If HRC is the nominee, will we lose IL in the general election?

[Mooney]

I keep seeing people make the argument that if Obama is the nominee, then the Democrats will lose such reliably blue states as California, New York and Massachusetts in the general election, because he didn't carry them in the primary.

If this is true, then isn't it also true that Hillary Clinton will lose all the blue states that she lost in the primaries? Won't we lose the general election without carrying CT, DC, DE, IL, MN, VT and WI?

I'm just sayin'.

[stray cat]

1. But IL doesn't count nor does MS, WI, MN, GA or many others

However, did you hear Clinton won Ohio......

[Bread and Circus]

2. You are making too much sense for Hillaryland logic to apply and remember

in Hillaryland blacks only count for 3/5th's of a person.

[MonkeyFunk]

4. That's a pretty disgusting smear

But not unexpected.

[UALRBSofL]

16. It's a given FL and MI turn red because there vote didn't count

And Obama loses NY because that's Hillary's home state, he loses Mass since Hillary won it by double digits, and Hillary supporters wont vote for Obama. They are angry because Obama acuses Bill and Hillary of being racists every other day and the folks are angry about it.

[Mooney]

18. NY will vote for whoever the Democrat is

I live here. I promise you, NY will go blue no matter who the nominee is.

You seem to just be repeating the contention that Obama will lose any state in the general election that Hillary won. Do you feel like the reverse is true also? Do you think that Hillary will lose any state that Obama won? And why (or why not)? That's what I'm asking.

[boston bean]

10. That is the most despicable race baiting comment I have seen on DU.

[maddiejoan]

27. In Obamaland

Queers don't count at all.

[Bread and Circus]

37. For the three ignored above me. I obviously touched a nerve.

It's obvious to me that Hillary likes to discount certain states and emphasize others and in the same turn discounts certain voters and emphasizes the importance of others.

[NMMNG]

47. That's bullshit of course

But even if it were true, it's still better than the 1/4 person LGBT citizens count for in Obamaworld.


Go peddle your racist spew somewhere else.

[Kittycat]

3. I believe we'll lose Foster's newly claimed seat.

She will turn out the haters in droves. Being born and raised in Springfield, now living in Chicago. Despite HRC being raised up here - there isn't much love for her. At. All. I do think she'd retain that state though.

[MadBadger]

5. She may actually lose Wisconsin though.

[xmas74]

40. No, I don't think she would.

WI is my home state and where most of my family still lives. The southeast and Madison will go with the Dem candidate (par for the course). My family in the North (Rhinelander, Green Bay, along the UP border, etc) went with her in the primaries and have said that they'll stick it out with her if she gets the nom. Not only that but most of their neighbors seem to be saying the same. (But are not saying the same about Obama. There seems to be no love there.)

And for the record-my Northern family tends to be moderate Republicans, yet have said they'd cross party lines this time around if it's her.

[Blarch]

6. I live in IL.

and I will not vote fore her. I see 'stop Hillary' signs every other day. Fuck her.

[mckeown1128]

7. No she will win IL...

Just like Obama will win CA, NY, and MA.

[Mooney]

8. Not according to some people

The thinking seems to be that if HRC carries a state in the primary, then she will win it in the general election. But for some reason, the same does not apply to Obama.

I have yet to hear a compelling argument for this hypothesis.

[suston96]

9. Lose Wisconsin, Illinois? I don't think so....Like all 50 states.....

....they have been hard hit by recession, especially job losses. Also home foreclosures, and a little talked about second foreclosure: car repossessions.

It's the economics .........dummies......

[Mooney]

11. But the argument is that Obama will lose the states he lost in the primary

despite their being reliably blue. If that's the case, then I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be the case for Hillary as well.

[City Lights]

17. Exactly. Their spin needs to be spun right back at them. eom

[stray cat]

12. Sorry but lots of independents like McCain -

even quite a few democrats. Unlike yourself, I don't see 2008 as a guaranteed win for dems no - matter how big they screw up. I remember 2000 and 2004 - two other guaranteed wins (Although Gore won but lost the white house.)

[Mooney]

14. Apparently a lot of independents like Obama too

and he pulls in some Republicans as well.

2008 isn't a guaranteed win for Dems, I agree with you. But the argument that losing a state in the primary = losing a state in the general election holds very little water.

[thoughtcrime1984]

33. You probably won't believe me, but

I have heard over a dozen people say they would vote for Obama in the GE, but would take McCain over Hillary. I think most of these people are wishy-washy Independent types that don't really get into politics and don't understand what is going on, but they do vote. I'd be willing to bet there are many more that think that way here in Wisconsin, there are plenty of uneducated/ignorant types around.

[xmas74]

41. Thank you!

I have family throughout the state of WI, most are moderate Republicans. Each crossed party lines in the primaries to vote for her and have stated that they'll stay on the Dem side for the GE if she wins the nom.

If he wins the nom, OTOH, they'll go with McCain.

[IndianaGreen]

13. We will lose the fly-over country

and McCain will be the next President. Hillary won't care about McCain being President, as long as it isn't Obama who she feels should be in the back of the bus.

[terrya]

15. *sigh* NO

There is NO fucking way John McCain will win Illinois. The Republican Party here is in shambles. This is a DEMOCRATIC state.

[Mooney]

19. So are NY, CA, MA...

But the prevailing logic is that we'll lose those states with Obama as the nominee because he lost them in the primary.

Why would this be true for Obama but not for Hillary?

[davsand]

46. Yes, the IL GOP is a huge mess right now.

The GOP stalwarts that I know here downstate admit freely that the IL Republican party is in disarray. Given the strong Dem party in Cook County and the long history of Dem control up there, I can only imagine the level of despair the Cook County Republicans feel at this point.

I bristle at anyone telling me the IL Dems won't hold together for the nominee. We might feud and fuss, but we DO stand united behind our party. It is what you DO if you want to call yourself a Dem. I expect that NY and most other states probably feel the same way.

This sort of speculation hurts us all.


Laura

[Orangepeel]

20. I hope not. But I think so. With the campaign she's running, she won't beat McCain

I understand her campaign's point of view that if she doesn't win the nomination she won't even be in the general, but the campaign she is running is very short sighted.

She won't beat McCain on "experience" and "national security" so making it the central focus of her campaign won't do her any good. She'd either have to start over and create a different image for the general or hope that McCain's handlers drop the ball and he has a public meltdown.

[Mooney]

21. I agree. This election has to be about contrasts.

The candidate who will be successful against John McCain is the candidate who can most effectively draw the starkest contrast between themselves and McCain, not the candidate who's already letting him set the agenda of the contest. McCain will certainly try to make this election about national security, and if Hillary tries to compete on that field against McCain, on those terms, she's going to fucking lose. The idea that she can make any case for herself on national security, against McCain, is ludicrous.

I think that Obama would campaign against the agenda that McCain wants to set for the election, and that's what we need to do. If our campaign's message boils down to "me too," we're going to lose again.

[saltpoint]

22. Nope.

[lastknowngood]

23. So we lose a red state that we will lose anyway get a clue

n/t

[Mooney]

24. Which red state are you talking about? Illinois? n/t

[ColesCountyDem]

28. Illinois is a reliably blue state. n/t

[Lucinda]

25. I believe the real argument being made is who deserves the nom

since neither one can win outright. The case being made for Hillary, is that she is the one that has won almost all the states that we must win in the GE and is therefore the one who deserves the nomination.

[Mooney]

26. But if she's only won "almost" all the states

then doesn't that mean she'll lose the election?

Remember, the argument is that Obama will lose the GE because he won't win any state he lost in the primary. This must also extend to Hillary. And if that's the case, we can't win, because she lost Illinois.

The "big states" that Hillary won would vote Democratic if Charles Manson was the nominee. Whichever candidate is the nominee will win those states. The argument that she's the safer bet because she'll carry those states is fundamentally flawed, since either one of them will carry those states.

[Lucinda]

29. I'm just pointing out the argument that's being made.

And I totally disagree will all the DU'ers saying that one or the other candidate couldn't win against McCain. All the polling has been showing that Dems like BOTH our candidates. The only extreme POV's that I'm seeing are in the blogs.

[Mooney]

30. Well I certainly agree with you about that

Either candidate can crush McCain pretty easily. I've said it before and I'll say it again --- the palpable level of terror around here about our chances against him in GE is fucking ridiculous.

[Lucinda]

31. Yup. Some people are using any nugget they can find as a stick to beat up

the opposition.

GDP has become a political WWE. All wrestling, all the time. :)

They'd both have strengths and weaknesses going in the general.
And either one has the ability to overcome the problems in a unified party.

In my opinion the media is our opponent in the GE. McCain? Not so much.

[Mooney]

35. Sometimes I try to imagine Clinton or Obama in a debate with McCain

In either case, he'll come off looking like a corpse.

I don't know if you watched the GOP debates, but I'm a masochist and I did. The guy is not capable of generating an ounce of enthusiasm or of saying anything even remotely inspiring. Even Mitt Romney was able to connect with the audience once or twice.

[Lucinda]

36. I watched part of a couple of them. About all I could stomach.

I adminre your strength! :)

I was just talking to my fella about how faded McCain seems these days. And I don't mean that in an age related way. There just isn't any fire there. Even when he was arguing with the reporter on the plane the other day, it was flat, for lack of a better word.

I'm very curious to see who is picked as his running-mate.

[Mooney]

38. The Republican debates were laugh-out-loud funny

and great fodder for drinking games. If you took a shot every time they said "Ronald Reagan" or "9/11" you would have to go to the hospital for alcohol poisoning.

I know what you mean about McCain seeming "faded," and I don't see it as an age thing either. It's all the pandering he has to do. On some level he must feel like he's running eight years too late on a platform he doesn't believe in, in order to pander to the GOP base, who he clearly has no respect for --- and the feeling clearly is mutual. There's also the very painful truth that he basically got the nomination by default, not because anyone really likes him. That has to be pretty demoralizing.

[Lucinda]

39. LOL....maybe that's their Master Plan. To have all the Dem's

hospitalized from drinking games and unable to vote in the general. :rofl:
Might also explain why "My Friends" McCain got the nod.
That could cause an alcohol poisoning epidemic really fast. :)

Getting the nom in a year he's very unlikely to win is a weird sort of reward for being juniors footstool. It's finally his time to be in the spotlight, but all the cameras are being pointed at Hillary and Obama.

It really must be demoralizing.

[Mooney]

42. He also has the unenviable duty

of trying to beat the first ever female presidential candidate or the first person of color to be a candidate. I don't think he particularly gives a shit that he would be standing in the way of a historical event, but he must be aware that he has the least compelling narrative of the three of them. I'm not knocking his military service and I'm certainly not knocking his experiences as a POW, but compared to HRC or Obama, he would just be the next white male in a long line of 43 white males who have already come before him.

[Lucinda]

45. Exactly.

His own party is more excited by our candidates then they are their own. :)
It feels like a reward nomination in an election they know they won't really win. It doesn't mean that they won't do everything they can to smear our nominee though, they are all about politics as a "bloodsport" but I think we can handle it.

[cindyw]

32. Your not supposed to make sense to people looking for excuses.

:spank:

[Chasing Dreams]

34. If HRC is the nominee, we will lose.

Of course, the Military Industrial Complex, Big Oil, MSM, and the rest of the Power Elite would be happy with either McCain or McClinton. That is why they are seeking to destroy Obama.

[OzarkDem]

43. Sorry to break it to you, but IL isn't enough

[ButterflyBlood]

44. Good point

Then again anyone who thinks the Dems are in danger of losing New York or Massachusetts needs a serious reality check.