Democratic Nomination?

Originally posted by BackFire
Here's the problem with Clinton's entire argument as to why she's better. She's comparing primary results and attempting to fallaciously project that into the general election. As if because she's winning Hispanics over Obama that he wouldn't be able to get them once she's out and he's running against McCain. Same thing with working class. The argument assumes that because she has them now rather than Obama that Obama won't get them when she's out of the picture. The general election will be against McCain, not Clinton. Most Hispanics who are voting for Clinton will probably go to Obama. Most working class democrats will end up going to Obama. Why? Because it would be in their economic interest to do so, considering her and Obama have almost identical views on just about everything. And this is going to be clarified a great deal once she's out of the picture and Obama and McCain start discussing their differences.

If Hillary Clinton were a better candidate then why can't she actually beat him, the "weaker" candidate? He's got more states, more popular vote, and he's beating McCain by a much wider margin in polls than she is. He is the stronger candidate, hence why he's going to win.

And make no mistake - If Clinton comes in and steals the nomination, all the while losing the popular vote, losing in pledged delegates, losing in states won, and then somehow winning the nomination, she would very likely not get a large portion of the Obama supporters who feel they had been cheated. They may not vote McCain, but many may refuse to vote at all out of protest.

I more than most am aware that the general election will not be against Clinton, should Obama win the nomination. Using my brilliant powers of deduction (lagnaf), I can take a look at all the voting blocs that Clinton has been outperforming Obama in and projecting them on to the general election. No, Clinton will likely never beat McCain in voting blocs like working class whites, people who attend church more than once a week and Catholics. But the fact that she's winning these groups by such large margins in the primary is telling. These are voting blocs that Democrats' platform fits far better than the GOP's, and yet generally vote Republican in general elections. The fact that Clinton can compete in these blocs better than Obama will is a factor that people should consider when voting. Blacks, the well-educated, and young people (these days at least) will not vote Republican. Obama doesn't have a very strong general election voting coalition.

Also, the Clinton campaign makes a very valid point that she can compete in swing states like Arkansas, West Virginia and Ohio. All three went red in both in 2000 and 2004 but went blue in 1992 and 1996.

As for the "stealing" the nomination point, Clinton is in a good spot to win the popular vote after her 2-1 victory in WV. If she wins big in Kentucky and Puerto Rico (which she likely will), holds down her margin of loss in ORegon and uses that momentum to perform well in Montana and South Dakota, she has a real chance of winning the popular vote. That, combined with the two arguments above will make a compelling argument to superdelegates. That said, that entire situation is hypothetical.

As for Obama winning more states, I personally think that in the states that voted between February 5 and March 4, people were more voting for the abstract quality that was Obama more than the actual person or platform. Also, I'm of the opinion that the caucus system should be abolished. Not just because Obama won every caucus state but two (though I am a bit peeved about that), but because it's a fundamentally undemocratic way to decide a winner.

I've been rambling for a while. ermm

Originally posted by Devil King
But, in other news, I bet Clinton's ass is chapped over the Edwards endorsement.

The primary elections are a selection process. A candidate is not obliged to concede his or her nomination until this process is complete. Especially in an election in which neither candidate has the requisite number of delegates to secure the nomination of the party; the number and affiliations of delegates may change at the convention; and the popular vote may change leading to the convention.

Strangelove - Yes, she has them now. And she'd have them in November. Obama doesn't have them now, but he probably will get most of them in November once Clinton tells her people to vote for Obama; most will probably listen to her. So most of the people she has now Obama will have in November if he's the nominee, and vice versa.

And the only way she'll really have a chance of getting the popular vote is if she adds Michigan to her total. This will not be at all a compelling argument. She'll say "Counting Michigan, I have won the popular vote" and they'll say "Obama's name wasn't on the ballot, you were both told, and agreed to, Michigan and Florida not counting. We're not going to count the popular vote of Michigan towards your total because it is unfair as Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot". And that will be that. They'll reject the argument because it's a terrible one. If she were to win the popular vote without counting Michigan then that would be a bit more decent. But even counting Puerto Rico's popular vote is questionable since those people can't actually vote come November. Plus, in the end, it's not the popular vote that matters, but the delegates. She has so much against her here, I just don't see it happening. Could. But it's borderline impossible right now. Obama's arguments are so much easier. All he has to say is "hey, I won. Played by the rules and won". And the super dels will say "yeah, you did". She knows it isn't likely at all to happen, I think she's just waiting, holding her breath in case something horrible happens to Obama that would render him completely unelectable. Barring that, it's not going to happen for her.

And I agree that the caucus votes are a lousy way of doing things, for the record. As are super delegates.

Yes, but Puerto Rico holds a primary, so they do count. They send 63 delegates to the Convention (more than Montana and South Dakota combined). And since PR is the closest thing we have to adding another star to Old Glory, I think their voices should be heard.

I somewhat agree on the Michigan issue. But the people who voted for Clinton in Michigan did vote for her. Those votes are there. They shouldn't be ignored.

Puerto Rico should count, their delegates especially. But again, I'm attempting to look at this from the point of view of the Super Dels. The point of either candidate referencing the popular vote is to make the claim that their coalition is larger than the other person's come November, since technically the popular vote doesn't matter. Puerto Rico is a moot point in that particular case since they can't actually vote in November.

Well, Michigan's votes should be ignored as both candidates agreed to just that: That they would be ignored. It is unfair to Obama to count those votes when he was told that they wouldn't count or matter. It would more or less be penalizing him for following the rules. This would be akin to completing a season of baseball, and then the team that doesn't make the playoffs makes the argument that they won an exhibition game that both sides agreed wouldn't matter, so they should be in the playoffs instead of the other team. Really, it's just not going to fly. Just can't see it happening.

On a tangential note: Why did Obama, Edwards et.al. remove their names from the Michigan ballot? That always confused me. Michigan didn't break the rules any more than Florida did, and everyone stayed on the ballot there.

Originally posted by Strangelove
Yes, but Puerto Rico holds a primary, so they do count. They send 63 delegates to the Convention (more than Montana and South Dakota combined). And since PR is the closest thing we have to adding another star to Old Glory, I think their voices should be heard.

I somewhat agree on the Michigan issue. But the people who voted for Clinton in Michigan did vote for her. Those votes are there. They shouldn't be ignored.

Originally posted by Strangelove
But the people who voted for Clinton in Michigan did vote for her. Those votes are there. They shouldn't be ignored.

Did they vote for her, or did they vote for the democrat?

Originally posted by Strangelove
On a tangential note: Why did Obama, Edwards et.al. remove their names from the Michigan ballot? That always confused me. Michigan didn't break the rules any more than Florida did, and everyone stayed on the ballot there.

It has confused me as well. Truely, I don't get it.

Originally posted by Strangelove
On a tangential note: Why did Obama, Edwards et.al. remove their names from the Michigan ballot? That always confused me. Michigan didn't break the rules any more than Florida did, and everyone stayed on the ballot there.

Dunno. Could have something to do with the fact that the Michigan vote was pushed by the democratic leaders of the state, where as in Florida it was the Republicans who decided to break the rules. Perhaps they felt Michigan deserved more of a punishment since it was democrats who full well knew the rules and decided to go on as they did in that particular state.

What I think is funny about Michigan is even with no competition, she only got 55% of the vote. The rest voted 'uncommitted'. If we count the popular vote of the state, how do we count those who voted against her? Should they just go to Obama? Or should they kinda overlap the votes for her and cut the popular vote total down to 10% for her. See, this is why Michigan's popular vote won't ever be a strong or legit argument, it's too much of a mess.

So, no answer to the time frame being allowed for the voters of michigan and florida? Or did I miss that answer?

What time frame?

Originally posted by Strangelove
Makes me laugh that he endorses Obama right after the primary where it would have made any difference.

Right after what difference? It's long after the NC primary, where Edwards is a representative. And that "right after" assumption is the position taken by many a state representative, including super delegates. Most say they won't chose sides until after their state has decided for them. But, Obama is still ahead in SDs. Or, do you mean "right after" her win in West Virgina, which (I'm sorry) doesn't make much of a difference?

He's saying that Edward's endorsement would have helped Obama a bit in West Virginia.

Originally posted by BackFire
What time frame?

the time frame that could possibly be possible in the time left before the covention.

That comment was for strangelove. I've brought it up several times, and he seems to have stepped over it.

Originally posted by BackFire
He's saying that Edward's endorsement would have helped Obama a bit in West Virginia.

okay. I didn't get that. I'll blame the 2 pages of comments and trying to digest them, in regards to this conversation, before I responded. But, apparently Mrs. Clinton is so strong and certain amongst the majority of the W.V. population, that it might have made little difference. So, if the endorsement came after it, might it actually address the consideration of that very demographic and the candidate (Edwards) they would most likely have come out in support of? If edwards is the proponent of that demographic, and he doesn't support the candidate for which they voted, then perhaps the hampster-peddal slapping is irrational.

And to add, as feel I must, the big problem in past elections, is that the polling place issues are coming from the rural areas where the voting stations are replete regarding computer fraud issues; they're substantiated by voters pointing out that polling stations that serve thousands of potential voters are being serviced by single voting "machines". This is an issue that we see less and less of the further from city centers we go. This notion that our votes can and should be relegated to computers is a terribly false notion. But, on the other hand, I'm uncomfortable with the idea of "conspiracy" being the answer.

Originally posted by Devil King
the time frame that could possibly be possible in the time left before the covention.

That comment was for strangelove. I've brought it up several times, and he seems to have stepped over it.

Do I think new primaries can be held before the current deadline of June 3? Probably not. But the National Committee might find that the need for re-votes exists, and call for new ones. But then there's the sticky issue of they're going to be paid for. So who knows.

Originally posted by BackFire
He's saying that Edward's endorsement would have helped Obama a bit in West Virginia.

Although I do believe BO's campaign will use Edwards in Kentucky.

Originally posted by Strangelove
I think I answered it a while back.

Do I think new primaries can be held before the current deadline of June 3? Probably not. But the National Committee might find that the need for re-votes exists, and call for new ones. But then there's the sticky issue of they're going to be paid for. So who knows. Not really. I made a mistake with what I said. I believe Edwards' endorsement comes too late to have a genuine effect on the remaining primaries. I didn't mean to refer to a specific state.

Although I do believe BO's campaign will use Edwards in Kentucky.

and I said I might have missed it.

So, your basic answer is that there is no fair or amicable resolution to the situation. How about spliting the delegates right down the middle? It's a solution i've heard a number of times; but that, also, doesn't serve the "voice of the people" in those states.

And from whom are we hearing the issue of money? Only state representatives, as well as who?

Perhaps his endorsement comes too late for the primaries, but it doesn't come too late for the question of "who is more electable".

Originally posted by Strangelove
Although I do believe BO's campaign will use Edwards in Kentucky.

do you recieve e-mails from Mrs. Clinton's campaign?