They must go for Hillary Clinton

...

Mrs Clinton has won by decisive margins in every big state that the Democrats must win to send their candidate to the White House. Mr Obama's lead in the delegate count is based on his success in small states with little electoral significance or in Republican strongholds such as Alabama and Nevada where the Democrats have no chance of success.

...

Mr Obama may have a better record on Iraq than Mrs Clinton, but on almost every other issue of importance to the American public she is clearly ahead. Moreover, she is a Clinton - and can hope to reassure voters with the record of successful centrist economic policies when she was First Lady in the White House. Mr Obama, by contrast, is on record as being the most consistently “liberal” (in the American sense) member of the Senate, with arguably the most left-wing economic and foreign policy platform since George McGovern was beaten by Richard Nixon, despite the revulsion against the Vietnam War.

...

Finally there is the matter of maturity and experience. This is Mr McCain's biggest gift to the Clinton campaign. An Obama-McCain contest would be seen as a match of inexperience against old age. Mr Obama hopes to win this competition by invoking the spirit of John F. Kennedy. What he forgets, however, is that Kennedy was swept to power on the crest of the baby boom, when the largest group of voters was in its twenties. Today these boomers are in their sixties or seventies - and will not take kindly to the charge that Mr McCain is too old to be president. Given the high propensity to vote among the elderly, this election will not be decided by a baby boom but by a senility surge.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/anatole_kaletsky/article3492457.ece

Obama's success in caucuses doesn't translate for the general election where he would lose.

He has proven time and again that he is incapable of winning ELECTIONS in big states.

:eyes:

Obama is ahead. How did he do that? By going to every state and winning them. Clinton has done the fifteen state bullshit that has lost us all of our elections in the past thirty years and SHE'S BEHIND. She is not expected mathematically to win so she's shitting in our mess kit. STOP TELLING THE LIE THAT ONLY SOME STATES MATTER AND THE REST DON'T!!!

that's not true. Far from it.

"Chris Bowers said:

Despite seemingly similarity in their performance against McCain, this breakdown shows real differences between Obama and Clinton in the general election. Against Obama, McCain's "solid" and "lean" states only add up to 123, while Obama's add up to 229. In a matchup against Clinton, the "solid" and "lean" states are of equal size: 201 for McCain, and 203 for Clinton. In other words, while McCain and Clinton appear evenly matched, McCain is only able to keep it close against Obama by running up a series of narrow wins in the toss-up states."

Take a look, he even puts several red states in play...
http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=4374

The fact is that NOW Obama has proven that he is incapable of winning elections in the big states.

This is why they are so loud and shouting everyone down like they are these days.Hillary winning Texas and Ohio was really it for Obama's chance of winning the nom/General.

fat chance.

She is the best choice

McCain. Stop pulling false stuff from nasty places

and it would all be over on Super Tuesday, February 5th. However, her strategy was flawed. Just as the above synopsis is flawed. Yes, Hillary got the most votes in those big states but she is still slightly behind in the popular vote and substantially behind in delegates. The author assumes that the Democratic nominee, if someone other than Hillary, would not get those same votes in the general election?

Or just not vote at all? Explain.

I don't know if they will vote for McCain or not vote.

But older voters are more likely to vote than to stay home -- unlike younger voters.

Do you have those numbers? I would think that more Obama supporters will sit out the next election than Hillary supporters, since they are mostly new voters and independents and have no interest whatsovever in voting for Hillary or even, the Democratic Party. They are voting for Obama and change - simple as that.

Older voters are more likely to actually vote.

It hurts the Democrats twice as much to have a vote cast against them than to have no vote cast at all.

she will not have enough votes to win. Kerry lost last election, even though he got 59 million votes. Democrats do not often win presidential elections by popular vote. Bill Clinton never received 50% in his races. Our Party needs the new voters to win. Period.

Kerry lost Ohio. Clinton can win it -- and Florida.

Obama cannot win either.

Instead of making up new ones to justify the candidate we want to win????

:shrug:

And the Patriots should have won the Super Bowl, I mean if not for the excuse that the Giants got more points, the Patriots scored on the plays that mattered.

..in Hillary world. Math doesn't matter either.

that he can't win that state in the general. Anyone who thinks that McCain could beat Obama in states like California or New York is delusional. The same applies to Ohio. Given McCain's long and enthusiastic support for NAFTA McCain could not beat Obama in Ohio either.

I already wrote that just because he loses a primary in a big state like New York or California or Ohio doesn't mean that he will lose that state in the general. Please explain to me how you think that analysis is wrong. New York and California are both solidly blue states that almost any Dem should win and I already explained why Obama will win Ohio.

so why is she still in?

They will not support Hillary, I predict.

:rofl:

...is sooooooo golden because you like Hillary huh?

Second of all... no, they must not. :hi:

Second of all...Yes, they must if the Dems are to win.

:hi:

Good luck!

the most delegates, the most states won, and the most money.....

And the should go against all of that.....why?

It shows that Obama would currently win many red states, including Nevada.

Hillary would win Florida, but lose Ohio in a GE.

Obama would win Ohio, but lose FLorida in a GE.


As far to your boomer theory. Obama is riding the crest of Gen-X and Gen-Y. Gen-Xers alone out number boomers. Combine the number of Xers and Yers and boomers quickly become yesteryears news.

But some people like to stay focused on primary and caucus results which do not accurately reflect election results.

Hillary has lost.

Clinging to something that has passed makes you and her look lame.

She cannnot win the Pledged Delegate race. It is over.

It's icky I guess.

And how exactly can Hillary legitimately win at this point anyway?

While the ideological/policy differences between Obama and Clinton are small, they DO exist insofar as the degree to which they accommodate the corporatist power agenda. What I've found somewhat remarkable about the campaign is the degree to which the Obama campaign emphasizes the 'unity' message ... making the point that he eschews "wedge issues" and invites cooperation. At the same time, the Clinton campaign focuses on an adversarial message ... painting her as a staunch advocate for the 'left.' Both, in a sense, attempt to cloak themselves in the positive part of the perception of their opponent's overall posture. If anything, Clinton has been somewhat of a sell-out to global corporatism - bankruptcy deform, IWR, etc. - while Obama has been at least partly steadfast in drawing a line over which he won't be dragged. In effect, each campaign has confirmed the reality of the candidate's track record in emphasizing the compliment. Obama has, as even his critics note, moderated a firmly progressive track record as a state legislator and bent (without breaking) to the Senate Democratic leadership's will. That 'leadership' been a remarkably compliant stance - giving, as we all have noted to our chagrin, far too much ground to the Rape & Pillage Right. Yet Obama has adhered to some core values his career has demonstrated, not totally surrendering to the 'leadership' in order to have what minimal influence a junior Senator can exert in a VERY clique/establishment-oriented 'Club.'

Simply stated, the DLC wing of the Democratic Party establishment, has amplified the extortion of the corporatist right by persistently threatening to repeat the "Reagan Democrat" defections of 1980 ... a specter that haunts partisans to this day. It is, however, a fundamentally dishonest comparison, since the "Reagan Democrats" split along the social policy "wedge issue" lines and NOT the corporatist/economic lines. At least consciously.

It's a conundrum for the progressive core of the Party. Faced with a threat by the corporatist-funded right of the Party to move votes from Column "D" to Column "R" they see a NET difference of 2 votes for each vote lost. At the same time, the repeatedly demonized 'leftist' (progressive/liberal) base of the Party merely threatens, out of principle and values, to move votes from Column "D" to Column "G" ... which does NOT net a difference of 2 since the votes DON'T go to the GOP. What's remarkable, however, is the ENORMOUS venom that's aimed at the base as compared to the DLC/BlueDog right. IMHO it's a vitriol and venom that's amplified by the DLCers ... even though THEIR extortion is far more greed-based and hypocritical.

Finally, I must note that the above political calculus relies on a ZERO-SUM model of political gamesmanship ... a flawed model, imho, that persistently presumes that independent and discouraged voters/nonvoters are somewhere in a fictional "middle" between the Dems and GOP. Nothing could be further from the truth, imho. While folks may adopt such a hair shirt, I firmly believe that the REAL values and principles of the vast majority of Americans are actually to the left of the dividing line between the two major parties. (Me, for instance.) The appearance/fiction is, however, the result of HUGE moneyed interests constantly promulgating that false meme for their own political interests.

It's appalling.

Maybe I didn't make it simple enoough? Maybe I didn't make it clear enough? Maybe the audience is too brain-damaged? Dunno.

Perhaps I should've belabored the obvious. 'The Times' is a Murdoch-owned newspaper and the article is a Murdoch-approved editorial. (Yes, I'm sure I've got it right this time.)

Perhaps I should have reiterated what other posters observed: that it's a threat by the Clinton campaign to take their marbles and vote GOP if they don't "win." Funny how the vitriol for Nader and Greens is so amplified and the EXTORTION of the "Democratic Right" is accommodated.

This is the game being played that serves one and only one goal: the takeover of the Democratic Party by corporatist interests just like they TOTALLY took over the GOP. (Today's GOP has almost no resemblance to the GOP of Eisenhower's day.) The APPETITE for POWER will do that to partisans.

Your ignorance of history is profound and your post absurd.

You like First Ladies' experience, vote for Barbara Bush. We're moving on.

Hillary is not a stupid woman. If she thought she couldn't win, she WOULD drop out, not because it would be the "nice" thing to do, but because it would be politically expedient for her (and the party) to do so.

This is why I get so frustrated with DU Obama supporters. They tend to assume that Hillary is nothing but ego. She's got a big one, for sure, but politics is her bread and butter. She'll put the right political move ahead of ego because it protects her political future (whatever that may be).

Hence, she has stayed in because she thinks she has a very good chance to be the nominee.

Every way that I do the math--no matter how ridiculously in her favor, her only hope seems to be a pyrrhic victory that destroys the party for a generation.

:shrug: :eyes:

Born in 1946, I'm right at the leading edge, and I wasn't old enough to vote until 1968. (You had to be 21 back then.)