Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login
The John Byrne Forum
Byrne Robotics > The John Byrne Forum << Prev Page of 1093 Next >>
Topic: US Presidential Election (Topic Closed Topic Closed) Post ReplyPost New Topic
Author
Message
Jason Fliegel
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 19 December 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 638
Posted: 06 March 2008 at 4:11pm | IP Logged | 1  

Hillary has won pretty much all the key states for Democrat related to a national election -- NY, CA, NJ, MA, OH, TX. If they re-do MI and FL, she'll probably win those too. Whatever the pledged delegates, she has a strong case that she's more competitive where it counts.

***

I've heard this argument from many people and I just don't buy it.  In the first place, many of those key states (NY, CA, MA, TX) are going to one party or the other no matter who the Democratic nominee is.  Californians may prefer Senator Clinton to Senator Obama, but they also almost certainly prefer either of those candidates to Senator McCain.

And that's the second point.  Comparing Democratic primary voters chosing between Senators Clinton and Obama to general election voters chosing between the Democratic nominee and Senator Obama is the very epitome of comparing apples to oranges.  Ask me whether I prefer Granny Smith Apples to Golden Delicious Apples, and I'll pick the Golden Delicious ... but that doesn't mean I wouldn't rather have a Granny Smith than a Naval Orange.

Back to Top profile | search
 
David Ferguson
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 17 March 2007
Location: Ireland
Posts: 6782
Posted: 06 March 2008 at 4:11pm | IP Logged | 2  

I assume you mean the Ann that's pronounced Sate-Ann.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Keith Elder
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 1973
Posted: 06 March 2008 at 4:30pm | IP Logged | 3  

The funniest thing I heard on NPR today was someone advocating that FL and MI should equally split their delegates between the two candidates.  That way, the people would feel they had representation, but it wouldn't effect the standings.

I think the best thing to do would be to stick to the rules as originally interpreted.  Once you started shifting procedures around on the fly to try to make things more fair, it will quickly degenerate into a mess [cite: Florida 2000].  Giving FL and MI a do-over would be rewarding them with a crucial spot in the nomination process, because they flaunted the rules earlier.  Other states could legitimately object, and then... yuck.

Besides, although I think the party leadership would prefer Clinton, I think they desire even more a clear winner.  Bringing in FL and MI would probably narrow the gap between the two candidates, making the eventual nominee less palatable.

Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Mike O'Brien
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar
Official JB Historian

Joined: 18 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 10927
Posted: 06 March 2008 at 4:38pm | IP Logged | 4  

Erm, David, we like to think of him as O'Bama.
Back to Top profile | search
 
David Ferguson
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 17 March 2007
Location: Ireland
Posts: 6782
Posted: 06 March 2008 at 5:01pm | IP Logged | 5  

I'll take your word for it Mike but only because you have such an Irish name.

Great family motto: Lamh laidir an Uachtar
Back to Top profile | search
 
Jason Czeskleba
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 30 April 2004
Posts: 4638
Posted: 06 March 2008 at 5:31pm | IP Logged | 6  


 QUOTE:
Hillary has won pretty much all the key states for Democrat related to a national election -- NY, CA, NJ, MA, OH, TX. If they re-do MI and FL, she'll probably win those too. Whatever the pledged delegates, she has a strong case that she's more competitive where it counts.


I agree with Jason that this argument doesn't hold much water.  Looking at which candidate won the state in the primary doesn't really have much predictive value as far as speculating how they might do in the general election.  Obviously, the fact that Clinton got 54% to Obama's 44% in Ohio does not mean she'd get 54% against McCain in that state, nor does it mean that Obama would get only 44% against McCain.  The fact that Obama lost California to Clinton does not mean he'd lose it against McCain.  Likewise the fact that Clinton won Texas against Obama doesn't mean she has any chance in hell of winning the state against McCain.

A more relevant thing to look at is data about which type of voter is voting for each candidate.  According to polls, Obama is drawing much more of the voters who identify as "independent", people who might swing over and vote for McCain if Clinton is the Democratic choice.  Clinton meanwhile is strong with traditional Democratic constituencies, voters that most likely will support whomever is the Democratic candidate, even if they prefer Hillary.

Another more relevant stat is that fact that Obama does better than Clinton in polls surveying likely success against McCain.

I came into the primary season feeling that both candidates had serious issues with unelectability, and hoping Gore would join the race at the last minute.  But I've become convinced that Obama has a decent shot.  I've seen nothing to convince me Clinton can reach beyond the 48% John Kerry drew in 2004.  The baggage she carries, the numbers of people that strongly dislike her, her lack of charisma or speaking ability, not to mention sexism in general, are just too many barriers to surmount in a general election.



Edited by Jason Czeskleba on 06 March 2008 at 5:36pm
Back to Top profile | search
 
Kevin Brown
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 31 May 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 9126
Posted: 06 March 2008 at 9:02pm | IP Logged | 7  

Another more relevant stat is that fact that Obama does better than Clinton in polls surveying likely success against McCain.

***************************

Another relevant fact is that in the Democratic primaries vs. the Republican primaries there have been more voters on the Democtratic side.  (Though states like TX tend to skew that.)

The current vote popular totals for the Democrats is 25,409,738.  For the Republican side I cannot, as yet, find accurate numbers, but it seems to be around 17,000,000.  That's a HUGE difference.  The biggest I can ever recall actually.

And while I'm not so naive as to think that all 25.4 million people will vote for whichever Democrat is the nominee, I don't think it's going to be a dramatic change either.  Plus what matters most, of course, is the electoral college anyway.

Back to Top profile | search
 
Stephen Robinson
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 5833
Posted: 07 March 2008 at 11:16am | IP Logged | 8  

The current vote popular totals for the Democrats is 25,409,738.  For the Republican side I cannot, as yet, find accurate numbers, but it seems to be around 17,000,000.  That's a HUGE difference.  The biggest I can ever recall actually.

*********

SER: That figure is of concern to Republicans, but it's important to note that the Democratic primary is far more intense than the Republican one. I've known people who have voted in the primary who never had previously (though they usually vote in the general election).

In many primaries, it's a blow-out -- an almost foregone conclusion after the first three or so states. For the Republicans, McCain was the nominee once Romney dropped out.

Back to Top profile | search | www
 
Mike O'Brien
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar
Official JB Historian

Joined: 18 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 10927
Posted: 07 March 2008 at 4:03pm | IP Logged | 9  

Back to Top profile | search
 
Corey Johnson
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 2020
Posted: 07 March 2008 at 5:17pm | IP Logged | 10  


 QUOTE:
I'll say one thing about McCain though: he LOOKS like a president.

Yay! Another old, rich, white man. Just what this country needs!

Back to Top profile | search
 
Bob Neill
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 03 December 2007
Posts: 877
Posted: 07 March 2008 at 5:53pm | IP Logged | 11  

Obama looks like John Stewart. A Presidential Green Lantern!
Back to Top profile | search
 
Keith Elder
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 1973
Posted: 07 March 2008 at 6:43pm | IP Logged | 12  


 QUOTE:
Yay! Another old, rich, white man. Just what this country needs!


Racist, Sexist, and Ageist, all in one post.  Congrats, you hit a trifecta.

(Classist, too.. but since all the candidates are rich, that's a pass.)
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 

<< Prev Page of 1093 Next >>
  Post ReplyPost New Topic
Printable version Printable version

Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot create polls in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

 Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login