Another Obamite electability argument biting the dust: Wisconsin

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/wisconsin/election_2008_wisconsin_presidential_election



We were told over and over again by the Obamites that Wisconsin was a state that Obama would perform demonstrably better than Hillary in. That doesn't seem to be the case in recent polls. Both candidates perform about the same. The Wisconsin primary was months ago. Obama has been vetted by the media and Bittergate and WrightGate erupted. He's a different candidate than he was in March.

If both Hillary and Obama have an equal chance of winning Wisconsin, what other convincing electability arguments does Obama have?

Colorado with its 9 votes? Iowa with its 7 electoral votes? That's it?

Hillary, on the other hand, has Ohio and Florida.

How's that working out for you? Also, let me know what you're other sockpuppets think.

and posts full of crap like yours are why she needs to go now!

incapable of winning her own party's nomination, given a 30-point head start.

That said, polls this far out are totally meaningless.

Especially in the primary when you recieve 92% of the black vote and that black vote consists of around 30% of the Democratic electorate.

Historically, the prime attendees of caucusgoers have been longtime Democratic voters, the elderly, and women. Those are all Hillary groups. He won the caucus states with a superior GOTV game--which certainly does have strong implications for November.

and how you will do in a general election.

because there's no control.

instead of a caucus.

Do you dispute that Hillary is a much better GE candidate in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania?

A primary and a general election are totally different animals. The voters are different, the spectrum of candidate appeal is different, the race leading up to it is different, the format is often different (given the multiple-choice nature of early primaries), the financing is different, and the timeline is different.

The only things that a primary has in common with a general that a caucus does not is the time required for a voter to cast their ballot, which will affect turnout.

You can argue that primaries are better, because they provide a broader sampling. I can dispute the usefulness of that sampling by pointing out that the entire primary/caucus electorate is effectively in the camp of either nominee regardless (especially in the closed primaries Hillary championed), and that one can certainly positively correlate GOTV strength with GE strength.

Pennsylvania - You need large turnout in Philadelphia, but you also need to win Allegheny County and not get beaten around in the rural counties in Central Pennsylvania . Given Obama's abysmal performance among whites, that's certainly not a guarentee.

Ohio - In addition to getting a large turnout in Cuyahogy County, you also need to appeal to the Western part of the state. Obama got absolutely slaughtered in Western Ohio along with the rest of the state. You can't just win the urban counties and expect to win Ohio.

Florida - To win this state, you not only need to rack up margins in the Gold Coast, you also need to do well in the I-4 corridor. Obama got absolutely killed in the I-4 corridor in the primaries, and the same area propeled McCain to his win in the Florida primary. A moderate like McCain will perform very well in the I-4 corridor.

winning a primary isn't the same as winning a general election.

one minute that Obama supporters aren't allowed to point to his victory over Clinton as proof of his greater electability, and then the next minute turn around and point to narrow-scope regional victories over Obama as proof of Clinton's greater electability.

I gave you a synopsis of all 3 states. I know the geography of all 3 states and what a Democratic candidate needs to do to win each state. Obama has given no indication he will ever appeal to the areas he needs to win to win all three of those states. You, on the other hand, are relying on your own wishful thinking.

You're spinning in circles, trying to justify a position founded in hypocrisy and desperation.

You are being intellectually dishonest here. I have said many times in this thread that primary wins are more indicative of how one will perform in the general election than caucus wins. You have not disputed that, and instead have injected your own strawman into this thread.

A primary election is the accumulation of 2025 delegates need to win the nomination.

An individual primary is a state that conducts its voting via a primary system instead of a caucus system.

I've disputed that (by my count, yours may vary) three times, and explicitly, and provided reasons for doing so. There's no reason to think either is more indicative of GE success--and I've provided my reasoning for saying so.

Meanwhile, you're straddling the fence on whether the primary season is a valid harbinger of general election success--you claim it is in certain primary states, but then claim that a primary election is nothing like a general election when you're faced with Obama's defeat of Clinton.

You're straddling the fence on MI, claiming that it wasn't a valid contest when someone points out that Hillary did quite well among blacks there--but then also claiming that the MI delegation was valid enough to send delegates to the convention.

And all the while you're pushing a line that might have been valid a month ago--or even two weeks ago--but which is as obsolete now as a pro-Edwards or pro-Kucinich one would be.

I've made myself very clear. I have said that while performance in a primary state is not the be-all-end-all of how a candidate will perform in the general election, it is an infinitely more valid benchmark of performance than a caucus state.

For you to intentionally misrepresent my words at many points throughout your "argument" is the height of intellectual dishonest.

You can keep lobbing the ad hominem grenades all you'd like, but it certainly doesn't make you case any better. On its surface, your argument is easily debunkable and I've repeatedly done so over my past few posts. You instead would rather engage in cognitive dissonance.

In my post, I said "you're making a joke out of yourself" (which I since changed to something I thought was more accurate, but it seems you got an older draft.) That is not an ad hominem argument. That is perhaps abuse, but it is not ad hominem. Seriously. Look it up. If you're going to try to critique your opponent's rhetoric, for God's sakes get it right.

And, again. You can claim that a primary performance is better than a caucus performance. I see absolutely no reason why that might be so. I've provided several arguments as to why I doubt that is the case. All you've offered in reply is a feeble "it's more valid. I've said so."

(I'd say you misused cognitive dissonance there too, but I honestly have no idea what you meant by that, so there's an outside chance you used it correctly. Given your performance so far, if you actually intended the appropriate use of the phrase, I'd chalk that up more to luck than to wit.)

and you've used them both in this thread. You might want to look up the definition of cognitive dissonance, too. Did you skip class that day?

You've provided no arguments other than your own wishful thinking for why primary performances are not more indicative of how one will perform in the general election than caucus performances. I am still waiting for something more substantial than what you feel will happen. That is simply not good enough, and for you to present your intuition as some sort of basis for what will happen in the general election is incredibly dishonest.

I have not pointed to a personal deficiency of yours as a reason to dismiss your claim. Rather, I have claimed that your statements are indicative of a personal deficiency. Therefore, I have not engaged in ad hominem. You are not "well aware" of what an ad hominem argument is; you have a foggy notion that it involves a person being attacked and no more.

I have countered claims that you have since abandoned. It isn't a strawman if you yourself built it.

My arguments are as follows:

Primaries and caucuses are both horribly useless for determining GE performance. The electorate is different, the format is different, the race beforehand is different, the issues are different, and the timeline is different. With so many difference, neither can be considered indicative. The only thing that primaries have in common with GEs that caucuses do not is the time it takes to cast a vote. That has implications for turnout.

However, most voters in primaries are going to vote for the Democratic nominee regardless, meaning we should discount them from the math. Many more actually will, but claim they will not out of frustration and anger that will not survive the primary season. Finally, disregarding both of those, the other differences I've listed make any comparison to the GE utterly spurious. They are, in total, indicative of nothing.

Caucuses, too, are not very indicative. However, they are indicative of one thing--GOTV strength. You can win a caucus purely on GOTV, regardless of anything else (as Texas showed.) And GOTV strength is, of course, enormously important in the GE. Am I saying caucuses are certainly better than primaries? No. I'm saying that there's no good argument that primaries are better than caucuses. Simply asserting it over and again does not make it so.

I have never presented a single claim as to what will happen in the GE (there's your strawman, by the way). I've only denied yours.

Occam Bandage: 1 NJSecularist: 0

:popcorn:

dp

double post

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQ3f6gjrPNc please watch!

Blacks are voters just like anyone else, and are free to vote for whomever they like. Racial politics are a dangerous game. She played and she lost. If you're telling me that Hillary Clinton didn't have a plan for the possibility that black voters might respond to a racially-charged campaign with identity politics, well, then you're telling me that Hillary Clinton is too politically incompetent to be allowed within a mile of the nomination.

Hillary didn't lose anything. That is a myth.

Obama "serious." In which case, you're admitting that she is utterly incompetent.

... since the primaries started.

It was inevitable. You couldn't plan for it. Obama was a serious candidate. He was going to get an overwhelming majority of the black vote regardless of what Hillary did.

with a 30-point polling lead over Barack Obama, who started this race with all the fundraising, organization, and name recognition that any candidate could ask for, who started this race with no policy differences allowing her competitors to distinguish themselves from her, and who started this race with 70%+ favorability among Democratic voters...

You're saying that this candidate simply could not win because she was running against a black person.

That's the most pathetic cop-out I've read from you guys yet.

Every candidate who has won the Democratic nomination over the last 20 years has won at least some of the black vote. It is very hard when every primary you are automatically down in the white vote 90-10.

After all, you're claiming that nobody but Obama could possibly have won this nomination because of his blackness.

of the primary season. Iowa went first and he never relinquished that lead.

by what margin, the AA vote in those states. She also won the AA vote in MI.

The first state that he won the AA vote by an overwhelming majority was SC.

And Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan.

an illegitimate contest. Why, you'll make a fine Obamite yet!

her opponent "wasn't even on the ballot." If Clinton v Uncommitted is good enough to apportion delegates, then it's good enough to look at demographics, isn't it?

www.google.com

what explains the bloc voting?
is it superior political acumen? Or what?

I wonder why.

Identity politics is one, of course. The rather distasteful pre-SC race-baiting by the Clinton campaign is another (and don't claim they didn't; both blacks and whites agreed that the Clintons unfairly used racial issues in SC exit polling). The outright dismissal of Obama's early successes among blacks likely fed it--why would you support a candidate who doesn't act like she thinks your vote is important?

Plus, Obama mentions racial reconciliation more than Clinton does, and focuses his campaigning on urban areas more than Clinton does (you'll note he wins urban whites as well as blacks).

So we should just take your claim on the surface as a fact rather than your own opinion?

Why?

and I would say that in politics, anything that the majority believe is, at that moment, for all intents and purposes, true.

in your statement. But if a majority think something then we can say that a majority think that.

they DID support the clintons at the end of last year... then... "shuck and jive"... "fairy tale"... "is he a drug dealer??"... "Barack HUSSEIN Obama"... "JESSE JACKSON won this primary"...

Nope no idea why blacks would support Obama overwhelmingly.

"Winning a primary election is a lot different than winning a general election."

EXACTLY.

Hillary lost. Obama is going to be the nominee.

Fucking deal with it, already.

Plus, you know, if we accepted that, it would torpedo her claims re: her Ohio, PA, CA, NY, NJ victories.

and exploiting the loopholes in the caucus system.

Hillary is a better candidate in OH than Obama. That is a fact. It was heavily contested and it was already a swing state in the first place.

Hillary is a beter candidate in PA, CA, NY and NJ. But Obama will win CA, NY and NJ because they are reliably Democratic.

Which loopholes did Obama exploit? The one where getting more supporters to the caucus gets you the delegates? Did nobody inform Hillary about that one?

(And seriously, whining that your candidate epically blew her lead among a third of the Democratic electorate doesn't help your case that Hillary knows what she's doing in a race. If black voters only went for identity politics--and if they decided nominees--we'd have had nominees Jackson, Sharpton, and McKinney.)

Trust me- Obama will do fine.

And folks here are pretty sick of Hillary.

You're dead wrong on that.

This is the first one I've seen that showed him performing equally there. Wisconsin is a must-win state for the Democrats, and I still think he has the edge there. The fact that both Dems trail McCain is troubling.

Can you show me the polls?

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/

This contains most of the major polls going back several months.

We don't have a nominee, yet. Polls are meaningless. C'mon back over!

Continuing to pretend Obama isn't our nominee isn't going to help at all.

I'd advise you to start, at minimum, considering the possibility that Barack Obama is the presumptive nominee. Go from there.

what is so hard to understand there? Call Obama supporters all of the names you want, it won't change the math.

since she won't be the nominee. Feel free to continue your sale though.

Oh, no it isnt, my bad.. So continue to tear down our nominee to support McCain.

i am a gypsy seer you know.

How you doing?

Stop this nonsense. The primary is over. You jumped onto a sinking ship and you lost. Get over it.

The dramatic and hateful title and narrative is childish.

By the time it is November, it will be too late. Which is why we shouldn't nominate him.

He is the nominee. And the only point of all this is to bash the nominee.

If the nomination is taken away from him because he's deemed "unelectable" i.e., too BLACK, it will be the end of the Democratic party and will disgrace the United States and the Democratic party before the world.

Knock it off and get on board.

I hope you know if Clinton steals the nomination, not only will she lose, but there will no longer be a democratic party.

He is the nominee. And the only point of all this is to bash the nominee.

If the nomination is taken away from him because he's deemed "unelectable" i.e., too BLACK, it will be the end of the Democratic party and will disgrace the United States and the Democratic party before the world.

Knock it off and get on board.

wait til we have a nominee. and people can hewre what mcinsain says.

why are men so gullible?

Haven't seen spelling like that since Tequila night, 1974.

p.s. We are so gullible because we are charmed by you.

It's over. Your girl loses. Feeling regrets about your supposed switch from Obama to the losing team?

And, by the way, the primary certainly isn't over yet. Has Obama won 2025 delegates yet?

Here's one from a week ago that proves the point that Obama is superior to McCain in WI.

Obama beats McCain (which will happen).

Hillary loses to McCain (which won't have a chance to happen).

http://www.madison.com/tct/news/stories/283595

Whatever. Your incessant irrational bashing of our nominee has become a comedy routine. Sorry...but the hook will be coming out in a couple weeks.

I'll dispute it. Were you not an Obama man?

The electoral map is just as daunting for Hillary as it is for Barack. Hillary will lose Wisconsin, Iowa, Nevada and Oregon, especially if she wins it ugly (which is her only path now). In that case even holding Florida and Ohio isn't enough for her to get to 270. Obama stands a good chance to carry all of the states I listed above Hillary is likely to lose. I've seen polls that have her down in all 4 states.

Obama can win Ohio. Florida I'm not sure about. And, don't forget, Obama will move these numbers dramatically after his convention if it's a clean uncontested convention.

And Obama is unlikely to win Nevada. It is certainly not a shoe-in state as you are trying to imply.

I feel pretty confident that Hillary will not lose two states that we have not lost in 20 years.

I could care less about the bad candidate (meaning HRC) winning, cause she is just that to me, BAD. If Obama loses, at least the good candidate had a chance, versus the nightmare of the bad candidate winning.

Regardless, Obama will win.

I mean, really, you're bringing up one poll with results atypical of other recent polling in which Obama and Clinton do equally poorly against McCain as proof that we need to pick Clinton over Obama? I thought you might at least have results showing Clinton *beating* McCain in WI. When was this last time a poll was released with that result?

That gives McCain what, about 240 EVs that are essentially locked up for him?
That means in 5-8 states, McCain only needs to get 30 votes more to get to the magic number.

Obama has to basically run the table, and if he's behind in Wisconsin, this makes it all the more tougher.

When will the superdelegates and the O-bots realize this?

That to win Ohio and Pennsylvania, Hillary would need to depend on a HUGE AA turnout in Cleveland and Philadelphia. The only way she can win the nomination now is through stealing it. Good luck winning key battleground states if the democratic candidate wins just 55% or so of the African American vote.

And with Obama being declared the nominee today in the media, the AA community is not likely to forgive or forget if this is stolen from him.

And I'm sorry, the only way Clinton wins this now is through theft.

Even in Ray Gun's 20% blowout in 1984, Mondale still won 90% of the black vote.

I don't see that changing this year.

And to win, that's exactly what Hillary will have to do. There's also the issue of AA's just not turning out to vote at all even if they don't vote for Mccain.

And, anyway, Obama runs relatively well in the Ohio GE polls. He can win Ohio if he executes a good campaign.

Obama hasn't won anything.

Popular vote, popular vote including Florida, popular vote including FL/MI but allocating him some Michigan votes, elected delegates, funds raised, states won. Those facts are highly unlikely to change. If she gets the nomination anyway, that will be theft.

It's not theft right now but the only way that she will be able to get it now is by stealing it.

So Hillary has not stolen anything because Obama hasn't earned anything. To have the nomination stolen, you would have to earned it. Obama is not entitled to anything if he does not reach 2025 pledged delegates.

2000, 2004. It doesn't matter. What a state.

in the final tally?

The margins she's getting over McCain in some current polls are certainly nothing substantial. It's not worth betting on FL being at all "safe" for Clinton if she was the candidate.

that count...the ones Sen. Clinton says count? After all, she is inevitable don't you know. I am horrified by Sen. Clinton's behavior. I heard on the news her latest argument to super delegates is that 10 % of white people won't vote for a black candidate (exit polls) so she is more electable...I guess because she's white! I never though I would see the day when a Democratic candidate would say that a presidential candidate could not win because of the color of his skin. I can only hope that super delegates will have the courage to end her futile campaign before her blind political ambition ruins this party and cost us the election in the fall.

You are basing your entire support for one candidate or another on polls.

IN MAY.

This is like deciding what team you will root for in Spring Training.

.

Wake up. It's over.

So it isn't over.

If not...why don't you go donate some money to her? I have heard she could use it to pay off her debts.

:crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

Go look up the definition of spamming.

I live here, I know, I can state that! There is no way Obama or Hillary will win Ohio nor can there be a different claim for PA and Fl. McCain is likely to win those states, but what Obama brings to the table is a competitive race in states like Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado, Iowa, Virginia, North Carolina, Missouri and yes maybe even PA and FL. Its high time the Dems get off this idea that they can only win by winning FL, PA and Ohio because it didn't work in 2000 (it would have if they had won, say COLORADO!!!!!) or 2004. We can not run on the same tried and failed campaign plan. Its time we took the race out of those three states and made it truly competitive. If we run competitive in those above mentioned states then McCain will be forced to do the same, limiting the amount of money he can spend in the big three.

Your rhetoric is tired and with out merit...Hillary lost (and I supported her at one point) she drove me to vote for Obama with her countless pandering. Furthermore her supporters, like yourself, only strengthen my dislike for her.

And BTW, look at the polls in your own state.

Polls this soon out mean nothing to me.....I have lived in this state all my life, once the GE rolls around the rethug attack machine will go to work on Hillary here. Local, (LOCAL) politicians on the Republican side constantly try to label dem's here as Liberals from New York State.....just like Hillary (they evoke her name and everything). She will never win Ohio....period I don't care what the polls say!

And I am not being a Debbie Downer....its just the cold hard truth!

Sorry!

Virginia, North Carolina and Missouri are out of play, I'm afraid. Obama will not win those states in a general.

bunch of BS posts all day-- go cry yourself a fucking river. you =

Just a matter of time before you either prove you're a democrat or go join the Free Republic. Either way, this is all you amount to:


He's not trying to carry on a construct debate but to goad and deride.
The only way you people shut him the fuck up is to stop dignifying his posts:

before finding out that your donation went straight to her coffers? :rofl:

That is, while Obama and Clinton continue the very prolonged and way too tiresome fight.

These numbers are entirely unreliable - as McSame sits on his ass and the Dems get 90% of the media coverage - most of it not positive.

Once we are looking at 2 people, instead of 3 - expect BIG shifts.

Obama is behind by 1 pt in FL and is leading in MI.

Hillary can catch up to Obama. It's water under the bridge at this point.