Clinton Leads in Electoral Votes - Page 2

the makeout hobo · 03-10-08, 11:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex

See post #6. You are probably right that Survey USA gives the electoral votes to someone who is a few hundredths of a point ahead.

Ah, sorry, understood.

I think one important trend the maps shows is that Clinton does marginally better in areas where the Democrats have steadily been losing ground, while Obama does better in areas where they're gaining ground. They both also do better than McCain even without leaners. Not to mention, almost all of the close senate races this year are in areas where Obama does better. Think about the coat tails!

independent_thinker2002 · 03-10-08, 11:21 PM

Democracy is a one vote majority.

Alex · 03-10-08, 11:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by independent_thinker2002

Democracy is a one vote majority.

Not in polls it isn't. lol

independent_thinker2002 · 03-10-08, 11:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex

Not in polls it isn't. lol

Spoken like a Clinton.

Alex · 03-11-08, 12:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by independent_thinker2002

Spoken like a Clinton.

I think you missunderstood me. I meant that when polls are only a few hundredths of a point difference, the one vote (as you put it) that put the leading candidate ahead is not relevant to the general election. It is not a good indicator of who will win. That is why the super-delegates will not consider those states in their decision.

Alex · 03-11-08, 12:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the makeout hobo

Ah, sorry, understood.

I think one important trend the maps shows is that Clinton does marginally better in areas where the Democrats have steadily been losing ground, while Obama does better in areas where they're gaining ground. They both also do better than McCain even without leaners. Not to mention, almost all of the close senate races this year are in areas where Obama does better. Think about the coat tails!

This is a compelling argument. I do not like the general principles that Obama or Clinton seem to stand for, but at the same time I do not want another Republican putting a so-called "constructionist" on the Supreme Court bench. They seem to ignore the Equal-Protection Clause that I feel is very important in this country. Can you see the dilemma I am in? I feel like I am damn if I do, damned if I don't.

If Obama brings in more Senators because he is popular where they have Senate elections, then I may have to give him a second look. I will have to look up the exact states and see if this is worth it. I have a lot to consider before November.

the makeout hobo · 03-11-08, 01:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex

This is a compelling argument. I do not like the general principles that Obama or Clinton seem to stand for, but at the same time I do not want another Republican putting a so-called "constructionist" on the Supreme Court bench. They seem to ignore the Equal-Protection Clause that I feel is very important in this country. Can you see the dilemma I am in? I feel like I am damn if I do, damned if I don't.

If Obama brings in more Senators because he is popular where they have Senate elections, then I may have to give him a second look. I will have to look up the exact states and see if this is worth it. I have a lot to consider before November.

States with close Senate Races:

New Hampshire: Obama wins, Clinton loses
Virginia- Obama wins, Clinton loses
New Mexico- Both Win
Minnesota- Both Win
Colorado- Obama Wins, Clinton Loses
Oregon- Obama Wins, Clinton loses
Maine- both win
Alaska- both win, but Obama does much better

I know there's other contested seats, but you get the idea.

independent_thinker2002 · 03-11-08, 01:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex

I think you missunderstood me. I meant that when polls are only a few hundredths of a point difference, the one vote (as you put it) that put the leading candidate ahead is not relevant to the general election. It is not a good indicator of who will win. That is why the super-delegates will not consider those states in their decision.

If the superdelegates overrule the will of the people the dems will lose for sure. McCain will gain so much ammunition from that that the other scandals Hillary had will pale in comparison. The media won't let that go either. Neither will the comedy shows. And neither will Obama supporters.

Alex · 03-11-08, 01:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by independent_thinker2002

If the superdelegates overrule the will of the people the dems will lose for sure. McCain will gain so much ammunition from that that the other scandals Hillary had will pale in comparison. The media won't let that go either. Neither will the comedy shows. And neither will Obama supporters.

The same can go the other way if Clinton loses. Her supporters will be just as upset. When a primary is this close, a significant group of voters is going to lose out no matter who wins.

independent_thinker2002 · 03-11-08, 02:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex

The same can go the other way if Clinton loses. Her supporters will be just as upset. When a primary is this close, a significant group of voters is going to lose out no matter who wins.

You cannot compare the two. Obama will have the most delegates. He will have the most votes. They won't be able to claim that he stole the election. He will win the democratic way.