dajafi wrote:If "popular vote" were the criterion, Obama would have campaigned differently--spent time in, say, New York and California before Super Tuesday, rather than caucus states... some of which don't even release their popular vote totals (and all of which I think the Clintons discount because, well, because it doesn't help their argument).

What they're saying is akin to a football team that loses a game 23-21, then argues that because they scored three TDs to the other side's two TDs and three field goals, they actually should get the win.

I saw on another site that someone described the Clinton campaign as the Insult Your Intelligence Tour. Wish I'd thought of that.

Well, Hillary failed to convince Obama supporters and isn't about to now. Her argument, to Super Delegates, is that she has a better chance in November.

And she does.

Oh.

Dunno how I can respond to that overpowering argument.

dajafi wrote:Oh.

Dunno how I can respond to that overpowering argument.

Lemme help you frame it.

In so many key swing states, Hillarty outpolls McCain, but in those same states McCain outpolls Obama.

As I see it, Obama is very likely to beat McCain; Hillary would be a sure thing.

Right, because polling in May is super-determinative. And all the Clinton antipathy--now shared by progressives and (especially) African-Americans and young people as well as the usual suspects--will just go away. And her character really compares well to McCain's.

I think you're wrong, you think you're right, and I'm bored by the topic.

Hey I just watched Keith Olbermann's SPECIAL COMMENT so this may cloud my thinking...but I'm predicting Clinton bows out of the race Tuesday morning

Olberman was pissed

dajafi wrote:I think you're wrong, you think you're right, and I'm bored by the topic.

You nailed the first two, but I suspect you are more annoyed than bored. Annoyed that Hillary is proving troublesome for the anointed one.

I'll grant you that you're a long time Hillary Hater, so your motivation is more anti-Hillary than it is proBama.

What is it -- irony? -- that people on the left have vitriol for Hillary that exceeds mine?

dajafi wrote:Right, because polling in May is super-determinative. And all the Clinton antipathy--now shared by progressives and (especially) African-Americans and young people as well as the usual suspects--will just go away. And her character really compares well to McCain's.

I think you're wrong, you think you're right, and I'm bored by the topic.

Of course it isn't, but you can't completely dismiss it. As the polls stand now Clinton trounces McCainand McCain beats Obama. Looking at that map, Obama outpolls her in Washington, Colorado, Hawaii, Iowa, Indiana, Virginia, Connecticut, and South Carolina. Clinton does better in Missouri, Arkansas, Florida, North Carolina(?), West Virginia, Iowa, Michigan, New Mexico, and Nevada.

McCain has no shot with Obama's base of young people, African-Americans, and highly educated Whites. His best hope is they stay home in a McCain-Clinton match-up. The only Obama group he'd get would be independents.

Clinton's base of socially conservative Whites without a college degree, Hispanics, and the elderly are much more attainable for McCain. As you say, that's in May. It could be different in November. I think McCain would rather run against the May Obama than the May Clinton.

A lot of people are using the assumption that Clinton's supporters are "good Democrats" who will vote for the Democratic nominee. Her "good Democrats" will, but she has a lot of supporters who have voted Republican in the past. The one thing that would help Obama more than anything else is if Clinton campaigns vigorously for him and can sell her supporters on Obama.

dajafi wrote:What they're saying is akin to a football team that loses a game 23-21, then argues that because they scored three TDs to the other side's two TDs and three field goals, they actually should get the win.

More like they're saying that should win because they kicked two field goals in pregame warm-ups.....

TomatoPie wrote:

dajafi wrote:I think you're wrong, you think you're right, and I'm bored by the topic.

You nailed the first two, but I suspect you are more annoyed than bored. Annoyed that Hillary is proving troublesome for the anointed one.

I'll grant you that you're a long time Hillary Hater, so your motivation is more anti-Hillary than it is proBama.

What is it -- irony? -- that people on the left have vitriol for Hillary that exceeds mine?

Nope. Trust me, I'm bored. But yeah, you are annoying me with this. So congrats on that.

The Dude wrote:Olberman was pissed

he was a few months ago as well

Laexile wrote:

dajafi wrote:Right, because polling in May is super-determinative. And all the Clinton antipathy--now shared by progressives and (especially) African-Americans and young people as well as the usual suspects--will just go away. And her character really compares well to McCain's.

I think you're wrong, you think you're right, and I'm bored by the topic.

Of course it isn't, but you can't completely dismiss it. As the polls stand now Clinton trounces McCainand McCain beats Obama. Looking at that map, Obama outpolls her in Washington, Colorado, Hawaii, Iowa, Indiana, Virginia, Connecticut, and South Carolina. Clinton does better in Missouri, Arkansas, Florida, North Carolina(?), West Virginia, Iowa, Michigan, New Mexico, and Nevada.

McCain has no shot with Obama's base of young people, African-Americans, and highly educated Whites. His best hope is they stay home in a McCain-Clinton match-up. The only Obama group he'd get would be independents.

Clinton's base of socially conservative Whites without a college degree, Hispanics, and the elderly are much more attainable for McCain. As you say, that's in May. It could be different in November. I think McCain would rather run against the May Obama than the May Clinton.

A lot of people are using the assumption that Clinton's supporters are "good Democrats" who will vote for the Democratic nominee. Her "good Democrats" will, but she has a lot of supporters who have voted Republican in the past. The one thing that would help Obama more than anything else is if Clinton campaigns vigorously for him and can sell her supporters on Obama.

Clinton polls better than Obama in states where he won?

TomatoPie wrote:What is it -- irony? -- that people on the left have vitriol for Hillary that exceeds mine?

TP if you focused on advising GOPs, McCain would lose all 57 states for sure

I'm just glad the primary of 2008 is allowing liberal Dems to acknowledge without acknowledging that they were wrong for bitching about Bush losing the popular vote but winning the election in 2000.

Those were the rules, you know. It would make one deranged and bitter and thinking they were entitled to the office for them to think the rules should have been different.

drsmooth wrote:

TomatoPie wrote:What is it -- irony? -- that people on the left have vitriol for Hillary that exceeds mine?

TP if you focused on advising GOPs, McCain would lose all 57 states for sure

It is very tough for the GOPs. The basic message of free markets and small gummint is over the heads of most voters, so to win (and execute the basic message), the GOP has to cobble together:

1) Employed people who want lower taxes (no matter why they want it)
2) Homophobes
3) Xenophobes
4) Hawks
5) Libertarians
6) Gun nuts
7) Law 'n' orderites

I could give much better press conferences than McCain, because I better understand and embrace the core issues.

But the swayable voters want bread and circuses.

Pressman: Senator McCain, what about this nutbag Hagee?

Me (as McCain): Dood. We want to win this election; we welcome every vote we can get. Are you suggesting that I am somehow responsible for the opinions and sentiments expressed by everyone who prefers me to Barry Obama? What can you possibly be thinking to compare this to Rev Wright? I don't know this guy, and I sure as hell didn't call him my spiritual advisor for 20 years. Bottom line: nobody wins an election unless he or she gets more votes than the other guy. I can turn down votes, sure, if I want to lose the election. The rest of my supporters would wonder why I'm not really trying to win.

swishnicholson wrote:

dajafi wrote:RFK's whole strategy was to win every primary he entered by large enough margins to convince the bigwigs (all of whom he knew well and who appreciated the lasting power of the Kennedy name/aura) that he was the best bet for November, and that not nominating him would spark a backlash. (Sort of like the Clinton 2.0 strategy.)

I agree with this. So can explain to me again why Clinton's comments make no sense?

I guess everyone wants to jump on the assassination reference, and if people want to be shocked, appalled and disgusted, go ahead. But what she was actually saying was that "many nomination fights have extended into the summer, so I should be allowed to extend this fight into the summer, too." You can argue whether this is good, bad or indifferent for the party. But I don't see how it makes it seem like she has a screw loose unless you're looking at it from a vantage point of predetermined disgust.

"It sounds like she was invoking a familiar historical circumstance in support of her argument for continuing her campaign."

- Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

RFK's own son wasn't offended, nor did he read into it anything nefarious or the like. It's only the "hate everything Clinton" Democrats, loyal Obamaists, and Obama media hacks like Olbermann that are doing so.

drsmooth wrote:

TomatoPie wrote:What is it -- irony? -- that people on the left have vitriol for Hillary that exceeds mine?

TP if you focused on advising GOPs, McCain would lose all 57 states for sure

In all fairness Obama has campaigned in all 57 states and McCain hasn't.

pacino wrote:Clinton polls better than Obama in states where he won?

There's actually only one state where that happened, North Carolina. Probably just fluke polling.

Phan In Phlorida wrote:

swishnicholson wrote:.... I don't see how it makes it seem like she has a screw loose unless you're looking at it from a vantage point of predetermined disgust.

"It sounds like she was invoking a familiar historical circumstance in support of her argument for continuing her campaign."

- Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

RFK's own son wasn't offended, nor did he read into it anything nefarious or the like. It's only the "hate everything Clinton" Democrats, loyal Obamaists, and Obama media hacks like Olbermann that are doing so.

Fellows, I believe simple question is "why on earth could the woman not just cite the example of '68 & leave RFK's name - & explicit circumstances of his murder - the hell out of it?"

Nefarious, schmefarious - she's icky, is all.

To me the bottom line is that what Clinton said sounds awful. I don't care if RFK Jr. says he's upset or not, its not really about the Kennedys. Her stupid dumb way of thinking points more towards Obama and about her waiting around hoping for something bad to happen. It especially sounds bad because I don't think it would be a surprising thought that Obama could be a assassination target in the minds of some people.