I'm now a Hillary supporter.

[NJSecularist]

I still like Obama. I think he has a great future ahead of him. I wish he was already the nominee. But it is clear that even after outspending Hillary 3:1, he still cannot close the deal. Voters are having buyer's remorse about him. It is very disconcering that Obama does not appeal to the voters in those Rust Belt states, the same states that we need to carry to win the election.

IMO, the only way we are going to win the White House is through Hillary. Hillary gives us a much better chance to win in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida. On the issues, they are virtually identical. But I feel Hillary has a path to the White House while Obama will be Dukakis-ized and we'll lose an election we should have won. Obama has lost control of his public image much like Gore and Kerry did.

Hillary's speech was absolutely brilliant today, and she hit to the core of what the Democratic party should stand for. That combined with her electability is why I am switching my support to Hillary. I sincerely hope that we can all unite around whomever we chose as a nominee, but obviously I feel that Hillary has a chance to win the election while Obama does not. I will still give Obama my undivided support if he is the nominee. But it is clear to me after today that Obama is not as electable as I thought he was.

Hillary has been vetted. She has nowhere to go but up. Her life has been public and up to relentless scrutiny for the last 15 year. We know what Hillary is about, and there will be no surprises. Meanwhile, the public still doesn't know much about Obama, and the vile Republican 527s will do everything in their power to remind us of this in the most race-baiting ways.

I don't want to see any more Justice Alitos on the Supreme Court. It is imperative we win this election.

Let's go Hillary. :woohoo:

[GarbagemanLB]

1. lol!

[TK421]

139. that was funny, wasn't it? LOL!!!!@!@

:eyes: oh look! another thread to shit on!

[FrenchieCat]

2. LOL!

You never left Hillary.

You are funny though!

[IndianaJones]

3. cool. nt

[writes3000]

4. I saw this coming for awhile. Enjoy the other side of the aisle, NJS.

Glad you came to a resolution about it.

Obama is still going to be the nominee.

[NJSecularist]

18. If Obama is the nominee, I will support him.

I just think Hillary is more electable.

[Zachstar]

36. Yes Republicans will just let Snipergate float away.

LOL! Say hello to Tropics_dude

[Ka hrnt]

118. Amazing...it's not racism that's driving Hillary supporters away...

...it's people like you.

They reply they'll support either candidate--and yes, the most likely nominee--and you insult them?

And then Obama supporters can't figure out why Hillary supporters won't vote for Obama. (Hint: It's not racism, at least not in the overwhelming majority of cases.)

[mkultra]

120. bush people get the same

If it quacks like a duck...

[krkaufman]

136. DU posts hardly account for the 52% of PA Hillary voters who said ...

... they wouldn't vote for Obama in the GE, if he were the nominee.

[Ka hrnt]

161. You're right.

But just because they won't vote for Obama doesn't mean they're racist either. After the last eight years it's imperative the Dems win this one. It should be cake-walk. Obama has very little experience and is an unknown quantity to many. Hillary is a known quantity--people know what they're getting with her. There are plenty of other reasons why people don't want to vote for Obama (elitism, his association with some people many find unpleasant, etc.). Frankly, I'm turned off of voting for him precisely because some (a small--but vocal--minority, to be certain) play the race card every chance they get (i.e., "you don't want to vote for Obama, ergo you must be racist"). I don't like being labeled a racist because I prefer a different candidate, and I'm certain I'm not alone. Some here clearly aren't smart enough to realize this, and it could very well come back to haunt them in the GE (yes, I believe Obama will be the nominee).

I also can't stand listening to him; his "speech" voice strikes me as brazenly phony. (Granted, it's not as painful as listening to Bush, but that's not saying much. ;) )

[krkaufman]

181. And many are not voting for Hillary precisely because she's a known quantity ...

... and they don't like what they know, and find her to be as unwatchable as Bush, as well.

I'm not going to argue some of your concerns with Obama, mostly because they're not arguable, though, not voting for Obama because of the behavior of some of his supporters, especially if regarding supporters on an Internet chat forum, seems to be more emotional than rational.

Also, some quantity of people are not voting for Obama because of racism; just as some people won't vote for Clinton because of gender. And some supporters of both tend to exaggerate the size of these groups.

[Clintonista2]

162. I'm sure they will let wright float away too

God damn them! GOD DAMN AMERICA!

[JackORoses]

150. so will you turncoat again when Obama becomes the nominee?

[democracy1st]

158. Hey NJSecularist where did you get the 3:1 spending ratio from

Website ?

[Starbucks Anarchist]

5. I'm sure sniper fire will hold up against war hero McCain.

[grantcart]

6. you forgot her brilliant speech yesterday to obliterate Iran

[IndianaJones]

10. Given the continuing war in Iraq, the United States is not in a position to invade Iran

but missile strikes might be a viable option.

[Jane Austin]

33. She said "massive retaliation" and "obliterate".

Not "missle strikes".

[IndianaJones]

46. launching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in

On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse

[Kool Kitty]

83. I don't think any country, theocracy or not,

should have nuclear weapons. They are a crime against humanity. I would like, just once before I die, to have a candidate that would include the elimination of all nuclear weapons as a main part of their campaign.

[Jane Austin]

87. Gee, you think there might be any other options?

I realize BushCo doesn't, but I'll bet a good Democrat could work the diplomatic angle.

[IndianaJones]

94. Obama did say the strikes were to be used if the sanctions didn't work. nt.

[beezlebum]

113. link please.

i have read that he said, "all options are on the table...strike that- it would be a profound mistake to use nuclear weapons- nukes are not on the table." (paraphrased) but never that he said he would OBLITERATE and MASSIVELY RETALIATE.

[beezlebum]

111. i suppose a secular country with strong radical christian influence

having its hands on nukes is better, especially when said non-muslim, supposedly secular radical christian influenced country is the only country that has used nukes against another, and preemptively invaded others and tortured and sits with its thumbs idly up its arse as its youth are sent off to die and be maimed for...what was it again with iraq?

sorry- how are we better than that radical muslim theocracy again?

sounds as though it comes from bush scripts...

[chknltl]

58. The good citizens of Tehran thank you for that.

Doesn't it seem odd that bush wants to send missiles into Iran, as does mCcain. Me? ... I'll support the candidate who does not side with bush or mCcain thank you. Don't mind me, I'm just taking a Progressive stance in the DU of all places.

[IndianaJones]

thats an Obama quote Progressive. nt.

[chknltl]

128. Then I am happy to say it again and again!

If only we had more Progressives prior to that fiasco in Viet-Nam and this fiasco in Iraq. The non-Progressive 'HAWK' methods seem to bring more blood, more pain, more deaths, more homeless refugees more HATE and more chaos. It feels good yet sad to be on the Progressive side of the line. Good because we can plainly see that early diplomacy is always a better course last over last ditch missile strikes. Sad because we know that when non-progressive HAWKS like bush and cheney and johnson get their way, we wind up with all that blood and chaos stuff. The cycle of war can be broken, but not with missiles...HAWKS never seem to get this because they live in fear and/or hate.

Do you REALLY fear that Iran would be silly enough to nuke Israel? Were you equally fearful that Saddam Hussein was about to drop a nuke on a strip-mall in any-town USA? Think about who instilled these fears in you and ask yourself why you allowed this. Did you really think Saddam was a martyr? I doubt it! So with little actual 'thinking' you can easily see that Saddam was NOT about to drop a nuke ANYWHERE! Israel has quite the nuke arsenal itself. Do you REALLY believe that Iran, if given a nuke and a missile to put it on, with enough fuel in it to reach any-town Israel would be so silly as to actually launch it while knowing that retaliation from Israel would obliterate Iran faster than Clinton could answer the 3AM call?

Fear and hate, is used by those who seek to bully others. It is sad to see how well it works on our own people.

[IndianaJones]

131. so we should strike them if the Muslim clerics gain control of nuclear weapons? cool. nt.

[chknltl]

138. Should we be struck because we threaten to use nukes? NT

[IndianaJones]

141. so you don't agree with Obama? cooler. nt.

[chknltl]

148. It appears you side with mcCain. Will you be voting for him too? sad

[grantcart]

68. any discussion of specific strategies and tactics is completely unprecedented

However initiating a massive new deterrent based on MAD (mutually assured distruction) was the saddest example of jingoistic saber rattling since the cold war. Her home town newspaper virtually renounced their endorsement of her.

She wasn't speaking of missle strikes (which again is way too specific for a political campaign) she said "total obliteration" adn teh campaign confirmed that she was speaking of thermonuclear warfare.

The standard position which all candidates have used for decades goes like this:

"I would consider such an attack a serious matter against the most vital interests of the United States and as President we would make the appropriate response."

When asked if that includes nuclear weapons the standard answer is;

"I refuse to talk about specific strategies or tactics but I am not taking anything off the table".

[IndianaJones]

81. Obama supports our less devestating missles against the mad Muslim clerics. nt.

[TwilightGardener]

7. LOL! Good luck on your Titanic voyage!

[k8conant]

8. BS

[GetTheRightVote]

9. So sorry but Obama is our Nominee and our Candidate already.

Hillary is only making it painful for reaching the end but it will be Obama without a doubt.

[NJSecularist]

13. I am willing to support Obama. I just think Hillary is more electable.

I will support and donate money to Obama (I've already donated $500 to him) if he is the nominee.

[Zachstar]

49. Again say hello to Tropics_Dude

And BS about the donations

[Binka]

69. You Don't Even Have A DU Star Only Takes $10

Fuck all. $500 my skinny ass!

[Zachstar]

74. Good point

[Binka]

85. Do you need a star Zach? I will donate in your name if you want one

[Zachstar]

90. No thanks.

[TK421]

145. You look too young to donate

:D Maybe you could donate your knowledge of fine wine in lieu of a monetary donation...

Me? I haven't donated because that's my choice

[earth mom]

152. Are you f*cking kidding?! There are almost 2 DOZEN Obama supporters on this thread w/o stars.

Almost TWO DOZEN Obama Supporters WITHOUT Stars!

Feeling Generous? Maybe you should buy them all stars. :eyes:

[Phillycat]

Nice! Welcome in, and you are absolutely right.

She can win the GE, and he can't. Also, it'll be nice to run a tough fighter for freaking ONCE, instead of a long line of milquetoasts who will roll over under Republican abuse. Hillary is stronger and more experienced than that.

And obviously, you've done the GE math, and understand the PA/Ohio/Florida thing. A Dem has to win 2 out of three decisively, or all 3 by a small margin, to win, realistically. And Obama CANNOT win any of the three.

Great to have you! :bounce:

[verges]

107. So,

you think that no one who voted for Sen. Clinton in the primaries will vote for Sen. Obama? And you feel that a very unhealthy looking Sen. McCain who advocates 100 more years in Iraq, and doesn't understand the economy (not to mention being the same party as the most unpopular POTUS ever)could possibly beat Sen. Obama? And that the one person in this country that Republicans almost universalay hate could win in November?

[True_Blue]

121. Hillary is a fighter!

I'll bet she wouldn't let anyone get away with stealing the election from her.

[Kool Kitty]

124. I'm glad that she's tough.

It will be an improvement on her husband, who I thought rolled over for the Repigs too many times.

[SoCalDem]

11. Enjoy the ride..buckle up..

:)

[scheming daemons]

12. Haha... ok..... you just bought shares in Enron......

...

[babylonsister]

14. When did you stop? No shit. nt

[virtualobserver]

15. there is a reason that Republican 527's are preparing to attack Obama..

during the middle of the Democratic primary race and it isn't because of Hillary's electability.

[redstate_democrat]

40. Exactly

The GOP isn't laying a HAND on her. Why? You have every GOP strategist and operative rallying for her in the press EVERY DAY.

WHY? We should really be asking ourselves WHY? Do you REALLY think they LIKE HER? Come on. They want to grind her into dust. She will lose and her hopes at the WH are forever done.

Sometimes I think about maybe Obama should just give it to her and let her run so he can run in 2012. But then I think that McCain will have totally destroyed us by then and I think again.

[anonymous171]

16. Buyers remorse? Jesus. I can't wait until he goes negative on her ass.

[The_Casual_Observer]

44. I can't either. Politics of hope & change was all campaign bullshit anyway.

[redstate_democrat]

17. Hillary can't win.

First of all, she was supposed to be the "inevitable" one. Obviously she is not. She is obviously not as electable as people once thought she was. This entire thing has been set up to get people just like you to give up on our only hope at the WH. Hillary Rodham CLINTON has no chance of getting near the WH. She just doesn't. First of all, she has lost the AA vote. It is GONE. Secondly, the GOP is practically SALIVATING at the mouth to get her.

Her negatives are near 60%. You can't win a general election with those negatives. Right now, she is setting herself up as a McCain knockoff. Her going against "the Maverick" is a disaster. She will lose, and she will lose big. We have no chance at winning any states we didn't win last time.

She cannot win.

[ruggerson]

19. Welcome

they're both great candidates. But, like you, I feel more confident in her ability to take this all the way.

[NJSecularist]

31. Yup. I think they are both terrific.

But I think Hillary is, without a doubt, more electable.

She gives us more of a chance to win Florida and Ohio than Obama, without question.

[thewiseguy]

20. What a joke you have become...

[emilyg]

64. A joke - where's all your love?

[tularetom]

21. Me too - can't wait for her to bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran

She's gonna obliterate them - she said so herself. Hope she gets the nomination so we have such a clear choice between war and more war.

and the republickers will NEVER drag her through the shit like they would with Obama. They'll just love her now that she's tried so hard to be one of 'em.

It'll be great. The clouds will part and the light will shine through and everything will be just lovely.

[beezlebum]

48. you forgot the celestial choirs mutual moral assuredness and international perfekshun

[Justitia]

22. HAHAHAHA, like you were ever anything but! -eom

[MattNC]

23. Buyer's remorse?

His national polling leads are about as high as they've ever been.

[blue sky at night]

24. oh please.......

replace brain then click on this link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5635017

[Jane Austin]

25. You bought the Republican meme!

Couldn't close the deal.

Yeh, right.

How about Hillary. She WAS the deal and let it slip away from her, week by week by week.

[NanceGreggs]

26. I note that you ignore the fact ...

... that the candidate who entered this race as Ms Inevitable, the one who was going to wrap-it up on Super Tuesday back in February, has just won a state she was projected to win by 25 points (just a few weeks ago) by ten (at best).

As for being 'no-surprises fully vetted', I'm sure the Bosnia sniper-fire story wasn't initially on the GOP talking-points agenda - but it is now.

[NJSecularist]

37. Hillary was never projected to win PA by 25 points.

In fact, it should have been a 50/50, seeing as how Obama is the frontrunner.

[scheming daemons]

53. March 12... the day after the previous primary (Miss.)... she was ahead 55-36.....

19 points.


It ended up 10.


Despite ALL of the following coming AFTER March 12:

Wright-gate
Bitter-gate
Ayers-gate


So.... despite ALL of that constant negative press... Obama cut a 19 point lead to 10.


You are politically tone-deaf, my friend.


Enjoy your Titanic ticket purchased with Enron stock. I hear you have the Nixon suite.

[TwilightGardener]

57. Did McCain win every state? No. He even lost to Huckabee in some.

But the R's have a winner-take-all system that shuts it down early. If theirs was proportional delegates, you'd see the same thing--different candidates winning different states, as long as the damn thing kept going on. Obama only lost by 10 percent. That's not a blowout, considering the media, the GOP, and the Clinton machine all beating the shit out of him on a daily basis.

[NanceGreggs]

At her highest, she was 25 points ahead in PA ...

... which has now dwindled down to 8 to 10 points.

Blowout victory? Yeah, in some circles, I guess that is.

[RiverStone]

84. What will you say when he totally erases tonight's win in NC...

And adds Indiana?

[Awsi Dooger]

132. That's Obama math

I wish they made the betting lines. Tonight I was off by several points since I expected Hillary to win by 5-6, but if Obama supporters made the odds I'd coast to the window every time. :rofl:

Let's see, the Obama internal projection several months ago forecast he'd lose Pennsylvania by 5 points, 52-47. But now we're told she had a 25 point advantage. It's forfeiting credibility, plain and simple. The Intrade odds on Hillary in Pennsylvania last month were solid but unremarkable favoritism, in the 70/30 range, nothing resembling a 25 point cinch.

Let's make this clear: If the Pennsylvania primary were held on ANY day during 2008, up to this point, Hillary never wins by 25 points or anything close to that. It's the difference between accepting early polls like a goof or understanding demographic and electoral realities, two evenly matched candidates and how that translates in a major primary.

The problem with Obama backers right now is they truly can't apply the fundamentals going forward to November. Congrats to NJSecularist for breaking away. Tonight was an example that preference is everything. You don't win general elections by swamping the GOP with new registrations or hidden cell phone users or stampeding young voters. I got ripped for a thread in that regard in fall '04, when this forum was swooning daily at our registration numbers in the swing states. Obama got his numbers, and then some, out of Philadelphia tonight. But it meant nothing. He has vulnerability in the heartland and swing states like Florida and Ohio and elsewhere have full area codes of heartland.

For one thing, the advantage of someone who dominates the black vote is severe, and over valued in our primaries toward November. That's not Obama's fault, it merely unfolds that way. He racks up delegates in southern states and heavily black districts, ones that vote overwhelmingly Democratic in past elections and are rewarded for doing so via bonus delegates. Meanwhile, Obama won't win the black vote 97-3, or anything resembling that, vs. McCain. It's preposterous. There's a natural ceiling there, blacks who are conservative or moderate or simply don't prefer our side. He'll gain maybe a point over our typical cut, and that's hardly enough to offset what he'll lose elsewhere.

As far as inevitability, Hillary always traded in the 50/50 range to win the nomination, throughout 2007, vs. the Field. It was never lopsided odds-on favoritism. Generally you had to give slightly more than even money. And there were establishments that offered higher than 50/50 at various points. I saw +1.13 at one stage, or 100 to win 113.

That doesn't match any numerical definition of inevitable I've seen in Las Vegas in 20+ years, but hey, on DU just flail something that matches conventional wisdom and true odds seldom get in the way.

[scheming daemons]

27. Republican 527s about to attack Obama.... *THEY* know he's the nominee...

...

else... they'd be attacking her.

[kwenu]

28. Best wishes. Buckle up!!!!

[gsaguyCLW54]

29. I agree 100%

[GoldieAZ49]

30. I changed to, in March, I am sure you not as thin skinned

as Obama & Co, which is good, you will a thick skin here.

Welcome :toast:

[Blue_Roses]

32. IF ...you ever were an Obama supporter, which I seriously doubt,

then you would be a shitty one since turning coat and running doesn't show true loyalty. Loyalty comes when the times are tough.

[NJSecularist]

Both candidates are virtually identical on the issues.

I went with the candidate that is more electable.

[Zachstar]

67. 100 percent BS and you know it.

[NJSecularist]

77. Explain me one big difference between them. n/t

[Zachstar]

100. Lobbyists

[chascarrillo]

142. One big, obliterating difference.

[Maven]

80. No, actually they pretty much are.

Except in the area of health care, in which he fails miserably.

[scheming daemons]

75. You're wrong.... and you'll feel foolish in a few weeks when Obama is the nominee...

..

[beezlebum]

79. obliterating versus not obliterating

equals identical?

[MattBaggins]

159. Ahhhhh, no you didn't NT

[emilyg]

76. That's why I'm for Clinton all the way.

I am loyal.

[Zhade]

34. So you don't have a problem with her lies about Tuzla, NAFTA, etc?

NT!

[rsmith6621]

35. Do You Write For MSNBC?????

.........I swear I heard those points before.

[barb162]

38. Excellent post! Hurray for Hillary!!!!

And she'll be the nominee, she has the momentum.

[Gore1FL]

39. Good luck with that

Afterall, she only needs to win every remainig contest by 69% and get 50% of the super delegates to win....

[NJSecularist]

54. I've debunked this point before.

Hillary just needs to keep winning. Obama doesn't have enough delegates to clinch the nomination either.

[Gore1FL]

82. Then debunk it again for me

she needs to win 69% of every remaining constest and 50% of the supers (or a combination thereof) to get to 2025.

What is the scenario in which this happens?

Thanks in advance.

[NJSecularist]

88. What is the scenario for Obama to win the nomination if the superdelegates stay neutral? n/t

[Gore1FL]

106. They won't

That is not how it works. It has never worked that way. It never will work that way.

In the impossible situation it did, it would go to a second vote, a third vote, a fourth vote, and eventually, thye'd wake up and commit.

[cali]

173. she's done. her win in PA was slightly under 9. she needed 15+

as you said not long ago, I believe. She's 20 pts behind in NC and 10 pts back in OR. She'll win KY and WV. IN is very much up in the air. Obama was endorsed this morning by Governor Henry. You'll see more SDs coming in over the next few days. She's deeply in debt. There is no way she can catch up in pledged delegates, and she's very, very unlikely to win the popular vote. As for her electability in the general being greater than his, I think that's more than a little debatable, and although they are similar on the issues, their approaches and temperments are very different. I do not want hilly any where fucking near a phone at 3 a.m.- let alone near nukes.

[Zhade]

185. No, you haven't. In fact, the math debunks YOU.

NT!

[oviedodem]

41. Hillary ain't gonna win there are many reasons for it.

[smalll]

42. Welcome to the Hillarites!

I think you're 100% right. I'm a Hillarite, and if Obama gets the nom, I WILL vote for him. One of the main reasons I don't support him now though is I also don't think he can win the General Election (even with my vote!)

[Zachstar]

43. Say hello to Tropics_Dude

And please don't come back.

[Tarheel_Dem]

45. God I can't wait til all the features are working again....

:eyes: :puke:

You fooled a lot of people for a long time, but some of us were on to you. In fact, I don't think you support Hillary or Obama, but that's your own affair.

[cliffordu]

47. LET'S GO HILLARY!!!!

[mmonk]

50. You are free to do so but she hasn't been vetted.

[woolldog]

51. Pathetic.

[HopeforChange]

52. NJ... that explains it.

[BzaDem]

55. Welcome.

I have similar views to yours. I think Obama would be a great president, but I don't think he is electable this time around.

[NJSecularist]

62. 8 years under President Clinton would set us up for a Democratic dynasty.

I'd imagine if he was a bit more experienced he'd be much better received by working-class low-income whites.

That is the ticket I am hoping for. Hillary is more electable this time around, she gets her turn, and then Obama is still young enough to run after 8 years of experience as VP.

[BzaDem]

78. Yup :)

[Kool Kitty]

155. I don't think it's anybody's TURN.

First it's Hillary's TURN. Then it will be Obama's TURN. Who gets to take the next turn? I have heard that term used in regard to Hillary's candidacy before. It's her turn becuase of all she's been through, it's her turn because she deserves it. I don't think it is anyone's turn. The candidate that wins the primary gets the nom. I don't know why it bothers me, but it does.

[Hope08]

56. I respect your opinion

But disagree with it. Please take a look at the state-by-state polling charts on electoral-vote.com. They change daily as new polls arrive and so are not static. But they consistently show that Senator Obama is fully capable of defeating McCain in the general election. (The present iteration of the website also shows Senator Clinton winning against McCain.)

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Clinton/Maps/Apr22.html (Clinton v. McCain)

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Obama/Maps/Apr22.html (Obama v. McCain)

The "electability" argument is not an especially strong one for her, IMO.

[NJSecularist]

70. Obama has a path to the presidency

But it includes putting 3 or 4 small states together like Iowa, Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada. That is very hard to do, not to mention the fact that he has to keep Wisconsin and Pennsylvania blue

All Hillary needs to do is keep Wisconsin and Pennsylvania blue and win either Florida or Ohio.

[MattNC]

109. both will be difficult

you like to emphasize Obama's relative difficulty in Ohio/Florida (Florida more so than Ohio) and ignore that he's leading in Penn, plus many of the smaller states you mention. Meanwhile, you also ignore Clinton's struggles (compared to Obama) in the Upper Midwest and elsewhere.

Not sure why you want to throw away support for Obama this far out from November when he closed the gap considerably in a PRIMARY against an opponent with incredibly strong institutional support in Penn.

[Hope08]

115. I see your point

But you'll notice that electoral-vote.com, using polling data -- not your conjecture, or mine -- show PA as Obama 47%, McCain 39%/ Clinton 47%, McCain 38%, and WI as Obama 49%, McCain 44%/ Clinton 46%, McCain 46%.

We need to focus on the facts in evaluating the "electability" argument, not on the speculation of TV talking heads. Tonight has taught us that PA prefers Senator Clinton to Senator Obama. But that does not permit the logical leap which the Clinton campaign implicitly asks us to make -- that PA also prefers McCain to Obama. That's why "electability" doesn't carry the day for Senator Clinton, I think. The DNC sees these poll numbers too.

[NJSecularist]

119. Well, I am not so concerned for PA as I am Ohio and Florida.

I think Obama can win Pennsylvania. But it will be a tooth and nail fight that will be much closer than it should be. Clinton would perform better in pennsylvania, and she would perform better in Ohio and Florida.

[totodeinhere]

184. You have no way of knowing that in April.

It's more than six months until the general election. In politics, that's an eternity. Any number of things can and will happen between now and then which might throw off your calculations.

[IsItJustMe]

59. They do have new and improved medications now days, you know.

[Political Heretic]

60. That explains a lot.

[Zachstar]

61. Again when Obama gets the nomination I ask you to not come back.

I am sick and tired of people like you and tropics who switch not on issues but in desperation for a (D) in the white house. That will lead to ruin come November if it spreads.

Well you can count my vote for anyone other than "Obliterate Iran" Clinton.

Say hello to Tropics_dude

[BzaDem]

73. Yup, we want a D in the whitehouse. Hence the name Democratic Underground.

Some people understand the stakes in this election more than others. Hence why we aren't saying "Kucinich or the highway."

[Zachstar]

89. If that is all you are about then say hello to President McCain

Because the republicans will kick ass just like they did with Kerry.

Send dean? Nah he is not electable! Send Kerry who got his political ass kicked by the swift boats who had nothing on him compared to what they have on Clinton in their archives.

I am so glad that I am 100 percent against entitlement based nominations.

[BzaDem]

93. They have NOTHING on Clinton compared to what they have on Obama.

Just because Kerry didn't win doesn't mean Dean wouldn't have lost worse than Kerry.

[Zachstar]

105. 8 years they have planned for Clinton. More if they got a clue during 96

[RBInMaine]

63. Hillary had HUGE name, family, demographics, and machine help and still only won by 10%.

You must see the reality here. She was EXPECTED to win given the structural advantages. That Obama cut her early lead by more than 50% is AWESOME !

[NJSecularist]

86. But Hillary is not the front-runner. Obama is.

If you are the frontrunner who is billed as the nominee, you are expected to win states like these, or come close.

[Zachstar]

92. Do you get your talking points from Tropics?

[Tarheel_Dem]

125. I think they're the same person.....nt

[scheming daemons]

95. No... in the minds of Pennsylvanians, she was the "incumbent"...

...

[kevinbgoode]

101. I'm sure Hillary's consistently high negative ratings among general voters

will enable her to win so many more states in the GE

[Ichingcarpenter]

65. Your 'new' support for Hillary is no surprise

I've seen your writings here.. and your 'change' to Hillary
was no change at all...

But, good, support your 'new' candidate...she is not getting the money
and many here that support her, are already tapped out on
what they can give to her. The Corporatist are tapped out too.

I'm not tapped out with Obama and neither are the millions that support him.

[cooolandrew]

66. Obama is the clear frontrunner so feel free to change it is your free right.

Obama moved a mountain to bring a 20 point lead to 5 .

[Straight Shooter]

71. I thought I detected a shifting of your support here lately.

I was wondering what was up. Maybe I'm confusing you with someone else, but you were a strong supporter of Obama. I'm glad to have you supporting Hillary now.

:thumbsup:

edit because I'm bleary-eyed :)

[Maven]

72. Welcome.

I think you've made the right choice, and a brave one since the mission of many Obama supporters on DU is to make Clinton supporters feel unwelcome here (as you're already finding out).

[scheming daemons]

91. NJS.... in two weeks, will you jump back after he throttles her in NC and wins in IN?

You seem to go where the wind is blowing at the moment....


..and you're going to feel foolish in a month when he's the nominee.



But good luck in your journey "finding yourself".

[NJSecularist]

96. If Obama wins the nomination, I will firmly be in his corner.

I just choose Hillary because she is more electable.

[Zachstar]

102. Please dont come back. You just give ammo to the republicans in my view.

[scheming daemons]

108. You're politically tone-deaf.... Obama will win all the "blue" states that Hillary would win.. but

...also many "red" states that she wouldn't.


Hillary AND Obama would both win PA, CA, MA, NY, IL, MI in the GE.

Both would like lose FL (McCain's base)


All the other traditional blue states would also go to either Hillary or Obama.



BUT!


Obama can win some red states that Hillary cannot win.... NC, VA, MO to name a few.


You're politically tone-deaf.

[NJSecularist]

126. You call me politically tone-deaf..

And then you say Obama will win VA or NC? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[scheming daemons]

130. Obama puts VA and NC into play.... Hillary doesn't.

[scheming daemons]

110. Plus.... 60% of America finds her "untrustworthy". That's right at her "electability".

You need to pay attention to EVERYTHING... not just the results of one state that was taylor-made for her.


She SHOULD have won PA by 20 to 25.


If she was more electable, she would have.

[NJSecularist]

123. Hillary has her trust issues, but Obama has an image problem.

Obama is losing control of his public image. He is starting to be painted as a radical. With the inevitable 527s, he will be connected to Reverend Wright, Louis Farakhan and William Ayers. While I agree that the evidence is flimsy at best that connects Obama to anything subsantial to those three, that hasn't stopped the Rethugs before. And I actually think that Reverend Wright is a good man, but most of America doesn't.

[scheming daemons]

129. How can she win with only 8-10% of the black vote?

[NJSecularist]

133. She will need to do a lot of fixing up.

But blacks have been our most loyal constituency for years and years. My hope is that Obama is the VP.

[scheming daemons]

140. Well... if she can "fix up" among blacks, can't he "fix up" among middle-class whites?

..especially when he's already getting 40+% of those.... compared to her 10% of blacks?

[NJSecularist]

147. We lost in 2004 because of Kerry's inability to prevent some low-income whites from switching

It's a constituency that isn't nearly as reliable to us as blacks are.

[scheming daemons]

153. White women, who are very loyal to Hillary, will NOT vote for McCain......

You're still being tone deaf.


Hillary won PA by 9%.

Hillary is losing NATIONALLY by 10% (among Democrats... see today's Gallup).


Obama is doing better HEAD-TO-HEAD against McCain than Hillary is... albeit, by a small margin.



There's no way for Hillary to get this nomination without splitting the party in two. If the SDs overturn the PDs and/or the popular vote... blacks, young people, and new voters will leave our party in DROVES... and it will take a generation to get them back.


Flawed or not.... Obama is our ONLY chance in the GE now. The only way Hillary can get the nomination is in a way that guarantees our loss in the GE.


Think two moves ahead instead of one. Don't let the emotion of ONE night in which a candidate won a state that was taylor-made for her by a mere 9%.


You're buying the Pat Buchanan spin. He WANTS you to buy it. Because he wants a McCain presidency.


Think!

[NJSecularist]

154. Well, yes, they won't vote for McCain if Hillary is the nominee.

But it's a whole different story if Obama is the nominee.

[scheming daemons]

157. Again... you're wrong.

You are making an assumption that because Obama loses a voter to Hillary, that he'd lose that same voter to McCain.

It doesn't work that way.


Again.... the only path to the nomination for Hillary at this late point is to have the SDs overturn the PDs and/or popular vote.

if they do so, Democrats would have lost blacks, young professionals, and new voters for a generation.

It means 20 more years in the wilderness for our party.


There's no way for her to get the nomination now except by having SDs overturn the will of the people. If she does that, she will get Barry Goldwater-like numbers in the GE... under 40%.


The party will have been cleaved in two. That's the ONLY way she gets the nomination now.


..and if you cannot see that, then you are politically tone-deaf.

[high density]

168. You don't think Clinton is pained as a radical as well?

Sorry, but she has had an image problem for 15 years now. Just because the focus is on tearing down Obama with guilt by association tactics doesn't mean the same game couldn't be played and lost on Clinton. McCain is going to win any image contest because the media has loved him for decades now.

[wisteria]

97. I will stick with Obama. I suspect you were a Closet Clinton supporter anyway.

Go Obama! Get rid of her once and for all!!!

[Occam Bandage]

98. LMAO@"now." You've been pushin' her forever.

[frazzled]

99. Why can't Hillary close the deal?

With the biggest brand-name in politics, a supposed 35 years of experience, a huge war chest (squandered), a large part of the Democratic machine behind her, and a year-long lead that began to dissipate after Iowa, she still can't manage to catch up to Obama in either delegate count, popular vote, fundraising, or any other metric.

I'm very ****concerned**** about that, and I'd say the Superdelegates should be, too.

[barb162]

103. With the way Obama's been outspending her, why hasn't he closed the deal.

[frazzled]

127. You obviously don't watch television

The only talking point is "why can't Obama close the deal"--I simply have found that odd, given that Hillary is even farther from closing the deal, but somehow is not required to do so: she only has to question why Obama hasn't. Huh?

If the Clinton spinmeisters wish to promote this idea that Obama can't close the deal, they'd better figure out why she can't. Or how she could.

[barb162]

177. The other talking point is his massively outspending her by 3 to1

and he still can't close the deal. If she had that kind of money he has for ads, she would have closed the deal a long time ago. He's unelectable.

[NJSecularist]

104. When did Hillary ever have a chance to finish the dea?

She was behind from the start when she lost Ohio.

She won New Hampshire, then she lost South Carolina, a state that Obama was going to win regardless.

She bounced back on Super Tuesday, and then lost her way in the next 10 contests, most of which favored Obama. Now she is bouncing back.

[MattNC]

114. Iowa/Super Tuesday

If Obama loses Iowa, she coasts to the nomination. If her campaign organization wasn't so terrible early on, she could've performed much, much better in the states she lost on Super Tuesday.

[TK421]

149. Shouldn't Obama be the one to close the deal, then?

You're not making sense there

delegate count, popular vote, fundraising....yeah, that part!

[johnnydrama]

112. how dumb

If PA was 6 weeks ago, and Maryland & Virginia were today you'd be saying the exact opposite.

[MattNC]

116. Johnny Drama!

Hopefully in two weeks we will have...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=GIeWjLC_SB0

[NJSecularist]

117. We can play the hypothetical game all day.

Do we really want to do that?

[Nutmegger]

122. Traitor! Traitor! Away with you! Away with you!

:sarcasm:

R&K for your thought out post.

[Asgaya Dihi]

134. With all due respect

The whole vetted idea is nonsense. Was she vetted for the sniper thing? Was she vetted for the blowback she generated with the negative campaign she ran? Her worst enemy right now is herself, most of the damage she's taken in this campaign has been a direct result of her own actions during the campaign and I don't see how she could possibly be vetted for what she insists on doing to herself. Take a browse of her approval/disapproval scores before, during, and then at this late date in the race and tell me if you don't see a trend.

That's our better chance?

I'll stick with the one who at least tried to campaign like a dem, though he did display some temper at times too. We've already got decades of records to show the price of compromising principles the way she has during this campaign. That's how we got into this mess and that's why the "change" mandate is so important, and independent of Obama for inspiration. We do need change no matter who takes us there, she just decided by her own tactics that it couldn't be her. She's not as electable as it once seemed.

[Beacool]

135. Welcome aboard!!!!

We who were on the ground in PA had no doubt that she was going to win. She won by exactly the percentage that we were discussing last night at the campaign's office after looking at the internals: 10%

People came from all over the country to volunteer. In my area alone, Berks County and the Lehigh Valley, 40 people flew in from Texas, we had super delegates from other states, several people came from FL and brought crates of oranges to hand out as they canvassed. We had folks from as far as CA, CO, MI, AR, NV, MA, CT and bus loads came from NY and NJ. THAT is how much support this woman engenders, despite the media and the naysayers in the party. We worked hard and we are now celebrating a well deserved win.


:bounce:

[ClericJohnPreston]

137. The freak brigade of Obamatons

is out in force in this thread. Too bad the Kool-Aid induced cognitive dissonance won't permit a gracious appraisal of reality.

Then again, the price of over the top loyalty, besides the echo chamber here, is that adoration of Obama means a concommitant hatred of Hillary. A simple equation, lost on the fanatics.

[high density]

172. It's interesting you'd mention a "gracious appraisal of reality"

When your own talk is removed from reality as well.

Since you like reality, I will tell you that Barack Obama is going to be our nominee. I hope you become one of the "fanatics" for him by then or get your ass out of here.

[Fox Mulder]

143. I'm glad you support someone who'll go to war (obliterate) with Iran..

and who voted to allow Bush to go to war in Iraq.

Makes me proud. :eyes:

[RememberWellstone]

144. YES!

This will be the battle cry for Hillary, we got to get the Supremes changed.

[TK421]

146. Cue the Obamite thread-shitters!!

bump!

[MadBadger]

151. Obama lost the state by 5-10 points, so I ask you, WTF?

Im going by your own words

[guyanakoolaid]

156. Nobody really believes this OP, right?

Obama's lead is insurmountable, and Clinton supporters are trying every tactic in the book to claw their way back in. There's just no mathematical possibility.

And now, as Hillary's ship is sinking, you want to jump aboard? Hillaryous.

[Doc7]

160. Of course he's having a hard time closing the deal.

And why can't he close the deal? Because there are a number bitter white folk (in the rust belt states) who will not vote for a black man under any circumstance. Ed Rendell knows the state of Pennsylvannia better than most, and he was called a racist for saying the same thing, and he was right.

I am a huge supporter of Barack Obama, but I'm also a pragmatist. Having said that, I believe that there are a number of white, racist Democrats who'd happily vote against their own interests, rather than vote for a well-meaning black man for President.

So, you see, it really doesn't matter how much money Barack spends in states like Pennsylvannia or Ohio.

[bluetrain]

183. So many brand new members doing the GOP's job for them. Hope they're paying you well.

[Clintonista2]

163. K&R, but be careful, Obama supporters will now target you for tombing

You've probably already been put on their list.

[Maribelle]

164. Welcome! 'the only way we are going to win the White House is through Hillary'

:grouphug:

[stevenleser]

165. *PLONK*

[Bullet1987]

166. WTF? Have fun when you don't win...HAHAHAHAHA

Damn thin-skinned supporters.

[FlaGranny]

167. Actually, the reason

that Republicans want to run against Clinton is that they have so much more on her. If she were the nominee, it would all come back, every association, every deal. There is a ton of stuff they have on the Clintons. The Republican pundits are salivating for Hillary. She'll guarantee their paychecks until the GE and if she should win that, she'll guarantee their paychecks for the next 4 years. Much less dirt on Obama, but I'm sure they'll be able to manufacture some - they have already with the help of the Clinton campaign. They have real dirt on the Clintons and so far, manufactured dirt on Obama.

[susankh4]

169. Welcome home!

[npincus]

170. watch out for sniper fire! And don't be bitter when Obama wins!

:rofl:

[Honeycombe8]

171. Ha. Her healthcare plan is a sham to force Americans to buy her contributors' product.

She voted for the Iraq War, not because she thought that was right, but because politically she thought it was better. She voted for the Patriot Act w/o reading even a summary of it.

She is one of the ones responsible for where the country is now. You like where we are? Then vote for Hillary and get more of the same.

She is unelectable. Half the country cannot stand her.

Obama is winning and will be the nominee. He has most of the states (double what she has won), he has most of the votes, he has crossover appeal, and most importantly, he is authentic.

I suspect you were never an Obama supporter, really. Otherwise, the Clintons' behavior in this campaign would be highly offensive to you. She crossed a line when she said it was between her and McCain. She meant that. If she doesn't get the nomination, she wants McCain to win, so she can run again in 2012. The Clintons didn't want Kerry to win, either, so that she could run in 2008. No matter the damage that would be done to the country in the interim. That is not her concern.

That is not the kind of person we want as President. That's what we've had for 8 years. If the choice for Americans is between two people who are responsible for the mess we're in, they will vote for McCain. He has a better reputation for truth, genuineness, and his policy positions aren't much different from Clinton's. He has a better record on the environment than she does, for a starter.

[NC_Nurse]

174. Good luck with that.

She's going to lose. It's over. She's only still in it because of the MSM insisting on keeping it going.
They're in it for the money. Barack is not going to be a poo flinger like her and apparently some Americans
are into that. I don't think that's a majority.
If she would get out and he could start taking on McCain, you'd see that he will win. She will not. She and McCain
get more similar every day and there won't be a crossover vote for her. She is hated by many independents and
conservatives - and many liberals too.

[pdxmom]

175. First, if there is buyer's remorse, why do the national Dem polls have

Obama up by 10? I don't see any remorse in those numbers.

Second, how do you figure she's more electible considering her negatives are in the mid to high 50's and 60% of the country think she's untrustworthy? Hillary will bring out Repukes in droves.

It's a total toss-up in my mind as to which candidate is more electable. As for your big 3 states, Hillary can only count on one of them, and her ability to win the other 2 will be as limited as Obama's against McCain. The difference is that Obama has a better shot at picking up states that Hillary can't win, like Colorado or Virginia, to make up the difference if Ohio and Florida are lost to the Repukes.

[Tippy]

176. It is the Republicans wet dream if Hillary gets the nod.....

The only way she can win is if Obama were her running mate, and I don't see that happening. But all that aside I will support her is she does get the nod, not that it will do any good but it will be the only chance we have to get the rethugs out of office...

[Raffi Ella]

178. YAY!!!!!!!!!

LETS WIN THE WHITE HOUSE BACK Y'ALL!!!

:woohoo:

[bagimin]

179. Nice timing....

sounds like you've been listening to Gregory and Buchanan.

[L0oniX]

180. And you are now on my ignore list too.

:evilfrown:

[ProudToBeLiberal]

182. please put me on ignore. Thanks! n/t