<p>IMHO, it is plain and simple what he needs to do. He needs to speak some hard truths to the Democratic party. He should point out that she has ZERO chance of winning in November against John McCain. The Republicans and most independents <em>hate</em> the Clintons. Her candidacy would energize the right wing and stimulate them to come in and vote for McCain even if they hate McCain. On top of that, in order to win the nomination, the delegate math dictates that she would need to get the superdelegates to overturn Obama’s lead in the pledged delegates. That would alienate huge numbers of Democrats and Democrat-leaning independents who were fired up by the Obama candidacy. So a Hillary nomination would be a sure way to hand the Presidency to John McCain. And many Republicans in Congress would also win because of the McCain coattails.</p>
<p>Per Pew, Obama loses more of the (Democratic) party to McCain than Hillary. That has to be considered as well.</p>
<p>The Democrats will not be the only ones voting in November, so a poll of Democrats is meaningless. The latest Washington Post/ABC poll shows that Obama has a 12 point lead over McCain in November but Clinton has only a 6% edge. Obama has consistently (even in Ohio and Texas) shown that once people get to know him better, he does even better than the early polls. So by November Obama could easily make that a 20 point lead over McCain. Hillary on the other hand is a well-known commodity and highly unlikely to win over any more Republicans and independents. </p>
<p>For the Dems to nominate Hillary would be suicidal. But given the Dem party’s past history to commit suicide, I would not rule it out.</p>
<p>Tough Math on the Democratic Side
By Marie Cocco</p>
<p>WASHINGTON – Hillary Clinton is not the only Democrat with a math problem. But the arithmetical difficulty that Barack Obama faces is fundamentally different from Clinton’s: She doesn’t have the numbers that plot a clear path to the nomination. He doesn’t have the numbers that plot a clear path to a Democratic victory in the fall.</p>
<p>The spin-of-the-day from the Obama campaign on the morning after Clinton’s victories in three of the four states holding primaries on Tuesday is that the New York senator cannot possibly overtake her rival’s lead in “pledged” delegates – that is, those won in primaries and caucuses – and therefore has no chance of winning the Democratic nomination.</p>
<p>[RealClearPolitics</a> - Articles - Tough Math on the Democratic Side](<a href=“http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/tough_math_on_the_democratic_s.html]RealClearPolitics”>RealClearPolitics - Articles - Tough Math on the Democratic Side)</p>
<p>“The Democrats will not be the only ones voting in November, so a poll of Democrats is meaningless.”</p>
<hr>
<p>How so? A failure to hold 20% of your own party in a close race is pretty darned meaningful to me. If Obama thinks he’ll make it up by pulling Independents and Moderate Republicans from McCain, he’s likely mistaken. Might have worked if Mitt Romney were the Republican nominee, but our middle-of-the-roaders like McCain enough to stick with the party.</p>
<p>And more interesting news about the Nafta leak. So was the Clinton campaign involved as well? Harper apparently wants an investigation, so it’s not over yet.</p>
<p>[globeandmail.com:</a> ‘NAFTAgate’ began with remark from Harper’s chief of staff](<a href=“http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080305.wharpleak0305/BNStory/National/home]globeandmail.com:”>http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080305.wharpleak0305/BNStory/National/home)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>simba: Nothing “real clear” about the above article at all. </p>
<p>The HUGE problem with that argument is that Clinton did not win those States. She won just the Democratic voters in those states. There are Republicans and independents in those states who will never vote for Hillary. In the fall, against McCain, for example, Obama will have no problem in winning Massachusetts a state that Hillary won in the primary. However, Hillary will have a huge problem in New Jersey and Ohio, both states that she won in the primary, but could easily lose because of her failure to win over independents.</p>
<p>Apparently there are Democratic voters in Ohio who admitted that they voted for Hillary because they would never ever vote for an African American; they said in the general election, they will be voting for McCain. If there are people who would actually ADMIT this to pollsters out loud, how many secretly feel this way? I fear that while people may loudly proclaim they can’t stand Hillary, some may secretly vow never to vote for Obama. I hope there aren’t very many of those left in the US, but I hear there were quite a few of those in Ohio. (Don’t slam me if you’re from Ohio; just reporting what I heard.)</p>
<p>Now <em>that</em> may be a legitimate concern with making Obama the nominee. I suspect that voter racism and sexism may be a much bigger factor in the general election than in the Democratic primary. </p>
<p>But then the question to ask is: Will the “Archie Bunkers” of this country prefer to vote for a white woman, a black man or a white man. I think we know the answer.</p>
<p>On the TV coverage of the Ohio primary, they kept referring to the “Ethnic White Voters”; pretty much every time the phrase was used, the speaker would either say, “Not that I like that term” or “I don’t really know what that term means.” I think it means the Archie Bunkers.</p>
<p>I find it hard to imagine very many voters who would vote against Obama because of his race who would nevertheless vote for Hillary. I don’t think either of them is getting those voters.</p>
<p>I doubt that the Archie Bunkers would vote for Hilary either. They’d be McCain voters, in this case. So we can just dismiss them from this argument. </p>
<p>I’m not implying that McCain himself would support this attitude, just that he would benefit from it.</p>
<p>"The HUGE problem with that argument is that Clinton did not win those States. She won just the Democratic voters in those states. "</p>
<p>The same goes for Obama as well. All those little states have no meaning to a democratic nominee in the fall. The fact remains that Obama has not won a single large diverse state (except IL) in regular prmiary voting (not circuses).</p>
<p>Right, that was my point. They were Democrats who voted in the Democatic primary so they voted for Hillary because she is white. However, in the general election, they will vote for McCain.</p>
<p>While I’m an Obama supporter, I don’t dismiss this argument entirely. I think there are probably plenty of older white women (the Elsie Bunkers, if you will) who could vote for a white woman but not a black man. I believe this bias is part of the reason for Hillary’s advantage among older white women.</p>
<p>Query, for whom would EDITH Bunker vote?</p>
<p>come on Mrs. Bunker had no racist bone. She was best friend with Mrs. Jefferson.</p>
<p>I agree. But I stil think she’d vote for Hillary (or Louise Jefferson) because she is a woman.</p>
<p>That is why I refer to “Elsie Bunker”, not the Mrs Bunker of the TV show, but Archie’s fictitious sister who had the same attitudes as Archie.</p>
<p>What Obama needs to do:</p>
<p>Go back to the US Senate and learn that job well before he applies again for the most important job in the world.</p>