Five reasons Hillary should be worried

[Chica Yeyé 41]

? Are we saying that the electorate is so fickle they'll only vote for someone if they are popular?

yes siter purple, if they have nice hair and teeth some folks vote for them..

Hence no votes for Hilary. I insist, her hairdo and teeth are a :no: statement. If she looked like our own VJ-Joyce, that would be something else

you are right thinking hermana len......

Brother, what can I tell you. I don't know squat about electoral politics, but ALL about style and good manners (and subversive behavior)

[almaty 19]

? Are we saying that the electorate is so fickle they'll only vote for someone if they are popular?

yes siter purple, if they have nice hair and teeth some folks vote for them..

Hence no votes for Hilary. I insist, her hairdo and teeth are a :no: statement. If she looked like our own VJ-Joyce, that would be something else

you are right thinking hermana len......

Brother, what can I tell you. I don't know squat about electoral politics, but ALL about style and good manners (and subversive behavior)

excellent qualities...sister len ...my brother bren is lucky man

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I think this part rings true...

One reason is that polls and primary results reveal that the more voters get to know Obama, the more they seem to like him.

This is especially troubling for Clinton since the schedule slows dramatically now and a full month will pass before the next big-state showdown.

All of this allows candidates ample time to introduce themselves to voters in each state — which plays to Obama’s core strengths.

[GaryC 7]

This is interesting. She never had to worry about money before.

Clinton lends her campaign $5 million

By JIM KUHNHENN, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 29 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Hillary Rodham Clinton loaned her campaign $5 million late last month as Barack Obama outraised and outspent her in the Democratic presidential race.

Clinton told reporters at her campaign headquarters in Arlington, Va., that she made the loan, adding, "I believe the campaign would have a great month fundraising in January. We intended to be competitive and we were."

Obama, riding a wave of fundraising both from large donors and small Internet contributors, collected a stunning $32 million in January. Clinton campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe said the Clinton campaign raised only $13.5 million for the month. The $5 million was in addition to that amount, Wolfson said.

On Wednesday, the Clinton campaign set a new goal of raising $3 million over the next three days through the Internet.

"We have had one of our best fundraising efforts ever on the Web today and our Super Tuesday victories will only help in bringing more support for her candidacy," said Clinton campaign spokesman Howard Wolfson.

In a teleconference with reporters, Clinton chief strategist Mark Penn said: "We will have funds to compete," he said, "but we're likely to be outspent again."

Hillary and Bill Clintons' financial disclosures, which reveal only broad ranges of assets, place their wealth between $10 million to $50 million.

Clinton's name recognition and lead in polls in some of the bigger upcoming states give her an advantage and Obama's higher spending rate did not translate into victories in several states Tuesday.

But the terrain ahead features contests in the short term that are favorable to Obama. On Saturday, Obama and Clinton will compete in contests in Louisiana, Nebraska and Washington. On Tuesday, Virginia, Maryland and the District of Columbia hold primaries.

The Clinton camp is counting on March 4 matchups in Ohio and Texas and an April 22 primary in Pennsylvania. All three are expensive states in which to campaign.

Obama's camp signaled that he was ready to invest money in those states as well. "We think we're in strong financial position so if we choose to do so in the later states we'll have the ability to do that," campaign manager David Plouffe told reporters Wednesday.

Clinton spent $15 million in December going into the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary. Her campaign spent at least $9 million in the last two weeks of January advertising in Super Tuesday states. Obama spent about $11 million in Super Tuesday advertising.

Clinton raised $23.7 million in the last quarter of 2007 for the primary elections compared to Obama's $22 million. Both had about $18.5 million cash on hand for the primaries going into January. But Obama roared to a fundraising lead in January by collecting money at the rate of at least $1 million a day and attracting more than 170,000 new donors.

Obama also has a money advantage because he has raised more money from small donations than Clinton. An analysis by the Campaign Finance Institute, which tracks trends in political money, found that Obama raised about a third of his money in 2007 from donors who gave $200 or less. Only one-third of his money came from donors who have given the legal maximum of $2,300, compared to Clinton who raised about half of her money from "maxed out" donors and only 14 percent from donors of $200 or less.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080206/ap_on_.../campaign_money

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

It seems like there are 2 ways to view the results of Super Tuesday for the Democrats depending on who you support. I say it's still inconclusive.

I also think that the "hatred" for Hillary by the overall population is a little bit overstated by the (mostly male) posters here and media pundits.

What I do know is that voter turnout for Democrats was higher than Republicans in most states yesterday, even in reliably Republican states

[PlatyPius 5]

If the Democratic party is smart, it will have Obama as the candidate no matter what. An Obama vs. McCain race could have either one as the victor. A Clinton vs. McCain race would mean that McCain would be the next President. At least with Obama they have a chance.

After barely winning a few of the states, I find it very telling that Hillary had massive victories in New York and Arkansas....telling about the general intelligence level of the average American, not about Hillary. The people in Arkansas apparently voted for her because it's where her and Bill are from. #######? Are Americans THAT stupid and moronic? I guess so, cuz that's the only state where she had that high of a percentage of the votes.

Just remember....if you're a Democrat, vote for Obama or we'll be stuck with McCain for 4 years....

(unless you're a feminazi of course, who only cares about the sex of the person running....)

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

Hillary got more votes from her party than McCain did from his in most states, including those that are strong red states.

Just something to think about.

[AnewKINDofFEELIN 0]

Hillary got more votes from her party than McCain did from his in most states, including those that are strong red states.

Just something to think about.

You can't equate primaries to the general election. There will be large turnout against Clinton in the general election. A vote against Clinton is a vote for McCain.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

Hillary got more votes from her party than McCain did from his in most states, including those that are strong red states.

Just something to think about.

You can't equate primaries to the general election. There will be large turnout against Clinton in the general election. A vote against Clinton is a vote for McCain.

True - but it does tell a story.

That might be the case if the Republicans were enthusiastic about their frontrunner - for the most part, they are not.

Like I say, I do feel the "hatred" as a factor is over-stated. A lot of people really hate Bush, he got elected twice.

[GaryC 7]

It seems like there are 2 ways to view the results of Super Tuesday for the Democrats depending on who you support. I say it's still inconclusive.

I also think that the "hatred" for Hillary by the overall population is a little bit overstated by the (mostly male) posters here and media pundits.

What I do know is that voter turnout for Democrats was higher than Republicans in most states yesterday, even in reliably Republican states

The turnout for reps and dems both were record setting.

Report: Voter turnout records broken

By ANN SANNER, Associated Press Writer 2 hours, 9 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Voters came out in record numbers in about half the states that have voted in presidential primaries so far, according to an analysis Wednesday.

ADVERTISEMENT

Turnout among Republicans on Super Tuesday toppled a 20-year record in Alabama, according to the report issued by American University's Center for the Study of the American Electorate. More than 16 percent of those eligible voted in the GOP race, compared with about 7 percent in 1988.

The report's findings were based on unofficial results from the primaries held through Tuesday. Caucuses and California primary results were excluded.

Alabama had 58,000 new voters sign up in the three months leading up to Tuesday's race, just one sign of newfound interest in a primary that used to be held in June and had little or no significance.

In Georgia, Democrats came out in droves to support Barack Obama, breaking a more than 30-year-old turnout record. More than 16 percent of eligible voters showed up at the polls Tuesday, compared with less than 15 percent in 1976.

"We are likely to see more records broken until the contests are decided, which in the Democratic Party's case, at least may last until their convention," said Curtis Gans, the center's director who performed the analysis.

About 14 million people voted in the Democratic primaries this year compared with the slightly more than 10 million who voted in GOP primaries, according to the analysis.

Twenty states have held Democratic and Republican primaries so far.

Here are some of the report's findings:

_Democratic primaries in 12 states set records. They are Alabama, Arizona, Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Massachusetts, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, South Carolina and Utah.

_Republican primaries in 11 states saw their highest percentages of voter turnout ever. They are Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Missouri, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Utah.

_Combining party turnouts, the highest percentage of eligible voters showing up this year came in New Hampshire — 52 percent.

_Among the record-setting states, New York primaries had the lowest percentage of people voting with just more than 18 percent of all those eligible casting votes.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/primary_voter_turnout

[PlatyPius 5]

Hillary got more votes from her party than McCain did from his in most states, including those that are strong red states.

Just something to think about.

But when you add together the Democrat "anti-Hillary" votes, PLUS the Republican McCain votes, you have a Republican victory.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

Hillary got more votes from her party than McCain did from his in most states, including those that are strong red states.

Just something to think about.

But when you add together the Democrat "anti-Hillary" votes, PLUS the Republican McCain votes, you have a Republican victory.

Maybe, maybe not - especially if McCain chooses someone very conservative for a running mate and Clinton chooses Obama.

[Jenn! 918]

Hillary got more votes from her party than McCain did from his in most states, including those that are strong red states.

Just something to think about.

But when you add together the Democrat "anti-Hillary" votes, PLUS the Republican McCain votes, you have a Republican victory.

Right. Both Obama and McCain did well with independent voters last night. They're always the ticket.

Hillary got more votes from her party than McCain did from his in most states, including those that are strong red states.

Just something to think about.

But when you add together the Democrat "anti-Hillary" votes, PLUS the Republican McCain votes, you have a Republican victory.

Maybe, maybe not - especially if McCain chooses someone very conservative for a running mate and Clinton chooses Obama.

Ooh, that would be a toughie - Clinton/Obama vs. McCain/Huckabee. On second thought, not tough at all!

[AnewKINDofFEELIN 0]

Hillary got more votes from her party than McCain did from his in most states, including those that are strong red states.

Just something to think about.

You can't equate primaries to the general election. There will be large turnout against Clinton in the general election. A vote against Clinton is a vote for McCain.

True - but it does tell a story.

That might be the case if the Republicans were enthusiastic about their frontrunner - for the most part, they are not.

Like I say, I do feel the "hatred" as a factor is over-stated. A lot of people really hate Bush, he got elected twice.

McCain is much more electable than that baffoon Kerry.

Honestly, I think if Obama gets the nomination, he wins. If Clinton gets the nomination, McCain wins. For that reason, I hope Obama is nominated.

[kaydee457 13]

? Are we saying that the electorate is so fickle they'll only vote for someone if they are popular?

yes siter purple, if they have nice hair and teeth some folks vote for them..

You bet they will....Superficial is the only way to describe his meteroric rise!

Frankly, I hope he does take the nomination because I believe in the American people to recognize what this is all about and subsequently deny him the presidency........