Current Article

Hillary’s Strength in the “Blue” High-Electoral-Vote States

By SusanUnPC on April 4, 2008 at 3:32 PM in Barack Obama, Electoral College, Hillary Clinton

Electoral Vote States Won 2008 Democrat Primaries
Updated April 3, 2008, 6am
270 Electoral Votes needed to win the Presidency

This graphic comes from DiversityJ.com, a pro-Hillary site with many, many more important statistical analyses and graphics.

Among the features on their site, along with links to other sites:

Statistics of the Primaries & Caucuses

Florida Stats from 2000 to 2008

States Voting Preferences

Election Results by State Summary Page

Estimate of the Remaining 10 Elections

Spreadsheet Version Election Results

Best source of Delegate Totals - Only source on the web that shows the math!!
Super Delegate Endorsements
USA Election Atlas
Electoral Vote Distribution
Interactive Electoral Map
Congressional District Allocation Chart from the DNC
Congressional District Printable Maps
Delegate Selection Rules from the DNC

Hillary Clinton
Supporters Forum
Side by Side
Comparison of Hillary & Obama

Special thanks to Joey Sky for alerting me to this site.

linfar

very powerful graphic demonstration of why Hillary has to win the nomination!!!
Fleaflicker

Excellent information.

I reached the same conclusion in the diary Hillary + WON = 44
John

Two things struck me when I went to “Election Results:”

1. This thing is preposterously close, a fact you NEVER hear in the “Its all over why doesn’t Hillary quit” media.

2. The undemocratic caucus system is the only thing keeping Obama afloat- if the caucus states had held primaries instead, Obama would have been finished months ago.

Why don’t we ever see these stats on the MSM? Oh wait, I guess we know that already, don’t we?

http://www.purplestatepundit.com/blog Purple State Pundit

Chuck Todd did an analysis recently and concluded that if you take out the caucus states and just counted primary states, Obama would still be leading by 16 delegates.

John

Oh well if CHUCK TODD said it, it MUST be true.

Because we all know how Non-partisan Chuck Todd is.

Give it a rest. Todd is Keith Olberman’s favorite Obama ass-kisser. If he told me the Sun sets in the West, I’d insist on confirmation from two other sources before I believed him.

Kevin

But you have no problem believing this information, which I suppose you’ll say is non-partisan as well? LOL

pm317

Not if you count FL and MI (as I have said again and again, I would not have it any other way because every damn vote counts.)
Smart cookie

Hmmm, and if Democrats counted delegates the way Republicans do- winner take all, Hillary would be ahead. Regardless of the outcome Obama will never be President.

JoeySky

Wow.! The graphic is so powerful. Hillary is in a better position to win GE.

MSM will avoid talking about this. That’s fine.
But If DNC and SDs ignored it, DEM will lost GE.
hit_escape

I’ve always been baffled by this argument. Neither candidate was running against a Republican, so how can you say they “won” the state as if it proved something regarding the general election?

Who will bring the most Democrats and new voters to the election? This is going to be a GOTV election.

In the general election, Hillary’s supporter’s will support Obama and vice-versa. However, it looks like Hillary’s supporters will support Obama, much more than Obama’s will support her. With that in mind, in the general, election, Obama has a better chance of holding on to Hillary’s Democrats and the new voters Obama he himself has attracted and will therefore be the stronger candidate.

Anecdotal evidence: a 30 something waitress I talked to had never voted. She saw Obama on TV and went down and registered as a Democrat. I asked her “What if Hillary wins?” She said, “I’ll vote for McCain”. Doesn’t make much sense, but that is what Hillary is up against.

PMS

Anecdotal evidence: a 30 something waitress I talked to had never voted. She saw Obama on TV and went down and registered as a Democrat. I asked her “What if Hillary wins?” She said, “I’ll vote for McCain”. Doesn’t make much sense, but that is what Hillary is up against.

Dollars to donuts she wouldn’t bother voting.
lifelong dem leaving party

“it looks like hillary’s supporters will support obama….” – look again! not happening.

http://thedemocraticdaily.com gqmartinez

I’ve talked to many, many Hillary supporters who said they wouldn’t even vote for Obama for Senator (one even said dog-catcher). According to the polls, about 15-20% of Obama supporters say they won’t support Hillary. The same polls show 30% of Hillary supporters won’t support Obama.

Of course the old “reality-based community” (Kos, TPM, OpenLeft, etc.) like to repeat the myth that Obama gets Hill’s supporters she doesn’t get hers. Facts be damned.

Simply put: Dems lost 2000 and 2004 because they underperformed among women and Hispanics, precisely Hillary’s strongest base of support. All of the fancy calculations are interesting–and amusing–but not as informative as those two key demographics.

John D

You’re dreaming.

There are polls showing Hillary supporters hardening against BO. Not that I believe in polls result without a grain of salt. I do look into how the sampleis selected, and how the poll is conducted to make an educated conclusion.

BTW, the waitress is not a true democrat. She is not even a true supporter. I will only call her a fan, no more. And wouldn’t base any more conclusion on that lunatic behavior.

The only true DEM in this election is Hillary. And as a long time democrat, she is the only one I will be voting for.

BTW, anyone checked the declining traffic of BO’s website?

lifelong dem leaving party

i’m revealing my stupidity on the subject, but how do i do this? i’d really like to.

Eurogirl70

I’m sorry to burst your bubble, but the statistical evidence is the opposite of what you report.

Clinton supporters are in fact hardening against Obama and are less likely to support Obama, should he be the nominee than vice versa.

Obama has won primarily in caucus states that do not have a snowball’s chance in hell of being in play for the Democrat’s in the fall. (Nebraska, Idaho, Utah, Kansas, Georgia, Mississippi, and South Carolina) will not be going “blue” in the fall. The swing states of Tennessee, Arkansas, and Ohio will go blue in the fall should Clinton be the nominee. They will not if Obama is. Clinton leads McCain in Ohio by 8 points. Obama by only 1. Do you really think that when the Republican 527′s starting hammering on Goolsbee’s meeting with Canadian officals about NAFTA Obama has not one chance of holding that state.

Take for example the state of Massachusetts; a state that any Democrat should be able to win with their eyes closed and their hands tied behind their backs. A McCain/Obama matchup shows a 47/47 split. What gives? Maybe the people of MA have had a taste of Obama governance in Deval Patrick. Patrick has been a tremendous disappointment to many in the state who thought he would be something very different. Not so.

Obama has angered many female voters as well as lunch-box Democrats who went for Reagan in 1980. Obama is not getting them to swing his way. If he thinks that his “Democrat for a Day” cross over voters are going to stick with him in a GE matchup then I have some swampland in Florida for sale. Republicans will have a field day with Obama in a GE matchup.

…Please do not assume that many of us core long term Democratic party members are just going to forget everything that has been done to persuade our candidate to get out of the race and come over and vote for Obama. It isn’t going to happen this time. We did it with Kerry. We did it with Reid and Pelosi. We supported Howard Dean until recently. The line has been drawn!

B-Rob

She did not win the state though. She lost both.

And another thing: how in good conscience do you put Michigan in the “Hillary” column, when she ran unopposed and STILL did not win as big as Obama did in Maryland.

Honestly, you folks can spin things as much as you want. but Obama still leads in popular vote, states won, and delegates. WHEN YOU TRAIL YOUR OPPONANT, BY DEFINITION YOU ARE NOT THE BEST CANDIDATE! Otherwise, we would have had a President Dukakis, wouldn’t we?

Eurogirl70

Democratic Candidate Obama=Democratic Candidate Dukakis

LOSER!
redbird

You better celebrate now!
Obama is on his way down.He isn’t willing to count Fl or Mich. .neither will he agre to let them vote over. What is he afraid of? Hillary is the best.

B-Rob

“Hillary is the best.”

Which is why she is losing, I guess . . . .

http://www.madinthemiddle.blogspot.com Bob Harrison

You are exactly right.
Marianne

I’ll second the motion of the swing states. I live in TN formerly from NY. No Way Obama here. He will not make it in the GE. TN carried Hillary in the reddest part of the red state of TN. I would expect chaos here if Obama makes the nomination. If you heard what I hear everyday living here, you would know that Obama will not even be the nominee.

apishapa

No, I think you are wrong. Although Hillary urges her supporters to support the Democratic candidate because she is a true Democrat, many of her supporters are so angry at the Democratic Party for their unabashed gaming of the nomination process that we are leaving the Party and will never feel any obligation to support Democrats again. I’m one of them and as a lifelong Democrat I never thought I would feel this way.

The reason it is assumed that Hillary voters will support Obama, while Obama’s supporters will not support Hillary is because Obama is recruiting votes from Republicans and Independents. Longtime, loyal Democrats have voted for Clinton.

It is to be expected that Republicans who vote for Obama in a caucus will not vote for Hillary in the GE, but most will not vote for Obama either. They are, after all, Republicans. To say they have seen the light and come over from the darkside is naive. Same with Independents and new voters. Some will vote for Obama, but their support is just very unreliable. Many of the new voters infected with Obamafever will get over it before November.

Obama is too dismissive of the anger felt by us Baby Boomers. His willingness to disenfranchise millions of voters because he is afraid of a fair fight is gong to bite him in the ass.

Obama’s campaign calls us names (Archie Bunker), assumes anyone who votes against him is a racist, play every trick they can to keep Hillary voters from caucuses. Then he assumes we will support him with time, money and votes in the GE because we’ve always been loyal to the Democratic Party. We are the “base” after all. Obama is too smug for his own good.

I’ve voted straight Democratic in every state, local and national election since 1974, but I will not vote for Obama. Never.

Your 30 something waitress who has never voted before really cannot be counted on to vote this time either. Unfortunately, I cannot be counted on anymore either.
Annie

Reagen democrats will vote McCain if Hillary Clinton is not the nominee. Most of Barak’s early votes were from Rebublicans and Independents who were having fun against Hillary Clinton or taken in by his ‘bringing the country together with hope” He has divided and put the racial divide back decades. \ Also the female voters for Hillary are so angry at the disgusting lies and sexism from the Obama camp there is no way they will vote for him. The fact he stayed with Wright for 20 years is enough to put any decent god fearing person off him. Don’t say he didn’t know. He is a racist and has been playing that racist game.
John

Oh wait, I wasn’t aware that an unidentified 30-year old waitress said that she’d vote for McCain if Obama was not the Democratic nominee! That changes everything! Let’s all get behind Obama right now!

Christ, now I’ve heard every single argument imaginable.
http://www.purplestatepundit.com/blog Purple State Pundit

Some recent polls suggest the opposite: more Democrats would vote for McCain if Obama is the nominee, though Obama does better against McCain among independents. Personally, I don’t get it. I feel passionate about my candidate but at the end of the day they are pretty similar ideologically, and I don’t understand why supporters of either candidate would vote for McCain. I hope we can all come together once we have a nominee and do everything we can to take back the White House. I plan to work my ass off for the Democratic nominee no matter who it ends up being.

Marianne

RESEARCH Obama and you will know why. I doubt he can get a top secret security clearance. You will be amazed at what you will find out.

pm317

Anecdotal evidence: On CSPAN morning call in show, out of 10 self-identified republicans, 6 were firmly coming out to vote for Hillary out of choice and not mischief.

The underestimated voter is the woman voter in the GE in both parties — there will be so much excitement at electing the first woman president (who is abundantly more qualified than guy). With the privacy of a secret ballot (unlike the caucuses), you will see more women coming out to vote for her.

B-Rob

“With the privacy of a secret ballot (unlike the caucuses), you will see more women coming out to vote for her.”

What nonsense! You are telling me that women are not voting for Hillary in caucus states because *gasp* they don’t like to vote in public? The vapors! Boy, you sell women short! How do you even know whether there were more women than men at the caucuses?

Here’s another question: if the public voting thing hurts Hill at caucuses, then why did she lose the primaries in Wisconsin, Missouri, Vermont and Connecticut (both in her back yard)? (I do not even add Mississippi, Alabama, Geogia and other “Black” states, since you Hill-bots think Black votes don’t really count.)

You Hillfolk have an excuse for everything, don’t you? So what’s the excuse for losing 14 of the last 16 contests? What’s the excuse for raising half the money Obama raised in March?

TLE

I can only speak for myself here. As a female, I tend to get a bit intimidated when attacked publicly, but I’m also passive-aggressive. If a bunch of snot-nosed little creeps are verbally abusive to me in a caucus, I might very well offer some initial argument, then clam up and stop fighting; but you are nuts if you think that means you won. When I get into the voting booth next November, I get my revenge. As a female MICHIGAN voter, I figure I have a lot to get even for.

Telling yourself pretty stories instead of facing reality — well, I guess the last 8 years of Bush rule have made you think that’s how things work. Like the last 2 economic bubbles, it only works for a while. Then you wake up and find out that reality rules every time, in the end.

And BTW, take your “racist” accusations and stick ‘em where the sun never shines. I’m really tired of that one.

TeakwoodKite

Hillary’s supporter’s will support Obama and vice-versa

minus one here…

If you want Obama to have four years to REALLY sink the Dem’s then go ahead and elect ‘em. When devil comes to collect on his “due” from the bargin he made with the BUSH economy, Guess who is going to get stuck holding the bag? An unqualified igit, who’s only concept of Econ, is the graft he got from influence peddling in Chicago and the US Senate. Him and McCain are in the same double AA bush league here and the talent scouts are else where. They need a T ball set to even get a hit!
Wyoming Dem

WRONG! Several petitions floating around for those that will vote Republican, including me and from what I have read and seen, thousands of signatures. I have notified the DNC in writing that will be changing my party affiliation to Independant after the primary. I would (Oh my God I can’t believe I am saying this…) vote for George W. Bush before Obama. Bush is a moron and a putz but Obama is just scarey. How anyone can vote for him after reading the political
articles (From respected sources like the Wall Street Journal and Time magazine) that abound as far back as 2004? This guy leads a double life. What YOU see is NOT what you are going to get. When he turns out to be very un “god” like, you can blame voter naivete and an abhorrence to reading ANYTHING that might depict Obama in a less-that-”perfect” light. Goodbye Democratic National Party and MR. Obama WILL NEVER get my vote.

B-Rob

Are you friggin kidding me? The chart is BOGUS!

First of all — the chart gives Nevada and Texas both to Hillary. Obama won both those states! That 39 electoral vote swing carries Obama from a 202-263 deficit to a 241-224 lead. Yeah, if you award Hillary states she did not win, the numbers are different, but you get the point.

It also gives Michigan to Hillary, when Obama was not even on the ballot. Do you people actually think that Hillary would have won Michigan, home of UM, MSU tons of other colleges, and one of the largest Black voting populations in the country? Please.

By placing the thumb on the scale for the second place candidate, you may salve the wounds of losing, but you cannot change reality. By the numbers of votes, the number of delegates, the amount of money raised . . . any measure, Obama is the superior candidate. Just deal with it and move on.

John D

Hillary won the popular vote in NV and TX. Why people are so forgetful?
PMS

From the new NY Times/CBS Poll:

The poll showed that Mr. Obama now leads Senator John McCain of Arizona, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, 47 percent to 42 percent; his lead was 50 percent to 38 percent in late February, when Mr. McCain still faced primary opposition from Mike Huckabee. The latest poll shows Mrs. Clinton leading Mr. McCain, 48 percent to 43 percent, in a similar match-up.

Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama are now effectively tied among Democratic voters, with 46 percent saying they want the party to nominate Mr. Obama, compared with 43 percent for Mrs. Clinton. In late February, 54 percent of Democrats said they wanted Mr. Obama to win the nomination, compared with 38 percent for Mrs. Clinton.

Mary

Yes, indeed. This new NYTimes poll (not Fox, but NYTimes….Obama’s so-called voters) shows Obama has LOST 7 points since February, coinciding with Wright videos and his own faux-pas.

He’s losing white men, women, wealthy voters, and the some of the white youth vote. Independents are “iffy,” given that many may move to McCain (Hispanics especially, since McCain was pro-amnesty), and the Republicans are questionable, given that many were playing Limbaughs’ Operation Chaos, and won’t be voting Dem in November.

DOWN 7 points.

But you won’t see that at Kos or TPM.

John

1. Hillary won Texas by 100,000 votes. Obama’s supporters stole the caucus. Guess what? No caucuses in November. Sorry.

2. If you are so certain Obama would have won in Michigan, ask yourself why he won’t allow a revote there.

Typical Obamabot. Stop talking out of your ass and check the FACTS. Turning off MSNBC and Air Obama Radio would be a good start.

B-Rob

Why he won’t “allow” a revote in Michigan?

I did NOT know Obama was the sovereign king of Michigan, with power over the election apparatus of that state! I didn’t even know he lived there!

Oh, that’s right . . . he’s not and he doesn’t.

Another thing Hill-bots — how do you conclude that Obama has more sway in Michigan than Hillary does?

Might you be ASSUMING he has some popularity there that she can’t match, thus his ability to decide, as king of Michigan, whether they vote again or not?

PMS

It’s the DNC, son. They said they won’t authorize a re-vote unless both campaigns approve it. Obama wouldn’t, therefore, he’s blocking it.

I am curious, are you SAE or metric?

B-Rob

That is total b.s.! Either state could do a revote if they chose and Obama has no control over that. But guess what? In Florida, one of HRC’s co-chairs, Debbie Wasserman Shultz OPPOSES A REVOTE! Same with the rest of the Florida congressional delegation. See, being actual elected officials from that state, they have a say, unlike Obama. You can continue to blame him if you want. But that doesn’t mean it is actually his fault.
B-Rob

This is what the Michigan Dem party said today:

“The Michigan Democratic Party has carefully reviewed several proposals for a Party-run primary or caucus as a means of resolving the dispute over the seating of the Michigan delegation to the 2008 Democratic National Convention. We have concluded that it is not practical to conduct such a primary or caucus. We will continue to work with the Working Group, the DNC and the candidates to resolve this matter in a manner which is respectful of the views of Democrats in Michigan, and which is fair to those who voted in the January 15th Democratic primary.”

TeakwoodKite

You can’t resolve this in a “meaningful manner”, unless and until there is a vote by thems’ that it matters to in the states of Florida and Michigan. If the Dem’s want to “lead” this country, they had better get of there pol asses and treat this like a natural disaster and get it done. If they don’t they won’t have a “hope” of winning.

Another thing…since when have the Re-thugs respected the law when it comes to bringing prosecutions prior to an election? They did a job on the governor of Alabama, didn’t they?

lifelong dem leaving party

also, don’t forget that many of the obama votes were done before people found out about wright, etc. a lot of folks want their votes back. and will take them back in the general.
pm317

Your audacity can only be matched by your inspiring leader. Tell me what big states he has won so far? Don’t give me those sissy caucus states assembling all your bussed people. She won all states you mention, NV, TX, and MI because she has broader appeal and a winning coalition. Popular vote is what decides a winner in the GE not your stupid caucuses. For all his new politics he has run a cowardly campaign. You had better grow some spine and face up to reality.

B-Rob

“she has broader appeal and a winning coalition.”

I guess that explains why she trails in popular vote, delegates, states won, money donated, etc. If she had any more “broad appeal” and a more “winning coalition”, she might be hitting up Mike Gravel for votes! Talk,about delusional!

“Popular vote is what decides a winner in the GE not your stupid caucuses.”

Your candidate trails Obama in popular vote, ninny! When you take a lead in that catagory, then you can try to argue that “delegates don’t matter”. Until then, you are like a hobo looking through a restaurant eying a steak: you can want, but you just can’t have . . . .

“For all his new politics he has run a cowardly campaign.”

Yeah! Like when he cried because he just wanted people to like him! Er . . . nevermind . . . . Is Hillary gonna cry when McCain yells at her? That would win in November!

“You had better grow some spine and face up to reality.”

Actually I like reality just fine! Scoreboard!

TeakwoodKite

Don’t confuse tears of “true concern” from acting…that is BO thing. Hillary is authentic.

Is Hillary gonna cry when McCain yells at her?

B-Rob, nothing personal but I guess you are one of those brought up under the roof of “real Men don’t Cry”. You don’t think McCain spent many a night on a cold dark floor in pain crying, after having the crap bet out of him?

What is with a person like you that you would not understand what is at stake? You think Obama isn’t crying now just wait! He is such a in denial Mama’s boy who can’t break free of the resentment and conflation about it, that he cries a colicky baby.

You have only the primary race in your view…
Obama supporters are not “GE” thinkers.

Eurogirl70

Hillary won the popular vote in NV and TX. Why people are so forgetful?

Because John D the Obama supporters are applying Republican tactics to this situation. They believe that the more that they say something, no matter how untruthful it may be, it will eventually seep into the collective psyche and in effect become fact!!

Quite the little propagandists, aren’t they?

PMS

Because John D the Obama supporters are applying Republican tactics to this situation. They believe that the more that they say something, no matter how untruthful it may be, it will eventually seep into the collective psyche and in effect become fact!!

Obama sure WOULD like for an undemocratic “caucus system” to instituted in the GE… if he were to be the nominee, it would be his only chance of winning.

Mary

Yes, and one can see now, why Obama’s surrogates panicked last week and led the drive to force Hillary to drop out.

She KNEW better. Attagirl, Hillary!

B-Rob

I agree. If she had rolled over and got out, people would have been whining about it being “unfair” that the big bad men intimidated her. I would have expected tears and years of academic analysis of how sexism cost her the presidency.

No . . . he has to drive a stake through her heart and kill her, just like in the vampire movies. And guess what? Mark Penn’s dalliance with the Colombians on a free trade pact the same week that Obama was slammed for NOT supporting that pact, may have just handed him that stake.

The Hillary campaign is starting to look more and more like the Bush administration — incompetent, can’t manage money, won’t take responsibility for its own failures, back biting . . . and why should we reward that incompetence by letting her jump over the BETTER CANDIDATE?

B-Rob

You Hillary people are trying to explain why you should be permitted to play for the championship, when you have not even shown you are competitive in the playoffs! This is not like Olympic figure skating, where the “favorite” wins because she is more “graceful and elegant” even if the upstart skates better.

I bet you can create a chart showing that among all lefthanders, Hillary is far superior to Obama. But the problem is, when the votes are cast, he wins and she doesn’t. He has won 14 of the last 16 contests and you STILL think she is better? That is denial, people.

Let me give you an analogy:

Hillary gained more yardage in Texas; Obama won on the scoreboard. The scoreboard is what counts, not yardage.

Hillary may be the New England Patriots of politics in your eyes; but that means Obama is the New York Giants. I.e., at the start of this thing, no one in their right mind would have bet on Obama. But that is why you play the game, as opposed to just crowning a winner. Hillary was expecting a coronation based on what her husband did years ago. Its not gonna happen, no matter if you folks get blue in the face and indignant over that “upstart” beating your Chosen One. As they say in sports: score board.

lifelong dem leaving party

but the scoreboard used in the general is not the same as the ridiculous scoreboard we dems came up with for the primaries. the scoreboard for the general is winner take all (and no caucuses). under that system, hillary is ahead by a mile.

so basically, if we can get out of our own way, we can win in november. if we follow your “analogy,” we can’t.

B-Rob

“under that system, hillary is ahead by a mile.”

This is almost as stupid as some of the other posts I have seen.

Let’s think this through: the Democratic Party sets up a system of primaries and caucuses in 50 states and a few territories. One candidate raises more money, runs a better campaign, gets more votes, wins more states, and gets more delegates. But you want the LOSER to go on to the big show in November because a public opinion poll in April — not an actual vote by millions, but a poll of a couple thousand people — a poll shows she wins more than the other guy wins (thought he wins, too, mind you).

This makes SENSE to you? OK.

Then why the hell have the 50 primaries and caucuses in the first place? Why not just have a poll and give the nomination to the person who finishes ahead, to see who is most popular?

But isn’t that what the primaries and caucuses do? If she can’t win her own party’s voters over at the voting booth, under the rules her own party set, why in the world do you think she would do better with a larger playing field? That makes NO FRIGGIN SENSE!

pm317

gets more votes? that is still up for debate and that is why we are still voting. This is a democracy — popular vote, one person, one vote and count every vote. For all his money advantage (big, big), better campaign (doubt that), (I will throw a new one, big media advantage) why could he not have closed the deal by now? How many chances did he have so far? 1, 2, 3,…counting..

If he can’t win his own party’s voters at the voting booth, under the rules his own party set, why in the world do you think he would do better with a larger playing field?

Maybe it has something to do with not having a broad winning coalition in the BIG states? He will have to perhaps bus millions of people, unlike the few hundreds to the caucuses — I guess he does not have that kind of money advantage.

B-Rob

“I will throw a new one, big media advantage”

The only reason he had a “media advantage” is (a) he has not “pissed in the well” over the last 16 years, and (b) he simply does not have all the skeletons she has! In fact NO ONE on the Dem side had the negatives she had and still has.

Indeed . . . how do you take a 75/25 advantage among Black voters and flip the numbers 50 points in three weeks? How do you dis Dems in entire states and basically say “that’s fly over country”? Have you noticed that Red State Dems DO NOT BACK HER? He is also ahead in Senators, last I checked, as well as elected Dems, but she leads in unelected party hacks. Bill Richardson, who probably knows her as well as anyone, chose to back the other guy, who he barely knows. Have you asked yourself “why” all these things are the way they are?

“why could he not have closed the deal by now? How many chances did he have so far? 1, 2, 3,…counting..”

Try “0″. He was the underdog from the start. Poorer name recognition, no backing from the party regulars, Black man in a proedominately White country. No one in their right mind would have bet $100 a year ago that HE would be the nominee.

“If he can’t win his own party’s voters at the voting booth, under the rules his own party set, why in the world do you think he would do better with a larger playing field?”

W.t.f.? HE IS AHEAD! He has more votes, not her! He has more delegates won, not her! He has more states won, not her!

“Maybe it has something to do with not having a broad winning coalition in the BIG states?”

Check the numbers. She wins narrowly in big states, he blows the doors off her in “fly over country”. That is why he is winning and she is losing. Because he, unlike she, is organized everywhere.

“He will have to perhaps bus millions of people, unlike the few hundreds to the caucuses — I guess he does not have that kind of money advantage.”

Nonsensical.

John

You are just an idiot. By your logic, if Hillary won Texas by 2-1 in the popular vote but Obama won by two votes in the caucuses and carried away one more delegate than Hillary, that would mean Texas ought to be included in an analysis of which candidate is more popular in the state of Texas.

Yes, moron, we are aware that Obama’s campaign has been very good at manipulating a delegate majority here and there, even in states where Hillary has won the popular vote. NOT THE POINT. We are trying to determine which candidate is STRONGER IN NOVEMBER. And when you look at which candidate has received MORE POPULAR VOTES in STATES ANY DEMOCRAT NEEDS TO WIN IN NOVEMBER, it’s clearly Hillary.

It’s exhausting trying to discuss such things with witless idiots like you. But please, entertain us with another pointless, irrelevant sports metaphor if it makes you happy.

B-Rob

Here’s another metaphor:

Imagine a mistletoe on my coattail and honor it.

– W.E.B. Dubois

See, where I come from the first one to lose their cool and descend into ninth grade namecalling vocabulary loses the argument. You are, in that sense, either a loser or just a typical unlettered Hillary clown, frightened and unnerved by the big bad “Mr.-too-f*cking-intelligent-for-you-to-understand-what-the-hell-he-is-saying” Black man.

Your candidate is either. Obama “manipulated” the rules the same way people who study for a test, as opposed to playing X-Box the night before, manipulate those results. Its called FOLLOWING THE FRIGGIN RULES!

Look, I know entitled people expect the rules not to apply to them. I get it. But the incessent whining about it being “unfair” that Obama did what Hillary could have done had she not assumed she was heading for a coronation — its just childish.

So what you Hill-bots need to do is get over it: accept that she lost fair and square; that she got fewer votes because her campaign sucked and she needlessly offended the same Black voters who backed her 75/25 before she went “ghetto”; that she has no clue how to manage money; and understand that she would have been steamrolled by McCain if she put that same weak ass campaign staff in front of him that she put in front of Obama.

She lost! It’s over! Deal with it!

PMS

She lost! It’s over! Deal with it!

OK. Fine. It’s over.

Why are you still here?

B-Rob

I am trying to get you people to THINK before you send the weaker, less popular HRC up against McCain.

I have a question: have you wondered why Al Gore, who obviously knows HRC very well, has not endorsed her? Maybe Bill Richardson knows why . . . .

pm317

So, you think she can win the nomination. Great! You do have a few grey cells left in you.

PMS

Let me give you an analogy:

Hillary gained more yardage in Texas; Obama won on the scoreboard. The scoreboard is what counts, not yardage.

I’d say Obama’s more like last year’s Dallas Mavericks in the NBA.

Let me give you the facts straight up: The GE won’t be won by Obambots bullying older people at caucuses like I WITNESSED in Texas, by producing unsecured delegate sheets like I WITNESSED in Texas. Urban area aren’t overweighted for electoral votes like they are for delegates in Texas.

The DNC may have decided to suspend democratic principals for the primary, but the GE is still earned the old fashioned way… one vote at a time. Your man is toast in the fall, and the “fall” has apparently begun.

lifelong dem leaving party

sad but true about the mavs. (sad for the mavs, not sad for obama – i’ll be GLAD when he’s trounced!)
B-Rob

Funny . . . caucuses didn’t become “undemocratic” until Hillary found out that she had no f*cking clue what the rules were. THEN they became unfair.

Here is a hint — when my kid was five and lost at musical chairs, I did NOT throw another chair out there just for her. No, I taught her how the game was played and she won the next time. Maybe Hillary can figure out the rules by 2016 and make another run at it. Heck, she’ll only be 68. And 68 is the new 58, you know!

And your “terrorism at the polls” story sounds an awful lot like the stories Rush and company tell about all the “union goons” attacking conservative voters, Democrats running cars with Bush stickers off the road, dead people voting in predominately Black areas, etc. Funny — to steal a line from “The Wire” — funny that all that just happened to happen when you were there . . . . That’s called an urban legend when a friend of a friend sees it; it’s just a lie when you are making it up yourself.

pm317

You are like a cat drinking milk with its eyes closed and thinking the world will not see it drinking it.

B-Rob

I have no idea what that has to do with Hillary trailing in popular vote, delegates, money raised, or states won, but still expecting to be the “winner”. But look on the bright side: she’s probably WAY popular in Colombia right now. Maybe she can run for president there?

pm317

Just because YOU think caucuses are democratic, the whole world does/need not think that. Now go back to you DKos or whatever. Looking at all your comments you have no original thoughts/ideas of your own. Just a waste of time.

PMS

Funny . . . caucuses didn’t become “undemocratic” until Hillary found out that she had no f*cking clue what the rules were. THEN they became unfair.

Except I was there and saw it. That’s not democracy (well, maybe in Chicago). And controlling caucuses won’t win the GE.

You mentioned earlier about how Barack would win Michigan because of A) The solid Democratic voting record, and B) the University of Michigan’s students. Son, you tipped your hand there. Myopia is the fast-track to defeat. We Dems have been doing that for years. The fact that most Union members vote GOP has escaped your attention. The fact that most DEMOCRATS support Hillary has escaped your attention (caucus wins in Red states are just that… causcus wins).

Perhaps you like losing. Perhaps you like being the GOP’s foot-stool. It’s the electoral equivalent to voting “PRESENT”… you never have to take responsibility.

Please go back to Loserville. You’re wasting bandwidth.

B-Rob

You should know from Loserville. Scoreboard!

“Except I was there and saw it.”

SURE you did. And the Obama people arrived in black helicopters, too, didn’t they, all funded by Arab money from the Middle East . . . or was it GOP money from Wall Street? I keep forgetting . . . .

“That’s not democracy (well, maybe in Chicago). And controlling caucuses won’t win the GE.”

Like I said: I don’t recall any commentary about caucuses . . . oh, the last 24 years, since I started voting. Bill seemed to do OK with them; Hill just couldn’t cut the mustard. To publically admit three weeks before Texas that you did not understand the rules . . . that is the incompetence you want to run against McCain?

“You mentioned earlier about how Barack would win Michigan because of A) The solid Democratic voting record, and B) the University of Michigan’s students. Son, you tipped your hand there. Myopia is the fast-track to defeat. We Dems have been doing that for years. The fact that most Union members vote GOP has escaped your attention. The fact that most DEMOCRATS support Hillary has escaped your attention (caucus wins in Red states are just that… causcus wins).”

Sorry, charley. I am not a Dem. I am a moderate GOPer for Obama. There are many of us . . . We will vote for him over McCain, but will NEVER vote for HRC . . . ever.

“Perhaps you like losing. Perhaps you like being the GOP’s foot-stool.”

You are advocating sending the losing, less popular candidate with the higher negatives who can’t run a 50 state campaign and who can’t manage money . . . you want to put her up against the most liberal GOPer nominated in more than 50 years . . . and you say I LIKE LOSING?

“It’s the electoral equivalent to voting “PRESENT”… you never have to take responsibility.”

Like I have said — ignorance is bliss and Hill-bots are the happiest people on Earth! “Yes she can”? Hardly . . . .

pm317

You know, may be you are a regular GoPer, trying to incite us, Hillary supporters against Obama so your guy McCain wins in November. WoW! what a strategy.

B-Rob

Nah . . . I just know a good candidate when I see one. Knew it when he ran in 2004 for Senate — gave him $500.

Read something other than Hill-bot blogs. Check out Doug Kmiec’s endorsement of Obama. Or Andrew Sullivan. How many GOPers will cross over to vote for HRC? Hell, she can’t even get the members of her own husband’s adminisration to back her. Why hasn’t Gore endorsed her? He was in the Clinton administration, they are from neighboring states, he has know her how long . . . twenty years? And he won’t endorse her? Do you folks ever wonder why people who know her VERY WELL instead chose to back Obama, who they barely know?

B-Rob

And if Obama is the Mavericks, what does that make Hillary. The Clippers?

lifelong dem leaving party

no, troll, she’s the 2006 heat – down 2 7/8 games to 0, came back to win in 6.

pm317

With FL and MI included (I would not have it any other way because every damn vote counts), stats from the links above are:

Clinton
popular vote difference -105,263 (.378%)
Pledged delegates difference -47
Superdelegates difference +41
Overall delegate difference -6

She can wipe these off with a win in PA.

Obama just got lucky he got to play in GA, AL, MS and a few others first. A race this close has to go all the way.

B-Rob

“Obama just got lucky he got to play in GA, AL, MS and a few others first.”

Luck is the residue of hard work. She, too, could have won Iowa . . . why didn’t she? Ditto Colorado, Washington, Wisconsin, Missouri, Virginia . . . she has practically lived in Maryland the last 16 years. Why didn’t she win? He outthought, outworked, and outhustled her.

pm317

Are you all aware that the bulk of Obama’s lead (not including FL and MI) comes from Illinois, his state?

Look at the popular vote in Illinois:
Obama 1,318,234
Clinton 667,930

The difference is about 650,304 (from Illinois)

His overall lead (without FL and MI, to which I object strongly): 728,344

About 90% of his overall lead is from Illinois (we still have to see how much of that comes from Cook county). But do you see where I am going with this?

HE IS extraordinarily COMPETITIVE IN ONE STATE! Everything else is close to a tie even without FL and MI.

B-Rob

Check the vote tally for Washington, Minnesota, Alabama, Mississippi, Virginia, Maryland, Vermont, Wyoming, Utah, and Colorado, then get back with me on that “HE IS extraordinarily COMPETITIVE IN ONE STATE!” thing . . . .
B-Rob

If it makes you feel better, delete Illinois from the “this state counts” list that you people keep bringing up. He still has won more states

On FL and MI, I could care less whether you add them or not. Just don’t try to change the rules after the fact. Those millions of voters knew no delegates were at stake. They should get the same number of delegates that they were allotted — zero.

I ask again: aren’t you at all curious why the majority of Dem senators who have endorsed anyone have endorsed him? Richardson knows Hillary about as well as anyone, but he chose a man he barely knows? That Red State Dems superdelegates overwhelmingly support him, not her? Doesn’t that mean ANYTHING to you?
http://www.purplestatepundit.com/blog Purple State Pundit

How much further behind would she be without New York? If we are going to subtract home states we have to lose New York too, and Arkansas.

Jayling

Thank you NoQuarter for posting this!

Purple State Pundit,if we subtract all the votes from Illinois, Arkansas, and New York from both candidates, Obama would lose an additional 195,167.

Clinton: -1,956,562
Obama: -2,151,729

I realize it’s contentious for some people when seeing Michigan & Florida included, but there are stats that leave them off too.

http://www.diversityj.com/Statistics2008Primary.html

Once again, many thanks to NoQuarter

Jayling

hillary4change

Well, there it is in black and white, and color too, for those of you who bore easy.
I guess it’s plain to see, numbers don’t lie!! But journalists and the DNC do!!!
Great graphics and good work!!!
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59887 B positive

Sen.FLUFF Obama can’t win… he’s too weak. Putin would eat Obama for breakfast.

Hillary is tough and that’s what we need in the White House.

Obama just can’t win… these stats demonstrate it!

P.S. Obama’s pastor disses Natalee Holloway
‘White girl goes off and gives it up’ in Aruba, preacher pal says:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59887
llilytoo

Clinton supporters are in fact hardening against Obama…
One of the reasons that Clinton supporters as a group won’t vote for BO( besides the fact he’s a distaster ) is that she is bringing back folks who haven’t voted Dem since LBJ.