04-29-2008, 12:17 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-Shambhu+Apr 26 2008, 11:54 AM-->QUOTE(Shambhu @ Apr 26 2008, 11:54 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/...clinton_an.html
Lead in popular vote gives HC the edge
[right][snapback]80933[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Some points from this article needs to be highlighted since we don't hear about in the media that's already made up it's mind.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Her 214,000-vote margin in the Keystone State means that <b>she has won the votes, in primaries and caucuses, of 15,112,000 Americans, compared to 14,993,000 for Obama. </b>
If you add in the votes, as estimated by the folks at realclearpolitics.com, in the Iowa, Nevada, Washington and Maine caucuses, where state Democratic parties did not count the number of caucus-attenders, <b>Clinton still has a lead of 12,000 votes.</b>
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Yet Clinton's popular vote lead is one piece of evidence that suggests that Obama will be a weak general election candidate</b><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->SurveyUSA's 50-state polls released in March showed that electoral votes would go to different parties in 15 states depending on whether McCain was pitted against Clinton or Obama. And it is electoral votes that determine who will be president.
There are states where Obama runs stronger than Clinton. They include most of the West -- notably Colorado, a state Democrats lost in 2000 and 2004 but which has trended their way since. They include states in the Upper Midwest, like Minnesota, and New England states like Connecticut and New Hampshire, which Democrats won in 2004 but where Clinton seems weak.
But Clinton seems to run stronger than Obama in the industrial (or formerly industrial) belt, running west from New Jersey through Pennsylvania and Ohio to Michigan and Missouri. Obama's weakness among white working-class voters in the primaries here suggests he is poorly positioned to win votes he will need to carry these states in November. This is not a minor problem -- we're talking about 84 electoral votes.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Hillary Clinton's current and tenuous popular vote lead may not persuade Democratic super-delegates to reject the candidate who has, after all, won more delegates in primaries and caucuses. <b>But it may prompt some to think hard about Electoral College arithmetic. </b>
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Lead in popular vote gives HC the edge
[right][snapback]80933[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Some points from this article needs to be highlighted since we don't hear about in the media that's already made up it's mind.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Her 214,000-vote margin in the Keystone State means that <b>she has won the votes, in primaries and caucuses, of 15,112,000 Americans, compared to 14,993,000 for Obama. </b>
If you add in the votes, as estimated by the folks at realclearpolitics.com, in the Iowa, Nevada, Washington and Maine caucuses, where state Democratic parties did not count the number of caucus-attenders, <b>Clinton still has a lead of 12,000 votes.</b>
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Yet Clinton's popular vote lead is one piece of evidence that suggests that Obama will be a weak general election candidate</b><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->SurveyUSA's 50-state polls released in March showed that electoral votes would go to different parties in 15 states depending on whether McCain was pitted against Clinton or Obama. And it is electoral votes that determine who will be president.
There are states where Obama runs stronger than Clinton. They include most of the West -- notably Colorado, a state Democrats lost in 2000 and 2004 but which has trended their way since. They include states in the Upper Midwest, like Minnesota, and New England states like Connecticut and New Hampshire, which Democrats won in 2004 but where Clinton seems weak.
But Clinton seems to run stronger than Obama in the industrial (or formerly industrial) belt, running west from New Jersey through Pennsylvania and Ohio to Michigan and Missouri. Obama's weakness among white working-class voters in the primaries here suggests he is poorly positioned to win votes he will need to carry these states in November. This is not a minor problem -- we're talking about 84 electoral votes.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Hillary Clinton's current and tenuous popular vote lead may not persuade Democratic super-delegates to reject the candidate who has, after all, won more delegates in primaries and caucuses. <b>But it may prompt some to think hard about Electoral College arithmetic. </b>
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->