• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Spinnsylvania: Clinton Cooks The Books To Claim Lead

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,547
0
76
Originally posted by: rchiu
hehe sure, all the undecided votes automatically goes to Obama even tho Edwards was also on the ballot and just because those undecided didn't bother to go and vote it mean they didn't support Clinton.

At least Clinton based her claim on people who actually put her name on the ballot. You people are talking about who didn't put down ANY names must supported Obama. Who is cooking the book?
:confused:

Stay in school kids.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,547
0
76
Originally posted by: rchiu
It's not about pride, it's about fact. The fact that people who put down HRC's name on the ballot out numbers people who put down Obama's name on the ballot.
Uhh, only one person "put down HRC's name on the ballot" in Michigan, and that was HRC herself. Everyone else just needed to mark a box... Which makes it awfully easy to get more "votes" when your name is the only one on the ballot.

Obama, on the other hand, withdrew his name completel after the DNC made their official decision that Michigan's primary would not be counted.

Clinton's exact word. "I'm very proud that as of today, I have received more votes by the people who have voted than anyone else," She didn't claim that she received more votes that actually counted and she didn't claim she leads popular vote that counted by DNC. She is just stating a fact, fact about people in Florida/Michigan and the rest of the country who went out and vote and put her name on the ballot. A fact that you Obama supporter may not like, but it's a fact.
Are you starting to get dizzy?
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
34,887
4,842
126
Obama's "lead" is mainly due to caucuses, not primaries. He is not doing so well in real balloting like we are going to have come November when people vote individually, instead of lumping into groups.
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,644
1,875
126
Obama's "lead" is mainly due to caucuses, not primaries. He is not doing so well in real balloting like we are going to have come November when people vote individually, instead of lumping into groups.
If this were the case, Hillary would be the clear frontrunner.

Obama has done quite well even in primaries, and even in the states he lost, managed to close the gap significantly enough to prevent overwhelming defeats.

 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
34,887
4,842
126
Obama is not winning states that Democrats need to win in November. That is going to be a big problem for him. And the reason is that he is all style and no substance when it comes to the issues. His idealistic supporters in the liberal elites have the luxury of signing on for "hope" and "change," but the working class in the battle ground states wants to know how specifically he is going to help them with their problems, and we haven't heard much of that.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
101,383
5,383
126
hillary lost the delegate process when she decided to ignore small states during super tuesday and assumed she would have the nomination locked up after super tuesday. obama had organization in the small states that voted on super tuesday so came away winning more states, and had planned for after super tuesday so continued to win up until the 2nd super tuesday.
 

Rio Rebel

Administrator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
5,195
0
0
Originally posted by: senseamp
Obama is not winning states that Democrats need to win in November. That is going to be a big problem for him. And the reason is that he is all style and no substance when it comes to the issues. His idealistic supporters in the liberal elites have the luxury of signing on for "hope" and "change," but the working class in the battle ground states wants to know how specifically he is going to help them with their problems, and we haven't heard much of that.
If this had any more spin to it, I'd swear you wrote it while under sniper fire.

By the way, even if we buy your argument that Hillary is consistently beating Obama in "the states Democrats need to win", how does that imply that he would lose to McCain in a general election? Right now, the choice is Hillary and Obama among DEMOCRATS. In November, you have a different opponent and a wider electorate. Where is the logic in your argument?
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,926
18
81
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: rchiu
It's not about pride, it's about fact. The fact that people who put down HRC's name on the ballot out numbers people who put down Obama's name on the ballot.
Uhh, only one person "put down HRC's name on the ballot" in Michigan, and that was HRC herself. Everyone else just needed to mark a box... Which makes it awfully easy to get more "votes" when your name is the only one on the ballot.

Obama, on the other hand, withdrew his name completel after the DNC made their official decision that Michigan's primary would not be counted.

Clinton's exact word. "I'm very proud that as of today, I have received more votes by the people who have voted than anyone else," She didn't claim that she received more votes that actually counted and she didn't claim she leads popular vote that counted by DNC. She is just stating a fact, fact about people in Florida/Michigan and the rest of the country who went out and vote and put her name on the ballot. A fact that you Obama supporter may not like, but it's a fact.
Are you starting to get dizzy?
Obama is clearly winning and will win the nomination, but Hillary's "more people have cast votes for me" is technically true. I don't think it's confusing. FL/MI votes do not and should not count in the official tally, but that doesn't mean all those people didn't physically go out to the polls and cast a vote. What she said is true, it's just that it's irrelevent. It's like saying "In those 2 states that don't count, I won". Yeah, and? If people accept that, whatever, as long as delegates aren't awarded on that basis who cares.

What should worry Obama supporters is that their candidate is the clear front runner, expected to get the nomination, and yet polls show half the dems still prefer the 2nd place finisher. That's not good for the party. But if Hillary won the same would be true, so it's not an argument for/against either of them, just something that needs acknowledging.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
34,887
4,842
126
Originally posted by: Rio Rebel
Originally posted by: senseamp
Obama is not winning states that Democrats need to win in November. That is going to be a big problem for him. And the reason is that he is all style and no substance when it comes to the issues. His idealistic supporters in the liberal elites have the luxury of signing on for "hope" and "change," but the working class in the battle ground states wants to know how specifically he is going to help them with their problems, and we haven't heard much of that.
If this had any more spin to it, I'd swear you wrote it while under sniper fire.

By the way, even if we buy your argument that Hillary is consistently beating Obama in "the states Democrats need to win", how does that imply that he would lose to McCain in a general election? Right now, the choice is Hillary and Obama among DEMOCRATS. In November, you have a different opponent and a wider electorate. Where is the logic in your argument?
There are polls showing that more of Hillary's voters won't vote for Obama than the other way around? He is not appealing to working class moderates and independents. That is who will decide this election, not the DailyKos crowd in states that will go for the Democrats anyways.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,547
0
76
Originally posted by: senseamp
Obama is not winning states that Democrats need to win in November. That is going to be a big problem for him. And the reason is that he is all style and no substance when it comes to the issues. His idealistic supporters in the liberal elites have the luxury of signing on for "hope" and "change," but the working class in the battle ground states wants to know how specifically he is going to help them with their problems, and we haven't heard much of that.
You seem to be under the silly impression that the results of each (D) vs (D) election have much, if any, direct correlation to potential results in the (D) vs. (R) election next November.

But don't worry, there are many other clueless HRC supporters who try to sell the exact same bullshit... so you're not alone.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
34,887
4,842
126
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: senseamp
Obama is not winning states that Democrats need to win in November. That is going to be a big problem for him. And the reason is that he is all style and no substance when it comes to the issues. His idealistic supporters in the liberal elites have the luxury of signing on for "hope" and "change," but the working class in the battle ground states wants to know how specifically he is going to help them with their problems, and we haven't heard much of that.
You seem to be under the silly impression that the results of each (D) vs (D) election have much, if any, direct correlation to potential results in the (D) vs. (R) election next November.

But don't worry, there are many other clueless HRC supporters who try to sell the exact same bullshit... so you're not alone.
Of course they have a direct correlation. It shows that Hillary can count on more voters in these states than Obama can in the general election. Hillary's working class voters are more likely to switch to McCain if she's not nominated than Obama's lefty liberal voters. Polls reflect that. Independent working class voters in battleground states are going to decide this election, and they are saying they prefer Hillary.
 

b0mbrman

Lifer
Jun 1, 2001
29,471
1
0
Originally posted by: senseamp
Obama is not winning states that Democrats need to win in November. That is going to be a big problem for him. And the reason is that he is all style and no substance when it comes to the issues. His idealistic supporters in the liberal elites have the luxury of signing on for "hope" and "change," but the working class in the battle ground states wants to know how specifically he is going to help them with their problems, and we haven't heard much of that.
If in the fall, the Democratic base votes for the Democrat and the Republican base votes for the Republican, then who will decide the election?

In PA:
Vote by Party ID Clinton Obama
Democrat (69%) 56% 42%
Republican (9%) 49% 49%
Independent (22%) 48% 50%
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/20.../results/epolls/#PADEM

In VA:
Vote by Party ID Clinton Obama
Democrat (70%) 38% 62%
Republican (7%) 23% 72%
Independent (22%) 30% 69%
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/20.../results/epolls/#VADEM

In OH:
Vote by Party ID Clinton Obama
Democrat (69%) 56% 42%
Republican (9%) 49% 49%
Independent (22%) 48% 50%
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/20.../results/epolls/#OHDEM

In NV:
Vote by Party ID Clinton Obama
Democrat (81%) 51% 39%
Republican (4%) 0% 0%
Independent (15%) 33% 47%
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/20.../results/epolls/#NVDEM
 

b0mbrman

Lifer
Jun 1, 2001
29,471
1
0
Originally posted by: senseamp

Independent working class voters in battleground states are going to decide this election, and they are saying they prefer Hillary.
<3

:)
 

lupi

Lifer
Apr 8, 2001
32,542
260
126
Originally posted by: b0mbrman
Originally posted by: senseamp
Obama is not winning states that Democrats need to win in November. That is going to be a big problem for him. And the reason is that he is all style and no substance when it comes to the issues. His idealistic supporters in the liberal elites have the luxury of signing on for "hope" and "change," but the working class in the battle ground states wants to know how specifically he is going to help them with their problems, and we haven't heard much of that.
If in the fall, the Democratic base votes for the Democrat and the Republican base votes for the Republican, then who will decide the election?

In PA:
Vote by Party ID Clinton Obama
Democrat (69%) 56% 42%
Republican (9%) 49% 49%
Independent (22%) 48% 50%
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/20.../results/epolls/#PADEM

In VA:
Vote by Party ID Clinton Obama
Democrat (70%) 38% 62%
Republican (7%) 23% 72%
Independent (22%) 30% 69%
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/20.../results/epolls/#VADEM

In OH:
Vote by Party ID Clinton Obama
Democrat (69%) 56% 42%
Republican (9%) 49% 49%
Independent (22%) 48% 50%
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/20.../results/epolls/#OHDEM

In NV:
Vote by Party ID Clinton Obama
Democrat (81%) 51% 39%
Republican (4%) 0% 0%
Independent (15%) 33% 47%
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/20.../results/epolls/#NVDEM
These stats take up a lot of space in a forum, but when was the last time VA voted dem.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,926
18
81
Originally posted by: lupi
These stats take up a lot of space in a forum, but when was the last time VA voted dem.
1960 :)

Even NC went for Carter hehe
 

b0mbrman

Lifer
Jun 1, 2001
29,471
1
0
Originally posted by: lupi
Originally posted by: b0mbrman
Originally posted by: senseamp
Obama is not winning states that Democrats need to win in November. That is going to be a big problem for him. And the reason is that he is all style and no substance when it comes to the issues. His idealistic supporters in the liberal elites have the luxury of signing on for "hope" and "change," but the working class in the battle ground states wants to know how specifically he is going to help them with their problems, and we haven't heard much of that.
If in the fall, the Democratic base votes for the Democrat and the Republican base votes for the Republican, then who will decide the election?

In PA:
Vote by Party ID Clinton Obama
Democrat (69%) 56% 42%
Republican (9%) 49% 49%
Independent (22%) 48% 50%
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/20.../results/epolls/#PADEM

In VA:
Vote by Party ID Clinton Obama
Democrat (70%) 38% 62%
Republican (7%) 23% 72%
Independent (22%) 30% 69%
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/20.../results/epolls/#VADEM

In OH:
Vote by Party ID Clinton Obama
Democrat (69%) 56% 42%
Republican (9%) 49% 49%
Independent (22%) 48% 50%
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/20.../results/epolls/#OHDEM

In NV:
Vote by Party ID Clinton Obama
Democrat (81%) 51% 39%
Republican (4%) 0% 0%
Independent (15%) 33% 47%
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/20.../results/epolls/#NVDEM
These stats take up a lot of space in a forum, but when was the last time VA voted dem.
Sometimes it takes a lot of information to shake the stubborn ;)

But blame this man for putting VA into play from down-ticket.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
34,887
4,842
126
I can play this game too
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
Pennsylvania: McCain vs. Obama
Polling Data
Poll Date Sample McCain (R) Obama (D) Und Spread
RCP Average 03/24 - 04/24 - 43.0 43.0 10.3 Tie

Pennsylvania: McCain vs. Clinton
Polling Data
Poll Date Sample McCain (R) Clinton (D) Und Spread
RCP Average 03/24 - 04/24 - 42.3 47.5 7.8 Clinton +5.2

Ohio: McCain vs. Obama
Polling Data
Poll Date Sample McCain (R) Obama (D) Und Spread
RCP Average 03/24 - 04/13 - 45.3 42.7 9.7 McCain +2.6

Ohio: McCain vs. Clinton
Polling Data
Poll Date Sample McCain (R) Clinton (D) Und Spread
RCP Average 03/24 - 04/13 - 42.7 47.7 8.0 Clinton +5.0

Florida: McCain vs. Obama
Polling Data
Poll Date Sample McCain (R) Obama (D) Und Spread
RCP Average 03/15 - 04/10 - 49.7 38.0 9.7 McCain +11.7

Florida: McCain vs. Clinton
Polling Data
Poll Date Sample McCain (R) Clinton (D) Und Spread
RCP Average 03/15 - 04/10 - 44.3 44.0 9.7 McCain +0.3
A lot more people in these crucial battleground states than you think would vote for Hillary than they would for Obama in the general election. I am sure Obama supporters have some great plan for winning in November without Florida and Ohio.
 

Rio Rebel

Administrator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
5,195
0
0
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: senseamp
Obama is not winning states that Democrats need to win in November. That is going to be a big problem for him. And the reason is that he is all style and no substance when it comes to the issues. His idealistic supporters in the liberal elites have the luxury of signing on for "hope" and "change," but the working class in the battle ground states wants to know how specifically he is going to help them with their problems, and we haven't heard much of that.
You seem to be under the silly impression that the results of each (D) vs (D) election have much, if any, direct correlation to potential results in the (D) vs. (R) election next November.

But don't worry, there are many other clueless HRC supporters who try to sell the exact same bullshit... so you're not alone.
Of course they have a direct correlation. It shows that Hillary can count on more voters in these states than Obama can in the general election. Hillary's working class voters are more likely to switch to McCain if she's not nominated than Obama's lefty liberal voters. Polls reflect that. Independent working class voters in battleground states are going to decide this election, and they are saying they prefer Hillary.
You really have to be utterly ignorant to buy an argument like that.

You assume that the same voters who chose Hillary over Obama will choose Hillary over McCain. And in spite of the fact that this is horrible logic, it's even worse when you consider that Hillary has higher negatives than any candidate in years...so she's the LAST person who can "count on" voters to stick with her against a different candidate.

The only question here is whether you guys really believe what you are repeating, or just say it to convince people to support your losing candidate.
 

Rio Rebel

Administrator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
5,195
0
0
Originally posted by: senseamp
I can play this game too
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
Pennsylvania: McCain vs. Obama
Polling Data
Poll Date Sample McCain (R) Obama (D) Und Spread
RCP Average 03/24 - 04/24 - 43.0 43.0 10.3 Tie

Pennsylvania: McCain vs. Clinton
Polling Data
Poll Date Sample McCain (R) Clinton (D) Und Spread
RCP Average 03/24 - 04/24 - 42.3 47.5 7.8 Clinton +5.2

Ohio: McCain vs. Obama
Polling Data
Poll Date Sample McCain (R) Obama (D) Und Spread
RCP Average 03/24 - 04/13 - 45.3 42.7 9.7 McCain +2.6

Ohio: McCain vs. Clinton
Polling Data
Poll Date Sample McCain (R) Clinton (D) Und Spread
RCP Average 03/24 - 04/13 - 42.7 47.7 8.0 Clinton +5.0

Florida: McCain vs. Obama
Polling Data
Poll Date Sample McCain (R) Obama (D) Und Spread
RCP Average 03/15 - 04/10 - 49.7 38.0 9.7 McCain +11.7

Florida: McCain vs. Clinton
Polling Data
Poll Date Sample McCain (R) Clinton (D) Und Spread
RCP Average 03/15 - 04/10 - 44.3 44.0 9.7 McCain +0.3
A lot more people in these crucial battleground states than you think would vote for Hillary than they would for Obama in the general election. I am sure Obama supporters have some great plan for winning in November without Florida and Ohio.
More ignorance. What makes you ASSUME that Obama can't win Ohio against McCain? YOU CAN'T POINT TO A PRIMARY BETWEEN HILLARY AND OBAMA TO PROVE SOMETHING ABOUT OBAMA AND MCCAIN. Why is it so hard for Hillary supporters to grasp that!!!???
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
34,887
4,842
126
Originally posted by: Rio Rebel
Originally posted by: senseamp
I can play this game too
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
Pennsylvania: McCain vs. Obama
Polling Data
Poll Date Sample McCain (R) Obama (D) Und Spread
RCP Average 03/24 - 04/24 - 43.0 43.0 10.3 Tie

Pennsylvania: McCain vs. Clinton
Polling Data
Poll Date Sample McCain (R) Clinton (D) Und Spread
RCP Average 03/24 - 04/24 - 42.3 47.5 7.8 Clinton +5.2

Ohio: McCain vs. Obama
Polling Data
Poll Date Sample McCain (R) Obama (D) Und Spread
RCP Average 03/24 - 04/13 - 45.3 42.7 9.7 McCain +2.6

Ohio: McCain vs. Clinton
Polling Data
Poll Date Sample McCain (R) Clinton (D) Und Spread
RCP Average 03/24 - 04/13 - 42.7 47.7 8.0 Clinton +5.0

Florida: McCain vs. Obama
Polling Data
Poll Date Sample McCain (R) Obama (D) Und Spread
RCP Average 03/15 - 04/10 - 49.7 38.0 9.7 McCain +11.7

Florida: McCain vs. Clinton
Polling Data
Poll Date Sample McCain (R) Clinton (D) Und Spread
RCP Average 03/15 - 04/10 - 44.3 44.0 9.7 McCain +0.3
A lot more people in these crucial battleground states than you think would vote for Hillary than they would for Obama in the general election. I am sure Obama supporters have some great plan for winning in November without Florida and Ohio.
More ignorance. What makes you ASSUME that Obama can't win Ohio against McCain? YOU CAN'T POINT TO A PRIMARY BETWEEN HILLARY AND OBAMA TO PROVE SOMETHING ABOUT OBAMA AND MCCAIN. Why is it so hard for Hillary supporters to grasp that!!!???
I am not assuming anything. I am just looking at what people are actually saying in the polls. You are assuming that things will change in favor of Obama between now and November, yet you have nothing to back that assumption up. Based on the information we have now, Clinton is a better candidate against McCain in the must win battleground states than Obama, and superdelegates need to act on that information, not Obama supporters' wishful thinking.
 

b0mbrman

Lifer
Jun 1, 2001
29,471
1
0
Originally posted by: senseamp
I can play this game too
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
A lot more people in these crucial battleground states than you think would vote for Hillary than they would for Obama in the general election. I am sure Obama supporters have some great plan for winning in November without Florida and Ohio.
Games are fun.

As for winning w/o FL and OH, I don't know but they'll probably think up something...like making sure they hold elections in the midwest and southwest :)

MI
Clinton -5.2
Obama +1.3

NV
Clinton -9
Obama +2

MN
Clinton -2.5
Obama +11.4

WI
Clinton -4.7
Obama +4.2

IA
Clinton -3.7
Obama +6.6

CO
Clinton -9
Obama +3
 

Rio Rebel

Administrator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
5,195
0
0
I am not assuming anything. I am just looking at what people are actually saying in the polls. You are assuming that things will change in favor of Obama between now and November, yet you have nothing to back that assumption up. Based on the information we have now, Clinton is a better candidate against McCain in the must win battleground states than Obama, and superdelegates need to act on that information, not Obama supporters' wishful thinking.
You start out by saying you're not assuming anything, and the you go right back into your "evidence" that Clinton is stronger against McCain. You're missing the point entirely.

You can't look at a race between two candidates, and then switch out one of those candidates and assume that there will be similarities. It is an entirely different decision to choose between Obama and McCain and Obama and Clinton...AND you're talking about a much broader set of people making the choice.
 

Bird222

Diamond Member
Jun 7, 2004
3,651
132
106
Originally posted by: Rio Rebel
I am not assuming anything. I am just looking at what people are actually saying in the polls. You are assuming that things will change in favor of Obama between now and November, yet you have nothing to back that assumption up. Based on the information we have now, Clinton is a better candidate against McCain in the must win battleground states than Obama, and superdelegates need to act on that information, not Obama supporters' wishful thinking.
You start out by saying you're not assuming anything, and the you go right back into your "evidence" that Clinton is stronger against McCain. You're missing the point entirely.

You can't look at a race between two candidates, and then switch out one of those candidates and assume that there will be similarities. It is an entirely different decision to choose between Obama and McCain and Obama and Clinton...AND you're talking about a much broader set of people making the choice.
QFT. I don't get why people can't get this either.
 

FuzzyBee

Diamond Member
Jan 22, 2000
5,172
1
76
This may be a dumb question, but why isn't Howard Dean getting involved at this point? Is his job *really* just to bash McCain?
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,826
83
91
Originally posted by: FuzzyBee
This may be a dumb question, but why isn't Howard Dean getting involved at this point? Is his job *really* just to bash McCain?
the DNC has all but given Obama a blow job in the oval office at this point, but there's really only so much Dean can do beyond that. he really screwed the pooch on FL/MI.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY