To the above post, which I don't want to quote, that level of analysis is not good enough.

Assuming the goal is to nominate an electable candidate, we need to analyze by state, dividing the states into categories, and focusing almost exclusively on the Swing States.

Williamsser
Apr 24th, 2008, 06:18 AM
In November, McCain will take Florida. Obama will take Michigan and maybe Pennsylvania.

Obama will need to win Ohio over McCain to win the election, IMO. If he doesn't win Ohio, then McCain will be president.

drake3781
Apr 24th, 2008, 06:47 AM
In November, McCain will take Florida. Obama will take Michigan and maybe Pennsylvania.

Obama will need to win Ohio over McCain to win the election, IMO. If he doesn't win Ohio, then McCain will be president.

To quote another post I made last night, here are polling results from the three most important Swing States: Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania.

Current polling shows:

Ohio
McCain defeats Obama by 2.5 points.
Clinton defeats McCain by 5 points.

Florida
McCain defeats Obama by 12 points.
Clinton-McCain are even.

Pennsylvania
Obama defeats McCain by 2 points
Clinton defeats McCain by 6 points.


In these critical swing states, Hillary outperforms Obama. What you see right here explains why Hillary is still in this race, in a bigger way than most people understand by just looking at delegate counts.

kittyking
Apr 24th, 2008, 06:59 AM
Hillary has won only half as many states as Obama and trails by a reasonable number in the popular vote.

If Hillary wants a Democrat to win come November she needs to call her campaign off soon, all she's doing is helping the Republicans

drake3781
Apr 24th, 2008, 07:24 AM
Hillary has won only half as many states as Obama and trails by a reasonable number in the popular vote.

If Hillary wants a Democrat to win come November she needs to call her campaign off soon, all she's doing is helping the Republicans

Poor analysis; poor conclusion. :shrug:

kittyking
Apr 24th, 2008, 07:29 AM
Poor analysis; poor conclusion. :shrug:

Yet you agree with every single word in it

Mark my words - Hillary Clinton will never be the American President

drake3781
Apr 24th, 2008, 07:53 AM
Yet you agree with every single word in it

Mark my words - Hillary Clinton will never be the American President



Uh, I have no idea what you mean by saying I agree with every word. :shrug:

Also I have no idea why you pose yourself as an expert both factually and prognostically on US Presidential elections... a teenager from New Zealand. :rolleyes: Is it maybe just possible that people from the US, who have been involved in election campaigns since before you were born, might know a thing or two? :rolleyes:

Pureracket
Apr 24th, 2008, 11:47 AM
plantman,
Who's your candidate in this year's election? Also, why do you never post the actual link to your stories?

Vlover
Apr 24th, 2008, 02:21 PM
At this stage all this polling means nothing. Six months ago McCain himself was not considered to be the GOP nominee, likewise Obama was not considered the forerunner either. The only way Hillary can win is for the establishment to give it to her and how democratic that would be. If the DNC follow the rules that were agreed to by all before the primaries there is no way Hillary can win. Her only hope is to promise the world to some of the superdelegates in exchange for their votes and destroy the democratic party and never become president anyway because she cannot appeal to Independents or Republicans therefore if she lost a segment of the democratic party it is even worse. Obama has the advantage to appeal to Independents, Republicans and new voters therefore he stands a better chance to make up for some of the idiots who call themselves democrats but won't vote for him.

ptkten
Apr 24th, 2008, 02:41 PM
Sure Hillary performs better in Ohio and Pennsylvania, but look at the facts.

All the following statistics are from realclearpolitics.com

Obama v. McCain

Obama still leads McCain in Pennsylvania by an average of 2.2%. I believe that number will go up as the weeks go on. In polling, he leads in every other state that Kerry won in the last election. That is 252 electoral votes.

He is also currently leading McCain in Colorado and Iowa by good margins. That is an additional 16 electoral votes, which puts him at 268. That is without Ohio and Florida.

Hillary v. McCain

Hillary is leading in Ohio, that puts her at 252 + 20 = 272. She is losing, however in Wisconsin to McCain and gets blown out in Colorado, Nevada, and Iowa. This puts her at 263. Yes, she runs closer in Florida than Obama but she still loses the state according to the polls.

Thus, with states they are leading against McCain, it's Obama 268-263. He tries to win the election by holding his vulnerable blue states but where he is still leading (Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Michigan) and picks up Colorado and Iowa along with Nevada, where he is running very close to McCain which puts him up over 269.

For Hillary, she tries to hold a blue state she is currently losing (Wisconsin) and hold blue states where she is leading but winning within the margin of error with McCain (Minnesota, Oregon) then pick up Ohio which would put her over 269.

Neither has a stronger path to the White House than the other. They just have different states where they are stronger and hers happen to be 'bigger' but not necessarily more important. Regardless, polls aren't very indicative at this stage in the race and I think they both would easily win if they were the nominee because I think Obama will end up winning Ohio from McCain and Hillary will end up winning Florida even if they are losing them now.

LoveFifteen
Apr 24th, 2008, 02:53 PM
Hillary has won only half as many states as Obama and trails by a reasonable number in the popular vote.

If Hillary wants a Democrat to win come November she needs to call her campaign off soon, all she's doing is helping the Republicans


This is an extremely poor analysis. If the 2000 election has taught us anything, it's that the popular vote does not matter at all. What matters are the key battleground swing states.

Yes, Obama has won many states. Interestingly enough, many of them are Southern states and Midwestern states ... states that the Democrats will never, ever win.

Obama has won Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Wyoming, Kansas, South Carolina, Nebraska, etc. Do you honestly think he will come even close to winning these states in the general election? :unsure:

What matters are critical swing states like Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, New Mexico, and Missouri. Clinton is much more competitive against McCain in these key states.

LoveFifteen
Apr 24th, 2008, 02:56 PM
At this stage all this polling means nothing. Six months ago McCain himself was not considered to be the GOP nominee, likewise Obama was not considered the forerunner either. The only way Hillary can win is for the establishment to give it to her and how democratic that would be. If the DNC follow the rules that were agreed to by all before the primaries there is no way Hillary can win. Her only hope is to promise the world to some of the superdelegates in exchange for their votes and destroy the democratic party and never become president anyway because she cannot appeal to Independents or Republicans therefore if she lost a segment of the democratic party it is even worse. Obama has the advantage to appeal to Independents, Republicans and new voters therefore he stands a better chance to make up for some of the idiots who call themselves democrats but won't vote for him.

How pathetic that you want the DNC to follow the "rules", and those same rules created the superdelegates, who are free to vote however they want. How on earth is the superdelegates voting how they want breaking any rules? :confused:

Pureracket
Apr 24th, 2008, 02:58 PM
Sooo....I'm wondering why we even have primaries in traditional Red States, then? Why would Hillary and Obama even campaign in States that people say they can't win in the GE? I'm thinking, whoever loses between the two, will do her best in order to help deliver the states that are in play.

Also, just because Hillary beat Obama in these "swing" states, doesn't mean that Obama can't win those same states against McCain.

plantman
Apr 24th, 2008, 03:00 PM
McCain to Obama's Rescue?
By David Knowles
Apr 24th 2008 9:18AM

A pattern is beginning to emerge in which lower-level GOP surrogates employ incendiary remarks and attack ads against Barack Obama that are swiftly admonished by the de-facto leader of the national party, John McCain. The latest example of this occurred yesterday, when McCain wrote a scolding letter to the North Carolina Republican Party in response to an ad that featured famous clips of Reverend Wright to make the case that anybody who supported Obama (in this case two Democrats running for state office) was out-of-sync with North Carolina values. Via Marc Ambinder, here's a portion of McCain's letter:

Dear Chairman Daves,

From the beginning of this election, I have been committed to running a respectful campaign based upon an honest debated about the great issues confronting America today. I expect all state parties to do so as well. The television advertisement you are planning to air degrades our civics and distracts us from the very real differences we have with the Democrats. In the strongest terms, I implore you not to run this advertisement.

But the answer from North Carolina GOP Chairman Linda Daves appears to be, "No dice." They're running it despite McCain's requests.

Of course, this is not the first time that McCain has had to scold fellow Republicans about such personal attacks. Introduced by talk-radio firebrand Bill Cunningham, McCain took to a Cincinnati stage and swiftly denounced Cunningham for his off-color remarks.

Then came yet another reprimand. When Republican Congressman Steve King remarked that Al Qaeda would be "dancing in the streets" if Barack Obama won in November. Again McCain rebuked and complained of a degraded civics. This was a tad hard to swallow, given that it was McCain's campaign itself that packaged a e-mail claiming that Obama had received Hamas' official endorsement.

The brilliance of the high road/low road approach is that McCain benefits both times. First, the offensive material is distributed and consumed. Then McCain steps forward and decries that old brand of dirty politics. If it were up to him, the story goes, we'd have a clean fight. Hey, he even publicly denounced the "Playboy Mansion" ad against Harold Ford, never mind that McCain's own advisers were behind it. The team that brought you the anti-Kerry "Swift Boat" ads that McCain saw fit to lambaste? Well, he hired them, too.

While it is certainly true, that McCain will in no way be able to control the questionable outbursts of a few over-zealous members of his party, nor the full frontal assault of 527's the likes of which brought you the famous "Willie Horton" ad, McCain may not be quite as upset at the state of our civics as he lets on.

A key challenge for Obama, should he win the nomination, will be to debunk the popular myth that McCain is traveling the high road, while his surrogates wallow in the muck.

You know who McCain's hoping to run against!

BigB08822
Apr 24th, 2008, 03:03 PM
Also, just because Hillary beat Obama in these "swing" states, doesn't mean that Obama can't win those same states against McCain.
This is correct, but it is about getting a Democrat into office and going with your best bet. Obama may also be able to get these swing states if and when he is the actual nominee. But looking at things now, Hillary has a better chance of doing that and the super delegates have to decide on who they think has the best shot at winning the election.

Pureracket
Apr 24th, 2008, 03:06 PM
This is correct, but it is about getting a Democrat into office and going with your best bet. Obama may also be able to get these swing states if and when he is the actual nominee. But looking at things now, Hillary has a better chance of doing that and the super delegates have to decide on who they think has the best shot at winning the election.Again, you and many other Hillary supporters are spinning things. Why in the world are you all disregarding states like Iowa, Hawaii, and Illinois? Why do you all think that Hillary can't humble herself and campaign her ass off like every, other person who's lost a primary?

Again, are you saying that Hillary doesn't really care about the Democratic party and wouldn't help win the GE if Barack were to win? We'll need the help of every smart thinking Democrat in November.

Pureracket
Apr 24th, 2008, 03:08 PM
plant,
We know you're anti-Obama, but who is your candidate in this election? Also, why don't you ever post the links to your stories?

plantman
Apr 24th, 2008, 03:13 PM
plant,
We know you're anti-Obama, but who is your candidate in this election? Also, why don't you ever post the links to your stories?

What would the link provide you with Pure? Just type in the headline and it will take you right to the story! But you already knew that so why you asking this silly question now after everything I post? I'm not anti-Obama, just PRO-HILLARY!

BigB08822
Apr 24th, 2008, 03:15 PM
Again, you and many other Hillary supporters are spinning things. Why in the world are you all disregarding states like Iowa, Hawaii, and Illinois? Why do you all think that Hillary can't humble herself and campaign her ass off like every, other person who's lost a primary?

Again, are you saying that Hillary doesn't really care about the Democratic party and wouldn't help win the GE if Barack were to win? We'll need the help of every smart thinking Democrat in November.

I didn't disregard anything. I answered your question! There was no mention of Hawaii, Iowa, etc in your question so I didn't refer to those states. Maybe you are the one disregarding those states?
One thing people need to understand is that blue states will be blue no matter the candidate, for the most part. Whether it is Obama or Hillary, they are going to take the blue states fairly easily and that is why those states are left out of the mix. They aren't being disregarded but they are just being assumed as for the democratic nominee. It is that simple. Who is spinning now?
P.S. Don't think I didn't notice your dig when mentioned how you need the "smart thiking Democrats" in November. This is the 3rd or 4th time I have seen you take jabs at Hillary supporters because they are "stupid." You need to grow up and practice what Obama preaches about attack politics.

Pureracket
Apr 24th, 2008, 03:22 PM
What would the link provide you with Pure? Just type in the headline and it will take you right to the story! But you already knew that so why you asking this silly question now after everything I post? I'm not anti-Obama, just PRO-HILLARY!You're not anti-Obama?!!?!? :haha:

Please.....I'm wondering if you've cut&pasted any "pro-Hillary" article. They've all been against Barack. Also, do you actually have your own opinions about what's going on, or do you only cut&paste?

LoveFifteen
Apr 24th, 2008, 03:25 PM
Again, you and many other Hillary supporters are spinning things. Why in the world are you all disregarding states like Iowa, Hawaii, and Illinois? Why do you all think that Hillary can't humble herself and campaign her ass off like every, other person who's lost a primary?

Again, are you saying that Hillary doesn't really care about the Democratic party and wouldn't help win the GE if Barack were to win? We'll need the help of every smart thinking Democrat in November.

Hawaii and Illinois always vote Democrat. It is true that Obama can possibly deliver Iowa for us in the fall. And Hillary will probably be able to get red state Arkansas for us.

But the main states to get are Penn., Ohio and Florida. You almost cannot win the White House unless you get two out of three.

Pureracket
Apr 24th, 2008, 03:27 PM
I didn't disregard anything. I answered your question! There was no mention of Hawaii, Iowa, etc in your question so I didn't refer to those states. Maybe you are the one disregarding those states?
One thing people need to understand is that blue states will be blue no matter the candidate, for the most part. Whether it is Obama or Hillary, they are going to take the blue states fairly easily and that is why those states are left out of the mix. They aren't being disregarded but they are just being assumed as for the democratic nominee. It is that simple. Who is spinning now?
P.S. Don't think I didn't notice your dig when mentioned how you need the "smart thiking Democrats" in November. This is the 3rd or 4th time I have seen you take jabs at Hillary supporters because they are "stupid." You need to grow up and practice what Obama preaches about attack politics.BigBo,

Get this through your little defensive skull once and for all....one of the demographics of Obama's supporters are the affluent, college educated. They are considered "smart" people in this country.

Secondly, (I pray you are listening) please stop thinking you are the center of every reference I make. Just because I say the Obama supporters or the "Democratic supporters" are "smart", doesn't mean that I'm saying that you or anybody else is stupid. You are not the centerpoint for my references, so stop thinking I'm throwing hints when I refer to Obama's supporters as smart.

Pureracket
Apr 24th, 2008, 03:37 PM
Hawaii and Illinois always vote Democrat. It is true that Obama can possibly deliver Iowa for us in the fall. And Hillary will probably be able to get red state Arkansas for us.

But the main states to get are Penn., Ohio and Florida. You almost cannot win the White House unless you get two out of three.
I'm in total agreement; however, we can't totally disregard the delegate count, especially if the rules of the FL and MI primaries were agreed upon by all the Democratic candidates.

Again, Hillary won Penn and Ohio, but I think Barack can win those over McCain as well.

plantman
Apr 24th, 2008, 03:58 PM
You're not anti-Obama?!!?!? :haha:

Please.....I'm wondering if you've cut&pasted any "pro-Hillary" article. They've all been against Barack. Also, do you actually have your own opinions about what's going on, or do you only cut&paste?

You calling me anti-Obama is :haha:

If Obama should get the nomination, you'll see what anti-Obama really is as the repubes will have a field day with him! :)

Pureracket
Apr 24th, 2008, 04:06 PM
If Obama should get the nomination, you'll see what anti-Obama really is as the repubes will have a field day with him! :)That scare tactic doesn't work @ all. The repuke tactics will probably be as meaningless to him in the GE as yours are on this board? You haven't gotten yet, eh? People are tired of the old attack-laden, fallacious ridden attacks. You will be able to come up with articles about Wright, Ayers, "bitterness," and Islam, and the smart people will be wanting to hear about the economy, health care, and education, and HOPE!

I'm sure your "you'll see what anti-Obama really is as the repubes will have a field day with him" warning is more wishful thinking than anything, though.

StarDuvallGrant
Apr 24th, 2008, 04:16 PM
With all these 'facts' why isn't Hillary the front runner now? Why hasn't she been been the leading Democrat since the primary started? Why does she find it hard to stay out of debt? And quit the lie about personal attack ads because the majority of them come from camp Clinton towards Obama as if he's the opponent and Hillary is already running in McCain's place.

In The Zone
Apr 24th, 2008, 04:35 PM
I'm in total agreement; however, we can't totally disregard the delegate count, especially if the rules of the FL and MI primaries were agreed upon by all the Democratic candidates.

Again, Hillary won Penn and Ohio, but I think Barack can win those over McCain as well.

You do realize Hillary appeals to blue collar workers. They will either not vote or vote McCain against Obama. Obama has a problem appealing to lower class, hard workers. Although it may not be purposeful, regardless of his "bitter" comments, Barack comes off as an elitist.

And people can be Anti-Obama if they want to. There are plenty of Anti-Hillarys.

Pureracket
Apr 24th, 2008, 04:40 PM
You do realize Hillary appeals to blue collar workers. They will either not vote or vote McCain against Obama. Obama has a problem appealing to lower class, hard workers. Although it may not be purposeful, regardless of his "bitter" comments, Barack comes off as an elitist.

And people can be Anti-Obama if they want to. There are plenty of Anti-Hillarys.That's precisely why we, in the Democratic party, are hoping Hillary campaigns with us in the fall. There's no doubt she has major appeal to different demographics. However, your saying that they'll all go to McCain is another "doomsday prediction" that I don't subscribe to. If he comes off as elitist, that could be with your own lack of self-esteem.

I actually would like for my President to be an elitist who is smart and well-versed on things that I may know nothing about. "We've had eight years of a guy who we'd rather have a beer with. We see where that's gotten us." (Hillary Clinton said that).

I never said that a person couldn't be anti-Obama. Again, you're arguing a point that hasn't even been made. You look sillier this time because the exchange didn't even involve you.

Dawn Marie
Apr 24th, 2008, 04:48 PM
Obama is getting monies from people that Hillary is unable to reach. Obama is the one appealing to the masses. FACE REALITY HILLArY IS JUST ABOUT OUT OF THIS. ITS ALL A MATTER OF FORMALITY. When people vote for Obama over Mccain I will laugh and you all.

I don't want Obama puting the old school Hillary on any of his tickets.

harloo
Apr 24th, 2008, 04:52 PM
How pathetic that you want the DNC to follow the "rules", and those same rules created the superdelegates, who are free to vote however they want. How on earth is the superdelegates voting how they want breaking any rules? :confused:

Considering this race is closely contested it would be in the best interest of the superdelegates to vote in agreement of their constituents. Any other miscalculated gesture will disenfranchise voters and potentially hand Mccain the general election.

harloo
Apr 24th, 2008, 05:09 PM
You do realize Hillary appeals to blue collar workers. They will either not vote or vote McCain against Obama. Obama has a problem appealing to lower class, hard workers. Although it may not be purposeful, regardless of his "bitter" comments, Barack comes off as an elitist.

And people can be Anti-Obama if they want to. There are plenty of Anti-Hillarys.

You're actually worser than Fox News with the spin.:lol: Obama wouldn't be the front runner if he didn't appeal to blue collar workers. In an attempt to cast doubt on his appeal the detractors have repeatedly misquoted his "bitter" remark and labeled him an elitist.

As Obama responded to Hilary on calling him an elitist, "Shame on you". :haha:

Donny
Apr 24th, 2008, 05:17 PM
You do realize Hillary appeals to blue collar workers. They will either not vote or vote McCain against Obama. Obama has a problem appealing to lower class, hard workers. Although it may not be purposeful, regardless of his "bitter" comments, Barack comes off as an elitist.

And people can be Anti-Obama if they want to. There are plenty of Anti-Hillarys.

I've never understood this logic. Hillary Clinton is a WASP, who is not only a Former First Lady, is not only a US Senator, but is worth over 50 million dollars.

Clinton is one of the most elite people on earth, by any reasonable interpretation of the word. Just as Bush was. Except Hillary doesn't have the incredible spin operatives like Bush did. She will get "elite bombed" in the GE just as much as Obama.

And I may add, that Obama's only seen as elitist by poor Appalachian and Southern whites. Educated whites, as well as whites in the South West, Pacific Northwest, and Rocky Mountain regions don't view him this way. And neither do blacks, of course, which make up a large part of his base. Which brings me to another point:

Obama has a problem appealing to lower class, hard workers.

Except in South Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, D.C., Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, Missouri, Wisconsin, Illionois, Iowa...

LoveFifteen
Apr 24th, 2008, 06:02 PM
Considering this race is closely contested it would be in the best interest of the superdelegates to vote in agreement of their constituents. Any other miscalculated gesture will disenfranchise voters and potentially hand Mccain the general election.

First, let me state that I think the whole superdelegate system is an absolutely horrible system, and the Democrats were such fools to have implemented it. It was designed specifically for the party to be able to overturn the "will of the people", and now that we voters are realizing that, we're pissed off.

At the same time, that's the system we have. I hear a lot of Obama supporters saying that the superdelegates should vote in agreement with their constituents, but at the same time, I don't hear them protesting when Obama accepts the super delegate vote from someone whose constituents voted differently.

Both Hillary and Obama have super delegate votes from people whose constituents voted differently. Either we accept that super delegates can vote however they want to, or if we think that super delegates should vote along with their constituents (as the Obama campaign is stating), then the Obama campaign needs to reject the super delegate votes from super delegates who are voting against their constituents.

The simple reality is that both Obama and Hillary supports want their candidate to win, and they want to spin the super delegates into whatever framework benefits them. I don't blame Obama supporters for doing this because it's only natural. I am annoyed when they say the super delegates should follow their constituents, but then they don't mention any of the dozens of superdelegates that are voting for Obama even though they come from areas that Hillary won.

Pureracket
Apr 24th, 2008, 06:07 PM
First, let me state that I think the whole superdelegate system is an absolutely horrible system, and the Democrats were such fools to have implemented it. It was designed specifically for the party to be able to overturn the "will of the people", and now that we voters are realizing that, we're pissed off.

At the same time, that's the system we have. I hear a lot of Obama supporters saying that the superdelegates should vote in agreement with their constituents, but at the same time, I don't hear them protesting when Obama accepts the super delegate vote from someone whose constituents voted differently.

Both Hillary and Obama have super delegate votes from people whose constituents voted differently. Either we accept that super delegates can vote however they want to, or if we think that super delegates should vote along with their constituents (as the Obama campaign is stating), then the Obama campaign needs to reject the super delegate votes from super delegates who are voting against their constituents.

The simple reality is that both Obama and Hillary supports want their candidate to win, and they want to spin the super delegates into whatever framework benefits them. I don't blame Obama supporters for doing this because it's only natural. I am annoyed when they say the super delegates should follow their constituents, but then they don't mention any of the dozens of superdelegates that are voting for Obama even though they come from areas that Hillary won.
Are the Obama supporters saying that the SDs should follow the constituents(I've heard Hillary supporters say that just as much), or are they saying the SDs should follow the votes of the people? There's a distinct difference in that.

homogenius
Apr 24th, 2008, 06:10 PM
First, let me state that I think the whole superdelegate system is an absolutely horrible system, and the Democrats were such fools to have implemented it. It was designed specifically for the party to be able to overturn the "will of the people", and now that we voters are realizing that, we're pissed off.



A a non-american , I find the system of superdelegates no so democratic too.If I was a voter I would be pissed off too.
Is it the same system in the Republican party (or it's only a Democratic party thing) ?

In The Zone
Apr 24th, 2008, 06:12 PM
I've never understood this logic. Hillary Clinton is a WASP, who is not only a Former First Lady, is not only a US Senator, but is worth over 50 million dollars.

Clinton is one of the most elite people on earth, by any reasonable interpretation of the word. Just as Bush was. Except Hillary doesn't have the incredible spin operatives like Bush did. She will get "elite bombed" in the GE just as much as Obama.

And I may add, that Obama's only seen as elitist by poor Appalachian and Southern whites. Educated whites, as well as whites in the South West, Pacific Northwest, and Rocky Mountain regions don't view him this way. And neither do blacks, of course, which make up a large part of his base. Which brings me to another point:



Except in South Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, D.C., Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, Missouri, Wisconsin, Illionois, Iowa...

South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, and Georgia are not voting blue. Sorry.
Virginia is a swing state for Obama. Cancels out with Arkansas for Hill

Missouri was a dead heat. Clinton is just as strong there. Wisconsin and Illinois will go blue. Iowa is a state for Obama, yes. But Hillary has Ohio to counteract that.

And yes, Clinton is worth money. But that doesn't change her ethics or what she works hard for. Don't you hear about the billionaires who drive cars from the 1990s? Money doesn't define who you are or the causes you fight. And the voters clearly see the difference.

In The Zone
Apr 24th, 2008, 06:15 PM
You're actually worser than Fox News with the spin.:lol: Obama wouldn't be the front runner if he didn't appeal to blue collar workers. In an attempt to cast doubt on his appeal the detractors have repeatedly misquoted his "bitter" remark and labeled him an elitist.

As Obama responded to Hilary on calling him an elitist, "Shame on you". :haha:

I still believe Obama is the frontrunner. It's not spin ... blue collar workers do not feel confident in him. The Clintons have devoted their political careers advocating for the blue collar workers. Bill won Ohio in 92 and 96, hence why Hillary is doing so well there.

And there's no spin. You can tell by the voting trends. I do not believe the bitter remarks changed anything, but blue collar workers do not favor him. That's a legitimate concern.

But again, this leads to the fact that African Americans and young voters go with Obama and not Hillary. Each has their advantage and disadvantage. Regardless, one will have the short end of some stick going into the general election. We just have to figure out whose stick will be longer.

In The Zone
Apr 24th, 2008, 06:19 PM
That's precisely why we, in the Democratic party, are hoping Hillary campaigns with us in the fall. There's no doubt she has major appeal to different demographics. However, your saying that they'll all go to McCain is another "doomsday prediction" that I don't subscribe to. If he comes off as elitist, that could be with your own lack of self-esteem.

I actually would like for my President to be an elitist who is smart and well-versed on things that I may know nothing about. "We've had eight years of a guy who we'd rather have a beer with. We see where that's gotten us." (Hillary Clinton said that).

I never said that a person couldn't be anti-Obama. Again, you're arguing a point that hasn't even been made. You look sillier this time because the exchange didn't even involve you.

I do not believe they will ALL go to McCain. But McCain, again, like Obama, is not conventional to his party. Obama can reach to independents, as does McCain. In states such as Ohio and Pennsylvania, any hindering effects on the blue collar vote will surely give the state to McCain.

And it's hard to make this a personal conversation. We're talking in general terms for the entire nation. I don't know why and I don't believe so, but Obama comes off as elitist to other people. I didn't make that up or decide that. But that's how people perceive him. Just like Hillary is Satan to some of you. It's a concern. And that's what the party is debating over right now.

Both candidates would win in November. But who is the safer choice? We have a Democratic House and Senate. And the census is in 2 years. Winning this year is so important.

Donny
Apr 24th, 2008, 06:36 PM
South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, and Georgia are not voting blue. Sorry.

So no red states should be allowed to count? Is that what you're implying?

This is what makes me chuckle: the complete lack of logic Clinton supporters have to embrace. You want super delegates, many of whom hold office in red states, to back Hillary based on an argument that paints their states as irrelevant. And you want them to do so at a margin of 3 to 1 for Clinton! Insane. THAT is why this race is over. Amazing that you can't see it yet.


And yes, Clinton is worth money. But that doesn't change her ethics or what she works hard for. Don't you hear about the billionaires who drive cars from the 1990s? Money doesn't define who you are or the causes you fight. And the voters clearly see the difference.

If it was about actual reality, Obama giving up a chance at a SCOTUS clerkship to work in inner city Chicago would trump Hillary's time on the Walmart board. Or her time spent endorsing NAFTA for Bill. IMHO.

In The Zone
Apr 24th, 2008, 06:39 PM
So no red states should be allowed to count? Is that what you're implying?

This is what makes me chuckle: the complete lack of logic Clinton supporters have to embrace. You want super delegates, many of whom hold office in red states, to back Hillary based on an argument that paints their states as irrelevant. At a margin of 3 to 1 for Clinton! Insane. THAT is why this race is over. Amazing that you can't see it yet.

Red states can count for delegates, votes, etc. But they really can't be used in the argument for the general election, which is what you did. Obama in those red states only won the majority of democrats in that state. Not the majority of VOTERS in that state. That's the concern and the issue.

Donny
Apr 24th, 2008, 06:49 PM
Red states can count for delegates, votes, etc. But they really can't be used in the argument for the general election, which is what you did. Obama in those red states only won the majority of democrats in that state. Not the majority of VOTERS in that state. That's the concern and the issue.

The electability argument has absolutely no relevance outside the minds of super delegates. If super delegates are going to reject your argument (which they will) then it's a moot point. Because the vast majority of primary voters don't base their choice on electability. I certainly don't. Do you?

In The Zone
Apr 24th, 2008, 07:20 PM
The electability argument has absolutely no relevance outside the minds of super delegates. If super delegates are going to reject your argument (which they will) then it's a moot point. Because the vast majority of primary voters don't base their choice on electability. I certainly don't. Do you?

We are talking about the superdelegates. And I am not sure they will. We lost in 2000 and 2004 because of the blue collar worker.

Pureracket
Apr 24th, 2008, 07:24 PM
We are talking about the superdelegates. And I am not sure they will. We lost in 2000 and 2004 because of the blue collar worker.C'mon, now. You should know by now that you can't just say blank statements without them being examined for truth.

The "blue collar" worker didn't cost us the election in '04, and it certainly didn't cost us in '00. Karl Rove and the Supreme court are NOT blue collar workers.

Donny
Apr 24th, 2008, 07:35 PM
We are talking about the superdelegates. And I am not sure they will. We lost in 2000 and 2004 because of the blue collar worker.

Hillary is not going to be able to convince congressmen, Senators, and Governors to go against their own self interest (reelection) to get them to support her.

Funny how Clinton supporters have to rely on 'hope' now.

Vlover
Apr 24th, 2008, 07:52 PM
[QUOTE=LoveFifteen;13017541]First, let me state that I think the whole superdelegate system is an absolutely horrible system, and the Democrats were such fools to have implemented it. It was designed specifically for the party to be able to overturn the "will of the people", and now that we voters are realizing that, we're pissed off.


I agree that the system is horrible but it was put in place in case something "drastic" happens like a sex scandal that would cause voters of good conscience not to vote for the candidate. Believe me if Hillary was the one who won 10 consecutive contests, leading in votes and delegates there would be no need for the votes of superdelegates because Obama wouldn't be allowed the audacity to be still in the race.

Anyway Hillary is given the opportunity to win this fairly by winning the remaining states by at least 68% then she can go to the superdelegates and state that she earned their votes in keeping with the will of the people to be the nominee. If this was strictly to be at the behest of the superdelegates then why waste time, money and energy voting when this could be easily done at the Convention.

Personally I have no problem voting for either but I can't support unfairness. I would rather take a depressing, devastating loss than an immoral victory but that is just me.

Pureracket
Apr 24th, 2008, 08:33 PM
[quote]

I agree that the system is horrible but it was put in place in case something "drastic" happens like a sex scandal that would cause voters of good conscience not to vote for the candidate. Believe me if Hillary was the one who won 10 consecutive contests, leading in votes and delegates there would be no need for the votes of superdelegates because Obama wouldn't be allowed the audacity to be still in the race.

Anyway Hillary is given the opportunity to win this fairly by winning the remaining states by at least 68% then she can go to the superdelegates and state that she earned their votes in keeping with the will of the people to be the nominee. If this was strictly to be at the behest of the superdelegates then why waste time, money and energy voting when this could be easily done at the Convention.

Personally I have no problem voting for either but I can't support unfairness. I would rather take a depressing, devastating loss than an immoral victory but that is just me.Exactly. The race under the current rules (pledged delegate victory) is over. Barack Obama has won.

If the Democratic party overturns the results of the pledged delegates to deny Barack the nomination, I will have a very hard time supporting the Democratic nominee, and let's not kid ourselves, like vlover seems to suggest, that the hesitancy to declare him the victor has much to do with the color of his skin(or Hillary's @ least).

The African American voter has been the rock of the Democratic party through thick and thin. He/she stuck by Gore. He/She stuck by Kerry. Now we have a candidate that we are not "sticking with", we have a candidate that we truly want. The excitement is palpable in my neighborhood and similar communities "of color" all over the country.

I have never known a Democratic election where I wasn't counting on the votes of African Americans. When is it going to be time to return the favour? It is time for my party to stop taking the support of African Americans for granted.


Feel free to flame me for recognizing that race is an issue in this election and siding with African Americans rather than pandering to racist whites. I would be honored to receive those flames.Catch phrases like "blue collar," "elitist," "electability," and "race card," are all used in order to "mildly" state the case. Obama IS the better Democratic candidate, and I am disgusted that my party would deny him the election due to fear of white racism.

Dawn Marie
Apr 25th, 2008, 12:57 AM
So no red states should be allowed to count? Is that what you're implying?

This is what makes me chuckle: the complete lack of logic Clinton supporters have to embrace. You want super delegates, many of whom hold office in red states, to back Hillary based on an argument that paints their states as irrelevant. And you want them to do so at a margin of 3 to 1 for Clinton! Insane. THAT is why this race is over. Amazing that you can't see it yet.







If it was about actual reality, Obama giving up a chance at a SCOTUS clerkship to work in inner city Chicago would trump Hillary's time on the Walmart board. Or her time spent endorsing NAFTA for Bill. IMHO.
I. Know. Why can't they see that Hillary is outta of this already? It's just a matter of time. In June she will step down.

mykarma
Apr 25th, 2008, 03:32 AM
You're actually worser than Fox News with the spin.:lol: Obama wouldn't be the front runner if he didn't appeal to blue collar workers. In an attempt to cast doubt on his appeal the detractors have repeatedly misquoted his "bitter" remark and labeled him an elitist.

As Obama responded to Hilary on calling him an elitist, "Shame on you". :haha:
To true.

mykarma
Apr 25th, 2008, 03:34 AM
You're actually worser than Fox News with the spin.:lol: Obama wouldn't be the front runner if he didn't appeal to blue collar workers. In an attempt to cast doubt on his appeal the detractors have repeatedly misquoted his "bitter" remark and labeled him an elitist.

As Obama responded to Hilary on calling him an elitist, "Shame on you". :haha:
you must spread reps around before ...

mykarma
Apr 25th, 2008, 03:44 AM
[quote=Vlover;13018111]Exactly. The race under the current rules (pledged delegate victory) is over. Barack Obama has won.

If the Democratic party overturns the results of the pledged delegates to deny Barack the nomination, I will have a very hard time supporting the Democratic nominee, and let's not kid ourselves, like vlover seems to suggest, that the hesitancy to declare him the victor has much to do with the color of his skin(or Hillary's @ least).

The African American voter has been the rock of the Democratic party through thick and thin. He/she stuck by Gore. He/She stuck by Kerry. Now we have a candidate that we are not "sticking with", we have a candidate that we truly want. The excitement is palpable in my neighborhood and similar communities "of color" all over the country.

I have never known a Democratic election where I wasn't counting on the votes of African Americans. When is it going to be time to return the favour? It is time for my party to stop taking the support of African Americans for granted.


Feel free to flame me for recognizing that race is an issue in this election and siding with African Americans rather than pandering to racist whites. I would be honored to receive those flames.Catch phrases like "blue collar," "elitist," "electability," and "race card," are all used in order to "mildly" state the case. Obama IS the better Democratic candidate, and I am disgusted that my party would deny him the election due to fear of white racism.
It's as obvious as the nose on your face. :worship::worship::worship:

Donny
Apr 25th, 2008, 12:28 PM
You do realize Hillary appeals to blue collar workers. They will either not vote or vote McCain against Obama. Obama has a problem appealing to lower class, hard workers. Although it may not be purposeful, regardless of his "bitter" comments, Barack comes off as an elitist.

And people can be Anti-Obama if they want to. There are plenty of Anti-Hillarys.

Oh yea, about this point-- it's completely false.

http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/080422ElitistGraph1_wk93hr2h4ls.gif

http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/080422ElitistGraph2_rbn6j2dwp2.gif
http://www.gallup.com/poll/106744/Only-26-Say-Obama-Looks-Down-Americans.aspx

whyme225
Apr 25th, 2008, 12:37 PM
[QUOTE]

I agree that the system is horrible but it was put in place in case something "drastic" happens like a sex scandal that would cause voters of good conscience not to vote for the candidate. Believe me if Hillary was the one who won 10 consecutive contests, leading in votes and delegates there would be no need for the votes of superdelegates because Obama wouldn't be allowed the audacity to be still in the race.
Anyway Hillary is given the opportunity to win this fairly by winning the remaining states by at least 68% then she can go to the superdelegates and state that she earned their votes in keeping with the will of the people to be the nominee. If this was strictly to be at the behest of the superdelegates then why waste time, money and energy voting when this could be easily done at the Convention.

Personally I have no problem voting for either but I can't support unfairness. I would rather take a depressing, devastating loss than an immoral victory but that is just me.

That's all that's needed to be said and you said it. At one time it did not make a difference to me who won because we had the best of both worlds. However, after Hillary's behaiour she could kiss my ass. I would rather not vote than give her my vote she does deserve it she is nothing but slim.

dementieva's fan
Apr 25th, 2008, 05:35 PM
Obama can win without Florida and Ohio. Obama can win Virginia, Colorado, Nevada important swing states which Hillary cannot win. And Florida is going to be very difficult for any democrat to win this year. They have a very popular Republican governer and McCain is very popular in the state among the large population of military veterans and the cuban immigrants. My aunt lives in Florida and according to her it is going to be a difficult battle for the dems in the state

On the other hand Hillary is struggling in important swing states like Wisconsin, Washington and Oregon. How can any democrat expect to win the election by losing these 3 states is beyond me. Especially someone like Hillay. Hillary might be stronger then Obama in Pennsylvania but that does not mean that Obama cannot win, Hillary had the support of Ed Rendell and the entire Pennsylvania machine, yet she only won by 9 points wih Obama cutting her initial lead by more then 50%. In november when the entire PA democrat machine is going to be behind Obama, he is most certainly going to win. Superdelegates need to take a look at Obama's strong performance in traditional GOP states like North Carolina & Indiana

Indiana (http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080424/NEWS0502/80424082)

Obama: 49%
McCain: 41

North Carolina (http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/north_carolina/election_2008_north_carolina_presidential_election )

Obama: 47%
McCain: 47%

Supers will consider these results in deciding who is more electable. This shows that Obama can make Indiana, a very red state into a swing state and even if he does not win North Carolina he can make McCain spend time and money there. It is quite clear who is the more electable candidate. Hillary supporters are just deluded. Clinton is not even doing much better then Obama in Ohio where she trails mccain by 5 compared to Obama's 7.