Why is Clinton camp pretending Obama CAN'T win big states in Nov? Do they believe McCain wins NY?

[blm]

Do they really believe McCain wins Mass?

What LOGIC are they using?

It would be like issuing a statement that Clinton can't beat McCain in November because she lost Illinois big in the primary and NO Dem can win without Illiniois.

May I ask why corporate media keeps pushing this absurd position? Do they really think Democrats are so dumb they won't see the lack of integrity and logic in that position?

[SteppingRazor]

1. Well, depends what state you're talking about.

In Ohio and Florida, some polls show Clinton beating McCain and McCain beating Obama. So, there is an argument to be made. Of course, the counter-argument is that Obama doesn't need Ohio or Florida to win.

[blm]

3. The West is proving to be gold for Dems - and we haven't even HAD the debates or the billion dollars

worth of ads against McCain that the left will unleash tying him completely to Bush.

I just find the position that Obama can't win Dem states to be absurd and insulting to any Dem. Those who promote it would also HAVE to take the position that HRC's Dem voters would ONLY vote for her or McCain.

[RaleighNCDUer]

4. Ohio is iffy for either, and neither are going to take Florida.

The question is about the big states that Hillary won, through the strength of the DLC machine, speaking as if those states will not go for Obama in the GE. Which is sheer nonsense, i.e., if Hillary wins PA, that means it will go to McCain if Obama is the nominee.

A case study for the logic impaired.

[SteppingRazor]

8. Hey, I'm not just making up numbers here. The most recent polls support what I was saying:

Rasmussen general election poll for Florida, Apr. 10:
McCain beats Obama 53-38
Clinton beats McCain 45-44


SUSA general election poll for Ohio, Apr. 11-13:
McCain beats Obama 47-45
Clinton beats McCain 53-42

I agree with your general contention, that it's silly to say that Obama won't win solidly blue large states such as California. But there are examples in which Hillary beats McCain but Obama doesn't.

That said, as I mentioned in my first post, the counter-argument is that Obama doesn't need Florida or Ohio to win, as there are many states in which he beats McCain but Clinton doesn't: Michigan, Iowa and Wisconsin for example. And again, this is all just going off the most-recent polls for those states.

[RaleighNCDUer]

11. Re Ohio, 47-45 is a statistical dead heat - it could go either way.

That's why Ohio is iffy. Not to mention Rush's "fuck with the Democrats" voters - I don't think that Clinton is nearly so strong against McCain there - rather, it's more like she does 3-5 points better than Obama, which still does not mean she's going to win it against McCain.

As for Florida, the polls don't take the Sequoia vote into account - Florida has not had an honest vote since before 2000, and there's no reason to expect one this time. No matter who shows up at the polls, the republicans will take Florida.

If you hadn't noticed, it's those who really watch the polls who are always surprised by the actual votes - there's more going on which needs to be taken into account.

[SteppingRazor]

17. Touch-screen voting machines won't be a problem in Florida this November...

what with Florida having banned them months ago.

[RaleighNCDUer]

26. It's not just the touch screens - though that is an improvement -

but also the vote compilers and individual vote machines send their information to. If a compiler is programmed to flip 5% of A over to B as they come in, how do we catch it? What safeguard is there that while voting machine #17EG6 sent in 327 votes for for Obama and 288 votes for McCain, that the compiler didn't read it as 288 for Obama and 327 for McCain - particularly when that complier is also collecting votes from 500 other machines? Even when the results are WAY off the projected polls, there's no single place to look for a problem.

There are many levels of electoral fraud, and Florida has used all of them at one point or another. (Not picking on FL as such - similar problems ocurred in OH and GA and many many other places.)

In fact, eliminating the DREs will allow FL to say "See, the vote must be honest because we fixed the problem", further reducing the chance of calling for any needed recounts.

[SteppingRazor]

27. An excellent point, though from what I understand, the new machines offer a paper trail...

so if a recount does come up, we'll at least have a record. That said, the last sentence of your post is certainly telling in that regard.

[onenote]

14. why did you cherry pick the polls? Why not use Rasmussen for Ohio

... it shows McCain beating both HRC and Obama:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/ohio/election_2008_ohio_presidential_election

[SteppingRazor]

15. I didn't cherry-pick. I used the most-recent poll for each state.

The Rasmussen was Apr. 10, the Ohio poll I used was Apr. 13.


On edit: Also, in determining what was most-recent, I used the data of electoral-vote.com, just in case they/I overlooked something. :hi:

[NJmaverick]

2. FACTS?!?!? WE DON'T NEED NO STINKIN FACTS!!!!

[roseBudd]

5. Because they are disingenuous

[Justitia]

6. No, they don't really believe that, it's just in the kitchen sink. Trust me, I'll win NY & MA

before McCain does.

They are just trying anything, they are desperate and it shows.

[C_U_L8R]

7. I(f Hillary applied the same logic to herself

she wouldn't be able to win more than 15 states in the general.
By her own measure, Hillary is unelectable.

[SoCalDem]

28. Her EV map..

make your own @
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/campaign08/electoral-college/

[nomorewhopper]

9. clinton will win the PA primary but would not win a GE in Penn

she lacks the support in urban, suburban areas.

think she's going to carry the PA countryside to a GE win? Think again!

[olkaz]

10. It's called desperation. And moving the goal posts.

They're going to frame this thing anew for every contest left to try to make Clinton look like the right choice. It's expected.

But as the inevitable slowly approaches, the reasoning gets more twisted and illogical. I cannot wait to hear what they're saying when we get to Oregon. Jesus, it'll probably somehow involve "Lord of the Rings" with how wild it's going to get.

[Skwmom]

12. B/C she thinks Democrats are STUPID and will buy anything Team Clinton says.

Since when has LACK OF LOGIC prohibited them from making an argument. Yet the media talking heads will parrot them like them make complete sense and are logical.

[dommyluc]

13. I have a feeling...

...that no matter what happens in Pennsylvania today, Clinton will decide to stay in the race. She has too much invested to back out now, and her delusional handlers will cheer her on. But I also think that Obama has really been holding back, and with his electoral base and his campaign money, I think he will destroy her. She has alienated too many people just to win this one race, a race that the pundits said she was so strong in a few weeks ago that they thought she didn't even need to campaign in. How th emighty hath fallen. I can't wait to see the Obama ads, especially about Iran. How can the American people expect her to pull out of Iraq if she already is itching to pull the trigger on Iran? And her Iraq vote is going to be thrown in her face constantly, and well as her abandonment of the progressive base. There are so many things that the Clintons are vulnerable on, and I say "Clintons" because she has made Bill a centerpiece of her campaign. It's going to get nas, folks, and Hillary has a lot more dirty launsry to be aired than Obama. She has fucked up her campaign beyond recognition and has no one to blame but herself. If she even attempts to take the election away from the people because she is still lagging in delegates and the popular votes, there will be an insurrection within our party, and a lot of formally silent superdelegates will announce their support for Obama including, I believe, Al Gore, who must be REALLY be pissed off about her "elitist" remarks she made about him. If Hillary loses NC and doesn't have a 60% victory in IN, but decides to stay in the race anyway, the Obama camp is going to grind her into talcum powder. She had better not forget she is not only putting her NY senate seat at stake, she is also putting her entire political career at stake. But I guess to the Clintons the Golden Rule is, "If we can't have it, no one can."

[redqueen]

16. They're aiming that idiotic rhetoric at those who are too stupid to see straight.

Anyone else would just laugh those "arguments" off.

[barack the house]

18. Hillary said he can win in the debate that's what counts to me.

[StevieM]

19. I think McCain will win 45 states against Obama, including NY (eom)

x

[oasis]

25. If by some miracle McCain wins NY, then he'll win all 50 states. (eom)

[StevieM]

30. Even if McCain won NY, he would still probably loose Hawaii and Vermont (eom)

[Mooney]

29. Not in a million fucking years.

McCain wouldn't carry New York no matter who he was running against. Forget it.

[Ysabel]

20. yes they think we are dumb (n/t)...

[SoCalDem]

21. Greaseball said yesterday that she won the big states that we need in Nov.. like TEXAS

I about choked on my coffee on that doooozie :)

[knixphan]

22. Anyone who THINKS McCain would beat Obama...

WANTS McCain to beat Obama.

And needn't bother with calling themselves democrats.

[oasis]

23. Obama can't win big "battleground" states like Ohio and Pennslyvania. Of course

CaliFornia and New York will go Dem.

[DefenseLawyer]

24. Well, McCain clearly has the experience to be commander in chief

Just don't say he is better than Bush! Now, about your question, it's not relevant.