Electability: Why Hillary Is More Likely to Beat McCain

Bump and Update: The AP reports superdelegates are not feeling bound by primary results, but more concerned about electability. And the International Herald Tribune says McCain's new strategy is to go after the toss-up states.


There's no question that superdelegates will consider electability as a factor in deciding whether to vote for Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. Based on this analysis by long-time Democratic party activist William Arnone, which I return to again and again for the numbers, here's what I think they need to look at:

  • Who can best hold on to the 20 states the Dems won in 2004? Which candidate is more likely to put these states at risk in a battle with John McCain?
  • Which candidate has the better chance of winning states that voted Republican in 2004 but are now seen as vulnerable for McCain?
  • Which candidate has a better chance of getting the votes of four key constituencies that could carry the election for McCain?

Answers below: [More...]

In 2004, the Dems carried 20 states with 252 electoral votes. It wasn't enough. In 2008, the Dems need to carry these states again, plus pick up others. How can they do it?

First, we need to figure out which of the 20 states are vulnerable to McCain and decide whether Hillary or Obama has a better chance of carrying them. Mr. Arnone says those states are: Pennsylvania, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Oregon and Wisconsin, which have a total of 68 electoral votes.

Next are the ten states the Dems didn't win in 2004 that there's a chance of winning in 2008. They are: Arkansas; Colorado; Florida; Iowa; Missouri; Nevada; New Mexico; North Carolina; Ohio; and Virginia. Of these, all but North Carolina have already voted. Mr. Arnone says:

The winner of the popular vote in the Democratic primary or caucus in each of these key states will have a higher likelihood of carrying that state in November. This is a critical consideration in determining who is likely to be the Party's most successful Presidential candidate in the general election.

Thus far, Hillary Clinton has won five of these key states -- Arkansas (decisively), Florida (decisively, but in a primary that was not recognized by the Democratic National Committee for the purpose of selecting delegates to the Party's convention), Nevada (solidly), New Mexico (slightly), and Ohio (solidly). Barack Obama has won four -- Colorado (decisively), Iowa (solidly), Missouri (slightly), and Virginia (decisively). Clinton's popular vote total in these keys states was 3,179,630 (2,314,531 if Florida's vote is excluded), or 52.7%, vs. Obama's 2,852,885 (2,281,552 if Florida's vote is excluded), or 47.3%.

Of these states, Clinton's five have a total of 63 electoral votes, while Obama's four have a total of 40 electoral votes.

Together with all of the 20 states that went Democratic in the 2004 Presidential election, both Clinton's and Obama's key states would have enough electoral votes to give the Democratic Presidential ticket victory in November.

This brings the equation back to not being able to lose any of the 20 states Dems won in 2004 to McCain. How do Dems prevent that?

There are four key constituencies the Dems need to win in 2008. They are: Catholic voters, older voters, women voters and Hispanic/Latino voters. Here is Mr. Arnone's analysis:

  • Catholics:
    Of those who voted in the 2004 elections, 27% were Catholic. With Catholic voters, the Republican Presidential ticket in 2004 had a margin of 5%. This was a shift of 7 percentage points from the Democratic Presidential ticket’s margin of 2% in 2000.

    The last Presidential election in which the Democratic ticket lost the Catholic voter to the Republican ticket was in 1988 (Dukakis-Bentsen vs. Bush-Quayle), when the margin of loss was also 5%. The Democratic Presidential ticket of Clinton-Gore in 1992 and 1996 carried the Catholic vote by margins of 9% and 16% respectively.

    Except for the 2000 election, every Presidential ticket in recent history that has won the Catholic vote has captured the Presidency.

  • Older voters:
    Voters age 60 or older represented 24% of those voting in the 2004 election. Of these, voters age 65 or older represented 19% of those voting in the 2004 election. ....Of voters age 65 or older, 77% are registered to vote. This represents a higher voter registration percentage than any other age group.

    Beginning with the 1976 Presidential election, people age 65 or older have constituted a larger share of actual voters than their portion of the total voting-age population. In the 2004 and 2000 Presidential elections, voters age 65 or older had turnouts of 69% and 67% respectively, which were the highest turnout rates among all age groups.

    In 2004, the Democratic ticket nationwide lost voters age 60 or older to the Republican ticket by a margin of 8%. This was a shift of 12 percentage points from the Democratic Presidential ticket’s margin of 4% in 2000. The Democratic ticket’s margin of loss among voters age 65 or older was 5%. The greater margin of loss among voters age 60 or older was due to the Republican ticket winning the votes of those aged 60-64 by a 15% margin. Among older white voters in 2000, however, the Republican ticket had a margin of 6%.

    More white older voters have backed the Republican Presidential ticket in seven of the last eight Presidential campaigns. Of those age 65 or older, 81% are white.

    ....The last Presidential election in which the Democratic ticket lost older voters to the Republican ticket was in 1988 (Dukakis-Bentsen vs. Bush-Quayle), when the margin of loss was 1%.

  • Women:
    In every Presidential election since 1980, a gender gap has existed. Women have more often supported Democratic candidates, while men have more often supported Republican candidates. In recent Presidential elections, the gap has ranged from 4% to 11%. In 1992, women voters supported the Democratic Presidential ticket in larger numbers than men by 4%. In the 2000 election, the Democratic ticket won the women's vote by 11%.

    Of the voters nationwide who are men, the Republican Presidential ticket in 2004 had a margin of 11%, which was the same margin as in 2000. Of the voters nationwide who are women, the Democratic Presidential ticket in 2004 had a margin of 3%. This represented a shift of 8 percentage points to the Republican Presidential ticket from the Democratic ticket’s margin among women voters in 2000.

    This decrease in the margin of women voting for the Democratic Presidential ticket may have been the single most important factor in the outcome of the 2004 Presidential election. This gender gap is seen in all age groups, ranging from a 4% Democratic margin among women voters under age 30 to 11% among women voters over age 60.

    While women tend to vote more Democratic and men more Republican, even larger differences exist between married and unmarried voters. Women of voting age who have never been married, are divorced or are widowed comprise 42% of all registered women voters. In the 2000 Presidential election, unmarried women voters represented the same percentage of the electorate as Jewish, African-American, and Hispanic/Latino voters combined.

    ...Of married women overall, 55% voted for the Republican Presidential ticket in 2004. Of married women with children, 59% voted for the Republican ticket in 2004. Approximately 60% of single women voted for the Democratic ticket in 2004. The Democratic Presidential ticket, however, has carried the unmarried segment of the electorate in every election since 1988.

  • Hispanics/Latinos:
    Hispanic/Latino voters comprise 6% of the voting population nationwide. This represents an increase of 2% since 2000. With 13% of the total population and 17% of the population under age 18, Hispanics/Latinos are potentially the fastest-growing segment of the electorate. In 2004, the Democratic ticket nationwide won Hispanic/Latino voters by a margin of 11%. This was a shift to the Republican Party of 25 percentage points from the Democratic Presidential ticket’s margin of 36% in 2000.

    ...The 2004 Presidential election represented a continuing trend of Hispanic/Latino voters away from the Democratic ticket. The 44% share of the Hispanic/Latino vote achieved by the 2004 Republican Presidential ticket surpassed the previous high of 37% for the 1984 Republican Presidential ticket (Reagan-Bush).

    ....the Republican Presidential ticket in 2004 won a greater share of the Hispanic/Latino vote than any other Republican Presidential ticket since the advent of Presidential election exit polls in 1972.

    In the 2006 Congressional elections, Hispanic/Latino voters voted for Democratic candidates by a 19% margin. This represented a shift to the Democratic Party of 8 percentage points from 2004.

    ....There is diversity among Hispanic/Latino voters nationwide. About two-thirds have roots in Mexico. The remainder includes voters with roots in Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Puerto Rico, and other parts of Latin and South America.

Mr. Arnone's conclusion: Hillary is better able to win these four critical groups.

In the states that have held primaries/caucuses thus far, Clinton has proven to be more attractive to each of these four segments than Obama.

What makes these four segments critical to the Democratic Party's chances in November?

Unlike African-Americans or younger voters who have voted steadfastly for the Democratic Presidential ticket in recent elections, Catholics, Hispanics-Latinos, older voters and women have tended to vote less Democratic in recent Presidential elections. In the 2004 Presidential election, the Democratic Party suffered significant losses of support among each of these four critical constituent groups.

Superdelegates can decide who to vote for up to the last minute. They can change their mind at the last minute. They can vote according to whatever factors they deem most important.

The most important factor for superdelegates in my mind right now, given how close the candidates are in vote totals is which candidate has the best chance of winning in November.

Using the factors laid out by Mr. Arnone, that candidate is Hillary Clinton.

I'll add that for me, it may be as simple as which candidate has a better chance of bringing home Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania in November. I think that candidate is Hillary Clinton.

From a numbers perspective, who do you see as more electable and why?

< Disingenuous Debate Analysis From HuffPo | Hillary Asserts She's More Electable Than Obama >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Commenters Camille and (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 02:47:46 PM EST
    ImaginaryHipHopFriend have previously been banned using other screen names. Their comments have been deleted and their accounts erased.

    Please stay on topic (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 02:51:18 PM EST
    Off topic comments no matter who they favor will be deleted. This topic is electability based on statistics.

    electability (5.00 / 14) (#38)
    by vin rose on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 02:59:09 PM EST
    a quick true story. three weeks ago today, I confronted Chris Murphy our congressman in Ct on his position on a revote in Fl. and MI at a fundraiser for himself. Murphy (an obama supporter) said, "I have little sympathy for the voters of Florida or Michigan.' My response: "I'm not here to plug Hillary, just to tell you that without a revote in both states, Obama cannot win because he will not be seen as a legitimate nominee by a certain percentage of Clinton supporters in those particular states. The people of those states did not ask their party to move up their vote, many did not even know their vote would not count.' His response: "As I said, i have no sympathy for the people of those states. I didn't see any of them protest their disenfranchisement." I said, "Wouldn't you consider 1.7 million coming to the polls a kind of protest? Besides, how else might they protest?" His response: "There is no way I'd support a revote. Besides, it has nothing to do with me." My response: "My son and I spent several full days going door to door for you. People like me helped you beat Nancy Johnson who was considered unbeatable. We did it mostly because of the Iraq war.  Now by not counting Florida and Michigan, you are paving the way for John McCain who will escalate the conflict, as he's promised."  "I have no control over this issue anyway," Mr. Murphy said. He was there to raise money and he became somewhat incensed, "Do you know Nancy Pelosi?" I asked. The majority of people at this house in the Northwest Corner of CT were heavy hitter donors, all of them for Obama. I was politely shown the door. Chris Murphy is a young man. Unfortunately, he is about to taught a lesson, that somebody in his fifties (who  began political work very young for Eugene McCarthy, who knew Hubert Humphry, met McGovern, worked to get Jimmy Carter elected etc. I just wish that lesson wasn't at the expense of how many millions of likely deaths due to war and famine if McCain is elected. My estimation is that Obama will win more states than McGovern but fewer than Dukakis or Mondale. It will not be even close. What a shame. It makes one feel nauseous.

    interesting post, vin rose, and I agree (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by kempis on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:08:57 PM EST
    My estimation is that Obama will win more states than McGovern but fewer than Dukakis or Mondale. It will not be even close. What a shame. It makes one feel nauseous.

    I think that in addition to PA, OH, FL, MI, the Midwest and the South, Obama could lose NJ and New Hampshire and Rhode Island.

    I agree with Jeralyn that CO is chicken that most likely won't hatch. And I think people are wildly optimistic to think that Obama can carry VA. They must be forgetting that Webb barely beat George "Macaca" Allen in 06. It's not like the state is that purple, and McCain will have a lot of support.

    What's amazing is how sheltered Obama-supporters are, thanks to the balkanization of media. They can happily perch at Kos and HuffPo and MSNBC or inside-the-beltway media salons and have no earthly idea that the rest of the country is not infatuated with their guy.


    Right, a few of us have expressed our feelings (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by BarnBabe on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 04:41:23 PM EST
    on the blogs on a Obama candidate and even using TL as an example, if you lose a few votes for stay at home or write ins, it does not matter that much. But if you multiply that by the number of people who are not that involved in politics and have no clue what a blog is, you have a huge loss. And the older voter might just vote for McCain.

    We saw how sucessful they were (4.66 / 3) (#77)
    by hairspray on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 04:34:10 PM EST
    with Ned Lamont in Ct.

    I think they only really pushed for the primary (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by BarnBabe on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 04:51:01 PM EST
    Yes, it was a great moment when Lamont won, but then the excitement dropped a bit and there was not as great a push for him. The night of the primary win, people saw that he was up on stage with Jessie and Al.And I am thinking, why are they there? I didn't know they lived in CT. I think Al is sharp and funny, but when they show up together bells go off in people's minds. Then Lamont went on vacation while Joe reorganized. Lamont did not take this winning surge and run with it. The air came out of the balloon and Al & Jessie scared Republicans. And Joe scared the Republicans that they might have Lamont while they already knew he was one of them.

    Exactly! (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by lansing quaker on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 09:14:23 PM EST
    As I have commented before, whenever the Netroots wax poetic and try to flex their "Hydroxycut" like muscle on elections, I just think Lamont, Lamont, Lamont.

    Hillary and Lieberman are not comparable at all, but the Netroots' furvor over the Primary is comparable.

    They don't even consider GE dynamics.  But they can say they "Crashed the Gate" and won that primary.


    How many states was that? (none / 0) (#42)
    by dotcommodity on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:04:27 PM EST
    attitudes (none / 0) (#111)
    by 1950democrat on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 01:24:24 PM EST
    A clear contrast in attitudes. It's not a matter of whether the FL/MI voters 'deserve' punishment -- but of who they will vote for in November.

    Blindfolds for everyone? (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by Truth Partisan on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:30:28 PM EST
    Seriously, it used to even get tedious, the many presentations of how the election could play out. Do you think we could get a real opinion by the people who used to be able to evaluate the votes calmly and rationally if we blindfolded them and feed them the stats without revealing which candidate was which? We have all sorts of new spins--but wouldn't the way it used to be done favor Clinton every time?

    One Additional Point... (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by Exeter on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:41:00 PM EST
    Hillary can point to not only primary success in getting the four constituencies mentioned, but she can also point to Clinton administration wins and her broad Senate wins in 2000 and 2006. Obama, on the other hand, has not shown an apbility reach these constituencies. Yes, he won a broad general election in 2004, but that was against a joke candidate.

    Obama doesn't (5.00 / 4) (#57)
    by jen on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:54:22 PM EST
    stand a chance in most of the "red" states he won -- especially the caucus states. Anyone who lurked over at Free Republic since this race began could see who they want to run against. The "Stop Her Now" campaign was used effectively in many states to put Obama on top. I'm not saying Hillary will win those states either, but she will win FL, OH and PA, whereas Obama probably won't.

    If Obama's the nominee, McCain will walk away with it. It'll be over by the time the polls close on the east coast.

    What about the argument that more (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by hairspray on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:54:50 PM EST
    younger voters will swamp the regulars and it won't matter?  My husband ( a Hillary fan) thinks there might be something to this argument.  These percentages, while I like the diarists analysis, may not be factoring huge increases in younger voters to bolster Obama's weak numbers in the GE.

    There would be... (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by Exeter on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:59:46 PM EST
    ...but there would also be more republican / indy women voting for Hillary to balance out that argument.

    States that HRC can pick up (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by txpolitico67 on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:57:01 PM EST
    I feel that along with all the states that Kerry won in 2004 (we may lose Wisconsin), I feel that she could pick up Florida, New Mexico and of course Arkansas.  I was in OKC wearing my HRC button and I was SWAMPED with positive remarks about her.  OK is a neighboring state to AR...she beat Obama there pretty decisevely.  I bet she could give McCain a run for his money there.  I also feel that WV could be in play for HRC as well.  I don't think that VA or CO will go Hillary.  Even with the macaca video Webb barely won.  A lot of military in VA...and McCain is one of them.  

    She will do great (none / 0) (#112)
    by David07Power on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 01:39:08 PM EST
    Hillary will do brilliant in the General Election. Bill Clinton did say she would have a harder time in the primaries and caucuses. Just look at each of the states.

    She will win New Englands Vermont, Maine, Rhode Island, Connecticut and Massachusetts (which Obama might lose). New Hampshire will swing this way and that but could be more for McCain.

    She will win it big in New York and New Jersey, and take with them Delaware, DC and Maryland. She could easily pull off big wins in Ohio and Pennsylvania, put West Virginia and Missouri in play, and hold onto Michigan (Obama hasnt a chance). She will take Illinois, but it will be pretty close in Iowa, Minnesota and Wisconsin.

    As for the south I feel she will lose quite a few but put up a good fight in Tennessee and Virginia. Florida will swing her way and Arkansas loves her!

    The West could be very interesting. She will fare well in Kansas, and Oklahoma will love her, and a big enough hispanic turnout could deliver Texas, Colorado, Nevada and scare McCain in Arizona. New Mexico will be close but I reckon its Hillarys. The Dems wont win in the rest of the West, Obama can drop it there too, he supports abortion, he will not win these red states no matter what he thinks.

    Then there is the west coast, California will go big for Hillary and she will fight hard and win strong in Washington, Oregon and Hawaii.

    Hillary is in it to win it and win it she will


    please read the comment rules (none / 0) (#113)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 01:55:34 PM EST
    two of your comments have been deleted for insults. Name calling is not allowed, whether of the candidates or anyone else. Nor are your bodily functions appropriate discourse.

    Women voters as factor (5.00 / 4) (#65)
    by miriam on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 04:02:48 PM EST
    The following from the article seems particularly important this year:

    "Of the voters nationwide who are women, the Democratic Presidential ticket in 2004 had a margin of 3%. This represented a shift of 8 percentage points to the Republican Presidential ticket from the Democratic ticket's margin among women voters in 2000.

    This decrease in the margin of women voting for the Democratic Presidential ticket may have been the single most important factor in the outcome of the 2004 Presidential election..."

    Many women did not like Kerry and either voted for Bush (for national security reasons) or stayed home.  And now, if Hillary is perceived by women to have been cheated out of the nomination by the disenfranchisement of Michigan and Florida voters, or the thuggish tactics of Obama and his supporters, the DNC should take seriously the threat of women who've said they will NOT vote for Obama.  I believe many of them mean it.

    It's Not Even Close (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by cdalygo on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 04:18:03 PM EST
    Hillary will keep the 20 and challenge in the border states we generally lose. Obama will lose major states like Ohio/Penn and see most of his caucus wins will vanish.

    He will not carry the Western Hispanic vote. Nor will he carry women, many of whom (including me) have had it with him and his supporters.

    All that matters now is the following:

    1. Does the party actually care about winning presidency in 2008? Looking how they botched Congressional majority in regards to Iraq and investigations of President it seems likely they don't. (In other words, the country is too much of a mess to fix so keep blaming Republicans. Or they are too scared to try to fix it. Take your pick if you choose this option.)

    If no, they stick with Obama and maintain leadership of Party Left-Liberal wing. If yes, someone besides them has to deliver news to him.

    2. Can a unity ticket still emerge with Hillary on top? Right now I say no. His actions post debate don't paint him as Vice-Presidential material. (Forget whether he bird flipped her, his whining was embarrassing. Moreover, HRC looked ticked off during that Fox TV news interview post debate.

    please don't do that (4.00 / 2) (#75)
    by vin rose on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 04:28:31 PM EST
    even I who cannot stand the man, and thought he was 100% phony from the telepromptor speech at the dem convention, will vote for him against mccain... I will be holding my nose, believe me, but the alternative will be much worse!

    Please don't tell others how to vote. (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by BrandingIron on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:25:18 PM EST
    Some of us Clintonites who will go McCainaanite really do believe in experience over Obama's message (which I would say is now heavily diluted by his own actions) and would be able to tolerate it/suck it up for four years until the next election.  There's good reason why the Republicans don't really LIKE McCain, and some of that reason is good enough for the people who will vote for him.

    I would rather place my bets on the sure bet/choose the Landrover instead of gambling on what's behind door #3.


    Hey, you nailed me right on. (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by BarnBabe on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 05:11:15 PM EST
    Let's see, I am Catholic (Have my own set of rules though), I am a woman and I am a single woman (Divorced-Been there, done that), I am close to the older thing, (Any day now), and I dated some really cool Hispanic guys while growing up in Florida. I also have many Hispanic friends in San Diego. So I nailed 3 out of 4 but I think the last one is pretty darn close. Oh, and I live in one those important states of Pennsylvania. Hillary can count on my vote.

    In California (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by DaleA on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 07:05:49 PM EST
    Latinos, Asians, Pacific Islanders, Native Americans, Lesbians and Gays are close to a majority of the population. These are groups Hillary carried by at least 2 to 1 in the primary. If Obama is the nominee, we should begin worrying about California.

    The Census Bureau shows that 55% of all AA's live in the South. These are states Dems have not carried in over 40 years. So worries about the AA vote come down to the industrial states.

    I keep telling people that (none / 0) (#97)
    by BrandingIron on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:18:42 PM EST
    everyone should be worrying about California.  We have a very popular Governator, for G-d's sake, and there are a LOT of Republicans away from the lib cities like SF and LA.

    Anyone remember how long ago California was a Red State?  Before 1992.  It was a red state, and Bill turned it blue.


    Hard Work and Electability (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by EricaLeigh on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 02:14:53 PM EST
    Obama has "participated" in numerous Senate Committees? Please get your facts straight.

    Since Obama was made chair of the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Europe/NATO, he did not convene a single meeting.  Not one!  This is particularly shortsighted on his part since it was his one great opportunity to get some foreign policy (aside from living in Indonesia as an eight-year-old) under his belt.

    Hillary, on the other hand, is so good at working across the aisle and moving people forward on legislation and policy, that Rove told Republicans on the hill to stop working with her because her reputation as a go-to-person was getting too strong.

    Sorry, but good old-fashioned hard work still counts for something to a majority of Americans and will be an issue in the general election.  Just one more area in which Hillary can stand toe-to-toe against McCain, unlike Obama, who has not earned a reputation for steady effort or stellar achievement in Illinois or the U.S. Senate.

    Right you are! (none / 0) (#119)
    by Folkwolf101 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 02:50:16 PM EST
    Let us not forger the arrogance of a man who is fully entitled to his presidential run after a mere 3 year jump from the Illinois State Legislature through the Senate to his campaign run, during which he accomplished so very little. Yes, good old fashioned hardwork still should count for something.

    Let us not forget Obama's flighty father. At age 18, Barack Obama Sr. married a girl of 16, had children, but then abandoned this family for an education opportunity in the US.  There, while still married to his first wife, he married a young college freshman student after knocking her up. Later, he abandoned this 2nd wife and child for the opportunity of a fellowship at Harvard. Somehow, the son still romantices this absentee father in a book, Dreams from my Father.

    Hillary has remained consistent with all her views on childcare, heathcare, immigration, the economy, and foreign policy. Hillary had my support on day 1 of her campaign to be ready on Day 1 in the white house.


    I Love You All (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by RecentConvert on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 04:08:34 AM EST
    This is the very first time I have visited this site, and I feel like I've come home after a long journey!  

    The Hillary hatred that flies around the internet has made me physically ill.  Watching MSNBC and CNN doesn't help me get any better either!  Coming to this site and seeing dispassionate, rational discourse about why Hillary Clinton is clearly the stronger candidate is totally, unequivocally refreshing.

    I will say, just as a quick comment, that the general consensus about Hillary's supporters voting for McCain is completely correct.  Obama's demographic supporters tend to be precisely the people who are most inclined to support a Democrat in the fall.  If Reagan's two wins in the 80s tell us anything, it's that culturally moderate "Reagan Democrats" are up for grabs when we nominate somebody like Obama, who has laughably little ability to carry this constituency at all.  Politics is always a relative choice.  This year, the Republicans did not nominate a run-of-the-mill Republican; they nominated John-the-war-hero-McCain.  Working class voters in swing states are already predisposed to support him.  It is incomprehensible that we would nominate the person who can't compete with him on that turf.

    The superdelegates can't change their minds (4.71 / 14) (#53)
    by dianem on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:31:14 PM EST
    The problem is that if the superdelegates vote in Clinton, then everybody who supports Obama will boycott the election. We lose most of the black vote and the vote of most of the far left and voter's under 21. Make that 25. Clinton can't win with those losses. I don't think that Obama can win, but I think the he has damaged Clinton to the point that she can't win either. He used "slash and burn" politics to turn her into a lying, boastful, racist.  His game plan from the outset was to do exactly what he accused Clinton of doing - to poison the well, making sure that if he wasn't selected then nobody else could win.

    Oddly, she didn't. She showed restraint, limiting herself to the "experience" and "electability" arguments. If she had really opened up on Obama, really "vetted" him, then she might have been able to knock him out of the race, but she knew that if she poisoned the well it would hurt the party. Clinton is a party loyalist, she didn't want to do that.

    Obama is loyal only to himself. He doesn't care if he destroys the reputation of one of the Democratic Party's greatest assets, Bill Clinton, or if he divides the party. He thinks he can find a way to win. Heck, he has come so much further than he should have - I suspect he believes his own press releases. It must be incredibly enlifting to hear all of those people screaming at you when you speak, to have so many people telling you that they believe in you. Unless you are very well grounded that's going to go to your head. Clinton has been torn down so many times that she knows how politics works. She isn't going to let adulation go to her head. She knows how quickly it turns, and how little it means when the chips are down.

    I was thinking about this yesterday (5.00 / 4) (#59)
    by stillife on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:56:05 PM EST
    while grocery shopping.  (Yes, I'm fairly obsessed.)

    The AA vote is not going to go for McCain.  They will not turn out for Hillary in huge numbers as they would for Obama, but they're not going to vote Republican.  Likewise, the young vote, those who are energized by Obama but not actually very political, will likely stay home.  

    Hillary's voters, OTOH, are far more prone to vote for McCain.  Older voters, ethnic white voters, centrist Dems - these folks are less likely to have qualms about voting for a supposedly "moderate" Republican.  

    Of course, the GE is months away and all of this is subject to change.  So much depends on how the Dem nominee tries to mend fences with the supporters of the other candidate.  Somehow, I don't see Obama doing very well with that.  As you said, he's loyal only to himself.

    IMO, in Obama's case, you have voters who would likely stay home whereas a good percentage of Hillary supporters, who trend more conservative, would be more likely to actually vote for McCain.


    I think she'll do fine with AA voters. (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by lorelynn on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 04:09:52 PM EST
    The Clintons have earned it. Once Obama is out of the picture, the chits will be called in and the commercials rolled out. The Big Dog will bark and people will listen.  I think she'll get record level AA turn out.

    It's the blogosphere what will be disgruntled should Clinton win the presidency. Everyone else will be overjoyed. Pretty much. Even a whole slice of the McCain voters who did well in the 90s will feel fine about it all.


    Add the Gop women voters. (5.00 / 4) (#82)
    by BarnBabe on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 04:59:34 PM EST
    I think you can get a bunch of those also. Especially older women who would like to see a Lady President in their life time. I have said before that most of the AA vote was for Hillary but was stolen away. I agree they will not vote for McCain. But older Dem women might because the younger whipper snapper might just scare them.

    It's not realistic... (5.00 / 3) (#62)
    by Exeter on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:58:30 PM EST
    ...too assume that all the Obama voters will stay home -- or that all the Clinton voters will stay home. I would say there is 20% in each camp that will be so angry that they will either stay home or vote for McCain. What I have argued is that disenfranchised Clinton voters are more dangerous because a greater percentage of them are more likely to vote for McCain-- which has more of a devastating impact than simply staying at home.

    Twice as many Clinton voters (5.00 / 4) (#69)
    by lorelynn on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 04:14:07 PM EST
    are telling pollsters they won't vote for Obama as vice versa. And Clinton supporters are in blue states, overall, as opposed to obama's red state supporters.

    20% is a lot (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by dianem on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 04:18:24 PM EST
    Given the political make-up of our nation, if even 10% of Clinton's supporters decide to stay home we will probably lose the election. Obama thinks he can get enough new voter's to make up for the loss, but he is underestimating McCain's appeal to moderates. They won't swing toward an inexperienced kid unless they think that McCain is so old that his experience becomes a negative.

    if the message about Hillary's health care (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by thereyougo on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 06:00:50 PM EST
    gets the attention of the ones who absolutely said they would not vote for her, I think they'll soon change their minds. I think she can do it. She's personable and says ther right thing.

    damage (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by 1950democrat on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 01:57:06 PM EST
    I think even on a worst case, Hillary will not be so badly damaged in November. The obvious factor is that she can offer Obama the VP slot or some important Cabinet post, which would be a great step up for a very inexperienced person. That would give the AA's a good reason to support her ticket. There's really nothing Obama as nominee could offer to attract Hillary away from her NY Senator job.

    Even if Obama is not the VP, when the race really gets going against McCain, I think practical-minded Obama supporters, particularly blue-collar AA's, will vote the issues rather than an artificial grievance about technicalities.

    Even in the less practical blogosphere, some of the Obama supporters are already trying to make peace, talking about supporting whoever the nominee is. -- However, a lot of blogosphere Hillary supporters aren't buying that, bitter old women as we would be.


    dianem (4.00 / 4) (#55)
    by vin rose on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:39:44 PM EST
    excellent post, that's why dean has to get his head out from you know where and say unequivocably that we need to revote fl. and mi. if hrc wins popular vote, she will ultimately be considered legit by everyone. if she gets the superdelegates without the revote and pop majority, you are absolutely right. she will lose. to me this is the revote is the only hope of wining the ge at this point, and as you say, obama has done a might job of poisoning the well, friends in pa say they are being blitz by anti-hillary healthcare ads as we speak.

    revotes (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by Kensdad on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:57:05 PM EST
    Obama and the DNC are hoping and praying for no re-votes (just seat the delegates after he's wrapped up the nomination)...  Hillary's camp is keeping the issue alive and hoping to close the gap in popular vote (and hopefully delegates) so that it is within a margin that could be reversed by counting FL and MI or by re-votes in those states.  if Obama's lead is so narrow that the only way he can win is by keeping FL and MI out, then he'll be a tainted nominee.  i expect that enough of the party will see that and some kind of resolution on FL and MI will follow.  that resolution would have to be a re-vote since at that point neither camp would be able to agree on any other compromise as it would determine the final outcome.

    what a mess...  the DNC rolled the dice by punishing MI and FL.  they were betting that a clear winner would emerge without those two states.  it looks like they are going to lose their bet.  it's never smart to NOT count votes (or delegates) in a democracy.  it taints everything and every principle that we stand for.  poor, young, naive Chris Murphy (above) just doesn't get it.  i sense that lots of obama supporters are deluding themselves on this issue (none more so than Josh Marshall over at TPM who keeps insisting that the rules are the rules...  well, unfortunately, democracy is based on principles like every vote shall count, and those principles override Josh's precious "rules.")


    what a mess... the DNC rolled the dice by punishi (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by vin rose on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 04:09:45 PM EST
    yes, what a mess and what a shame. All one needs to do is check out any of the sites that rate charities and realize how effective clinton's has been and how many people all over the world he is helping... then you look at obama's less than 1 percent gifting for charity. And to think that people who call themselves progressives are supporting him.

    look at the polls in fl. and see how behind obama is there compared to Hillary, and they haven't even brought out the farrakan problem to cinch the jewish vote...


    I don't think even that could work (3.75 / 4) (#66)
    by dianem on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 04:07:54 PM EST
    Obama's supporters are convinced that he has won the primary. Anything that happens now, including revoting Michigan and Florida, to show anything else will be seen by them as the establishment working to "overturn the will of the people". The only out we have at this point is for Obama to be so badly tarred by some scandal that it becomes obvious that he can't possibly win. Clinton won't expose anything like that. It wouldn't work if she did, anyway. If it came from anywhere near her she would be blamed for it and would still lose. The right wing won't do it. They want to win the GE and they know that if Obama is legitimately disgraced then they will have to deal with Clinton, who actually has a chance to beat McCain. They'll save the worst of their dirt for just before the election.

    Could not have said it better (3.66 / 3) (#79)
    by citizen53 on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 04:43:09 PM EST
    I see Obama and his $1/4 BILLION as the more cynical because his actions are in contrast to his words when he could be raising the debate, as he proposes to do.  Instead, he swamps the people like a drug company selling erection medicine.

    To me, it says a lot about America, Obamania, or whatever it is called.  This has parallels with the Republican love affair created under Bush.  The candidate based on illusion.

    Obama, of course, is no Bush, yet I watch his campaign, the Madison Avenue of it all, the negativity, the contradictions, and wonder if we are being sold a bill of goods, and are that easily manipulated.  It just has that feel to me.  We used to laugh at Republicans for what we now also do.  It is a sickness of America that it happens to both sides.  In this way, Nader IS right.

    The whole way we select the nominees is corrupt, from the money to the way campaigns are run to the media coverage and the incestuous connection of campaign advertising.  And we brag and lecture others about democracy.

    I hope Obama proves me wrong, whether he get elected or not.  I see him as another politician, no different than any others, who would trade off his grandmother for political advantage.  And so it goes.


    What? (none / 0) (#120)
    by WorkinJoe on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 07:44:54 PM EST
    Obama's 1/4 billion has been raised by contributions by more than 1 million people.  I, a 48-year-old white male, made my first contribution to a politician by sending $100 to Obama.  This cannot be overlooked.  Because of Obama's presence in this campaign, Democratic registration is through the roof.  This will carry over to some degree in the general election.  Whether Obama or Clinton is the nominee, each, whether a bi-racial man or a woman, will face a unique set of prejudices not encountered by the typical older white male candidate.  I don't think the smears by either side will linger to the general election, and I think the competitiveness and length of the campaign will benefit the Dem party because each state has been involved and the juices are flowing.

    Absolutely! (none / 0) (#126)
    by annabelly on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 09:11:27 AM EST
    If there is one thing Obama has studied well in his short time in Washington, it's the Republican's ability to project their own weaknesses as the weaknesses of their opponent. Projection is a Republican tool, and he wields it like a pro.

    Personally, after 20 years of Democratic loyalty, I'm prepared to abandon the party if Clinton is not on the ticket. I've had enough of all of it, the sexism, the shooting self in the foot, the inaction, the bad plans, and the allowance for charisma where no experience exists. Maybe if enough of us refuse to support their nonsense, we'll get some smart people in charge, instead of idiots like Dean and Bazile. One can hope anyway, and one can refuse to support a charade.


    I hear this a lot (4.66 / 3) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 02:37:02 PM EST
    And I do not know if this is a result of ignorance or willful misunderstanding.

    George Bush of course had no chance to win in CA or NY. But if I understand your argument, you are arguing that John McCain would have won them or had a better chance of winning them than Bush in 2000. I think that can be argued. The problem is you can not argue that John McCain would have won them. NEITHER had a chance in either state.

    The issue is the demographic breakdown. It so happens that I think, unlike Jeralyn, that Obama is more electable overall than Clinton. But it is silly to argue that Obama is more electable in Florida or Ohio.

    The argument for Obama actually does rest, to some degree, on primary results. For example, in Iowa, Colorado, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Virginia. The primary results on those states do indeed signal an electability advantage for Obama in those states.

    BTW, to say a candidate holds an electability advantage is NOT to say the other candidate can NOT win in those states.

    One of the most frustrating aspects of this campaign seasons is the willful ignorance or misunderstanding we often face in discussing these issues. I do not understand why these issues can not be discussed rationally.  

    the analysis says (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 02:43:44 PM EST
    both of them could win if we keep the 20 we won in 2004 and each wins any of the ten key states we lost in 2004 that they won in the promaries.

    That's why that analysis doesn't determine who's better to beat McCain. You also have to look at where we won in 2004 that we might not in 2008 and who are the key constituencies in these states.

    Also, I wouldn't count on Colorado in November.


    or VA (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by white n az on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 02:46:00 PM EST
    if the polls are to believed

    I was responding to a now deleted comment (none / 0) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 02:50:20 PM EST
    I do not agree with your post but your argument is certainly a reasonable one.

    Some want to take the vote back (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by Leisa on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 02:56:11 PM EST
    that they gave to Obama in the primaries...  I have spoken to a few in AZ and here in TX that say they and others do.  I do not know how widespread that sentiment is however...  That would be an interesting poll, it could go both ways, everyone has their issues.  
    It is just that more is still being learned about Obama, and many people are finding it unpalatable.
    We do not hear much about this, for example.  He did not make many friends in the Republican side of the US Senate and they are holding their cards close.  The Freshman Senator was indeed unlike other pols, he dared to disrespect and pontificate to the senior class in the senate... not a good plan if you want them to work with you.

    You don't have to look far after (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by thereyougo on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 05:42:15 PM EST
    Hillary was elected to the senate after her tenure as First Lady.

    She went right to work and when 9/11 hit she was able to work across the isle with her husband's enemies when both  Houses were  R majority.

    I thought more power to her, working with Tom the Hammer Delay on funding New York's re-building. It had to be sheer professionalism to do that.

    she's impressive. Can't say enough about her abilities to work with those crusty lifers in the senate where horse trading and deal making is how things get done in the all male club.


    Thank you for pointing that out (none / 0) (#102)
    by Leisa on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 09:58:08 PM EST
    I am also impressed with her ability to rise above the fray.  That is a demonstrated ability to achieve for the common good, not ego.  

    When one looks at her as whole person, see the adversity she has come thorough (come on, she is wealthy now, do NOT call her greedy), you see her.  Read her debates, read her interviews.  She is remarkable.  I think that Hillary Clinton has a vision that she is committed to, it is not about power, it is about caring and concern.


    You are so correct... (none / 0) (#104)
    by Leisa on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 10:46:41 PM EST
    Actions speak volumes.  
    If one looks at her records and who she worked with to broker deals, one would be impressed indeed.  I doubt I could rise above it.  
    Hillary is totally goal oriented, I believe it when she says she will work for me.  I am so sad that partisan politics have thwarted her ambition to do so.

    heh heh (4.60 / 5) (#8)
    by Kathy on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 02:31:07 PM EST
    with PA, WVA and PA, Clinton's blue makes a big ol' smiley face!

    (which is to say, I totally agree with the electability analysis.)

    As for Clinton's "sky high negatives," I suppose the fact that Obama's negatives are within a couple of points of hers, the argument is for President McCain?

    heh (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Nasarius on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 02:34:38 PM EST
    Kathy is correct (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by ahazydelirium on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 02:34:59 PM EST
    The poll can be found here.

    written as a comment to Camille (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by white n az on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 02:50:58 PM EST
    who/which apparently has been vaporized...

    according to Rasmussen

    and of course, this is prior to right wing attack machine starts hitting Obama, whereas they've been attacking all things Clinton for years.

    and I think Rasmussen skews in favor of Obama...and shows a 2-3 point difference in 'unfavorables'


    That poll (1.50 / 2) (#73)
    by plumberboy on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 04:23:27 PM EST
    That pol as of sunday moring at 11:00 am eastern time has Obama with a four point lead over Hilliary nationwide.I still believe obama would more likely win the presidency than Hilliary.Hilliary has a little bit of the Al Gore syndrome people thinks she is power hungry and phony she also this aire of I earned it and deserve it.I also believe her husband does not help her she tries to run off his legacy and then something like nafta creeps up and haunts her she has a lot of political history and not all of it just like any long time politician is popular.I was right a year ago when everyone said Obama don't have chance to win the nomination and I liked him then and said he could pull it off he is fresh new we need a mix up in washington and I think he can win and blow Johnny boy away.

    I am deeply disappointed... (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by white n az on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 05:00:27 PM EST
    that you failed to include the keyword 'divisive' anywhere.

    In the future, could you add a space after each sentence and consider separating paragraphs by pressing the 'Enter' key?  (assuming that you actually want to make your comments readable)

    By the way...I especially enjoyed 'The Al Gore Syndrome' - that one is entirely new to me and google only returns some hard core nutroot sites...care to explain it so I don't have to wash my monitor?


    In the Ras poll (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 02:38:43 PM EST
    that is so. This is clearly a manifestation of the bitter primary battle and demonstrates the unifying work that Obama needs to do as nominee. His supporters have done him a great disservice with their attitude.

    I do not understand for the life of me (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by lorelynn on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:01:24 PM EST
    why he didn't call a press conference within 24 hours of Rhodes diatribe making the blogosphere, apologize and make it clear that he doesn't want such rhetoric deployed on his behalf. I can't believe the apology wasn't close to instantaneous. Why risk having that level of slander attributed to your campaign whether you were directly responsible or benefitted financially or not.

    That's the single most baffling aspect of this campaign for me. I don't like his campaign, I don't like him or his wife but I am stunned that a Democratic candidate would allow that kind of rhetoric to go unchallenged. No one would accept a Republican addressing Obama and his wife in similarly discriminatory fashion.

    I just don't get it.


    He apologized to McCain over (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by MarkL on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:14:22 PM EST
    something similar.
    He wants to destroy the Clintons, not just beat Hillary.

    this is off topic (none / 0) (#43)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:07:55 PM EST
    please take it to an open thread.

    I realized after posting it... (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by lorelynn on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 04:00:06 PM EST
    that it was likely off topic based on the post. I was actually attempting to respond to the notion of unifying the party in the above post. And I don't know how Obama can feel confident of taking blue states if he won't do the minimum work to make Clinton supporters feel that they and their candidate have been dissed in a pretty ugly and gratuitous fashion.

    Not all (none / 0) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 02:43:23 PM EST
    But certainly many.

    I think of Obama supporters as including the American Media, specifically NBC.

    Did you miss the NH primary or something?


    Smiley Face (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by BarnBabe on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 04:23:00 PM EST
    Wow, I didn't see that smiley face before but thanks for mentioning it. BUT, I did see that it cuts and divides Obama's states. Interesting.

    Obama will win (4.50 / 2) (#1)
    by myiq2xu on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 02:17:10 PM EST
    at least 4 times as many states as Mondale and McGovern.

    Maybe as many as Dukakis.

    Dukakis in a tank and Obama throwing gutterballs (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Prabhata on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:35:09 PM EST
    I'm old enough to remember (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by myiq2xu on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 05:16:10 PM EST
    both Kennedys (just barely on John) and the thumping that McGovern got.  I actually went to a McGovern rally, but I wasn't old enough to vote.

    McGovern and Mondale each one one state plus the District of Co9lumbia.

    Dukakis got a whole 10 states.


    I think he'll do better than that (4.00 / 2) (#74)
    by dianem on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 04:23:45 PM EST
    I'm pretty sure he'll take California, Illinois, Hawaii, and New York. Well, probably New York.

    Okay, seriously, I'm being snarky. I think this election will be close, no matter who runs. The Democrats have Bush to run against, and the Iraq War and the economy. Will that be enough? I don't think it will if we are divided.


    Four states is 4 times (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by myiq2xu on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 05:18:55 PM EST
    Obama will lose a lose of close contests, but the electoral votes will be a landslide for McCain.

    Don't place your bets on California. (none / 0) (#98)
    by BrandingIron on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:20:30 PM EST
    I just commented above about how we have a very popular Republican Governator and how there are many Repubs and conservatives outside of SF and LA.  Remember when Cali was a Red State?  Before 1992.  Bill Clinton is the one who turned it blue, and it's possible that Hillary Clinton is the one who can keep it that way.

    That candidate is definitely Hillary Clinton. (4.50 / 4) (#3)
    by rooge04 on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 02:21:48 PM EST
    The idea that these four groups will be happy to vote for Obama (based on some imaginary loyalty to the Democratic Party) is not based in fact.  The coalition of support that Obama enjoys is young people (that arguably don't vote when they're not invested) and African Americans which have always voted Democratic.  Even if these two groups stay home in protest if Hillary is the nominee, she would still have a solid following in the 4 largest categories of voters.  Obama's support completely dissipates once Hillary is out of the race.  Older voters, women, Hispanics and Conservative Dems are quite willing to vote McCain.  They simply think she'd do a better job and that's why I think she enjoys such solid support with them.

    I agree (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by sas on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 02:32:41 PM EST
    with you rooge04.

    I have written before that I do not believe Obama is electable at all.  I have visited Republican sites on the net, and they agree.  They posters write that they would rather face him than Hillary. The battle would be tough with her as the candidate and they see losing to her by a few points.



    Obama can't win the 'practical' vote (4.50 / 4) (#13)
    by nycstray on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 02:34:54 PM EST
    I think both Clinton and McCain can. If Clinton is out, a percentage of practical will vote McCain. He knows how to appeal to them and also has the experience they are looking for.

    Practical versus Inspirational (5.00 / 5) (#40)
    by dotcommodity on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:01:32 PM EST
    Left Brain right Brain. I've been thinking that too.

    Fine print types going for Hillary: thats why so many older women: they are usually the HR people in companies checking out the fine print in the health insurance plan for "what taketh away" and accounting and real estate: its detail oriented for Hillary v Big Picture for Obama.

    I do agree there has been a whole new split in the Democratic party this year.

    The biggie though to me as a climate voter: LOOK AT THE MAP! Its the Ethanol states going for Obama!

    Obama's Bipartisan Policy Center energy advisors, rely heavily on ethanol and clean coal and nuke power v the Texas California Massachusetts which are the new clean energy powerhouses of Solar and Wind and Ocean and Geothermal and efficiency policy etc.

    Its the new resource curse. As the South once went Republican to shore up fossil fuels (once there was a financial stake in it), now many in the ethanol states like his very unbalanced energy plan (skim till you get to the details: even candidate Bush and McCain could say "global warming") because it puts so much emphasis on just Ethanol, (with a side of clean coal and nukes.)

    All require water, unlike Solar and Wind. We will be pretty much running dry by 2050 from climate change, except on the Eastcoast and upper Northwestcoast. Not in the longterm interest of this nation to depend on being able to grow fuels when people need water.

    Ethanol is part of Hillary's plan too. But its not the most part.


    You are correct (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by Prabhata on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:26:04 PM EST
    Many studies show that ethanol uses more energy than the final yield.  All that energy to pump the water and fertilizers and the use of fuel for the agriculture, its a negative.

    As for cars (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by BarnBabe on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 04:30:27 PM EST
    GM has those hydrogen SUVs they are testing right now in NY and California. If they are successful and  become the wave of the future, they will blow right past Ethanol as a car fuel. In NE Penna right now, the local farmers are talking about growing the corn and building a Ethanol plant. That was the big story. Not that they wanted to go green, they wanted the green. But recently, it is all about selling the natural gas rights all of a sudden and people thinking that it is a lot cheaper than having to get involved and having to work for the $$$. And, the grass is always greener.......and in this case, the $$$ for the gas rights is greener.

    Corn ethanol, yes. (none / 0) (#94)
    by BrandingIron on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 07:57:36 PM EST
    That's why it's really really bad for Obama to be puffing up expectations for the corn growers (he sure did it in Iowa).  Corn ethanol is just that much worse for the environment, but corn ethanol is what Obama is pushing for.  He doesn't really know anything about what he's doing.

    Lignocellulosic ethanol from switchgrass and woodchips is much, much better, but it's still in its baby stages and not economically viable at the moment.


    It's no surprise (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by cal1942 on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 10:55:28 PM EST
    that Obama (fellow Senator Durbin as well) from Illinois, the ADM state, emphasizes ethanol. And the nukes from another Illinois company (off hand can't bring back the name).  

    Obama is soooo old politics.

    I don't expect a wide swath of voters to pick that up but the recent dust-ups, even if any one is not fatal, have I feel, combined to take away all the early lustre. A lustre I might add more from the fact that he had no real public record.  No wonder the Jacobins worshipped him.

    Given Hillary's commanding lead in primaries among highest turnout voters and a natural advantage among women and Hispanic voters she has a much better chance than Obama.

    I've always felt that Obama's support was really somewhat weak in many different ways.  One example would be his support among among 18-24 year olds, the least dependable group.  His showing among independents represented only those that were willing to come out in the open primaries.  And in Missouri Republican crossovers appear to have given him his slender margin. I don't believe it was ever really indicative of the total independent vote. His support among African-American voters had to be obvious.  Although Hillary would bring out fewer African-American voters I wonder how much lower the turnout would be. The African-American precincts in my county normally turn out about 30-35% of eligible voters.

    In total I view each of his primary victories with an asterisk.

    I can't see how Obama could beat McCain. I can see how Hillary can beat McCain.

    Everyone should bear in mind that the Presidential election isn't one election, it's 51 elections.


    Exelon (none / 0) (#123)
    by BlueMerlin on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 12:07:11 AM EST
    For me, it comes down to (4.50 / 2) (#33)
    by Radix on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 02:52:54 PM EST
    four states for Obama, NV, NM, AZ, and CO, he has to take all four or it's McCain in November.

    Can't See Any Way Obama Takes McCain's (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by MO Blue on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:03:40 PM EST
    home state or AZ. Doubt that he will take CO.

    I know. Here's a pretty good site, for electoral (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Radix on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:09:29 PM EST
    college tinkering.

    Because there are no facts, there is no truth, Just data to be manipulated

    Don Henley-The Garden of Allah


    I am from AZ (none / 0) (#103)
    by Leisa on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 10:12:20 PM EST
    I know that my friends that are Democrats there will vote for Hillary, not Obama.  They all think that McCain is a good man and do not feel that he is as bad as Bush.  I feel that they will vote McCain over Obama in the GE.

    Romney would nix that. (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Salo on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:09:29 PM EST
    Get the mormons out canvasing and donating and teh SW is Mccainland

    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 02:55:11 PM EST
    This may give us a clue as to what the SD's are saying.  Maybe it is just wishful thinking, but it doesn't seem to me that they are in Obama's corner.


    10% are (4.66 / 3) (#49)
    by waldenpond on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:24:15 PM EST
    they go with pledged delegates.  10% will go with their state or district.  33% say they want who will win in November.  2-1 do not want a superdee primary.  Everyone will have to wait to see how they decide. Dels/polls/re-election/November.  They still aren't bound until they actually vote at the convention and can change based on polling throughout the summer.

    Money is an issue too ... (4.50 / 4) (#37)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 02:57:48 PM EST
    Obama's money advantage in the GE would be wiped out if he continues to poll badly in NJ, MASS and the large swing states.

    Whereas the states where Clinton shows weakness have cheaper media markets.

    This could be a critical deciding factor.

    I (4.33 / 3) (#12)
    by sas on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 02:34:44 PM EST
    suggest you go to SUSA's latest electoral college map.

    Hillary beats McCain by about 50 electoral votes and Obama loses to McCain by about as much.

    This is a snapshot in time, but can only get better for Hillary.

    No question that Hillary polls better (4.33 / 3) (#20)
    by kempis on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 02:38:25 PM EST
    ...than Obama against McCain in Missouri, Ohio, Florida, and I frankly mistrust the accuracy of any poll that doesn't show her outperforming Obama against McCain in PA. I'm in Western PA. We're close to Ohio and WV, and the culture is similar. Women, older voters, and blue-collar Catholics are heavily represented here. It'll be interesting to see how the votes shake out on Tuesday.

    JUst got a glimpse of the Blue Collar (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by nycstray on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 02:51:33 PM EST
    Catholics in my 'hood. They church is overflowing onto the street with folks watching/listening to the Yankee Stadium Mass. Both sides of the street. I just don't see them as Obama voters.  And this was just the one church that I walked by with my dog. Several others around the 'hood.

    Richardson has shown the way (3.33 / 3) (#48)
    by blogtopus on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:23:25 PM EST
    He knows how to say you're supporting one candidate up until the moment you come out endorsing another.

    Let Richardson demonstrate to the Super D's how it's done.

    Women do not vote as a block for Hillary (2.33 / 3) (#87)
    by Seth90212 on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 05:34:41 PM EST
    Obama has even outpolled her among women in a few states. And in the GE there are millions of women who won't vote for her under any circumstances. The AA vote, however, is a block vote. Whoever has that block vote has the advantage among the superdelegates.

    Why (1.00 / 3) (#107)
    by RealAdam on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:13:21 PM EST
    I don't understand. Why hasn't Hillary dropped out of the race yet? Even if she wins Pennsylvania, she still has less of the popular vote, fewer delegates, and fewer states won. Isn't it a bit stubborn of her to continue to campaign against a fellow Democrat that has proven to reflect the people's choice? By remaining in this race, and hoping to win the nomination through the super delegates, she is showing a complete disregard for the spirit of democracy and the voice of the people. Whether you support Hillary or not, it is only right to take the loss and move on, and look for other productive means to better the nation, instead of dwelling on the presidency and working against other party representatives. I know that she has been trying to play this underdog role, but the truth is, Obama was the underdog, and he has prevailed.

    Furthermore, the attacks on Barack Obama have been absolutely ridiculous. Recently, she made statements to the effect that Obama is an "elitist". How can she possibly label Obama as an "elitist", when she so clearly falls into that category herself? Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black?

    Also, please explain what experience Hillary really has that qualifies her as president. She attacks Obama in this regard, but beyond promoting family values, women's rights, and such (which are good things, but do not qualify her for president) during her time in the White House, the only meaningful contribution she attempted to make was a health care plan that was laughed out of Congress. During her time as Senator, an office which was acquired through carpetbagging, her voting record has been spotty and completely contradictory, and the only two bills that I am aware of her actually introducing was one that addressed video game violence, and another that proposed a troop increase in Iraq. But she is against the Iraq war. If you look at Obama's short time in Congress, he has a fairly consistent voting record, has participated in a wide array of senate committees, and has introduced numerous bills, many of which have passed.

    I guess what I'm getting at is, why does anyone support Clinton?

    No need to answer this (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:17:29 PM EST
    Read through our archives if you are serious. If you're just here to troll, don't waste our time.

    Im not saying Hillary is a bad person... (1.00 / 3) (#110)
    by RealAdam on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 01:05:46 PM EST
    I do support Obama, but I am not loyal to him, as I don't believe that anyone should make a cast iron decision on something as important as the presidency. I just think that, looking at the two candidates, Obama seems the better option, and he has essentially already won the popular vote. However, so many support Hillary that I would like to know why.

    The stuff that you pointed out that Hillary has accomplished are positive things. However, they do not really qualify her as a president. In fact, she already tried to introduce a bill regarding universal health care that was economically naive, and crashed and burned, not even making it to the senate floor.

    And, I don't think the Iraq war has that much to do with the Democratic nomination, as both candidates have vowed to withdraw troops. However, Hillary's changing stances on the war do illustrate her tendency to flip flop.

    As for Obama, he holds assignments on the Senate Committees for Foreign Relations, Health, Education, Labor and Pensions; Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs; and Veterans' Affairs, and is a member of the Congressional Black Caucus. He has introduced numerous bills, addressing issues such as energy reform, weapons and nuclear arms reform, increasing military benefits, etc. When he was in the state legisture, he sponsored low income tax credits, promoted health care reform, and increased subsidiaries for child health care.

    He is hardly the inexperienced, underacheiver that you suggest. And calling him a "prick" is callous, and unecessary.

    I don't hate Hillary Clinton, I think she has done some good things for this nation. I just don't believe she deserves or can win the presidency.

    Has to be a Clinton/Obama ticket (none / 0) (#118)
    by Folkwolf101 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 02:40:24 PM EST
    The only way for a Democrat to win the presidency would be for both candidates to be on the same ticket, most preferably with Clinton for Pres and Obama as VP candidate. This consolidation will bring two coalitions together without hindering the ticker for being too liberal. An Obama with ABC (Anybody But Clinton) ticket would not be seen as too liberal and would create great antipathy from Hillary's strong supporters--who have already been expressing a desire to vote McCain if Hillary is out of the picture. Above all else, Obama cannot beat McCain in Ohio, Texas, and Florida.  But, Hillary can win these states, with or without Obama as VP.

    Electability (none / 0) (#121)
    by AnninCA on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 09:31:03 PM EST
    I cannot imagine that so many SDs are sitting around fretting over people's feelings.  They are, indeed, looking at electability.  

    The obvious fact is that Hillary has the core Democrat constinuency behind her.  Even in the Potomac blow-out, the number that surprised me was that she won 6 out of 10 registered Democrats.  

    The older voters are as predictable as your clock, and they show up in the off-years, when nobody else wants to vote.  They are important.  They will walk if Obama is the nominee.  That's the biggest demographic group, too.  They constitute 7-12%.  And Obama has ignored them entirely, offers them nothing, and isn't appealling to them.

    The assumption that Latinos will move to Obama is foolish.  They will not.  

    FL and MI was penny-wise but pound foolish.  He has given FL Jewish Democrats an excuse to bail, and they will.  They don't trust him with Israel.

    He will have terrible problems putting together a winning coalition.  And Democrats can call everyone racist if they wish who bails, but that will only ensure that former Democrats will not be coming back to the party anytime soon.

    I can tell you (none / 0) (#122)
    by sas on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 10:37:20 PM EST
    as both an older voter and a woman - those of my friends will absolutely walk away from an Obama ticket in the fall.

    He cares not for us.  


    Why say that... (none / 0) (#128)
    by RealAdam on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 12:29:40 PM EST
    How can you claim that Obama doesn't care for us? The choice to lead a country is based in a love for that country. Regardless of a figure's political affiliation, I believe that most presidential candidates (beyond the truly corrupt) care deeply for the people that they hope to lead. I understand the support for Hillary, but supporting one candidate doesn't mean that you should hate another.

    It is disappointing to see people disgrace and attack a public servant that has chosen to contribute their time and energy to the betterment of this country, just because they aren't your personal favorite.


    Things have changed... (none / 0) (#124)
    by karen for Clinton on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 03:58:26 AM EST
    It seems the gild is off the lily to some extent now.  The vetting process is taking a great deal of time due to lack of cooperation and misleading obfuscation from his camp.

    The proceedings of this election cycles twists and turns (had Fl and Mi counted earlier etc) and had the press done more investigations in 2007 instead of during the post election day for those states, we'd be looking at a different end game.

    Study vs. Reality (none / 0) (#127)
    by RealAdam on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 12:20:13 PM EST
    I understand what you're all trying to say, but hasn't electability been demonstrated in the primaries? Obama has more of the popular vote...

    Studies of who is more electable are irrelevant when reality sets in and more people have voted for the other candidate. In a true democracy, the people speak, not the studies. A study cannot define reality, and it is absurd to attempt to accept the conclusions of a study over reality.

    It is amazing to me that, somehow, more people have voted for Obama, but people still claim that Clinton would be more likely to win. This is reminiscient of the 2000 election, when Gore had the popular vote, yet Bush won the election.

    It was a terrible thing when the democratic system failed in 2000, and the people's choice faded into the the choice of the privileged. And now it would be a political atrocity if the candidate with more individual votes were to lose the nomination in a decison based in super delegates.

    The presidency is not the end all for a political figure. If Clinton does not win the nomination, it is not like she would disappear, and lose her political influence. Instead of attempting to challenge the will of the American public and hoping to win the super delegates votes, I think that it would be much more productive for her to withdraw from the race out of respect for democracy and the political traditions of this country, and continue to work to better this country in other ways.

    The Popular Vote is not What Wins the GE (none / 0) (#129)
    by justice4all on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:12:27 AM EST
    The dem primary process does not correlate with the way the chips fall in the GE.  The GE electoral college is about winner-takes-all with each state's electoral votes, so in this respect the Republican primary system is more effective at predicting electability than the dem primary process.

    The argument that simply because Obama leads in popular votes currently also fails to consider what happens in the remaining primaries.  It also counts out the votes of FL and MI, two states that matter GREATLY in the GE.

    And actually, if you just include FL votes -where none of the candidates campaigned- Hillary would pull ahead in the overall popular vote count.

    But national electability is not predicted best by popular vote in the primaries -- it's about how the electoral chips fall in the GE.


    The popular vote matters (none / 0) (#130)
    by RealAdam on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:11:16 PM EST
    "And actually, if you just include FL votes -where none of the candidates campaigned- Hillary would pull ahead in the overall popular vote count."

    That is simply not true. If you factor in Michigan AND Florida, Clinton still trails in the popular vote by about 200,000 votes. Furthermore, though Michigan will matter in the general election, Michigan shouldn't even be considered in this race, because Clinton's name was the only one on the Dem. ballot, and even then, she only won 25% of the vote. Also, the Florida primaries were cast early in the race and candidates were not allowed to campaign there. At that point, it could easily be argued that Obama was relatively unknown, and, without the ability to campaign, he lost because people simply went with the better known candidate.  

    The argument that the popular vote is not important is ridiculous. I understand the role of the electoral college, but to claim that more people voting for Obama than Clinton is not an indication of electability is contrary to the democratic process. The general idea behind our political system is that the candidate with more votes wins, and, if more people in the democratic party want Obama to represent them, he should. This is not the general election, this is the decision of the party on who is to represent us, and in this situation, the popular vote does matter, and does represent electability.

    Beyond all this, Obama has won more states, and has more delegates. Stating that Hillary won the "more important" states doesn't change this fact.

    And, claiming that Hillary can win certain states and Obama can't based off of primaries is a fallacious argument. Hillary Clinton is not John McCain. Some states may have chosen Hillary over Obama, but you can't apply that to what the state will choose when you pit Obama against McCain, or even Clinton against McCain.

    Even if Obama did not win these "key states" in the general election, most of whom have voted Democrat for the past 20 years, that does not make or break his electability. Gore won these states in 2000. Kerry won them in 2004.

    You can argue until youre blue in the face, produce baseless studies, and make claims against Obama, but the fact is that more Democrats support Obama. I can guarantee that if this situation were reversed, and Obama continued to run, Clinton supporters would be outraged and calling for him to step down.

    Its frustrating, because Clinton clinging to this hope for some miraculous outcome is divisive among democrats, and is stimulating a loss of faith in the party. Meanwhile, John McCain is out there campaigning for the presidency.


    what about the aa part of the dem party (none / 0) (#131)
    by yammy on Sat May 17, 2008 at 05:39:04 PM EST
    having stumbled upon this site and this strong set of Hillary supporters i am intrigued as to how you think she is going to win the ge without the most loyal group of dems...African Americans i can assure you that you could spend all day trying to explain that the supers gave it to hrc because of electability etc but you all know that they as a group will not accept it and on mass will not vote, in fact they won't vote at all for a long time to come therefore no ge can be win by the dems . they will see it as an injustice considering the fact that obama played by the rules campaigning for delegates not popular vote. moreover the perception in this group who far outweighed any other group in supporting the clintons historically and up until south Carolina, is that the Clintons and the media played race politics and this has hurt them. how would you explain to them that they should accept it especially considering how this group have been historically treated and how loyal they have been ..remember they are democrats too. Hillary and bill from my perspective where great but i have to admit i have been disappointed with how badly they have campaigned and how disasterly they have manged the financial aspects ...do you really think that she has earned it. what bugs me about bill and Hillary is the secretiveness and they way they parlay their words and dont seem to be telling the truth  ...i hate that. after bush i want some transparency and TRUTHFULNESS i don't see too much evidence of this from bills presidency or Hillary's senate time (and yes they are sometimes being careful because of who they are). but barrack is inexperienced ...wow what a choice to make!! and yes the primary system needs looking at but you can't do it until the game has finished ...if barack does not win with HRC support then she was right but until then we have to wait and see . this is not a problem because Hillary we run again in 4 years and then prove her point.