Obama unelectable? No. Hillary is unelectable -- SHE IS LOSING.

[goletian]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qq7CAIsSd44">John Edwards is more likely to believe in the tooth fairy, than he is to believe that Hillary can bring about the change America needs right now. She's taken the most money from lobbyists, the health industry, dug companies, health insurance companies, the defense industryl; democrat OR republican.

She's losing the contest for the nomination.

She voted for the war, which means she doesn't have that leg to stand on vs John McCain -- and that's one of the biggest issues America cares about at the moment, if not the biggest.

She is losing to Obama, a total newb on the scene.

SHE IS LOSING. I can't stress that enough.

Anyone on Hillary's side trying to argue that Obama is the unelectable one should drop the charade before I bust a gut laughing. I can't imagine a more ridiculous assessment.

[cliffordu]

1. Yep, she is unelectable......happily so.

Sorry to all her supporters, but it is true.

[Captain Hilts]

2. Several national surveys say otherwise. Bloomberg's gives her...

a higher margin of victory over McCain than Obama gets.

[40ozDonkey]

6. Then she should've won the primary, as the same surveys said in '07.

It didn't work out for her then, and it wouldn't work out for her in the theoretical future either.

[Captain Hilts]

8. We're talking about how she'd do in a GE. They both beat McCain. nt

[40ozDonkey]

16. I'm saying an electability issue can't be made off a survey.

It can be made off of hard facts, such as voters, money, registration, & delegates.
The GE is 6 months away, polls are only good for what's happening this week at best.

[Texas Hill Country]

30. McGovern, Humphrey, Carter, Gore, Kerry, Dukakis... shall I go on?

[40ozDonkey]

33. Sure, go on with your red herring roll call. n/t

[MikeDJohn]

7. So if you would have YOUR way... HIllary wins the Nomination of the

Democratic Party, despite more votes for the OTHER candidate who stuck it out all the way to June?

How do you phrase it, "sorry black guy with the funny name, new comer that you are to the US scene, we know you got more votes, more states, and the super delegates like you a lot, but we just HAVE to give it to a woman, who is leading over this Obama guy in polls six months before the election"

Oh OK, just like Hillary was leading in Iowa, etc etc six months before THEIR primaries and caucuses??? Is THAT how you do it?

Just asking how you tell Obama to wait his turn.

[Captain Hilts]

10. We're talking past each other. You don't get my point. nt

[hill_win_2008]

12. You missed the point

I think you missed it big time. Mookie was only saying that polls for the GE show that Hillary fairs better than Obama against McCain.

No where is Mookie saying that Obama should be told to get lost. If he wins the nomination, he wins it. But it doesn't mean he is the most electable in the GE against McCain.

[MikeDJohn]

28. I didn't miss any point! I know Hillary was ahead in the polls ....

six months ago, for ALL the Primaries, and ALL the Caucuses.

The point that she is ahead six months ahead of the G E means NOTHING, because it means nothing that she was ahead in the polls six months ago in the primaries too, state by state, caucus by caucus, no one predicted Obama would beat her, not a single poll.

So polls, schmolls, mean nothing now, as they meant nothing six months ago.

Oh, and I DO KNOW that the G E is different from the Iowa Caucus. Yeah, I get that point, too. But the only argument Hillary suporters have left is that the G E is different. So is Obama!

[goletian]

19. too bad all those people supporting her in the polls dont seem to show up to cast their votes...

dont you think?

[MonkeyFunk]

3. So you believe

that the winner of every primary is always, by definition, the most electable candidate?

[bowens43]

4. to argue that the loser is the better candidate is just stupid.

[MonkeyFunk]

11. That's not the question, is it?

I'm asking if the OP believes that the winner of every primary is always, necessarily, the more electable candidate in the general election.

Because I can see some flaws in the logic...

[goletian]

15. uh, no. thats not the entirety of my post. your attempt at spin isnt surprising though.

[MikeDJohn]

18. How's this premise for defying logic?

Majority rule in elections.

Anyone who makes the LOGICAL argument that the person who got LESS of the votes in the primaries and the caucuses, won LESS of the states, and has LESS of the Super Dels, that THAT person is the "most electable" in the General... defies ALL logic!!

Well, unless, of course, you are Hillary Clinton, who approved the rules, went along with the rules, thinking they would make her the choice by February, and found out she was wrong... .now she wants the rules changed, and actually argues that she STILL deserves to be the nominee, being that she's in second place on the number of votes. Gee. Who would have thought Hillary didn't understand what majority rule means?

[MonkeyFunk]

26. But I'm not arguing that

Saying "A is false" doesn't mean "B is true".

It's a simple question regarding what I see as flawed logic, and this thread isn't the first to use it. People seem to be claiming that the winner of the primaries is necessarily the person who would do best in the general election.

I'm not arguing for or against any candidate in this thread - I'm simply discussing the logic of the OP.


And majority rules in elections only sometimes. Clinton got more voters in TX, but Obama got more delegates, didn't he?

[Texas Hill Country]

32. the winner of the primary is not always the best GE candidate... esp for the Dems.

we put up unelectable people constantly.

[hill_win_2008]

5. Agreed

That would be that Kerry should be the current President right?

[Youphemism]

9. Exactly

Because the loser of every primary can only enter the General Election as an independent... And those folks aren't very electable.

So yes, by definition, the winner of every primary is the most electable candidate.

But look on the bright side -- if Hillary had to lose, at least she can comfort herself with the knowledge she lost to the most electable candidate. :)

[MonkeyFunk]

14. Of course

you purposely not interpreting the question correctly.

Do you believe there's never been a primary where the winner ultimately lost the general, but another candidate would've won?

[goletian]

17. hypothetically? philosophically? theoretically? shoulda woulda coulda?

lol, its getting kinda sad when you have to argue that the loser is more likely to win...

[MikeDJohn]

20. Hillary had 7.5 years to prepare for this race. Whereas Obama, not so

long........why he wasn't even around in 2003..2004...he got elected to the U S Senate then!

So Hillary's strategy, lining up to get all her ducks in order, getting the support, announcing over a year ago, etc. etc.....

she's had EVERY CONCEIVABLE ADVANTAGE OVER OBama!!! And yet she lost! So, NO, I don't see Hillary more able to win the Presidency than Obama, not at all!

[MonkeyFunk]

29. Well there are plenty of threads to discuss that

in this thread, I'm only discussing the logic of the proposition that the winner of the primaries is, by definition, the person best suited to win a general election.

That's all - you guys are reading far too much into what I'm writing.

[MonkeyFunk]

27. Except I'm not making any such argument

You're not very good at following a discussion, are you?

[Deep13]

13. Well, it is belaboring the issue at this point but...

...that doesn't really mean anything in predicting the general. Many of the states O won were either by unrepresentative caucuses (those states vote by election in the fall) or they are states we simply cannot win in the GE. On the other hand, HC won OH, PA and FL. Generally, whoever wins two out of those three wins in the fall. Of course that assumes Mich. is already in our column. We can't take Mich. for granted this year and we can forget about FL too after the way we treated them. (Okay, even if you are right about that, so what?) Also, O's early leads contributed to his momentum (as it was calculated to do) going into states where he was not a sure-bet.

Look, Kerry and Gore and Dukakis and Mondale all did very, very well in the primaries. What they got for it was jack and shit.

[MikeDJohn]

22. The time to look at how the primaries/caucuses were put together was....

Last year, when the history of Kerry, Gore, Dukakis, Mondale were all there for Dems to look at. Too bad no one looked at how this MIGHT happen again this year!!!!!!!!! No every rule and every strategy was designed for Queen Hillary to win by February!!!! She said so herself, it will all be over on Super Tuesday!

Too bad the Democratic Party forgot about history.

Now you can either stay home on election day or vote for the only candidate who makes sense.

No more do-overs, Hillary fans, you're stuck with your losses now.

[Deep13]

24. As I said, it doesn't matter now.

The DNC told those states to go to hell and they will take it out on us this fall. Anyway, I don't want a do-over. Those two states had lawful elections and really the results are already final. I don't see how you can claim victory when two major states are being excluded. Whatever the supposed justification for a Bushesque disenfranchisement, it still isn't democratic.

Would your response have been the same string of official talking-points if I had written the same exact thing, but did not have a Hillary logo in my sig. line?

[MikeDJohn]

25. I'm not referring to FL and MIch...but if you want all of those folks included

Obama still wins.

Sorry, folks, the entire strategy was designed and custom made for Hillary to win, she didn't win the whole race by Super Tuesday, or by now.... so let's give you all you want in FL and Mich votes.... according to the proportional representation... Obama STILL WINS!!!!!!!!


Get over it!

[goletian]

21. What's funny is, a lot of conservatives argue on Hillary's behalf, saying shes more electable than

Obama vs McCain, but they have no intention of voting for her in the general. This is probably why she's supposedly leading. Go to any forum with a bunch of far right lunatics in it and you'll see nothing but Obama bashing and Hillary praise. But they have no desire to support her once the dems have their nominee.

[TexasObserver]

23. She can't win 15 states, and that's the fact.

She will win about 15 of the 50 states, a pathetic result for someone who claims she is viable.

Enough of her hysterics. She's done.

[lastliberalintexas]

31. Either would have a great chance in Nov

Winning a primary election does not necessarily translate to general election prowess. Just ask Stevenson, Humphrey, Mondale, and Dukakis, to name a few.