Does the US electoral system make Hillary a more viable candidate for presidency than Obama?

[dennilfloss]

Here's an interesting read on the matter.

http://www.townhall.com/blog/g...442f-ace5-a483c3056ffd

I am of the mind that winning is what counts most. If you don't win, it's gonna be a lot harder to get your policies and opinions implemented. It is therefore imperative when choosing the candidate a party wants to send to the big game to know the rules and what may affect the ultimate outcome. We saw a clear example of this in the 2000 election.

 

[EagleKeeper]

The article may lay out why Hillary seems to have a better chance than Obama; however, it completely ignores the opening statement that Hillary will have an negative impact and increase the anti-Hillary vote.

 

[BoberFett]

No, it makes her less viable. Solid blue states are going to go to the Democrat whether it's Hillary or Obama. Solid red will go Republican. But in the battleground states, Hillary will bring out the Clinton haters in droves whereas Obama can appeal to the fence sitters. Hillary is the worst candidate the Democrats could pick.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
No, it makes her less viable. Solid blue states are going to go to the Democrat whether it's Hillary or Obama. Solid red will go Republican. But in the battleground states, Hillary will bring out the Clinton haters in droves whereas Obama can appeal to the fence sitters. Hillary is the worst candidate the Democrats could pick.

Florida went for Hillary over Obama by about 20 points. Ohio is closer but Hillary seems to still have a slight edge, despite Obama's winning streak and frontrunner status. Florida and Ohio are swing states. If Hillary wins those over Obama in the primary, then in the general it's going to be McCain vs the dem primary runner up. Not a good position to have in the swing states.

You point out the unifying factor Hillary has on conservatives, but when McCain and the 527s get done with the ads procroclaiming Obama as the most liberal senator in the senate (as a muslim to boot!), you're likely to see a similar conservative surge.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Florida went for Hillary over Obama by about 20 points.

That was without aggressive campaigning by both candidates in Florida...I would imagine the delegate count would be a lot closer were it not for the early Florida primary shenanigans.

Ohio is closer but Hillary seems to still have a slight edge, despite Obama's winning streak and frontrunner status.

There may be enough of the traditional Democrat Clinton base to give Ohio to Clinton, but there are not enough of them to give her the state...Democrats and Republicans need swing voters and independents in Ohio to carry the state in the general election...those swing voters will probably swing to McCain if Hillary wins the nomination.

You point out the unifying factor Hillary has on conservatives, but when McCain and the 527s get done with the ads procroclaiming Obama as the most liberal senator in the senate (as a muslim to boot!), you're likely to see a similar conservative surge.

Unlike Hillary, Obama shares cross-party and independent appeal, which would negate any such conservative surge against Obama.

 

[rockyct]

I think they are forgetting that Obama got a ton of new people to vote in the primaries. That plus his appeal to non-party affiliated voters means that a lot of solid red states are going to become competitive. That doesn't mean he's going to win those states, but it will make the GOP spend resources to try to prevent states like Virgina from going blue. I don't think independents really care about labels like "liberal" and "conservative". They go with the candidate that makes the most sense to them.

 

[nageov3t]

it's gotta be weird for McCain.

if Hillary gets the nomination, he'll have a lot less things to attack her about, since she's left her positions nuanced and centrists, for the most part, while the differences between him and Obama are so much more stark.

 

[Starbuck1975]

he'll have a lot less things to attack her about, since she's left her positions nuanced and centrists

Well that is the Achilles heel of Clinton...she is all over the map in her attempt to remain a centrist.

 

[Foxery]

Originally posted by: (the blog)
Though Obama is, no doubt, more popular, Hillary has a legitimate argument to make that when the electoral map comes into play, she can actually win states that Obama cannot win.

While it is certainly true that Barack Obama has won many more states than Hillary, it is important to examine the "quality" of the states he is winning.

This is all she is banking on already in the primaries - beating the popular vote. After the outrage when Bush did this in the general election, I hope we don't repeat history. I hope the Dem party knows better than to give her the nomination if it goes against the primary results. America is tired of choosing between candidates they hate.

I also hope all the states she slighted, by publicly calling their votes insignificant, make their voices heard by party leaders.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
No, it makes her less viable. Solid blue states are going to go to the Democrat whether it's Hillary or Obama. Solid red will go Republican. But in the battleground states, Hillary will bring out the Clinton haters in droves whereas Obama can appeal to the fence sitters. Hillary is the worst candidate the Democrats could pick.

Yup, plus Hillary supporters are more likely to back Obama. That's not true of Obama supporters. If Hillary wins the nomination, i'm voting 3rd party, she can go pound sand. It's not like anything will change if Hillary becomes president... she'll be one of the most divisive presidents of all time.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Phokus
Yup, plus Hillary supporters are more likely to back Obama. That's not true of Obama supporters. If Hillary wins the nomination, i'm voting 3rd party, she can go pound sand. It's not like anything will change if Hillary becomes president... she'll be one of the most divisive presidents of all time.

The opposite is true according to: http://www.delegatehub.com/archive/?id=6333

Hillary supporters support her in large part because they believe experience matters. 25% would go with McCain over Obama. Meanwhile 86% of Obama supporters would support Clinton in the general. If you have data other than your own personal preference or experiences to back up your claim above I'm open to looking at it.

http://www.people-press.org/re...splay.php3?PageID=1254

One-in-five white Democrats (20%) say that they will vote for McCain over Obama, double the percentage who say they would switch sides in a Clinton-McCain matchup (10%). Roughly the same number of Democrats age 65 and older say they will vote for McCain if Obama is the party's choice (22%). Obama also suffers more defections among lower income and less educated Democratic voters than does Clinton.

In addition, female Democrats look at the race differently depending on the matchup. While 93% of women in the party say they would vote for Clinton over McCain, just 79% say they would support Obama over McCain.

A quarter of Democrats (25%) who back Clinton for the nomination say they would favor McCain in a general election test against Obama. The "defection" rate among Obama's supporters if Clinton wins the nomination is far lower; just 10% say they would vote for McCain in November, while 86% say they would back Clinton.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Phokus
Yup, plus Hillary supporters are more likely to back Obama. That's not true of Obama supporters. If Hillary wins the nomination, i'm voting 3rd party, she can go pound sand. It's not like anything will change if Hillary becomes president... she'll be one of the most divisive presidents of all time.

The opposite is true according to: http://www.delegatehub.com/archive/?id=6333

Hillary supporters support her in large part because they believe experience matters. 25% would go with McCain over Obama. Meanwhile 86% of Obama supporters would support Clinton in the general. If you have data other than your own personal preference or experiences to back up your claim above I'm open to looking at it.

http://www.people-press.org/re...splay.php3?PageID=1254

One-in-five white Democrats (20%) say that they will vote for McCain over Obama, double the percentage who say they would switch sides in a Clinton-McCain matchup (10%). Roughly the same number of Democrats age 65 and older say they will vote for McCain if Obama is the party's choice (22%). Obama also suffers more defections among lower income and less educated Democratic voters than does Clinton.

In addition, female Democrats look at the race differently depending on the matchup. While 93% of women in the party say they would vote for Clinton over McCain, just 79% say they would support Obama over McCain.

A quarter of Democrats (25%) who back Clinton for the nomination say they would favor McCain in a general election test against Obama. The "defection" rate among Obama's supporters if Clinton wins the nomination is far lower; just 10% say they would vote for McCain in November, while 86% say they would back Clinton.

Thats if Clinton won it legitimately. If Obama wins more delegates, and Clinton gets the nomination, huge parts of the democratic voting bloc will sit out in protest of Clinton stealing the nomination over Obama.

 

[M0RPH]

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Thats if Clinton won it legitimately. If Obama wins more delegates, and Clinton gets the nomination, huge parts of the democratic voting bloc will sit out in protest of Clinton stealing the nomination over Obama.

And just let another Republican waltz into office after GWB? Doubtful, my friend, doubtful. You saying it does not make it true.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Phokus
Yup, plus Hillary supporters are more likely to back Obama. That's not true of Obama supporters. If Hillary wins the nomination, i'm voting 3rd party, she can go pound sand. It's not like anything will change if Hillary becomes president... she'll be one of the most divisive presidents of all time.

The opposite is true according to: http://www.delegatehub.com/archive/?id=6333

Hillary supporters support her in large part because they believe experience matters. 25% would go with McCain over Obama. Meanwhile 86% of Obama supporters would support Clinton in the general. If you have data other than your own personal preference or experiences to back up your claim above I'm open to looking at it.

http://www.people-press.org/re...splay.php3?PageID=1254

One-in-five white Democrats (20%) say that they will vote for McCain over Obama, double the percentage who say they would switch sides in a Clinton-McCain matchup (10%). Roughly the same number of Democrats age 65 and older say they will vote for McCain if Obama is the party's choice (22%). Obama also suffers more defections among lower income and less educated Democratic voters than does Clinton.

In addition, female Democrats look at the race differently depending on the matchup. While 93% of women in the party say they would vote for Clinton over McCain, just 79% say they would support Obama over McCain.

A quarter of Democrats (25%) who back Clinton for the nomination say they would favor McCain in a general election test against Obama. The "defection" rate among Obama's supporters if Clinton wins the nomination is far lower; just 10% say they would vote for McCain in November, while 86% say they would back Clinton.

Thats if Clinton won it legitimately. If Obama wins more delegates, and Clinton gets the nomination, huge parts of the democratic voting bloc will sit out in protest of Clinton stealing the nomination over Obama.

Yet another assertion and it doesn't address the point I was refuting (with links) which was that Hillary supporters are more likely to vote democrat no matter who won the nomination. Find a poll that asks the question you were addressing and get back to me.

I'll be annoyed if Hillary gets the nomination despite being behind in pledged delegates. But I'll still vote democrat.

 

[Moonbeam]

Hillary has made the case that she and McCain have the experience to be President. She has already put a knife in Obama's back by supporting what will be the Republican position in her greed for the Presidency. I will now definitely now vote for McCain if she wins. I would also support Obama if he will start a new party and run from that. She's managed, in this campaign, to turn me from respect to contempt. I'm not going to be a tool of her ambition or say-and-do-anything to be President.

 

[M0RPH]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Hillary has made the case that she and McCain have the experience to be President. She has already put a knife in Obama's back by supporting what will be the Republican position in her greed for the Presidency. I will now definitely now vote for McCain if she wins. I would also support Obama if he will start a new party and run from that. She's managed, in this campaign, to turn me from respect to contempt. I'm not going to be a tool of her ambition or say-and-do-anything to be President.

So she should have rolled over and bowed out to the candidate that you prefer a long time ago, right? How dare she actually fights for her campaign when she is still getting more than 45% of the vote?

Dude, it's quite obvious that you have a deep-seated hatred for her and will do anything to see her ruined, including helping another Republican get into office. Your attitude is not normal, or even rational, and so don't expect anyone to consider you as typical of any significant part of the American public.

 

[M0RPH]

By the way, Moonbeam, I thought your support of Obama was all about hope and positive energy. You have continually tried to mock anyone who questions these things.

Now we see what you are really all about and your true motivation for supporting Obama, hatred and negative energy towards Hillary Clinton.

 

[bl4ckfl4g]

Originally posted by: M0RPH
So she should have rolled over and bowed out to the candidate that you prefer a long time ago, right? How dare she actually fights for her campaign when she is still getting more than 45% of the vote?

Dude, it's quite obvious that you have a deep-seated hatred for her and will do anything to see her ruined, including helping another Republican get into office. Your attitude is not normal, or even rational, and so don't expect anyone to consider you as typical of any significant part of the American public.

I dunno dude, she is destroying herself and her reputation with alot of people.

It is one thing for her to claim that she is better and more experienced but it is pretty low and traitorous to claim that the (R) running is so much better and experienced.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: M0RPH

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Hillary has made the case that she and McCain have the experience to be President. She has already put a knife in Obama's back by supporting what will be the Republican position in her greed for the Presidency. I will now definitely now vote for McCain if she wins. I would also support Obama if he will start a new party and run from that. She's managed, in this campaign, to turn me from respect to contempt. I'm not going to be a tool of her ambition or say-and-do-anything to be President.

So she should have rolled over and bowed out to the candidate that you prefer a long time ago, right? How dare she actually fights for her campaign when she is still getting more than 45% of the vote?

Dude, it's quite obvious that you have a deep-seated hatred for her and will do anything to see her ruined, including helping another Republican get into office. Your attitude is not normal, or even rational, and so don't expect anyone to consider you as typical of any significant part of the American public.

My dear MOOPH, I must have somewhere pointed out your lack of capacity for thinking and it obviously got under your skin instead of pushed you to do better, so let me do so again:

I have nowhere said she should bow out of the race, so wrong. I have no problem with her campaigning. I specifically said that I have a problem with her campaigning for McCain by stabbing a fellow Democrat in the back to promote her own interests and ultimately McCain's if Obama wins.

The only deep seated hatred I see here may be some of your own. I can do nothing to see her ruined. All I can do is vote how I want. I will vote McCain in preference to a traitor because I don't think being a traitor should have a reward. It's an ethics thing, you see, the lesser of two evils. I would have to deem McCain the better in Character and Judgment and more worthy of the job despite political differences. As a person of principle and morality myself, in my opinion, and one also who things rationality a worthy thing, you may find me to be abnormal and not like other Americans, but I disagree.

 

[M0RPH]

Originally posted by: bl4ckfl4g

I dunno dude, she is destroying herself and her reputation with alot of people.

It is one thing for her to claim that she is better and more experienced but it is pretty low and traitorous to claim that the (R) running is so much better and experienced.

She NEVER made any claim that McCain would make a better president than Obama. In fact she has repeatedly stated in debates that either one of us (her or Obama) would be a far better choice that the republican candidate. She considers experience to be one of her advantages... should she just shelve that whole line of campaigning because McCain also happens to have more experience than Obama?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: M0RPH

Originally posted by: bl4ckfl4g

I dunno dude, she is destroying herself and her reputation with alot of people.

It is one thing for her to claim that she is better and more experienced but it is pretty low and traitorous to claim that the (R) running is so much better and experienced.

She NEVER made any claim that McCain would make a better president than Obama. In fact she has repeatedly stated in debates that either one of us (her or Obama) would be a far better choice that the republican candidate. She considers experience to be one of her advantages... should she just shelve that whole line of campaigning because McCain also happens to have more experience than Obama?

This is not how you unify a party or a country, Hillary. On her way out of Toledo, she dropped this little nugget:

"I think that I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the White House. Sen. John McCain has a lifetime of experience that he'd bring to the White House. And Sen. Obama has a speech he gave in 2002."

That was rather cutting.

Rachel Maddow, on Keith Olbermann's Countdown last night, says it better than I ever could:

In a discussion with KO, she said "this is what you say if you want to be McCain's choice for Vice President. It is not what you say if you are running for the Democratic nomination." This was with respect to Hillary placing Obama third as America's choice for militaristic defense, behind that of McCain.

Link

 

[Fern]

Regarding this argument by Hillary:

1. Well, according to the author and the HRC campaign the Dems should hold primary contests only in these few swing states. The others don't matter. (Again, the familiar theme of let's ignore the will of the electorate so I can win the nomination.)

2. According to them, popular votes don't matter because we have an electoral college system. Oh Really? If that were true we'd have numerous examples where the loser of the popular vote won the Presidency. Yeah, that's hapened once in the last 100 years or so and the popular vote difference between them was 1/2 of 1%. Current polls (HRC v Mac, or Obama v Mac) reflect a far greater spread in Obama's favor compared to HRC.

3. The "math" that allows a candidate to win the popular vote yet lose the election, or vice-versa, has little to do with these few big swing states Hillary et al are pimping. It's far more complex. It has more to do with the small states that have a slight advantage in porportional representation because each state, no matter it's size, has just 2 Senators. Electoral college votes are basically awarded for each member of Congress (more proportional to population) and their 2 Senators (unrelated to pop).

If you really wanna examine the electoral college chances a candidate has, it's not a few swing states - it's a lot of math including every state, both large and small, to determine if (smaller%) victories in small states will outweigh (larger%) losses in big states.

Conclusion: Hillary and her campaign are resorting to disinformation, again, by "cherry-picking" facts and distorting their significance in an effort to overturn the will of the electorate.

It's nothing more than another "fear campaign" - votes for Obama won't count in the general election and Dems will lose, therefore Obama's votes shouldn't count in the Dem primary.

She has NOT made any case that she is the answer in avoiding the popular vote being overturned by the electoral college vote, inspite of clever (yet intellectualy and factually dishonest) assertions to the contrary.

Fern

 

[M0RPH]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
This is not how you unify a party or a country, Hillary. On her way out of Toledo, she dropped this little nugget:

"I think that I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the White House. Sen. John McCain has a lifetime of experience that he'd bring to the White House. And Sen. Obama has a speech he gave in 2002."

That was rather cutting.

If he can't take the heat on his lack of experience now, then surely he won't be able to take it against John McCain. I guess that's Hillary's whole point. She has to convince people not only that she's the better candidate than Obama, but also that she matches up better vs McCain. Hey, when you're behind in an election you need to use everything at your disposal... that's the way politics works.

Obama would be doing the same thing if the situation was reversed, he's been able to take the high horse, principled position up until recently but even now he is starting to strike back with negative attacks against her as well. I could claim he is doing a disservice to Democrats just like you claim that she is.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: M0RPH

Originally posted by: bl4ckfl4g

I dunno dude, she is destroying herself and her reputation with alot of people.

It is one thing for her to claim that she is better and more experienced but it is pretty low and traitorous to claim that the (R) running is so much better and experienced.

She NEVER made any claim that McCain would make a better president than Obama. In fact she has repeatedly stated in debates that either one of us (her or Obama) would be a far better choice that the republican candidate. She considers experience to be one of her advantages... should she just shelve that whole line of campaigning because McCain also happens to have more experience than Obama?

This is not how you unify a party or a country, Hillary. On her way out of Toledo, she dropped this little nugget:

"I think that I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the White House. Sen. John McCain has a lifetime of experience that he'd bring to the White House. And Sen. Obama has a speech he gave in 2002."

Ugh, that was a bad move.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: M0RPH
but even now he is starting to strike back with negative attacks against her as well.

such as?