Smarties only: _____ must be the Democratic nominee; Do The Math

http://www.correntewire.com/hillary_clinton_must_be_the_democratic_nominee_do_the_math

snippets of reality ...



By a majority of more than 2 to 1 in Electoral College strength, the Democratic voters of the Swing States prefer Hillary Clinton. A preference of 99 to 43 is not even close; it is definitive. The voters who are most in a position to know, who actually live in these states and know not just their own opinions but those of their friends and neighbors, have made a resounding decision; they want Hillary Clinton as the Democratic presidential nominee. This overwhelming popularity is why a delegation of elected officials from Swing States have written an open letter to the superdelegates, arguing forcefully that Clinton is not only the clear best choice as the Presidential nominee but also will make the greatest contribution to winning the down-ticket races.

Table 2 shows the Electoral vote totals for so-called Blue States, awarded winner-take-all to the primary contest victor. Again, the voters’ judgment is abundantly clear.

Clinton dominates these states, crushing Obama 117 to 66. Clearly, the voters of solidly Blue States agree with voters in the Swing States, overwhelmingly preferring Clinton as the Democratic nominee. While these states should stay in the Democratic column, it only makes sense to run the candidate who has shown the ability to win them – especially when they are the same candidate who so handily wins the Swing State group.

The nomination decision is no longer disputable....

much more at http://www.correntewire.com/hillary_clinton_must_be_the_democratic_nominee_do_the_math

Obama, because your argument assumes that he will not win CA, NY, NJ, MA, RI, PA, OH, MI, FL, NM, NV, and NH. We all know that is bullshit.

Next.

Based on known voter habits and demographics.

Victory in November.

Now please come up with arguments for all of the other states involved.

:rofl:

No Caucusing for Obama in the GE! Game over!

...suddenly all those people are going to stay home and watch "Dancing With The Stars."

:rofl:

NGU.

But Obama won 18 Primaries to Clinton's 16.

By next Tuesday those numbers will likely be 20 - 17

But don't let easily researched contradictions to your arguments get in the way.

...in all states that have voted. Are all those Dems going to suddenly turn around and vote for McBush? I don't think so.

NGU.

You may as well move New York and California, at a minimum, over to Obama. There's no way in Hell at least those two states won't go for whoever the Democrat is. It's probably true of the rest of the Blue states, too. He will also get some of the swing states and will most likely be able to pick up some former red states, especially in the West, as well as Virginia.

The electoral votes of the states in the various Obama vs. Clinton contests is completely meaningless unless you assume that nobody who voted for Obama would vote for Clinton against McCain, or vice-versa. And only an idiot would vote for McCain -- right?

where is that on the mythical math menu?

check the latest polls.

If a poll were done today, I'd bet he'd win against Hillary.

I know a lot of people here dislike her intensely, but I still listen to her.

I still love her, too. She was here last November to receive an award from a local peace group and she appeared at a fundraiser for Nancy Skinner, whose campaign I was working on. She brought a friend with her, and we all had dinner together and had a blast. It was great hanging out with her -- she's exactly the same in person as she is on-air. What you see is what you get.

Because the state they happen to live in. Democrats in places like Montana, Idaho, North Dakota, and South Dakota are just a bunch of crazy leftists who aren't important. Yes we heard that all in February... with the "I won the big states" argument.

Well I, for one, am very happy that we give Democrats in Montana a say in who our nominee is. They were a great help in giving us a senate majority in 2006. North Dakota also sends us two Democratic Senators and South Dakota sends us one.

because he has the delegates. This is a bogus comparison. Losing a state in the primaries does not translate to losing it in the GE. Winning a state in the primaries does not translate to winning it in the GE.

Love it!

:rofl:

Bravo. This is meaningless.

The problem is that she starts out high and when she actually has to campaign her support goes down.

1) The evidence shows that she had a commanding lead but in the 8 months of campaigning has lost support.




2) Now Obama has a larger lead over Clinton in NY State






Now either she is a terrible campaigner and has squandered the advantages of name brand, money, connections and a schedule of primaryies that was rigged for her. Even in NY her numbers have gone down.

So either she is a terrible campaigner, or you are right that sexism is holding her down and she can't win which means that your electablility argument is false. In either case she isn't a good GE candidate.

And you are quoting from the #1 Obama hate site on the web. There are are many other swing state analysis that show Obama ahead
In any case it is all theoretical what is reality the more Clinton campaigns the lower her numbers go down. The more Obama campaigns the higher his numbers go.

Are you a bear?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Or do you actually think Obama is going to lose California, New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts to McCain?

If you do that's pretty dumb.

:hi:

Obama polls ahead of McCain in Ohio, Pennsylvania, California, New York, and most of the other states listed; not only that, Obama polls better than Clinton in California and New York. Corrente is worthless, and are collectively a group of delusional Clintonite shills.

wow

You're looking at Democratic Primary Results and assuming that all states that preferred Hillary over Obama will also prefer McCain over Obama. For instance, do you really think Obama would lose California against McCain just because he lost it to Hillary?

Lie.

Tired.

Next.

California & New York in the general election. Sorry but that dog won't hunt.

like you who keep telling each other that bullshit and sit out or vote for McCain because you thought this was about women's rights can look in the mirror for what finally sent this country to hell.
I agree that it is time for a woman to be president, but she ain't the one.

What about Virginia, Indiana, Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina and South Carolina?

Also, your Table 1 fails to take into consideration that either Clinton or Obama will win certain states, such as Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, New Mexico and New Hampshire.

The OP source is more like "snippets of bias and spin"

140 IQ.

The nominee is Obama.

because they might notice the obselete, cherry picked, carefully arranged "stats" you're posting and call you out on your, um, BS.

Sorry, there I go being a "nasty hateful Obamite". :shrug: