PDA

View Full Version : The 2008 Electoral College


In The Zone
May 4th, 2008, 03:53 AM
Okay, let's break this down. Who really is more electable?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Presidential_Election

Those are the states Kerry won. None of those states will turn from blue.

What can Hillary win EASILY? What can Obama win easily?

That are not included in that list.

Hillary
Locks:
Ohio
Arkansas

Likely:
Florida

Obama
Locks:
None.

Likely:
Iowa
Missouri
:confused: :confused:

I really don't know what states he plans on winning to get to 270. Kerry got to 251. In fact, with Obama, New Jersey and Pennsylvania become vulnerable. Will he lose them? No but it just alludes to other states.

Missouri (which Hillary is equally as likely ) and Iowa would bring Obama to guess what number? 269.

Virginia, Colorado, and Nevada seem to be the only argument. Will he win those? No, he'll make them close. But as Brandy would say, almost doesn't count. Arizona? No way, not vs. McCain. New Mexico? Just as likely for Hillary as for Obama but neither will win.

Please enlighten me so I can vote for Obama if he is the nominee without worry.

In The Zone
May 4th, 2008, 04:00 AM
Oh and I posted this thread so everyone can post in a neutral thread. :p

Pureracket
May 4th, 2008, 04:07 AM
http://www.nobodyasked.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/bush-mccain-hug-72.jpg

+

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/photo-flag-draped-coffins.jpg

=

http://timesonline.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/10/09/barack_obama.jpg

In The Zone
May 4th, 2008, 04:12 AM
But which states? :confused:

G1Player2
May 4th, 2008, 04:12 AM
http://www.nobodyasked.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/bush-mccain-hug-72.jpg

+

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/photo-flag-draped-coffins.jpg

=

http://timesonline.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/10/09/barack_obama.jpg

:spit: :haha: :yeah:

And, how are you doing Pure?

Ellery
May 4th, 2008, 04:16 AM
So based on the image, BushMcCain, Coffins and Obamaland are all states now. Very interesting, thanks.

Pureracket
May 4th, 2008, 04:16 AM
ITZ,
All of the states. AZ might be a bit of a tossup, though.

Nah, but seriously, we've never said that we won't need Hillary and Bill's help in order to win this. I hope they campaign for the overall Democratic party as hard as they are for themselves. I suspect that Bill will campaign rather heartily for Barack, though. He has his legacy to consider, and he has quite a bit to atone for because of the primary fights.

Also, Barack has run a very tight campaign, I suspect his VP will be very carefully chosen. His VP selection will probably be brilliant as well. Who knows? He may choose HRC.

Pureracket
May 4th, 2008, 04:17 AM
So based on the image, BushMcCain, Coffins and Obamaland are all states now. Very interesting, thanks.You're welcome, and anytime.;)

Pureracket
May 4th, 2008, 04:17 AM
:spit: :haha: :yeah:

And, how are you doing Pure?GP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

CJ07
May 4th, 2008, 04:18 AM
Clinton will put Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Arkansas in play
Obama will put Iowa (which went to Gore in '00), Colorado, Virginia and some other states in play

The thing though is that Florida + Ohio + Pennsylvania is more than enough electoral college votes to win

Donny
May 4th, 2008, 04:18 AM
I never understood this argument. Logically speaking, the BEST hypothetical candidate to go against McCain would be a carbon copy of McCain- a white, Christian Vietnam "hero" with the exact same policies and positions, but ten years younger and more eloquent. In other words, McCain, but better. Would you want that hypothetical candidate for the Democratic nomination? Of course not.

drake3781
May 4th, 2008, 04:18 AM
Way to ruin a thread. Delete it and start it over, maybe people can stay on topic next time. :shrug:

ptkten
May 4th, 2008, 04:18 AM
Sorry this is long but here it goes,

He is winning in every poll I've seen in Colorado and Iowa and is often leading in New Mexico and Nevada. He substantially outperforms her in all of these states. If he wins three of those four states then he wins the election. And this is during probably the weakest period of his campaign. His numbers will only improve because the issues with Wright, etc. will become somewhat old news.

In addition, what your scenario fails to point out is that Hillary does have a real problem holding onto some states Kerry wins. In fact between the two of them what I've seen is that they both would lose New Hampshire at this point (although I don't think this is likely) and she loses Wisconsin. So she actually starts behind in states won by Kerry. While Obama runs slightly worse than she does in Pennsylvania, she runs worse than him in Washington, Oregon, Minnesota, etc. They both have states, and I would argue she has more states, that they will have to defend in the general so that argument is a wash.

Second to assume that Hillary is a lock to win Arkansas or Ohio I think is very presumptuous. Arkansas has become rather Republican in recent presidential elections, and it presumes people will think of her as their own. Ohio also has a conservative bent. I think she certainly could win those states and probably is the favorite but she will need to spend significant resources in both places to pull off a victory in either state.

Now onto Obama, Obama performs substantially better west of the Mississippi than she does. I think this primarily has to do with the ethnic makeup of whites in those states. They tend not to be the tradtional white ethnic "minorities" such as Italians or Irish who don't have a history of racial tension and seem much more willing to vote for an African-American candidate than the white working class in the East. In addition, people are presuming that because the white working class in Eastern states are voting for Hillary means they won't vote for Obama in the general which I don't necessarily think is the case.

In addition, luckily for Obama, the poor demographics for him in states in the Northeast are often offset by the number of upscale liberals or African-Americans that will allow him to win the Northeastern states without the majority of the vote of the white working class. The early polling that showed him somewhat struggling in Northeastern states has evaporated as recent reputable polling companies such as Rasmussen have shown him opening up double digit general election leads in states like New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts. Also, he keeps things closer in Virginia and North Carolina and will force McCain to compete here probably because of the substantial African-American population coupled with the highly educated white populations in Northern Virginia and the Research Triangle respectively.

So while Hillary certainly is a formidable candidate and would probably be favored in the general election using the old Democratic map and picking up Ohio, he actually has more options than she does at expanding the map and picking up votes in places Democrats have been historically very weak. Just look at the single digit margins in states like North Dakota, South Dakota, and the allocated CD's in Nebraska. While he may not win these states it will force the Republicans to spend resources in states they won't want to so that he can hold onto Pennsylvania while picking up the states like Iowa, Colorado and New Mexico.

Pureracket
May 4th, 2008, 04:19 AM
Way to ruin a thread. Delete it and start it over, maybe people can stay on topic next time. :shrug:You're upset because I posted an answer before you could make some passive aggressive racial remark before you bolted?:confused:

In The Zone
May 4th, 2008, 04:23 AM
Just as many polls that have Hillary down in Wisconsin have her up.

And New Hampshire is vulnerable, yes. But for Obama it hurts more than it would for her.

Colorado is very tough. I don't see him winning it. Iowa, Obama will win. Hillary will claw for it, 50/50.

But again, that's not 270. What states?

In The Zone
May 4th, 2008, 04:23 AM
You're upset because I posted an answer before you could make some passive aggressive racial remark before you bolted?:confused:

And now, if someone responds to this, they are racist but not you for bringing race up.

Stay on topic, please.

In The Zone
May 4th, 2008, 04:24 AM
I never understood this argument. Logically speaking, the BEST hypothetical candidate to go against McCain would be a carbon copy of McCain- a white, Christian Vietnam "hero" with the exact same policies and positions, but ten years younger and more eloquent. In other words, McCain, but better. Would you want that hypothetical candidate for the Democratic nomination? Of course not.

Okay, great. Now, which states?

Pureracket
May 4th, 2008, 04:25 AM
Just as many polls that have Hillary down in Wisconsin have her up.

And New Hampshire is vulnerable, yes. But for Obama it hurts more than it would for her.

Colorado is very tough. I don't see him winning it. Iowa, Obama will win. Hillary will claw for it, 50/50.

But again, that's not 270. What states?You're disregarding ptken's post, which has empirical evidence, with your own "hunches."

:confused:

Donny
May 4th, 2008, 04:26 AM
Just as many polls that have Hillary down in Wisconsin have her up.

And New Hampshire is vulnerable, yes. But for Obama it hurts more than it would for her.

Colorado is very tough. I don't see him winning it. Iowa, Obama will win. Hillary will claw for it, 50/50.

But again, that's not 270. What states?

Mydd.com, a pro Hillary blog, has Obama beating McCain 275 to 263 in a theoretical matchup.

http://www.mydd.com/

Check the top left corner.

Pureracket
May 4th, 2008, 04:26 AM
And now, if someone responds to this, they are racist but not you for bringing race up.

Stay on topic, please.:haha: I know you're not talking. Do I need to bring up that embarrassing MJF debacle where you looked foolish when you brought race up? No? Didn't think so.

Maybe you should consider not jumping into a conversation because you've shown you can't deal. Now, if we're going to get back on topic, give me some proof to your "hunches."

Donny
May 4th, 2008, 04:28 AM
:haha: I know you're not talking. Do I need to bring up that embarrassing MJF debacle where you looked foolish when you brought race up? No? Didn't think so.

Maybe you should consider not jumping into a conversation because you've shown you can't deal. Now, if we're going to get back on topic, give me some proof to your "hunches."

Don't be so insensitive. You know reality and facts have an anti Clinton bias.

In The Zone
May 4th, 2008, 04:29 AM
You're disregarding ptken's post, which has empirical evidence, with your own "hunches."

:confused:

EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE? No, it doesn't. It's talk, like any other post.

Ohio is Clinton country. It'll go to Hillary. They loved Bill. And they love her. Ohio is one of the states that has been destroyed by the economy. They won't go Republican if Hillary is on the ballot.

Arkansas is not an assumption. That, again, is Clinton country. Polls have her up 30 or so. When McCain, in turn, is up 30 on Obama.

Florida will be close. But she puts it in play. Which would protect a New Hampshire loss and Wisconsin loss. I think she would lose New Hampshire, but not Wisconsin. She wouldn't even need Florida to win. 251 + 20 + 6 = 277. NH is only 4 votes. So 273 if she loses it.

In The Zone
May 4th, 2008, 04:30 AM
Don't be so insensitive. You know reality and facts have an anti Clinton bias.

Oh really? ... Which states.

Reality and facts show Ohio and Arkansas are locks which give Hillary the win.

ptkten
May 4th, 2008, 04:32 AM
You can't just throw out evidence that don't support your views. He IS winning Colorado based on every poll that's been out there. He's winning in Iowa and Nevada based on an average of the polls. I could sit here and say I don't think she's going to win Ohio but the evidence says it's possible so I don't just throw out the evidence. In addition, she IS losing in Wisconsin by basically every poll. There have one or two polls over the primary seasons that have been outliers with her winning but based on the vast majority of polls he's consistently ahead of her there. Also, based on an average of the polls Obama's beating McCain in Michigan and she's losing to him. But I guess that doesn't count because it doesn't fit what you think is going to happen.

I'm not saying Hillary would lose but to act like she clearly has an easier route to the white house is not based on fact and is only based on what sensationalized news reports want you to think.

Donny
May 4th, 2008, 04:33 AM
Oh really? ... Which states.

Reality and facts show Ohio and Arkansas are locks which give Hillary the win.

Indiana Colorado and Iowa.

In The Zone
May 4th, 2008, 04:35 AM
Indiana Colorado and Iowa.

Indiana?!? :spit: You lost all credibility for this thread.

In The Zone
May 4th, 2008, 04:37 AM
You can't just throw out evidence that don't support your views. He IS winning Colorado based on every poll that's been out there. He's winning in Iowa and Nevada based on an average of the polls. I could sit here and say I don't think she's going to win Ohio but the evidence says it's possible so I don't just throw out the evidence. In addition, she IS losing in Wisconsin by basically every poll. There have one or two polls over the primary seasons that have been outliers with her winning but based on the vast majority of polls he's consistently ahead of her there. Also, based on an average of the polls Obama's beating McCain in Michigan and she's losing to him. But I guess that doesn't count because it doesn't fit what you think is going to happen.

I'm not saying Hillary would lose but to act like she clearly has an easier route to the white house is not based on fact and is only based on what sensationalized news reports want you to think.

Okay.

251. Iowa, Nevada, Colorado. What do we get? 272. And that's being very generous. That is not considering the amount of time and sweat he'll need to spend in those 3 states and leave states like New Jersey, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania vulnerable.

kittyking
May 4th, 2008, 04:38 AM
If McCain doesn't win Ohio (20), then his chance of winning goes from 40% to 0.01%.

Other crucial states that the Republicans needs to win;
Florida (27) - high chance of winning against Obama, a real dogfight if its against Clinton
Wisconisin (10) - high chance of winning against Clinton, an underdog against Obama
Colorado (9) - high chance of winning against Clinton, should win against Obama as well though
Arkansas (6) - No contest if against Obama, but could be a close contest against Hillary

Plus one of
Nevada (5) - McCain should win here, unless Democrats put heaps of effort into here
New Hampshire (4) - McCain should in here, especially if he goes on with the message that his run to the Presidency started there.

The more the Wright controversy goes on the more it hurts Obama, and the Republicans - as Clinton does seem to be the strongest candidate of the three right now :scared:

ptkten
May 4th, 2008, 04:38 AM
Indiana?!? :spit: You lost all credibility for this thread.

I agree he won't win there but it's a credible suggestion considering the last general election poll in the state had Obama up by 1. But again, the poll obviously doesn't matter because anything that doesn't show that Clinton is running stronger against McCain clearly must be biased or wrong.

In The Zone
May 4th, 2008, 04:39 AM
If McCain doesn't win Ohio (20), then his chance of winning goes from 40% to 0.01%.

Other crucial states that the Republicans needs to win;
Florida (27) - high chance of winning against Obama, a real dogfight if its against Clinton
Wisconisin (10) - high chance of winning against Clinton, an underdog against Obama
Colorado (9) - high chance of winning against Clinton, should win against Obama as well though
Arkansas (6) - No contest if against Obama, but could be a close contest against Hillary

Plus one of
Nevada (5) - McCain should win here, unless Democrats put heaps of effort into here
New Hampshire (4) - McCain should in here, especially if he goes on with the message that his run to the Presidency started there.

The more the Wright controversy goes on the more it hurts Obama, and the Republicans - as Clinton does seem to be the strongest candidate of the three right now :scared:

Whoa. This from kittyking? Using common sense? DAMN SON.

In The Zone
May 4th, 2008, 04:40 AM
I agree he won't win there but it's a credible suggestion considering the last general election poll in the state had Obama up by 1. But again, the poll obviously doesn't matter because anything that doesn't show that Clinton is running stronger against McCain clearly must be biased or wrong.

Exactly.

But also, when we discuss Hillary as the nominee, it must also be noted that it is also understood Obama is the VP.

kittyking
May 4th, 2008, 04:40 AM
Oh really? ... Which states.

Reality and facts show Ohio and Arkansas are locks which give Hillary the win.

I'm not all that sure that she will pick up Arkansas despite that being her home state........................but if she wins Ohio then its pretty much a lock on yes.

Pureracket
May 4th, 2008, 04:41 AM
http://www.surveyusa.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/vobama.png (http://www.surveyusa.com/ECV_50-State_results_030608_vs_Obama.html)

In The Zone
May 4th, 2008, 04:42 AM
I'm not all that sure that she will pick up Arkansas despite that being her home state........................but if she wins Ohio then its pretty much a lock on yes.

Look at the polls and look at President Clinton's history. Calling Arkansas a lock is an understatement.

ptkten
May 4th, 2008, 04:42 AM
If McCain doesn't win Ohio (20), then his chance of winning goes from 40% to 0.01%.

Other crucial states that the Republicans needs to win;
Florida (27) - high chance of winning against Obama, a real dogfight if its against Clinton
Wisconisin (10) - high chance of winning against Clinton, an underdog against Obama
Colorado (9) - high chance of winning against Clinton, should win against Obama as well though
Arkansas (6) - No contest if against Obama, but could be a close contest against Hillary

Plus one of
Nevada (5) - McCain should win here, unless Democrats put heaps of effort into here
New Hampshire (4) - McCain should in here, especially if he goes on with the message that his run to the Presidency started there.

The more the Wright controversy goes on the more it hurts Obama, and the Republicans - as Clinton does seem to be the strongest candidate of the three right now :scared:

The thing is the Republicans are scared of running against Obama which is why they're writing all these glowing pieces about Clinton. Obama hasn't brought up anything about Hillary's more than questionable past but the Republicans will. I suggest every Democrat read Carl Bernstein's article on Huffington Post detailing her long list of ties to radicals that will become fodder for the Republicans in the fall.

Hillary is a strong candidate who I'll admit may be the safer pick but Obama has a much bigger upside. He can put many more states into play than she can. If something goes wrong and she doesn't win Ohio she's in big trouble, Obama has many more options if things go wrong in one particular state

kittyking
May 4th, 2008, 04:42 AM
Exactly.

But also, when we discuss Hillary as the nominee, it must also be noted that it is also understood Obama is the VP.

Oh come on why would Obama want to be the VP. He's a smart guy, and I'm sure he remembers what hapenned with Al Gore...

In The Zone
May 4th, 2008, 04:43 AM
Pureracket. Thank you! :) That's a post I wanted. Anything for a possible Hillary run?

And although I like that post, it loses credibility when it gives North Dakota to Obama and New Jersey OUTRIGHT to McCain. And Texas only as a 1 pt win for McCain.

ptkten
May 4th, 2008, 04:45 AM
http://www.surveyusa.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/vobama.png (http://www.surveyusa.com/ECV_50-State_results_030608_vs_Obama.html)

And this is without him winning in PA which he is up by 9 according to the latest Quinnipiac Poll which would give him 301 electoral votes.

But again, the numbers aren't relevant because Clinton supporters "know" that Obama won't win some of these states.

They both can win, they just use different methods to get there.

kittyking
May 4th, 2008, 04:46 AM
Look at the polls and look at President Clinton's history. Calling Arkansas a lock is an understatement.

Taken not long after Super Tuesday 2

John McCain 50%
Hillary Clinton 43%

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/arkansas/election_2008_arkansas_presidential_election

In The Zone
May 4th, 2008, 04:47 AM
The thing is the Republicans are scared of running against Obama which is why they're writing all these glowing pieces about Clinton. Obama hasn't brought up anything about Hillary's more than questionable past but the Republicans will. I suggest every Democrat read Carl Bernstein's article on Huffington Post detailing her long list of ties to radicals that will become fodder for the Republicans in the fall.

Hillary is a strong candidate who I'll admit may be the safer pick but Obama has a much bigger upside. He can put many more states into play than she can. If something goes wrong and she doesn't win Ohio she's in big trouble, Obama has many more options if things go wrong in one particular state

The thing is though is that people know Hillary Clinton. They know her positives, they know her negatives. When the media crushes on her and they don't stop reporting on her, YET she still wins in states shows you that it doesn't resonate. She's a fighter and she wins. No one can deny that a Clinton will win regardless of the circumstances.

In The Zone
May 4th, 2008, 04:49 AM
Taken not long after Super Tuesday 2

John McCain 50%
Hillary Clinton 43%

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/arkansas/election_2008_arkansas_presidential_election

There was one taken LONG after Super Tuesday and she was KILLING. Let me find.

kittyking
May 4th, 2008, 04:50 AM
This is going to be a very close election race, and once again it will come down to probably one or two states. I think these could be Ohio and Colorado, and well the way these are going you have to slightly favor the Republicans at this point.......................Bring on November :rocker2:

kittyking
May 4th, 2008, 04:51 AM
There was one taken LONG after Super Tuesday and she was KILLING. Let me find.

Don't you know the difference between Super Tuesday 1 and Super Tuesday 2

:rolls: I guess that explains your logic all along then

Expat
May 4th, 2008, 04:56 AM
Exactly.

But also, when we discuss Hillary as the nominee, it must also be noted that it is also understood Obama is the VP.

Please dont joke
that will never happen

i am more inclined to think that obama is the presidential nominee
he needs john edwards to be his vp to reassure reagan democrats

obama may turn a few red states purple but he has difficulty holding swing states
(ohio, pennsylvania,florida)

260 odd seats are locks for the democrats
one of the 3 (ohio,florida or Pennsylvania will seal the deal for hillary
hillary will win small or lose small
obama may make a lot of the solid south competitive but has difficulty holding onto the rust belt states
obama will really be about "change" since he can either win big or lose big

In The Zone
May 4th, 2008, 04:57 AM
Don't you know the difference between Super Tuesday 1 and Super Tuesday 2

:rolls: I guess that explains your logic all along then

Oops! Didn't see the 2. ;) But Hillary will win Arkansas. Lock is an understatement.

CJ07
May 4th, 2008, 04:58 AM
When was that done? Because most all polls now show McCain beating Obama by 4-6 points

Donny
May 4th, 2008, 04:58 AM
The thing is though is that people know Hillary Clinton. They know her positives, they know her negatives. When the media crushes on her and they don't stop reporting on her, YET she still wins in states shows you that it doesn't resonate. She's a fighter and she wins. No one can deny that a Clinton will win regardless of the circumstances.

Wright and the bitter comments are THE most covered news items of the year. Hillary's getting "crushed" in your dreams, perhaps.

In The Zone
May 4th, 2008, 04:59 AM
Please dont joke
that will never happen

i am more inclined to think that obama is the presidential nominee
he needs john edwards to be his vp to reassure reagan democrats

obama may turn a few red states purple but he has difficulty holding swing states
(ohio, pennsylvania,florida)

260 odd seats are locks for the democrats
one of the 3 (ohio,florida or Pennsylvania will seal the deal for hillary
hillary will win small or lose small
obama may make a lot of the solid south competitive but has difficulty holding onto the rust belt states
obama will really be about "change" since he can either win big or lose big

I think that's the issue. We know Hillary can win. But Obama puts other things in play. But can he win them? That's the bet that we have to decide.

In The Zone
May 4th, 2008, 05:07 AM
Wright and the bitter comments are THE most covered news items of the year. Hillary's getting "crushed" in your dreams, perhaps.

Why do you troll threads, never post anything towards the topic, and that contribute like this?

When she was getting crushed, it did not reflect in the polls or the votes. It doesn't phase her.

And look at Obama. Indiana is swinging Hillary's direction more and more and North Carolina is now going to be a weak victory.

Donny
May 4th, 2008, 05:15 AM
The thing is though is that people know Hillary Clinton. They know her positives, they know her negatives. When the media crushes on her and they don't stop reporting on her, YET she still wins in states shows you that it doesn't resonate. She's a fighter and she wins. No one can deny that a Clinton will win regardless of the circumstances.

Wright and the bitter comments are THE most covered news items of the year. Hillary's getting "crushed" in your dreams, perhaps.

Why do you troll threads, never post anything towards the topic, and that contribute like this?

When she was getting crushed, it did not reflect in the polls or the votes. It doesn't phase her.

And look at Obama. Indiana is swinging Hillary's direction more and more and North Carolina is now going to be a weak victory.

Why are you not able to follow a sequential set of thoughts?

You said Hillary was getting "crushed" by the media. Obama has received the most negative news coverage of any candidate this primary season. But if making up mythical media bogeymen makes you feel better, be my guest.

In The Zone
May 4th, 2008, 05:17 AM
Why are you not able to follow a sequential set of thoughts?

You said Hillary was getting "crushed" by the media. Obama has received the most negative news coverage of any candidate this primary season. But if making up mythical media bogeymen makes you feel better, be my guest.

Let me say this again. When Hillary was crushed, it didn't show and didn't affect her, ever.

It's destroying Obama all over.

Donny
May 4th, 2008, 05:21 AM
Let me say this again. When Hillary was crushed, it didn't show and didn't affect her, ever.

It's destroying Obama all over.

Assuming this argument is valid, her "crushing" led her to losing 13 consecutive contests in blowouts. Yet you say it didn't effect her.

But now Obama losing PA by single digits and gaining in superdelegates is evidence of him being "destroyed"?

You've lost it.

In The Zone
May 4th, 2008, 05:24 AM
Assuming this argument is valid, her "crushing" led her to losing 13 consecutive contests in blowouts. Yet you say it didn't effect her.

But now Obama losing PA by single digits and gaining in superdelegates is evidence of him being "destroyed"?

You've lost it.

The media has been crushing on Obama after PA, one. In fact, PPP had him ahead and other polls had it very tight. Then after the ABC debate, BAM. Opened up again. Weird, right? And the superdelegates are endorsing him because of delegates and votes, two. Nothing to do with the media. And again, endorsements do not translate into votes come August. A lot can happen. And clearly, you know, superdelegates can switch.

You've lost it. You're not arguing the point at hand. Only attacking tangents to appear superior. Sorry, not happening.

Donny
May 4th, 2008, 05:29 AM
The media has been crushing on Obama after PA, one. In fact, PPP had him ahead and other polls had it very tight. Then after the ABC debate, BAM. Opened up again. Weird, right? And the superdelegates are endorsing him because of delegates and votes, two. Nothing to do with the media. And again, endorsements do not translate into votes come August. A lot can happen. And clearly, you know, superdelegates can switch.

You've lost it. You're not arguing the point at hand. Only attacking tangents to appear superior. Sorry, not happening.

Wright was immediately after Wyoming. Six weeks before PA. That alone was worse than anything Hillary's recieved.

And let me just sort this out mentally: You're arguing that the media was out to get Hillary sometime between the beginning of the primary season and PA. During this period, Obama racked up an insurmountable lead in pledged delegates, a huge popular vote lead, and won 13 straight contests.

When Hillary was crushed, it didn't show and didn't affect her, ever.

You think these things happened during the same exact period of time, and one had nothing to do with the other?

ptkten
May 4th, 2008, 05:31 AM
I think the major issue here is Obama supporters can admit that Hillary has a decent chance of winning the General Election because Obama will be the nominee and they're not interested in attacking Hillary. Clinton supporters have to convince themselves and others that he has no chance in the general election because that's her only way to victory is to convince people that he's unelectable and therefore overturn the will of the voters. The problem with that is you have lifelong Democrats who are trying to destroy the party using right-wing talking points just so they can get one person elected.

Obama has just as good of a chance as Hillary to win in the general election period. I know it defeats her argument to win but it's true and the numbers back it up. Ohio is not the only state in the country that matters. The 50 state strategy is working as evidenced in LA-06 election today and Obama is the perfect candidate to run using this strategy because he hasn't disparaged over 30 of the states during the process because "they're states we won't win in the fall". This kind of attitude has relegated us to hoping we win one or two swing states instead of forcing Republicans to go on the defense. I can't wait until Obama runs his general election campaign because Republicans will not be able to take any state for granted.

mykarma
May 4th, 2008, 05:32 AM
http://www.nobodyasked.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/bush-mccain-hug-72.jpg

+

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/photo-flag-draped-coffins.jpg

=

http://timesonline.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/10/09/barack_obama.jpg
Oh shit you're so silly. :lol: