Looks Like it's Going to The Convention

Parent Cafe
41

<p>^^^^I just see Obama facing certain problems. His inability to win over the working class white voter will hurt him. Being black will hurt him. McCain being perceived as closer to the middle will hurt him. </p>

<p>What’s he going to do? He doesn’t stand a chance in Florida and despite the hype he won’t win NC/VA. I like the argument that he’s going to put all these red states in play, fact of the matter is he may put them in play but he’s not going to win them. He’ll lose NC/VA/MO/NV for sure, but I do agree he’ll pick up CO/NM/IA. I also think he loses NH and holds the key PA while losing OH. I think he’s going to be hurt in Michigan where polls are already showing him slightly behind. Remember that Kerry was up by 15 at this point in the election…I think McCain wins 280+</p>

42

<p>Clinton’s surrogate, Harold Ickes, appeared as a disgusting uncouth unsophisticated desperate jerk. The Clinton supporters who were protesting were extremely rude.</p>

<p>Her supporters do nothing to help her. If anything, they continue to hurt her with their embarrassing theatrics. :o</p>

43

<p>

Exactly. I just don’t see how Michigan has a leg to stand on, when there was only 1 candidate’s name on the ballot. What were they thinking?</p>

44

<p>A lot of good observations on this thread. One of the ones I like best is the post which focused on H’s poor campaign strategy. But I would go farther than just the fact of her dependence on early primary victories: I continue to maintain that her divide-and-conquer class-warfare or class-segmentation approach doesn’t play well in 2008. It’s traditional, old-old Democratic strategy which (as a Democrat) has never appealed to me when any candidate has done it. It’s one thing to champion, or claim to champion, various segments (blue-collar, women, etc.) But somehow her style does not rise above this segmentation. I can’t put my finger on it but it just feels so divisive to me. It also feels condescending in a Leona Helmsley way, as if “the little people” need her support to be validated as worth something. </p>

<p>I also think she made a major mistake in yielding to an outdated feminist message. That is further segmentation. (Does anyone remember Maggie Thatcher running “as a woman”? I don’t) Early on, photo after photo, planning session after planning session, caught her on camera surrounded only by women. I say ‘outdated’ because while it’s important for one generation of women, it’s not nearly as important for the younger generation, who have not experienced that same level of discrimination & assumptions that H’s generation did. When I talk to my own daughters about social & actual restrictions on women when I was coming of age, they have difficulty imagining such a world, because they have not experienced those assumptions.</p>

<p>But beyond that, even many, many older people are tired of same-old/ same-old style in politics & in message. H banked on “experience” trumping novelty, youth, energy, excitement. The American public is actually probably more ready for a break from old-style politics than she ever imagined. She may be younger than McCain, but her style is not much more youthful than his.</p>

45

<p>Hillary has run a bad campaign? </p>

<p>Then why is she up +162,553 votes!? </p>

<p>Obama was able to get a disproportionate amount of delegates from the small state caucuses, that’s the only reason he’s ahead in delegates and seems to be the stronger candidate. It’s inflating his strength.
If this were run by Republican primary rules, Hillary would have been the nominee a while ago. Change the system, it’s flawed. It’s why Democrats usually pick a loser and are experts in losing elections. </p>

<p>Hillary has won the main states: Ca, NY, FL, MI, Ohio, Pa, WV</p>

<p>Since 1900, every Democratic President had to win Ohio AND Pa. Since 1828, every Democratic winner had to get a majority of the white, working class (it’s not taboo to say white, so chill). </p>

<p>The Obama strategy to maximize votes on African Americans, college kids and youth, the affluent, and very liberal is not going to work. In 1972, the Democrats tried this strategy and they lost in a landslide. </p>

<p>Hillary is the stronger candidate by far. Just look at the polls. Her popular vote is only going to increase after Puerto Rico. Hillary is leading John McCain in KY and WV, two regular red states. Obama is down significantly. My favorite example is Mass., the dependable Democratic state - Obama and McCain are tied! </p>

<p>To Denver.</p>

46

<p>epiphany, great post, but I disagree with your last sentence. Actually, McCain’s ‘maverick’ style is much more fresh and youthful than Hillary’s. Obama of course is in a whole different class. </p>

<p>The Clintons clearly are trying to ensure Obama’s defeat in November and to ensure Hillary’s nomination in 2012. I don’t blame them. They are watching out for their own self-interest, like all politicians do.</p>

<p>The last thing the Clintons would want right now is for her to actually get the nomination, because she would surely lose. That would be the end of her presidential aspirations. If she loses the nomination (after making a lot of noise at the convention), she lives to come back strong in 2012.</p>

47

<p>I guess it’s a matter of perception, vp, but despite the <em>media’</em> naming of McCain as a “maverick,” I’ve never viewed him that way. Erratic does not equal maverick, or at least not necessarily in a positive way. His message is neither cohesive nor youthful to me. And his temperament is a major liability – a liability which Obama – much more calm & level-headed (wiser despite his youth)-- does not share.</p>

48

<p>“Hillary has won the main states: Ca, NY, FL, MI, Ohio, Pa, WV”</p>

<p>Democrat vs. Democrat is completely different from a national two-party contest. The Hillary supporters have a blind spot about this which has proven how narrowly they understand the American electorate.</p>

49

<p>My favorite example is Mass., the dependable Democratic state - Obama and McCain are tied!</p>

<p>That’s my favorite example, too!!! It’s an illustration that match-ups at this point are not useful. Anybody who thinks that McCain will win in MA must be deluded. It does not matter whether McCain is ahead, tied or behind either of the Democrats.</p>

50

<p>But Mitt Romney was elected governor in Mass. Who knows what could happen.</p>

51

<p>

</p>

<p>Alexandre, I believe you are grossly overestimating the ability of a Democrat to get “his” people to the voting place, as well as underestimating the number of voters who will reject a black presidential candidate. There will be many voters who are not unquestionably republican but will cast a vote for McCain … in opposition to the alternative.</p>

<p>As we know, 80 to 90% of the voters pick a candidate along party lines. It’s the 10-20% of undecided that matters. At the end of the day, the Bradley effect will come in play, as well as the fact that the Democrat Party is a rudderless and clueless organization that will present deep divisions among supporters. All the talks about unity are just that … idle talks. </p>

<p>The Republicans could not have asked for a better scenario, as the other side is divided and will not be energized to go vote for a candidate they have learned to despise with passion. If any of yesterday’s circus is an indication, I do not see how people will support a candidate they perceive as having stolen the primaries. </p>

<p>McCain and his army of supporters have been able to enjoy the mutual destruction without using any of their own ammunition. And they’ll have plenty more between now and the Dem convention.</p>

52

<p>^Wow, way to state every delusional, debunked piece of evidence ever stated on this forum.</p>

<p>

-Yes, because she is losing by every legitimate measure. Delegates, Super delegates, legitimate popular vote, national polls, states won. She only wins in Clinton fairytale lands that have 1000 "if"s in them.</p>

<p>Big state theory is a sham. California and New York will go democratic no matter what. Obama is actually leading in Michigan polls. The democrats will be competitive in Ohio and PA no matter who is the candidate. </p>

<p>Hillary is only up votes if you give him none in Michigan and disqualify caucus states, which means you have to make up rules. </p>

<p>And you aren’t in much of a position to argue changing the system when you’re on the losing side of it. Winner take all states don’t accurately represent the support behind a candidate, and just because a candidate wins/loses a state in the primary does not mean they will win/lose it in the general election or even that they have a better chance at doing so. </p>

<p>The only reason Obama is close to McCain in polls in those states is because of deranged clinton fanatics like you who say: “It’s my candidate or we’re going to lose!” And then claim you are going to vote republican in the fall and deliberately hurt the democrats. (Cutting off your nose to spite your face)
Then they act like animals at the committee meeting and shout ‘denver!’ in the hallways as if TRYING to give republicans ammo to defeat them in the fall.</p>

<p>The moment HRC withdraws from the race and we see how HUGE of a difference there is between the general Democratic and Republican platforms. At least 75-80% of Clinton supporters will return to the Democratic party, especially female voters, and you will see a 10-20 point jump for Obama in the polls.</p>

<p>The few like you who would rather destroy the party than see your candidate lose by the rules she helped build, are most likely the same people easily manipulated by the republican slime machine, and would have likely abandoned the democratic party in the fall anyway. </p>

<p>We also must remember that more than 50% of voters unwaveringly and fervently hate Hillary Clinton. They aren’t going to change their mind no matter what, so how she is polling now is as good as it is going to get; It will likely decline as people are reminded of how dishonest and unethical she is, which would only be reinforced if she somehow stole a nomination won by the rules.</p>

<p>Obama, on the other hand, does progressively better as people get to know him, and that will be magnified when he is placed in contrast with McCain. I think you are intentionally ignoring just how HUGE of a difference there is between Obama and McCain. </p>

<p>Obama will be the nominee in a week. The democrats will unify and triumph in November. Some Clinton supporters will cry, but that’s too bad. Somebody has to get their feelings hurt.</p>

53

<p>curious:</p>

<p>Being from MA, I cannot imagine that happening. I have actually voted Republican, when the Democratic candidate for governor was unpalatable. But neither Clinton nor Obama is.</p>

54

<p>Quote:</p>

<p>“Hillary has won the main states: Ca, NY, FL, MI, Ohio, Pa, WV”</p>

<p>Since when is WV a “main state” in the electoral process? This post reminds me of Hillary’s comment to the effect that no democratic presidential candidate since 1916 has won the White House without winning West Virginia. What she DIDN’T say is that those same candidates would have won the White House ANYWAY even if they hadn’t won West Virginia – and Hillary certainly knew this when she made the comment. It’s exactly this sort of manipulation of the truth that prevents me from supporting the Clinton campaign. I honestly think that she will say anything to get elected.</p>

55

<p>Hillary has once again become the media darling. CNN (Clinton News Network) is trying to carry the Denver rally cry. No one is listening though. </p>

<p>She has NOT won the popular vote no matter how she wants to skew the numbers. Her protesting supporters need to go find something else to do. It’s over…</p>

56

<p>it blows my mind that two states who decided to go against the best interests of their populace & held an election knowing votes
would not be legal
without all names on ballot.
Then because of political machinations within the party, the votes are now deemed to be retroactively “legal” despite the above issues- albeit for 1/2.</p>

57

<p>

Harold? Terry? ;)</p>

<p>Please tell the rest of the world why caucus states don’t matter. All 50 states matter, just ask Chairman Dean.</p>

<p>Bottom line, HRC is the poorest manager of a campaign ever. She had the nomination a year ago, was the media darling and she blew it. Why? She became arrogant and sloppy and poo-pooed Sen. Obama. All the while his campaign was prepared for the long haul, methodically and quietly opening offices all over states <em>that don’t count</em>. She surrounded herself with incompetent advisors. How many ‘Hillaryland’ shakeups have occurred? How many millions has she given her campaign? She thought it would be over on Feb. 05. Poor planning, poor management, poor judgement. If she can’t run a primary campaign, then she has no business running our country.</p>

58

<p>“Exactly. I just don’t see how Michigan has a leg to stand on, when there was only 1 candidate’s name on the ballot. What were they thinking?”</p>

<p>Yeah, it’s beyond disingenuous to include Michigan in the popular vote tally. You can put together some kind of argument about Florida, but not Michigan.</p>

<p>I wonder why no one has asked Hillary, point blank, why she agreed to this set of rules last fall. If it was fair back then, then it’s fair today.</p>

59

<p>interesting story in the Telegraph. I heard Sorensen on a local show as well.</p>

<p>[Telegraph.co.uk</a>, News, Sport, Business](<a href=“http://www.telegraph.co.uk%5DTelegraph.co.uk”>http://www.telegraph.co.uk)</p>

<p>(The article on Barack as “JFK’s Inspirational Heir”</p>

<p>Weighs in with historical perspective on the reach of words and the lack of universal appeal of HRC.</p>

60

<p>

</p>

<p>No offense but nearly everybody who has worked in politics, including myself, realizes that Clinton is a stronger candidate than Obama. Clinton runs away with FL, PA, MI, OH. You win 3 of those and you win the election, let alone 4. Obama is already out in FL and slightly behind in OH/MI. The argument that he is “fresh” and “new” has to be on of the most laughable. Sure, it sounds good, but fresh/new doesn’t get you elected president.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>This is 100% false. This isn’t February/March anymore. Obama has done progressively worse since Wright came out and will be magnified when he can be shown as far left. Polls already show that the majority of Americans think McCain is more likely to reach across party lines then Barack and this is only going to grow wider when he can be painted as a liberal. Clinton can’t paint him as a liberal…it’d be like McCain painting Romney as a conservative during the GOP primary…you want to be “liberal” in the democratic primary. What makes Clinton a stronger candidate among voters is her being white (some wont vote for barack because he’s black) and the willingness of Obama supporters to vote for her even if she wins (compared to hers voting for him). Sure, not all 40% of people who say they wont vote for him actually wont, but only 18% of Obama supporters say they wont vote for her. Even if 1/10 follow through on that he still loses more votes. </p>

<p>McCain is trusted more on national security, Iraq, and the economy according to polls released by rassmussen last week. McCain is seen as the one more likely to reach across party lines. McCain, unlike Obama, has higher approval #'s than disapproval #'s. You’re comment would have been perfect if this was February, unfortunately things have changed since then.</p>