http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-03-09-electable_N.htm

 

WASHINGTON — Barack Obama says he's won more states, Hillary Rodham Clinton says she's won bigger states, and both say their primary-season performance makes them the more electable Democratic presidential nominee.

The relative strength of their arguments could influence decisions made by hundreds of super delegates, the party leaders and elected officials likely to determine who tops the Democratic ticket.

 

I heard a conversation on Tim Russert that is compelling. While Obama will finish with more delegates and more popular vote, the Hillary supporter made the point that this decision for our next President will be made by 5 states. Florida, Michigan, Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania. Hillary wins in Pennsylvania and she would have won in all 5 of those states.

 

That makes her more electable than Obama in a general election.

 

Even if they revote in Florida and Michigan and she still wins those, it reinforces the notion she is more electable despite Obama winning more states, more delegates and more popular vote.

 

The point is that the states that Obama is winning to build his lead are solid red states and the Democrats are not going to carry come November. The winner of those 5 states or 4 of 5 will be President and Hillary has shown she is the stronger candidate in those 5 states.

 

That would be too rich that the party that has gone on and on about having the 2000 election stole from them and Al Gore is the rightful President because he won the popular vote would set aside the popular vote, the delegate vote and the state decisions and go with the 2nd place choice.:lol:

Nothing is "as it seems" in politics. The popular vote means nothing, which is something!!

A democrat will win the vast majority of the states that voted for Clinton anyway. California, NY, Mass., and most of those states will go Democrat anyway. Obama has more crossover appeal that will help the Dems in Ohio, Indiana, Penn., Ill., etc.

A democrat will win the vast majority of the states that voted for Clinton anyway. California, NY, Mass., and most of those states will go Democrat anyway. Obama has more crossover appeal that will help the Dems in Ohio, Indiana, Penn., Ill., etc.

 

That makes very little sense has he couldn't win the Democrat vote in Ohio.

 

They will not necessarily win the states of Florida, Michigan, Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania.

 

I think the guy makes a very good point. I would abhor her getting the nomination but still the point is made.

 

Whomever wins those states will win the general election. And Obama has not shown the ability to win any of those states in his own party's election.

 

And I don't think you can count on Democrats that are HIllary supporters automatically going to Obama. I have made it very clear that my parents are firm, firm Democrats. They have never ever voted Republican.

 

They have said they will vote for McCain rather than Obama. THis from a mother whose father distributed 1/2 pints of whiskey wrapped in $20 bills in the 50's and 60's for a Democrat vote.

If Clinton doesn't get the big majority of older voters she doesn't win. Obama has been chipping away at the white male, and female demographic and the older voters are keeping Clinton afloat. Also, Sen. Clinton needs to win Penn. by a huge margin or else she can't win enough delegates. If Obama had won Texas, he would have gotten enough supers to put this thing away.

 

Let's be real honest here. My grandpa is and in-laws are lifelong yellow-dog Democrats who won't vote for Obama. Their reason? Well, he's too young, they don't like his wife (funny b/c they liked Hillary), etc. The real reason? He's black and his name isn't Jones. I had to sit my father in law down and explain to him that watching Glenn Beck isn't going to give you a bit of truth about any of the Dems especially Obama. I had to explain that he's not a muslim black panther who attended a madrassa and his wife doesn't give the black power salute in their black cult church.

If Clinton doesn't get the big majority of older voters she doesn't win. Obama has been chipping away at the white male, and female demographic and the older voters are keeping Clinton afloat. Also, Sen. Clinton needs to win Penn. by a huge margin or else she can't win enough delegates. If Obama had won Texas, he would have gotten enough supers to put this thing away.

 

Let's be real honest here. My grandpa is and in-laws are lifelong yellow-dog Democrats who won't vote for Obama. Their reason? Well, he's too young, they don't like his wife (funny b/c they liked Hillary), etc. The real reason? He's black and his name isn't Jones. I had to sit my father in law down and explain to him that watching Glenn Beck isn't going to give you a bit of truth about any of the Dems especially Obama. I had to explain that he's not a muslim black panther who attended a madrassa and his wife doesn't give the black power salute in their black cult church.

 

So, he isn't electable to a good number of Democrat voters?

So, he isn't electable to a good number of Democrat voters?

 

I wouldn't go that far.

In a general election I believe Obama is more electable than Clinton. Hillary's beating on the experience and security issues right now but she loses those issues to McCain. She has higher negatives than either of the other two. I also do not believe Obama's supporters will cross over in the numbers she would need. I think Obama would receive a lot of the crossover votes from Clinton supporters and he would have a message that resonates with a large group of voters.

In a general election I believe Obama is more electable than Clinton. Hillary's beating on the experience and security issues right now but she loses those issues to McCain. She has higher negatives than either of the other two. I also do not believe Obama's supporters will cross over in the numbers she would need. I think Obama would receive a lot of the crossover votes from Clinton supporters and he would have a message that resonates with a large group of voters.

 

Obama cannot touch McCain on those two issues.

 

I disagree with the Clinton supporters as their reasons for not voting for him he can't change. They simply don't trust him.

 

But agree that many Obama supporters simply will not vote instead of voting for Hillary.

 

This election should be a slam dunk for the Democrats but it sure seems to be lining up to be close and even a McCain win would not be surprising.

Obama cannot touch McCain on those two issues.

 

I disagree with the Clinton supporters as their reasons for not voting for him he can't change. They simply don't trust him.

 

But agree that many Obama supporters simply will not vote instead of voting for Hillary.

 

This election should be a slam dunk for the Democrats but it sure seems to be lining up to be close and even a McCain win would not be surprising.

 

Look for the war to be at the forefront. Obama wants troops out of Iraq and McCain wants them there for 100 years. On the economy and Iraq the American people will go for a Democrat.

No, they'll go to whoever is winning the election.

Look for the war to be at the forefront. Obama wants troops out of Iraq and McCain wants them there for 100 years. On the economy and Iraq the American people will go for a Democrat.

 

Is the 100 years literal or just a way of saying we are staying until the job is complete? Yet there is historical precedent for our long term commitments. WWII was over in 1945, yet we still have troops in Germany and Japan, although the mission is no longer to be there as occupational forces.

The fighting stopped in 1953 in Korea and we still have troops in South Korea.

 

The thinking of future should not about tomorrow or next year, but for the next decade or even the next generation. Whether it be the war terror, the economy, foreign policy or domestic policy.

 

I'm afraid Americans have been McDonaldlized, too many want results now and not willing to wait. I see that as a differene in the 2 parties.

I don't belive that Superdelegates will vote for Clinton if Obama wins more Pledged delegates UNLESS.......

 

McCain unleashes a steady stream of attacks agianst Obama that are very sucessful. If a large amount of Superdelegates feel that Obama can't truly defend himself against McCain's attacks(especially if Roger Ailes gets really active in the McCain campaign) then they might go with Clinton if they feel she'll have a better chance of deflecting the attacks, and having a better offensive agianst McCain.

 

Just one political election junkies opinion.

No, they'll go to whoever is winning the election.

 

Define that.

 

Hillary supporters will tell you that person is the one who HAS won the states that they have to win in November and not the person who built up a lead in states that the Dems are not going to win in November.

 

Obama fans will tell you it is the one the entire country voted for and not just those 5 key states that will determine the election in November.

I don't belive that Superdelegates will vote for Clinton if Obama wins more Pledged delegates UNLESS.......

 

McCain unleashes a steady stream of attacks agianst Obama that are very sucessful. If a large amount of Superdelegates feel that Obama can't truly defend himself against McCain's attacks(especially if Roger Ailes gets really active in the McCain campaign) then they might go with Clinton if they feel she'll have a better chance of deflecting the attacks, and having a better offensive agianst McCain.

 

Just one political election junkies opinion.

 

Heck, he can't defend himself from Hillary's and Bill's attack. He best worry about the attacks from his own party before he worries about John McCain's attacks.