Is Clinton vs. Obama really necessary?

[Trinity]

U boil this whole thing down, and Hillary should have won it. But the Clintons are so annoying and played the race card, that they deserve to lose it.

There was no race card played by the Clinton Campaign. Hillary should still win it. Her strengths merits outweigh her faults. Her campaign accomplishments outweigh any mistakes. Hillary Clinton has run the campaign of a fighter and she still deserves to win it.

If you know anything about statistics (which it seems you don't), you are comparing two things that are akin to apples and oranges. Primary results have nothing to do with General results. You can't compare performance in a primary to project results of a general election.

Lets be clear; the "swing" states you are referring to are republican strongholds - democrats haven't won WV or KY since before you were born. Florida and Michigan aren't really going to be in play because of how the DNC has treated them this primary season.

Where dems WILL make up ground is winning huge in formerly reagan -democrat red states in the midwest. These are the very areas that went heavily for Obama and barely turned out for McCain. The midwest is the most energized this election season and will determine the next President.

Hillary *MIGHT* get invited to the ticket if she cools the rhetoric.

There is no argument for Hillary to win the nomination. She will not have enough delegates; period. The popular vote and which states you win have no influence on the nomination rules. The rules are simply this; 2205 delegates = nominee.

By the way, only Obama can reach the 2205 mark. The math is there in the open. Hillary is trying to change the rules at the end of the game. it has never worked and won't work this time.

The earlier you concede this, this better off you'll be. The democratic primary rules are not rocket science. It doesn't help that not a SINGLE super delegate has lined up for Hillary since before the last primary. This is proof positive that the supers know the rules better than Hillary.

Trinity.........did you know there are more swing states than the Clinton Campaign cares to admit??? How well does Senator Clinton do in Wisconsin? Iowa? Virginia?...answer? not very well. Other polls show Obama doing just fine in Ohio and Pennsylvania. Typical of the Clinton campaign to cherry pick 1 poll favorable to the Senator.....And i agree with the sentinment many have mentioned. Disingenuos? YES Transparent? YES Incoherent?YES...have you eaten the Clinton talking points???

You have no idea what you are talking about. Sen. Clinton's argument for the General Election has been and continues to be stronger than that of Obama's. The Swing State argument is a real one and valid. That was confirmed long ago.

Now, Hillary Clinton can still win the Democratic Nomination. The criteria that Hillary Clinton must "catch" Obama in pledged delegates or surpass him is a fabrication. That is not the requirement to win the Nomination. Just like Obama, Sen. Clinton will be convincing the SuperDelegates she is the best candidate to go up against John McCain and that she will make the best President. Hillary Clinton still has a strong argument. All SuperDelegates are still in play, even the ones who have endorsed until they cast their votes at the convention:

Philidelphia Inquirer
May 23, 2008
In most inclusive count, Clinton has the numbers


Lost in the excitement of Barack Obama's coronation this week was an inconvenient fact of Tuesday's results: Hillary Clinton netted approximately 150,000 votes and is now poised to finish the primary season as the popular-vote leader. In some quaint circles, presumably, these things still matter.


Real Clear Politics keeps track of six versions of the popular-vote total. They are, in ascending order of inclusivity: (1) the popular vote of sanctioned contests; (2) the total of sanctioned contests, plus estimated votes from the Iowa, Nevada, Maine and Washington caucuses; (3) the popular vote plus Florida; (4) popular vote plus Florida and the caucuses; (5) the popular vote plus Florida and Michigan; (6) popular vote plus Florida, Michigan, and the caucus estimates. After Tuesday, Clinton now leads in two of these six counts.

If you believe that the most important precept in democratic politics is to "count every vote," then the sixth category is the most inclusive, and here Clinton leads Obama by 71,301 votes. Of course, this includes the Michigan result, where Sen. Obama had removed his name from the ballot. So while it may be the most inclusive, it may not be the most fair.
The third and fourth counts - the ones which include Florida - seem more fair. Here, Obama is clinging to a slight lead of 146,786 votes (257,008, with the caucus estimates). However, with Puerto Rico, Montana, and South Dakota remaining, he will almost certainly finish behind her in these counts, likely by a few hundred thousand votes.

But could Clinton take over the lead in all of the popular-vote tabulations? Quite possibly. In Puerto Rico's last major election, two million people voted. Let's assume that turnout for this historic vote - Puerto Rico has never had a presidential primary before - will be equal to or greater than that turnout.

If Clinton were to win Puerto Rico by 20 points she would pick up at least a 400,000-vote margin. This would allow her to swamp Obama in the popular-vote counts, which include Florida, making her the leader in four of the six permutations of the popular vote. At that point, Obama would be left clinging to the least-inclusive count, which he now leads by 441,558 votes (551,780, including caucuses).

To understand how razor-thin this majority is, consider that if the Puerto Rico turnout is slightly larger than we have imagined - or Clinton's margin is slightly greater - then Clinton would finish the primary process leading in every conceivable vote count. With two million voters, a 28 percent victory would put Clinton over the top even in the count, which excludes Florida and Michigan and includes estimates for Obama's caucus victories.
It is this looming prospect which explains the tremendous pressure Obama partisans and the media are putting on Clinton to drop out of the race. They want her gone now because they understand that she has an excellent chance of finishing as the undisputed people's choice.

Would it matter if Clinton were the undisputed (or even disputed) popular-vote winner? That's hard to say. The question is, matter to whom? The superdelegates will determine the nominee and there's no telling what will sway them. They have no objective criteria from which to make their decisions. But if they were to deny the popular-vote champ the nomination, there is a real question of whether Democratic voters would reconcile themselves to the decision. As it is, much of the talk about Democratic defections in November has been overstated.

Partisan voters almost always come home after their candidate loses. The problem arises when a candidate's supporters believe that their guy (or gal) didn't lose. Expect the chorus calling for Clinton's withdrawal to grow louder over the next week, with people insisting that she has no "path to victory."

Clinton's path is both obvious and simple: Win the popular vote and force Barack Obama and his cheerleaders to explain why that doesn't matter.

 

[Notaguru2]

If you can't support the statement then don't waste the space on thread.

Recall that Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000... look what that got him. NOTHING. This is not and never has been about popularity; its about winning delegates. The team that masters that craft, wins.

 

[Industrialsize]

There was no race card played by the Clinton Campaign. Hillary should still win it. Her strengths merits outweigh her faults. Her campaign accomplishments outweigh any mistakes. Hillary Clinton has run the campaign of a fighter and she still deserves to win it. You state all of this as if it were undisputed fact. It is simply YOUR OPINION






You have no idea what you are talking about. Sen. Clinton's argument for the General Election has been and continues to be stronger than that of Obama's. The Swing State argument is a real one and valid. That was confirmed long ago.

Now, Hillary Clinton can still win the Democratic Nomination. The criteria that Hillary Clinton must "catch" Obama in pledged delegates or surpass him is a fabrication. That is not the requirement to win the Nomination. Just like Obama, Sen. Clinton will be convincing the SuperDelegates she is the best candidate to go up against John McCain and that she will make the best President. Hillary Clinton still has a strong argument. All SuperDelegates are still in play, even the ones who have endorsed until they cast their votes at the convention: Don't insult me by saying I have no idea what I'm talking about because i think you are wrong. Yes they both need superdelegates. Obama seems to be collecting a LOT of them. It's not going quite as well for Senator Clinton.

 

[Industrialsize]

And BTW........If you've seen the News regarding her unfortunate RFK remark(intended or not).......Methinks superdelegates leaning to Clinton have just started to lean away.

 

[Notaguru2]

I do take note however, that Clinton's campaign turned around dramatically once she stopped playing gutter politics. Imagine if she had exhibited that much integrity from the start...

The less she talks about Obama and more about herself.. the better she does.

 

[dong20]

I made no such statement in regards to the party. And of course it cuts both ways...nothing I've said contradicts that.

Really:

... as a voter and a member of several interest groups, I must do what I need to do to make sure the Party is representing the interest of the entire Party with fairness and integrity, otherwise there is no Unity...just people following blindly and toeing Party line.

Shouldn't you (as a voter and member of 'interest groups'), be doing all you can to ensure the party represents the interests of voters?

There must be fairness in Democracy for it to be true Democracy. Majority rule? Just because an election is held doesn't mean that it was fair and all the votes counted.

But the US isn't a true democracy, in a true democracy the people make the decisions. The US is a republic, where the people elect others to take those decisions for them. The same applies to most, if not all 'democracies' of course, I'm not singling out the US here.

Majority 'rule' is intrinsic to true democracy, in that context, fairness is irrelevant. Whatever fairness may exist will be found within that which is being voted on, and that has nothing to do with democracy.

...Obama leads by less than 2% and the last primary in W. VA. demonstrated that many voters want Clinton. The Party is damaging itself by ignoring half of the party.

...

... It is just ridiculous what they are asking half the party to accept. And the only way to make your voice heard is with one's vote if they refuse to listen.

The key element being that half the part have spoken. If the shoe were on the other foot, would you be so plaintively demanding 'fairness' then? The reality you repeatedly ignore is that <50% of voters have backed Hillary for nomination. Almost all your justifications, rationalising and cries of 'unfairness' would seek to to overturn that, not very democratic, Trinity.

Nowhere have you shown me to be disingenuous, negative or duplicitous. I believe you rarely know what you are talking about and seem never to really support your arguments or prove your points. Your negative review is a compliment coming from you.

Indeed, I have not. You have done that quite admirably for yourself, without any assistance. I don't need

You don't dictate what the "right reasons" are for someone to hold a view. You did not identify fundamental flaws in voter preference in my post. You simply express your opinion that my views were flawed. Again, You don't dictate what is right and wrong.

I wasn't, that's all I was ever doing, and of course. The fundamental flaw in expressed voter preference (in the context of your argument) was plain; more people have voted against Hillary Clinton than for her.

However, the above accusation has not prevented you from doing that which you accuse me of - especially so when you speak for 'everyone'. Something you have done on a number of occasions ... "everyone knows ... the American people know ...". I'm not going back over your posts to cite them, because we both know you have used such devices.

... No where in my post did I say what you state about another Republican administration.

No ...?

I no longer feel the need to simply vote for the Democratic Candidate out of fear of the Bush/Republican horror.

...

I am seriously considering Writing In Clinton.​

There's more, but I'm losing the will to live in re-reading your posts. Simply put; if we assume you would vote for Hillary, then if you're willing to write in a vote (i.e. waste one) rather than vote for Obama should she fail to be nominated, then it's a reasonable conclusion.

It may not be your intent, but the outcome could be the same. Don't worry, I know what your response will be, and it's one I can't refute other than by inference.

...I believe that everything can work out and will work out...if we work together. It may not go exactly the way I want it but I do hope for the best. That doesn't change my views.

Trinity said change and hope, almost in the same sentence.:biggrin1:

Too many people are too quick to bemoan a loss of 'democratic' principles, without (so it seems) understanding that true democracy is essentially unworkable when scaled up. True democracy demands they involve themselves directly and personally in the decision making process, accepting responsibility for mistakes. That's never going to happen when they can have the fun of throwing rocks at 'professional' politicians. Blaming others is far safer.

If you and the other Obama fans do not agree with my views that is your choice, but that does not invalidate my views in any way or mean they are flawed.

Eventually, you will realise I'm not an Obama 'fan', despite my having said so to you several times. Have I ever opened advocated for him, or against Clinton - answer honestly Trinity. No, I just like poking holes in your tortured logic and quirky rationalisations.

Also, you still have not answered my earlier question, I wonder why?

 

[Industrialsize]

because she routinely ignores questions she has no answer for or there aren't any Clinton talking points for.

 

[Freddie53]

First let me make it clear that I will vote for my dog Spot if my dog is the Democratic nominee come November. Hillary is my first choice. Obama is my second.

This post deals with my OPINION as to why both these candidates need to be on the ticket in some order and if they aren't the Democrats have a real chance of blowing the election come November.

And I will deal with the PERCEPTIONS that right or wrong - deserved or not- have to be dealt with or Obama will have a real problem come November.

Again, this post is not addressing the validity of the Perceptions, rather that for a Democratic victory they must be successfully addressed by the Hillary wing of the party.

PERSONAL OPINION

No one is talking right now about what will happen if Obama is NOT the Democratic nominee for President. Bill Clinton was and still is highly popular with the African-American community as is Hillary. But if African-Americans feel that the chance to have the first black president was stolen or taken away from them, enough African-Americans will not go to the polls that it very well could through the election. I have no doubt that Hillary would get 70 % against McCain or maybe even 90 % of those voting. It is the 30 percent of African-Americans that don't vote AT ALL that is Hillary's problem.

Obama on the other hand has to deal with the perceptions of the Hillary camp. I'll list them as there are several. This post is not about arguing the validity of these perceptions but rather how is Obama going to work through the campaign to get the Hillary people to believe that Hillary wasn't mistreated and the election stolen from her.

In short, there are two wings of the party, the loser side at this moment is or will be convinced that somehow the nomination was TAKEN away.

My best way to deal with the problem is for Democrats to make sure that both are on the ticket unless on of them flatly refuse and I don't think that will happen. And it very will may be the super delegates who will demand this of the person they endorse for president.

THE PERCEPTIONS OF THE HILLARY WING OF THE PARTY RIGHT OR WRONG - DESERVED OR NOT

1. The media was heavily biased against Hillary because she is a woman and were very sexist in their coverage. (It is Hillary voters that have to be convinced this is not so, not anyone else.)

2. The set up of delegates per state was unfair. Hillary won the popular vote of Texas but Obama received more delegates. That is true in other states as well. (Sure it was a complicated primary and caucus system that caused this in Texas, but it still is a fact Hillary had more popular votes and Obama had more delegates. How is that going to be explained to HIllary people's satisfaction.)

3. With Florida and Michigan according to some reports, Hillary has more popular votes that is if only primary votes are counted. But if caucus votes are then added in Obama then comes back on top by a bit. Never mind the fact that Obama wasn't even listed on the Michigan ballot. If Hillary supporters and Independents in Florida and Michigan are mad because the Florida and Michigan delegations are seated, Obama can kiss those two staets off his electoral college vote list.

4. Those swing states. Hillary supporters are convinced that in electoral college votes Hillary has more votes in the general election than Obama. It is true that only electoral college votes count. (See 2000. Gore had over 200,000 votes than Bush, but Bush became President anyway compliments of the Electoral College.

5. Some Hillary supporters are convinced that undo pressure is being put on Hillary to bail out and super delegates who are really for Clinton are being really pushed hard to forget their own opinion and vote for Obama because he happens to be ahead at the moment.

6. The Democratic Party just screwed up everything from the beginning. Not only Hillary supporters will agree with this, but most Obama and Independents will agree with this. If there was a way to shoot themselves in the foot the Democratic Party did it. Howard Dean was a disaster when he tried to run for President. He has been a bigger disaster as Chairman of the Democratic Party.

What could have happened.

February 5. Hillary had the lead that day. The Democratic leaders could have crowned her Queen that day and at that point she probably would have done much better in the remaining primaries and this would been over a long time ago. But the Democratic leaders didn't do it. Supper delegates included. All of them announced for Clinton. It would have just about been over Feb. 5.

March. Obama was invincible. Hillary was on the ropes. Wonderful opportunity for all the super delegates to rally around Obama. Had they done so, this whole thing would be over by now. but did the superdelegates and Democratic leaders to this. NO they did.

Instead, they waited until the Hillary campain heats back up and she gets almost 70 % of the vote in two primaries and now the super delegates are rushing to Clinton, No, make that Obama. With Clinton doing so well, recently the Democratic leaders and superdelegates have picked this time to rally around Obama. Where were they in March.

Those wonderful Independents have seen that the Democrats can't even nominate a candidate with any sense of organization. So you think they are going to turn to either Obama or Clinton doing a solo. I doubt it.

That is why I am convinced that the only way to get people to forget this entire fiasco of 2008 is get the voters and all the Democratic voters to forget that as a group the Democratic party has shown it can't find its butt with both hands.

When a party does this and both parties have done this before, they usually lose come November. Works nearly every time unless like in 1960 Kennedy picked Lyndon Johnson. Thsoe two men pretty much hated each other. It was the only way to get a win in 1960 and LISTEN FOLKS. IT WORKED. IT WILL WORK IN 2008 as well if everyone will put pride and ambition aside, even Obama and Clinton, and most of all those Super Delegates who still can't make a decision.

 

[Trinity]

Recall that Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000... look what that got him. NOTHING. This is not and never has been about popularity; its about winning delegates. The team that masters that craft, wins.

Obama has mastered nothing. He has out fundraised, OUTSPENT her 3 to 1 and Out "change and hoped" Sen. Clinton...Obama is still in a dead heat with Sen. Clinton. As the article says:

It is this looming prospect which explains the tremendous pressure Obama partisans and the media are putting on Clinton to drop out of the race. They want her gone now because they understand that she has an excellent chance of finishing as the undisputed people's choice.​

In this close race, it only matters who ends up with the necessary delegates for Nomination and that will be decided by the superdelegates who will take into account Sen. Clinton's strong Swing State Argument for the General Election her strong performance in the Popular Vote reflecting support of the people.

You state all of this as if it were undisputed fact. It is simply YOUR OPINION

Of course it's my opinion. Just as the many times you've stated otherwise was just your opinion.

Don't insult me by saying I have no idea what I'm talking about because i think you are wrong. Yes they both need superdelegates. Obama seems to be collecting a LOT of them. It's not going quite as well for Senator Clinton.

The first article I posted shows Clinton leading in Ohio and Pennsylvania and supports Clinton's Swing State Argument Industrial. The other states aren't generally considered swing states.

Quinnipiac University Swing State Poll Finds; Clinton Has Big Leads In Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania

Of course Obama is doing better with SuperDelegates, he has a slim lead however, conventional wisdom believes the DNC will consider two important states for the General Election on May 31st and the Primary will go to June 3rd to allow all voters to be heard. And then Clinton and Obama will make their case and arguments to the SuperDelegates to consider. Sen. Clinton has a strong case to go up against John McCain.

 

[D_Carroll Condomripper]

Not everyone has voted, why should we disenfranchise those people because people in Iowa got to vote first?

FL and MI have not been counted yet, and they change the "winner".

Only the media is making this seem like a drawn out, unneccesary race. Historical a vast majority have extended into late JUNE before a candidate was chosen.

Hopefully, Hillary will pull it out because Obama will be crushed on Election day.

 

[Industrialsize]

Obama has mastered nothing. He has out fundraised, OUTSPENT her 3 to 1 and Out "change and hoped" Sen. Clinton...Obama is still in a dead heat with Sen. Clinton. As the article says:

It is this looming prospect which explains the tremendous pressure Obama partisans and the media are putting on Clinton to drop out of the race. They want her gone now because they understand that she has an excellent chance of finishing as the undisputed people's choice.​

In this close race, it only matters who ends up with the necessary delegates for Nomination and that will be decided by the superdelegates who will take into account Sen. Clinton's strong Swing State Argument for the General Election her strong performance in the Popular Vote reflecting support of the people.



Of course it's my opinion. Just as the many times you've stated otherwise was just your opinion.




The first article I posted shows Clinton leading in Ohio and Pennsylvania and supports Clinton's Swing State Argument Industrial. The other states aren't generally considered swing states.

Quinnipiac University Swing State Poll Finds; Clinton Has Big Leads In Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania

Of course Obama is doing better with SuperDelegates, he has a slim lead however, conventional wisdom believes the DNC will consider two important states for the General Election on May 31st and the Primary will go to June 3rd to allow all voters to be heard. And then Clinton and Obama will make their case and arguments to the SuperDelegates to consider. Sen. Clinton has a strong case to go up against John McCain.

You so funny......

 

[Industrialsize]

OHIO
SurveyUSA. 5/16-18. Likely voters. MoE 4.1% (4/11-13 results)
McCain (R) 39 (47)
Obama (D) 48 (45)

Another big swing in Obama's direction, to the tune of 11 points in five weeks. This poll also puts Obama in the lead in Ohio in the Pollster.com composite. Like in New Hampshire, Obama turned a narrow 46-44 lead among women into a 50-37 one. Similarly, a 65-24 deficit among Democrats is now 73-14. And what about those Ohio whites that have already doomed Obama? They broke for McCain at a 52-39 clip last month. This month, Obama wins them 45-41.
Can you see how stupid this discussion has been about "states Clinton wins" and the "working class whites" and "uniting the party with Clinton as veep" and all that other crap? If Republicans can unite behind McCain (and they have) given the real ideological divisions in their party, we can heal unite behind Obama, and we are.
The numbers are clear, as Obama systemically consolidates the Democratic vote, his numbers rise everywhere.

 

[Industrialsize]

Let's look at some recent polling showing this trend:
Colorado:
SUSA:
3/17: 46 McCain, 46 Obama
5/19: 42 McCain, 48 Obama
Oregon:
Rasmussen:
3/26: 42 McCain, 48 Obama
5/7: 38 McCain, 52 Obama
Pennsylvania:
SUSA:
2/26-28: 47 McCain, 42 Obama
5/16-18: 40 McCain, 48 Obama
Virginia:
SUSA:
4/11-13: 52 McCain, 44 Obama
5/16-18: 42 McCain, 49 Obama
Missouri:
SUSA:
3/14-16: 53 McCain, 39 Obama
5/16-18: 48 McCain, 45 Obama


There goes another Clinton talking point. Going off the Pollster.com averages, Obama currently wins 283-255, losing the Kerry states of Michigan and New Hampshire, and winning the Bush states of Iowa, Indiana, New Mexico, Colorado, and Ohio. If you give him a tiny 3-point "primary boost", he picks up Virginia and Michigan, for a 313-225 lead.

 

[Industrialsize]

Well, now Survey USA, that darling of the blogosphere this year and by far one of the most accurate of all pollsters this cycle has been testing the VP waters and guess what. Their polling shows none other than John Edwards to be the strongest VP candidate in none other than the great state of Ohio!
By double digit margins, an Obama/Edwards ticket beats ANY McCain ticket they can come up with. Interestingly enough, they don't even consider an Obama/Clinton ticket to be serious enough to poll on.
+12 Obama/Edwards vs McCain/Huckabee
+12 Obama/Edwards vs McCain/Lieberman
+13 Obama/Edwards vs McCain/Romney
and a whopping +18 Obama/Edwards vs McCain/Pawlenty
This is in that "must have" swing state of Ohio. As far as I can tell, they have not run this poll in Pennsylvania yet, but given the similarity of the demographics between those two states, I doubt that we are looking for much of a difference there.

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

If you can't support the statement then don't waste the space on thread.

If you would just get hooked on phonics, you would realize that I didn't say the statement couldn't be supported ... but rather that there would be no point in trying. You don't hear (or apparently read) anything.

Obama is a mainstream Democrat. Clinton herself says she will support the party's candidate.

Your talk of refusing to support Obama is just petty and immature.

As for the popular vote being the overriding concern ... this is obviously not how the process was set up.

In the presidential elections of 1876, 1888 and 2000, for example, the candidate who won a plurality of the vote failed to become president. People may have felt this showed a weakness of the system and suggested looking at something more directly democratic, but few said those elections should be thrown out.

In Parliamentary democracies, the party which wins the most seats normally takes power, and the head of that party becomes prime minister. (Of course, sometimes coalitions are formed and the situation becomes more complicated.) It not infrequently happens that some other party's aggregate vote total is higher than that of the party that wins the most seats, but that is irrelevant under the system and people understand that.

It might or might not be better to directly elect each party's candidate, but that's not the system in place.

If you could be enthusiastic about Clinton's views on policy, then surely Obama's views are more congenial to you than McCain's.

Why you become so positional on all of this is anyone's guess.

This will be a delegated convention.

Delegated.

And if Obama arrives with more delegates, that is what the super delegates should care about.

Perhaps the system should be changed, but that's the system currently in place.

 

[Trinity]

OHIO
SurveyUSA. 5/16-18. Likely voters. MoE 4.1% (4/11-13 results)
McCain (R) 39 (47)
Obama (D) 48 (45)

Another big swing in Obama's direction, to the tune of 11 points in five weeks. This poll also puts Obama in the lead in Ohio in the Pollster.com composite. Like in New Hampshire, Obama turned a narrow 46-44 lead among women into a 50-37 one. Similarly, a 65-24 deficit among Democrats is now 73-14. And what about those Ohio whites that have already doomed Obama? They broke for McCain at a 52-39 clip last month. This month, Obama wins them 45-41.
Can you see how stupid this discussion has been about "states Clinton wins" and the "working class whites" and "uniting the party with Clinton as veep" and all that other crap? If Republicans can unite behind McCain (and they have) given the real ideological divisions in their party, we can heal unite behind Obama, and we are.
The numbers are clear, as Obama systemically consolidates the Democratic vote, his numbers rise everywhere.

Read the full Quinnipiac Poll...That poll is more detailed and more highly respected in Politics. The statement below from Quinnipiac Poll Analysis completely contradicts what you stated.

"Sen. Obama is losing the white vote by 14 - 18 points in Ohio and Florida, which is enough to keep him from victory despite overwhelming support from African Americans. In Ohio, more than a quarter of Clinton voters say they will support McCain. In Florida, more than a third of them say they will back McCain against Obama. If he can't win a decent chunk of them back, he's got an uphill climb in these pivotal states," said Brown.

Hillary Clinton Leads in the Swing States - Quinnipiac University Swing State Poll
May 22, 2008

McCain Leads Obama In Two Of Three Key Swing States, Quinnipiac University Swing State Poll Finds; Clinton Has Big Leads In Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania --- FLORIDA: Clinton 48 - McCain 41; McCain 45 - Obama 41; OHIO: Clinton 48 - McCain 41; McCain 44 - Obama 40: PENNSYLVANIA: Clinton 50 - McCain 37; Obama 46 - McCain 40

Plagued by a defection of Clinton supporters and white working class voters, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, the leading Democratic presidential contender, trails Arizona Sen. John McCain, the likely Republican candidate, in Florida and Ohio, according to simultaneous Quinnipiac University Swing State polls released today. Sen. Obama is six points ahead in Pennsylvania. New York Sen. Clinton wins handily in all three states. No one has been elected President since 1960 without taking two of these three largest swing states in the Electoral College. Results from the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University polls show:

 

[Trinity]

First let me make it clear that I will vote for my dog Spot if my dog is the Democratic nominee come November. Hillary is my first choice. Obama is my second.

This post deals with my OPINION as to why both these candidates need to be on the ticket in some order and if they aren't the Democrats have a real chance of blowing the election come November.

And I will deal with the PERCEPTIONS that right or wrong - deserved or not- have to be dealt with or Obama will have a real problem come November.

Again, this post is not addressing the validity of the Perceptions, rather that for a Democratic victory they must be successfully addressed by the Hillary wing of the party.

PERSONAL OPINION

No one is talking right now about what will happen if Obama is NOT the Democratic nominee for President. Bill Clinton was and still is highly popular with the African-American community as is Hillary. But if African-Americans feel that the chance to have the first black president was stolen or taken away from them, enough African-Americans will not go to the polls that it very well could through the election. I have no doubt that Hillary would get 70 % against McCain or maybe even 90 % of those voting. It is the 30 percent of African-Americans that don't vote AT ALL that is Hillary's problem.

Obama on the other hand has to deal with the perceptions of the Hillary camp. I'll list them as there are several. This post is not about arguing the validity of these perceptions but rather how is Obama going to work through the campaign to get the Hillary people to believe that Hillary wasn't mistreated and the election stolen from her.

In short, there are two wings of the party, the loser side at this moment is or will be convinced that somehow the nomination was TAKEN away.

My best way to deal with the problem is for Democrats to make sure that both are on the ticket unless on of them flatly refuse and I don't think that will happen. And it very will may be the super delegates who will demand this of the person they endorse for president.

THE PERCEPTIONS OF THE HILLARY WING OF THE PARTY RIGHT OR WRONG - DESERVED OR NOT

1. The media was heavily biased against Hillary because she is a woman and were very sexist in their coverage. (It is Hillary voters that have to be convinced this is not so, not anyone else.)

2. The set up of delegates per state was unfair. Hillary won the popular vote of Texas but Obama received more delegates. That is true in other states as well. (Sure it was a complicated primary and caucus system that caused this in Texas, but it still is a fact Hillary had more popular votes and Obama had more delegates. How is that going to be explained to HIllary people's satisfaction.)

3. With Florida and Michigan according to some reports, Hillary has more popular votes that is if only primary votes are counted. But if caucus votes are then added in Obama then comes back on top by a bit. Never mind the fact that Obama wasn't even listed on the Michigan ballot. If Hillary supporters and Independents in Florida and Michigan are mad because the Florida and Michigan delegations are seated, Obama can kiss those two staets off his electoral college vote list.

4. Those swing states. Hillary supporters are convinced that in electoral college votes Hillary has more votes in the general election than Obama. It is true that only electoral college votes count. (See 2000. Gore had over 200,000 votes than Bush, but Bush became President anyway compliments of the Electoral College.

5. Some Hillary supporters are convinced that undo pressure is being put on Hillary to bail out and super delegates who are really for Clinton are being really pushed hard to forget their own opinion and vote for Obama because he happens to be ahead at the moment.

6. The Democratic Party just screwed up everything from the beginning. Not only Hillary supporters will agree with this, but most Obama and Independents will agree with this. If there was a way to shoot themselves in the foot the Democratic Party did it. Howard Dean was a disaster when he tried to run for President. He has been a bigger disaster as Chairman of the Democratic Party.

What could have happened.

February 5. Hillary had the lead that day. The Democratic leaders could have crowned her Queen that day and at that point she probably would have done much better in the remaining primaries and this would been over a long time ago. But the Democratic leaders didn't do it. Supper delegates included. All of them announced for Clinton. It would have just about been over Feb. 5.

March. Obama was invincible. Hillary was on the ropes. Wonderful opportunity for all the super delegates to rally around Obama. Had they done so, this whole thing would be over by now. but did the superdelegates and Democratic leaders to this. NO they did.

Instead, they waited until the Hillary campain heats back up and she gets almost 70 % of the vote in two primaries and now the super delegates are rushing to Clinton, No, make that Obama. With Clinton doing so well, recently the Democratic leaders and superdelegates have picked this time to rally around Obama. Where were they in March.

Those wonderful Independents have seen that the Democrats can't even nominate a candidate with any sense of organization. So you think they are going to turn to either Obama or Clinton doing a solo. I doubt it.

That is why I am convinced that the only way to get people to forget this entire fiasco of 2008 is get the voters and all the Democratic voters to forget that as a group the Democratic party has shown it can't find its butt with both hands.

When a party does this and both parties have done this before, they usually lose come November. Works nearly every time unless like in 1960 Kennedy picked Lyndon Johnson. Thsoe two men pretty much hated each other. It was the only way to get a win in 1960 and LISTEN FOLKS. IT WORKED. IT WILL WORK IN 2008 as well if everyone will put pride and ambition aside, even Obama and Clinton, and most of all those Super Delegates who still can't make a decision.

Not everyone has voted, why should we disenfranchise those people because people in Iowa got to vote first?

FL and MI have not been counted yet, and they change the "winner".

Only the media is making this seem like a drawn out, unneccesary race. Historical a vast majority have extended into late JUNE before a candidate was chosen.

Hopefully, Hillary will pull it out because Obama will be crushed on Election day.

I agree

 

[Industrialsize]

Read the full Quinnipiac Poll...That poll is more detailed and more highly respected in Politics. The statement below from Quinnipiac Poll Analysis completely contradicts what you stated.

"Sen. Obama is losing the white vote by 14 - 18 points in Ohio and Florida, which is enough to keep him from victory despite overwhelming support from African Americans. In Ohio, more than a quarter of Clinton voters say they will support McCain. In Florida, more than a third of them say they will back McCain against Obama. If he can't win a decent chunk of them back, he's got an uphill climb in these pivotal states," said Brown.

Hillary Clinton Leads in the Swing States - Quinnipiac University Swing State Poll
May 22, 2008

McCain Leads Obama In Two Of Three Key Swing States, Quinnipiac University Swing State Poll Finds; Clinton Has Big Leads In Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania --- FLORIDA: Clinton 48 - McCain 41; McCain 45 - Obama 41; OHIO: Clinton 48 - McCain 41; McCain 44 - Obama 40: PENNSYLVANIA: Clinton 50 - McCain 37; Obama 46 - McCain 40

Plagued by a defection of Clinton supporters and white working class voters, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, the leading Democratic presidential contender, trails Arizona Sen. John McCain, the likely Republican candidate, in Florida and Ohio, according to simultaneous Quinnipiac University Swing State polls released today. Sen. Obama is six points ahead in Pennsylvania. New York Sen. Clinton wins handily in all three states. No one has been elected President since 1960 without taking two of these three largest swing states in the Electoral College. Results from the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University polls show:

Now I know the rules, only polls favorable to Senator Clinton really count.

 

[dreamer20]

I'm having trouble reading that avatar.:sadwavey:

Does it say trans supports Hillarry?:tongue:


http://www.lpsg.org/avatars/custom/avatar46870_6.gif

 

[Trinity]

If you would just get hooked on phonics, you would realize that I didn't say the statement couldn't be supported ... but rather that there would be no point in trying. You don't hear (or apparently read) anything.

Obama is a mainstream Democrat. Clinton herself says she will support the party's candidate.

Your talk of refusing to support Obama is just petty and immature.

As for the popular vote being the overriding concern ... this is obviously not how the process was set up.

In the presidential elections of 1876, 1888 and 2000, for example, the candidate who won a plurality of the vote failed to become president. People may have felt this showed a weakness of the system and suggested looking at something more directly democratic, but few said those elections should be thrown out.

In Parliamentary democracies, the party which wins the most seats normally takes power, and the head of that party becomes prime minister. (Of course, sometimes coalitions are formed and the situation becomes more complicated.) It not infrequently happens that some other party's aggregate vote total is higher than that of the party that wins the most seats, but that is irrelevant under the system and people understand that.

It might or might not be better to directly elect each party's candidate, but that's not the system in place.

If you could be enthusiastic about Clinton's views on policy, then surely Obama's views are more congenial to you than McCain's.

Why you become so positional on all of this is anyone's guess.

This will be a delegated convention.

Delegated.

And if Obama arrives with more delegates, that is what the super delegates should care about.

Perhaps the system should be changed, but that's the system currently in place.

Senor, you express your opinions and I express mine. If you can not follow my what I've stated perhaps you should read from a major media source.

Hillary Clinton can still win the Democratic Nomination. The criteria that Hillary Clinton must "catch" Obama in pledged delegates or surpass him is a fabrication. That is not the requirement to win the Nomination. Just like Obama, Sen. Clinton will be convincing the SuperDelegates she is the best candidate to go up against John McCain and that she will make the best President. Hillary Clinton still has a strong argument. All SuperDelegates are still in play, even the ones who have endorsed until they cast their votes at the convention:

Philidelphia Inquirer
May 23, 2008
In most inclusive count, Clinton has the numbers


Lost in the excitement of Barack Obama's coronation this week was an inconvenient fact of Tuesday's results: Hillary Clinton netted approximately 150,000 votes and is now poised to finish the primary season as the popular-vote leader. In some quaint circles, presumably, these things still matter.


Real Clear Politics keeps track of six versions of the popular-vote total. They are, in ascending order of inclusivity: (1) the popular vote of sanctioned contests; (2) the total of sanctioned contests, plus estimated votes from the Iowa, Nevada, Maine and Washington caucuses; (3) the popular vote plus Florida; (4) popular vote plus Florida and the caucuses; (5) the popular vote plus Florida and Michigan; (6) popular vote plus Florida, Michigan, and the caucus estimates. After Tuesday, Clinton now leads in two of these six counts.

If you believe that the most important precept in democratic politics is to "count every vote," then the sixth category is the most inclusive, and here Clinton leads Obama by 71,301 votes. Of course, this includes the Michigan result, where Sen. Obama had removed his name from the ballot. So while it may be the most inclusive, it may not be the most fair.
The third and fourth counts - the ones which include Florida - seem more fair. Here, Obama is clinging to a slight lead of 146,786 votes (257,008, with the caucus estimates). However, with Puerto Rico, Montana, and South Dakota remaining, he will almost certainly finish behind her in these counts, likely by a few hundred thousand votes.

But could Clinton take over the lead in all of the popular-vote tabulations? Quite possibly. In Puerto Rico's last major election, two million people voted. Let's assume that turnout for this historic vote - Puerto Rico has never had a presidential primary before - will be equal to or greater than that turnout.

If Clinton were to win Puerto Rico by 20 points she would pick up at least a 400,000-vote margin. This would allow her to swamp Obama in the popular-vote counts, which include Florida, making her the leader in four of the six permutations of the popular vote. At that point, Obama would be left clinging to the least-inclusive count, which he now leads by 441,558 votes (551,780, including caucuses).

To understand how razor-thin this majority is, consider that if the Puerto Rico turnout is slightly larger than we have imagined - or Clinton's margin is slightly greater - then Clinton would finish the primary process leading in every conceivable vote count. With two million voters, a 28 percent victory would put Clinton over the top even in the count, which excludes Florida and Michigan and includes estimates for Obama's caucus victories.
It is this looming prospect which explains the tremendous pressure Obama partisans and the media are putting on Clinton to drop out of the race. They want her gone now because they understand that she has an excellent chance of finishing as the undisputed people's choice.

Would it matter if Clinton were the undisputed (or even disputed) popular-vote winner? That's hard to say. The question is, matter to whom? The superdelegates will determine the nominee and there's no telling what will sway them. They have no objective criteria from which to make their decisions. But if they were to deny the popular-vote champ the nomination, there is a real question of whether Democratic voters would reconcile themselves to the decision. As it is, much of the talk about Democratic defections in November has been overstated.

Partisan voters almost always come home after their candidate loses. The problem arises when a candidate's supporters believe that their guy (or gal) didn't lose. Expect the chorus calling for Clinton's withdrawal to grow louder over the next week, with people insisting that she has no "path to victory."

Clinton's path is both obvious and simple: Win the popular vote and force Barack Obama and his cheerleaders to explain why that doesn't matter.