Hillary's new argument - Electoral votes

Email Print posted by richardshort2001 03/25/2008 12:35:02 PM EST

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit
If you like this story, digg it!
Hillary's new math to "prove" she has won is that she is "ahead" in electoral collage votes.

Let's tear this down before it grows any more legs...

There are three ways to kill that argument. 

First, the voting demographic in the primary is completely different than in the general, and winning the state in the primary means nothing in Novemeber. 

Second, the count Hillary puts out counts Florida and Michigan, two elections without campaigning.  Her "lead" in electoral votes was less than the smallest of these two states, Michigan, where Obama's name WANS'T EVEN ON THE BALLOT.  That's some Limbaugh math there.

Finally, assuming there is some credibility to the electoral argument as far as electability is concerned, and ignoring the crooked numbers.  The only weight this argument holds at all is if you only count swing states.  All politicians recognize this as they hold very few campaign events in "red" and "blue" states.

I broke down the swing states (as defined in Wikipedia) by which candidate won the primary or caucus and listed how many electoral votes they are worth.

First Obama:  Colorado 9, Utah 5, Minnesota 10, Wisconsin 10, Iowa 7, Missouri 11, Virginia 13, Total 65

Now Clinton: Nevada 5, Arkansas 6, Ohio 20, Tennessee 11, New Hampshire 4, Total 46

Total 65 to 46.

Granted I am leaving out Florida a state where the argument could be made that Hillary won fairly even though there was no campaigning allowed.  So if you want to be generous and give her the 27 from FL, she comes out ahead.

Yes, she is winning electoral votes in the states that matter in the general by EIGHT.  Are eight electoral votes enough benefit to risk alienating the black and youth votes?  REALLY?  Hell even without all the math I did their own count gave them less than 20 electoral votes ahead of Obama.  If the blacks go red and the youth stay home the GOP will pick up more than that, they may even steal some blue states, and Clinton WON'T win in the south except maybe Arkansas.

Case closed, please comment.
< What if... | Response to David >
 Display:
Hillary's new argument - Electoral votes | 32 comments (32 topical, 0 hidden)
Hillary can win (none / 0)
Just like many of you, I can't let this go. There is so much Obamamania in the liberal blogosphere that it's taken as a given that if Clinton "steals" this nomination, it will destroy the party because the will of the masses will be thwarted by these elite superdelegate party insiders.

Why isn't it the case that if Obama wins, it will destroy the party?  Won't masses of women, arguably the most important demographic in the party, be angry that once again some sweet talking man stole the election from the female candidate?  Won't latinos, arguably the future of the Democratic party, resent in mass this black guy who took the nomination from their Clinton?  If Latinos are more numerous than blacks in the US (I think this is the case) why do blacks get all the attention and special treatment?  Won't working class Hillary voters say, "What the hell is this sweet-talking Harvard Law School nigger doing taking the election from our Hillary Clinton?  F--k this democratic party, we'll vote for McCain."

Right now there are already a couple hundred superdelegates who have said they are voting for Clinton.  Are all of these party insiders and elected officials trying to destroy the party, their own party?  How about all the superdelegates who haven't declared yet? What are they doing?  That's hundreds of committed Democrats who are destroying their own party?  Or maybe Hillary Clinton can actually win the nomination.

And back to this will of the masses. Sure, more people have voted for Obama than Clinton, but there is no enormous wave of support for Obama that is drowning Clinton. If there was, we wouldn't be in this situation.  Obama is the overwhelming choice of the liberal blogosphere, but so far, he's just the narrow choice of the democratic voters.  And in Ohio, California, new York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania (apparently) and Texas (kind of), he's not the choice at all.

David

by yturks on 03/25/2008 01:29:05 PM EST

Thank You David... (none / 0)
Please go on the show and explain this to Cenk... I know he knows it, but he needs to stop denying it...

If Obama wins, there will be a backlash...if Hillary wins, there will be a backlash...

If McCain wins - we are screwed...Which is more important in the end?

Thanks for your wise words...I hope others listen...

:)

by bobo1 on 03/25/2008 02:05:50 PM EST

[ Parent ]
And your point is (none / 1)

what exactly?

 

by MRFred on 03/25/2008 02:10:29 PM EST

[ Parent ]
The point is... (none / 0)
"Obama is the overwhelming choice of the liberal blogosphere, but so far, he's just the narrow choice of the democratic voters.  And in Ohio, California, new York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania (apparently) and Texas (kind of), he's not the choice at all."

The point is, the liberal blogosphere does not represent American Voters... This isnt some landslide by Obama - he is squeaking by and claiming some sort of mandate for change when thats not really the case...

The pledged delegates and the superdelegates can vote for who they want, regardless of the popular vote.

Just look at Richardson, Kerry and Kennedy - their constituents voted for Hillary, but they have pledged to Obama in direct defiance of their constituents......

The Democratic Party set it up this way, so the candidates should stop bitching about when it bites them in the ass...

Its becoming plainly obvious to most Americans why the Liberal wing of the Democratic Party doesnt win national elections... You guys think way too much of yourselves and your supposed importance... The liberal blogosphere is the perfect example of this...

Thanks...

by bobo1 on 03/25/2008 02:53:52 PM EST

[ Parent ]
We guys? (none / 1)

Listen my friend, as my long departed grand papa would say Dovete cacare o toglierti dalla toletta !

You gotta shit or get off the pot.

You say you don't want McCain. You say you don't like Hillary. You say you don't want Obama. You have gone to great lengths to discount Obama.

There are only three viable candidates bobo...you've discounted two of them so I think you can do the math as well I can. You can order your Hillary bumper stickers here.


You guys think way too much of yourselves and your supposed importance... The liberal blogosphere is the perfect example of this...

and the conservative blogosphere, the libertarian blogosphere, the Ron Paul blogosphere, Zorastarian blogosphere, the antiblog blogosphere. There's nothing new in that, after all the internet is serious business. In a few years the in place will be the non-blogosphere because just about every swinging dick on the planet will have a blog.  Enjoy it while you can.

In the end the there will be two choices.
 

by MRFred on 03/25/2008 06:26:10 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Fred is right (none / 0)
In the end the there will be two choices.

But ultimately

THERE CAN BE ONLY ONLY ONE!
Highlander

Are so I've been told.

by Hubble on 03/25/2008 09:14:23 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Why did I... (none / 0)
get a sudden rush of Queen music in my head when I saw that, Hubble?...

:)

by bobo1 on 03/26/2008 10:00:03 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Does this mean... (none / 0)
... that Barack gets to slice McCain's head off and scream for ten minutes as all 70 years of McCain's power fries him with lightning bolts, until he ultimately emerges stronger than ever and truly immortal?

I'd pay to see that.

by jarett on 03/26/2008 01:06:58 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I can still hate all 3, Fred... (none / 0)
My argument, Fred, is that neither of these 3 are deserving of the Presidency, and we in the Middle are stuck with shit on all sides...its very frustrating...

If I lived in a brutal undemocratic soceity that forced me to vote, yes, Id probably vote for Hillary for the simple fact that she is the known quantity n this race...We arent going to be super surprised by what Hillary stands for and what she is capable of doing... Obama is too raw, inexperienced and unpredictable and McCain is Evil...

I simply do not see why I have to vote in this shitfest in the first place... I dont see the correlation between having to pick sides and being part of this discussion...I shouldnt have to pledge loyalty to anyone to be an active participant in the political discussion... no one campaign or ideology controls me, and I wish it didnt control you guys like it seemingly does... Thats my point...

thanks as always for your thoughts...

:)

by bobo1 on 03/26/2008 10:06:47 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Do you have a goal? (none / 0)

You don't have to vote, but then what more influence to you have?  You can try your damnedest to get people not to vote for Obama, but what difference does it make if you don't want his opponent to win, either?  Unless you are planning to personally lead the revolt you keep suggesting on the forum and in the chat room, I can think of lots of better ways to spend your internet time budget...

...UNLESS, by spreading disdain for all current candidates, you are doing your part to coax a sudden miracle run by Al Gore, in which case I support you 100%.

by OneHitKill on 03/26/2008 10:16:58 PM EST

[ Parent ]
hey jesse (none / 0)
I know this is threadjacking, but it's not that great of a thread anyway. Is there anything about living in Japan for a few years that makes you appreciate America a little more? I know I'm teeing the ball up for endless jokes, but maybe there is something about your old country that is superior to the rest of the world.

by KenTX on 03/26/2008 10:23:52 PM EST

[ Parent ]
First thing that comes to mind (none / 0)

The worst thing about Japan is the bureacracy that permeates so many aspects of daily life.  Things that are done so simply and without hassle back home -- updating one's driver's license, obtaining a phone line, moving into a new apartment, etc. -- are swamped in unnecessary paperwork and procedure here.  Japan seems obsessed with making sure everything is done by the book.

by OneHitKill on 03/26/2008 10:32:49 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I'd be willing to bet, (none / 0)
that Japan's bureaucracy is probably not much worse than the rest of the world.

What makes America better is our freest of free market economies. Everything is privatized, and business caters to the customer. In America, we earn our paychecks making each other happy. 

by KenTX on 03/26/2008 10:41:15 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Unlikely (none / 0)
The US postal service isn't privatized.  Japan's is.  Still, even the Japan post office is bogged down with procedure.  There is little to no connection between the bureaucracy I'm talking about and the freedom of the market.

by OneHitKill on 03/26/2008 10:45:33 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I would Love to see Gore step in... (none / 0)
Im not a big Gore man myself, but even I would get behind him to get rid of the Three Stooges we have running now... He would be better than any of these doofwads...

Please dont misunderstand my intentions on these chats - I personally dont care who anyone votes for. If you like Obama then have at it... I just like generating conversation, and appreciate response in kind...

Not everyone who posts here is on a mission to save souls or save our country...I just like to talk and hear the opinions of others on these matters...

And sometimes Im just a Dick...Just ask my ex-wife...

TYT Resident "Concern" Troll
bobo1

by bobo1 on 03/26/2008 11:58:06 PM EST

[ Parent ]
bobo is like a liberal acroso (none / 0)
He just likes to complain. Hey, it's a free country.

by KenTX on 03/26/2008 10:20:11 PM EST

[ Parent ]
As long as... (none / 0)
MrFred doesnt rag on me with those damn 3 page lists like he does to Acroso...

I think it was Fred today on live chat who came up with the new label for me - "Concern" Troll... Im not sure what the Hell it means, but I think I like it!!!

:)



by bobo1 on 03/27/2008 12:25:15 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Nope (none / 1)
Won't masses of women, arguably the most important demographic in the party, be angry that once again some sweet talking man stole the election from the female candidate?

The difference is that there is a large Clinton segment that will be happy with Obama.  There does not exist as large an Obama segment that will be happy with Clinton.

Clinton getting the nomination == more Democrats staying home in November.  Those are the "cold hard facts" of this primary.

by jarett on 03/25/2008 02:22:32 PM EST

[ Parent ]
They might vote for him... (none / 0)
but they sure as Hell wont be happy about it...

If Obama wins, the Democratic party as we know it will die after his term(s)...The DLC Hillary types will either join the Republicans or a third party coalition will be brought about...

I know this might come as a shock to you, jarett, but not all Democrats embrace liberalism like you guys on the blogs do...

The Liberals have taken the Democratic party so far to the left it has become unrecognizable to many old school Democrats...Just as the Conservatives have taken the Republican party that much further to the right...

Maybe its time for a middle party. Somebody to represent US for a change...

thanks...

by bobo1 on 03/25/2008 03:04:19 PM EST

[ Parent ]
What the hell are you even talking about? (none / 1)
What do you think is so far "left?"

Being against stupid, unnecessary wars?  Like 70% of the American public?

Being in favor of a sane health care plan?  Like 66% of the American public?

Being in favor of energy independence?  Better call up McCain too and tell him how much of a leftist he is.

Being in favor of gay rights?  Obama is only in favor of civil unions and against amending the Constitution to include Christian dogma; hardly a wacko leftist agenda.  In fact, so is Clinton.  Even McCain won't rule out civil unions.

Basically, the only thing you've got is illegal immigration, and that is completely inconsistent across both parties.

The country has not moved to the left.  It's moved to the center, and that is precisely where the Democratic Party is.  The Republicans are trying like hell to pull their party back towards the center because they've come to realize America ain't buying it.

by jarett on 03/25/2008 03:45:56 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Your reliance on polls will be your undoing... (none / 0)
Jarett,

We could sit all day and talk polling numbers, but where does that get us? Nowhere, so I'll try to explain why I think the Liberals have taken the Democratic Party to the Left...

Socialized Medicine? - Even if I personally like the idea of free healthcare for all (which I do very much), the idea of the government controlling the Health Care Industry (it is an industry) was scoffed at and called patently absurd 20 years ago - Now Democrats run around calling it "Single Payer" or " Total Coverage" - Its still socialized medicine, No matter how one manipulates the language on it. I say the party has moved left because now its OK to openly talk about it... "democrats" of the past would have been tarred and feathered for such blasphemy, even if they thought it was the right thing to do...

Ditto for Gay Rights... The "I want my own Identity Recognition&q uot; crowd is playing a much larger part in Democratic party politics, and they have driven this issue way to the left... There is no denying it, even if the candidates stand there and say they want Civil Unions only... Can you imagine Hubert Humphrey or Lyndon Johnson or Even Jimmy Carter addressing an issue like Gay Rights? They as a party would have been embarrassed to be associated with such a topic. Todays Democrats are OK with that, becasue they are further to the left...

Energy Independence? Build more nuclear plants and more oil refineries and more profitable solar and wind projects. if you are looking for government control, thats Leftist to the core... . When the Democrats got into bed with the Environmentalists, thats when they stopped building refineries and over regulating EVERYTHING in the energy Department. We have created our own mess here, and the Democrats know it... Do I like having to be dependant on oil? Of course not, but dammit dont tie our hands so we cant escape from it...Overregulation of Energy resources - again, movement to the left (government control)

I agree with you on the war - everyone has screwed the pooch on this one... Democrats and Republicans alike. I dont see the war as a left right issue anymore - this is a human catastrophe that will be very devestating for years to come...


You are right when you say the country hasnt moved to the left. The Democratic Party has moved to the left, while the Republicans have sprinted to the right...

And where does that leave the country? In the middle with no one looking out for their interests or their values and their beliefs - The Immigration debate is the perfect example of this... Both sides are right and wrong but no one will do what is necessarry to fix it...

I cant tell you how frustrated I am with both parties, Jarett... I dont go to Conservative blogs because the Jesus Freaks have completely taken over, convinced that Armegeddon has arrived... You guys seem a bit more rational and intelligent, but you fail to see the real problem of party politics -

No one stands for normalcy anymore...

Thanks...


by bobo1 on 03/25/2008 06:07:07 PM EST

[ Parent ]
What you try to portray as the (none / 0)
middle  is the right
anti enviroment
anti gay
anti health care
anti choice
anti brown people

The R party is in the minority in this country

Polls will are your undoing because they show just how out of step with the rest of the country you really are.

by Chinese Democracy on 03/26/2008 09:12:26 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Hey CD, (none / 0)
Whatever it is you represent in America is exactly why you guys dont win national elections...

You are almost the perfect example why the R party keeps winning and retains a high level of authority...

Anyone that is anti all of the things you lst isnt necessarily evil - the sooner you realize that, the sooner you can adjust and make your party stronger...

Until then, dont whine while your agenda goes down the shithole because normal people dont want your militant attitudes shoved down their throats...

Thanks

by bobo1 on 03/26/2008 09:57:21 AM EST

[ Parent ]
hey bobo the clown (none / 0)
The reason D took both the house and the senate  and will take even more seats and the presidency is because you conservatives are the lunatic fringe

by Chinese Democracy on 03/26/2008 04:28:28 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Oversimplification done you wrong (none / 0)

"The Democratic Party has moved to the left, while the Republicans have sprinted to the right...
And where does that leave the country? In the middle"

Why is it so hard for you to believe that public opinion can shift, just as party tendencies do?  The American public is not the Rock of Gibraltar.  It's not an all-enduring constant that ignores changing conditions.  The parties and the public have done their respective parts to move each other, let alone the fact that you have simplified "The Country" down to a singular brick.  The public is splintered and mixed and heterogeneous, and is not the victim of abandonment you have made it out to be.

by OneHitKill on 03/26/2008 10:25:15 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I would tend to agree... (none / 0)
but I am thinking more hollistically - Certainly on some issues, there haver been major shifts in thinking and belief, no question, but overall, the American Public is pretty stationary when it comes to broader topics...

I believe in that what used to be called the "Silent Majority" still very much exists today, and is still pretty much silent except when aroused around a cause - I think with all the things going on in the country today, the one issue Americans will eventually focus on is the Economy and the coming depression...Yes I said it, Depression...

When things affect our pocketbooks to the level its coming to, you are going to hear a lot more from the "Silent Majority", and Im afraid extremists on both ends of the political spectrum are not gonna like what we have to say...

You are correct in saying that not everyone thinks the same... but when this shit really hits the fan, I think you'll be surprised at the nations new sense of "Unity"...

As always, thanks for your comments...

TYT resident "Concern" Troll...

bobo1

by bobo1 on 03/26/2008 11:52:59 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Not sure I understand... (none / 0)
...how you can draw any conclusions to the general election based on primary numbers.  The primary represents a subset of people registered as a Democrat, do they not?  The general election has no such restriction where anyone can vote for anybody.  When&nb sp;the Obama/Clinton war has ended, the Dems will (hopefully) take stock in their new choices for candidates and vote accordingly.  There are plenty of stupid people out there who can potentially screw the pooch and not vote if Hillary were to win the nomination and then place McCain in the Oval Office, but I don't think that will happen.  Maybe I'm assuming the DNC won't screw it all up (although there's no history to tell me otherwise).

Regardless, if Hillary wins the nod, I will have to make a decision as to whether or not I am not voting for anyone, voting for McCain, or voting for Hillary.  I cannot in good conscience vote for McCain and I cannot choose to not vote.  So I will vote Hillary.  But, man, I am pulling for Obama.

This is my signature.

by TJD on 03/25/2008 03:09:58 PM EST

[ Parent ]
David (none / 0)
Thank you for replying, sorry about the delay in my reply as I posted the OP just before I left for work.

Will there be some disillusioned voters if Obama wins? Sure, you could say that about any election result EVER.  Will some of them go overboard with their disappointment?  Same reply.  Not the same as the likely result of Clinton winning via superdelegates overturning the popular vote.  When a candidate wins the popular vote and still loses it causes a larger backlash.

We can look at recent history (the last 2 general presidential elections ) for examples. 

In 2000, when Al Gore won the popular vote and by most unofficial recounts should have won the electoral vote, then lost the election by the decision of a relatively SMALL GROUP OF PEOPLE, the anger was much greater when in 2004 Kerry lost to Bush.  There wasn't anywhere to point the finger of blame, so most of us logical people had to accept the fact we lost and move on.  Yes there were a few people concerned about Ohio and wouldn't let it go.  As I stated earlier that will happen in ANY election no matter the result.

This won't be about alienated blacks or women, unless there is a perception that the party will go to any length to make sure their "kind" doesn't get the Highest Office.  Like say overturning the popular vote.  I doubt that women will vote Republican in masses just because Hillary lost, considering most of the country voted for Obama, don't you?  If that is what happens than I have seriously overestimated women.  Blacks would have more justification, because of the perception of unfairness, right or wrong. 

by richardshort2001 on 03/26/2008 03:22:47 AM EST

[ Parent ]
What do Hillary and Joe Lieberman have in common? (none / 0)
I'm a Democrat so I voted for Vice-President Joe (the vintriloquist) Lieberman-- who is out with a new "Republican" dummy.  My mistake then was picking up the political metaphor that there are two teams.  Maybe the label "Democrat" is disabling.
Cenk has a great show.  He should listen to it.  He points out that Hillary can't win the primary, and that politicians we call "superdelegates" won't jeopardize their own power to reverse the populist primary-- the nub of the matter is that there are only 3253 possible delegates to win in the primary and Obama needs only 211 of the 566 left to be selected.  Hillary must have 375 of those delegates to win the primary. (the Edwards delegates are part of the bad math-- the rest is a function of Democratic incompetenc e) 
The $media$ framed the argument about totals at the convetion so that any Democrat would need nearly 70% of the primary delegates rather than 51%. (By intermixing the totals at the convention with the total during the primary--effectively taking advantage of Democrats believe in politics as usual and the belief that politicians are smarter than peasants.)
  Slowly, very slowly, the progressives are catching on.
In the meantime Hillary is leading the Hillary Party.  But who is that?  Cenk had a guest on that pointed out how Hillary's current behavior is destruction of her possiblities in 2012.  She voted for the invasion and occupation of Iraq and suggests we bring back Greenspan.  So why do you call her a Democrat? Because that is how silly these labels are.
Remember back to the surprising and massive groundswell of voter interest earlier this year?  Much of that was attributed to Obama, but it might as well have been attributed to people fed up with what politics as usual has brought us.  So what did the mind control arm of wealth do?  The $media$ trivialized politics and elections with politics as usual again.  They took advantage of a couple whose life centers around the power of the political spotlight, the certainty of whose dreams has destructed before their very eyes because they were more concerned with gaining control of the party power machine, rather than the activitism born of frustration.  $media$ used the Hillary Party to negate the groundswell.  $media$ has used the Hillary Party to keep the spotlight off of BushMcCain's ignorance and feebleness.
So why not discount this as wild Obama talk.  Because as a "Democrat" I was geared up to vote for Hillary last October. 
Then I realized its not about Hillary or Obama... its about the numbers of people willing to get involved.  Which almost happened, until the mind numbing politics as usual which the opposition party always buys-- we need to let our candidates have their legs broken to see how well they run.  And they took advantage of our candidates desperation to do it.

by NicoloM on 03/25/2008 01:53:19 PM EST

If (none / 0)
So you have to kill the arguement?

I wonder shouldn't our system reflect the general election? Wouldn't that give our candidates a better chance to win the general election (you don't pick a sprint champion to run a marathon)

Isn't it fairer to all of our voters to get rid of a caucus system that is more representative of the "left wing" of the party? (Civics lesson courtesy of Texas)

Question, why is it alienation of voters if Obama loses, This is why I get angry at Obama supporters. You don't think that Clinton supporters might get alienated? or is it you simply don't care (probably the latter). Remember she the one that has been labeled a racist, a thief and a saboture. Talk about a positive campaign

So what you are saying is that Hillary supporters will support Obama in the GE because they want ot win the election and the Obama supporters ie Afro-Americans and young people won't support Clinton because they aren't bright enough to realize that fact and will stay home and give the election to the Pubs right?

by LORD FOUL on 03/25/2008 06:23:11 PM EST

a, then b (none / 0)
No, not really.

The only way to do that accurately would be to put the Republican candidates on the ballot. 

If I had my way, yes, there would be no caucuses.  I don't see them nearly as undemocratic (small d) as overturning a popular vote though.

See my response to David in this thread.

No, what I am saying is that it will inspire apathy, due to the belief that their vote doesn't matter anyway, since even if they win, they lose.

by richardshort2001 on 03/26/2008 03:28:56 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Thanks (none / 0)
2 things

When I refer to the general election I am refering to counting.

For example (as cenk has boasted) Obama picked up a gain of more  net delegates (+14) winning Iowa and Wyoming than Clinton did win winning Ohio (+7).

Voter apathy of this type is greatly enhanced when you have people like Cenk claiming that Hillary is "stealing" the election. Every Dem here knows the SD are part of the process. Just like caucuses and primaries. Texas is a perfect example. Not one Obama supporter has complained about the unfairness of that primary. Nobody cared about the popular vote there or in any other caucus state. Now the system bends to her direction and OMG she is "stealing" the election.

You want to know what concerns me? His delegate lead is based on "hugh" victories in states that he is not going to win in November. He is not going to win the "bible" belt. So, in order to win in November, he will have to carry states he lost to Hillary. If Hillary voters are disinfrancised over how she was labeled a racist or a thief  what then? In all honesty Obama needs her supporters alot more than she needs his and we all know that she appeals to the reagan dems.

by LORD FOUL on 03/27/2008 04:52:14 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Hillary's new argument - Electoral votes | 32 comments (32 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: