<p>Though theoretically, the Superdelegates have the privilege, and even the “obligation” to vote for the candidate whom they believe will be strongest in the general election, many of them are elected officials themselves, and must consider the possible career fallout of going against the demonstrated will of their constituency. Plus, the reasons for why some Superdelegates are hesitating to endorse one or the other candidate are not something that can be assumed. There are lots of reasons to wait and see how things shake out.</p>
<p>"Too funny. Keep an eye out for Harriet, Zoosermom. "</p>
<p>I saw her and was howling. but you know what? Except that I’m only in my early 40s, she reminds me of ME!!</p>
<p>I support Obama but I am willing to consider objectively whether Hillary would be the better candidate in November and I would be OK if the superdelegates gave her the nomination because they though that.</p>
<p>But totally objectively, I don’t think Hillary is the better candidate in November. She has not run a good primary campaign, actually she has run a terrible primary campaign to have done so poorly against a relatively unknown candidate. This doesn’t inspire great confidence in leading the Democratic party to a victory in November. This is not mentioned specifically as an ‘issue’ but really, isn’t that really a huge factor in winning elections?</p>
<p>A National Primary is definitely the way to go. All will have a voice. And do away with those other things. Caucus. What is the point. We do not caucus to elect the president.
As a Floridian, I was very angry at the DNC. Punishment! For what. The Florida legislature did this. Not the voters of Florida. None of the candidates campaigned here. So how is it not fair to let our votes count as cast. Those poor voters from Michigan. They just ignored their will. How can they say all the uncommitted were for Obama plus more. Just shockingly stupid decision-making. There was no foresight. Howard Dean should step down.</p>
<p>Easy. Had a primary been held in Michigan at its “regular scheduled” date, Clinton would have lost bigtime. I doubt it would have even been close.</p>
<p>The Obama Michigan argument was so arbitrary:</p>
<p>‘We must respect imaginary voters who would have or could have cast votes in Michigan and Florida, for if we do not respect these imaginary voters, we run the risk of disenfranchising voters who may or may not exist.’</p>
<p>The DNC is in the tank for Obama. All these “uncommitted” superdelegates pretending to be neutral when their bias was as clear as day (read Donna Brazile).</p>
<p>Apparently there are many “imagining” the Michigan result. Some even right here on this thread.</p>
<p>I agree that no one “imaginary” should be taken into account.</p>
<p>I wonder what would happen if the superdelegates were able to place secret ballots. I think they should be able to, since being a superdelegate recognizes them as a party leader, yet it is totally unrelated to the job their constituents elected them to do.</p>
<p>I’m a Republican, but this whole thing with the Democrats is much more interesting than anything in our party.</p>
<p>Are you kidding? The Michigan primary was like deciding between a BMW and a Benz. But then when you came into vote they told you you could vote to have a BMW or have nothing.</p>
<p>A lot of people who would have voted to have a Benz over a BMW would have voted for the BMW as opposed to nothing. Thus the results of the election mean absolutely nothing.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think when you look at basic demographics Clinton would win this election hands down. She’d be the frontrunner in FL, OH, PA, MI. Ya, she may lose “Obama” states like Iowa, Wisconsin, Colorado, New Mexico but she’d also pick up states like AR, WV, and in all liklihood Fl/PA/MI with a 50/50 shot at Ohio.</p>
<p>
This is so clear as day I’m amazed you even have to say it.</p>
<p>Saying Hillary is a less viable candidate than Obama is purely hilarious.</p>
<p>[Election</a> 2008: Presidential, Senate and House Races Updated Daily](<a href=“http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Clinton/Maps/May31.html]Election”>Election 2008: Presidential, Senate and House Races Updated Daily)
[Election</a> 2008: Presidential, Senate and House Races Updated Daily](<a href=“http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Obama/Maps/May31.html]Election”>Election 2008: Presidential, Senate and House Races Updated Daily)</p>
<p>I’m not a fan of that website ^^. Slow to update polls, many times they forget polls all together…as evidenced by Obama beating McCain in states like New Hampshire (where he isn’t). </p>
<p>I’m not sure if you’ve been to it but fivethirtyeight.com is a personal favorite of mine. You have to ignore the “projections” (the guy uses math to give weight to states, also uses regression models…not the best way to predict accuracy) however it’s updated daily with polls from across the country (rasmussen/SUSA to your local state newspaper polling). I check it every morning for the latest polls.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>McCain’s shaky conservative credentials + Obama’s strength in traditionally red states WILL put such states in play. he won’t win them all, but some. this is gonna be the coolest election in a while.</p>
<p>
That is irrelevant to my point. Clinton is stronger than Obama in the general election.</p>
<p>Furthermore, where is Obama’s strength in traditionally red states? Colorado? Nevada? Hardly traditional red states. South Carolina <em>maybe</em>, if you’re absolutely stretching it. That’s it. He jeopardizes PA/MI & can not contend in FL at all.</p>
<p>The problem with these matchups is that we do not know how the supporters of Clinton will vote if Obama is the nominee and vice-versa.
If we were to assume that all Dems rally behind the nominee (a big, big assumption), then the math looks very different. But we cannot assume that no Dem would rally behind the nominee and either back McCain or sit it out, no matter what people say now.</p>
<p>As a purely neutral observer, I would be very surprised if McCain were able to compete with the Democratic winner. Black or female, the bottom line is, nobody wants a president that is in his geriatric stage. McCain is just too old. He is 71 years old and he looks/acts it. He is impusilve, crabby and has uncontrolable irrational outbursts. Clinton’s supporters may be outraged now, but in 5 months, it will be water under the bridge and they will vote for Obama. The vast majority of voters sitting on the fence will also vote for Obama because 1) McCain is too old and 2) McCain is too closely associated with Bush, arguably the least popular president in US history. Only voters that are unquestionably republican will vote for McCain in overwhelming numbers. In the end, I would be very surprised if this were a close election.</p>
<p>As a side note, roughly 4 years ago, I remember listening to an Obama speech on television. I was not familiar with him whatsoever, but I remember thinking that with his eloquance and charisma, if he were to ever run for president, he would be unstopable. I stand by this today. Obama cannot be beaten in an election. He has the sort of charisma that I associate with Reagan and Bill Clinton.</p>
<p>I just think that a win’s a win. Even if Hillary seems to be the more viable candidate against McCain, that doesn’t mean Obama can’t do the job against McCain. Nobody needs a landslide. That’s good enough for me :)</p>
<p>Actually, I don’t mind McCain’s political positions on a whole range of issues at all. It’s just his age and that he’s not as smart as either Clinton or Obama.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well you gotta get the win before a “win’s a win.” With Clinton this is much more likely. People overestimate Obama. Sure, he’s very popular, but it’s not about who’s popular but rather who’s popular in the key states. In my opinion McCain wins by greater margins then Bush in 00 and 04.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If Clinton would only quit, Obama would have 5 months to campaign in those key states and get the support he needs. Once he’s on the trail, he’ll be unmatched, especially compared to McCain’s very sleepy style.</p>
<p>
I just can’t see that happening this year with this candidate (running mate may change things). If he wins, it’d be a lucky one by the narrowest of margins.</p>