Hilary wins!!Follow

Primary =/= General Election.

When over half the country ******* hates Hillary, there's no way in hell she can beat McCain. And the smart supers know it.

It's largely meaningless. Obama has as much chance of losing California in the general as Clinton has of losing Illinois.

Even in Pennsylvania, both Democratic candidates hold a 8%+ lead in polling over McCain. You'd be better off focusing your argument on Ohio and Florida.

Just for giggles (I find giggles in odd places), here's the polling vs. McCain in states with 15+ electoral votes. I picked 15 because it was large enough to include states such as Michigan which received attention last election. I'm calling a 1% range a tie (45-44, etc). I imagine the MOE is greater than that from poll to poll but I'm not submitting a PoliSci thesis here either. I'm taking my state-by-state data from Electoral-Vote.com

 
State             EVs      Win     Tie    Lose 
================================================= 
California        55       C/O 
New York          31       C/O 
Texas             34                O      C 
Florida           27                C      O 
Illinois          21       C/O 
Pennsylvania      21       C/O 
Ohio              20        C              O 
Michigan          17        O              C 
Georgia           15                      C/O 
New Jersey        15        O       C 
North Carolina    15                O      C

That gives us:
Clinton with 148 Electoral Votes "won" and 42 "tied"
Obama with 160 Electoral Votes "won" and 49 "tied"

Hardly a sweeping "large state" argument for Clinton. Again, I'll grant allowances that some of the polling is older and there's varied margins of error, etc. You could also cut off the 15 EV states but that would just essentially tie Clinton & Obama in "wins" and "ties". No matter how you look at it, Clinton's "large state" argument doesn't really hold up and the superdelegates are going to be presented with the actual math, not just "Clinton won California and New York!".

Edited, Apr 23rd 2008 12:13am by Jophiel

She may have won, but the New York Times, has called for her to stop the negative campaign, if she wants to reassure the Super Delegates that she needs for the nomination.

There ya go.

Ron Paul in '08.

In Heaven he was the clear favorite.

Edited, Apr 23rd 2008 12:21pm by NephthysWanderer

Why are people acting like Hillary winning Pennsylvania was some kind of being upset or surprise? Or it really means anything at this point? Literally, Hillary would have to win by 20 points there and in the remaining large states to actually make enough of an impact to sway the superdelegates and clinch this.

Why are people acting like Hillary winning Pennsylvania was some kind of being upset or surprise? Or it really means anything at this point?

The tee vee told them it did.

Most people have no understanding of current events aside from repeating verbatim whatever was said on television in the last 24 hours.

Even worse, 50% of them rely on John Stewart for political insights.

When she was what? 17 and in highschool? Gasp! She was president of the Young Republicans in college!!! For like a year or two... Then she decided to become a liberal democrat and has been the entirety of her adult life.

Want to make another stupid comparison?

And yet I still find it more plausible for Obama to make a serious run at it than Hillary. If she wins, they may as well swear McCain in right then and there.

It's just plain old milquetoast hubris. She can't fathom she won't be the nominee.


Nah, she's not that stupid.

It's either money or she's intentionally trying to scar Obama for the general, and I really don't think she's quite that evil.

She didn't divorce him.

You think that would have furthered her political ambitions somehow?