Some small comfort for the Crazed.
- Thread starter Moonbeam
- Start date
yeah, what an outlandish possibility, that the front runner may win.
you're starting to get as bad as the Paulbots, MB (except, you know... your guy's actually going to win despite your best attempts to play the victim card)
you're starting to get as bad as the Paulbots, MB (except, you know... your guy's actually going to win despite your best attempts to play the victim card)
I don't understand how Obama could be the right choice, when he failed to carry the most populous states. he basically won in a bunch of small states where the Democrats don't have much hope of prevailing anyway, right?
the problem is that you're trying to think about this.
vote for obama and he'll do all your thinking for you. you just need to close your eyes and hope.
these ideas like "thinking for yourself" are products of an old age of a dying empire and that's what Obama's here to change.
Reverse your argument and I believe it makes more sense. Clinton wins over hardcore Democrats that will vote for the Democrat anyway, and Obama wins Republicans/Independents that will be up for grabs. Think of it this way--who is the better candidate for Republicans, Mitt Romney or John McCain? I believe that standard applies here, although to a lesser extent because the Romney/McCain race wasn't as close.
I think Hillary will have a strong case to make to the super delegates, especially if she wins PA, but I don't see it happening unless something gets done about florida and michigan (and if that something isn't a caucus).
Obama would carry the traditional "big states" just as well as Clinton would, and as I see it, can make inroads into states like VA that are unlikely to be part of Clinton's GE calculus.
With Obama in the GE, the GOP has less breathing room. He can present a stark contrast to independent/swing voters in states that repudiated GWB 2 years ago - they may accept his argument, or reject it.
Clinton is positioning herself to the right of Obama on these issues, and she will flat out lose these arguments vs. McCain - Experience, 3 AM phonecalls, etc. Her muddled, watered down argument would be seen for what it is.
She is John Kerry in a pantsuit with negatives approaching 50% right out of the gate.
With Obama in the GE, the GOP has less breathing room. He can present a stark contrast to independent/swing voters in states that repudiated GWB 2 years ago - they may accept his argument, or reject it.
Clinton is positioning herself to the right of Obama on these issues, and she will flat out lose these arguments vs. McCain - Experience, 3 AM phonecalls, etc. Her muddled, watered down argument would be seen for what it is.
She is John Kerry in a pantsuit with negatives approaching 50% right out of the gate.
palehorse
Lifer
- Dec 21, 2005
- 11,521
- 0
- 76
Because, he was only running against other Democrats in every state -- which does NOT translate to his/her performances in any particular state come November.
The entire Big-state vs. Small-state debate is a non-issue.
The interesting items to note are the inroads Obama made in states that are traditionally non-Democrat.
duh.
Starbuck1975
Lifer
- Jan 6, 2005
- 14,698
- 1,909
- 126
The big state/small state argument is ridiculous...sure Clinton carried the blue states, but the Democrats will carry those states regardless...you have to look at the demographics.
Clinton is carrying those who will vote Democrat regardless...Obama is pulling independents, the youth vote, moderates and even some Republicans...the Democrats will need this broad coalition of voters to defeat McCain.
I guess it all depends on what you believe...I contend that Obama supporters will probably reject Hillary as a candidate, because they are not hardcore Democrats...Clinton supporters, who are the Democrat base, will most likely vote for Obama.
Clinton is carrying those who will vote Democrat regardless...Obama is pulling independents, the youth vote, moderates and even some Republicans...the Democrats will need this broad coalition of voters to defeat McCain.
I guess it all depends on what you believe...I contend that Obama supporters will probably reject Hillary as a candidate, because they are not hardcore Democrats...Clinton supporters, who are the Democrat base, will most likely vote for Obama.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
They do now with Obama. He has proven he can win those states, and Hillary can't. While he'll also win the populous blue states when he goes against McCain in the general election. You don't really think NY or MA is going to go to an Arizona Republican, do you? Not a chance.
And speaking of things without a chance, that article assumed Hillary eeks out a small win in the Oregon primary in May. Not a chance. Obama is going to win here by double-digits.
StageLeft
No Lifer
- Sep 29, 2000
- 70,150
- 5
- 0
Historians will study when exactly in January/08 and why the campaign of Hillary got up on the wrong side of the bed and never got up on the correct one again. They will marvel at how an upstart relative no-name came out of the blue like an unknown athlete, pumelling the crowd favorite and she will lament to her end of days that cold month.
Damn. After reading that article, I never realized how dispersed Black people are in this country. They seem to be huddled in very important hubs. Bill really fucked up when he made those racist comments. He should've kept his mouth shut.
jonks
Lifer
- Feb 7, 2005
- 13,918
- 20
- 81
I think Obama's inroads in non-dem states is about as relevant as Hillary's win in Texas, which is never going blue no matter what.
It's not the populous states that matter as much as the battleground states. CA/NY will go blue no matter who the dems run. But Ohio, pretty much required to win the GE?
From morhp's link above:
"That's why Clinton made so much in her victory speech about the "bellwether" nature of Ohio: "It's a battleground state. It's a state that knows how to pick a president. And no candidate in recent history, Democrat or Republican, has won the White House without winning the Ohio primary," she said.
There is no papering over the depth of the problem Obama faced there. He won only five of the state's 88 counties, an inauspicious foundation for a general election campaign. Clinton trounced him among Catholic voters, 63 percent-36 percent, according to exit polls. She beat him among voters in every income category and bested him by 14 points among those making less than $50,000 annually.
This is why Pennsylvania, which is demographically similar to Ohio -- and a must-win state for Democrats in November -- is considered such fertile ground for Clinton on April 22.
The Democratic Party is indeed developing a general election problem, and it's only partly because Obama and Clinton will be sniping at one another for the next seven weeks. Obama, the leading candidate, still hasn't shown he has appeal in a large battleground state that will be pivotal in the fall. In this sense, Pennsylvania is where Obama's back, and not Clinton's, is up against the wall."
Regardless, I'm not sure how the supers can or will give Clinton their vote if she lags in delegates and popular vote come the convention. Still, that doesn't mean we as dems should ignore Obama's problem's in these areas. They need to be addressed at some point.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter