PDA

View Full Version : What's most important in the delegate count according to Hillary?


BigRedChief
03-12-2008, 09:20 PM
From a Barack Obama email:

When we won Iowa, the Clinton campaign said it's not the number of states you win, it's "a contest for delegates."
When we won a significant lead in delegates, they said it's really about which states you win.

When we won South Carolina, they discounted the votes of African-Americans.

When we won predominantly white, rural states like Idaho, Utah, and Nebraska, they said those didn't count because they won't be competitive in the general election.

When we won in Washington State, Wisconsin, and Missouri -- general election battlegrounds where polls show Barack is a stronger candidate against John McCain -- the Clinton campaign attacked those voters as "latte-sipping" elitists.

And now that we've won more than twice as many states, the Clinton spin is that only certain states really count.
But the facts are clear.

For all their attempts to discount, distract, and distort, we have won more delegates, more states, and more votes.

Meanwhile, more than half of the votes that Senator Clinton has won so far have come from just five states. And in four of these five states, polls show that Barack would be a stronger general election candidate against McCain than Clinton.

beer bacon
03-12-2008, 10:21 PM
The true test of the viability of a democratic candidate for the general election, is how many states he/she wins that Hillary has won. The more states won by Hillary that the candidate wins, whoever he/she may be, the better the candidate.

By this most accurate metric, there is no way that Obama can prove himself to be capable of defeating McCain in the general election. He should step down before he destroys the democratic party.

HolmeZz
03-12-2008, 11:13 PM
Obama's won more states that will be toss-ups in the Fall than Hillary has and it's not particularly debatable. That's why Hillary's 'big state' argument of California, New York, and Texas falls flat.

Logical
03-13-2008, 12:04 AM
Obama's won more states that will be toss-ups in the Fall than Hillary has and it's not particularly debatable. That's why Hillary's 'big state' argument of California, New York, and Texas falls flat.
Not to mention the fact is New York, Ca and PA are going democrat pretty much no matter which one of the two is the candidate.

HolmeZz
03-13-2008, 12:11 AM
Not to mention the fact is New York, Ca and PA are going democrat pretty much no matter which one of the two is the candidate.

PA'll be a toss-up, but more of Hillary's states won't be in play come November than Barack's.

orange
03-13-2008, 11:00 AM
Not to mention the fact is New York, Ca and PA are going democrat pretty much no matter which one of the two is the candidate.

Ohio, Michigan, Florida, Pennsylvania - that's the race, right there.


Also, "You Dems have no business crying about Florida. Gore couldn't even win his home state, Tennessee."

beer bacon
03-13-2008, 11:10 AM
Ohio, Michigan, Florida, Pennsylvania - that's the race, right there.


Also, "You Dems have no business crying about Florida. Gore couldn't even win his home state, Tennessee."

That is the race according to Clinton triangulation politics. The politics of the new DNC. The politics Howard Dean and Barack Obama is a 50 state strategy. It doesn't limit itself to being screwed if the dumbasses in Florida **** up again.

Hillary subscribes to the politics of 51%. Obama subscribes to have boots on the ground in every state and garnishing a mandate through a landslide victory.

HolmeZz
03-13-2008, 11:20 AM
Ohio, Michigan, Florida, Pennsylvania - that's the race, right there.

She's only won of those states(yet she's still making the argument) and I ultimately don't see either Dem losing Michigan and it's probably less likely they win Florida.

orange
03-13-2008, 11:23 AM
That is the race according to Clinton triangulation politics. The politics of the new DNC. The politics Howard Dean and Barack Obama is a 50 state strategy. It doesn't limit itself to being screwed if the dumbasses in Florida **** up again.

Hillary subscribes to the politics of 51%. Obama subscribes to have boots on the ground in every state and garnishing a mandate through a landslide victory.

No, that's the race according to REALITY. Some states are simply OUT OF PLAY.

It's the battleground states where the election will be decided.

As for Obama's "landslide victory," he's barely at 50% in the Primary. The only hope EITHER of them have for a landslide is a joint ticket.

beer bacon
03-13-2008, 11:26 AM
No, that's the race according to REALITY. Some states are simply OUT OF PLAY.

It's the battleground states where the election will be decided.

You said it is reality, so obviously it must be true. Some states are out of play, but the contest is limited to the four you mentioned above. Even with the faulty, political logic you are employing, those four aren't the only swing states.

orange
03-13-2008, 11:31 AM
You said it is reality, so obviously it must be true. Some states are out of play, but the contest is limited to the four you mentioned above. Even in faulty, political logic you are employing, those four aren't the only swing states.

Well, I could show you the HISTORICAL evidence of how states have voted, but you already know that.

As for swing states (I actually mentioned five, by the way), why don't you go ahead and list those in Obama's column that you think BO can win and HC can't?

HolmeZz
03-13-2008, 11:32 AM
No, that's the race according to REALITY. Some states are simply OUT OF PLAY.

It's the battleground states where the election will be decided.

Like Iowa, Missouri, Virginia, Colorado, Wisconsin, Louisiana, Minnesota, ect.

Obama's 50 state strategy is much better than Hillary's for the general, and could lead to an upset somewhere if a Red State has a low turnout.

orange
03-13-2008, 11:38 AM
Iowa 7, Missouri 11, Virginia 13, Colorado 9, Louisiana 9, Wisconsin 10, Minnesota 10 = 69 Electoral Votes
Ohio 20, Florida 27, Pennsylvania 21, Tennessee 11, Michigan 17 = 96 Electoral Votes

Your point is?

http://www.fec.gov/pages/elecvote.htm

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Edit] Funny how that worked out - 69 v 96
Did you plan that?

beer bacon
03-13-2008, 11:40 AM
Iowa 7, Missouri 11, Virginia 13, Colorado 9, Wisconsin 10, Minnesota 10 = 60 Electoral Votes
Ohio 20, Florida 27, Pennsylvania 21, Tennessee 11, Michigan 17 = 96 Electoral Votes

Your point is?

Seriously? Do you really not know the point? This just seems like posturing.

HolmeZz
03-13-2008, 11:45 AM
Iowa 7, Missouri 11, Virginia 13, Colorado 9, Wisconsin 10, Minnesota 10 = 60 Electoral Votes
Ohio 20, Florida 27, Pennsylvania 21, Tennessee 11, Michigan 17 = 96 Electoral Votes

Your point is?

http://www.fec.gov/pages/elecvote.htm

Hillary's not putting Tennessee in play. Furthermore, Obama is capable of winning those other 4 states. Hillary's capable of likely winning 1 of Obama's that I listed, 2 at best.

You also left out Louisiana which will be very much contested if Obama's the nominee.

orange
03-13-2008, 11:47 AM
Seriously? Do you really not know the point? This just seems like posturing.

Big states count more than little states, no matter how much the Obama campaign spins it.

beer bacon
03-13-2008, 11:49 AM
Big states count more than little states, no matter how much the Obama campaign spins it.

I need to write this down...big states mean more than little states. OK, I am sending Obama's campaign the bad news. I think they will want to know about this breaking news.

HolmeZz
03-13-2008, 11:49 AM
Big states count more than little states, no matter how much the Obama campaign spins it.

Hillary's won 1 big state that will be in play this November. How's that for spin?

orange
03-13-2008, 11:51 AM
HolmeZz, on your list, Hillary will win Iowa, Missouri, Wisconsin, Minnesota.

And she will win Tennessee. And I believe she'll win Florida, too, which is THE BIG PRIZE once again.

On my list, Obama definitely loses Ohio and Tennessee; hard to tell about Florida, Michigan, and Pennsylvania since we don't have "real" votes for them yet (yeah, right), but Obama doesn't fare well with the demographics in those states (see Ohio).

orange
03-13-2008, 11:54 AM
I need to write this down...big states mean more than little states. OK, I am sending Obama's campaign the bad news. I think they will want to know about this breaking news.

Apparently, it will ROCK THEIR WORLD.

"And now that we've won more than twice as many states, the Clinton spin is that only certain states really count."

That's from the OBAMA email you quoted above - didn't you read it?

orange
03-13-2008, 11:55 AM
Hillary's won 1 big state that will be in play this November. How's that for spin?

It's bullshit, like most spin.

Cochise
03-13-2008, 11:56 AM
HolmeZz, on your list, Hillary will win Iowa, Missouri, Wisconsin, Minnesota.

And she will win Tennessee. And I believe she'll win Florida, too, which is THE BIG PRIZE once again.

On my list, Obama definitely loses Ohio and Tennessee; hard to tell about Florida, Michigan, and Pennsylvania since we don't have "real" votes for them yet (yeah, right), but Obama doesn't fare well with the demographics in those states (see Ohio).

I don't feel at all that Hillary would win Missouri. A state that voted for Bill Clinton twice wouldn't even choose her over her primary opponent.

beer bacon
03-13-2008, 11:58 AM
HolmeZz, on your list, Hillary will win Iowa, Missouri, Wisconsin, Minnesota.

And she will win Tennessee. And I believe she'll win Florida, too, which is THE BIG PRIZE once again.

On my list, Obama definitely loses Ohio and Tennessee; hard to tell about Florida, Michigan, and Pennsylvania since we don't have "real" votes for them yet (yeah, right), but Obama doesn't fare well with the demographics in those states (see Ohio).

There is no direct correlation between victories in a democratic primary and victories in the general election.

What can be seen, is that Obama has broad appeal among independents and some republicans. Hillary is a polarizing figure with very negatives among more than 50% of the country.

The whole reason the democratic primary is becoming so messy now is that Hillary knows she basically has no chance just going by the math. She believes her only chance to drag Obama down into the mud with her and convince the super delegates that he isn't anymore electable than her.

It has been interesting to see Hillary's claims for what is needed for a good democratic candidate for President get narrower and narrower. By now she really is saying that the only states that matter are ones that she wins. She immediately disqualifies any state she loses.

HolmeZz
03-13-2008, 11:58 AM
HolmeZz, on your list, Hillary will win Iowa, Missouri, Wisconsin, Minnesota.

She's not going to win those 4 swing states that she lost during the primary season.

And she will win Tennessee.

You're high.

And I believe she'll win Florida, too, which is THE BIG PRIZE once again.

Yeah, and she'll win Pennsylvania too. And Ohio. And Michigan. Right? It's a wonder why she's getting her ass kicked by Obama given how much of an easy time you think she's going to have in November.

She's pretty much the opposite of a candidate who could win in a landslide. That's not even her strategy.

beer bacon
03-13-2008, 12:01 PM
When polled, the same people in Pennsylvania that are saying they will vote for Hillary over Obama in the democratic primary by an 18% margin, are saying they are more likely to vote for Obama vs McCain than Hillary vs McCain.

Right now, both candidates are polling behind McCain in Penn. Hillary is at a 6% disadvantage against McCain, while Obama is at a 3% disadvantage.

orange
03-13-2008, 12:01 PM
She's not going to win those 4 swing states that she lost during the primary season.

There is no direct correlation between victories in a democratic primary and victories in the general election.

To paraphrase Obama (in the South Carolina debate), "Sometimes I don't know who I'm arguing with."

beer bacon
03-13-2008, 12:04 PM
To paraphrase Obama (in the South Carolina debate), "Sometimes I don't know who I'm arguing with."

While I don't completely agree with HolmeZz about Hillary only winning one of the four big swing states, I do believe she is going to have trouble in any state in which the race is close. She consistently has extremely high negatives with crossover voters. She has strong appeal to certain segments of the democratic base, but is very weak outside of that.

Also, every single post in every single thread has a label with the poster's name. You figure out whos who by looking to the left of the post. Hell, when you quote someone it actually shows the poster's name there too.

HolmeZz
03-13-2008, 12:06 PM
To paraphrase Obama (in the South Carolina debate), "Sometimes I don't know who I'm arguing with."

You were arguing with two different people.

There isn't a direct correlation between primaries and the General, but I'm fairly confident in saying Hillary is not going to win all 4 of those swing states, which she managed to lose during the primary season.

orange
03-13-2008, 12:08 PM
That's why I favor DREAM TICKET 2008.

beer bacon
03-13-2008, 12:12 PM
That's why I favor DREAM TICKET 2008.

Dream Ticket 2008 is never going to happen.

Besides Hillary being the type of politician Obama trying to get away from.

Besides Hillary on the ticket seriously harming Obama's crossover appeal.

You have to consider that Hillary on Obama's ticket means you have a ticket where one candidate is on record saying that the opposition's candidate is better qualified than her partner. She has been torpedoing any chance of a joint ticket with her kitchen sink strategy.

orange
03-13-2008, 12:16 PM
Actually, DREAM TICKET 2008 can be forced on BOTH of them by the party at the Convention, when neither one can come up with a majority otherwise.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Edit] And I should add, I truly believe that that is the conclusion that we're going to see. They're just jockeying for position at the head of the ticket right now.

beer bacon
03-13-2008, 01:00 PM
Actually, DREAM TICKET 2008 can be forced on BOTH of them by the party at the Convention, when neither one can come up with a majority otherwise.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Edit] And I should add, I truly believe that that is the conclusion that we're going to see. They're just jockeying for position at the head of the ticket right now.

Nancy Pelosi has already said Hillary talked herself out of any chance at a joint ticket.

patteeu
03-13-2008, 01:14 PM
That is the race according to Clinton triangulation politics. The politics of the new DNC. The politics Howard Dean and Barack Obama is a 50 state strategy. It doesn't limit itself to being screwed if the dumbasses in Florida **** up again.

Hillary subscribes to the politics of 51%. Obama subscribes to have boots on the ground in every state and garnishing a mandate through a landslide victory.

Such naive optimism. LOL

Obama has a so-called 50 state strategy because of his success at raising funds, not because of any fundamental difference of philosophy about how to win an election. Regardless of what his followers think of him, Obama didn't magically create a new politics.

beer bacon
03-13-2008, 01:16 PM
Such naive optimism. LOL

Obama has a so-called 50 state strategy because of his success at raising funds, not because of any fundamental difference of philosophy about how to win an election. Regardless of what his followers think of him, Obama didn't magically create a new politics.

Yeah, because politics never change. Parties never flip. Political strategy never changes. New demographics are never brought into play. I am the one that is naive.

You are just hilarious. Your party has been transformed in the last twenty years. You have gone from small government to Big Gov.

Everything changes Mr. memi. I never thought I would see you two kids together, but you made it.

HolmeZz
03-13-2008, 01:20 PM
Such naive optimism. LOL

Obama has a so-called 50 state strategy because of his success at raising funds, not because of any fundamental difference of philosophy about how to win an election. Regardless of what his followers think of him, Obama didn't magically create a new politics.

It's more about turnout. We pretty much have poor turnout(in the scheme of things) for elections all across the country. A shift in turnout can dramatically change the map in certain places.

beer bacon
03-13-2008, 01:23 PM
Also, Ronald Reagan.

orange
03-13-2008, 02:08 PM
Nancy Pelosi has already said Hillary talked herself out of any chance at a joint ticket.

The buzz in the speaker's office Monday was not about Bush's address, but about Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy's fiery speech earlier endorsing Democrat Barack Obama.

"Did you ever see anything like that?" asked Pelosi. "Transferring the mantle from John F. Kennedy to Barack Obama. It was the most stunning thing. I mean, I couldn't take my eyes off it. And I didn't have any time to sit there and watch TV, you know — we had a whole schedule. I just was mesmerized by it."

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0108/Pelosi_mesmerized.html

Pelosi is just one more in the Obama camp, echoing their current talking points. She's technically not made an endorsement - only because she knows better than to give half the party a reason to oust her as Speaker.

Just like all the superdelegates - they're not going to reject the votes of half the party at the Convention.

patteeu
03-13-2008, 04:20 PM
It's more about turnout. We pretty much have poor turnout(in the scheme of things) for elections all across the country. A shift in turnout can dramatically change the map in certain places.

I would agree that if he can motivate a lot of people to come out and vote who normally wouldn't vote, it would have a big impact. But this isn't a new concept, as I'm sure you'd agree. There is an old rule of thumb in politics that Republicans generally prefer bad weather on election day. The reason for that preference is that more less-informed, less-motivated, casual voters will turn out on a nice day and those people, as a rule, don't know any better than to vote democrat. :p

HolmeZz
03-13-2008, 04:27 PM
I would agree that if he can motivate a lot of people to come out and vote who normally wouldn't vote, it would have a big impact. But this isn't a new concept, as I'm sure you'd agree. :p

Definitely. But given his fundraising ability and organization that I don't think many have seen in our lifetimes, I think his get-out-the-vote effort could be effective enough in unexpected places.

patteeu
03-13-2008, 06:07 PM
Definitely. But given his fundraising ability and organization that I don't think many have seen in our lifetimes, I think his get-out-the-vote effort could be effective enough in unexpected places.

Could be, especially if he finds a way to recapture the magic he had up until a few weeks ago. The fundraising effectiveness is indisputable, but how do you read the distinction between his effectiveness to get out votes in caucuses versus his relative lack of ability to do so in primaries?

HolmeZz
03-13-2008, 06:09 PM
Could be, especially if he finds a way to recapture the magic he had up until a few weeks ago. The fundraising effectiveness is indisputable, but how do you read the distinction between his effectiveness to get out votes in caucuses versus his relative lack of ability to do so in primaries?

He's gotten great turnout in the primaries, he's just going up against a very formidable machine in the Clintons. If Hillary was one of the run-of-the-mill candidates the Dems usually trot out there, I think Obama would've had a cakewalk. He hasn't had a cakewalk to this point, though I think his campaign has completely outperformed Hillary's.

Ultra Peanut
03-13-2008, 08:36 PM
And she will win Tennessee. In the general? YOU ARE ****ING INSANE.

Ultra Peanut
03-13-2008, 08:47 PM
Could be, especially if he finds a way to recapture the magic he had up until a few weeks ago.Phenomenal organization is not magic, and that is the cornerstone of his success.

The fundraising effectiveness is indisputable, but how do you read the distinction between his effectiveness to get out votes in caucuses versus his relative lack of ability to do so in primaries?Just because he's kicking the shit out of her in caucuses doesn't mean he's dooing poorly in primaries.

Obama - 16 primary wins; 13 states
Alabama primary
Connecticut primary
Delaware primary
Georgia primary
Illinois primary
Missouri primary
Utah primary
Louisiana primary
U.S. Virgin Islands primary
Democrats Abroad primary
District of Columbia primary
Washington primary (also won caucus)
Maryland primary
Virginia primary
Wisconsin primary
Mississippi primary

Clinton - 13 primary wins; 13 states
New Hampshire primary
Arizona primary
Arkansas primary
California primary
Massachusetts primary
New Jersey primary
New Mexico primary
New York primary
Oklahoma primary
Tennessee primary
Ohio primary
Rhode Island primary
Texas primary (lost caucus)

whoman69
03-15-2008, 11:16 AM
A good portion of Hillary's delegates are coming from Democratic strongholds. Kerry took PA in 2004 and if anything the gap has widened since then. The election of 2006 shows Ohio is deeply in the Democratic corner now. Picking up Ohio and its 20 electoral votes hardly makes up for giving up other swing states like Iowa, Wisconsin and Missouri which voted for Bush in the last election.
Obama's strategy is to turn some of the red states back to the Democratic side. Barak can be successful in the south and southwest in turning some states.

beer bacon
03-15-2008, 11:24 AM
A good portion of Hillary's delegates are coming from Democratic strongholds. Kerry took PA in 2004 and if anything the gap has widened since then. The election of 2006 shows Ohio is deeply in the Democratic corner now. Picking up Ohio and its 20 electoral votes hardly makes up for giving up other swing states like Iowa, Wisconsin and Missouri which voted for Bush in the last election.
Obama's strategy is to turn some of the red states back to the Democratic side. Barak can be successful in the south and southwest in turning some states.

Also, in the democratic strongholds and swing states that Hillary has won or expects to win like California, Ohio, and Penn, Obama is either polling better or even with Hillary when pitted against McCain.

Rasmussen has recently released general election polls for California, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania. Obama has a 15% advantage against McCain versus 8% for Hillary in California, he has a slight lead in Pennsylvania, and they are tied in Ohio and Michigan.

whoman69
03-16-2008, 09:40 AM
Clearly the Democrats strongholds are not going to win the next election. The Dems take the northeast and west coast and get what they can out of the midwest. IMO they need to tighten up the midwest, extremely possible given the results of the 2006 election in Ohio, and force the Republicans to play defense in the south. Obama will do very well to take the purple states of Iowa and Wisconsin and that leaves Michigan, Missouri and Indiana to go after. Lock those up early and force the GOP into a prevent defense. If Obama can then take some southern states and others like New Mexico and Nevada, this could be an electoral route.

HonestChieffan
03-16-2008, 09:56 AM
The move now will be the superdelegates moving to HC and the power in party seeing how this flap with Obama has undercut his ability to gain support outside of the Obamamaniacs. HC can pull popular vote and they have to see Obamas success in caucus states was due to organization and focus.

beer bacon
03-16-2008, 10:02 AM
The move now will be the superdelegates moving to HC and the power in party seeing how this flap with Obama has undercut his ability to gain support outside of the Obamamaniacs. HC can pull popular vote and they have to see Obamas success in caucus states was due to organization and focus.

The trend among super delegates since Super Tuesday has been vastly in favor of Obama. He has gained something like 70 SDs on Hillary since then. Clinton's initial big lead in SDs was a result of many of them, members of the DLC and others that owe their loyalty to the Clintons, throwing their support behind her before the primaries even started. Obama has gone from being down 100+ prior to Super Tuesday to being down by 30+ at the current date.

In conclusion, you are talking out of your ass.

HonestChieffan
03-16-2008, 12:05 PM
The trend among super delegates since Super Tuesday has been vastly in favor of Obama. He has gained something like 70 SDs on Hillary since then. Clinton's initial big lead in SDs was a result of many of them, members of the DLC and others that owe their loyalty to the Clintons, throwing their support behind her before the primaries even started. Obama has gone from being down 100+ prior to Super Tuesday to being down by 30+ at the current date.

In conclusion, you are talking out of your ass.

And where have you been since Thursday? Super Tuesday? Hello?

beer bacon
03-16-2008, 12:36 PM
And where have you been since Thursday? Super Tuesday? Hello?

You don't have any evidence for your previous claim. The tracking polls don't even bear out what you are claiming. Super delegates are still trending in Obama's favor. A bunch of white democrats, formerly supporters of Edwards, just decided yesterday to give their votes to Obama over Hillary.

patteeu
03-16-2008, 02:26 PM
You don't have any evidence for your previous claim. The tracking polls don't even bear out what you are claiming. Super delegates are still trending in Obama's favor. A bunch of white democrats, formerly supporters of Edwards, just decided yesterday to give their votes to Obama over Hillary.

He was making a prediction. Note the "will be" form of the verb.

Your response, going back to Super Tuesday as if the events of this past week aren't potentially trend changing, misses the point of HonestChieffan's prediction.

tiptap
03-16-2008, 03:33 PM
The single candidate of Obama had votes within 300,000 of the total for all of the Republicans in the blue state of California. And in the Red State of Texas, Obama got 1,300,000 all by himself, more than all the Republicans combined. The 2,7000,000 total count of Democrats was greater by twice any primary election total Democrat or Republican in the last two Presidential cycles. There may be 3,000,000 additional votes in the general election, and you might claim some of those numbers as crossover. It just that it is twice what the Republicans have ever got out for primaries. It is really unlikely that twice the number of Republicans voted in this primary as the last two cycles and did so in the Democratic Primary when the number on the Republican side as about what was seen historically.

Do I expect a Democratic victory in Texas. Well I wouldn't have even considered it except the numbers are much larger than historical turnout as to make one wonder if there isn't a ground swell that can't be contained.