Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Clinton can't win the nomination, but she can win the GE?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Emit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-07-08 09:37 AM
Original message
Clinton can't win the nomination, but she can win the GE?
I fail to understand any logic in this.

Can anyone attempt to explain their reasoning for this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
GreenEyedLefty Donating Member (708 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-07-08 09:38 AM
Response to Original message
1. Maybe she'll run as an independent
<snort>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
whistle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-07-08 09:43 AM
Response to Reply #1
9. Hillary is out of money, besides why would she deliberately destroy any chance of a democratic
...victory in November by doing such a thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenEyedLefty Donating Member (708 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-07-08 12:38 PM
Response to Reply #9
30. I was being facetious...
Still, I wouldn't put anything past her.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
whistle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-07-08 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #30
31. Your caveat is not at all facetious, I say Hillary would not split..
... the democratic party to satisfy personal ambition. She is much too smart for that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Emit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-07-08 10:00 AM
Response to Reply #1
14. Her approach has been very similar to Lieberman's
would she dare?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
New Earth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-07-08 09:39 AM
Response to Original message
2. lol
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
havocmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-07-08 09:39 AM
Response to Original message
3. Guess some here think the GOP loves her THAT much?
Only thing that makes sense to me, and it is just nuts. The DEMS don't love her. The GOP just wants to waste her in a GE campaign and then relive the thrill of voting against a Clinton yet again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JVS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-07-08 09:40 AM
Response to Original message
4. She'll out Southern Strategy John McCain. That's what she's learned to do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nxylas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-07-08 09:41 AM
Response to Original message
5. I think so
Please note that I don't agree with this, but I think I know what the Clinton supporters mean. Their reasoning is that the folks voting in the Democratic primaries are voting for a candidate who appeals to them, but won't be able to appeal to swing voters in November.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
whistle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-07-08 09:41 AM
Response to Original message
6. Theory goes that even if Obama gains the nomination the McCain camp
...and other sinister forces are already at work destroying any chance of an Obama victory in November. I can't explain any more than that, but that has been the scuttlebutt out there somewhere :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jackpine Radical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-07-08 09:44 AM
Response to Reply #6
10. Well, I guess I believe that.
Hillary is one of those sinister forces.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Emit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-07-08 09:48 AM
Response to Reply #6
12. And does that theory include or exclude
the notion that the McCain camp...and other sinister forces are already at work destroying any chance of a Clinton victory in November?

Or are we to believe that these forces would roll over and give Hillary a pass? :shrug:

This is nuts, people. It's just nuts, I tell ya, nuts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newmajority Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-07-08 09:43 AM
Response to Original message
7. What you are witnessing (to paraphrase Darth Cheney)
is the last death throes of the BushClinton dynasty.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Heather MC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-07-08 10:34 AM
Response to Reply #7
20. Campaign manager David Plouffe sent out this memo to superdelegates...


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

http://my.barackobama.com/page/commu...mfelsen/gGCNJj
David Plouffe: An Update on the Race for Delegates

Campaign manager David Plouffe sent out this memo to superdelegates...
There are only six contests remaining in the Democratic primary calendar and only 217 pledged delegates left to be awarded. Only 7 percent of the pledged delegates remain on the table. There are 260 remaining undeclared superdelegates, for a total of 477 delegates left to be awarded.

With North Carolina and Indiana complete, Barack Obama only needs 172 total delegates to capture the Democratic nomination. This is only 36% of the total remaining delegates.

Conversely, Senator Clinton needs 326 delegates to reach the Democratic nomination, which represents a startling 68% of the remaining delegates.

With the Clinton path to the nomination getting even narrower, we expect new and wildly creative scenarios to emerge in the coming days. While those scenarios may be entertaining, they are not legitimate and will not be considered legitimate by this campaign or its millions of supporters, volunteers, and donors.

We believe it is exceedingly unlikely Senator Clinton will overtake our lead in the popular vote and in fact lost ground on that measure last night. However, the popular vote is a deeply flawed and illegitimate metric for deciding the nominee – since each campaign based their strategy on the acquisition of delegates. More importantly, the rules of the nomination are predicated on delegates, not popular vote.

Just as the Presidential election in November will be decided by the electoral college, not popular vote, the Democratic nomination is decided by delegates.

If we believed the popular vote was somehow the key measurement, we would have campaigned much more intensively in our home state of Illinois and in all the other populous states, in the pursuit of larger raw vote totals. But it is not the key measurement. We played by the rules, set by you, the DNC members, and campaigned as hard as we could, in as many places as we could, to acquire delegates. Essentially, the popular vote is not much better as a metric than basing the nominee on which candidate raised more money, has more volunteers, contacted more voters, or is taller.
The Clinton campaign was very clear about their own strategy until the numbers become too ominous for them. They were like a broken record , repeating ad nauseum that this nomination race is about delegates. Now, the word delegate has disappeared from their vocabulary, in an attempt to change the rules and create an alternative reality.

We want to be clear – we believe that the winner of a majority of pledged delegates will and should be the nominee of our party. And we estimate that after the Oregon and Kentucky primaries on May 20, we will have won a majority of the overall pledged delegates According to a recent news report, by even their most optimistic estimates the Clinton Campaign expects to trail by more than 100 pledged delegates and will then ask the superdelegates to overturn the will of the voters.

But of course superdelegates are free to and have been utilizing their own criteria for deciding who our nominee should be. Many are deciding on the basis of electability, a favorite Clinton refrain. And if you look at the numbers, during a period where the Clinton campaign has been making an increasingly strident pitch on electability, it is clear their argument is failing miserably with superdelegates.

Since February 5, the Obama campaign has netted 107 superdelegates, and the Clinton campaign only 21. Since the Pennsylvania primary, much of it during the challenging Rev. Wright period, we have netted 24 and the Clinton campaign 17.

At some point – we would argue that time is now – this ceases to be a theoretical exercise about how superdelegates view electability. The reality of the preferences in the last several weeks offer a clear guide of how strongly superdelegates feel Senator Obama will perform in November, both in building a winning campaign for the presidency as well as providing the best electoral climate across the country for all Democratic candidates.

It is important to note that Senator Obama leads Senator Clinton in superdelegate endorsements among Governors, United States Senators and members of the House of Representatives. These elected officials all have a keen sense for who our strongest nominee will be in November.

It is only among DNC members where Senator Clinton holds a lead, which has been rapidly dwindling. <----this is why slick hilly is so confident, and will not back out. She has the DNC in pocket

As we head into the final days of the campaign, we just wanted to be clear with you as a party leader, who will be instrumental in making the final decision of who our nominee will be, how we view the race at this point.

Senator Obama, our campaign and our supporters believe pledged delegates is the most legitimate metric for determining how this race has unfolded. It is simply the ratification of the DNC rules – your rules – which we built this campaign and our strategy around.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Heather MC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-07-08 10:34 AM
Response to Reply #7
21. Campaign manager David Plouffe sent out this memo to superdelegates...


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

http://my.barackobama.com/page/commu...mfelsen/gGCNJj
David Plouffe: An Update on the Race for Delegates

Campaign manager David Plouffe sent out this memo to superdelegates...
There are only six contests remaining in the Democratic primary calendar and only 217 pledged delegates left to be awarded. Only 7 percent of the pledged delegates remain on the table. There are 260 remaining undeclared superdelegates, for a total of 477 delegates left to be awarded.

With North Carolina and Indiana complete, Barack Obama only needs 172 total delegates to capture the Democratic nomination. This is only 36% of the total remaining delegates.

Conversely, Senator Clinton needs 326 delegates to reach the Democratic nomination, which represents a startling 68% of the remaining delegates.

With the Clinton path to the nomination getting even narrower, we expect new and wildly creative scenarios to emerge in the coming days. While those scenarios may be entertaining, they are not legitimate and will not be considered legitimate by this campaign or its millions of supporters, volunteers, and donors.

We believe it is exceedingly unlikely Senator Clinton will overtake our lead in the popular vote and in fact lost ground on that measure last night. However, the popular vote is a deeply flawed and illegitimate metric for deciding the nominee – since each campaign based their strategy on the acquisition of delegates. More importantly, the rules of the nomination are predicated on delegates, not popular vote.

Just as the Presidential election in November will be decided by the electoral college, not popular vote, the Democratic nomination is decided by delegates.

If we believed the popular vote was somehow the key measurement, we would have campaigned much more intensively in our home state of Illinois and in all the other populous states, in the pursuit of larger raw vote totals. But it is not the key measurement. We played by the rules, set by you, the DNC members, and campaigned as hard as we could, in as many places as we could, to acquire delegates. Essentially, the popular vote is not much better as a metric than basing the nominee on which candidate raised more money, has more volunteers, contacted more voters, or is taller.
The Clinton campaign was very clear about their own strategy until the numbers become too ominous for them. They were like a broken record , repeating ad nauseum that this nomination race is about delegates. Now, the word delegate has disappeared from their vocabulary, in an attempt to change the rules and create an alternative reality.

We want to be clear – we believe that the winner of a majority of pledged delegates will and should be the nominee of our party. And we estimate that after the Oregon and Kentucky primaries on May 20, we will have won a majority of the overall pledged delegates According to a recent news report, by even their most optimistic estimates the Clinton Campaign expects to trail by more than 100 pledged delegates and will then ask the superdelegates to overturn the will of the voters.

But of course superdelegates are free to and have been utilizing their own criteria for deciding who our nominee should be. Many are deciding on the basis of electability, a favorite Clinton refrain. And if you look at the numbers, during a period where the Clinton campaign has been making an increasingly strident pitch on electability, it is clear their argument is failing miserably with superdelegates.

Since February 5, the Obama campaign has netted 107 superdelegates, and the Clinton campaign only 21. Since the Pennsylvania primary, much of it during the challenging Rev. Wright period, we have netted 24 and the Clinton campaign 17.

At some point – we would argue that time is now – this ceases to be a theoretical exercise about how superdelegates view electability. The reality of the preferences in the last several weeks offer a clear guide of how strongly superdelegates feel Senator Obama will perform in November, both in building a winning campaign for the presidency as well as providing the best electoral climate across the country for all Democratic candidates.

It is important to note that Senator Obama leads Senator Clinton in superdelegate endorsements among Governors, United States Senators and members of the House of Representatives. These elected officials all have a keen sense for who our strongest nominee will be in November.

It is only among DNC members where Senator Clinton holds a lead, which has been rapidly dwindling. <----this is why slick hilly is so confident, and will not back out. She has the DNC in pocket

As we head into the final days of the campaign, we just wanted to be clear with you as a party leader, who will be instrumental in making the final decision of who our nominee will be, how we view the race at this point.

Senator Obama, our campaign and our supporters believe pledged delegates is the most legitimate metric for determining how this race has unfolded. It is simply the ratification of the DNC rules – your rules – which we built this campaign and our strategy around.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jackpine Radical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-07-08 09:43 AM
Response to Original message
8. She can win the GE, alright.
For McCain. All she needs to do is stay on course.

That will leave her with 2012 wide open.

So she thinks.

The reality is, of course, after she hands the show to McCain, and after 4 years of the Bush3 Administration, not even Rupert will be sending her money.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-07-08 09:45 AM
Response to Original message
11. Democrats cannot nominate someone who cannot win their own Party..
That would be insane.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beandoc Donating Member (34 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-07-08 09:48 AM
Response to Original message
13. Apples and oranges
Remember when the clinton camp's message was about electoral college math, saying she won states with more electoral college votes (i think was just before they were claiming to be winning in states that don't start with a vowel). Anyway, it was a bad argument and the rebuttal was that the results of a democratic primary don't correlate well with the results in the general election. The dynamic is different in Dem vs Repub compared to Dem vs Dem, and the electorate composition changes and increases in size significantly.
So it's not completely illogical to think that someone who didn't win a primary could win a general election vs a Repub. I don't agree that she would be better than Obama vs McCain, but to be consistent I don't think it's an position I could refute with anything other than an opinion (it's not outside of the realm of logic).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bowens43 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-07-08 10:02 AM
Response to Original message
15. It's all in the math 2+2 =39.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Renew Deal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-07-08 10:04 AM
Response to Original message
16. Because losing is winning in Hillaryland
It's somewhere between Neverland and Bellvue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bread and Circus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-07-08 10:04 AM
Response to Original message
17. Just ignore the past 15 months of campaigning, millions of votes cast and go with a gallup poll!
That's what Lanny Davis is asking you to do.

Stupid, I know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goclark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-07-08 10:06 AM
Response to Original message
18. Escellent logic
She can't win the nomination against a "Black" man so how can she win against a White one that is a friend?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
highplainsdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-07-08 10:07 AM
Response to Original message
19. The GE isn't won in caucuses.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Arugula Latte Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-07-08 10:44 AM
Response to Reply #19
22. Obama didn't win only in caucuses. He won several primaries.
He won the popular vote. He won more states.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Emit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-07-08 08:33 PM
Response to Reply #22
32. You are correct and thanks for pointing that fact out
And he has given the Clinton machine a run for it's money that will go down in history -- that is worthy of merit on its own accord, IMO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
helderheid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-07-08 10:46 AM
Response to Original message
23. I can't win the nomination but I can win the GE!
Nope, sorry, I can't even attempt to explain it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Imagevision Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-07-08 10:47 AM
Response to Original message
24. Like Bill said; "she's 60" and she's tired...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-07-08 10:47 AM
Response to Original message
25. That's what lying Clinton supporters want you to believe, yes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tesha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-07-08 10:52 AM
Response to Original message
26. In the abstract, many candidates could lose the primary but win the GE.
Edited on Wed May-07-08 10:55 AM by Tesha
IN the primary, we're forced to chose the one candidate who
attracts the most supporters who *PREFER THAT CANDIDATE
OVER ALL THE OTHERS*.

But there's a second, more important number that isn't revealed
by our current process:

The numbers of the electorate who can support each candidate,
even if that candidate isn't their first choice.

So, for example, 45% of the electorate might choose Barack
as their first choice, 40% choose Hillary as their first choice,
and 10% choose John Edwards as their first choice.

Barack should win, right? And Edwards is clearly the loser.

Well, maybe not. Because if it turns out that only 60% of
the electorate can accept Barack and 45% could accept
Hillary, but (say) 85% can accept Edwards, then it's likely
that Edwards would be far better General Election candidate
than *EITHER* Barack or Hillary, even though Edwards (in
ths scenario) couldn't win a single primary.

It's called "accepance voting"or "approval voting" and
if we had any sense (as a party), we'd make much more
use of it than we do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting

Tesha
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chefgirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-07-08 11:07 AM
Response to Original message
27. Well, you COULD explain it any number of ways
...that is, if you're a Hillary supporter. By my count she's already come up with about 47 different ways to try and get people to buy it.

What I DO know is this. Barack Obama is going to have an uphill climb in November, to be sure. There are an awful lot of people in this country who wouldn't call themselves racist, except that there's no way they would ever vote for a black candidate. The best thing Obama's got in his favor is the incredible way he has grown the party. Our turnout is smothering the Republicans.

However, if Hillary is the nominee, that will ALL change. I guarantee that if she wins the nomination, Republican turnout will SOAR.

I believe with all of my heart and soul that if she's the nominee, Republicans will DRAG THEMSELVES OFF THEIR DEATHBEDS just to vote against her.

To me, the choice is crystal clear.

-chef-
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stop Cornyn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-07-08 11:08 AM
Response to Original message
28. Hillary cannot win among Democrats but Republicans all love her, right? So she'd be golden in the GE
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bkcc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-07-08 11:09 AM
Response to Original message
29. NO. She can't win.
The truth is that there is a huge contingent of people in this country who despise her and would do anything to see her political career destroyed. I'm talking, of course, about the right-wing conservative voters.

Don't believe me? Look no further than Limbaugh sending his listeners to the polls to vote for her. Why? Because there is a history of hating her that has been ingrained into a considerable percentage of the U.S. population. All it would take to whip up voters in McCain's (or any Republican candidate's) favor this fall against Clinton would be to draw on those existing talking points and re-hash a lot of the old lies that the conservative base has come to believe as truth. Our side may see them for the lies that they are, but the other side holds them as self-evident truths. Both Clintons are seen as hobgoblins by the Right and it doesn't take much to fire up conservative voters about them.

But, you say, won't they drag out stuff about Obama as well? Like the Reverend Wright mess? Of course they will. But the difference is that there isn't already a groundwork of lies in place that has been laid for the last decade.

This is not a knock on Clinton herself. I like her. I prefer Obama as the nominee, but I do actually like Hillary. I understand why supporters stand behind her with such conviction.

Is Obama a lock? No. But he has proven that he can win big in some of the states where Dems don't usually perform so well--MS, LA, NC, GA, UT, SC. This is not going to be as easy as some are hoping, but he can win decisively.

That said, I've no doubt this "electability" issue will linger right up until Obama is giving his victory speech this November.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TeamsterDem Donating Member (819 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-07-08 08:38 PM
Response to Original message
33. The "argument" is even more flawed when considering that ...
winning the general election requires the votes of independents and Republicans. She's enjoyed enormous support from such groups owing to Limbaugh's Operation Fat-n-Drugged-n-Just-Generally-Stupid (my own title. Like it?). So she hasn't won a majority of voters even though she's supposedly the "Traditional Democrat," and has enjoyed incalculable support from Limbaugh's minions. Hmmm.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carolina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-07-08 08:39 PM
Response to Original message
34. Twisted, delusional spinners
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 08:41 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC