The Need to Nominate the Strongest Candidate

UPDATE:

I just looked at www.electoral-vote.com and Clinton now has 310 electoral votes compared to Obama's 242. She has been consistently stronger for the past two months, maybe even longer. Polls now have her up in Missouri and North Carolina and she seems to be VERY strong in Arkansas. She would also take West Virginia, which Bush took in 2000 and 2004. Isn't she the one now actually EXPANDING the electoral map? Obama even won the North Carolina primary and Clinton still stacks up against McCain better in that state. The only state that Obama might be able to hold on to of the big four...Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida, is Pennsylvania. Pennyslvania alone will not beat McCain!! Mark my words. Obama will not win without 3 of those 4 big states. The Obama supporters and campaign team seem to be in some state of denial of these facts and they would probably fight back by saying that Hillary Clinton is in denial of losing to Obama. Did you read the Political Ticker on www.cnn.com today? Polls show warning signs for Obama in the swing states. Why would you risk this with the nominee and simply hope he is able to win over these voters? Even John Edwards stated that Clinton is a stronger candidate now, but he thinks that she cannot make a case because of the math. The "math," that comes out of a flawed democratic primary system anyway, is something that Superdelegates have power to go against. This will be a true test to the Superdelegates, who were designed to overturn a pledged delegate lead, if need be. This is one of those times in history where I believe it is vital that they do that.

ORIGINAL POST:

I had one thing on my mind when I went to vote in the Pennsylvania Primary: Who can beat McCain more easily!!! The answer is Clinton!! If Obama was considered the stronger candidate and it was proven in all the polls I would have picked him. I am a Clinton fan to begin with, but I really want a Democrat in office and my personal bias toward Clinton did not affect how I voted. We simply need a Democrat in office.

I am astonished at how the media and the supporters of Barack Obama are disregarding the whole rust belt working class argument of the swing states. How can a 41 point win in WV be overlooked? Before I go on, I must state that I am a loyal democrat and will vote for the democratic nominee in the fall no matter who it is, but I do think that nominating Obama is a HUGE error. He and his support team claim that they can expand the electoral map and make up for swing state losses by turning some of the red states to blue, like CO, VA, etc. However, that is not a given. They are simply hoping that he is able to do that. Well, it IS is a GIVEN that Clinton is stronger in the swing states like OH, PA, FL, and MI and that has consistently been proven in the polls and averages of polls. Shouldn't you go with what's GIVEN, and not just relying on HOPING. Why is this argument failing with the Superdelegates?

I look at the electoral map. Check this one out because the owner of the site does a great job at matching up Obama and Clinton against McCain. Obama is clearly the weaker candidate and I don't know why the Superdelegates seem to overlook this. He has a lot more risky baggage than Clinton has as well and I'm afraid that the Republican attack machine will slaughter him in the summer and fall. What exactly are people afraid of if they do not nominate him? More Clinton supporters say they will vote for McCain or not vote if she is not the nominee than Obama supporters who say they will do the same thing if he is not the nominee. I think Obama will have a tough time in unifying the party. Fortunately I am not someone who would vote for McCain or not vote at all, but I do believe that many people will.

What else can be done to make the case to the Superdelegates? According to CNN there are only 231 Superdelegates left to make a commitment. Will a big victory in Kentucky do anything to veer them Clinton's way and take Obama's momentum away after the Edwards endorsement? Again, I will vote for Obama if he is the nominee, but I have major doubts on him being able to defeat McCain and this can be a major year for Democrats especially since significant gains are expected in the House and Senate. I just think it is a grave mistake to let Obama get this nomination. I think it is ok to overturn the pledged delegate lead that Obama has. If it were a winner take all primary, Clinton would be ahead anyway. The flawed democratic primary system has been totally advantageous for Obama, along with the media bias. It seems like everything out there is geared against Clinton, starting with the MI/FL fiasco.

I feel very passionate about this. However, if Obama is the nominee, I really do hope that I am proved wrong with McCain's defeat, but at this point I feel I'm right and I have to voice my opinion in this election year. Who knows, I know I'm about 1 in 301 or so million people in this country, but maybe I can help make a difference.

Comments

[frustratedinohio]

Brave effort, Christopher, you posting out here. I'm surprised HuffPo allowed such a pro-Hillary posting.

I agree with everything you have said and I believe Hillary's downfall and the reason SD's aren't listening to the logic is because of sexism. That is why women for Hillary will be voting for McCain or staying home or writing in her name. We want this country to recognize us once and for all. We won't be pushed aside anymore.

Also, remember to boycott MSNBC tomorrow Hillary supporters.

[SethBLiNK]

If she's such a winner, why didn't she win the nomination.

The nomination is determined by delegates, so the Obama campaign created a strategy that would win delegates. They then executed that strategy perfectly.

That's how he won and that's how he will win in November. By creating a new strategy that addresses the specific parameters of that race. By shifting his focus to that race this week and adopting a far different tone than he ever did in the primaries, we can already see that.

[Julia1023]

He's not won the nomination. That's first. But second, for those of us old enough to have seen this kind of thing before, we saw it with Bush in 2000. The GOP rallied behind this guy. Twice. Forced it through. There's your argument for what can happen when a party rushes to decision and what happens with caucuses. They do not reflect the public voting. He'll lose by a good margin in November if he gets the nomination. You can depend on it.

[Ichibanjohnjon]

Hilary is big with Democrats and not with enough Republicans or Independents. Democrats alone can't get you elected. Obama is looking to spread that and reach further across party lines. I think he can still do it even with all thats happen. The high black populations in the red states will make it possible for him to turn them Blue all he needs is them independents and all the democrats behind him to do it. It is a risk with Obama but it worth it. I also have always thought even before I supported Barack or even knew he was gonna run that Hilary was a losing ticket. Republicans hate her and take away the black guy that is scare some to vote for her just so he can't win (see how well that worked out) there is no chance she can win in the fall. Especially if she stole it away which became her only option after the Pennsylvania primary. Blacks I can grantee would have stayed home in large numbers and that would have lost it for her right at the start.

[Julia1023]

Wrong. Don't speak for us, Ichibanjohnjon, and since your post's logic is so far off the path of what is reality within (a) the African American community, and (b) what happens during elections. When you speak of Black populations in historically red states, you're looking at a very small number of people. That's first, so he's not "turning" anyone blue. They're either Democrats or they're not, and by the way, we're not all voting for Senator Obama; (c) Hillary Clinton does beautifully with White Republicans who are moderate. She's proven that. They've come out in droves for her and many have registered as Democrats to vote for her in lieu of Senator McCain because he lacks true conservative views. Today's rejection of Reverend Hagee's endoresement will further sour southern Baptists and southern Christians -- those same folks will not vote for Barak Obama. We KNOW this. I was born and raised in the south. These people, if they vote at all, will turn away from McCain and will hold their noses to insure that this Black man does not become their president. Many White voters will do this because despite Obama's speeches, we still live in the real world. You, like many Obama supporters, lift words such as "Obama is looking to spread that and reach further across party lines"... it's all folly. Party lines are not what separates people in this country.

[AshleyMarie]

1) If she can't win among democrats, how is she expected to win among indeps and repubs??

2) She is scandal RIDDIN!!!! And McCain would remind the world, over and over again (for some reason people seem to have forgotten travelgate, pardongate, library donors, lincoln bedroom, monica, whitewater etc, but they will be reminded!!!)!!!

3) High negs. She'll never survive.

My final point- Quit arguing about this. Rules are rules. It is over. GET OVER IT!!!!!

[Julia1023]

She's wins among Democrats, Ashley. What she hasn't won are politically-minded Democrats who hold delegates spots who are afraid not to stand for a White candidate. It's very simple. As to being scandal ridden" (that's how it's spelled): Senator Clinton has no scandals. Perhaps yo believe Senator Obama's flowery speeches to explain away his affiliations is good enough, but I'll tell you, it's not enough. The GOP is going to mop the floor with this guy and come hell or high water, no matter how much you folks blog, etc, he won't be fighting a fellow Democrat; he'll be fighting a predominately White political party that does not court the majority of votes of people of color so they couldn't care less how things are skewed in the media and they won't care when he rolls into a ball and cries foul and you folks come whining to the rescue as you usually do. Honestly, as a woman, I'd think you'd be proud to have a woman come within 200 delegate votes of the front runner with over 15 million American votes -- what separates them is less than a million votes. She has withstood the silliness of blogs such as yours, "news" stories and skewed media sites and she keeps going. As an African American and as a woman, I'm proud and applaud her guts. I'm sure I'm much older than you and I've seen politics. This lady has less baggage than most men supporting Senator Obama.

[erykah]

Here is the problem. Clinton not only has to say she is the stronger candidate, she has to demonstrate it. That is what the primaries are all about. She is the one who claimed to be the one with expereicne. Then she should have demonstrated that 35 years of experience in her campaign. That is not what she did. Obama ran a smarter campaign and that is why he is the front runner. Plain and simple. You don't arm wrestle, lose and than declare yourself the stronger of the two. It doesn't work that way. It just doesn't.

[Julia1023]

He hasn't proven anything at all. He's priven he's slicker and that's all. It doesn't mean he's smarter or more experienced. We don't need more slick in Washington. We just don't.

[altohone]

Good post...

... for last March.

Were you stuck on JetBlue?

Was their in-flight magazine comparing primary results with the general too?

[LouisPWu]

What a turgid, tiresome argument. If Hillary can't beat Obama, and Obama can't beat McCain (according to your twisted logic) then how can Hillary beat McCain? Your blog makes NO SENSE!

[Julia1023]

Gee Louis -- actually your post doesn't make sense. Senator Clinton will not be working in a primary or caucus setting -- and by the way, she has more votes than McCain has in these. She could indeed beat McCain in a general election with voters. She could do it. Obama can not. No way on earth. His nomination and running will be a folly.

[ATLiberal]

Go to fivethirtyeight.com if you want to see some real numbers. It takes in all of the polls in every state, runs them through a regression model and comes up with some incredibly accurate numbers. by the way, the numbers do not agree with your hysterical post.

[WorkingClass]

If Democrats first concern was winning in November they would have nominated Edwards or Richardson. Electability arguments don't mean anything at this point.

[arkgrfx61]

Continuation:

¢ And if you think it's been totally advantageous to Obama because of MI/FL - well, that's because he played by the rules. She has only become such a staunch supporter for a recount AFTER she saw she "won" those states (one of which an opponent wasn't even on the ballot).

¢ Your argument of if it were a winner take all primary she would have been ahead - another silly point - I believe Bill Clinton mentioned this very same point - well to paraphrase a well known yiddish quote ...If my bubbie had baytzim she'd be my zadie. (IF is a VERY big word)

And finally - your point out that the Repugs would tear him down - I think he has proven himself more than worthy and that he will come out fighting ....(just like your Mrs. Rocky over there).

Sorry Mr. Fedor, but your post doesn't fly.

[Julia1023]

Wrong, Arkgrfx61. Fedor's right. The media has been in Obama's pockets for MONTHS. They've ived there. Not to mention that people tend to tip toe with dealing with him because of his color -- I'm saying this AS as an African American. I've watched it happen time and again and no one talks about it. His campaign uses it deftly and you believe we can't SEE this? It's patronizing but he does it. The Republicans will rip him apart. End of story. He has no fight. What he has right now is primary against another Democrat. When/if she's out, the GOP will unleash and believe me, they couldn't care less about Black votes or college types whining about his being attacked oru questioned because he's Black. That argument goes down the drain. He'll lose to McCain and it will be by a respective margin. Period. She is the Democratic Party's only hope to win the White House.

[arkgrfx61]

You give no substantial argument as to why Senator Clinton would make the best candidate.
Other than she could beat McCain in some swing states, because she has the white vote.
Since when is the white vote the only one that matters?
And whose to say that she'll win those states either...that is not a "given".
Do you know for sure that she is a given?

"I think it is ok to overturn the pledged delegate lead that Obama has. If it were a winner
take all primary, Clinton would be ahead anyway. The flawed democratic primary system has been totally advantageous for Obama, along with the media bias. It seems like everything out there is geared against Clinton, starting with the MI/FL fiasco."

To dissect a bit here:
¢ "I think it's ok to overturn the pledged delegate...."
if your candidate was ahead in the pledged delegates and Obama's campaign and supporters were saying the same thing, can you honestly say that YOU wouldn't be saying that it's NOT ok to overturn the pledged delegates?

¢ You might think the system as it stands is flawed, but that is the system we have. We have already been bucked by the system once (probably twice too) and it got us 8 years of a war, plummeting economy and rising gas/oil prices (to say the very LEAST).

[Dustee]

Mr. Christopher Fedor - Is Hillary the strongest candidate because she's the best mudslinger and liar or because she happens to be a Clinton - a white candidate?

At least, that's the way I see her now. Just because she happens to be married to Bill, does not make her experienced enough to be called the best democratic candidate. Obama does not need Hillary and Bill Clinton trying to pile onto the O-train. They have to much undesirable baggage between them.

I'm tired of vote4both and all others trying to get Hillary at all cost on Obama's ticket too. They've lost!

Here is some food for though.........

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23719143-5013948,00.html

.

[burnt]

Let's see if I get this right... Forget the Rules... Don't count the Delegates!

"The Need to Stop Delusional Spinning"
Christopher, I can only assume that you don't really believe that the Clinton Party has a stronger candidate that the Democratic Party... that even in your tightest cocoon of delusion, you have left a few small escape holes in which you occasionally peek out at the truth.

Clinton lost.
Clinton lost a very long time ago.
Clinton's loss was due to "Clinton" (okay, and her strategists/husband).
Millions of voters have pointed directly to the calculus with proof positive of the Clinton loss.
The majority of voters have told Clinton to STOP NOW - YOU HAVE LOST!
The media just reports the facts of Clinton's loss (excluding the New York Times).
The Republican Party knows that Clinton has lost and has focused all it's attention on the winner.
Clinton continues to go deeper into debt in an attempt to lose for a much longer period of time than any other politician in history... final total estimated to be around $30+ million loss.
Clinton is now desperately attempting to lose all remnants of a positive legacy.

Summary... self-serving, sore loser in a jealous rage, eating bitter grapes and demanding a pity party as a going away gift. If she doesn't understand why we insist in pointing out the obvious, please observe the extent of her delusion... and its persistence.

[Julia1023]

Ill informed rant and typical of the thoughts that the Obama campaign has ingrained into his supporters. Senator Hillary Clinton has more delegate votes than Senator McCain. She has more popular votes than Senator McCain. Blacks are 11% of the population of the United States. Count a smaller number of registered voters. Ohio, New Hampshire, Penn, Texas, Kentucky, WV, California, New York -- large populated states and some more diverse than others; count in the die hard conservative voters who usually go red -- the older ones who will absolutely get out to vote -- count them in to the folks that will be incensed that McCain has shunned Hagee's endorcement because of his views regarding Catholics and Jews. She gets a huge Catholic and Jewish vote anyway. There are the southern whites who won't want to vote for McCain because he's too moderate and who won't vote Republican, so they'll go Democrat and quietly cast their votes to vote for a white candidate rather than a Black candidate. This is the world. She's not delusional. She is one of the most viable candidates the Democratic party has ever had and I say she should fight on because it's the right thing to do and she has over 14 million people who voted in the primaries up until now and those that have YET to vote wanting her to stay.

[JoeSun]

From a Clintonian standpoint, shouldn't Obama be the strongest candidate? Consider the following:

1. Obama is lucky to be where he is because he is black!
--Geraldine Ferraro

2. The Media is picking on me because I'm a woman!
--Hillary Clinton.

So you, see, by Clinton's own argument, Obama, as a black male, is the more electable candidate.

Peace.

[mutron]

The woman has conducted a terribly ineffective campaign in her run for President. She has surrounded herself with ineptitude and run up a debt of over $20 million. And the lying and misrepresentation that pervades her whole style of politics is enough for most voters to say no to Hillary Clinton for President.

[Julia1023]

There's nothing ineffective about her campaign. She's not putting on the pageanty and puppet show that keeps you folks mesmerized. We all agree, however, she has one of the highest number of delegates for a Democrat in campaign season. She has in excess of 14 million votes -- what separates them in the popluar vote is a little more that 500k votes (if you don't count Mich and Florida). If you do count them, she beats him by over 100k. That said, perhaps you need to be entertained and amused. Millions do not. And she should and will keep going.