If Clinton can't beat Obama... then Obama is more "electable".

[redqueen]

That's all there is to it.

If you choose to fall for M$M spin, well... that's your choice. We see where that's led this country before...

[QC]

1. The primary and the general election are two very different things.

Leaving aside which of the two current candidates is electable, if either, it's possible for someone to be very popular inside the party and electoral poison outside of it. Think Mondale and Dukakis here.

[redqueen]

2. Hillary is more popular with the party. Obama gets independents and crossovers. (nt)

[book_worm]

3. but she's the former first lady of one of the most popular Dem presidents and a US Senator from NY

who is being beaten by a first term Senator from IL. Come on, she should have had this nomination locked up months ago.

[redqueen]

5. Exactly... she had it "in the bag" and blew it. How is that "electable"?

:shrug:

[mcctatas]

8. It's electable because she says so...

and if she's only counting the primaries she's won as important states, she's right, so in the alternate reality that is hilltown...
:shrug:

[blm]

4. Obama attracts more Independents and Independents sway elections - as they did in 2006.

Hillary loses Independent bigtime and her supporters can't even admit it to themselves.

[roguevalley]

20. This entirely overlooks the unelectability of McCain. Never in the

history of the repugnik party have they fielded such a hopeless candidate. Even diphit managed to fool the redneck wing to follow him. McCain can't.

[PlanetBev]

6. Media phrase rears it's ugly head again

2004, we all went with what we were told was the most "electable" candidate.

Turned out great, huh?

Vote your heart and your gut. I'm sticking with Obama.

[redqueen]

9. Well MSNBC said so... and why would they lie?

:sarcasm:



I'm with you... have we really learned so little?

[candelovsky]

7. Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise

It's like the typical fallacy, "if the yankees beat the cubs, then the cubs can't beat the Dodgers."

Makes little sense. As in baseball, in politics different matchups have different dynamics.

[redqueen]

11. Very well then, let's argue that.

I do like to argue. :)

Let's match them up, shall we?

What is it that you think makes Obama less "electable" when set in contrast with McCain?

I'll tell you what I think makes Clinton less "electable" when set in contrast with McCain:

1. Her Bosnia lies. As we all know very well, McCain is a war hero who was a POW. His military credentials are well-established. Now imagine that we've nominated Hillary, and what do you expect the GOP to make of those lies? Lots and lots of nourishing hay, that's what I see. The kind of hay that appeals to independents.

2. Her support for the Iraq War. No, not just the IWR... the war itself. Not only did she legitimize the "Al Qaeda has connections to Iraq" lies in her IWR speech (which, really, is bad enough)... but 10 months into the war, she was going on talk shows and saying that Iraq was a threat. I could say more about how she'll fail to be a significant contrast to McCain on this issue, but I think that's plenty for now.

3. Her NAFTA lies. People don't much like being lied to. I know she's pretty much been given a pass on these lies so far... but only an idiot would expect that much won't be said about her bold-faced lying about how she's always been against NAFTA. As with the Bosnia lies, there is also video of her past support of NAFTA... so... yeah. Damning stuff.


I could go on... but I'll wait for your response.

Thanks.


on edit: I'll be specific. Thanks for stating your case in a reasonable manner. Unlike the other kind of Clinton supporter below. :hi:

[candelovsky]

24. I didn't say Obama was less electable

In fact, I think they are both unelectable, due to the fact that the media is set to destroy any Democrat who gets in the way of a Republican.

I just didn't see the relationship between losing in the primary and being electable or not.

[paulk]

10. a classic logical fallacy...

it's almost like if you want to become an Obama acolyte - you've got to switch off half of your brain or something...

[redqueen]

12. Nice.

See whiners? It's not just Obama who has less-than-polite supporters.

[paulk]

22. I'm serious

the lengths that some of you folks go to drum up your outrage at Hillary

is absurd.

It makes you (and Obama) look foolish.

[redqueen]

23. Outrage?

What the everlovin fuck are you on about?


As for "electability"... you really think the proven liar who can't keep her lies straight is gonna stand up well in the GE?

[VotesForWomen]

13. it's this kind of "logic" that get O-ists called naive. nt

[VenusRising]

14. Kind of funny how that works, huh?

;)

[redqueen]

16. I can't wait till December.

I will surely not miss all these trolls.

[VenusRising]

18. Aw, mom!

Do we have to wait that long? :pout:

:rofl:

[Mezzo]

15. FACT: More Americans have voted for Hillary Clinton than have for Barack Obama. Get over it.

[Obamanaut]

17. And some of them are in Mich and Fla, and they still don't count

even though HRC insists on doing so.



http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/23/politics/main4039726.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_4039726

<-snip->

Clinton is including Michigan and Florida, primaries she won after all the candidates agreed to boycott the states for holding votes too early for party rules. Obama had his name pulled off the ballot in Michigan, so he doesn't get a single vote from that state.

"I'm very proud that as of today, I have received more votes by the people who have voted than anybody else, and I am proud of that," Clinton said at a rally in Indianapolis. "It's a very close race, but if you count, as I count, the 2.3 million people who voted in Michigan and Florida, then we are going to build on that."

Including Michigan and Florida, Clinton has 15.1 million to Obama's 15 million - a lead of about one-half of a percentage point for Clinton. Without Michigan and Florida, Obama has 14.4 million to Clinton's 13.9 million - a lead of about 1.7 percent for Obama. Neither total includes the primary vote total from Washington state, since it doesn't count toward the nomination and the party awards delegates based on its caucus.

<-more->

[barack the house]

19. Yep and she has been behind all the way through.

[suston96]

21. MSM spin my butt....Do the demographics and count the red states Obama "won"....

...he will not win those red states in November. Hillary won more big, blue states and she WILL carry them as well as some battleground states.

Here is some "M$M spin":

New poll finds Clinton ahead of McCain
Obama about even with GOP rival
McCain_Clinton_Obama_Poll

Posted: Monday, April 28, 2008 at 3:27 p.m.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A new poll adds support to Hillary Rodham Clinton's claim that she'd do better against John McCain than Barack Obama would do.

The poll by the Associated Press and Ipsos finds Clinton leading McCain by nine points in a head-to-head matchup.

An Obama-McCain matchup is about even.

Clinton has been gaining ground with the help of independents, young people and seniors. She now leads McCain, 50 percent to 41 percent.

About three weeks ago, both candidates were running nearly even with McCain. Since then, Clinton won the Pennsylvania primary. And that victory again raised questions about whether Obama can win in big states in the general election.

http://www.hoinews.com/news/news_story.aspx?id=127350

[terrell9584]

25. The flaw with that theory is

primaries are different than general elections, and, in general, there are certain groups in politics that stay static and then there is that demographic that does not.

And keep in mind, even at the height of Bushism, most of the country remained registered Democratic. MS, LA, TN, GA, NC, AR, maybe even TX all have Democratic majority registrations. And how have those states gone Presidentially. There are always more Democrats who vote for the Republican than vice versa because the Republicans are the smaller, more ideological, less inclusive party.

[anamnua]

26. Only a wilfully self-deluded Obamaton who has

cocooned himself from relevant events the past few weeks could make a statement like that. I've come to the conclusion that trying to remonstrate with an Obamaton is like trying to bang your head against a brick wall. If he gets the nomination (which I don't think he will) it will be sunk by multiple exocets with 'Wright' , 'Ayers', 'Bittergate' etc written all over them.
I've come to the conclusion that a few sips of kool aid confers lifelong immunity to rational argument.

[Life Long Dem]

27. It makes sense.

The process of elimination. Otherwise we would see Gravel and Huckabee in the GE.

[Auntie Bush]

28. why? He still has a gazillion more dollars to spin this in his favor.

[crankychatter]

29. They say she's more electable in some states because she won the primaries there

but you make the same assertion with the same logic...

and "ignored" goes completely batshit

like with wright

"Obama's associated with Wright... Obama's not disassociated enough from Wright"... then... "HOW DARE HE DISASSOCIATE HIMSELF FROM WRIGHT."

these wankers could rationalize a felony in an intersection in a

NEW YORK MINUTE