I think sequins would be a good look for Hillary.
Broadway Legend Joined: 11/2/05
If we're going to keep it current, let's keep it current.
And keep current with this one, too:
===
According to electoral-vote.com, if the election were held today between Clinton and McCain or Obama and McCain, this is what we would see:
Clinton 289
McCain 239
Result: President Hillary Clinton
Obama 260
McCain 254
Result: Inconclusive, and rather troubling.
Electoral Votes: Clinton 289 McCain 239
She still beats McCain in the electoral college. Obama does not.
"Clinton 289
McCain 239
Result: President Hillary Clinton
Obama 260
McCain 254
Result: Inconclusive, and rather troubling."
What's troubling is that you actually rely on
"http://www.electoral-vote.com" for your information. I'm certainly the last one to trust polling but these places are pathetic PJ. What even more pathetic is that outlets like ABC and WNYC quote that SurveyUSA poll you had up last week. Are you kidding me man?
What's wrong with electoral-vote.com? It was fine and dandy 4 years ago. All of a sudden, we don't like it because it concludes that Obama isn't currently winning?
Darling, the electoral college is (unfortunately) what will matter in November. If one is looking at electability, that's where you look.
Tomorrow night's going to be very exciting!
AP: Undecided superdelegates don't feel bound by primaries
Darling?
"What's wrong with electoral-vote.com? It was fine and dandy 4 years ago."
I'm questioning it's sources. Clearly I understand the electoral vote.
" All of a sudden, we don't like it because it concludes that Obama isn't currently winning? "
Whether or not that is case is irrelevant. I'm not the one on this board that posting "pro-Hillary" polls non-stop on here. If Hillary has been relying on these polls to run her campaign maybe that is why she is LOSING. You know she dropped 15 points from her 20 point lead in Pennsylvania over Barack. That is pathetic.
Michael Moore just ripped her a new one, it actually made me laugh out loud.
"Finally, I want to say a word about the basic decency I have seen in Mr. Obama. Mrs. Clinton continues to throw the Rev. Wright up in his face as part of her mission to keep stoking the fears of White America. Every time she does this I shout at the TV, "Say it, Obama! Say that when she and her husband were having marital difficulties regarding Monica Lewinsky, who did she and Bill bring to the White House for 'spiritual counseling?' THE REVEREND JEREMIAH WRIGHT!
But no, Obama won't throw that at her. It wouldn't be right. It wouldn't be decent. She's been through enough hurt. And so he remains silent and takes the mud she throws in his face.
That's why the crowds who come to see him are so large. That's why he'll take us down a more decent path. That's why I would vote for him if Michigan were allowed to have an election. "
MM Rant!
Applying electoral college logic to a primary is faulty logic. It has never been a predictor of General election results in the past. So why should it be now? The people who vote in the primary are not the same people who vote in the general. The candidates running in the primary are not running against the same people in the General.
http://tinyurl.com/2qexjq
http://tinyurl.com/2wfrnc
Ultimately, it is the job of the supers to vote for the candidate they think will win in the General Election. Why shouldn't tehy take the Electoral College into their decision.
It's all about beating John McCain.
"Why shouldn't they take the Electoral College into their decision."
Well for starters they would be turning over the popular vote and the delegate win. Not going to happen.
Correct me if I'm wrong but most of the states Clinton has "won" she has only won by small margins. She is exactly leading some major race here. Obama has lambasted her campaign. In Pennsylvania she is all but decimated. She should be coasting today, but she's out begging AND her campaign is broke AGAIN.
She is dunzo.
Updated On: 4/21/08 at 03:42 PM
"Why shouldn't tehy take the Electoral College into their decision."
Because primary results are not an indicator of electoral college results. You cannot extrapolate one from the other. Look at all of the presidential elections in our history and you will see that winning a state in the primary, seldom indicates who won it in the general. Meaningless comparison. And thus meaningless information on which to base electability or which candidate has a better chance of winning any particular state in the general election. History doesn't lie.
There IS no popular vote count. Howard Dean screwed that up royally.
If you count the popular vote WITH Michigan and Florida, Hillary wins.
And you might as well stop using the phrase "delegate win."
There. Is. No. Such. Thing.
Short of either of them getting 2,024 delegates--or 2,208 counting Florida and Michigan!--NEITHER OF THEM WINS THE DELEGATE COUNT.
Can you understand that simple point?
Or is math something you're good at only when it supports your candidate?
PJ - Put down the Kool-aid. We have been over and over why Florida and MI do not count.
I think it is beyond pathetic that the only way Clinton can claim a win is by using two states that did not have fair primaries.
Sure they should be counted but you KNOW what went down there. It's just not fair and and Hillary playing with her made-up rules is so sad. Look at her lose ground Pennsylvania! Pennsylvania!! And you say she would have taken Florida and Michigan, by what margins????
"Can you understand that simple point?"
Do you understand she can't win now?
"Or is math something you're good at only when it supports your candidate?"
Look who is talking!
Yeah look. Obama supporters have been erroneously claiming the "math" is on their side for months.
but electoral vote.com is basing its results on polling--not primary results.
All your ranting, me, just won't matter if the superdelegates decide that Hillary is better against McCain and/or better for the country.
I think a debate over the popular vote is fair but I laugh at your obsessing over the delegate count. They both can't meet the finish line and in 2000, the popular vote was what was important. but you can keep flip flopping for what suits obama all you like.
Do you understand she can't win now?
Oh, I think she can. I think she will.
"but electoral vote.com is basing its results on polling--not primary results."
Sorry, Jerby. The link in Mejust's post doesn't work. So I wasn't aware of that. But now that I am, and having looked up the site myself, I am just as unconvinced. Their main pollster is SurveyUSA! They're are the pollster with the worst reputation of all pollsters. That's not just my opinion; it's the mainstream perception of them. They always differ by 10 points or more form all the other pollsters, and always in Hillary's favor.
if that's the case and is as you describe it, then I fully understand your doubts.
What I care about is that the person who will beat McCain is the nominee. If both can, then I hope its the nominee who has won the primary popular vote. If that's Obama, so be it.
There will never be an agreed-upon primary popular vote.
Does it included Florida and Michigan, which favor Clinton?
How can it count the caucus states, which favor Obama but never counted a "popular" vote.
The popular vote would have to exclude all these states--or include Florida and Michigan but not the caucus states.
Who would ever agree to any of that?
There IS no popular vote.
art, that's a lie. you can look at all of susa's polls at their site and compare them with pretty much every other pollster and they - over time - have come out ahead much more often than not. their last poll puts bammy ahead by only 6 in pa.
they might have the worst reputation on air america or daily kos or with olberman, but among the rest of world their reputation remains intact.
susa
well lookie here...
down 1
Videos