<p>OK this is just my pet peeve, but I’ve seen it being used more than once on this forum:</p>
<p>It is “both sides of an aisle”, not “both sides of an isle”. </p>
<p>(The British could get away saying both sides of the isle, I suppose ;-)</p>
<p>To lax:</p>
<p>[The</a> Swamp: Obama, Clinton: Dead-heats w/ McCain](<a href=“http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/05/obama_clinton_deadheats_w_mcca.html]The”>http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/05/obama_clinton_deadheats_w_mcca.html)</p>
<p>Obama vs. McCain, Obama is up +1 (Including the 40% of clinton voters claiming they won’t vote for him. </p>
<p>Clinton vs. McCain, Clinton is up +2 (Including the 18% of Obama voters who say they won’t vote for her.</p>
<p>Margin of error of poll 3%. What does this mean? By all hard evidence, the two are tied, any difference is random sampling error. By adjusting for the fact that the majority of voters who say they won’t vote for the other candidate actually will in the fall. Obama is blowing her our of the water. </p>
<p>In addition. Obama holds a steady 10 point lead on Clinton among democrats nationally. </p>
<p>So your argument that “Every poll says clinton is the stronger candidate” is just as delusional as the argument that she is leading in the popular vote that only counts the contests that she wants to count.</p>
<p>Tyler09</p>
<p>You do realize popular vote means NOTHING in an election right? Your link means nothing. Look at Ohio (McCain tied w/ Obama, Clinton winning big), Florida (McCain big over Obama, Clinton big over McCain), Michigan (McCain up slightly over Obama, losing bigtime to Clinton). </p>
<p>Way to self pwn yourself though. Really, popular vote polls during the general election are worth a great laugh. Unfortunately they don’t mean anything because, you know, we don’t go by the popular vote.</p>
<p>Your argument that Obama is as good as a candidate because he’s looking good in the POPULAR VOTE is laughable at best. Really though, I got a good chuckle.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My argument is only delusional if you use meaningless/useless polls. If you use the polls that actually matter, state polls, my argument is valid. But hey, if you want me to be wrong then keep using polls that don’t mean anything :)</p>
<p>Lets look at fivethirtyeight.com , a site which uses regression models + weighted polls + demographics to predict state outcomes. Using states where the difference among candidates is significant. </p>
<p>Obama chance of winning state / Clinton chance of winning state</p>
<p>Florida: 20 / 73</p>
<p>Virginia: 38 / 11</p>
<p>Missouri: 23 / 51</p>
<p>Kentucky: 0 / 42</p>
<p>Arkansas: 0 / 88</p>
<p>West Virginia: 22 / 86</p>
<p>Pennsylvania: 67 / 87</p>
<p>Ohio: 50 / 79</p>
<p>Wisconsin: 66 / 35</p>
<p>Iowa: 83 / 31</p>
<p>Colorado: 66 / 17</p>
<p>Nevada: 44 / 54</p>
<p>So…with Obama he takes Colorado, Iowa, Wisconsin and competes in Ohio instead of a Clinton matchup. </p>
<p>With Clinton she takes Florida, Ohio, Arkansas, West Virginia and competes in Kentucky/Missouri instead of Obama. </p>
<p>Do I need to explain which of these states make the difference come november?</p>
<p>EDIT: Each of these percentages is calculated by taking all the polls, weighting them according to past accuracy, and accounting for demographics and voting trends and voter registration. This guy is the 2nd in command for the sabermetrics (mathematical) division for baseball prospectus.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Busted ! I meant to post aisle, don’t know what happened. Now I will remember forever.</p>
<p>From today’s PR exit polling:
[CNN</a> Political Ticker: All politics, all the time - Blogs from CNN.com](<a href=“http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/]CNN”>http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/)</p>
<p>And we have another episode of ‘Coat Tails Meets Candidate’.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Honestly, I’m not sure you could make it any clearer. Data > fantasy.</p>
<p>Please, please let this be a sign. Maybe there won’t be a floor fight in Denver after all. [Ben</a> Smith’s Blog: Clinton camp converging on New York Tuesday, and shedding staff - Politico.com](<a href=“Clinton camp converging on New York Tuesday, and shedding staff - POLITICO”>Clinton camp converging on New York Tuesday, and shedding staff - POLITICO)</p>
<p>I’m glad that you could get a chuckle pretending to be superior for a few moments, but a little evidence that you can make a poll that’s based on speculation say anything you want:</p>
<p>[A</a> New Electoral Map: In the General Election, McCain Leads in Electoral Votes Against Both Clinton and Obama - Michael Barone (usnews.com)](<a href=“http://www.usnews.com/blogs/barone/2008/5/30/a-new-electoral-map-in-the-general-election-mccain-leads-in-electoral-votes-against-both-clinton-and-obama.html]A”>http://www.usnews.com/blogs/barone/2008/5/30/a-new-electoral-map-in-the-general-election-mccain-leads-in-electoral-votes-against-both-clinton-and-obama.html)</p>
<p>If you go based on the polls right now and say that a) they are accurate despite the problems i indicated in my previous post with the popular vote polls that make up these electoral speculation polls (You’re argument that popular vote polls mean “NOTHING” is funny because that disqualify all of the polls you’re using)
and b) whoever is ahead right now will definitely carry that state in the fall, then yes, Hillary is losing less to McCain (261 to 277 vs 258 to 281)</p>
<p>BUT I could also easily twist those polls in the same way and contend that in an Obama-McCain matchup, there are 103 electoral swing votes (within 7% in pop vote polls), while in a Clinton-McCain matchup there are only 92 electoral swing votes, thus making Obama the stronger candidate, boosted by the fact that many clinton supporters are lying when they claim they will vote republican. </p>
<p>I guess you can be proud of yourself for twisting facts to say what you want them to say, just like Hillary. You both “selfpwned”.</p>
<p>Honestly, it doesn’t matter even if Clinton were more “electable” in November. She can’t change the rules halfway through the process. Sure, if she can convince superdelegates to switch to her side, and if she should win the nomination, well it would be legitimate. But if she wants rules to be bent to suit her own campaign, that is not OK.</p>
<p>Tyler your link says that some of these polls are from February. Try living in the present. Using the most precise methods available Clinton destroys McCain while McCain looks to be slightly ahead. </p>
<p>States like Florida, Ohio, Michigan are SAFELY in Clintons camp whereas Obama will most likely lost at least 2, if not all 3 of them. Roves leaked memo shows Clinton ahead, all the math says Clinton ahead, but hey if you want to believe, contrary to what everyone and every poll says, that Obama is the stronger candidate then go ahead. Nothing wrong with it, hell some people still believe the world is flat despite all the evidence to the contrary.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>We’re not talking about if she’s changing the rules or not, just who’s more electable in November??</p>
<p>vicariousparent, the trouble I have with that reasoning is that the whole “strip the delegates entirely from MI and FL” was itself a rule change pushed through the rules committee by an Obama-aligned party official (it was clear at that point that Hillary held commanding leads in every way in those states).</p>
<p>i also think it’s a bit myopic to accuse only Hillary’s campaign of being the only one trying to change the rules. Obama’s does too. for example all the people running around trying to coerce the SDs into simply rubber stamping the popular vote, as if they are required to - when they are not. Everybody tries to change the rules to better themselves. It’s just the way it works.</p>
<p>According to me, those polls are absolutely worthless. 
Nobody will draw out the conservative, republican and perhaps even the independent vote like HRC would. She will be voted against in droves. 1/2 the dems may want her, but none of the rest do. She is the past.</p>
<p>From Today- [RealClearPolitics</a> - Opinion, News, Analysis, Videos and Polls](<a href=“http://realclearpolitics.com/]RealClearPolitics”>http://realclearpolitics.com/)</p>
<p>REAL CLEAR POLITICS ELECTION 2008
Democrats Obama Clinton
Total Delegates 2,073 1,915
Super Delegates 334 291
Pledged Delegates 1,739 1,624
Popular Vote 17,389,253 17,364,667
Popular Vote (w/MI) 17,389,253 17,692,976
General Election McCain-Obama McCain-Clinton
RealClear Average Obama +0.7 Clinton +2.0
RCP Electoral Count Obama +38 Clinton +61
No Toss Up States Obama +6 Clinton +30
Battleground States McCain-Obama McCain-Clinton
Pennsylvania Obama +5.8 Clinton +11.7
Michigan McCain +3.0 McCain +3.0
Ohio Obama +1.3 Clinton +8.3
Wisconsin Obama +2.0 McCain +3.4
Iowa Obama +6.4 McCain +2.7
Virginia McCain +1.3 McCain +10.4
Florida McCain +8.3 Clinton +3.0</p>
<p>HRC, if she were the nominee is slipping in FL, check the history from the link.</p>
<p>She’s slipping? Latest Rasmussen poll shows Clinton +6 over McCain in Florida and Obama -10?? In Ohio McCain is +1 over Obama and Clinton is +7 over McCain. This is all before the right gets to paint Obama, something it’s already done to Clinton over the past 16 years. </p>
<p>It’s going to be fun when the democratic party realizes they nominated a man who is far left and won’t be able to bring in the independent vote. Clinton hasn’t been able to call him what he is but McCain doesn’t have to cater to the democratic base. The indies are already shifting as recent polls show voters think McCain is more moderate then Obama and is also more likely to reach across party lines. Should be fun :)</p>
<p>1of42: I don’t know what you are talking about. MI and FL were stripped of their delegates long before the primary season started. The democratic primaries in those states were purely symbolic anyway. It is an insult to the rest of the country to count MI and FL at all, as far as I’m concerned.</p>
<p>As for the Obama camp pressuring superdelegates, they have been very clear that the superdelegates have the right to choose whomever they want. They would just prefer that the superdelegates don’t override the people’s choice, because there are no superdelegate votes in the general election!</p>
<p>The D-powers in MI and FL chose to break the rules by holding their primaries before the agreed date. All the Candidates actually signed agreements not to campaign in MI or FL, as well as to not seat the States that had early primaries. Is their agreement/signature not worth anything?</p>
<p>And how on earth can you count votes in Michigan if one of the major contender’s names is NOT EVEN on the ballot?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Excuse me, am I reading this wrongly? Was there ever a rule about how superdelegates should vote? Was there any rule against arm-twisting, coercing and pressuring SDs? It’s part of the game. This is politics. It’s well within the rules - there ARE no rules. By your measure, Clinton would also be guilty of changing rules by coercing SDs into putting off their endorsements just for her sake - as if she’s more important than the party, the country or indeed, the SD’s freedom to endorse people.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>the rules committee had 30 people, and Clinton backers outnumber Obama backers. I guess Hillary sealed her own fate.</p>
<p>FL’s voting was held early because of Rep Gov. Crist’s committee. FL’s Dem Congressmen fought the date change. They knew FL would be penalized.</p>
<p>I went to a town meeting with Congressman Bob Wexler last night, and he addressed this issue. Directly after, he went on-air with Larry King. That was a closed set, so I don’t know if he said same thing to a national audience as he did to his people he represents.</p>
<p>“if she wants rules to be bent to suit her own campaign, that is not OK.”</p>
<p>Unfortunately, it’s not an if. That’s what she asked for, and it’s what she got (albeit less drastic rule-bends than she requested).</p>
<p>“the whole “strip the delegates entirely from MI and FL” was itself a rule change pushed through the rules committee”</p>
<p>Whoa…finalizing the rules before the game begins is normal and necessary in every type of competition. Changing the rules retrospectively during the fourth quarter is a different matter altogether.</p>