Visit clintonsupporterscounttoo!!! We are organizing against Obama!!!!

Mason: I may be wrong but I count 31 Primaries and Hillary winning 16. What most of you are missing is in the states Obama has won, a lot of them will go "R" in the GE. I am almost sure Pa., Ohio, and WV cannot be won by Obama, and along with Mi. and Fla., that are at best "Iffy" for him, it is pretty safe to say that if any one of these five states go "R" in the GE the Dems will lose. I am looking at the Electoral College map, and considering Trends at the present time, Hillary is well positioned to win all five.

the kirkpatrick scandal in michigan is going to make it very hard for obama to win against mccain there.

Lylepink:
Stop lying. Do you even read this paper before you post? National polls show BHO and HRC running equally ahead of JSMc. State polls, as shown on places like electoral-vote.com still show a significant amount of statistically inconclusiveness, but BHO is competitive in far more states. That's where the numbers stand. Since invalid premises lead to invalid arguments, the rest of what you have to say is bogus.

You sound like Karl Rove. Before the 2006 election, he told Robert Siegel, "You may end up with a different math, but you're entitled to your math. I'm entitled to 'the' math." His math was telling him that the GOP would hold the House and Senate. We all know how that went. Statistics is a harsh mistress. Her ambiguity obscures insight until the view becomes all too clear.

I do not like to repeat myself so many times, but it is very clear to me that Obama cannot win the GE. Everything I have learned in my 60+ years in politics is the weaker candidate loses, and the stronger one wins [No argument] HELLO . Look at every Poll and you that supports Obama can see, [If you would] that he has ZERO chance of winning in 2008. I have tried to make the point that the "IDIOT-Ology" cannot and has never been on the winning side. Many of these folks like Daily Kos, Huffington Post, The Nation Magazine, Salon, and others in the category I consider "The Far Left Wing of the Dem party" are HELL BENT [working to lose the election] on losing the 2008 General Election. The only thing I can think of is something I talked with a friend about how Nikita Kruschev said so many years ago that "The US would destroy its self from within". I have researched everything I can find about Obama and find many things that are so similar in how Obama is against most of the people in the US. This, to me, is an absolute NO to his candidacy for Prez. Hillary will win if she is the nominee, Obama will lose.

Obama has never run a town let alone a state. What makes anyone think he can run the country? Bush, Regan, and (Bill)Clinton were 2 term Governors; that's experience.

Throwing Rev. Wright "under-the-bus" shows that Obama is amoral and unscrupulous. Either he lied to Rev. Wright for 20 years pretending to believe what Rev. Wrght preached or he's lying now by pretending not to believe. Either way Obama is a liar and an opportunist who can't be trusted.

Very succinctly.

Obama may win the nomination battle.

Obama will lose the war. Unquestionably.

YES, she is the stronger candidate! And yes, she has more experience!
But it is also the experience that Obama HAS that she does NOT that makes her the srtonger candidate...Obama's experience with terroist assosiations, 20 years with ANTI American hate filled Wright, a spouse that is not proud of her country, and Americans (terroists) that BOMB American buildings, and a father and step brother tied to terroist activity in Kenya, Resko and this is NOT over, Sinclair, the Choir Minister from Obama's church,and ON and ON and on!
Hillary has been a PROUD American EVERY DAY of her adult life and a champion for the American People!

Obama has done nothing for the American peoople. NOTHING! But he wants to be the AMERICAN President. NO NO NO!

YOU BET SHE IS THE STRONGER CANDIDATE! We know we can TRUST her with this COUNTRY!

To the person who posted that Obama has no experience neither did President Bush, ronald regan and they got elected president.

Hilary was never in the milatry so what's your point?????

I was wrong! Keith Umemoto endorsed Clinton today. I now predict that Keith Umemoto will be the last non-add-on, non-promised-to-honor-the-results-in-a-district superdelegate to endorse Clinton.

As the economy continues to deteriorate because of the Bush trifectra of arrogance, incompetence, and dishonesty - people will be more concerned with who can do the job versus who they like. That equation leaves both of the men out in the cold - if Hillary loses the democratic nomination she could win as a independent - things could change that quickly - all those people that hate her for being the smartest in the room will only be too glad to have her run the show until things get back on track.

I like Barack - he's intelligent, extremely eloquent and he's going to be a great President someday but the current climate is not right for him - had he succeeded Bill Clinton and just had to keep the training going - he would do great - the Clinton's would have been there every step of the way helping him preserve Bill's legacy. Most people don't realize it but Bill is recognized as the top public sector manager in the world. Even the Japanese consider him the best (in the public sector). But right now you have the two smartest politicians in the Democratic Party and maybe the world hoping he fails -so that either she gets the nomination now or in 4 years. Not a good place for Barack to be in. And then Barack needs time to develop a thicker skin - he should laugh off President Bush - point out that the President should go back to playing golf like he did 42% of his time before 9/11.
I deeply resent people making an issue of Barack's race - John F. Kennedy was the first democratic and the only one my father ever voted for - because President Kennedy was an Irish catholic just like my father - black democrats have every right to be proud of Barack - it just isn't a good time to be President if your last name isn't Clinton - so yes she's the best candidate because she's smarter than almost everyone on the planet and has a skin as thick as a rhinoceros.

Well, here's the deal. My entire family voted Hillary and I live in California. That's about 9 people not counting me. We're immigrants (forget where we are from). None of them are willing to even consider Obama in a McCain vs Obama matchup. Why? Others were sort of vague about why they wouldn't consider him, but one cousin bluntly said that he would leave this country the minute a black man is elected president. I am embarrassed and ashamed of what he said, but that's the reality. I am a hardcore liberal and I see no reason to vote for a republican over a democrat because I know what's at stake since I go to college and know about politics and economics. The other people in my family don't. I'm already swayed, I'd rather shoot myself then vote for McCain, but the other people in my family will vote for McCain. I'm not going to make the case for Hillary since there's the Math thing that will be pulled again and again. But honestly, as an educated member of this society, I don't see how Obama is going to win Virginia, North Carolina, West Virginia, Florida or Ohio in the general election.
Yes, he is awesome, but so were Howard Dean and Al Gore. I would vote Chris Dodd if he were the nominee, but will everyone else? The point here is not that we're talking about how our support is strong for Obama or the democrats, the point is, how is everyone else going to support them?
27% in WV for Obama translates to 15% of total voters in the general election. 45% in Ohio only mean about 22%.
When you have 25% of the electorate in your bag in the primaries only because of your race, you can win them. But when they trickle down to 13 percent in the general election, finding that other 37% could be and will be hard. Please, don't waste your time arguing with me on this since I'm not going to be reading this site again. If you are an Obama supporter, get to work right now. Instead of trouncing Hillary, start working on appeasing her supporters as I type. If you continue to fight with her supporters, then their going to join your enemy.

Amen

That is not what any Google web page states with respect to electoral college votes. Hillary or Mc Cain win. Obama will never get it. I am surprised you even say that or are you a scret obama person. I didn't think so? Obama using caucuses in states where it is not a democratic process is not a good test and any map on google shows where Hillary beats Mc Cain in several situations and it's objective. But Mc Cain beat Obama. Eemember Gore's anti-gun rant of 2000. He lost W.VA, Tenn.-home state and turned back on Bill and lost Arkansas. If he had one of those states with the least votes: W. VA. for 5 electoral college votes he would have been the president. Didn't need Florida.
So That is why I am sticking Hillary or Nader as a protest vote until Dems get it right. No more Deans, Pelosi's, Reid's, in leadershoip positions. Rahm Emmanuel-YES Hillary-Yes! Westly Clark-YES! The rest are nice but role over too much and obama is very weak like Carter- 22% inflation and I remeber hostages. Hated it but day after Reagan was elected Hostages were released. SIGH on weak Dems! I vote Nader, if Obama, as a protest vote. He's done nothing here in Illinois -senate on Afgan committe? and friends you would not like Emil Jones-Il. senate president- protecting another Dem. governor from jail-in Ill. the 4th to possibly go. It's a bad state. Highest taxes now 10.25% I love Dems but I am not stupid.

Sorry, Chris, but the Dems start of with 168 electoral votes all but sewn up, not 165. Sigh...even in our hometown paper, folks forget the District of Columbia, with 3 electoral votes. That's as many as Vermont, Delaware, Alaska, Montana, Wyoming, and both Dakotas. Don't count us out in the one national election we actually have!

I can't speak for the other states that were included in the re-writing of the electoral map but I can talk about Kansas because I live in this very "red" state (at least when it comes to presidential elections.

I live in the northeast part of the state (borders on Kansas City, MO.) which is one of the most populated areas in the state and Johnson, Co. is also the wealthiest county in Kansas. It is true demographics have been changing in this area since my family and I have moved here almost 18 years ago. But still moderate republicans tend to be the order of the day.

Democrats who run for public office and get elected and re-elected like Dennis Moore, the U. S. congressional representative from our area, are conservative democrats - not the left-wing version of the "party."

Our state was a caucus state on "super Tue." It was a mockery of a "fair election" at least in our area. I witnessed it up close and personal in our caucus sites as well as friends at other caucus sites in our county. (BTW, one friend was an Obama supporter at the time.)

It should also be noted prior to super Tue. that McCain was not the presumptive nominee for the republican party. As stated before, the republicans in our area like "moderates." With McCain, now the presumptive nominee for the repubs., I have no doubt the state of Kansas will go republican at least for the "presidential" candidate this November. (It should be noted the last time Kansans voted for a democrat for president was 1964 and more than likely was a "sympathy vote" because the election was not long after JFK's assassination.)

Have you guys ever thought that the main strategy of Al-Qaeda to destroy our country might be to foment a civil war?
The Clinton hillbilly-high school dropout supporters are the ones fomenting the racial strife.
They throw White against Black, and Latinos against Black. If you walk on any street of America today you will see that the Clinton HATE strategy is starting to bear fruit, as people from different races seem to be uneasy around each other.
So, are the Clinton supporters playing a role on the Al-Qaeda strategy to foment a racial civil war within the United States?
Only time will tell us, but surely this legacy of hate left by the Clinton supporters will not wash away fast.
Me and my friends we are cutting our relationships with all the Clinton supporters that we know, because we cannot handle their bitterness and hate.
Clinton's and their supporters are indeed bringing so much evil to our country, destroying families, friendships and whole communities, that I think will take a while to repair what they have destroyed.

"I can't believe the party I have suppoorted all my life, the Democrats, are chosing Sen. Obama over Sen. Clinton. Has anyone noticed that the Junior Senator from Illinois has NO experience in running anything? Not even a Mom and Pop grocery store.

Sen. Clinton, on the other hand, has tremendous experience in providing health care for kids, trying to get Americans universal health care coverage, being a two term Senator, foreign policy exposure and much more. She is trustworthy, hard-working and not a quitter when things get tough.

Sen. Obama seems to be a Democrat-lite. A whiny, wordy empty suit who can rouse the masses with rhetoric but has little to show for his accomplishments. Once, he says, he was a community organizer. Well. So were a lot of people. Big deal.

Sen. Clinton has shown her solidarity and understanding of working class people - those necessary to win a general election. She understands working stiffs in Michigan and the retired in Florida. She gets the women's vote because she is intellectually astute and a problem-solver who gets things done.

How naive Democrats are this year being taken in by wishful thinking and not looking at the hard facts. I cannot, in good conscience, vote for Sen. Obama and his blank resume. I also cannot vote for him because of the way his campaign trashed Sen. Clinton - maybe for the first time I vote Republican. "

_____________________________________

1) Obama has run stuff before
2) Clinton is slightly more than a 1 term senator
3) Compared to the number of people who are "trustworthy" or "hard-working" or have "foreign policy exposure," not many people are community organizers
4) Obama did not trash Clinton's campaign.

Nice try, though

The major problem here is that it assumes that all the voters voting in the GE are either Dems or Repubs. It ignores the 10 to 15 percent or so of voters who are Independents. Among independents, Mrs. Clinton has very high negatives, well over half indicate they wouldn't vote for her. If one loses better than half of the independents right of the bat then one's chances of winning are seriously damaged. Second, in many states where Republicans might not show up to vote out of disgust might show up to vote against Hillary. The working class voters in states like Ohio and Pennsylvania might vote against Obama but at this point they have nothing to lose by voting for McCain. Since 1980 the "Reagan Democrats" have been voting for Republicans. As a result their jobs have gone overseas, many have lost their pensions, they have no health insurance, and now they are losing their homes. They have followed the siren's song of the Republicans and have lost everything.

Actually Chris, polling data says that she wins Michingan, and he doesn't (18 electoral votes), she competes in Nevada and he doesn't and that NJ and CA become states he has to defend- He has nearly no chance in NC and basing a CO win for him on caucus results is at best a reach.

Leon

I've got two cases for you, 0 for 37:

Democratic Party v. Wisconsin ex rel. La Follette, 450 U.S. 107 (1981)

Cousins v. Wigoda, 419 U.S. 477 (1974)

Read em and weep. Parties have a wide amount of latitude in the selection of national delegates. It seems that the courts err on the side of protecting freedom of assembly and association. Furthermore, while the states must attempt to provide equal protection under law, the parties act o serve a "pervasive national interest, which is paramount to any interest of a State in protecting the integrity of its electoral process". (CvW)

Take a look at the Primary and Caucus states that each of them have won so far and project whether these will likely go D or R in Nov.. Clearly Hillary is the Strongest.

"
If that wimpering wimp Obama and {Michell} too ,woe is me ,woe is me, on TV I feel sad for America , goodbye Isreal, hello Kenya"

could you be more racist or offensive? and it's spelled Israel with the a before the e, if you are so hot and bothered to defend a particular FOREIGN country shouldn't you know how to spell its name?

"Obama's name was on the Florida Primary Ballet because to be on the GE Ballet your name also has to be on the Primary.

Proff.... that the DNC rule to not campaign did not require the removal of their names."

NO IT DOESN'T. STOP LYING. The deadline to remove names had passed.

Obama's name was on the Florida Primary Ballet because to be on the GE Ballet your name also has to be on the Primary.

Proff.... that the DNC rule to not campaign did not require the removal of their names.

If the votes were not counted why risk a loss in MI.... looks bad.... ?
To minimize the loss in WV..... stand behind, I did not campaign...
To put water on the fire of winning in WV, have Edwards endorse the next day.

We are lead by those that know how to play the game.

How does she survive? Unbelievable. She has such power trying to destroy her.

She has so far..... she just might make it to the end.

To answer the question?
Mattynr said:
"Why did Obama leave his name on the Florida Ballet and remove it from the Michigan Ballet?

To be on the General Election Ballet, your name has to be on the Primary Ballet in Florida.

Proff.. that removing their names was not part of any DNC rule...... it was a choice in Michigan....."

That's wrong. The deadline to remove your name from the ballot had passed in FLA. Come on. Everyone knows the answer to that question.

To answer the question?
Why did Obama leave his name on the Florida Ballet and remove it from the Michigan Ballet?

To be on the General Election Ballet, your name has to be on the Primary Ballet in Florida.

Proff.. that removing their names was not part of any DNC rule...... it was a choice in Michigan.....

The Compromise has always been important and several attempts have been offered.
These two states are vital in the General Election.

Obama has driven a hard deal..... and Clinton, again, is losing in the compromise. But the delegates will be seated. This is critical.
Finally we are again ..United States of America

In Michigan....
The rule was not to campaign.. nothing about taking their name off. OOOOPPPPPSSS

When it became clear that a mistake had been made. I now believe it was not a mistake.....it could be they didn't want to risk a loss that would reflect bad.
The cover for WV was.. they didn't campaign there.

Massive, massive, massive media and radio blitz went out to tell voters...... if your vote is for Edwards or Obama vote undecided (never did they mention any others) Kucinich was also on the ballet.

Hillary Clinton got 53%
Undecided got 40%
Kucinich got 7%

When the voters in Michigan went to the polls.
If they were not sure if they wanted to vote for Hillary???? Guess What? There was a place on the ballet that said.."not sure".... 40%of the voters voted that way.
Hillary votes are Hillary votes..clear and simple.

Now the undecided? Sorry, Obama you didn't want a re-vote did you.
John Edwards was a real candidate, Obama does not get all of the undecided... he splits that. But, he has demanded that and it looks like the DNC has caved in.

THE SUPER DELEGATES MUST MUST MUST DO THE MATH.
Even if the DNC cannot..... because of the rules.
They left a re-vote to the Candidates. Hillary said yes.... Obama didn't want to. Volunteers stepped up to cover the cost of the re-vote. Obama drug his feet until the time expired for the vote.

He is not to be rewarded but he is not being punished either. John Edwards was a real Candidate.
And, Hillary Clinton should not have to be punished for the mistake of removing their names.

We need to honor these voters... real Americans. real votes.

Florida???
Record numbers went to the polls. Hillary Clinton beat them all, Democrat and Republican.
She beat McCain 2-1 and the Democrats beat the Republicans in number 2-1.
Hillary got 51% and Obama got 33%

She can win this state in the GE

He wants to split Flordia.... 50/50
of course he does.
He is getting close to the wash needed to retain his lead.
When you vote for the man that will deliver change in this country...... you may not like the change he has to offer....... I don't....

It is a VERY interesting analysis. Basically, it is sound to me, with the exception of one assumption. You assume that Michigan is a toss up between Senators Clinton and Obama. Don't the demographics favor Senator Clinton, or am I missing something here?

Thanks for your article.

Stronger?
He cannot face her in a debate and has passed up 4, Washington, Wisconsin, North Carolina and now Oregon. The Governor of North Carolina sent him a formal letter requesting a debate....he declined.
Obama: "If I debate in NC, the IN will want one too"
Well yes......

PROBLEM AND QUESTION. She is stronger!

If he cannot face Clinton in a debate how will he face other power people, Oil Cos., and thoes of power that want to do us harm?

I am sure that if Martin Luther King could be alive today....

He would be ashamed of Barack Obama... I know it.
Obama blocking American votes? If there were even a hint that Barack was going to do that, MLK would come down hard and fast without doubt.

Obama blocked the re-votes of Michigan and Florida and now he is blocking the count.

When the DNC left the compromise up to the two Candidates for a re-vote, in Public Obama said what ever you guys want to do.

Re-vote...... volunteers came forward to cover the cost. DNC said yes, States said yes, Clinton said yes ... Obama didn't say no but he drug his feet until the time expired to do this.
He has been blocking the count. Again, the compromise is between the two. He wants
all of the 40% of Michigan and 50/50 of Florida. (he got 33%) What he wants is a wash. Which means..... votes given to someone else are to be given to him.

Ask MLK what he thinks of that?

Huh. The SCOTUS held in Bush v. Gore (2000)that "The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States".

Weird. Never though I'd cite that one.

Chris, it's way too soon to think Clinton is the "stronger" candidate. Nobody's attacking Clinton. Nobody is pointing out her weaknesses, but rest assured, Republicans would have a field day! McCain is getting a free pass and plenty of free photo ops, while Clinton pretends this is a close race. On the other hand, everybody is taking potshots at Obama. McCain, Clinton, a lame duck president, a former president behaving badly, and every Republican operative and pundit on cable. All of these skew any real matchup results between Obama and McCain.

Oh course Hillary is the stronger candidate. Obama can't win in the General His game plan that he announced last night was to register new voters, particularly blacks to beat Mc Cain. I want someone running that is basing their votes on policies and experience, not someone playing the race card to win. The 90% black vote for Obama is racist.
He talks about faith and hope, way too much, he sounds like someone groomed to go into the Ministry.

If that wimpering wimp Obama and {Michell} too ,woe is me ,woe is me, on TV I feel sad for America , goodbye Isreal, hello Kenya

Give me a place to start. Go on. Do it. Give me a case as a starting point.

Jesus. If you were right, we wouldn't do primary season the way we do. We'd have it all on one day becasue having some before others would violate equal protection. Thing is, THERE'S NO VIOLATION OF EQUAL RIGHTS by stagering! NONE. VOTES ALL GET COUNTED! Prove that there is, and you might have a bit of an argument, but until you do you're argument is a gleaming crystal tower of justice built upon the quicksand mire of not having an actual violation of law.

When the states decide to ignore the perfectly constitutional rules of a private entity, they, not that entity, are responsible for the consequences. The best a lawsuit can hope to obtain at this point is to force the states to pay for another election. No judge in the land is going to stick their nose into that.

The constitution doesn't say anthing about letting CMNI, Guam or PR vote for president, does it? How come they get to vote in the primaries? Because it's internal bussiness for the parties to determine their nominations.

Help, anyone with a calcuator. Add the votes for Hillary and Obama in the Primaries. They are on the Fix. WV results are Hillary 239,298 and Obama 91,747, which was not on the Fix.

Mason:

I am not going to debate Fifth Amendment liberties with you - read up on the Votings Rights if you want.

.

Ach!!! Warren court alert!

Well Mason

You just don't get it - that is what everyone is fighting about, isn't it.

If it worked the way you say it does, there would be no dispute.

The very existence of the dispute proves you are wrong.

Don't you understand here - we are talking about a party making up a set of rules which they expect the STATES to then pass into law and utilize taxpayer funds for.

NOT only that, we are talking about Voting Rights for the highest office in the land - which citizens have a right to participate in - on an equal basis.

hhmmmmm

On your side, you would have a private entity being able to make rules which violation constitutional protections, and then allow those entities to take enforcement actions to get the STATES to cooperate in those rules.

How far would you allow the enforcement actions to go?

Intimidating the candidates to sign pledges not to campaign in certain states goes pretty far out there here - what other sanctions would you be willing tolerate.

Obviously, these enforcement actions did not work this year - would you be willing to allow the political parties to go further next time?

What are the responsibilities of the states in cooperating with such plans???

When you start to think about it, your position does not work.

.

.

Several posters have made reference to the polling data and maps on www.electoral-vote.com.

I'd urge you to go beyond a surface reading of those data. It reveals a pattern that is troubling for Clinton and on the whole quite encouraging for Obama.

The website electoral-vote.com posts a state as a "win" for a candidate however narrow the lead, even a 1 point difference. That is obviously absurd, first because a 1-point difference is within every poll's margin of error, second because with this much time before the general election public opinion can shift markedly, making a 1 point lead, or even a 4 or 5 point lead, relatively meaningless.

A more useful way to look at the data is to sort out the states that are currently "strong" for one candidate (leading by more than 5 points), and which are "contested" ( within 5 points either way). On that measure, Obama is clearly in the stronger position.

Obama currently has "strong" leads in 18 states (CA, OR, WA, HI, MN, IA, IL, PA, NY, NJ, DE, MD, DC, CT, RI, MA, ME, VT), good for 220 electoral votes.

Clinton currently has "strong" leads in 13 states (CA, OR, HI, IL, OH, PA, NY, MD, DC, FL, MA, RI, ME, VT), also good for 220 electoral votes.

But they're different states: Clinton is up by 10 points in Ohio and up by 8 in Florida, while Obama is in a statistical dead heat with McCain, down by 1 point in each of those states. On the other hand, Obama has "strong" leads in Washington, Hawaii, Minnesota, Iowa, Connecticut, Maine, and Delaware, all states that with Clinton as the candidate become "contested." .

Advantage? Well, it's a matter of intepretation, but I think the data suggest Clinton could be in deep trouble if she loses either Ohio or Florida, and she's on very shaky ground in a lot of smaller states that McCain has a chance to pick off. Obama, in contrast, has a broader base of "strong" states and remains very much in contention in the big prizes of Ohio and Florida, but could afford to lose either or both.

Where is really gets interesting, though, is in how McCain's numbers change depending on the Democratic nominee. Against Obama, McCain has a "strong" lead of more than 5 points in 19 states (AZ, UT, ID, WY, ND, SD, KS, OK, TX, MO, AR, LA, MS, AL, GA, TN, KY, WV, NH) worth 159 electoral votes.

Against Clinton, McCain runs much stronger, with "strong" leads in 24 states worth 196 electoral votes (adding AK, NV, CO, MT, NE, VA, and SC to the "strong McCain" column, and moving on WV and NH out of it).

Against Obama, McCain has weak leads of 5 points or less in 13 contested states (FL, OH, SC, NC, VA, MI, WI, IN, NE, MT, NM, NV, AK), worth 132 electoral votes. Against Clinton, the pool of contested states leaning toward McCain shrinks to 7 (NC, IN, MI, WI, MO, NM, NH), worth 73 electoral votes, as more of these states are sifgted into the "strong McCain" column.

Adding it all up, if Clinton is the nominee only 11 states worth 101 electoral votes are "in play," within 5 points either way (assuming Clinton maintains her currently leads in Ohio and Florida). Starting from her "strong" based of 220 electoral votes, Clinton would need to win almost exactly half of those contested electoral votes--50 out of 101--to win the presidency.

For Obama, in contrast, 14 states worth 141 electoral votes are "in play." He'd need to win just over a third--50 of those 141 electoral votes--to win the presidency.

Thus, seemingly paradoxically, Clinton is both the stronger and the weaker candidate. She's stronger in Ohio and Florida, to be sure, but Obama remains highly competitive in both states. Michigan is a dead heat for either candidate, and both Obama and Clinton currently enjoy strong leads over McCain in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Clinton enjoys a small lead in West Virginia which Obama probably loses, while Obama enjoys a small lead in Colorado which Clinton almost certainly loses.

The big difference is that McCain runs much stronger against Clinton in the Upper Midwest (WI, MN, IA, NE), the Pacific Northwest (WA & OR), parts of the Mountain West (CO, NM, NV, MT), the southeast (VA, NC, SC), Hawaii, and Connecticut.

On balance, then, because McCain is stronger against Clinton than against Obama, it's reasonable to conclude that Clinton is the weaker of the Democratic candidates.

"We are not talking about the Federal Government here in any event - we are talking about Voting Rights of citizens."

Not sure what this means...

"Liberty" from the 5th Ammendment? Ah.. the due process clause. That's your answer? Final answer? Let's take a look.

...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

It means they can't send you to jail, execute you, or take your stuff without a trial. It's never been read the way you're reading it. Try again.

Mason:

We are not talking about the Federal Government here in any event - we are talking about Voting Rights of citizens.

.

And again... You've yet to prove that Staggered voting ACUTALLY VIOLATES EQUALITY. Every vote gets counted, and used to appoint delegates.

This is just such a basic part of your argument, and the fact that you have yet to do it is mind-boggling.

Furthermore, an individual state cannot be called upon to ensure equality under the law between citizens of that state and citizens of other states. States are only required to ensure equality before the law of the state within that state. If an entire state gets cut out of the process, oh well. That's a federal issue. I'm still waiting for you to point out where in the constitution it states that the Feds must provide for equality before the law.

Mason:

I just told you - it's in the liberty part of the Fifth Amendment.

Do some research before you go off like this and then claim you know everything.

.

of-course Sen. Hillary Clinton is one of the strongest candidate and stongest commander in chief of our great country. She is experienced and has a vision and wisdom to take our country in the right direction.!!!!

VOTE FOR HILLARY CLINTON.!!!!

Point to the section of the constitution that forces the Federal Gov't to provide equal protection under the law.

I'll wait.

"BILL CLINTON LOST 13 PRIMARY STATES THAT HE WON IN THE GENERAL ELECTION!NO ONE KNOW WHAT WILL HAPPEN 6 MONTHS FROM NOW.HILLARY WAS LEADING IN THE POLLS BY 30 POINTS 6 MONTHS AGO!"

Blah, if you're going to make a good point, can you at least not look foolish while making it?

Mason

Nice try on your quoting the 14th Amendment however again you have simply made my positions stronger.

If the DNC had a plan which would violate the equal protection of the citizens, AND then the STATES cooperated in that plan, the STATES would be violating the 14th Amendment.

My original thoughts had to do with the general equal protection rights of citizens as it pertained to voting rights which is simply part of the general range of natural rights under the liberties of all citizens.

This applies to the Federal Government and later applied to the states under the 14th amendment.

My original argument is that the political parties must adhere to such constitutional liberties such as voting rights - as opposed to having complete freedom of action if the parties were to be regarded as completely private entities.

Mason, give it up.

I don't believe this is a case.

However, if it was, I would win.

.

Er... Yeah.. No I'm not. I promise you I'm not agreeing with you. Read more carefully next time. The 14th ammendment can't be used in the way you want to use it. Sorry. You're still wrong. Or are you talking about how some in the African American community will react to being marginalized by the Democratic party? I think we've already established you're a bit delusional on that count, as you seem to think they won't mind having one of their own pushed aside to please working class whites.

Regarding DDWAG- Again, read more carefully peabrain. Note the quotes around the "make one another look bad" part. I know DDWAG was quoting an earlier poster. He then agreed with the earlier poster stating "I really like Obama, but I have to agree with this. I'm not sure why." I then agree with him and referecnced the concept of synergy and antagonism: Where the whole is more or less than the sum of it's parts.

You're a lazy idiot who can't read. You have my pity, as the schools have failed you. If you had a tenth of the intellegence or drive as that "Empty Suit" you'd have told me about those court cases from Texas.

"In States that have gone Demmocrat in the past two Presidentiiol elections, Clinton won 9 with 151 Electoral Votes as opposed to 9 for Obama with only 84 Electoral votes.

If you can count, that would seem to make Hillary a much stronger candidate."

What happens to this lead if you discount New York and California.

Or are you saying that Obama won't carry these two states?

Good analysis generally but that Montana and North Carolina are in play is an Obama fantasy. I recently went to a fundraising lunch with the governor of Montana and when asked if his state could go for Obama, his answer was an unequivocal no. I think he should know.

And NC? Republicans and Independents (who in NC mostly lean Republican) outnumber Democrats substantially and Obama loses big among white women and white working class voters. John Kerry got 90%+ of the black vote (like Obama) and had a sitting NC senator as VP, native son John Edwards, and still lost NC. Forget it, Obama wins neither MT or NC.

Broadly, the Obama camp loves to talk about redrawing the electoral map. Where's the proof? New voters? Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, Indiana... all had record new voter registrations. Obama lost and many of those new voters went for Clinton. Youth vote? Sometimes but Clinton won the under-30 vote in W.VA by 18%.

Clinton is definitely the stronger general election candidate. Year after year, I have watched as my party has happily walked off a cliff then looked up from the ravine saying, "Huh? What happened?." Here we go again.

"It's because it's two Senators standing next to one another. There's something in the Capitol Hill water that causes an antagonistic effect. You've got a bunch of smart people, but put them there and the come up with some really dumb stuff."

Now that I think about it, I think its because both are "pretty boys." You know, the jocks in high school and the frat boys in college. Groups I couldn't stand. (at least frats were a good source of free beer)

Although I guess I could get a case of cheap beer with Hillary's gas plan.

"For the record, Clinton won the popular vote in the primaries and neither one got the votes necessary for the nomination. So, the party elites (very left of center) have decided on Obama."

As an intelligent voter, you do realize that the superdelegates are part of the numerator AND denominator would change. (ie, the magic number would no longer be 2025, but would be much smaller.) The reason that neither candidate has the required delegates is that the required delegates takes into account the fact that you've got 800 "elites" If you took them out of the equation, Obama only needs like 25 more pledged delegates to get a majority. He's going to pass that next week.

And Obama is winning in popular votes. The only way to deny this is to include Michigan.

And if you take into acount that Obama got ZERO votes in Michigan, I'll repeat my oft repeated statement that anyone who thinks the popular vote count in Michigan is a reasonable surrogate of electability is an absolute moron.

Seriously, this isn't advanced political theory. It's fourth grade arithmetic.

Mason

DDawd was taking a quote from this morning

*************

Obama is an empty suit if I have ever seen one.

Seriously.

The visual of Edwards standing next to Obama was horrible - sort of like the sum of the parts adds up to LESS - they make each other look bad.

.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 15, 2008 9:39 AM

Mason

You are agreeing with me again - stop it - stop it now.

.

""The visual of Edwards standing next to Obama was horrible - sort of like the sum of the parts adds up to LESS - they make each other look bad."

I really like Obama, but I have to agree with this. I'm not sure why."

It's because it's two Senators standing next to one another. There's something in the Capitol Hill water that causes an antagonistic effect. You've got a bunch of smart people, but put them there and the come up with some really dumb stuff.

"The black community is alot smarter than you are giving them credit for."

Who's casting aspersions on the intellegence of the black community? You seem to be saying that they'll vote Dem no matter what happens. I'm not convinced. I think that after all they've done for the party, dating back to FDR's Black and Blue coaltion, some of them will see a black man and Senator being pushed aside in favor of a Former First Lady and Senator as a bit of a slap in the face. It might cause them to step back and reconsider their place in the party, and politics as a whole.

But nah... 'Em darkies will do whateva da party massas tell em to, Yessa...

(eyeroll)

Come on... they'll be ticked. Some will vote HRC, but others just won't because of resentment. That's not a good thing for the Dems.

Superdelegates...

This has got to be changed.

Either make them 100% of the process. You still have state polls, but no pledged delegates. Then you can have the supers go over the exit polls, look at the demographics, judge electability and so forth. Not the most democratic method, but it might be better in choosing the candidate that fares the best in the general election...

Or you drastically reduce the number of superdelegates. 800 is far too many. I do think its ok for them to affect the outcome of primaries, but only when the pledged delegate totals are very close. For the supers to be able to overturn a margin of 100 pledged is kind of insane. I think somewhere between 50 and 100 supers would be appropriate. Then they can act as a tiebreaker when you have razor close races. By doing this, you can perhaps overturn a 25 or 50 pledged delegate lead which I think is reasonable.

"The visual of Edwards standing next to Obama was horrible - sort of like the sum of the parts adds up to LESS - they make each other look bad."

I really like Obama, but I have to agree with this. I'm not sure why.

Many people on this website are drinking the Kool Aid. But, that is what has propelled Obama's campaign from the beginning. The problem is that the party elites, not the primary voters are making the decision on the candidate (like the bad old days) and they are way to the left of the electorate. Dean, Pelosi, Reid have destroyed a sure White House victory with their hatred of the Clintons, and specifically, Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid who have lower ratings than Bush (if that is possible), should be fired after the November election. A much better candidate for Democrats would have been an Evan Bayh or Joe Biden. Obama cannot beat McCain. I myself, a lifelong Democrat, will vote for McCain. I have to put the country before the party, it is my obligation as an intelligent citizen. Clinton could have beat McCain, but the party elites decided they would not let that happen. For the record, Clinton won the popular vote in the primaries and neither one got the votes necessary for the nomination. So, the party elites (very left of center) have decided on Obama. He will crash and burn. In fact, my prediction has been that Obama will lose 40 states, possibly the 49 McGovern did, since Obama's nomination is a mirror image of McGovern's. 1972. What a disaster! It could have been different. But, that's the Democrats. I am going to register Independent from now on. I am fed up with my party!

Sigh... Section 1 of the 14th Amendment of the constitution states:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Now lets parse:

The first sentence has to do with who is and isn't a citizen, establishing Jus Soli as a vaild means of obtaining citizenship. (See "Anchor Baby") I'll stipulate that votes in MI, FL, and NV are citizens.

Moving to the first clause of the second sentence we see a prohibition from abridgeing the "privleges or immunities of citizens". Assuming that the Parties are subject to this, prove how making some states vote later "abridges" the privlege of voting in a presidental primary. You can't because it doesn't. Everyone still gets to vote. It is wholly immaterial that some votes don't generate the same buzz, momentum, or press. The votes all still count the same for determining delegates.

The second clause ensures due process. Immaterial here because no one is being deprived of "life, liberty, or property".

The third clause is the Equal Protection clause. Firstly, I'm still not entirely convinced that this even applies. It orders STATES, not the Federal Government, to ensure equal application of law to citizens WITHIN THE STATE'S JURISDICTION, not across state lines. Even assuming it does apply, dismissal of this argument is trivial as it is impossible to prove that voting later violates equal protection vis-a-vis voting sooner as both votes are still counted, and treated relatively equally for the purposes of determining delegates.

Sorry man, the 14th ammendment doesn't really help on this one.

Mason:

I know what the polls say - would you please be serious.

.

Brad K

Thank you - finally some sanity to this conversation - however I have to point out there are still 10% undecideds in your numbers.

Let's focus on those people, what are they all about??

Which way is that 10% leaning?

Last 3 polls in Michigan:

Rasmussen (May 8)
Obama 44, McCain 45
Clinton 44, McCain 44

Rasmussen (May 7)
Obama 44, McCain 45
Clinton 44, McCain 44

EPIC/MRA (April 8)
Obama 43, McCain 41
Clinton 37, McCain 46

Michigan is indeed a dead heat whether Clinton or Obama is the Dem nominee. Indeed, the only one of these results outside the polls' margin of error is the April 8 EPIC/MRA poll showing McCain beating Clinton by 9 points.

The idea that Michigan won't vote for Obama because of the illegal primary mess is a fairy tale concocted by the Clinton camp. There are just as many Michiganders angered by Clinton ally Gov. Jennifer Granholm's arrogant and high-handed decision to go ahead with an illegal primary, thereby disenfranchising Michigan primary voters in general and Obama supporters in particular, as there are Hillary supporters demanding that their votes in an illegal and one-sided contest be counted.

Mason

The black community is alot smarter than you are giving them credit for.

.

"Obama is Dukakis, look at the polls, how can a Democrat be elected while losing FL, MI, OH, WVa, PA?"

First off, forget WVa, it's 4 EVs and went 57% for Bush. It's not the critical state for this electionb. Obama runs ahead of McCain in PA (by an average of 10 pts if you discount the partisan Strategic vision polls) and runs even in Michigan and Ohio if not better, and that is with polls taken at the height of the Reverend Wright issue. The only blue state from the last election I'd be at all worried about losing is PA, I'd give him better than 50/50 to pick up Ohio, and on top of that he'll get NM, NV, CO, and IA at a minimum, while forcing McCain to waste his limited rtesources playing defense to hold VA, NC and several other traditionally strong Republican states. To say Obama is writing all of those states off and has no chance at winning is just nonsense.

Harvey please watch your language

Surely you can express yourself adequately and eloquently without sounding like you are in a locker room.

You wrote this article WAY too late. Clinton's out. Would you like to now do a comparison between Obama and McCain?

"You are speculating on what the polls say without actually looking at the polls."

So are you. The polls don't exist! You would have posted one if they did. Oh, wait... Maybe you wouldn't have. Do your own research.

"I have to tell you are you wrong on many of your comments and it makes no sense to go point-by-point."

Lazy bum. But then:

"Your last comment sounds RACIST to me - you assume that the black community is supporting candidates based solely on the color of their skin, not the content of their character as Rev. King asked.

In addition, if the black community came to believe that Obama would not win in November, you are assuming that that the black community would not want a different democratic nominee either.

So Mason, you are basically calling the black community a bunch of RACISTS."

LOL. Go back to school and learn some reading comp. That's hardly what I said. I'm not assuming that they're voting solely on the color of the candidate's skin (though you could certainly make the argument that they are - 92% for BHO in NC) nor am I assuming that they won't vote for a white person (Hey, they've vote for white people since emancipation!). I'm saying that if you tell them, "Sorry. One of you people won by any metric, but we just can't nominate him because it won't fly with poor and middle income whites and latinos," that they'll be ticked. Some will get over it and vote for HRC, for sure, becasue she'll probably do more for them the JSMc, but you've got to be joking you think that there won't be a size subset that won't say in November "Eff this. Whitey screwed us again. What else is on TV?"
That's not rascism, it's real politic. Tick off your base and bad things happen. Trick is, the Democratic party has a disparate base.

(PS: The black community probably still feels that BHO can win, thus falsifying the condition of your if statement. As anyone knows, if the condition is false, the status of the consequent is immaterial and the conditional is always true. I'd suggest basing your assertions on real, verifiable facts, lest you reveal yourself a fool.)

Here's the usual reminder that anyone sowing divisiveness in the Democratic party is more likely to be a Republican under a false flag than a true Democrat.

Who do you predict will be the last superdelegate to endorse Clinton? Let's ignore add-ons, for obvious reasons. (If these reasons aren't obvious, you may want to skip the rest of this post.)

I propose that we also ignore people who pledged to choose a candidate based on the voting results in their district, or the like. If there are any of those in Montana or South Dakota, they're likely to be the last superdelegates to endorse Clinton. So let's ignore Chris Carney.

I therefore predict Ciro Rodriguez will win the honor. While his district's primary voting was a "big reason" is his decision, he hadn't previously pledged to follow the wishes of his constituents.

(When I say "ignore", of course we can't ignore their votes! But they're just not very interesting to predict.)

"Posted by: Sarah | May 15, 2008 3:32 PM
It's a toss up between Obama & Clinton in Michigan? Excuse me? What planet have you been hiding under? Obama purposefully took his name off our ballots and does NOT want our delegates seated or 'counted' at the convention. "

________________________________________
Excuse me, knock, knock! What planet are you hiding under? It is verrry much a toss up in Michigan between Obama and Clinton. Wishing it were'nt so does not make it a fact.

The rules were the rules and all of the candidates agreed to the rules. Tell me do you think if the roles were reversed so many would be shouting to let the votes in Fl and MI count.

True, well said.

Fox has been up Obama's a$$ since Iowa. If Hillary were winning, they would be up hers. She says they've been through her baggage, and I'm sure they have, but they are not going to lose "Obama Bashing" air time to nit pick a Lost Candidate.

She DID get a free pass.

Hadn't thought about it like that. She's got plenty of Baggage, which to be fair is mostly due to Bill Clinton.

You know what they say, "You can't pick your family, but you CAN pick your" Husband. Another lack of Judgement.

Then again, if she hadn't picked Bill as her husband, we'd never had heard of her.

The Equal Protection clause is relevant because it goes directly to the substance of what everyone is fighting about - there is a material difference between going early and going later.

There would not be a fight otherwise.

In addition, the DNC in its very selection of some states over others is stating there is a difference.

Hey, I dispute the right of the DNC to make these rules.

I dispute the right of the DNC to choose one set of states over the others and then to attempt various methods of enforcing that decision. That is my opinion. To review what has gone on with this issue, I have been right.

hhmmmmm.

Also, taxpayer funds are utilized in the holding of the primaries - the DNC is seeking to force states to follow their schedule. To state that constitutional principles should not apply to such a situation is by far the longer stretch.

Obviously the DNC has come a long way since the KKK controlled blocks of delegates at the Conventions.

However, the issue with Florida and Michigan solved nothing - the issue is even hotter now for 2012.

Plus the democrats have risked alienating the voters of Michigan, how smart is that?

.

Well, I'm Republican.
I wouldn't vote for Hillary OR Obama if they ran against Jimmy freaking Carter!

I know from talking to folks, here in Kansas, that many Republicans actually respect Obama. They do not trust Hillary Clinton and, let's face it, Bill Clinton is a major reason why.

We are not up in arms about her right now, because she lost the nomination, but a few months back when all was up in the air, people were talking, and they cannot STAND Hillary Clinton.

Folks here did not forget about them selling nights in the lincoln bedroom, about outsourcing jobs, initiating the spying program on US Citizens - monitoring their emails, phone calls, etc...

We did not forget what a shameful liar and sexual pervert her husband is. Their alliances with shady characters like Marc Rich and Their China Lobbying schemes.

I'll put it this way. She's got a free pass. If she had won it would be all Hillary bashing all the time, and that's their own fault.
Why do you think she lost in Iowa? People were energized against her.

Aint NO WAY she would beat McCain. Republicans will NEVER trust her.

Oh and Edwards is a suck-up trying to jockey for his own position. The timing of that Obama support thing after Hills big WV win was in extremely poor taste. NO, the average white voter did not fall for the chicanery.

Posted by: g | May 15, 2008 4:02 PM
---------------------------------
Edwards, you mean the two time loser for the nomination, and the loser for the VP spot who could not even carry his own state? I don't know or care what Obama promised him but the timing was in bad taste on his part, for Obama it just got Hillary taken off as the lead story and pissed off more Hillary supporters, he is going to need in November. Not a smart move after all is said and done.

Jeebus, does Axelrod have this place staked out, or what? Where do I send my resume?

One would think that if Hillary was the stronger candidate she would be the nominee?

BUT SHE IS NOT AND WILL NOT BE IN 2008.

100 Delegates from Obama...

DREAM ON HILLARY!!

Mason:

You are speculating on what the polls say without actually looking at the polls.

I have to tell you are you wrong on many of your comments and it makes no sense to go point-by-point.

Your last comment sounds RACIST to me - you assume that the black community is supporting candidates based solely on the color of their skin, not the content of their character as Rev. King asked.

In addition, if the black community came to believe that Obama would not win in November, you are assuming that that the black community would not want a different democratic nominee either.

So Mason, you are basically calling the black community a bunch of RACISTS.

please.

.

For example:

Bush is President now. Nobody is happy with this.

Guess what?

Too Bad. That's the rules. Why is nobody crying that the Stupid Rules produced Four More Years of Idiocy?

Well, because, they understand that those are the rules.

Why can't Hillary get this through her sprayed Hair?
Why does she stop at the Nomination?
Why not change the rules that have Bush in the White House when he couldn't beat McCain if they ran right now?

Because, those are the rules we have agreed to live by.

Nobody wins elections because they are the stronger candidate. The stronger candidate wins elections.

That's Obama. That's why he's winning the Contest.

Not that Hard.

Maybe they should change the rules next year if the rules they have been going by don't seem to be working.

That's not a bad idea.

Doesn't help her now, though.

It's not the end of the world.

"Move on, you lost this round. Come on, be serous."

No. You still haven't shown how the EPC is the least bit relevant to the order of primary elections. If this were a court, the judge would toss your case out.

"This is a blog, research of cases is not required to support each posting."

Willful ignorance at it's finest. What you're saying is, "I'm gonna say whatever I think is true, act like it is, and not bother to check!"

"Lighten up."
Rich. I lurk around here and you're on here every freaking day posting the same tired semi-fact-free drivel and you tell me to lighten up when I call you on it and ask you to back up a single assertion with a shred of evidnce? Like I said earlier: You have my pity.

There. I have just made my first donation ever to a political campaign in my 20 years as a Democrat. That is how much Hillary has inspired me with her strength and resolve. This is how much the injustice against Hillary Clinton (and my FL vote for her) has disgusted me. My first pick was Kucinich, and I am still a huge Al Gore fan. Now that I have gotten to know Hillary better these last few months I like her more each day. She is the candidate who is qualified to fix this mess we're in, not this Obama huxter. PLUS she is the clear winner in a general election. I will not stand by and let a bunch of kids and racist votes cause Dems to lose the Presidency once again. Do any of you really think Obama can win without the Hispanic vote, the Jewish vote, the average American white vote? As goes WV, so goes the Presidency. Please don't blow this for us. We have a shot at a Dem President, House and Senate and the ability to fix the Bush mess, move into a new era of common sense and logic with Hillary Clinton....President Hillary Clinton.

Oh and Edwards is a suck-up trying to jockey for his own position. The timing of that Obama support thing after Hills big WV win was in extremely poor taste. NO, the average white voter did not fall for the chicanery.

As a conservative and Republican who wouldn't vote for Hillary or Obama if you paid me, I agree with Hillary, she is the stronger candidate. Thank you Democrats! With Obama the Dems nominee we keep the WH. With Hillary we would have had a much tougher fight.
Obama couldn't get elected dog-catcher in the general election with his history of supporting racist anti-white and anti-America haters like Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan and his like-minded clone and desciple Jerimiah Wright. While the liberal lip-service Americans in the Democratic Party love Barack Obama because of his and their mutual hatred for all things America stands for, this won't play in the general election. Bye, bye Obama and the hopes for taking over the WH for the Democrats.

HEY, I got an idea...

Lets set up rules for selecting the Democratic Nominee for President, then, run the contest with all Qualifying Candidates.

We'll take whoever wins this contest, we'll call it The Primaries, and they will be the Democratic Candidate for President of the United States.

Sound Good?

Great.

Mason

Move on, you lost this round. Come on, be serous.

This is a blog, research of cases is not required to support each posting.

Lighten up.

.

Yes, I definitely believe Clinton is the stronger candidate against McCain.

The way you people are talking here, Obama has a chance to win the top position in the KKK.

I seriously do not know what Planet you people are on.

When you say Kansas, do you mean the STATE of Kansas, or some town named Kansas in a Blue State????

.

"The basic problem was your original arrogance in your postings."

I'd rather be willfully arrogant that willfull ignorant.

"Yes the political parties do have to follow constitutional protections."

Established, but you're unclear as to the extent of thes constitutional protections. The Constitution doesn't care about the order of the state's primaries. It's just not relevant because, EVERYONE GETS TO VOTE EVENTUALLY!

"It is like a motel, they have to follow the regulations of interstate commerce, even though they may be located far from a stateline.

The truth is this: All Americans have voting rights - the voter is supreme."

Now IANAL, but the Constitution is supreme. Voters are actors within it's framework.

"When these rules and other considerations come up, they may have some merit, however the other rules and considerations do not outweigh the voters."

The courts have thus far disagreed with your central premise that NV before MI violates the EPC.

"And when a person such as you finds oneself suckered, the best course of action is to admit it."

Shove your advice in your piehole. You're too lazy to be bother to look up SCOTUS rulings that supports aspects of your postition. It took about thirty seconds of google work to pull the relevant case. You're in no postition to lecture about being a sucker.

I'd love to continue this flamewar (really I would), but the damn page is becoming to hard to load. I only get to the bottom every third or fourth attempt or so, so I'm going to have to leave at that. Stupid movableType.

To the later post:
And you're in a huff I took the Lords name in vain? Go to Hell. Wait, that's right: IT DOESN'T EXIST!
You really don't think that if the Supers and pledges gave a win to Hillary that *she didn't earn*, that it wouldnt' damage downticket races? That's delusional, man. It would remind people of machine politics. That discomfort alone would cause problems.
As for your situation that would cause PDs to switch, there's two related problems. Firstly, no such polls exist. There aren't too many polls saying that Dems will take massive hits in blue states. Heck, running against BHO isn't even working in Mississippi. Lastly, switches won't save tickets. See above. If POd blacks stay home, tickets across the country suffer.

The stuff about Wright and the Weather Underground dude doesn't hold a candle to 8 years of Bill, Monica, impeachment, etc. I really do not think BO is a lightning rod to turn out the Republican base like the Clinton name.

Posted by: Derek | May 15, 2008 3:33 PM
----------------------------
Most of the people who will be turned off by the Rev Wright don't give a crap about the 8 years of GOP mud thrown around the Clinton White House. Those who hate the Clintons will vote McCain regardless.

Sarah

Very well said, you are correct.

.

If Kansas is in play, then surely so are Indiana, Alsaka, and even Nebraska, where Obama polls better and the fundamentals are more favorable to him. Also, I don't see how Colorado is a battleground state for Clinton. According to the polls, only Obama has a real shot there.

Mason: Your 2:19PM Post is flawed because the "Operation Chaos" was a JOKE started by Rush only after the Repub strategy was in place since January to vote for Obama and most of these votes were for him, although some in the later Primaries most likely did vote for Hillary, but in a much lesser degree. My early estimate was 10%, and it was not long after I changed it to 25% based on information mainly gathered on the total votes cast in the earlier Primaries. My GUESS would be four to one, at least, went to Obama. Again, watch the exit Polling from Ky., and I am almost sure this trend will continue. This process is far from over despite the efforts of those that are HELL BENT on losing the White House for four more years.

Is Hillary the strongest candidate? Please. The "white voters" comment? The "obliterate Iran" comment? The negative, divisive campaign for over two months? Hillary has lost the African American vote, the youth vote, the majority of people (all colors) with a college degree and she even managed to divide the feminist movement. Good grief. How do you win a general election with people more likely to vote for John McCain then any Democrat? You don't. Is this even worth discussing anymore. Let's move on and take down the neocons.

I love electoral-vote.com. And I have a lot of respect for Tanenbaum. But his methodology is weak: "always use the latest poll". I'd go to fivethirtyeight.com for better projections.
Compare http://electoral-vote.com/evp2004/nov/nov02.html with http://electoral-vote.com/evp2004/nov/nov08.html to get an idea of how things went during the last presidential election.

Well Mr. Fix forgets that hillary is the cause celeb for the wing nuts and evangelicals.

...Note the republican party is pushing anti abortion, anti-gay marriange, and anti-flag burning type ballot initiatives to give their base a reason to go to the polls.

Obama expands the members of the democratic party, and crosses over to independents and republicans.

Hillary expands the hardcore wing-nut base of the republican party.

THAT isn't measureable in delegates, but is a guranteed lifeline to the republican party's electoral hopes.

Vote Obama for President!

HRC is a lightning rod that will increase Republican turnout and McCain support. And HRC as the nominee will alienate the many new Dem votes, so we'd see low turnout in places where it's been a record in the primary. So even though she can pick up traditional Dem votes that BO cannot, it's not obvious that she will really win states she claims.

BO will definitely lose some traditional Dem votes (working-class white votes). But are these outweighed by new voters? Nationally, probably yes. In the battleground states where it matters? Not sure.

The stuff about Wright and the Weather Underground dude doesn't hold a candle to 8 years of Bill, Monica, impeachment, etc. I really do not think BO is a lightning rod to turn out the Republican base like the Clinton name.

It's a toss up between Obama & Clinton in Michigan? Excuse me? What planet have you been hiding under? Obama purposefully took his name off our ballots and does NOT want our delegates seated or 'counted' at the convention. In 2000, well after Bushie had the nomination locked up, we STILL voted for McCain. Clinton has a decent shot at Michigan, but way better than Obama! Michigan WILL vote for McCain, those of us here are just all too "bitter" that Obama doesn't care about Michigan or the Auto industry. He has made that very clear that DETROIT and the american auto industry is the problem behind the energy crisis. If that's the case - change the law - require fuel efficiency!! oh wait, Mr. Obama doesn't show up to vote, i forgot.

Why are we still having this conversation? It's over, and Clinton is NOT going to be the Democratic nominee, so there's little point in speculating about how strong a candidate she'd be in November.

So far this week, notwithstanding Clinton's strong win in West Virginia, Obama has only lengthened his delegate lead, picking up 24.5 delegates, including 16.5 superdelegates and 8 elected delegates from West Virginia. Clinton added only 21, including 20 elected delegates in West Virginia and 1 superdelegate. That means for the week so far, Clinton has fallen another 3.5 delegates behind, with an additional 45.5 delegates taken off the table.

According to CNN, Clinton now trails Obama by 180 delegates with 421 delegates remaining to be decided, including 189 elected and 232 superdelegates. Obama needs less than 30% of the remaining delegates to win the nomination; Clinton needs more than 70%. It's just not going to happen for her. Even if she wins another landslide in Kentucky and takes Puerto Rico by a large margin, Obama is going to easily win the other three contests in Oregon, Montana, and South Dakota. The best Clinton can possibly hope for is a 60-40 split on the remaining elected delegates, and that's generous.

But let's say she gets that, and closes the elected delegate gap by 40 or so. That leaves Obama needing to pick up only 52 of the remaining 232 superdelegates, or barely over 20% of them, while Clinton would need to gather in 80%.

Any signs of that lopsided superdelegate landslide in Clinton's direction? No. In fact, quite the opposite. Obama's pulling in 4 or 5 new superdelegate commitments a day, Hillary just 1 so far this week, and the trend toward Obama appears to be accelerating. To put it in stark terms, Hillary's picked up about 7% of the superdelegates making a decision---a far cry from the 80% she'd need.

Hillary says she's in the game until the end because "sometimes you win with a 3-point shot." But she needs something more like a buzzer-beating 50-point shot, and there is no such thing in basketball or in politics.

"...Obama's campaign insists that the idea of a static group of battleground states between 2004 and 2008 is old thinking and misunderstands the nature of Obama's candidacy."

Just wishing the world to be different is not going to make it so!

Current polls have Clinton winning against McCain... for the last 4 weeks!!! (http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Clinton/Maps/Apr19.html)

Obama on the other hand never managed to break the 270 barrier, his best result for that period was 269 (=close, but no cigar).

Even more troubling: she polls better than Obama in places such as Kentucky, Arkansas, Alabama, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Kansas, Tennessee, West Virginia, Ohio, Michigan and Florida.

She would win 20 states compared to his 18 (both incl. DC) for 280 votes compared to his 237!!!!!!!!!!!
so much for his myth that he would bring more states into play. Looking at the map, her map is far more promising than his.

If the democrats really want to win the White House, they have to pick Clinton. Obama may look tastier, but she simply has more potential, because he already maxed out on the black and liberal vote and they are the most loyal voters out there, voting for any democrat. You can put at least 80% of his black and liberal vote in her column, if she is the candidate, but you can only put 33% of her vote in his column, based on West Virginia.

So if both have 16,6 million voters each, and she has the potential to draw 60% of his over-all votes, and he has the potential to win 30% of her over-all vote, who would you pick to win? Simple math, if you ask me...

Mason:

I realize that you do not understand the Constitution, however violating the Ten Commandments here is uncalled for.

The Superdelegates could change their minds, and I would guess if Hillary decides to go to the Convention like Ted Kennedy, many will.

The Pledged Delegates are free to switch too.

I don't really see the connection with the down ticket races if a Pledged Delegate switches.

The situation could be this: the delegates start reading polls which show that the democrats will take massive hits in close races in Blue States - Obama delegates in those states feel they have to switch to save their tickets in the blue states.

That makes sense.

.

Based on the tarnished GOP brand this year, Obama can have Kermit the Frog as his running mate and the Democrats will still win. Why do you think HRC and Bill are fighting so hard despite the math? They know a Dem will win the White House (which is why they will want the VP slot to get a piece of the action). People who live in OK or KY saying they'll vote for Grandpa McCain instead of Obama should not phase anyone - solid red states. PA will stay blue - Philly and surrounding suburbs will keep it that way. There are many states in play for Obama to offset OH. People will stop looking solely at race once they can't pay their mortgage, medical bills, etc...2008 is 1992 all over again. It's the economy stupid.

2:12 .... Obama is Dukakis, look at the polls, how can a Democrat be elected while losing FL, MI, OH, WVa, PA? I don't care if he makes VA, ND and NC close, he will still lose those states in the end. The math simply doesn't work.

Huh

That is the purpose of this forum - let the debate rage on - actually Chris has laid out the discussion very well.

YOU are supposed to give your answer.

Besides, if you have been around Chris' blogs before, you would know that if Chris does take too much of a position, half the people jump all over him.

Which is fun too.........

"The Republican Party never allowed any KKK people in."

Utter rot.

Mason

The basic problem was your original arrogance in your postings.

Yes the political parties do have to follow constitutional protections.

It is like a motel, they have to follow the regulations of interstate commerce, even though they may be located far from a stateline.

The truth is this: All Americans have voting rights - the voter is supreme.

When these rules and other considerations come up, they may have some merit, however the other rules and considerations do not outweigh the voters.

And when a person such as you finds oneself suckered, the best course of action is to admit it.

Okay loons - the reason the fix posted this scenario the way he did, is because he has no clue. NO-ONE does, and anybody stating they would be stronger six months from now is on crack. What polls provide you is a snapshot IN TIME, not the future.

The FIX is sitting in a lounge chair right now in his chain mesh drawers with all these posts scrolling on his laptop, as he is giggling at how he can throw any bait out and the minnows will chase it around, and around and around. But hey, some of us come here purely for teh entertainment value of it. No reason 5 percent of the population controls all the wealth - 95 percent of you have no clue how your country is even run.

37 and 0
Jesus you're an idiot.

Sure the delegates could change their mind, but they won't because it will tick off more than half the party and kill downticket elections. These are politicians we're talking about.

Has anyone checked out www.electoral-vote.com?

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Clinton/Maps/May15.html

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Obama/Maps/May15.html

Vanitsky makes very good points

The DNC is weak - dont know what else to say beyond I really can not believe what they are thinking.

"Congressmen Howard Berman and Henry Waxman -- both from California, both key committee chairmen, and both leaders in the Jewish community -- added their blessings.

"Senator Obama's vision for change has inspired tens of millions of Americans," Waxman, chairman of House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, said in a statement. "And he's also proved that he has the experience, judgment, integrity, and toughness to bring real reform to Washington. Our nation faces big challenges. We need to bring our troops safely home from Iraq. We need to solve global warming and finally enact universal health care legislation. And we need to create new jobs and strengthen our middle class. Senator Obama is the leader we need both here and around the world. He will be an extraordinary President, and I look forward to working with him to make his vision for change the new reality in Washington."

"Berman, chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, added: "Barack Obama has laid out a foreign policy vision driven by principle and conviction, and he understands that our moral authority and our safety as a nation go hand in hand. I spoke with him about a number of foreign policy issues that most concern me. He assured me that he shares my views. The moment President Obama takes office, we'll send a powerful message to the world that America is back and ready to lead again -- that we haven't abandoned the values that made us the light of the world, and neither should anyone else." "

To ALL of my fellow citizens:

Let's push this country forward!