On the one hand, Barack is now unelectable in the general election (save this post). He's Nancy Kerrigan, swatted with a pipe across the shins.

On the other hand, Hillary's argument is electability. She must take this argument to the absurdly powerful super-delegates. Look at the polls in Pennsylvania, in Ohio, in Florida, she might say. Obama trails by double digits in the states we need to win. If we nominate him, we lose.

By doing this, however, she pisses off enormous numbers of people. Typically, Democrats get about 90% of the black vote, no matter how many prominent Cabinet officials and Supreme Court Justices we put in place. If that is cut to, say, 70%, the Dems lose their base.

So how does Hillary win the nomination without the Obama folks saying "we wuz robbed"?

I just can't see it.

More:

<link>

<link>

Wev.

But you didn't address the possibility of a Hillary nomination.

While I think she's a stronger candidate, the circumstances of her nomination would alienate people.

What say you?

Kerry Withdrawal Contest
HELP HIM DROP OUT NOW AND AVOID HUMILIATION.
By Mickey Kaus
Updated Friday, Dec. 5, 2003, at 3:30 AM ET
<link>

I can't see them losing on a ticket they share.

I can't see Obama winning without her. I can see her having a close race without him. I still maintain, though, that given a choice between McCain and Clinton, women will overwhelmingly go for her.

<link>

and while you're refreshing your memory, read standarddeviation's response here

<link>

in fact, many of the fray knuckleheads that were in that thread would benefit from revisiting their knuckleheadedness.

'Swhy I said that. My prediction may well be wrong. Use it later for ammunition.

Though Fred started too late, and was rounding into midseason form about the time he had to bow out. McCain's praticing up now, and will be fine.

find my opinion here

<link>

I direct this to Dawn as well. Thinking anyone will be satisfied with their candidate being veep is nonsense. That is a clumsy way to try and mend fences.

Dems are obsessed with vote fraud. If either one loses to either one, the supporters of the other will be mightily miffed. Not to the extent that polls suggest. People are blowing off steam there. But enough to swing the election.

The Dream Ticket ain't happening. It would only serve as a reminder of the general pissed-offnitude that Dems harbor.

I disagree

<link>

That's sort of like saying that Obama should pick Cheney because the 20% of the country that likes Cheney + 40+% that likes Obama equals a guaranteed win.

Hillary has 54% negatives and they aren't going to get better between now and November, only worse. People aren't going to vote for someone they hate, regardless of where they are on the ticket.

Obama needs to select a woman VP like Kathleen Sibelius; someone who's successful on their own merits. Once that happens and people get a glimpse of what it really means to be a strong successful women, Hillary's support and and antipathy to Obama will dry up among Democrats..

by 8 pts. in the latest poll (9 Apr) in Penn.

Clinton can't make any argument based on polls.

Right now its

McCain 298 to Clinton 240

and

McCain 277 to Obama 237 with 24 tied.

In Pennsyvania:

Hillary v Mcain: 44 to 47

Obama v McCain: 39 to 49

Um, not within the margin.

based on the latest polling, Obama is significantly more electable than Clinton.

If you take the polls that are tied or within the margin of error and label them "in play" it's now

McCain 195 Obama 153 InPlay 190

and

McCain 282 Clinton 141 InPlay 115

So Clinton may have a conundrum, but it's not the one you describe.