Quote:
Originally Posted by Tempest
You're joking right? I guess you only make statements that suit your argument at the time.. Ealier in this very thread you indicated that the results of a purely Democratic election can't be used to judge what would happen in the real election and yet here you use them as "proof" Obama can win the real election.
|
I don't recall making that argument.....but if you're talking about victory in a certain state in the primaries equaling victory in that state in the general then yeah....that argument makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
Reason being, someone had to win the republican primary in that same state also....so come November somebody who won a primary in a state is going to lose the general in that state....and the idea that Obama would lose in California or New York...or the argument that Hillary would beat McCain in Texas is ridiculous.
My point is simply that if Obama is so "unelectable" and Hillary is a better candidate, then why hasn't she been able to get more votes than him? Especially considering all of the advantages she started with.
You can love Hillary all you want and that's fine, I don't fault you for that, but the fact is that Obama got more votes and more pledged delegates and EVEN IF you counted the FL results, and gave Hillary all of the votes she got in MI (without giving Obama any votes for MI) then he would still beat her both in the popular vote and the pledged delegates.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...ote_count.html
The reason FL and MI don't really matter at this point is that the results the first time around were Hillary's best case scenario, and even if you counted those results, all it does is make the race closer, it DOES NOT PUT HER AHEAD in either the popular vote or the delegates. (and a do-over in MI would certainly widen the popular vote total in Obama's favor)
So again, unless she wins the last 10 remaining contests by margins of 60-40 or better, the nomination is going to be his.