Clinton's "Big State" Myth: Why Barack Obama Remains the Most Electable Democrat This Fall
The Clinton Campaign's post March 4th message is to forget about the delegate count and nominate Hillary because she can win the big states Democrats need in November. That argument simply doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Here's why:
1) Most of the "Big States" she has won are not battleground states in the fall. New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts and California are solid blue states where Obama would do as well or better than Clinton in a general election against McCain.
2) Of the states she's won so far, the big exception to this rule is Ohio. Ohio is in fact a critical battleground state where Hillary has demonstrated that she has a leg up among lower income whites and older voters. But the polling also shows that in a general election, Barack offsets this advantage in Ohio among young voters and college-educated independents. In a McCain-Clinton match up the later group could gravitate heavily to McCain in Ohio.
In an Ohio general election, Obama's ability to attract independents and mobilize young and minority voters will trump Clinton's advantages among non-college whites -- a group that will break heavily for either Barack or Hillary against the "free trade" McCain.
Just remember, in Ohio right now, "national security" is a job. The economy and trade -- not "national security" -- will almost certainly continue to be the overriding issues for non-college whites in Ohio this November.
3) Obama puts in play a panoply of states where Clinton would have a much tougher time. Obama could potentially win Virginia (13 electoral votes), Missouri (11 electoral votes) and even Mississippi (whose population is 40% African American -- 6 electoral votes). He would be considerably more competitive than Clinton in other battleground states like Colorado (9 electoral votes), Iowa (7 electoral votes), Wisconsin (10 electoral votes), Minnesota (10 electoral votes) and Michigan (17 electoral votes). The same goes for New Hampshire (4 electoral votes) -- a state where McCain will work hard to woo independents among whom Obama did much better than Clinton in this year's primary.
4) Even in states where Clinton could make a case for some advantages relative to Obama, these "advantages" are far from certain. Take Florida where she might assert an advantage among Latinos. Florida also has up to 500,000 newly enfranchised ex-felons -- many of whom are African American. The problem with these new voters is mobilization, not persuasion. Getting them registered and voting will be hard. Obama would obviously turn out many more African American mobilizable voters than Clinton. And when it comes to Latino voters, Obama's clear record on immigration contrasts well with McCain who has thrown Latino immigration reform aspirations under the bus in order to pander to his party's right wing.
5) Obama has the one quality that allows him to simultaneously motivate mobilizable base voters and appeal to persuadable independents -- the ability to inspire. This quality allows him to broaden the appeal of his candidacy to swing voters. At the same time it allows him to expand the electorate with new young and African American voters who otherwise simply wouldn't vote. Clinton is the anti-inspiration candidate. She will have a much harder time both expanding the electorate and appealing to swing voters. Obama's ability to inspire -- by itself -- makes him a much stronger general election candidate.
6) Finally, let's remember that the base of the Republican Party -- cultural conservatives -- is not so wild about McCain. They are accepting McCain with about as much enthusiasm as children take cough medicine. They know they need him, but they really aren't happy about it. The one thing that could energize the Republican base is their inveterate hatred for Hillary Clinton. Clinton would mobilize right-wing base voters the same way that hatred for Bush motivated Democrats in 2006. Why should we help galvanize the Republican base by nominating Hillary Clinton when we have another great choice?
All of these factors are born out in the consistent survey results that show Obama polls six to ten points better than Clinton against John McCain.
Clinton will have a difficult to impossible time winning the pledged delegate battle. Her only path to the nomination is convincing Super Delegates that she is the most electable. That dog won't hunt.
Robert Creamer is a long time political organizer and strategist and author of the new book Listen to Your Mother: Stand Up Straight. How Progressives Can Win. The book is available at Amazon.com.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Sorry, typo below, it should say $1million in ads, not 41 million. User failure on the old shift key.
Obama supporters it is time to start being honest and truthful.
#1 - HRC did not campaign in Florida or Michigan.
#2 - Obama broke the rules in Florida by running 41 million of televison ads there. Don't excuse it or ignore it. Obama broke the rules, nit HRC.
#3 - The only candidates left off the ballot in Michigan were Obama and Edwards. They were told not to take their names off the ballot, just not to campaign there, but they did. This was a tactical error and they have to live with it. Stop making excuses for Obama's mistakes. No one campaigned there, so if you give Obama 75% of the "none of the above" votes and Edwards 25% of the "none of the above votes" (he was still in it then), HRC still crushes Obama because she got 55% of the vote.
These are facts that HuffPo doesn't want you to realize. They want you to spread lies like HRC campaigned in Michigan (not true), Obama wasn't on the ballot in Florida (not true), and of course they don't want you to tell anyone about the $1 million in ads Obama ran in Florida.
They have already voted and HRC won. Obama lost in Florida (even though HE broke the rules) and he lost in Michigan because his campaign made a strategic errot and he doesn't like it so he is crying about it.
In fact, the only person who has broken any rules is Obama for running the $1million in television ads. This alone is proof that Florida needs no new vote. Obama cheated and lost. You can't just redo states you lost because you are unhappy about it. Hey, why don't we re vote in CT and Missouri, too? I think HRC can win there with another shot.
1. Lack of campaigning helps Clinton, she already has 100 percent name recognition. Of course Obama needs to campaign.
2. It was a national ad. Not against the rules.
3. For whatever reason the Dem Party decided not to count MI and FL. You can't fairly change the rules because it benefits your candidate.
4. Obama didn't make the rules, he is just willing to follow them.
5. She doesn't get the math, even with MI and FL.
Seat those delegates as things stand now (which doesn't mean Clinton can win) and the African Americans will desert the party in droves. Can you imagine the Democratic Party without African Americans?
#1 - Neither did Obama (see below)
#2 - That was a national TV ad, he never stepped foot on Florida soil to campaign and never bought local advertising there. It is physically impossible to keep a national ad from playing in one state. He didn't cheat or even exploit a loophole.
#3 - This is a ridiculous argument for two reasons: a. The DNC declared that Michigan's delegates would not count. Obama and Edwards would not have withdrawn their names if they knew that at some point those delegates would be seated. If the DNC goes back on that, that's the DNC's fault, not Obama's. b. You're assuming that everybody who voted for Hillary actually wanted to vote for Hillary. There's no way that you can say that. Plenty of people would have voted for someone else had that person been on the ticket, but they figured they might as well vote for an actual candidate and threw their names in with her. Your theoretical splitting of the vote is ridiculously haphazard and is in no way a credible argument.
What is it with knee-jerk liberals and their constant addict-like need for someone to 'inspire' them? Can't you see what's right and wrong with the country on your own? I mean the problems facing the U.S. can be quickly identified and the solution just as quickly. All any politician can do on is shuffle money around. Inspiration is for the uneducated evangelical crowd.
Why are conservatives constantly looking for the next Ronald Reagan? The desire for inspirational leadership is a human trait, not a liberal or conservative one.
John, That's what a good President does. They are suppose to be our leader, not our Den Mother. The first quality of a leader is the ability to inspire and motivate. It is Sir, exactly what we need in a President.
"I mean the problems facing the U.S. can be quickly identified and the solution just as quickly."
Okay, so any suggestions?
Or, to put it more simply -- the key is how Barack OR Hillary match up against Grampa MCain, not how they match up against each other. And guess what? Barack does better. End of discussion, Game, Set, Match to Obama. Unless, of course your a Dem -- then you're still in a desperate search for ways to lose the sure thing; to fold with a Royal flush; to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
In that case, you actually entertain bizarre justifications for running the weaker candidate. Ideas like the "big state strategy." I've got another name for it: "the big loser strategy."
Sorry Hill -- numbers don't lie. If you want my vote, show me you can beat McCain, not Barack.
Nope - you need to look at more recent polls. Nationally, Hillary is slightly ahead of Obama. And his negatives are about as high as hers, the only thing being, hers have pretty much topped out (unless she kills a puppy on live TV) - his can only go higher.
And they are going higher every day. The republican strategy of divide and conquer seems to be working earlier this time around.
Folks, you just don't get it -- either because you've got blinders on, or because your choice has more to do with what is -- or isn't -- between the candidate's legs than which one can win the White House.
What matters here is who does better in a match-up with McCain, not with each other. See, McCain is the Republican nominee, and he's the guy we've got to beat.
Our best bet for doing that is to nominate the candidate who does best against HIM, not the one we like best, or not because she's a woman or he's an Afrcan American or any of that other stuff ... it's about winning in November.
So, even if Hillary's numbers are going up in a Obama/Clinton race (not clear that's true, but the way) she still not be the best nominee.
Finally, it's worth noting that Hillary has started a scorched-earth campaign against Obama that is a Republican's wet dream, showing she doesn't care about the values of this party, or the principles this country was founded upon -- only her victory.
Hence her Iraq vote without looking at the NIE.
I'm not a Obama fanatic -- for the record, I liked and still like Edwards -- when he dropped out, my sole criterion became who was most likely to win in November. It's all any of us should care about, because at the end of the day, there's very little difference between these two on policy matters, notwithstanding Hillary's fusilad of propaganda.
Unless you are more concerned with gender than winning, then it's pretty clear Obama is our party's best bet. If gender is dispositive to your choice, I understand that, but she may not be the lady to pin your hopes on. You'd be better off waiting for a woman of values who can win, than going with this unmittigated ambition machine who looks at the moment like she will lose.
Standard bearers for our pet causes only advance our causes when they are exemplary and successful. Hillary's actions show she flunks the former, and the polls show she is unlikely to be the latter.
I'm amazed that the Clinton argument that "I can carry the states we always carry anyway" has gotten any traction whatsoever. I think that Obama puts a lot of new states in play as you mention. I don't even think it is out of the realm of reason to think that a state like South Carolina could be competitive because 30% of the electorate there is black. Hillary Clinton can only carry the reliably blue states.
Last I checked Barack Obama has a MATH PROBLEM TOO. He can't get there from here. Vermont....yeah, that'll get you the White House in a general election. Give me a break Obama worshippers!
Uhh. Are you kidding, Ivana?
Look, we win if Grampa McCain the Bush clone loses. He beats Hillary in nearly every poll; he loses to Obam in nearly every poll.
So what's it gonna be, Ivanna? Four more years of another war-mongering Repug?
Think about it.
Yeah, polls mean sooo much. Just ask the people in New Hampshire!
The polls also said John Kerry won Ohio.
They both have a math problem so this thing probably will come down to the superdelegates.
As for the big state / small state issue, Creamer nails it: The big states that Hillary carried -- with the exception of Ohio -- will not be battleground states in November. No Republican is going to win California; no Democrat is going to win Texas. So it's more or less irrelevant who won the Democratic primaries in those states. OTOH Obama could make the Democrats competitive in a bunch of the smaller battleground states.
The Clinton line on her ability to win "big states" or "swing states" is indeed bogus. The solidly blue states like New York, California, New Jersey, etc. are going to be in the Democratic column no matter who the nominee is. The election will be won or lost in swing states--most particularly Ohio. Clinton said, "As Ohio goes, so goes the nation." But conversely, "As the nation goes, so goes Ohio." If Obama is leading McCain nationally, he will carry Ohio. If Clinton is behind McCain nationally, she will lose Ohio. See which candidate is ahead nationally, and that will tell you who is going to carry Ohio--and enough other swing states to capture 270 electoral votes.
Are you people really saying that the Republicans will not mobilize to defeat BO?
My mantra now is: If you have a heart attack, would you want a SPECIALIST or an INTERN to attend to you?
Obama and his wife made this a race issue and now he's complaining. I heard him say that he will make it a race issue. All his followers are in Lock Step and don't even really know the facts presented. This country was set back 45 years with this campaign.
What kind of Changes do 18 year of kids want? From what? Bullya!
Hillary lost 11 straight, and then barely beat another DEM in Texas in the DEM primary.
Hillary is McCain's best hope in '08.
That's why Republicans, at the request of Rush, were crossing over last Tuesday to vote for Hillary. And with Hillary's small margin over Obama in Texas, turns out the DEM primary in Texas was actually decided by Republicans.
Obama is not perfect. Nobody is.
But we don't have unlimited options at this point.
Obama is the best hope for real change in '08.
At this point, HIllary is just going to be doing McCain's work for him all the way through to the DEM convention.
That's great, if you want 4 more years of Bush/Cheney lite from McCain.
Personally though, I think another 100 years in Iraq is a bit much.
The exit polls in Texas showed that Democratic voters, by a 10% margin, thought Obama was the most electable Democratic. The exit polls also showed that 10% of Republicans voted in the Democratic primary. Looking at these numbers, how else can you explain Hillary's victory in Texas? I think Rush won the thing for her.
BIG MYTHS = BIG DISSERVICE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
Michigan’s governor (J. Granholm, D.) and Florida’s governor (C. Crist, R.) have something in common.
They both agree that they want Hillary Clinton as the Democratic Party’s nominee for president. The Republicans seeing ample opportunity to contest Hillary Clinton’s character amidst numerous investigations surrounding contributions to Clinton’s campaigns, and allegations of criminal conduct by various contributors to Clinton’s campaigns that provides Republicans with ample fodder to attack Clinton on issues of integrity, character, transparency, and ethics – are so eager to see Hillary Clinton on the ballot in November, that Rush Limbaugh is rallying Republicans to vote for Hillary in local their local primary, where in some states, such options are possible that allow a Republican to vote for a Democrat.
In an interview with CNN, Gov. Crist purported that the issue that concerned him was that of allowing the people’s voice to be heard and the upholding of democracy.
No one disputes the sound principles of democracy that protect the voter’s right to vote.
But what Gov. Crist is not stating is that local party officials in Florida CHOSE to hold the Florida primary early, thus violating RULES that everyone gave their word in agreeing to, upon which – any organization must function, if it intends to not be thrown into chaos, corruption and confusion.
Gov. Crist equates the upholding of democracy (the right to participate in the democratic process) with the breaking of agreed upon rules that are the foundation upon which primary’s are held, that insure corruption and violations of the public’s trust are NOT engaged in.
Imagine the chaos and anarchy in a scenario – where every state across the nation chose unilaterally to not abide by agreed upon- principles that the group as a whole promised to abide by and adhere to. Imagine the potential for corruption if each state could thumb their noses at the larger entity to which they belong to, and claim that their rules violations behaviors were somehow in keeping with the spirit of democracy through which those very rules are operative – precisely to protect the process by which we vote.
Gov. Crist and Gov. Granholm are disingenuous in their suggestions that violations of the national party rules are somehow in keeping with the spirit of democracy that ALL the other states abided by in remaining faithful to those very rules, and in essence this distortion of reality invokes anarchy in these attempts to equate Florida’s and Michigan’s divisiveness and renegade conduct (local officials who created the wedge between the national party and the voters) while then using the very spirit of democracy and the outrage of voters in wanting to be part of the process – as a means to further undermine the very principles that insure an orderly, organized and prepared election process.
But none of this apparently matters because the real intent by Crist is to insure that John McCain runs against Hillary Clinton – a candidate fraught with baggage from numerous investigations concerning allegations of criminal conduct by associates affiliated with her campaign: (Norman Hsu, P. Paul – to name two major ethical issues, one of which is going to surface like a solar eclipse in October – right before the November elections, with questions concerning ethics, integrity and honorable conduct that will clearly be used by the McCain campaign in examining how the Clintons conduct the business of the public’s trust).
Meanwhile, the super delegates appear to be in limbo, either lacking the foresight to see what lies ahead with this surreptitious strategy to insert Clinton to the exclusion of the will of the people that chooses Obama, while the public is distracted by those who would seek to stir up the gut-wrenching emotions connected with a fundamental expression of democracy: the right to vote, and use that in a dishonorable scheme to accomplish agendas that serve their self-interests.
The Democratic Party needs leadership, not divisiveness ( as is demonstrated by the Michigan governor who purports that somehow their state officials breaking of nationally agreed to rules – is somehow “good” for the common good of the American people). It is the duty of national democratic party officials to rally behind Dr. Howard Dean, and call for an adherence to the RULES of the party that everyone was aware of, by which we all must participate lest we cast the entire country into the chaos of Crist who thrusts democracy into the foreground and the sacred right to vote, while failing to address principles of order, organization and clarity that are fundamental to the success of the very democracy he purports to be concerned about. Howard Dean can no more keep the party organized - alone and without any support, if each state were to thrust their own self-interests and agenda’s forward to the exclusion of the agreements made by ALL participants to adhere to the rules that protect democracy’s expression, and if the silence of national democratic party officials continues on this subject – it is clear, that the democratic party not only lacks leadership in understanding that they must rally to together for the sake of the party’s success, but when it becomes too late to do so.
How convenient that Crist – NOW, wants Howard Dean to pay for a re-run, of the renegade local Floridian and Michigan officials’ actions that cost Florida and Michigan
( whose governor supports Clinton) their delegates. How convenient that Crist wants the democratic party to utilize its resources NOW – at this point in time in the presidential campaign process, right before we approach the most critical time in the election process. How revealing that Sen. Clinton would be perfectly comfortable with this sham that tosses the weight of responsibility on the national party, while serving her own personal agenda.
How convenient that Michigan and Florida would seek to blame the Democratic party officials, and Sen. Clinton would once again lose her voice in speaking out for DEMOCRACY – that honors rules based behaviors and transparency ( not the sham of a so-called “election” that seeks to serve having only her name on the ballot which she then attempts to portray as having been an ‘election’), for the blatant disregard demonstrated by Florida and Michigan of a disrespect for the rest of the nation – that abided by those rules. To purport that this is about democracy (while suggesting anarchy and chaos to the process that protects the voters voice), to the exlusion of addressing the outrageous disrespect this renegade conduct demonstrates is disingenuous and a disservice to the American people.
Where are the measures that call for accountability and responsibility? Clearly, Sen. Clinton appears to also support the anarchy of polarizing the trust of the American people against their own party, as she suggests we all just take a name-recognition contest in Michigan ( where she was the only candidate to leave her name on the ballot – while Senators Obama and Edwards conducted themselves with integrity by following the rules and removing their names….makes you kind of wonder how it evolved that Sen. Clinton’s name remained on the ballot), where Sen. Clinton suggests we use that – as the measure of the people’s will! Never mind that close to 50% of voters in Michigan refused to vote because there was no CHOICE reflected on the sham that took place there purporting to be an “election”. Does Sen. Clinton support a process that mimics Soviet Russia – where only one name – hers, is the name to appear on the ballot, and that such a process should then be suggestive of being reflective of DEMOCRACY and an ‘election’?
The gaming of the people’s vote is an outrage and a disgrace, as is the failure by Democratic officials who remain silent, in not standing behind Dr. Dean in his logical insistence that rules must be followed, agreements must be adhered to – otherwise you have chaos and anarchy. The conduct of the Florida and Michigan governors is a disgrace, as is their willingness to use the public’s trust as a wedge in their reprehensible gaming of the voters’ right to speak. They owe an explanation to their disenfranchised constituents, not Dr. Dean. They need to step up to the plate and be accountable, and responsible for the violations they CHOSE as their COURSE OF ACTION in disenfranchising their own constituents in their surreptitious attempts to accomplish personal agendas that had the outcome of disenfranchising the public over something as sacred as the right to participate in the democratic process.
Furthermore, it should be a concern to everyone that Sen. Clinton backs the course of personal interests of the public’s trust, personal gains over public accountability and responsibility. Frankly, that kind of conduct should frighten Americans in recognizing that questions of trust and ethics come into play concerning any politician who would purport a one-person only “contest” as an ‘election’ or as reflective of ‘democracy’.
The fact that this self-serving renegade conduct reflects a mentality that could care less about the rest of the nation that followed the rules, and that an acceptance of such renegade conduct would serve to reinforce destructive, negative behaviors, seems of no consequence to Sen. Clinton. It’s “win at any cost”… even when it costs the people the protections of their fundamental right to be engaged in the process, that was violated by local Florida and Michigan officials who elected to serve their own interests over the people’s interests.
The American people deserve to have THE PROCESS - by which we participate in expressing our will – protected.
Those who would seek to use something as fundamental and sacred as the people’s right to vote – as a political pitchfork to serve their hidden agendas and self-interests that has the underlying component to divide and conquer while the spirit of democracy is ravaged in the process, are neither public servants nor are they honorable to the oaths of office they took, where they swore to defend and protect – THE PEOPLE, THEIR INTERESTS, by upholding their sacred trust. Democratic party leaders need to step up and speak out in defense of the democratic process. The failure of those officials to take a stand – and stand with Dr. Dean, reflects negatively on the party as a whole.
Where are the voices of leadership in the democratic party – in standing as a unified, coherent, intelligent force to uphold tenets of decency, sound reason, sound judgement, responsibility, accountability and principle of good governance that protect and insist on the following of rules based behaviors that were intended to protect democracy from corruption – where are these voices in the democratic party?
The time to take a stand for the principles that protect democracy - is now.
The time has come for integrity, honesty, transparency, accountability, responsibility to the voters and the insistence that public servents SERVE THE PUBLIC, not their own personal self-interests.
Integrity matters.
Ethical conduct matters.
Honesty and the upholding of the public's trust matters.
The time has come for myths and deceptions to end and the torch of truth and accountability in serving the public's trust - to be lit like a fire across America.
No, the democratic party needs to win the White House for a change.
Well said! I & so many , many others wholeheartedly agree!
The rules for Florida and Michigan were well known to all. Their delegates do not count.
The harpy from hell decided that it didn't have to play by the rules. It never did before, why should it now? It has it's own set of rules:
#1 screw everybody anyway that you can
#2 see #1
But if the DNC decides to change the rules in the middle of the game by either counting those non-votes or with some kind of petulant child like do-over, I believe that there will be hell to pay. The convention in Denver will make Chicago 1968 look like a day at Disneyland.
Wake up Howard and friends. The rules were set. Honorale people played by the rules.
NO changes to the rules after the game starts!
Robert - Wow! Your entire "article" consists of statements that you just cannot support with facts. This is exactly what people mean when they say that the media and blogs are forcing thier narrative of this campaign on people instead of dealing with the situation honestly. Literally, every point you make is just not true at all.
1. Obama would do better in the large states - why? HRC beat him, in many cases handily, and there is no reason to think this is an anomoly. Don't give me "polls show that Obama would do better", because we have ACTUAL results from these states and HRC did better than Obama. In fact, your "polls" said HRC would lose California by 17 points and she won by 10 points. HRC won the big states, but Obama would do better in them is actually a laughable argument.
2. Ohio and Florida are both significant battleground states and HRC won by large margins here (even with Obama spending $1 million is ads in Florida). These would be huge gains for the Democrats in the GE. Throw in that HRC also received 55% of the vote in Michigan and there is another battleground state that she has carried. Again, the argument that Obama lost the state to HRC but will do better here is nice and all for Obama supporters to hear, but just doesn't make any sense.
3. Most of the states you mentioned will support HRC as much as they will support Obama. Is it possible for one or two states to go for Obama instead of Clinton, sure, but this is more than made up for by HRC's ability to win in Ohio, Florida and Michigan which have more delegates.
4. This argument doesn't even make sense at all. HRC beats Obama in Florida and got about as many votes as McCain did without even campaigning there and it is Obama that can unite people? Seriously, you cannot just make stuff up to fill in space.
5. Only Obama can inspire? This is not only untrue, it is insulting to HRC. Hillary has as many popular votes as Obama and she has brought hundreds of thousands of new supporters into the process. I know that HuffPo doesn't tell people that because they don't want anyone to know this, but it is true. Hillary inspires many, many people and that is part of the reason that she beat Obama in Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island.
6. Don't play the fear card. HRC is electable because she is a terrific candidate, she will likely win the popular vote in the primary, she is an excellent debater and she has handled an unbelievable amoutn of negative press coverage from the MSM and blogosphere (which culminated yesterday with two contributers from HuffPo actually calling Hillary a dick - real classy and even-handed discussion of a leading Democratic candidate), she has been vetted more thoroughly than anyone other candidate in history and she has stood up to the vile attacks of the far right and also the baseless and ignorant attacks from many on the far left (HuffPo, Politico, MoveOn, MSM, etc). HRC is also beating McCain by larger margins in polls than Obama is, so again, your article will amke Obama supporters gush, but how about some facts and reality?
You literally just made up everything you said in your article. Is this what HuffPo is reduced to? Is this how you want to help the all-inspiring and untouchable Obama get elected? You are going to now stoop to blatant lies and not even try to tell the truth? What is wrong with you? HRC is a Democrat and a terrific candidate. How about a little decency?
Thank You!!!!!
Finally, someone with an unbiased and objective analysis.
:o)
As a matter of fact you are wrong:
1.) HRC won the Tex-Mex vote, the rural vote, in Texas; Obama won the urban vote. This shows the racism of the Mexicans that won't vote for a "negrito".
2.) Florida is a Banana Republic. We cannot expect a rational outcome from that State.
3.) HRC is a bad choice for this country. She is Cheney/Bush Lite; a continuation of the neocon doctrine. Expect an escalation of the conflict in Mesopotamia to extend to Iran with her and her Republican allies at the helm.
4.) HRC is basically another Lieberman. A turncoat in the making.
5.) If she is so inspiring how come Bill had to get blowjobs from Monica? Obviously the man next to her did not find her 'inspiring', why should we?
6.) The one playing the fear card is HRC. Get real, Karl.
Did you have to brush all Latinos in Texas as racist "Mexicans"? Did you forget that lots and lots of them are not Mexican, furthermore, lots and lots more are Americans, because as they say, they didn't cross the border, the border crossed them.
Nice stereotyping. Clinton would be proud of your bigotry and ignorance.
She wants you to vote for her, not sleep with her. Sheesh. Show a little decorum.
Excellent analysis, CraigMM. As we know, the general election will probably come down to two states, Ohio and Florida, and we know who does better in both those states, by large margins.
Come down to Ohio and Florida? God, it shouldn't be anywhere near that close! If the Democratic Party can't wallop John McBomb, who advertises himself as a clone of The Worst President in History, Mr. 19 Percent, it had better just fold its tents and slink away.
I can see McBomb carrying the South (except Florida), Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, Utah and Alaska. Obama might be able to peel off one or two of the southern states.
Craig MM, how about telling me which red states Hillary can win and explain why you think she can. I've lived in VIrginia and I know that she can't carry that state. I've lived in North CArolina and I know she can't carry that one. Same for every other southern state. With McCain, Minnesota might be in play for the Republicans. I live in Nevada -- put that one in McCain's column. I just don't see how Hillary can win. Anybody who thinks the Republican sisterhood is going to cross over is smoking something.
Hillary won the rural vote in Texas, where most of the republican vote comes from. In the fall, she will not win Texas. This is a fact. The way to win big states that are usually red states is to get the high population areas out and voting. You can't do this in rural areas, which are republican strongholds anyhow. Barack Obama has an advantage to win over McCain, because he has the AA vote and when he's the nominee all of Clinton's supporters will vote for him. You are also forgetting Missouri, which was a red state in '04. Senator Clare McCaskill is from there and she is an Obama supporter. He will carry Missouri and Kansas.
An Highwind blows: "In the fall, she will not win Texas. This is a fact."
This may turn out to be true or it may turn out to be false. Whichever it turns out to be, it is not now "a fact."
I'm an Obama supporter, and I think re-dos in FL and MI are a good idea, even though they might hurt my fave.
And while we set it up, let's ask HRC about tax returns and contributions to Bill's library. BTW, I voted for them both twice. And yes, let's ask the Big O about Rezco. Get it all out in the open and de-fuse it before the general election campaign gets rolling.
I'm for Obama in part because I see HRC's campaign as dirty:
"Well, Jesse Jackson won SC twice", meaning O won because he's Black.
"He's a Christian...as far as I know" Nasty innuendo.
The Ohio e-mail campaign: " Obama doesn't say the pledge of allegiance. He doesn't know ther national anthem. He's a muslim."
The state party heads in FLA and MI took their state's delegates out of play when they chose not to follow the party rules. The blame lies at their feet and no where else. To change the rules in mid-contest makes a mockery of the system and invalidates the contest.
Thank you nazgul.
Being a Dem in FL, it turns my stomach to hear so many people say they want do-overs. Not me. Why should my tax dollars be spent AGAIN for another primary? Just reduce the number of delegates needed by the total in FL and MI and be done with it.
I've also heard rumors of a "Unity Ticket" with HRC and BO. Yeah right. You think either one is willing to bow out for VP? After shrieking about how BO doesn't have enough exp to be prez, you think she's going to be his 2nd?
What they both should do is for the next 7 weeks (until PA primary), stop making these silly, snarky attacks against each other and gang up on McCain. With all this focus on the Dem fight, McWar is getting a free pass on his "relationships" with lobbyists, the Hagee endorsement, his 100-year war in Iraq, et al.
One of them is going to go up against McCain, they should start tearing him down now before it's too late.
The states had every legal right to hold the election whenever they wanted to. The DNC's corrupt and short sighted decision is the one that disenfranchise voters. This issue is 100% on the DNCs hands.
I agree that we all should follow the rules.
We should also look into why states might feel that it is important to hold their primaries earlier in the election cycle so their citizens will have a chance to influence the campaign before it's over.
We need to do things diffently in the future to allow the preferences for most states to be heard before the media anoints and appoints the nominee.
Perhaps regional Super Tuesdays would work without drawing it out over a long period of time.
I think in the past we were hurt by letting Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina determine who the nominee is.
On another pet peave... I keep hearing how no one has won the general election without winning Ohio. Maybe it's time (given Ohio's track record) that we put an end to that streak and elect someone capable in spite of what Ohioans prefer.
The Clinton campaign is now based entirely on perception, not reality.
The perception that she has experience with "late night emergency calls".
She does not.
She did not have security clearence to be part of those calls.
If Obama does not grab hold of this notion, you know damned well John McCain will.
("Gee, Mrs. Clinton, exactly how many of those 3 AM phonecalls have you handled?")
The perception that "the big states" are more important than the little states.
They are not. The big states we need are already voting blue.
The perception that Obama is a muslim.
He is not. But when you hear Hillary's wonderfully skanky "As far as I know" line, it's enough to throw doubt into even Democratic voters. (See "60 minutes" if you're not sure.)
The perception she will do better against the republican attack machine than Obama will.
She will not.
They already have a zillion ways to nail her.
She has so many skeletons in her closet, it becomes a turkey shoot for Rove and his guys.
The perception that her coalition (women, latinos) will not vote for him in November.
They will, in a huge way.
The perception that she will be tougher on terror than Obama.
She will not.
Obama (not Hillary, not McCain) has advocated the use of strong force against Pakistan, even if it violates their territorial space. Bin Laden can only hope Hillary or McCain end up as president; our policy towards him will remain unchaged in either case.
Once again, we are letting perception dictate how we elect a president.
And that is why we get the presidents we do.
In this case, if perception wins, if Hillary gets the nomination, it will be President John McCain.
Let's hope reality takes hold, and very quickly.
Amen, you are so right about that. The perceptions will end as soon as McCain starts showing the old film clips of the 8 Clinton years and the lovely first lady, Hillary Rodham Clinton,standing by her man.
Yesterday's news never sells today. Never.
And let's not forget that Obama wins the cities in nearly every state. Democrats don't win rural areas in the general. This is true for RED and BLUE states. We need the heavily populated cities to win and Obama is their man!
Don't count the red states out! I'm in GA and was surprised by the type of voters Barack attracted. I live a district with a Republican rep. (the only one in the ATL area) and my polling place went overwhelmingly for Barack. I've volunteered in GA and SC and he has a LOT of support from all types. He can pull some upsets down here. This is especially true if he picks the "right" VP. Hillary doesn't have a chance at winning down here.
Frankly and sorry to say neither does Obama. He loses the bible belt still, inclusive of SC, GA and MS. He still loses many of the states he won in the primary. The numbers are strong for Obama, but the arithmetic does not add up.
Maybe, but who has a BETTER chance or any chance at all.
If you think McCain will inspire southern voters to get out and vote you are mistaken. Huckabee was the choice in most of the southern states and even then the numbers who turned out for the Democratic primary are well above the Republican turnout. I didn't say Obama would necessarily win those states, just said he has a fighting chance to challenge traditionally red states. Hillary doesn't.
Check the results in Harris County, TX, namely Houston, the largest city in Texas. Obama won overwhelmingly.
Totally agree-- with Obama some of the southern states are now in play. Obama would definitely have a shot in Virginia but Hillary would not.
Do the math. She doesn't need it.
MYTH????? The FACTS speak louder than Creamer's BS. Here is a list of the largest states and the number of electoral votes, and the WINNER:
1. CA 55 votes CLINTON
2. NY 31 votes CLINTON
3. TX 34 votes CLINTON
4. FL 27 votes CLINTON
5. IL 21 votes OBAMA (He LIVES there, after all)
6. PA 21 votes not done yet
7. OH 20 votes CLINTON
8. MI 17 votes CLINTON
Hellooooooo-ooooh. THAT is a MYTH? What is Creamer smoking?
It's not hard to win MI when you're the only name on the ballot! What are you smoking?
I believe you missed the point of his article. Read it again.
Remember also in Michigan, Hillary received almost the same percentage as those who voted "uncommitted." The uncommitted percentage represented a protest vote and were probably supporters of either Obama or Edwards. Many of the Michigan electorate also stayed home in protest. So if Michigan has another primary, the results would look very different and probably in Obama's favor.
You missed the point. The point is that, except OH and FLA (which he hasn't won). these by and large are NOT battleground states. i.e., they go blue regardless.
Re-read the article, then comment, if you must.
don't count your chickens before they hatch.
In case you weren't paying attention, Obama did not get ZERO delegates in any of those states. And he did get enough that he is leading in number of delegates won so far.
And Clinton LIVES in NY (or pretends to). FL and MI were not real elections. Clinton broke her promise to ignore those two elections (breaking a promise is not exactly a new thing for those Clintons...remember how they promised to oppose NAFTA and how that turned out)?
HELLLLLLOOOOOOOOO-OOOOH...whatever propaganda you are repeating...maybe you better check out REALITY first.
What's your point? Obama will not have enough delegates to win the nomination, and neither will HIllary, so it is going to the convention to be settled. Obama can't be declared a winner because he has the most delegates NOW. Wake up!!
Excuse me? Do you realize that real people live in the other 42 states? Is this all about Hillary pandering and winning? People in New York don't speak for me!
How many of those other 42 states went BLUE in either of the last 2 elections. do the math. Add up the ELECTORAL VOTES.
Delegate counts are BS. This is the PRIMARY, not the election. The ELECTION is what counts.
You've bought into the Michigan/Florida myth. Remember, they don't get any delegates.
We're talking about the general election.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
