Even if Obama wins Iowa and NH, Hillary will win nomination

[antiimperialist]

The effect of Iowa and NH polls in the electorate's minds is overrated.
John McCain won New Hampshire but this did not keep Bush from taking care of him everywhere else in the primaries of 2004.
Hil has wide leads in Florida, California, Texas and almost every heavily-populated people, in addition to many smaller states.
To Obama supporters I say, pay no mind if he's ahead in Iowa, because this is Clinton's election. She will be nominated and will go on to defeat her Republican opponent.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

1. That Is The More Likely Than Not Scenario But It Is Not Certain

The race will be decided on February 5th...

[bigdarryl]

2. said who

[Grandrose]

12. LOL!

:rofl: :thumbsup:

[antiimperialist]

17. Disagrees who?

Who are you?

[Colobo]

30. Obama will win Iowa, NH, SC and the nomination on Feb 5

and you will have to accept defeat and join us to beat the Republicans. :)

[creeksneakers2]

47. Now we are being told Obama's inevitable

and ordered to march in lockstep and never criticize and blah, blah, blah. We're victims!

[Colobo]

58. No, the OP is making the case of Hillary's inevitability.

And we have to fight it.

[Kucinich4America]

79. I'm down with fighting Hillary's inevitability

But Obama's inevitability is not a viable alternative.

Granted, I could vote for Obama in the general, where I will NOT vote for Hillary, but that isn't the issue.

The issue is, front loaded primaries are good for the corporate interests, and BAD for America.

I don't want a nominee declared until August 28, 2008. Even if it is (God Forbid) Hillary, at that point, they could at least manufacture an argument that she earned the nomination, rather than bought it.

[Tellurian]

67. The more people get to know Obama, the less they like him, because..

he represents nothing.... but false HOPE!

[Rock_Garden]

3. K&R, antiim.

[Stop Cornyn]

4. Good luck with that tattered "inevitability" meme!

[rocktivity]

5. Even if Obama and Edwards only stay close to Hillary in IA and NH

the overall effect will be that Hillary is indeed mortal--and don't think the "heavily populated areas" won't notice. I'm not saying that Hillary won't win--I'm saying that she won't win a walk. Despite the well-orchestrated attempt by her campaign, the MSM, and even the GOP to convince us otherwise, this IS anyone's race.

:headbang:
rocknation

[bigdarryl]

6. wishful thinking she has a 45% negative rating no one has ever won the White House with that high ..

unfavorable rating

[antiimperialist]

8. Then why is she leading in the polls?

Explain to me how her negative rating now is not keeping her from being ahead of all other Republicans in hypothetical matchups?

[bigdarryl]

36. because it's a democratic party nomination and not a national election

[DemocratSinceBirth]

46. But She Has Higher Positive Ratings Amongs Dems Than Obama Or Edwards

Clinton is viewed favorably by 75% of Democrats nationwide, Obama by 67%, and Edwards by 58%


http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

[BenDavid]

14. Have any of you that has bought into the spin that HRC's

high unfavorable ratings will stop her from winning the presidency and you do realize these polls also have republicans and right leaning independents in there as well and we all know they would not vote for HRC, but would say they do not like her.Personally, I do not believe HRC has that high of un-favorables.

Ben David

[DemocratSinceBirth]

16. Rovian Spin

PRINCETON, NJ -- White House adviser Karl Rove -- who announced he would be leaving his post at the end of August -- has during the last week made a number of statements about New York Senator Hillary Clinton's image and electability, in some instances invoking specific mentions of Gallup polls. The thrust of Rove's assertions is that Clinton's "unfavorable" ratings are at record levels for a presidential candidate, and that as a result she is "fatally flawed" in her quest to be elected in November 2008.



A review of Gallup poll data suggests that Hillary Clinton's current high unfavorable ratings are not unprecedented. Other candidates have had similarly high unfavorable ratings at various points in presidential election campaigns in previous years. Two of these candidates -- George W. Bush in 2004 and Bill Clinton in 1992 -- went on to win the election.

Additionally, Rove's assumptions that Hillary Clinton's candidacy is "fatally flawed" run counter to the historical finding that candidates' images often change, sometimes dramatically, as the campaign progresses. In other words, Clinton's ultimate electability will likely be determined more by what happens in the next 15 months while she campaigns than by what Americans think of her now. It is clear that Americans have been willing to revise their opinions of Clinton over time in response to current events, just as they have of other presidential candidates historically.

Typically, a winning presidential candidate's favorable rating is only slightly more positive than negative on the eve of the election. Clinton would only need to boost her positives a few points to achieve that position.


http://www.gallup.com/poll/28477/Gallup-Poll-Review-Karl-Roves-Assertions-About-Hillary-Clinton.aspx

[cuke]

21. Obama supporters like to repeat rightwing memes

[creeksneakers2]

48. Rasmussen just scored Edwards with a 49% negative rating n/t

[TeamJordan23]

7. What are you doing on DU? You should be a political consultant. nm

[1monster]

9. She may lead in Florida, but that doesn't count. Have you forgotten that

Florida's delegates will have little to no say in the nomination due to the ridiculous DNC rules and the fatuous rebellion of the Florida Dem party?

(Although I have heard that the same piece of legislation that resulted in we Floridians being stripped of having our votes mean anything, also brought about a paper trail for our voting machines -- can anyone confirm that?)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

11. It Doesn't Matter If FL's Delegates Are Seated Or Not...Up Until Super Tuesday It's All About

Percption...

Winning the fourth most populous state in the Union's primary is important...

[JackORoses]

76. not when everybody knows it doesn't count

In fact, it will probably make Hillary look bad for being the only one desperate enough to remain on the ballot.

[Bitwit1234]

10. I just can't believe that any serious person could think Obama

would ever get the nomination. I just cant'. Any truthfully now that Oprah has taken up the cause, there were be more and more against him. There are scads and scads of people in this country who hate Oprah more than Hillary. Why I don't know but they do. Is it a successful woman thing.

[creeksneakers2]

49. Oprah is 61positive/ 11negative

http://www.pollingreport.com/S-Z.htm#ThompsonFred

And 11% of Americans say they've never heard of Oprah.

[gmudem]

61. A bit melodramatic no?

Take a chill pill. And maybe try using some facts to base your theory on.

[Double T]

13. There is still plenty of time for voters to discover what HRC's agenda really is...........

and how she is MUCH MORE of the same thing that is destroying the economy of our nation.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

18. Yeah

It's a good thing for the 22nd Amendment or else Bill Clinton would have driven the American economy to bankruptcy...

[paulk]

32. actually, what happens is that people hear your sort of nonsense

reject it for the garbage it is

look back at the Bill Clinton presidency


and vote for Hillary.

[MadHound]

38. Yes, look back at NAFTA, welfare "reform", repeal of Glas-Steagal, the '96 Telecom Act,

the emergence of the working poor as a serious demographic, the gap between the rich and the rest of us widening to a record breaking chasm, oh yeah, those were the days. The days when the few got richer and the rest of us treaded water at best. Clinton's tenure, in many ways, set us up for this economic mess. His pro-corporate stance set the groundwork for the ravagement brought in by Bushco. Sorry, the Clinton years may look better than Bush's, but hell, even Nixon looks better than Bushboy. That still doesn't disguise the fact that Clinton was a pro-corporate president who enacted pro-corporate legislation to the overall long term detriment of our economy and society.

[paulk]

42. oh yes, it's another from that same group of out of touch leftists

that were whining about Clinton all through the nineties. The same ones who went out and voted for Nader, helping to put GW Bush in office. The same group that's still pissing and moaning about the horrors of Clinton's presidency now.

LOL


Sorry, I can't take the shit you post seriously at all.

[MadHound]

53. LOL, you say that I'm out of touch?

Do you or do you deny that Clinton backed and supported these very issues? Sorry that history is such a downer for you, damaging the image of your precious idol. But I'd rather deal with a reality based world than live in some sort of fantasy.

Oh, and for your information I voted and worked for Gore in 2000. Unlike yourself I don't demonize Nader for pursuing his Constitutionally guaranteed rights. Nader had little effect on the election, rather the larger deciding factors lie with how Gore ran his campaign, oh, and that Supreme Court decision. But hey, we've gone around about this before and you didn't want to live in a reality based world then, and I doubt from your comment above that you want to live in one now.

But hey, whatever keeps you from having to question your own beliefs, eh?

[paulk]

59. whatever

:nopity:

[MadHound]

66. Ah yes, the posting of last resort

When confronted with facts and figures, you go to sarcasm and smilies, knowing that facts can't help your sorry ass on this one. Typical.

[paulk]

69. your "facts" are figments

and beyond that not worth the waste of time in arguing over.

[MadHound]

73. Oh, so you are saying that Clinton didn't support and sign those measures that I mentioned above?

Wow, you do live in a world that isn't connected with reality. Must suck for you:shrug:

Get back to me when you're back here with the rest of us in the reality based world.

[paulk]

75. the idea that the Clinton economy was some kind of trigger

for the Bush economy is mind numbing. It's beyond stupid.

But, if that's your reality, go for it. You can talk that line to your heart's content.

I'm sure you'll win a lot of folks over.

[MadHound]

77. A bit of reading for you

Start out with Kevin Phillips Wealth and Democracy and American Theocracy. Then go on to Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States. Oh, and read up on Clinton's repeal of parts of the Glas Steagal act, there are some very scholarly articles on how removing these supports led to various ills of today, including the housing bubble, and please don't forget how the social safety net was shredded via welfare "reform"

Then we can get into a discussion about how the gap between the rich and the rest of us expanded to a record breaking chasm under Clinton, and how with NAFTA and other such policies, Clinton helped shift us off a manufacturing based economy to a financial based economy, always a sure sign of decline of an empire.

Did I say that Clinton caused these ills all on his own? No, but he certainly contributed more than his fair share, and the actions that he took during his administration certainly set the stage for the corporate rape and pillage that we see going on today.

You wish to see the world in terms of black and white, much like the neo cons, except coming from a more liberal POV. That is as bad as the neo cons, because such black and white thinking that you exhibit is as counter productive as any other sort of black and white thinking. I really would suggest that you inform yourself, and rather than engaging in black and white thinking, you need to learn how to think in shades of grey. The world is a large complicated place, and simplistic thinking along the lines of yours doesn't help sort it out.

Or not, and continue to remain part of the problem rather than part of the solution.

[paulk]

80. why is it that people like you

ALWAYS resort to insulting the intelligence of people who disagree with them?

You don't know jack all about me -

What I've read, how informed I am, what I've done, what I've seen of the world...


----------------------


I guess it's just a defining characteristic of the extremist.

[rAVES]

63. Its the DLC and their ilk who are to blame for the defection to Nader.

You simply cannot expect progressives or the left to toe the line of a party that fucks them over the day after an election.

[paulk]

68. blah, blah, blah

go vote for Nader then.

[Adelante]

15. If Edwards wins in Iowa, she's good to go

She can even come in third and be just okay, since Edwards only has the money to go so far. If Clinton loses to Obama, if he comes in first, she's weakened going into New Hampshire. I don't see any way around that as a negative for her. I think he also has a good chance in South Carolina now. She wins Nevada as of today. After that, she's holding the cards, but she's got to keep them in hand the whole time through Feb 5. A lot can happen in two months. She's still in the cat bird seat, but she has to pull it out, and that remains to be seen.

[Quixote1818]

25. Not necessarily. Everything is pushed together so closely now a candidate can

ride the wave of free press saying "He/she is a WINNER!!!". You can't buy that kind of positive advertising. In the past that had time to wear off but now days if someone wins Iowa and NH they may be able to ride the wave of free press all the way to the nomination. Things are not the same as they were back in 2000, or 92.

[Adelante]

34. You're right

I forgot to put that in there. I see Biden as a reasonable possibility for slipping in that way.

[creeksneakers2]

51. That could be

Winning a couple in a row might put Obama right in the sights.

[Quixote1818]

19. Very doubtful

In 04 Kerry and Edwards were way behind Dean across the country but when Kerry won Iowa and NH he then pulled ahead in every state. The winner gets too much free press saying he/she is a WINNER!!!! In the past Hillary might have had time to recover from this wave but everything is pushed together so close now.

[antiimperialist]

33. Yes but now state elections are earlier, thus giving the winner less favorable press coverage

feel me?

[Zueda]

20. You may not of seen some of the latest SC polls. nt

[Quixote1818]

22. Good point. nt

[antiimperialist]

29. You may not have seen some of the latest pennsylvania polls then

and PA has more electors.

[bunnies]

23. Hey while you're at it...

I could really use this weeks lottery numbers!

[antiimperialist]

27. Lottery is very different to elections

There are clues that tell you who will win an election, such as polls and other developments.
The probability of Hillary Clinton winning the election is much easier to guess than a combination of lotto numbers.

You made a false analogy.

[bunnies]

41. Polls?

Surely you can't me serious.

You didnt make the statement as a theory, you made it as fact. Fact is though... there is no way you could be certain about how the election will turn out. Regardless of who wins the first two states.

[antiimperialist]

54. No. It was an opinion and you know it

It would be unpractical to start any post with "in my opinion", or "it is my theory", because any human with at least half a functioning brain would know that this was my opinion. Now get to analyzing and quit attempting to read my mind.
Notice how the member "cali" called it what it was: a prediction, in post #50.

[bunnies]

70. Indeed. cali did call correctly what it is.

"nonsense".

[Stop Cornyn]

24. Only a Diebold executive'd say "even if some else wins the primary, Hillary will win the nomination"

[elizm]

26. And if any others begin to drop out of the race....

How much of that support do you think will go to Hillary??? Better not be counting your chickens so fast.

[Colobo]

28. Wow, The Audacity of Inevitability.

[cuke]

31. You're the expert

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3605289#3606666

[sniffa]

35. i don't know why she's bothering to campaign

she should be picking out the White House decor.

[Perry Logan]

37. Why do the Obama people, the Edwards people, & the Whatsisname people torture themselves like this?

[TeamJordan23]

39. HRC had wide leads in NH and SC just a month ago also? (also, FL doesn't count). nm

[antiimperialist]

40. Don't you consider 12% lead in NH a wide lead?

The only recent poll in which she has a short lead is WAPO.

[TeamJordan23]

71. Sorry, the question mark at the end of my statement was not intended. nm

[Laurab]

43. There are all sorts of places online hiring psychics

maybe you should apply.

Me, I think I'll still vote for the person I prefer - I just have this tiny little feeling you might be proven wrong.

[MadBadger]

44. If Obama wins both, expect him to win South Carolina as well.

[Renew Deal]

45. whatever makes you feel good.

What comes before CA and TX and after NH and IA?

[cali]

50. nonsense. no one can make that prediction with any authority.

How deep is her support? We know it's wide, but we don't know how committed it is. Obama could win it. so could Edwards, and possibly even Biden. I personally have a hunch, Obama's going to get it, but really there's no way of knowing.

[harmonicon]

52. ooh!! tell me what I'm getting for Christmas!

If you can see into the future, what great (or horrible) things are going to happen to this country and it's people? Did you not vote in the last election because you knew who would win already? The people will have their say when the votes are actually cast. These bully tactics are anti-democratic, in my opinion.

[Azathoth]

55. Two words: John Kerry n/t

[Nailzberg]

56. And then to Washington DC to take back the White House! Yeaararh!!!

[zulchzulu]

57. So now the arrogant Hillary supporters are giving up on Iowa and New Hampshire

Maybe now, the Frontrunner will morph into the Underdog...

:rofl:

[Bullet1987]

60. If you seriously think Clinton can afford to lose both Iowa and NH

back to back (then likely SC after that) and still get the nomination, then you're willfully playing yourself. She won't be able to recover from that kind of hole and the MSM will pretty much have already crowned Obama the winner and will be talking about who he'll chose as his running mate. The only way Clinton has a shot is if she wins one of the first two primaries in either Iowa (which is looking less and less likely) or New Hampshire. If she loses both, she's done...count on it.

[proudmoddemo]

62. She could finish third or even fourth in Iowa

And if she does, then she isn't going to win the nomination. Who the nominee will be is still an open question if that happens.

[Beacool]

64. Of course she can win if she loses big in Iowa!!!!

Too many people are drinking the Obama Kool-Aid if you think that Obama winning in Iowa and even NH could have an effect in the bigger states. Since when has the NE, CA, TX and FL given a hoot who they vote for in Iowa??? There's a long list of nominees and even presidents who didn't win in Iowa. The supposed psychological impact of a loss in Iowa is pure bologna!

[Radical Activist]

65. "The effect of Iowa and NH polls in the electorate's minds" is all that matters.

It matters whether you think it should or not. Once Hillary finishes 3rd in Iowa and South Carolina she'll be knocked of her thrown as the invincible front runner. It will all be downhill from there. What the polls say today in Texas and Florida won't mean a thing because it will all change after she loses Iowa and South Carolina.

[Imagevision]

72. No-one has posted the averages of Hillary's numbers falling over the last month?

At this stage it would seem the reason she never pushed on allowing paper receipts with voting machines.

[Cha]

74. You should really

take an evacuation before you post.

[IndianaGreen]

78. Must really stick in your craw that the public ain't buying Hillary's inevitability horseshit.

I realize many among the Clintonista hordes were already preparing their resumes for cushy jobs in DC, and were salivating at their portfolios prospects as a President Hillary replaced Halliburton and others with corporations they favoured.

Too bad you didn't count on the American people refusing to fall for another corrupt dynastic line.