ahhhhh...PA is a closed primary...so how would one be able to project to November

Popular Vote Fraud committed by Clinton!!!

The narrative which the MSM and the Clintons are force feeding the puplic requires what was it Hillary said to Petraeus "a suspension of belief" or something like that.

As contest (primary, caucus, and primacuacus) after contest rolls forward the media led by Chuck Todd of MSNBC inform us of each states formula for converting votes into delegates.  Texas was very instructional as Obama won more delegates as in Nevada but the media puts it in the loss column.  

The democratic primary rules involves intricately thought out and negotiated details of delegate allocation based upon past voting patterns, congressional districts, senate districts, etc.  The idea is to reward candidates who win districts and or win by large percentages.  Bonus delegates are awarded, and each states special recipe turns into a currency which is elected delegates.  

A state democratic party can choose to caucus or have a primary.  They have X amount of delegates to allocate.  For budget, historical, party building reasons a state may choose to caucus.
BUT WAIT - ACCORDING TO HILLARY - THE POPULAR VOTE IS OF MORAL IMPORTANCE - IT HAS CURRENCY -

This is a bankrupt argument.  What state would ever Caucus again.  If a caucas state like CO which Obama won something like 60 40 and won lots of delegates but may have only provided a 25,000 vote margin of victory for Obama that instead of delegates it is vote which will be determinative in Denver so instead of a primary with a 200,000 vote margin it is a caucus with a 20,000 vote margin - discounted and thrown in the general currency with california and new york.  

If this logic prevails it will be the end of the caucus system.  This devaluation of caucas states in the narrative is glaring in its relevancy.  Does anyone really believe a popular vote argument holds water when only half the states held primaries and as such some type of proportional valuation (see elected delegates) must be used to be determinative.  Straight popular vote spread is a bankrupt argument.

If you made a case that the polls and data show one candidate clearly stronger in November - OK then maybe, but to invest millions in thrashing the presumtive nominee to create such a situation if beyond contempt - especially since the Clintons have already had a Presidency and now are worth 40 million.  

PS:  With a net worth of 40 million - what type of money, promises and payoffs would be needed to garner a reversal from the clear winner.

NEWS FLASH --- Obama is the projected winner in TEXAS 108 to 107 delegates.  TEXAS is a BIG STATE.  TEXAS is BIGGER than PA.  In fact TEXAS is bigger than any state Hillary has won.

I cannot believe this sort of thing is even covered.  The last few memos put out by the Clinton campaign are ridiculous, embarrassing, and serve no purpose other than trying to turn media attention their way.

[But, as one of us writes, there a fallacy to this kind of argument that hasn’t received much attention: “Recent history shows that winning a state in the primary season -- no matter its importance on the map -- doesn’t guarantee success in the general election.]

There you go trying to confuse the Clintonistas with facts again.  I

Clint-rovian despiration.

Chuck,
It should also be noted that Kerry won big  states during the 2004 general election, but Bush comfortably won reelection simply by winning small states and fewer big states. And California and New York are not significant indicators of electability for a Democrat when he or she wins them, because these states tend to favor a Democrat during the general election. With that said, Obama can still win New York and California -- and possibly PA -- if he is pitted against a Republican and not a fellow Democrat.
Essentially, what matters to me right now is winning "Red" states during the primary season, which may demonstrate a candidate's appeal in traditionlly GOP states.

I like Obama but I'm not unaware that states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, Florida and Ohio aren't important. They are. So are Virginia and Missouri. However, let's keep this in the context of how the general will be framed: the Dems versus Bush III. The real problem is that right now it's all about the Dems against themselves.

First Read.....you are "spinning" for Obama.
You fail to note that New York, Texas, and Califonia all went for Hillary.
Now, are you trying to tell us that if Obama loses Pennsylvania TOO, in addition to the three states above, that he is STILL a viable candidate?
You're kidding, right?
I mean, you're pulling our legs...right?
Oh please................................

Which is why it's so hurtful for these super delegates to let this drag on. decide and declare a winner already!

Well, the TRUTH comes out.  The Clintons "I won the BIG states and thats all the matters" garbage falls flat on it's face!  Imagine that.  This entire argument that that she has been trying to force down everyones throat is just more of the Clinton spin.  Everyone, especially the supers know this.  It is just Billary and her camp trying at all costs to win.  Too bad Billary.  This won't work either.  

Can't wait to see what their next claim to victory will be!

Obama has already won this thing!

I would say this is true...but you still need to look at...
Margins, Margins, Margins.

Between the democratic candidates...

the numbers of Repubs vs. Dems...overall turnout

The movement of margin between candidates in the last two or three general elections...

When you look at those and the mitigating factor of the movement from Republican to democratic this year in polls... and/or factors like Lieberman supporting McCain in CT or Katrina and how the candidate is looked at as far as helping..

You get a much better understanding of what the general election may look like in the fall...
and it doesn't look like the same map as 2000 or 2004.

Ooops! Governor Rendell promised Tim Russert on Sunday that he would deliver Pennsylvania for OBAMA if he were the nominee.  Check the tape!  The more memos the Clinton machine puts out, the goofier they seem.

Thank you for debunking the insanity of the Clinton argument.

Take a look at this!!

Winners of the Red and Blue States

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/03/12/us/0312-nat-webDEMS.jpg

More spin from Hillary and her campaign. We've had over 7 years of spin from Bush for this disasterous war in Iraq. Hillary is demonstrating that she would continue this. We're tired of it. We're smarter than she and Bush give us credit for.

So what do we learn from this work of art:  That democrats who lose Blue State primaries often win them in the fall and that democrats who win Red State Primaries often lose them in the fall.  My goodness somebody alert the Nobel Committee.

How about publishing things we don’t know like how Obama is going to win over blue collar democrats.

Lets just flip a coin, save all the money, and move on. All that really matters is cleaning up this deeply entreched hackorama that so so many of the politically established want to continue until we all live on the streets as thier slaves.

Leave it to the Clintons to try and make seems like the only states that matter are the ones they have won.

Do they really think that people are that stupid that they won't research some of the BS that is coming out of Hillary Clinton's mouth.

That woman will do just about anything to become President - As a woman I am embrassed - She has and still is doing nothing but bringing SHAME to my gender.

People vote their conscience these days, regardless of party affiliation.  I believe we are seeing that trend in these primaries and it will probably follow in the same vein in the general election.  The biggest issue among the DEM party is that Clinton is the party candidate and Obama is the candidate of the people.  Why?  Clinton is old school, corporate money backed - lobby groups in the pocket, vote the party always kind of candidate.  Obama is reaching out and asking those who never participated to get involved and make our government for the people, by the people - while holding our legislators accountable - I prefer the latter - Can't wait - Obama 08

All trends experience blips or declines, or stoppages altogether. I seem to recall during the last presidential election cycle in 2004 that some pundits were suggesting that a candidate wouldn't be able to be elected president unless they were first a governor of a state. Well, guess what? The very next election cycle, 2008, demonstrated that another trend has now been halted. There will be no former governor delivering the Inaugural Address in January 2009.

It is this same mentality that is one of the most likely reasons that Senator Clinton would not with the General Election...only certain states matter.

The Clinton Campaign appears intent on having her elected as the President of Just A Few States Of America...

New York
California
Texas
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Florida
Michigan
New Jersey
Massachusetts

No other states need apply...if you don't like me, oh, well, you don't matter.

I guarantee that that if you're banking on the Clinton reasoning and the strategy that goes along with it...that winning just the "big" states will win this election...you're going to lose.

If Hillary Clinton can’t win the African-American vote [in the United States], how will she win the general election?  She is so short-sighted.  She is alienating so many voters.

Clinton's Big State theory has a BIG HOLE. If she was really the favorite in those states, she'd be able to hold on to her 20-30% point leads. The fact that she can't, and that her narrow wins are consistent, shows that a majority of voters have buyer's remorse regarding HER. When given an educated choice, with TRUTHFUL FACTS, Obama wins her voters over--they reject her in staggering numbers.

A Democrat hasn't won a general election without winning Deleware of Connecticut since...FOREVER!

WOW, Hillary lost them both.  She should just drop out now, but only if she uses her own stupid logic!

Silly Hillie argues that Senator Obama will not be able to carry the states, the big ones that she's carried, (which does not include Texas).  That's a crock!  John McCain's support by November will be diminished by the common sense of Barack Obama's vision for the country and the good sense of Americans to not want more wars as he's promised.  

1 person = 1 vote.
In the age of easy access to information and representation by  all (being easier), the notion of primaries, caucus, winning states, electoral college is outdate.

If general election is on the basis of 1 person = 1 vote with no boundaries defined, why should it be for primaries.

This whole process needs to be revamped.

Now, on a separate note, the clintons are playing the race card through Ferraro to divide between whites and black - same politics as Bush. I am surprised Barack is not coming down harder on this than he has so far.

Only 6 more weeks to go!!!

Is it baseball season yet?

Breaking news:  pursuant to Phil Singer's executive order, the United States has been reduced from 50 states to 2 states:  Ohio and Pennsylvania.  New American flags with 2 stars instead of 50 are being distributed as we speak.  [note that while it was previously reported that those 2 states would consist of Ohio and TEXAS, now that Senator Obama has actually won Texas, the 2-state Union will now consist of Ohio and Pennsylvania].  Thank you.    

The biggest fallacy about this whole argument, aside from the fact that Obama polls better in most of these states vs. McCain than Hillary does, is that Hillary seems to think she can win the election w/o winning Minnesota, Wisconsin, Washington, Maryland or even DC.  She also fails to acknowledge that winning swing states such as Iowa, Missouri or Colorado might be important.  She also fails to acknowledge that Obama puts states like Georgia, S. Carolina, N. Carolina, Virginia and Mississippi in play.  Finally, she fails to acknowledge that Obama puts states such as Kansas, Nebraska, Idaho, N. and S. Dakota, Montana, and Alaska in play -- forcing McCain to spend money and/or time to defend these traditional Republican strongholds whereas she gets blown out by 30-40 pts in each.

Everything that leaves her mouth is spin.  You can't trust a word she says.

Did Hillary MONSTER Clinton ever think that it would not be divided if she was out of the picture, along with RACIST Geraldine Ferraro? Both are racially dividing the country.  SHAME ON BOTH OF THEM!

Let see if this gets posted:

STAND UP PROUD PEOPLE DO NOT VOTE FOR HRC IF SHE WINS THE NOMINATION BY CHEATING.


What HRC fail to understand is that if she wins by cheating that not will she not only lose the white house, it is that she will lose to a republican because no ONE Africa American will vote for her.

That said she needs to clean up her act and her campaign.

She can not win the white house without the votes of the African American Denocrats.

Let her think about that for a moment.

It is obsurd that she would even think that they would vote for her, as she plays dirty and she owes too many people, tryhing to sway them by stating that yiu may get both if you vote for her.LOL!!!

Yes she will dig up dirt on the superdelegates & blackmail them to get her way.

Let this simmer, as we all know the African Americans are tired fo being cheated out of every thing & everything that their forefathers have endored all of their lives for.

Let see what happens if this comes to past.

I say to hell with the Clintons it will be as if  GWB  had not left.



Go Obama '08

Why do they keep touting Michigan?  They will have an opponent in the fall unlike they did in the primary.  How do you say you won if the other side didn't play?

Another ignorant pathetic lie perpetrated by that miserable vomitous mass hillary monster "George Wallace" clinton.  To say that if someone can't win PA in the primary (that is a closed primary) then that person can't win the general election is an outright lie.  Since hillary monster "George Wallace" clinton is going to steal the nomination, I can't wait to vote for every Republican on the ballot in November.  Thank you hillary monster "George Wallace" clinton for making me realize how utterly worthless you and your miserable husband are.

Just another bag of wind from the Clinton campaign. She's really taking defeat hard, isn't she?

And none of this may matter at the end of the day if the Clinton campaign continues this game of russian roulette. They have demonstrated an appalling lack of judgement and mismanagement of their campaign foreshadows a White House that will be out of control and out of touch with reality.

Sen. Obama has demonstrated that he can win both red and blue states.  Furthermore, he is not approaching his campaign with a scorched earth policy that is designed to pit democrat against democrat.  He seeks to be President of the UNITED States of America and although he will never garner the support of every democrat or independent or republican, he has demonstrated that he has a far better chance of uniting the country than any other candidate.

Based on how both candidates have conducted their campaigns in the primary, I have decided to  take my chances with Sen. Obama's approach to change and his committment to governing on behalf of all Americans.

The thought that HRC would govern as she campaigns is pretty scary. And I see no evidence that she knows how to manage otherwise.

Obama is running a national campaign, in every state.

Clinton is running a selective state campaign...

Out with the old way of politics...let's leave the kitchen sink in the kitchen, and throw away divisiveness.

If the Democratic Party and especially the superdelegates are sincerely concerned about their success in November and thereafter, I suggest they now focus on giving the voters the best candidate for America; i.e., the one that represents real change not only from the Bush-Cheney era but also from politics as usual in Washington.  I think they need to concentrate on choosing the one, and there is a contrast with only one actually standing out, that offers honesty, integrity, sincere compassion for all Americans and the touch of humility that allows them to get the cooperation needed to get the job done.  I suspect that if they don't do it soon, the dirty politics that is going on now in the current Hillary- Barack competition will destroy the Democratic chances in November.  I know I for one, will look long and hard at John McCain if Hillary is the Democratic nominee and then if not voting for him, will abstain.

The question is how will Democrats do well in the states where Obama won Caucuses?  Caucuses do not allow the majority of voters to vote.  They do not represent the will of the people.  They are like the polls taken, only a few thousand people were able to attend the caucuses.  Obama got his momentum by taking causus states because of the former union organizer who ran the ground operations for the caucuses.  Look at the trouble with counting the Caucus in Texas.  That is in part due to the Clinton Campaign wising up and getting better organized for the causus there.  Caucuses disenfranchise too many voters.  They will play not part in winning in the fall and Obama will not win in the FALL.  Republicans will run back to their party.  They have admittedly crossed over to vote for Obama, because they did not want to run against Hillary Clinton.
JUST WAIT AND SEE. DON'T FORGET HOW BUSH WON THE ELECTION, TWICE.  KARL ROVE IS IN THE ROOM.          

MY VOTE GOES FOR HILLARY CLINTON BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT SHE IS THE BETTER QUALIFIED FOR PRESIDENT AT THIS TIME.

The question is how will Democrats do well in the states where Obama won Caucuses?  Caucuses do not allow the majority of voters to vote.  They do not represent the will of the people.  They are like the polls taken, only a few thousand people were able to attend the caucuses.  Obama got his momentum by taking causus states because of the former union organizer who ran the ground operations for the caucuses.  Look at the trouble with counting the Caucus in Texas.  That is in part due to the Clinton Campaign wising up and getting better organized for the causus there.  Caucuses disenfranchise too many voters.  They will play not part in winning in the fall and Obama will not win in the FALL.  Republicans will run back to their party.  They have admittedly crossed over to vote for Obama, because they did not want to run against Hillary Clinton.
JUST WAIT AND SEE. DON'T FORGET HOW BUSH WON THE ELECTION, TWICE.  KARL ROVE IS IN THE ROOM.          

MY VOTE GOES FOR HILLARY CLINTON BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT SHE IS THE BETTER QUALIFIED FOR PRESIDENT AT THIS TIME.

If Hillary doesn't win the nomination, how is she going to win the general election?

If Hillary doesn't win the nomination, how is she going to win the general election?

Imagine that another false arguement put forth by the Clinton Campaign ...... throw it out there and see if it sticks.

Just like the Clinton Experience arguement.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwLaCb07lAs

Keep it up Hil and you won't be able to win a general election either!  

Spin.  Spin and just Spin.  So the news is that PA is now the sole state to win and be nominated.  The other states do not exist.

What do we hear next?

Well thank you for your view of the truth...but I think you miss the point of the arguement.

Clinton argues that wins in red states are subject to scrutiny as inthe general election it is "winner take all".  The fact that Obama beats Clinton or Clinton beats Obama in a state like Wyoming doesn't at all speak to the possibility of the Democratic candidate winning the electoral votes in the general election.  That is no fallacy, it's a hard and cold fact.

Obama claims he has won twice as many states as Clinton.  In some way impressive but it has nothing to do with how those states will go in the general.

The point Clinton is trying to make is that she is the winner in electoral vote rich states and Obama is not.

Good article.

The thing that the Clinton campaign has done best is to set the agenda throught their spin.  After losing thirteen contests in a row, they redefined the definition of victory by suggesting that what really mattered were the delegate rich states of Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania.  Despite essentially breaking even in the delegate apportionment on March 4th, they nevertheless declared victory together with the symbolic confetti and balloons.  Even though they are now worse off in both pledged delegates and superdelegates than they were two weeks ago, they claim the momentum, and further claim that PA is all important notwithstanding the fact it is impossible for PA to bring them close in either pledged delegates or popular votes.

I give the Obama campaign credit for downplaying PA and emphasizing NC; not because they are equally playing the spin game but because it is accurate.  It is quite likely that on May 6 after PA, IND, and NC primaries are completed,  Obama's lead remains intact  -- except that much more water has passed over the dam.  If Obama can essentially maintain his lead in delegates and popular votes through May 6th, it is over -- if it is not already.

Your article essentially quells the argument that one campaign's voters and delegates are more important than the voters and delegates of the other campaign.  Voters are voters and delegates are delegates.  Whichever campaign ends up with the greatest totals of each will be the victor, and it is pure spin to claim anything to the contrary.

I've been waiting for someone to point this out. I'm a bit frustrated that the Obama camp doesn't have a short sound-byte discounting this (and other) ridiculous assertion(s) in every statement they make. That's not fighting dirty - its just common sense.

Thank you, you have taken the work out of any of us having to waste our time debunking this train of thought.

The Clinton mis-information machine is hard at work counting on the ignorance of the American voter and even superdelegates.

They are obviously desperate.  Even their most loyal superdelegate supporters are weary of their dirty tricks.  

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):