Clinton wins 80 more electoral votes than Obama, who loses to McSame

[jackson_dem]

Clinton vs. McSame



Dem pickups (vs. 2004): FL IA MO OH WV
GOP pickups (vs. 2004): MI NH

Clinton wins 291-237. 10 electoral votes are tied.

Obama vs. McSame



Dem pickups (vs. 2004): CO IA
GOP pickups (vs. 2004): NH PA

Obama trails 243-269. 26 electoral votes are tied. The Indiana and North Carolina ties are illusory. Right now Dems are stumping through the state, running ads and that is artificially inflating both candidate's numbers (Clinton is down only 5 in IN), especially Obama's given his ad avalanche, in both states. There is no way either candidate is going to carry either state.

Notice that Clinton flips more states. In fact Obama results in a net loss of 9 electoral votes. He gains 16 but loses 25. Clinton adds 70 and cedes only 21. That is a net gain of 49. This would be significant in any year but it is especially significant when the Obama camp loves to argue it can "expand" the map.

This is in April. As Presidents Kerry and Dukakis would tell you elections are held in November. Obama has a lot more tanking to do in the interim. He can't win now when he is still undefined and taken only light jabs for a brief period of time (two months, intermittently). How can glass jaw Obama, who suffers each time he is lightly attacked by Clinton, withstand months of non-stop rethug attacks on him and in the MSM? Talk about audacity...

[yellowcanine]

1. Says who? this is rank speculation. ain't worth a bucket of warm piss.

[jackson_dem]

2. See you on November 5

[cliffordu]

4. Probably not - I'll bet you're off the board by the end of May....

Unless you decide to hang around after she steps down.....

Who can say??

Who cares?

[sniffa]

92. One can only hope

[yellowcanine]

8. November 5 will tell little about this claim because we won't know the other half.

Only one will be running against McCain so this claim of yours is unprovable. Logic is clearly not a strength with you, is it?

[jackson_dem]

12. We will know of Obama in November is weaker than Obama in April, March, Febraury

And the peak of his electability the spring of 2007.

[Imagevision]

66. Obama in November is weaker"?

[yellowcanine]

84. Try as I might I cannot make any sense of that statement.

[Forkboy]

11. It's from electoralvote.com

If that helps. :)

[yellowcanine]

85. Actually by itself it doesn't without knowing what it was based on and knowing that

popular vote general election polls mean little now and individual state electoral vote polls mean even less. It is so much noise, that's all, a mere parlor game.

[Forkboy]

86. You don't have to tell me. I hate polls and polling and pollsters.

Just pointing out the source. :)

[peoli]

3. Hillary needs to go to Kinkos and make these on big posterboard then show it to the SD's!

This will sway them for sure!

[cliffordu]

6. LOL - yep - they won't do it without money up front though...so....

[jackson_dem]

16. God damn Rev. Wright? No, no, no! God bless Rev. Wright--it's in the (Axlerod) bible!

[Upton]

5. Give me a break

217 of Clinton's projected electoral votes are either barely Dem or weak Dem, hardly anything to hang your hat on.

[malik flavors]

7. These threads are really pointless. The supers aren't going to overturn the pledged delegates.

That's just the way it is. Whether it's right or wrong, or we like it or not, they aren't going to flip the will of the people. Yes, they can, but they won't. They'll give Obama a good VP and hold their breath, but they won't blow up the party.

I'm not saying this as an Obama fanatic. I prefer him, but i'd be fine with Clinton also. But the rules are pledge delegates elect, and Dean knows it, the DNC knows it, and Obama knows it.

[JoFerret]

98. You are saying we are doomed then?

that's depressing.

[CatsDogsBabies]

9. Well, except there has been no GE yet

I hope there are no plans to skip the actual election in favor of some speculative charts. DO these polls mean anything? I remember watching the polls before the 2004 elections and thinking that Kerry would win, but it turned out differently.

[jackson_dem]

14. Because Kerry's early lead was illusory. The "new" candidate always polls artifically high early...

Then he gets attacked by the other party and...

[americanstranger]

10. You people never give up, do you?

How many times are you gonna run this shit?

It was meaningless the last 5,000 time y'all posted it, it's meaningless now.

- as

[ej510]

15. The democratic party is in big trouble.

Hillary's losing black voters everyday. If you listen to national black radio shows you will understand. And people say Obama can't get the white vote. So we might as well stop wasting money and sear in McCain.

[jackson_dem]

17. What percentage of the black vote did Mondale and Dukakis get against Jesse Jackson?

In the GE they both got 9 out of 10 black votes. The problem was Mondale got only 37% white support, including losing the white working class 35-65 (I don't believe any Dem has ever won without carrying the white working class). Dukakis did only slightly better. Then came William Jefferson Clinton...

Hillary is slipping a bit among black voters but the difference between 10% and 20% is not much. For all the talk about her campaign being responsible for her decline with blacks the evidence suggests otherwise. I too used to believe that myth until I looked at the numbers. The moment Obama won Iowa he skyrocketed to the 70's among blacks. The race flap didn't move voters either way.

[ej510]

19. Right now it's under 60% and dropping.

[ej510]

22. Black american cannot stand Lanny Davis he has been

mentioned quite a bit and they see him as one of her biggest surrpgates using race on tv all the time. He is killing her with the black community.

[jackson_dem]

27. The Obamite argument is they would vote for someone who would oveturn affirmative action because LD?

Few people even know who Lanny Davis is. It isn't "using race". He is doing exactly what you are. It is a fact Obama would bleed some white support and Clinton some black support. We then have to do the math and it is obvious who is more electable of the these two flawed candidates. Unless you favor the Gore solution. Gore could win 90% of blacks, 2/3 of Latinos, and enough whites to be elected (if Kerry won 43% of whites he would have won. He won 41%).

[ej510]

32. You must not be black lol!

Black people can live through any president. This would be a protest against the party that has taken them for granted. And it would force the DNC to earn their votes back just like they have to earn everyone else's.

[jackson_dem]

38. I love this new Obamite argument: since Obama is black he is entitled to the nomination

So Obama supporters agree with Ferraro now. :rofl: It also proves his "race speech" and his calls to "unify" and "transcend race" were just words. If Obama doesn't win it is an affront against 40 million blacks! This logic also then means Clinton is entitled to the vice presidency or else we would be insulting 155 million women? Would you endorse Obama-Clinton then?

[ej510]

23. Black americans cannot stand Lanny Davis he has been

mentioned quite a bit and they see him as one of her biggest surrpgates using race on tv all the time. He is killing her with the black community.

[JoFerret]

102. This monolithic thinking

is false.

[jackson_dem]

25. What percentage did Mondale and Dukakis get in primaries against Jesse Jackson?

[americanstranger]

20. Oh, doom!

Do me a favor and give yourself a good slap.

Get. A. Grip.

Obama will handle McCain just fine. That old bastard is two tough questions away from sheer meltdown.

- as

[jackson_dem]

24. The netroots is out of touch with reality and the pulse of normal voters

Bush won. McSame is far stronger than Bush is and Obama is a weaker candidate than Kerry.

[americanstranger]

26. Yeah, and you're an authority.

Let's not forget about that '$10 million in 24 hours' story that you swallowed without question last week.

It doesn't surprise me that you think McCain is stronger than Bush. But I will remind you that Bush beat McCain.

So forgive me if I take what you say with a very large grain of salt.

- as

[jackson_dem]

30. Bush beat McSame in 2004?

That's funny. I thought Bush was unopposed in the primaries.

Bush of 2000 was a formidable candidate with the same type of appeal Obama has. He was ahead by double digits in early polling, which is normal for a "new" candidate. Obama is losing right now despite being "new" and it a change year. Bush went from leading by 11 to losing. Kerry also lost 11 when he was the "new" candidate in 2004. If Obama does the same he loses by 10, exactly the margin Carter lost by...

When candidates win a big contest they raise a lot of money. How much did Obama raise after his big wins? The $10 million figure was a reasonable estimate and lo and behold that is what she wound up raising.

[americanstranger]

52. In 2000, ya dope.

You're old enough to remember 2000, aren't you?

- as

[jackson_dem]

55. Bush 00' was far stronger a candidate than Bush 04'

Bush 00' was the "new" candidate running on "unity", "changing Washington politics", etc. This is why he led Gore by so much early. Once he got attacked and vetted he slipped.

[Jennicut]

76. Obama is NOT a weaker candidate than Kerry, he has very broad appeal and is from the midwest not NE

As a fellow New Englander I am glad there or none in this race this year, we never seem to win the Whitehouse. We are too "elite" or something.

[jackson_dem]

18. No. McSame must not be elected president. We will never give up our hopes of Democratic victory!

[wisteria]

13. With Hillary's high negatives. I don't think so. n/t

[NJSecularist]

21. Obama's negatives are rising, while Hillary's negatives are sinking.

And even with her high negatives, she still performs much better in the states we need to win.

[jackson_dem]

28. They think voters place a greater emphasis on negatives than being qualified to be president

Voters don't care if they would rather have a beer with you if they don't believe you can protect their kids from terrorism and can't handle the economy. Obama has to clear this threshold and an increasing number of people think he is unqualified to be president. There is a reason why he is terrified of debating Clinton, who for all her faults is clearly ready for the job. Obama can't even take questions from reporters. Yet he is going to be able to handle foreign relations? He can't handle Charlie Gibson. He can handle Assad and Kim Jong Il?

They love to tout negatives but can't make the logical connection between Obama's still lower negatives and his inferior performance against McSame. Clearly many people who like him simply won't vote for him because they don't believe he is qualified for president. There is a reason successful presidential candidates either have a certain level of experience or some extraordinary achievement, such as winning World War II. Obama has two speeches, one of which there is no record and no two people can remember the same way.

[wisteria]

65. Clinton is less qualified to be President than Senator Obama.

With a combined total of over 12 years in the Ill house and Senator and the US Senator. He is a Constitutional lawyer,serves on the Senate Foreign relation committee and has been a community organizer and weathered a must nobler childhood and come from behind life than Clinton. She, who apparently spent her time in the woods of Pa practice shooting.

[wisteria]

67. That is because she has the old Dem machine pushing and twisting arms for her.

They have been preparing for this since 2004. Even with all the backing and support she had in Pa she only won by 9 points. She was ahead by over 20 going in. Obama's negatives will subside. Hillary's never do. Face it she is unappealing and unlikeable to a lot of people- including myself. And, I will add, she will do nothing to move this country forward. It would be another Clinton soap opera to endure.

[totodeinhere]

29. How many times do we have to tell you that polls this far out are useless?

[NJSecularist]

31. Yet we hear about the national polls that Obama is leading in daily.

[totodeinhere]

33. I'd be happy to dump all of the polls whether they support Obama or Clinton.

The only poll that matters is the one they hold in the election booth on election day.

[Doityourself]

91. Exactly. Which is why I don't pay attention to them. People are all frickin' like the punkdits

these days! This poll. That poll.

[jackson_dem]

34. You are right. We need to factor in the customary decline the "new" candidate suffers

Let's subtract 11, since that is what happened to the last two "new" candidates. The result? McSame 435, Obama 85...

[totodeinhere]

35. But Obama is not your run of the mill "new" candidate.

He doesn't adhere to the old style of politics, and all of those calculations based upon previous campaigns may not apply to him.

[ej510]

37. Jacksondem hates black voters he/she believes that Hillary can win without

them. I bet if you ask hIllary though that she will disagree.

[jackson_dem]

41. I never said that

Nice job playing the race card, though. Keep it up! It is partly why Obama has tanked with whites and Latinos. :thumbsup:

She needs at least 60% of the black vote to have a shot. 30% of 10% is 3%. She makes that up elsewhere. Where losing 30% of the black vote would really hurt is down ticket. There are many congressional districts where losing 30% of the black vote would flip the district. 1/4 of congressional districts are at least 17% Latino. The figure for black districts is probably at least 1/3 since the black population is more widespread then the Latino population, which is concentrated in CA, NV, NM, AZ, TX, NJ, and NY.

[Hawkeye-X]

95. You're lying - you're obsessed with comparing Obama with Jesse Jackson

and that's comparing apples to oranges, my friend.

[totodeinhere]

53. I disagree with him but I have no reason to believe that he hates black voters.

It's an unfair thing to say about him.

[jackson_dem]

40. If he were as great as advertised why can't he win more than 50% of the Dem vote?

That should be a piece of cake for the greatest politician ever.

[ej510]

44. You always throw blacks under the bus. If he wins he

wins if he loses he loses, but you will not scare black people lol! Your threat does nothing. No race has suffered more than blacks in this country the only other group that has is Native Americans.

[jackson_dem]

46. A cheap racist smear that doesn't warrant a comment

I believe most voters will vote on the issues in November and not based on the skin color of the nominees. Barack Obama himself agrees with this. :rofl:

Threat? The threat is coming from the Obama camp (not internet folks but Obamaites in the MSM and other prominent Obama supporters like James Clyburn), which as usual is playing the race card when on the ropes. They are saying if Obama doesn't win Obama will somehow keep 10% of voters home. How will Obama do this? Will he make a speech saying "I lost, stay home."? If he doesn't support the nominee his political career will be destroyed. Obama will obviously run again in 2016 if Clinton is the nominee and he probably would be unbeatable then since he would be experienced enough to be president by that point.

[totodeinhere]

56. It's impossible to know if he has won 50% of the Dem vote or not.

Likewise we don't know if Clinton has. There were several states that had open primaries where independents and Republicans could vote. So we don't know how many voters in those states were Dems. All we have is exit polls, and exit polls may or may not be accurate.

[jackson_dem]

58. Neither has (Edwards and "uncommitted" in some states account for the difference)

The point is if he were as great as advertised he would have won long ago and would be winning 70-80% of the vote in mop up primaries like McSame is and Kerry and Gore did. The very fact that the race is dragging on into May proves he isn't the rare realigning politician he has been advertised as.

[totodeinhere]

73. The race is only dragging on because Clinton refuses to concede,

and the best interests of the party be dammed.

[NJSecularist]

47. He doesn't adhere to the old style of politics?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Did you forget that his career was launched by the Daley political machine in Illinois?

Some of the kool-aid you guys drink is unreal...

[jackson_dem]

50. And that he won his first "election" by getting all his opponents removed from the ballot

[murielm99]

70. Actually, not the Daley machine,

but the downstate Democrats. Emil Jones, Jr., the Illinois Senate president, launched Obama's career. Illinois has several very powerful Democratic leaders who each have their own little fiefdoms. Sometimes they work together and sometimes they disagree.

[stevietheman]

36. Say anything you like -- Barack Obama is the nominee. n/t

n/t

[jackson_dem]

42. then John W. McSame is the next president

:scared:

[ej510]

45. Exactly so stop your BS lol! It is up to Hillary to find a way to

get more pledged delegates.

[jackson_dem]

49. She needs 2,024 (2,208 if FL and MI get in). Who said she needs to win pledged delegates?

She will net delegates in the remaining contests, especially with blowouts in West Virginia and Kentucky.

[ej510]

59. If sh wants that black vote she will find a way to get the most pledged delegates.

[jackson_dem]

61. Jeremiah is that you?

[kevinbgoode]

77. If she wants the votes of millions of other Americans all over the country

she'll win by pledged delegates. Any sense of backroom politics and millions of new voters (and many older ones) will walk away.

[zulchzulu]

39. You are comparing apples to orangutans

What states won in the primary season has nothing to do with what states will be won in the general election.

Obama is our nominee. He will kick McSame's ass. Either help out or get the hell out of the way. Your phony arguments are more tiresome than a Hillary speech.

[jackson_dem]

43. This is about GE polling. Try reading it before commenting

It is kind of hard for both Clinton and Obama to win the same state. :crazy:

[EffieBlack]

48. Did we have a General Election that I missed?

[jackson_dem]

51. No, that is what is scary. See post 34

Here is kind of how it would look like if Obama is the nominee:

[ClericJohnPreston]

54. Hey Jackson Dem

Having a hard time piercing the collective consciousness of the cult?

Perhaps this will help:

Clinton Leads McCain in New Poll

WASHINGTON (April 28) - Hillary Rodham Clinton now leads John McCain by 9 points in a head-to-head presidential matchup, according to an Associated Press-Ipsos poll that bolsters her argument that she is more electable than Democratic rival Barack Obama.

Obama and Republican McCain are running about even.

How much clearer do FACTS have to be?

[file83]

57. They are missing one vital piece of information in their model: The DU

We are going to tear McSame to fucking pieces before election day. That motherfucker doesn't stand a chance against Obama. Not a chance.

Hillary's predictions are moot, because she isn't going to be in the general election.

[BzaDem]

99. Blah Blah Blah that's why Kerry won.

Replace McSame with Bush, and Obama with Kerry. And you get the same false logic that failed in 2004.

[VotesForWomen]

60. correct; hill does better in the states that make the difference between winning and losing.

[wisteria]

68. That is a shabby argument. These are the state we will win in anyway.

They have deep Democratic structures. And right now those in charge were twisting arms and the Clinton's calling in favors in order to gain support. Senator Obama will have that support when he is our candidate.
He has won more state than her and he has won in states that were not necessarily winnable in the past.

[LisaL]

62. It's a pity really that Obama is most likely nominee,

because I really think Hillary can win GE and he can't.

[wisteria]

69. Funny, I don't see Clinton winning the GE at all. n/t

[jalynn]

63. K & R

:kick:

[stevietheman]

64. I'm now convinced that opposition to Obama is largely racism.

I think the rabid anti-Obama folks, like jackson dem, are indeed racists. There's no other possible reason for their nutty screeds against our presumptive nominee.

[murielm99]

71. Yes, always play the race card as the fallback position.

When you can't change peoples' minds, call them names.

[stevietheman]

90. I'm not calling everyone names.... only a few virulent Hillary supporters...

who are acting as extremists against a great candidate, and the only reason they are so extreme is that they are indeed racists. What other rationale can there be? They hate black people!

[murielm99]

97. Um, it could be that they obviously believe that Clinton is

the better candidate and better prepared to be President. I am sorry for you for being so closed minded.

[pointsoflight]

72. Cherry picking the data again, huh?

Here's a site that has no dog in this fight. Their objective look at the situation, pulling data from ALL pollsters, tells quite a different story.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/

But you'll ignore anything contrary to your point of view, I'm sure.

So how much, exactly, are you being paid, anyway?

[kevinbgoode]

74. Hillary couldn't win any primaries outside of 14 states

and by her campaign's own rationale, winning a primary is the same as winning the state in the general election. So she'll get half of New England and Pennsylvania. . .maybe Michigan. Not Texas. And nothing out West or in the South except possibly California.

The people who would stay home, write someone else in, or vote independent would influence her ability to carry states where there had been a massive Democratic voter turnout. And the media will paint that loss not to disillusionment with the process, but with Republicans crossing over during the primaries.

[Spider Jerusalem]

75. Is it November? No? Then this is meaningless.

[BzaDem]

100. Will November be meaningless once you see that it will be a repeat of 1988?

[Jersey Devil]

78. A walk down memory lane

June 19, 1992

Four polls taken by Gallup since May 18 have shown no significant fluctuations, measuring Mr. Perot's support at 34 to 39 percent, President Bush's at 31 to 35 percent and Mr. Clinton's at 24 to 25 percent.

In the latest Gallup Poll, taken June 12 to 14 with 1,000 registered voters nationwide, 34 percent preferred Ross Perot, while 32 percent favored President Bush, and 24 percent supported Bill Clinton. The poll had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus four percentage points.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE2D7143AF93AA25755C0A964958260

[stahbrett]

79. Bill Clinton was in 3rd place in June of 1992???

I love it - shows how useless the general election polling is this far out from November! Who can forget President Perot?

[dcindian]

80. so your telling us not to vote for who we think would make a better president?

Or who we agree with politically. Just vote for someone because they may be more electable? You mean like McSame?


Odd and here I though we were a democracy.......

[mckeown1128]

81. OP making stuff up... Hillary loses and Obama wins. NT

[theboss]

82. Why even bother with a national election

Let's just have Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida vote and save us all the trouble.

That should really have been Hillary's campaign slogan from the beginning:

Hillary!: I can win Florida

[Carrieyazel]

89. But she can't win Florida. The Clinton campaign is fooling themselves.

[racaulk]

83. Kerry 281 - Bush 257

Here's how that same website predicted the 2004 Presidential race:



This prediction was on November 2. Let's see...New Mexico, Iowa, Florida, and Wisconsin. All wrong. Only 49 electoral votes to be sure, but the incorrect predictions were enough to lead to an inaccurate result (at least if you believe the media narrative that Bush legitimately won).

The webmaster later went on in his post-election analysis to state that the media was in full support of Kerry and wanted him to win, and anyone that thought otherwise was a fool. Riiiiiight... :eyes:

After the 2004 election, that website lost complete credibility with me. I could care less what he says now. Besides, these GE polls can swing widely from week to week, especially considering that our candidate has not yet been officially chosen. So I wouldn't put too much stock in what an inaccurate website states six months before the GE.

[ClericJohnPreston]

93. Then explain the poll I posted about above

:popcorn:

[racaulk]

101. I'm not sure that you're comparing apples to apples.

You cited one national poll, but the website referenced in the OP predicts an electoral college victory based on an aggregage of trends of state polls. Not to split hairs but I don't think that's a valid comparison, although the poll you quoted does seem to come to the same conclusion: Clinton leading McCain nationally.

Also, the poll you quoted upthread states that Obama and McCain are roughly even in a national poll, but the OP shows Obama losing to McCain by 26 electoral college votes (~5% of the EC vote). As the election of 2000 taught us, having the lead in national support does not necessarily equate to an electoral college victory. Again, another reason to be careful in considering national polls, especially when considering only one by itself.

I am not an Obama supporter, FWIW, and the intent of my original reply was not to deny that Clinton is leading McCain nationally. I agree that she is, and good on her. My reply was meant to be critical of the website referenced in the OP, which does not have a good record at predicting electoral college victories and whose webmaster is, IMHO, decidedly partisan against our side.

So please put away that popcorn. :hi:

[haymakeragain]

87. Weak-assed speculation. No sale.

You got no cred dude, save yourself some time.

[Carrieyazel]

88. You're giving Hillary Ohio, Florida, Missouri and West Virginia???

She won't win any of them against McCain. Neither will Obama, but I will be stunned if OH and FL go with a female candidate for President in the general election.

MO and WV are totally out of play for both.

[wileedog]

94. Based on April Polls?

So what?

[GetTheRightVote]

96. Now back to the real world, once HRC and her lies are out of the way

like she should have been many months ago now, Obama will win over the nation without her lies to trip him up.
It is like she is driven to damage the party unless she wins the nomination to be its candidate. How can anyone not see her for what she is now, a swift boater queen.