HillFANS, your "big state" logic is as skewed as it comes.

[RBInMaine]

Sadly, HillFANS are entirely off the beam when it comes to these assertions regarding Hillary's "great comebacks," "big state advantages," etc. You need to understand PoliSci 101.
The Clintons had HUGE advantages coming into the race: name recognition, money, LONG-ESTABLISHED party ties especially in the big states, established machine help, etc. etc. That Obama and his team have done so well against these kinds of odds going in is the REAL news and what should have HillFANS scared shitless (and which DOES) have Team-Hillary so pissed and scared. Her wins in NH, MA, CA, NY, NJ, OH, and TX were NOT surprising given those machine and her demographics advantages. That Obama made up as much ground as he did in many of the Hillary states is the REAL story. Heck, he damn near beat her in the TX primary and DID win the caucus part bigtime giving him the overall delegate win. So look, this is a big country with vast demographic divisions and machine advantage differentials. Hillary will likely win PA, KY, WV, and PR. Obama will likely win NC, MT, and OR.
IN will is a big question mark, but Hillary does have an advantage there as well. The Hillary wins are NOT big news. That Obama has won what he has won and made the inroads he has IS. He had to start from SCRATCH. Also, MI and FL WILL be seated in some FAIR way. What is certain is she CAN NOT win the delegate math, and the supers WILL NOT overturn the pledged delegates. The nominee will be determined prior to the convention, most likely before the end of June, and the nominee will be Barack Obama.

[maddiejoan]

1. Then I guess you can just relax

If Obama is the nominee --why the need to even address Hillary's campaign at all?

:shrug:

[totodeinhere]

2. Because some of us believe that this protracted campaign only helps McCain.

[maddiejoan]

3. How does it help McCain?

I know you BELIEVE this --but maybe someone can explain it to me.

[totodeinhere]

5. Because all of Senator Clinton's attacks against Obama in the primary campaign...

are driving Obama's numbers down. And it just gives McCain more talking points to use in the general election. Can't you just imagine McCain running a spot showing Clinton asserting that he is more prepared for the presidency than Obama is?

[maddiejoan]

9. McCain can easily make that argument

with or without HRC's video clip.

In fact it's McCain's best and really ONLY argument.

It's also a very easy one for him to make --the problem (as we HRC supporters know full well)

IT DOESN'T WORK.

Senate experience is incredibly easy to rip to shreds in soundbites.

The argument of McCain having more 'experience' than Obama is not a successful strategy --as in this political climate, lack of Washington DC status, is a political strength.


next.

[totodeinhere]

13. Well then...

The argument of McCain having more 'experience' than Obama is not a successful strategy.

If it's an unsuccessful strategy, why does Clinton use it?

[maddiejoan]

17. Because Mark Penn is an idiot?

If I were Hillary, I'd have shaped the 'experience' argument differently --not argued number of years alone, but instead I would have focused on what political causes she has dedicated herself to in her '35 years'.

She'd have come off a lot better, and it would have made people look at her issues (which quite strong) as opposed to making people examine her losses versus wins.

If one looks at the battles that Hillary has chosen to fight, and the issues that she has embraced --she comes off very well.
The problem is, they are not very 'sound-bite' worthy.

Hillary was always going to be a tough sell (I'm actually amazed she came this far) -- I still think it's worth her hanging in there.

[totodeinhere]

23. ...

Because Mark Penn is an idiot.

It's great that we finally agree on something.

[maddiejoan]

25. Can I get YOU to admit

That Axelrod is a slime merchant?

If so --then maybe there can be unity at last.

[totodeinhere]

28. OK sure.

People have said far worse about me before for that matter. LOL.

[maddiejoan]

32. Yayyy

There's hope for a unified party!

:)

[UALRBSofL]

14. Maddie then I guess the Obama supporters have nothing to worry about

If they are so confident he will win the big states regardless.

[maddiejoan]

18. exactly

If Obama is THAT strong a candidate, obviously there is no need even to address Hillary --or even McCain for that matter.

He will sail to the Presidency on golden wings, and his sheer charisma will make all opposed to him bend knee in tribute, when they witness His Goodness and Light.

[BumRushDaShow]

12. McCain already used an interview snippet of Bill Clinton and Barbara Walters where Clinton asserted

that McCain was the most electable Republican. McCain even had the video featured on the main page of his website. :eyes:

[RBInMaine]

6. The point here is to refute the Hillary claims about the "greatnesss" of her wins: a FAKE argument.

[maddiejoan]

11. Why is Hillary even an issue for you

If Obama can easily win the convention --then Hillary should be a complete non-issue for you.

I'd love to hear Ted Kennedy's opinion on whether Hillary should take it to the convention.

[RBInMaine]

19. Please, TRY to understand the point. The Clintons are hanging on to the FAKE argument that the

supers should overturn the pledged delegates because she won more of the "big states." If she wants to stay in, that's her right. But she is going ultra-nasty, scorched earth, and kitchen sink all on the THIN hope that she and Bill can convince the supers that Obama will lose the big states needed in November. My point is that her "big state" wins thus far were wins that were almost pre-determined given her structural advantages going in to this PRIMARY. They have NOT been "great wins" nor the kind of dramatic "comebacks" she says they are. In the general, Obama will WIN the established BLUE big states, and he will be equally as competetive in the large swing states like OH and FL. Also, remember that Obama won MO, GA, VA, MN, and WI, all pretty good sized states. Obama is also a better down-ticket nominee than Clinton, especially in the purple and red states. MANY dems will NOT want to campaign with Hillary. She is also WRONG for continuing the TIRED and FAILED notion of a 20-state GE campaign (that the red states don't matter), and she is ULTRA-wrong for screeching to Bill Richardson that "Obama can't win the general election and I can." Her logic, as I say, is FAKE and SKEWED on that point as outlined. So, run if you want Hillary. That's your right. But you will lose this nomination, and unless you correct yourself and reverse your tactics YOU will damage the party in ways we can not afford. Indeed, you have already done enough damage in your quest to garner what you feel is your birthright. IT IS NOT !!

[maddiejoan]

24. I've heard this argument before

that Obama is a better 'down ticket' candidate than Hillary.

I don't see this as supportable at all.

New voters who are Obama supporters support "Obama" --you have no evidence that this helps down-ticket races at all.
In fact --it could be argued that these Independants and new voters will want a balanced government and vote IN GOP House and Senate.

Hillary's supporters, OTOH, tend to be long time voters who have a standing as faithful Democratic Party voters that DO vote straight tickets.

If you are worried about 22% of either's supporters sitting home on election day (and I am), then the "down-ticket" will suffer the most
under an Obama candidacy.

I'm not so sure putting your eggs in the Obama basket is a wise move, and having Hillary at the convention is now NEEDED in order to not lose
a nice little percentage of Hillary supporters' votes in the GE.

Obama will most likely win the nomination --but he NEEDS Hillary to take it all the way to the convention now -- more than ever in fact.

[totodeinhere]

4. Plus Obama would still win most of those big states in the general election.

Obama lost California, New York State, New Jersey, and Massachusetts in the primaries, but does anyone seriously believe that he could not win those very blue states in the general election?

[RBInMaine]

7. YES ! Obama will win the BIG BLUE states anyway. So she's full of it !

[BumRushDaShow]

8. Exactly.

The known strong blue states aren't going to suddenly go red if Obama was on the ballot. The insistence that this is what will happen continues to be nonsense propagada from the Clinton campaign. The key at this point is to put as many purple states into play as possible, and push them into the blue. And in states like PA, it often comes down to a county by county slogfest to get enough counties to go blue or get enough overarching blue votes statewide from the most populous counties, to throw the whole state into the blue (as happened in PA in 2004 for Kerry).

[RBInMaine]

10. Yup !

[Voice for Peace]

39. I think if those primaries were held again he might very well win them. nt

[Nitrogenica]

15. "Wins big states" is definitely a classic Red Herring.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html

[Donkeykick]

16. ???

What is certain is she CAN NOT win the delegate math, and the supers WILL NOT overturn the pledged delegates. The nominee will be determined prior to the convention, most likely before the end of June, and the nominee will be Barack Obama.

In the same respect, do you think Obama will carry a lot of those red states he beat Hillary on against McCain this Fall? Remember: you're telling us about those delegates, and how important that will be in the end concerning this. The popular vote dosen't put people in the White House(if it did Al Gore would have been President); just like the popular vote dosen't determine the outcome of the victor of the primaries. :popcorn:

[BumRushDaShow]

20. Some of those "red states" are actually now purple since 2006 in terms of

governors and Senators. With enough turnout within a state, the blue vote may be enough to get the state's electoral delegates, particularly if the red vote decides to stay home if their special wedge interests are not reflected by a McCain. The Democratic Party can't keep conceding state after state to the repukes in election after election (since 1980) with the hope of getting one or two large (often corrupted) reddish states to switch. E.g., this strategy of focusing on Florida at the expense of a Colorado and a Wyoming and a Nevada and a New Mexico and even an Indiana is useless - particularly if you are looking at the long term for rebuilding the party's base.

[RBInMaine]

22. Man, are we on the same wavelength or what?? Uncanny ! KICK !

[Donkeykick]

30. Still, I notice that you refused to answer the question that I presented to you.

:eyes:

[RBInMaine]

21. So you think we should continue to IGNORE the red states??

Oh good, more STALE thinking. We have DEMOCRATS and INDEPENDENTS (and even some moderate R's) in the red states. Sure, it will be hard to win in places like Idaho and Wyoming. But should we not even try to compete?? Should we not even try to build our party in these states?? Should we just abandon all of our state and local candidates in these states?? Should we say that all the work Howard Dean has done to make us a 50 state party again should just go down the toilet?? Look, we have DEM governors in WY, AZ, KS, and MT. We have MANY Dem legislators and some Dem legislative majorities in many of these red states. We CAN flip Colorado, Nevada, Missouri, Louisiana, Arkansas, and maybe even VA and NC. We CAN at least be MORE competetive in these areas. They damn well DO matter. Your thinking is the PAST. We need new thinking and a new politics, and that is what we are proving we get from Obama people and NOT Hillary people.

[Donkeykick]

31. It is apparent...

that we're making an upswing in those states(Governors;etc.); it is a slow tedious process, and I think that Dean is doing a fine job. But when it comes to the presidency people in those states are stagnant with their ideologies. :shrug:

[Awsi Dooger]

37. That's the point

General election numbers are rigid from a partisan standpoint. That tends to get lost late in a primary season, after voters have witnessed so many comebacks, and acquire a false sense that it also applies to November.

Not the case. In fact, you can virtually look at the number of self-identified conservatives and self-identified liberals in each state to understand where the state slots. Gore and Kerry won every state with at least 24% self-identified liberals. Bush won every one with at least 35% self-identified conservatives. The swing states are in between, places like Florida with about 21% liberals and 32% conservatives.

Those fundamentals have not changed, so it's foolish to pretend Obama has surreal pull in red states. He'll be routinely dismissed. The question is who plays better in critical swing states like Ohio and Florida, and the emerging states like Virginia and Colorado. It's an interesting debate because it depends on overall national preference. If Obama is truly 2-3 points better nationally than Hillary vs. McCain, then he's more electable. The states will fall in line. But I have my doubts. In a Democratic year I'd take my chances on the known quantity.

Governors are not overly relevant to a state's tendency on the federal level. Particularly since so many blue govs in red states were elected in 2002, the year of a massive changeover in gov partisanship due to the suddenly inept economy. Govs were an easy target of voter outrage so any state without a GOP gov incumbent, but which had been led by a GOP gov, tossed out the familiar party even if it was a seemingly odd switch. The percentages were surreal, on both sides. That's why you had/have weird situations like GOP govs in Hawaii and Maryland, and Democratic govs in places like Wyoming, Tennessee, Kansas, Oklahoma, etc. Other than Ehrlich in Maryland they were re-elected in '06. Most likely the majority of those states will return to more familiar gov leadership in '10.

[Toallwhoshallsee]

26. If only the stars would fall inline....Maybe....

The only problem here is: "The established quo" Obama is an outsider with little or no connection to the hierarchy of the Democratic Party....Hillary, and McCain, are insiders with vast connections to power. Quite frankly, their will be hell to pay if you choose to cross paths with either one. We all have wittinessed these "Godfather" type constituents and thier message to those who voice a differing opinion....Senior Senators, wield long, sharp swords, their swath is reaching, the strike terrible in nature...Be careful Barak when you challenge these foes who see themselves as Cesar....

[DemVet]

27. Here's the rub...

After all the primaries are said and done:

Obama leads in delegates but does not have the required 2025 to secure the nomination.

Hillary leads in the popular vote from all the primaries (not possible? Think again).

Who do the superdelegates "bless" with the Nomination?

What is the will of the people?

[Hepburn]

29. Tell Al Gore how popular vote trumps number of delegates, OK?

[Vinca]

33. The popular vote doesn't count in caucus states, so how

can popular vote be a consideration? If they were all primaries, it might make sense, but they aren't. That's why there is a delegate system.

[DemVet]

35. That's an easy out.

Saying popular vote doesn't count to the superdelegates just because some states use the retarded caucus system is just ridiculous.

[Vinca]

36. An easy out???? That's dismissive of all the Democrats who

caucused. Whoever gets the majority of the popular vote will be getting it minus the voters in a whole bunch of states that held caucuses. Since Obama won most of the caucus states, what does that tell you? This is another ploy from down at the bottom of the Clinton bag of tricks.

[Mooney]

34. It's just more noise, bullshit and goal-post moving.

It's not even worth responding to.

[ORDem]

38. K&R n/t

:kick: