IS Clinton really more electable than Obama?

[Honeycombe8]

This is the main argument that Clinton is making to the superdelegates - those people upon whose votes she has hung any remaining hopes for a place on the ticket.

But it has always rung hollow to me. Consider that just five months ago, her campaign had twice the amount of money of any other candidate. That she had a popular former President by her side and on the campaign trail. That she had CA and NY in her pocket. That she was the most famous woman in the country...maybe the world. That she had more years, technically, being exposed to federal government than most of the other Democratic candidates. That she had most of the Democratic groups in her corner, including the African American sector of voters. That she had more big endorsements than any other Democratic contender. That she was considered by many to be the inevitable nominee.

She had all that, and more.

Still, she managed to lose the nomination. There will be articles written for years as to exactly where her campaign made mistakes, but it's safe to say that she made major mistakes in selecting her main campaign managers, in strategy, and in management of her money.

I ask you....does this seem like the sort of candidate the Democrats should hang their hopes on for November? Isn't it just possible that even with all the odds in her favor for winning in November, she'd still lose the general election, just like she lost the nomination?

And if she considers someone complimenting her tangerine-colored jacket as a sexist remark, how would she handle the Republicans, when they start in on her? I think it's safe to say that Republicans are a tad more sexist than the general public, when it comes to women in power.

No, I think the better path is to choose the nominee who can go from nowhere to winning the most states, the most delegates. I think the better candidate is the one who knew at the start how to pick the right people to run his campaign and manage his money. The one who ensured he had a campaign staff that knew how to strategize for the long term and take into account unforeseeable events, and change strategy as a result. The one who could handle personal attacks and answer them without claiming racism at every corner (whether it was racist or not). The one whose outlook stayed positive, but firm and resolute. Like a long distance runner.

Clinton more electable than Obama? Definitely not.

[Liberal Veteran]

1. The HRC-Hivebots like to play the victim, but their queen did have all the advantages.

And she blew it.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

2. what EVERYONE forgets -- Half the people in the country

said they would never, ever vote for her (zogby -october 2007) That is all that needs to
be said.

[Honeycombe8]

6. Well, I think it stated that half the country viewed her negatively. I think that is still the case

Isn't that correct? I don't recall a poll stating that half the country wouldn't vote for her. Altho I wouldn't be surprised if that were the case.

Anyway, I think those results have not changed.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

36. Yes, it did. I looked it up - Zogby 11-07

[Iceburg]

17. That would be the same Zogby that had BO up 13+ points in CA before its primary.

Further, Hillaries negatives have dropped significantly because of her strong campaign and populist message, while Obama's negatives have risen starkly.

The more people know about Obama, the higher his negatives rise.

If he had been given a full vetting during these primaries there would undoubtedly more confidence in his abilities to not only win but be a good president. However, that did not happen and the campaign is coming to a close and we still know nothing.

[dansolo]

33. Clinton had a lot of early voters already wrapped up

In states with early voting, Clinton had the advantage of having many votes cast for her before Obama started campaigning. If all of the votes were cast on the day of the primary, Obama would have narrowed the gap.

[Bright Eyes]

3. She never was *more* electable, even several months ago.

And after her latest gaffe, she'd be lucky to hold on to her Senate seat.

[havocmom]

4. GOP not mad for McCain. NOTHING will GOTV for GOP like Hillary as DEM nominee

[book_worm]

5. No, just contemptable.

[OzarkDem]

7. Ask the voters, the disagree with you

She still beats McCain while Obama can't; he's also untested, unchallenged, unvetted - a huge risk. If nominated, the GOP and news media will dispatch him. He will be neutralized and his candidacy over before Labor Day.

In addition, Obama doesn't have the kind of personality that elicits sympathy from voters if he's attacked. His aloof, arrogant and somewhat condescending personality won't help.

[Honeycombe8]

10. Polls go up and down. Going by the voting rules, though, Clinton has lost. nt

[nvme]

25. better untested

Than have proven liar (Bosnia). Better unvetted than have an guarranteed opportunist(New york carpet bagging). Bettter un-proven than have a Warmonger(IWR,Kyle-Lieberman). Better an uknown than a known failure (her current campaign). News flash to you Clinton supporters Americans aren't buying what Clinton is selling. We reject her politics of fear. at 3 am, at 4am, or even at 7:30pm. America was looking for an excuse to abandoning Clinton and Obama gave them the perfect reason. Its time for a changing of the guard. Every time Clinton speaks is to attack vilify Obama . What is she offering other than that at this point. He hand at civil rights champion is laughable. Where was she in 2000 or even 2004? We she voted to give the president the authority send in excess of 4050 American to their horrific deaths. Will she ever was the blood off her hands?

[Double T]

8. HRC is MOST capable of winning the GE. BO has NO CHANCE........

of winning the GE. If BO was electable, HE would have had to win the MAJORITY of BIG STATES; He DID NOT. BO has done poorly in recent BIG and SWING STATE Primary elections. BO electable? Common sense and the numbers say NOWAY!

[AtomicKitten]

9. If Hillary was electable, she would be beating Barack, which she is not.

Some of you, um, particularly ardent supporters of Hillary seem to forget that little factoid in your ramblings.

She can't beat Obama so she won't be going to the GE, ergo she is unelectable.

[Double T]

18. YOU have disenfranchised Florida and Michigan voters just like YOUR candidate.

Can't do THAT! In a GE those voters MOST LIKELY could be the deciding factor and HRC WON THOSE VOTES BY A LANDSLIDE. HRC is our ONLY viable candidate that can and will WIN the GE!!

[nvme]

26. Disenfranchisement LOL

Hillary and her people Disenfranchised voters when her SUPPORTER WHO ARE ON THE RULES AND BY-LAWS COMMITTEE VOTED TO STRIP FL AND MI OF ALL THEIR DELEGATES. Where were Hillary's protests in december or january? No her protest did begin till after her feb 5th drubbing across the country democratic voters went for Obama. So she didn't care about either state because they werent important to her till Feb6 when the voting was done. It just further proves her to be the opportunist the general public has known her to be. Civil rights my ass she(her majesty) only grants(oops fights for them) so long as its favorable to her campaign. Well Clinton supporters you keep sending her money Mark Penn needs to get that money for his Lobbying firm.

[boobooday]

23. A bit of a speed bump on the electability argument

:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

[AtomicKitten]

35. HRC's path to the White House:: Hot air and fuzzy math.

[panader0]

12. I think the argument that Obama can't win the big states is silly

He was runniing against another Dem, not McCain.

[Honeycombe8]

16. He didn't lose by much in those big Dem. states. But when HRC lost, she lost big.

Don't forget that Obama's electoral map is different from Hillary's, and has always been. PA was simply not a state he counted on. But Oregon was (Oregon is a true swing state. He won MO, too, don't forget.)

Hillary won big in W. Virginny and KY, but those are red states.

[Honeycombe8]

13. Your facts are wrong. Oregon is a swing state. PA isn't, really. She lost the nomination...

when she had all the odds in her favor. It is likely it would happen again (losing) in November.

Money doesn't seem to help her. Endorsements don't help her. Wins in a few big states don't help her. It is the Clinton brain that seems to be the problem...they don't have key leadership abilities, like picking the right people to get the job done, foreseeing problems, changing course, managing money.

Obama will handily win in November. All the elements of his leadership says that is so. (Also...Obama is beating McCain in CA and other big states, incl. swing states. I would also mention...his swing states are different from Hillary's. The map is changing. The times are changing. Obama is putting other states in play.)

[4_Legs_Good]

27. The good part is that you can start packing early!

If you plan to leave the country if McCain wins! Since our nominee has "no chance" according to you, there's no reason to wait!

David

[DFW]

11. I never thought that, even before Obama declared

The Bush Lite administration has been so awful, I didn't
see how ANY Democratic candidate could be at a disadvantage
in this election, whether a white male or someone from the
"other" category. My dream ticket would have been Al Gore
with a surprise Howard Dean as his VP, and both are of the
white male category (MY kind of white male, to be sure).

But OK, so it won't be Gore. But there was no lack of
candlepower or energy elsewhere in the Democratic field. We
did not have any Fred Thompsons. So I would have been happy
with any of them, and if it's Obama, I'm perfectly happy
with him, too. Now is not the time to waste our energy on
trashing the Clintons. Now is the time to trash McBush, and
I will continue to say that even if Hillary pulls a rabbit out
of her hat and gets the nomination somehow.

McCain has said he wants more Alitos on the Supreme Court. Look
how Alito has ruled on every case that has come up before the
Court since he took the bench. If THAT doesn't scare you, then
you must be more fearless than Indiana Jones.

[rock]

14. I would previously have said "yes"

But with the rift in the party, either Dem candidate will have a particularly difficult time in the GE. Without the rift, either candidate would be perfectly electable (although I would have give Hill the edge).

[Douglas Carpenter]

15. Rasmussen Markets data gives Sen. Obama a 62.0% chance of winning the White House in November

Rasmussen Markets data gives Sen. Obama a 62.0% chance of winning the White House in November

"New polling from Minnesota was released today showing Obama retaining a double digit lead over McCain. Polling released Friday showed Obama with the advantage in both Pennsylvania and New Hampshire. In both states, McCain had the edge a month ago (see summary of recent state-by-state results).

The Rasmussen Reports Balance of Power Calculator shows Democrats leading in states with 200 Electoral Votes while the GOP has the advantage in states with 189. When “leaners” are included, the Democrats enjoy a 260-240 Electoral College lead. Rasmussen Markets data gives Democrats a 62.0% chance of winning the White House in November (results are updated on a 24/7 basis by market participants). "

"Rasmussen Reports believes the race is over and that Barack Obama will be the nominee of the Democratic Party. We will stop tracking the Democratic race in the near future to focus exclusively on the Obama-McCain match-up. "

link:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

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

Average of National Polls:

Obama 46.9/McCain 44.0 = Obama + 2.9

Clinton 46.1/McCain 44.9 = Clinton + 1.2

The general election polls averages the latest polls from Gallup Tracking, Rasmussen Tracking, Quinnipiac,ABC News/Wash Post, Democracy Corp, LA Times/Bloomberg, IDBB/TIPP, Battleground

links:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_clinton-224.html

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

Gallup: Key Clinton voters are shifting to Obama



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

Rasmussen Markets data gives Sen. Obama a 62.0% chance of winning the White House in November:


"New polling from Minnesota was released today showing Obama retaining a double digit lead over McCain. Polling released Friday showed Obama with the advantage in both Pennsylvania and New Hampshire. In both states, McCain had the edge a month ago (see summary of recent state-by-state results).

The Rasmussen Reports Balance of Power Calculator shows Democrats leading in states with 200 Electoral Votes while the GOP has the advantage in states with 189. When “leaners” are included, the Democrats enjoy a 260-240 Electoral College lead. Rasmussen Markets data gives Democrats a 62.0% chance of winning the White House in November (results are updated on a 24/7 basis by market participants). "

"Rasmussen Reports believes the race is over and that Barack Obama will be the nominee of the Democratic Party. We will stop tracking the Democratic race in the near future to focus exclusively on the Obama-McCain match-up.

link:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

[NJSecularist]

19. When you win a net +200 delegates from low-turnout caucuses..

... and it's the difference between winning the nomination and losing it, it doesn't mean much to say that Hillary is unelectable because she didn't compete well in low-turnout caucuses.

Hillary will win Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania. Those three states will decide the election this year, like they usually do. And we will likely lose all 3 with Obama as our nominee.

[book_worm]

21. Wasn't she stupid not to compete there? What lousy campaign advice she got

Obama ran a good campaign competed in those caucus states and still won several primaries. Polls show that Obama is winning PA and he has made big gains in both Ohio and Florida and once he is rid of Hillary can concentrate on McCain. He is also showing strength in states like Virginia, Iowa, Colorado and New Mexico.

[Ravy]

32. That has to be the election blunder for the ages.... nt

[Honeycombe8]

24. The key word is "strategery." The map has changed...helllo! Anyone home?

The Democratic map is changing. PA is not considered a must-win, and Obama doesn't count on winning it. Oregon, however, is a must-win. Obama will win CA, of course. And he'll win OH. FL is no longer part of the Dem. must-win map. Which suits me...FL has historically been too unreliable for Democrats to count on.

Get it? I knew that you would. Kinda hard to grasp good strategy, but it's a winning strategy. Pay attention to his strategy. After all, it won him the nomination against all odds.

[Hippo_Tron]

38. No, but when your strategists are too stupid to put any resources into those caucuses

And they get out-smarted by the newbie, it really says something about your lack of ability to take on the Republicans in November.

[HockeyMom]

20. Just my Republican husband

We are former New Yorkers. My husband absolutely despises Hillary Clinton. He is more or less neutral towards Obama. Since I have changed my party affiliation from an Independent, he constantly says to me "I hope you are not voting for that expletive deleted. No, I made the decision myself to vote for Obama because I was very disappointed in Hillary on my own.

For what it's worth, my husband doesn't like McCain based on the fact that he knows nothing about the economy and that is HIS big concern now, not "terra". He has said he may just stay home this GE again. He didn't vote for Bush the second time around.

We hope to return to New York in a few years. I do not want her to be my Senator ever again. I will never vote for her. For what it's worth, I am a white woman over 50.

[atufal1c]

22. More electable? Well, not long ago we thought she was more NOMINATABLE.

And we ere wrong about that.

You've nailed this Indie.

Why would we depend on the Clinton campaign to win the GE? She can't win the primary without resorting to the ridiculous despite all of her advantages at the start.

Her campaign has been terrible.
She's been terrible.
Bill's been terrible.

So what should we expect from her in the General?

Terribleness.

And she's said it herself: the primary math is hard, the general election math is not. So how will she possibly steal it the General like she stole the primary?

Do people really think the Republicans will treat her as gently as Obama has?

[suston96]

28. More electable? Who knows......?

http://www.electoral-vote.com /

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Obama/Maps/May25.html

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Clinton/Maps/May25.html

[suston96]

29. Do this when nobody is watching you.....I won't tell...

Subtract all those red states which Obama "won" in the primaries (because they will stay red).

Subtract the red states Hillary won for the same reason.

Now see what is left and make your own decision as to who is more "electable."

[rndmprsn]

30. K&R

[nvme]

31. Lets dispel the Bill Clinton Myth

Democratic voter seem to look back on the Clinton whitehouse with such nostalgic reverence. Back in 92' when bill ran against Daddy bush, It was a different ballgame altogether. America was still in the lead with many industries. His negatives were relatively unknown. A third party candidate was a threat to both parties. The whole process favored relatively known Bill Clinton.

America actually was a world leader in many areas. We were spearheading the implementation of the internet. We lead the auto industries. We were making progress in the trade war against Japan. We were still in a recession left over from daddy bush/ and reaganomics. America was still producing.

At the time there was little know about bill's negatives. His infidelities came to light breifly and Hillary was standing by her man. the white water crap had yet to begin. His association with the Mc Dougals was not known. Rose was just a flower (not jennifer) and it wasn't associated with the law firm either. He had yet to be impeached. He had yet to committed ha-ri-kari by enacting NAFTA. In addition to the knowns and unknowns, a third candidate was in the race.

H ross perot helped shape the General Election. He drew out the libertarians of the Re pubs party. Perot appealed to fiscal conservatives who are part of the re pubs base. He had a texans down home appeal that knee capped big dad die. ever since that election the re pubs have learned and honed their skills. Perot competing made Bills opening possible.


Bill would have been unelectable himself had it not been for those factors. His charisma very strong, would not have saved the day. His election was lucky. Given the fact that Hillary does not have the same Charisma inspire, and deep resentment among re pubs,she will not benefit in the General. There is no third party of note running. In the end, she will fail because like her campaign she has proven herself to be highly inconsistent and unreliable.

[Richard Steele]

34. Not a chance. That's why the Repubs were already pushing her as our nominee 2 years ago. nm

[Carrieyazel]

37. Both are among the most unelectable candidates we could have put up.

Obama makes certain states more competitive, but not enough to win them; he's weak in others. Hillary does better in certain battlegrounds, weaker in others; her negative ratings are high. Both bring strengths to the table, as well as considerable weaknesses.

[Hippo_Tron]

39. I think the guy in your avatar was the best chance of winning

But I think Obama was our second best chance. I also think he needs to put Richardson on the ticket to deliver the Hispanic vote in New Mexico, Colorado, and Nevada. If Obama wins those three, McGramps is screwed.