*** Official Barack Obama FBG campaign headquarters *** (3 Viewers)

[flufhed]

I guess I'm one of the few who thinks that this nomination is still up for grabs..Hillary has won the "big"states, and should win another today.. That matters.Obama's popular vote lead could dwindle to about 1% or less after today, hardly convincing, plus there is Florida, where there are alot of angry voters who feel they aren't being counted..Obama hasn't won any big states, and many of his wins were caucus states, not primaries, and many were BEFORE some of these blemishes such as the Reverand, Bitter comments, typical white person, etc, have come out... As someone said earlier, when this campaign began, not many were paying close attention- now they are, and all they are seeing are the negatives, as well as Obama not doing well in the states that the Dems need to carry to win in November..I think the Super Ds are withholding votes because of these reasons- had every state held a primary, Hillary could be leading.. If the Dems took the Republican model, where the winner takes all comes into play, Hillary would have a bigger delegate lead on Obama then Obama has now.. If Hillary wins PA by 5-7% or more, this thing is going to the Convention.. The Supers are going to pick the most electable.. I'm not convinced either candidate has proven they are as of yet..Full disclosure, I wouldn't vote for either, but if I had a gun to my head, I would vote for Obama...

Although I disagree with the concept of "the big states" (does this mean large states, like NY and CA where either Obama or Clinton will easily beat McCain and TX, where neither will win anyway, or important, swing states, where Hillary has an advantage but where Obama has one some, too, like VA, MN, IA, and MO), otherwise

 

[saintfool]

I guess I'm one of the few who thinks that this nomination is still up for grabs..Hillary has won the "big"states, and should win another today.. That matters.Obama's popular vote lead could dwindle to about 1% or less after today, hardly convincing, plus there is Florida, where there are alot of angry voters who feel they aren't being counted..Obama hasn't won any big states, and many of his wins were caucus states, not primaries, and many were BEFORE some of these blemishes such as the Reverand, Bitter comments, typical white person, etc, have come out... As someone said earlier, when this campaign began, not many were paying close attention- now they are, and all they are seeing are the negatives, as well as Obama not doing well in the states that the Dems need to carry to win in November..I think the Super Ds are withholding votes because of these reasons- had every state held a primary, Hillary could be leading.. If the Dems took the Republican model, where the winner takes all comes into play, Hillary would have a bigger delegate lead on Obama then Obama has now.. If Hillary wins PA by 5-7% or more, this thing is going to the Convention.. The Supers are going to pick the most electable.. I'm not convinced either candidate has proven they are as of yet..Full disclosure, I wouldn't vote for either, but if I had a gun to my head, I would vote for Obama...

The only reason I disagree with this is that North Carolina is right around the corner and will shut the door on any remaining shread of possibility that Clinton can catch Obama in the popular vote count. That was really the last hope that she has been clinging to as a way to justify the SDs lining up behind her. Winning PA by 5-7% really loses ground for her because of the amount she needs to make up. The one consistent message from the superdelegates has been that they won't overturn the will of the majority of Democratic voters. By the end of this, Obama will have won over twice as many states, have more delegates, and more total votes. Even her electability appeals are not backed up by any tangible eveidence. Obama has actually gained ground in PA through all the recent issues and hasn't seen much change in national polls against McCain.

 

[flufhed]

The one consistent message from the superdelegates has been that they won't overturn the will of the majority of Democratic voters.

I disagree. The consistent theme I am hearing from the Superdelegates is they want someone who will win in November.Hillary has a legitimate claim to the nomination, still, and is wise to stay in it.

 

[Tigran Petrosian]

Obama hasn't won any big states

Obama won TX. Let's end that myth.You're buying into the media buzz. Clinton is too far behind. She would need a tidal wave of momentum to win. It's not going to happen. Obama is going to win NC and IN anyway, just to slam the door. A single digit win in PA for Hillary literally means nothing. She has to have a monumental win in PA.. like 65-35. That's not going to happen.The math just doesn't work for her, and the media's continued effort to mischaracterize the race is pretty amusing. They don't seem to ever be ahead of the curve on any of this.

 

[CBusAlex]

Plus there is Florida, where there are alot of angry voters who feel they aren't being counted.. Obama hasn't won any big states, and many of his wins were caucus states, not primaries, and many were BEFORE some of these blemishes such as the Reverand, Bitter comments, typical white person, etc, have come out...

So if you count the Florida and Michigan votes in January, but ignore all the February votes because they were too early, and ignore all the caucas states for no apparent reason, then Hillary still has a chance?

 

[Hammered Finz]

Plus there is Florida, where there are alot of angry voters who feel they aren't being counted.. Obama hasn't won any big states, and many of his wins were caucus states, not primaries, and many were BEFORE some of these blemishes such as the Reverand, Bitter comments, typical white person, etc, have come out...

So if you count the Florida and Michigan votes in January, but ignore all the February votes because they were too early, and ignore all the caucas states for no apparent reason, then Hillary still has a chance?

I didn't count the Fla or Mich votes.. just said the Fla voters will be angry..

 

[Hammered Finz]

Obama hasn't won any big states

Obama won TX. Let's end that myth.You're buying into the media buzz. Clinton is too far behind. She would need a tidal wave of momentum to win. It's not going to happen. Obama is going to win NC and IN anyway, just to slam the door. A single digit win in PA for Hillary literally means nothing. She has to have a monumental win in PA.. like 65-35. That's not going to happen.

The math just doesn't work for her, and the media's continued effort to mischaracterize the race is pretty amusing. They don't seem to ever be ahead of the curve on any of this.

Texas will be McCain.. Not a battleground state.

 

[flufhed]

Listen guys, it is this simple:

slim delegate lead + slim popular vote lead + losing certain important swing states + Florida + possibly alieanating whites, Jews and Hispanics + Rev. Wright + neither candidate able to acquire enough pledged delegates to secure nomination = realistic chance the supers give the nomination to Hillary.

A month or so ago I would have considered this impossible that the supers would risk pissing off black voters like this. But some of the recent stuff that has come out may give them the excuse they are looking for (if they are looking for one) to hand the nomination to Hillary.

It ain't over.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

The one consistent message from the superdelegates has been that they won't overturn the will of the majority of Democratic voters.

I disagree. The consistent theme I am hearing from the Superdelegates is they want someone who will win in November.Hillary has a legitimate claim to the nomination, still, and is wise to stay in it.

Really? Maybe I am having selective hearing, but aside from the hardcore partisans like Carville, most of what I have seen and read suggests that they won't even consider going against the grain if one candidate has a clear lead. Clear lead meaning being ahead in every measure.

 

[Tigran Petrosian]

Obama hasn't won any big states

Obama won TX. Let's end that myth.You're buying into the media buzz. Clinton is too far behind. She would need a tidal wave of momentum to win. It's not going to happen. Obama is going to win NC and IN anyway, just to slam the door. A single digit win in PA for Hillary literally means nothing. She has to have a monumental win in PA.. like 65-35. That's not going to happen.

The math just doesn't work for her, and the media's continued effort to mischaracterize the race is pretty amusing. They don't seem to ever be ahead of the curve on any of this.

Texas will be McCain.. Not a battleground state.

And this has what to do with the dem nomination?

 

[Hammered Finz]

Obama hasn't won any big states

Obama won TX. Let's end that myth.You're buying into the media buzz. Clinton is too far behind. She would need a tidal wave of momentum to win. It's not going to happen. Obama is going to win NC and IN anyway, just to slam the door. A single digit win in PA for Hillary literally means nothing. She has to have a monumental win in PA.. like 65-35. That's not going to happen.

The math just doesn't work for her, and the media's continued effort to mischaracterize the race is pretty amusing. They don't seem to ever be ahead of the curve on any of this.

Texas will be McCain.. Not a battleground state.

And this has what to do with the dem nomination?

You brought it up..

 

[saintfool]

Texas will be McCain.. Not a battleground state.

there are plenty of other states that went Bush in 2004 that could be in play. any talk of Hillary's "electability" is a tribute to her trench fighter political will. it's not like obama wouldn't carry states that hillary won. dem strongholds are just that - strongholds.

 

[Tigran Petrosian]

Obama hasn't won any big states

Obama won TX. Let's end that myth.You're buying into the media buzz. Clinton is too far behind. She would need a tidal wave of momentum to win. It's not going to happen. Obama is going to win NC and IN anyway, just to slam the door. A single digit win in PA for Hillary literally means nothing. She has to have a monumental win in PA.. like 65-35. That's not going to happen.

The math just doesn't work for her, and the media's continued effort to mischaracterize the race is pretty amusing. They don't seem to ever be ahead of the curve on any of this.

Texas will be McCain.. Not a battleground state.

And this has what to do with the dem nomination?

You brought it up..

Yes I did, with respect the dem nomination. Unless McCain is a democrat, I fail to see what point you are making here.

 

[Sweet J]

Stuff like this is why I am so angry at Clinton. It wouldn't be so bad if she didn't attack him for this very issue:

A Tale of Clintonian Spin: Trying to Blow Past the Weathermen Question

All campaigns spin. All candidates spin. But there is something about Clintonian spin that is...well, spinnier than conventional spin.

Here's an example. Last Thursday, following the mis-moderated Clinton-Obama debate of the previous evening, the Hillary Clinton campaign decided to follow up by blasting Barack Obama on two issues that had been tossed at him the previous evening: his past support of a handgun ban and his connection to William Ayers, a former Weather Underground radical who has become a distinguished professor and education expert. During a conference call that morning, Howard Wolfson and Phil Singer, two senior Clinton aides, hammered Obama for having held a fundraiser in 1995, during his first campaign for state senator, in Ayers' apartment. At the time, Ayers, who has admitted taking part in bombings during the 1970s (which never caused any loss of life) and who was never arrested for any of his radical actions, lived near Obama, and the two served on the board of a nonprofit that provided grants to groups working on poverty issues. Obama, Wolfson insisted, had "to be more forthcoming" about Ayers.

During that conference call, I asked Wolfson whether Senator Clinton supported the pardon Bill Clinton issued in 2001 to two Weather Underground radicals: Linda Evans, who was sentenced to prison for participating in a series of bombings in the 1980s, and Susan Rosenberg, who was charged with being part of a bank robbery that left a guard and two police officers dead. Whether or not the Ayers matter was a non-issue, if Hillary Clinton's aides were going to bash Obama for having once had a connection to a former radical who had never been arrested, it seemed fair to wonder if she had opposed her husband's pardons of two radicals who had served time for their crimes.

Wolfson did not answer the question. Instead, he noted that the pardoned Weather Underground radicals had never held a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton. I pointed out that was not the issue--and again asked if Senator Clinton supported or opposed those two pardons. "I don't know what she said," Wolfson replied. And in front of the dozens of reporters on the call, Wolfson promised he would get back to me.

Once the call was done, I emailed Wolfson a reminder that he had promised he would provide an answer to that question. Within minutes, he responded, "It was a fair question and I know this issue does inspire a fair amount of passion." There was no answer in this email.

I waited patiently for a day and then shot Wolfson another note: "Any answer to my question from yesterday?" He replied, "turns out i actually answered this in '01." And he sent me an excerpt from a news story at the time of the pardons:

"She thinks that it was a pardon made by the president," said spokesman Howard Wolfson. Wolfson provided the same response to questions about her view of the pardon of former Weather Underground radical Susan Rosenberg, serving a 58-year weapons-possession sentence and long suspected by law-enforcement officials of involvement in the 1981 Brink's truck robbery in which two New York police officers were killed. Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) has criticized that pardon.

Consider Wolfson's reply: She thinks it was a pardon made by the president. It's close to a non sequitur. Imagine if you asked Hillary Clinton what she thought of her husband's affair with an intern, and her spokesperson said, "She thinks that it was an affair."

Did Wolfson believe he could get away with pretending this was actually responsive to the question of whether Clinton supported or opposed those two pardons? Meanwhile, other reporters--and Obama aides--were asking me if Wolfson had yet provided an answer.

In an email to Wolfson, I noted that the quote he had sent did not answer the question. "The question is," I wrote, "does she believe the pardons were appropriate? And at the time, did she support or oppose them?" In return, there was silence. I waited a bit and sent another email: "Am I going to get a reply to my last note?" Nothing came.

On Monday morning, during a Clinton campaign conference call, I asked Wolfson once more if Clinton supported or opposed the pardons. He remarked that he had sent me that clip. I pointed out that it had said nothing. He then commented, "I'm not aware she had an opinion" at the time the pardons were granted. He next insisted that my question had only applied to that time frame. It certainly had not. In the first call, I had asked "whether she thought [the pardons] were appropriate" and "what she thinks of" the pardons. (Note the verb tenses.) I also had asked whether she would "do anything like that herself." But now I said I would amend the question to cover then, now, and any time in between. He replied, "I don't have any more for you than what I've given you." That is, more nothing.

Clinton's pardons for these two radicals--like Ayers' relation to Obama--is no big issue. But Wolfson had promised an answer. Instead, he sidestepped and then ducked. Wolfson makes about $450,000 a year working for the Clinton campaign. I suppose evading questions is part of the job. But absurd spin? She thinks the pardon is a pardon. Mischaracterizing questions to avoid answering them? If this is how Wolfson handles this not-so-tough question, what would he do as White House press secretary?

 

[Orange Crush]

Look guys, we've known this for a while now. The numbers today mean nothing, because Obama already has this nomination wrapped up based on the numbers. There's no way Clinton catches him.

All this "MI and FL", "Popular Vote", "Big States", "Swing States" rationales are just the excuses the Clinton campaign has been using to justify her remaining in the race. They are all false.

Clinton's only chance is to tear Obama down. To make him unelectable. Obama has withstood her kitchen sink attacks and is still standing. I think the odds of him not getting the election now has got to be 50:1, maybe higher. He has to have some outrageous and scandalous campaign implosion between now and the convention for Clinton to be given the nomination.

I'm actually incredibly surprised that Clinton answered "Yes, yes, yes" to the question of whether Obama can beat McCain in the fall. If she had realized she was going to get that question and thought everything through, she would have realized that she should have answered "No". Of course, saying that would place her in an all or nothing situation. She either gets the nomination, or becomes a pariah within the Democratic party for actively working against the party's nominee. But she's been doing that anyway. By answering "yes" she contradicted her entire argument for staying in the race.

 

[bigbottom]

All spin aside, I think any loss today is bad for Obama. Assuming he is going to be the Democratic candidate, he should not be losing a primary in late April in a state as large as Pennsylvania. There's a whole lot of Americans (perhaps a majority) who really haven't started paying close attention to this election yet. What they'll take from this is that there's a weakness, that not all of the Dems really are in love with Obama. This will create a feeling of uncertainty that may hurt him in November. The bigger Obama loses today, the worse this effect may become. Above every other factor in politics, America likes winners.

You don't win generals in March or April. And you rarely if ever lose them.September and October are the important months.

I didn't say he's going to lose the general election because of today. I said this wouldn't help. All this talk that if he loses by only 5 points, that's a victory; that's all spin. It's not good for him.

You know what really grinds my gears?All this hatred for "spin." What is spin? The natural defination and explanation of a previous topic or statement. It is, by definition, a definition. A verbal dictionary, if you will. Is it not proper that the government arena, that arena of our society where explanation and verbal delivery of information is crucial and occurs daily, be complete with "spin?" Really, what's the big deal?

If you work, you spin. If you play, you spin. If you want to get busy with the wife, you spin. It's the actual true use of our language. Politicians are good at it, and they pay people who are even better at it to help them.

Washington's Fairwell Address? Spin. Lincoln's Gettysburgh Address? Spin. Roosevelt's "Fear" speech. Spin. If those greats did it, and we love them for it, why are we so bothered by it from others?

Not quite the definition I would use. I would call "spin" the deliberate slanted explanation of a topic to make people believe something about it. There's nothing wrong with spin so long as you recognize it for what it is. Every political campaign will always put the maximum positive slant on everything that happens. In this case, the Obama campaign has for weeks been putting out there that a 5 point loss today is actually a victory for Obama. Several people have repeated this on this thread. All I'm saying is that a 5 point loss, while certainly would be devastating for Hillary's chances, is NOT a victory for Obama.

Sure, it's not technically a victory, but you've explained precisely why a five-point HRC victory would be good for Obama, namely because it would be devastating to his opponent's chances to get the nomination.

 

[bigbottom]

Obama's popular vote lead could dwindle to about 1% or less after today, hardly convincing, plus there is Florida, where there are alot of angry voters who feel they aren't being counted.

I keep being told that there are a bunch of angry Floridians who feel their votes aren't being counted. Is that really the case? Do we have any Floridians here that can shed light on the issue?

 

[BuddyKnuckles]

Obama's popular vote lead could dwindle to about 1% or less after today, hardly convincing, plus there is Florida, where there are alot of angry voters who feel they aren't being counted.

I keep being told that there are a bunch of angry Floridians who feel their votes aren't being counted. Is that really the case? Do we have any Floridians here that can shed light on the issue?

I'm in Florida and actually have been all over the state on business this month. And i can honestly say that i have not met one angry voter. No one cares (well, no one outside of Hillary activists). Its all overblown media and HRC hype. And i've run into all types in the past month...and actually had a political conversation with them

 

[scoobygang]

Obama's popular vote lead could dwindle to about 1% or less after today, hardly convincing, plus there is Florida, where there are alot of angry voters who feel they aren't being counted.

I keep being told that there are a bunch of angry Floridians who feel their votes aren't being counted. Is that really the case? Do we have any Floridians here that can shed light on the issue?

Is this really something that has to be proven? Maybe if you or I had lived in Florida, and had been aware of the vote stripping decision, we never would have bothered to go to the polls. Certainly, that's possible. But if I had bothered to go to the polls, I certainly would want my vote to be counted. And what's happening right now, with several Obama supporters calling on the super delegates to get off the fence and decide already would just add fuel to the fire.I'd figure my state wanted to move toward the front of the line for exactly this reason. They wanted my vote to count. They didn't want the party to be able to schedule primaries anyway they saw fit, and then be able to declare a presumptive nominee before I voted. It's not hard to see right now that 10 states who haven't voted yet are being treated as afterthoughts. So yeah, I'd be a little upset. That's not Obama's fault, of course. I'm not sure whether it's anyone's fault. It's just a crappy situation.

 

[CBusAlex]

What kind of a name for an extremist group is Weather Underground, anyway? The image of a band or rogue climatologists wielding barometers strikes fear into the hearts of no one.

 

[adonis]

Listen guys, it is this simple:slim delegate lead + slim popular vote lead + losing certain important swing states + Florida + possibly alieanating whites, Jews and Hispanics + Rev. Wright + neither candidate able to acquire enough pledged delegates to secure nomination = realistic chance the supers give the nomination to Hillary.A month or so ago I would have considered this impossible that the supers would risk pissing off black voters like this. But some of the recent stuff that has come out may give them the excuse they are looking for (if they are looking for one) to hand the nomination to Hillary.It ain't over.

Slim delegate lead? Methinks not with a >100 lead.Slim popular vote lead? Methinks not, with a >700,000 vote leadLosing important swing states? Yeah, to another democrat, very similar to Obama. Would those who voted for Hillary really not vote for Obama and go further away from their platforms and vote for McCain? Methinks not.Rev Wright issue has not negatively affected him, as tested and shown by numerous polls. If anything, he's gained support from how he handled it. An issue? Methinks not.Me also thinks that alienating whites, Jews and Hispanics a bunch of bull.These elections, barring unforeseen calamity, are simply a process of confirming what we already know:Obama will end with significantly more delegates, states won, and popular votes than Hillary. It's over, Hillary just doesn't know it yet.

 

[bigbottom]

Obama's popular vote lead could dwindle to about 1% or less after today, hardly convincing, plus there is Florida, where there are alot of angry voters who feel they aren't being counted.

I keep being told that there are a bunch of angry Floridians who feel their votes aren't being counted. Is that really the case? Do we have any Floridians here that can shed light on the issue?

Is this really something that has to be proven? Maybe if you or I had lived in Florida, and had been aware of the vote stripping decision, we never would have bothered to go to the polls. Certainly, that's possible. But if I had bothered to go to the polls, I certainly would want my vote to be counted. And what's happening right now, with several Obama supporters calling on the super delegates to get off the fence and decide already would just add fuel to the fire.I'd figure my state wanted to move toward the front of the line for exactly this reason. They wanted my vote to count. They didn't want the party to be able to schedule primaries anyway they saw fit, and then be able to declare a presumptive nominee before I voted. It's not hard to see right now that 10 states who haven't voted yet are being treated as afterthoughts. So yeah, I'd be a little upset. That's not Obama's fault, of course. I'm not sure whether it's anyone's fault. It's just a crappy situation.

If I went to the polls knowing that my vote wouldn't count, I really can't fathom why I would be pissed three months later about it not counting. I don't remember hearing about all these pissed off Floridians back in January.

 

[thesurfshop19]

Obama's popular vote lead could dwindle to about 1% or less after today, hardly convincing, plus there is Florida, where there are alot of angry voters who feel they aren't being counted.

I keep being told that there are a bunch of angry Floridians who feel their votes aren't being counted. Is that really the case? Do we have any Floridians here that can shed light on the issue?

Even beyond that, can anyone really be angry at Obama for this? His only request was that any voting decision be fair and legal. Sounds pretty reasonable to me.

 

[bigbottom]

Obama's popular vote lead could dwindle to about 1% or less after today, hardly convincing, plus there is Florida, where there are alot of angry voters who feel they aren't being counted.

I keep being told that there are a bunch of angry Floridians who feel their votes aren't being counted. Is that really the case? Do we have any Floridians here that can shed light on the issue?

I'm in Florida and actually have been all over the state on business this month. And i can honestly say that i have not met one angry voter. No one cares (well, no one outside of Hillary activists). Its all overblown media and HRC hype. And i've run into all types in the past month...and actually had a political conversation with them

Your experience doesn't surprise me. I could understand if there was some sort of disenfranchisement after the fact, but any reasonably informed voter in the Florida democratic primary knew in advance that it was just a beauty contest.

 

[Mark Davis]

Texas will be McCain.. Not a battleground state.

there are plenty of other states that went Bush in 2004 that could be in play. any talk of Hillary's "electability" is a tribute to her trench fighter political will. it's not like obama wouldn't carry states that hillary won. dem strongholds are just that - strongholds.

You're discounting Florida. Every poll I've seen there shows Hillary defeating McCain and McCain defeating Obama in Florida. If that proves to be the case, then states where Obama is weaker than Hillary such as Ohio and Pennsylvania become musts for Obama. I think this is why Hillary is hanging on. She's trying to make an argument out of the electoral math and being stronger in OH and PA while getting FL as well. Obama likely secures WA and OR which are no locks for Hillary, but combined they don't equal FL. There are other smaller states like WI that favor Obama and WV that favor Hillary as well. But of the states truly in play, FL is the biggest prize.

 

[mdog1967]

Obama hasn't won any big states

Obama won TX. Let's end that myth.You're buying into the media buzz. Clinton is too far behind. She would need a tidal wave of momentum to win. It's not going to happen. Obama is going to win NC and IN anyway, just to slam the door. A single digit win in PA for Hillary literally means nothing. She has to have a monumental win in PA.. like 65-35. That's not going to happen.The math just doesn't work for her, and the media's continued effort to mischaracterize the race is pretty amusing. They don't seem to ever be ahead of the curve on any of this.

Obama won a Rigged caucus in Texas, Hillary won the Primary so your statement is false. It does not matter, Obama will be the Nominee but will receive no more than 45% percent of the vote in the general. Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan will be in the McCain column come November. A caucus is not a true democratic system. They don't necessarily represent the will of the Voters in the state but are a representation of the most active participants in the party.I have a whole case of towels to hand out for all you after the election, I will send them to you if needed.

 

[CBusAlex]

I keep being told that there are a bunch of angry Floridians who feel their votes aren't being counted. Is that really the case? Do we have any Floridians here that can shed light on the issue?

I live in Florida, I voted in the primary, and I don't think my vote should count.You cannot, CANNOT, change the rules after the votes are tallied. It undermines the very essense of democracy. That's the kind of BS they pull in phoney third-world democracies.No one else I know really seems to give a ####. The Repubs probably care more about it than the Dems do.

I'd figure my state wanted to move toward the front of the line for exactly this reason. They wanted my vote to count. They didn't want the party to be able to schedule primaries anyway they saw fit, and then be able to declare a presumptive nominee before I voted. It's not hard to see right now that 10 states who haven't voted yet are being treated as afterthoughts. So yeah, I'd be a little upset. That's not Obama's fault, of course. I'm not sure whether it's anyone's fault. It's just a crappy situation.

See, that's the thing. Florida wasn't trying to change that system. We just wanted to be the ones who decided the nominee, before other states got to vote. If we wanted everything to be fair, and all the votes to count, we would have just moved the primary to Super Tuesday along with everyone else.

 

[adonis]

Obama hasn't won any big states

Obama won TX. Let's end that myth.You're buying into the media buzz. Clinton is too far behind. She would need a tidal wave of momentum to win. It's not going to happen. Obama is going to win NC and IN anyway, just to slam the door. A single digit win in PA for Hillary literally means nothing. She has to have a monumental win in PA.. like 65-35. That's not going to happen.

The math just doesn't work for her, and the media's continued effort to mischaracterize the race is pretty amusing. They don't seem to ever be ahead of the curve on any of this.

Obama won a Rigged caucus in Texas, Hillary won the Primary so your statement is false. It does not matter, Obama will be the Nominee but will receive no more than 45% percent of the vote in the general. Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan will be in the McCain column come November. A caucus is not a true democratic system. They don't necessarily represent the will of the Voters in the state but are a representation of the most active participants in the party.

I have a whole case of towels to hand out for all you after the election, I will send them to you if needed.

 

[flufhed]

Listen guys, it is this simple:slim delegate lead + slim popular vote lead + losing certain important swing states + Florida + possibly alieanating whites, Jews and Hispanics + Rev. Wright + neither candidate able to acquire enough pledged delegates to secure nomination = realistic chance the supers give the nomination to Hillary.A month or so ago I would have considered this impossible that the supers would risk pissing off black voters like this. But some of the recent stuff that has come out may give them the excuse they are looking for (if they are looking for one) to hand the nomination to Hillary.It ain't over.

Slim delegate lead? Methinks not with a >100 lead.Slim popular vote lead? Methinks not, with a >700,000 vote leadLosing important swing states? Yeah, to another democrat, very similar to Obama. Would those who voted for Hillary really not vote for Obama and go further away from their platforms and vote for McCain? Methinks not.Rev Wright issue has not negatively affected him, as tested and shown by numerous polls. If anything, he's gained support from how he handled it. An issue? Methinks not.Me also thinks that alienating whites, Jews and Hispanics a bunch of bull.These elections, barring unforeseen calamity, are simply a process of confirming what we already know:Obama will end with significantly more delegates, states won, and popular votes than Hillary. It's over, Hillary just doesn't know it yet.

I'm on your side. I'm just saying there is a lot of mud in the waters these days, and enough that could give the supers an excuse to give it to Hillary. Maybe not a good one, but an excuse nonetheless.

 

[adonis]

Texas will be McCain.. Not a battleground state.

there are plenty of other states that went Bush in 2004 that could be in play. any talk of Hillary's "electability" is a tribute to her trench fighter political will. it's not like obama wouldn't carry states that hillary won. dem strongholds are just that - strongholds.

You're discounting Florida. Every poll I've seen there shows Hillary defeating McCain and McCain defeating Obama in Florida. If that proves to be the case, then states where Obama is weaker than Hillary such as Ohio and Pennsylvania become musts for Obama. I think this is why Hillary is hanging on. She's trying to make an argument out of the electoral math and being stronger in OH and PA while getting FL as well. Obama likely secures WA and OR which are no locks for Hillary, but combined they don't equal FL. There are other smaller states like WI that favor Obama and WV that favor Hillary as well. But of the states truly in play, FL is the biggest prize.

Obama hasn't even campaigned in florida. Of course he's doing poorly. He's behind in every poll in every state just about until he starts to campaign, and then he makes huge headway. Why would Florida be any different?

 

[bigbottom]

Obama won a Rigged caucus in Texas

What's the story on this?

 

[Tigran Petrosian]

Obama hasn't won any big states

Obama won TX. Let's end that myth.You're buying into the media buzz. Clinton is too far behind. She would need a tidal wave of momentum to win. It's not going to happen. Obama is going to win NC and IN anyway, just to slam the door. A single digit win in PA for Hillary literally means nothing. She has to have a monumental win in PA.. like 65-35. That's not going to happen.The math just doesn't work for her, and the media's continued effort to mischaracterize the race is pretty amusing. They don't seem to ever be ahead of the curve on any of this.

Obama won a Rigged caucus in Texas, Hillary won the Primary so your statement is false. It does not matter, Obama will be the Nominee but will receive no more than 45% percent of the vote in the general. Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan will be in the McCain column come November. A caucus is not a true democratic system. They don't necessarily represent the will of the Voters in the state but are a representation of the most active participants in the party.I have a whole case of towels to hand out for all you after the election, I will send them to you if needed.

Oof.TX has a primary/caucus system. I'm sorry you don't like it, but there it is.Again, my apologies for this fact.

 

[Orange Crush]

Texas will be McCain.. Not a battleground state.

there are plenty of other states that went Bush in 2004 that could be in play. any talk of Hillary's "electability" is a tribute to her trench fighter political will. it's not like obama wouldn't carry states that hillary won. dem strongholds are just that - strongholds.

You're discounting Florida. Every poll I've seen there shows Hillary defeating McCain and McCain defeating Obama in Florida. If that proves to be the case, then states where Obama is weaker than Hillary such as Ohio and Pennsylvania become musts for Obama. I think this is why Hillary is hanging on. She's trying to make an argument out of the electoral math and being stronger in OH and PA while getting FL as well. Obama likely secures WA and OR which are no locks for Hillary, but combined they don't equal FL. There are other smaller states like WI that favor Obama and WV that favor Hillary as well. But of the states truly in play, FL is the biggest prize.

Obama could lose FL, OH, and PA and still win the general election over McCain. It would be difficult, but looking at state-by-state polling it's still possible. He could (and has good shots at taking) VA, CO, MO, and IA. All of which went red in '04.

 

[flufhed]

Obama won a Rigged caucus in Texas

What's the story on this?

All caucuses are un-democratic and inferior to primaries, and therefore aren't "real" victories. Haven't you heard?

 

[adonis]

Listen guys, it is this simple:slim delegate lead + slim popular vote lead + losing certain important swing states + Florida + possibly alieanating whites, Jews and Hispanics + Rev. Wright + neither candidate able to acquire enough pledged delegates to secure nomination = realistic chance the supers give the nomination to Hillary.A month or so ago I would have considered this impossible that the supers would risk pissing off black voters like this. But some of the recent stuff that has come out may give them the excuse they are looking for (if they are looking for one) to hand the nomination to Hillary.It ain't over.

Slim delegate lead? Methinks not with a >100 lead.Slim popular vote lead? Methinks not, with a >700,000 vote leadLosing important swing states? Yeah, to another democrat, very similar to Obama. Would those who voted for Hillary really not vote for Obama and go further away from their platforms and vote for McCain? Methinks not.Rev Wright issue has not negatively affected him, as tested and shown by numerous polls. If anything, he's gained support from how he handled it. An issue? Methinks not.Me also thinks that alienating whites, Jews and Hispanics a bunch of bull.These elections, barring unforeseen calamity, are simply a process of confirming what we already know:Obama will end with significantly more delegates, states won, and popular votes than Hillary. It's over, Hillary just doesn't know it yet.

I'm on your side. I'm just saying there is a lot of mud in the waters these days, and enough that could give the supers an excuse to give it to Hillary. Maybe not a good one, but an excuse nonetheless.

I think so too. I'm acting more confident than I actually am about the outcome. Anything can happen, and likely will. Every time Hillary has been counted out, she comes back strong. Could happen today.Actually, I'm guessing an 8-12% win by her today, and I think that'll be enough for her to stay in it, unfortunately. She's thrown so much at Obama these past few weeks that it's surprising he's so close. But yeah, she's muddying the waters every way she can, and odds are, it will remain murky for some time. I rely simply on the math, and that says she's out of this thing, but my gut tells me it'll be a long ways yet until we can relax.

 

[Mark Davis]

Listen guys, it is this simple:

slim delegate lead + slim popular vote lead + losing certain important swing states + Florida + possibly alieanating whites, Jews and Hispanics + Rev. Wright + neither candidate able to acquire enough pledged delegates to secure nomination = realistic chance the supers give the nomination to Hillary.

A month or so ago I would have considered this impossible that the supers would risk pissing off black voters like this. But some of the recent stuff that has come out may give them the excuse they are looking for (if they are looking for one) to hand the nomination to Hillary.

It ain't over.

Slim delegate lead? Methinks not with a >100 lead.Slim popular vote lead? Methinks not, with a >700,000 vote lead

Losing important swing states? Yeah, to another democrat, very similar to Obama. Would those who voted for Hillary really not vote for Obama and go further away from their platforms and vote for McCain? Methinks not.

Rev Wright issue has not negatively affected him, as tested and shown by numerous polls. If anything, he's gained support from how he handled it. An issue? Methinks not.

Me also thinks that alienating whites, Jews and Hispanics a bunch of bull.

These elections, barring unforeseen calamity, are simply a process of confirming what we already know:

Obama will end with significantly more delegates, states won, and popular votes than Hillary. It's over, Hillary just doesn't know it yet.

I think this depends on the state. Take Pennsylvania, I think Obama is going to have a hard time with Democrats in the central area of PA if he is indeed the Democratic nominee. He may carry Philadelphia and Pittsburgh by enough to hold on to PA, but my guess is he won't do as well as Gore and Kerry did against Bush in those rural areas. I agree many of the gaffes on comments are not big deals, but when you're dealing with razor thin margins in swing states, you have to look at the demographics.

 

[adonis]

Listen guys, it is this simple:

slim delegate lead + slim popular vote lead + losing certain important swing states + Florida + possibly alieanating whites, Jews and Hispanics + Rev. Wright + neither candidate able to acquire enough pledged delegates to secure nomination = realistic chance the supers give the nomination to Hillary.

A month or so ago I would have considered this impossible that the supers would risk pissing off black voters like this. But some of the recent stuff that has come out may give them the excuse they are looking for (if they are looking for one) to hand the nomination to Hillary.

It ain't over.

Slim delegate lead? Methinks not with a >100 lead.Slim popular vote lead? Methinks not, with a >700,000 vote lead

Losing important swing states? Yeah, to another democrat, very similar to Obama. Would those who voted for Hillary really not vote for Obama and go further away from their platforms and vote for McCain? Methinks not.

Rev Wright issue has not negatively affected him, as tested and shown by numerous polls. If anything, he's gained support from how he handled it. An issue? Methinks not.

Me also thinks that alienating whites, Jews and Hispanics a bunch of bull.

These elections, barring unforeseen calamity, are simply a process of confirming what we already know:

Obama will end with significantly more delegates, states won, and popular votes than Hillary. It's over, Hillary just doesn't know it yet.

I think this depends on the state. Take Pennsylvania, I think Obama is going to have a hard time with Democrats in the central area of PA if he is indeed the Democratic nominee. He may carry Philadelphia and Pittsburgh by enough to hold on to PA, but my guess is he won't do as well as Gore and Kerry did against Bush in those rural areas. I agree many of the gaffes on comments are not big deals, but when you're dealing with razor thin margins in swing states, you have to look at the demographics.

True, but imagine if Obama wins what will happen? All democrats will rally behind him, including Clinton I imagine. If I were party leaders, I'd send her out to these "swing" states rallying for Obama. She should throw her support behind him, tell others who voted for her to vote for Obama because he stands for many of the principles she was promoting, and that we need him in office.It would be a hard thing to imagine for her to refuse to stump for the democratic nominee even if it's not her. With that granted, with an eventually unified party, I think she will be able to pull a lot of former supporters to Obama.

 

[Mark Davis]

Texas will be McCain.. Not a battleground state.

there are plenty of other states that went Bush in 2004 that could be in play. any talk of Hillary's "electability" is a tribute to her trench fighter political will. it's not like obama wouldn't carry states that hillary won. dem strongholds are just that - strongholds.

You're discounting Florida. Every poll I've seen there shows Hillary defeating McCain and McCain defeating Obama in Florida. If that proves to be the case, then states where Obama is weaker than Hillary such as Ohio and Pennsylvania become musts for Obama. I think this is why Hillary is hanging on. She's trying to make an argument out of the electoral math and being stronger in OH and PA while getting FL as well. Obama likely secures WA and OR which are no locks for Hillary, but combined they don't equal FL. There are other smaller states like WI that favor Obama and WV that favor Hillary as well. But of the states truly in play, FL is the biggest prize.

Obama hasn't even campaigned in florida. Of course he's doing poorly. He's behind in every poll in every state just about until he starts to campaign, and then he makes huge headway. Why would Florida be any different?

Perhaps, but take a look at the polls there, it's not like he's close there right now, he's down 15%. I don't believe Florida is very much in play for Obama for two reasons. First, Charlie Crist is a very popular governor and has been firmly behind McCain from the very beginning. Many of the Democrats in Florida are transplants from the northeast, which brings me to the second reason Hillary is doing much better there. Many of those voters are from NY and other areas she's done well in.He may do better, but even if he gets it down to 3-4% there it won't matter. The losing close thing won't matter in the general like it may tonight in the primary. I do think Obama will be the nominee, so don't take it personal. But these are the reasons Hillary is still in and making these kinds of arguments. While it isn't inconcievable that Obama could win Florida in November, it's highly unlikely. If you truly disagree that he has a good shot there and it's not just lipspeak I'll give 3:2 odds for anyone who wants to take that action on FL in the general.

 

[Mark Davis]

Texas will be McCain.. Not a battleground state.

there are plenty of other states that went Bush in 2004 that could be in play. any talk of Hillary's "electability" is a tribute to her trench fighter political will. it's not like obama wouldn't carry states that hillary won. dem strongholds are just that - strongholds.

You're discounting Florida. Every poll I've seen there shows Hillary defeating McCain and McCain defeating Obama in Florida. If that proves to be the case, then states where Obama is weaker than Hillary such as Ohio and Pennsylvania become musts for Obama. I think this is why Hillary is hanging on. She's trying to make an argument out of the electoral math and being stronger in OH and PA while getting FL as well. Obama likely secures WA and OR which are no locks for Hillary, but combined they don't equal FL. There are other smaller states like WI that favor Obama and WV that favor Hillary as well. But of the states truly in play, FL is the biggest prize.

Obama could lose FL, OH, and PA and still win the general election over McCain. It would be difficult, but looking at state-by-state polling it's still possible. He could (and has good shots at taking) VA, CO, MO, and IA. All of which went red in '04.

With none of these 3 states how do you get to 270 EVs? I think Obama has a shot in Colorado for instance and a pickup of 9 EVs there that Hillary likely has no shot at. He may very well have a good shot at IA too, possibly MO. VA may be a bit of a stretch, but I agree not impossible. Those 4 states total 40 EVs. I still don't see how the math works unless he also picked up a state such as NC, which is unlikely I'd think.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

Obama hasn't won any big states

Obama won TX. Let's end that myth.You're buying into the media buzz. Clinton is too far behind. She would need a tidal wave of momentum to win. It's not going to happen. Obama is going to win NC and IN anyway, just to slam the door. A single digit win in PA for Hillary literally means nothing. She has to have a monumental win in PA.. like 65-35. That's not going to happen.

The math just doesn't work for her, and the media's continued effort to mischaracterize the race is pretty amusing. They don't seem to ever be ahead of the curve on any of this.

Obama won a Rigged caucus in Texas, Hillary won the Primary so your statement is false. It does not matter, Obama will be the Nominee but will receive no more than 45% percent of the vote in the general. Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan will be in the McCain column come November. A caucus is not a true democratic system. They don't necessarily represent the will of the Voters in the state but are a representation of the most active participants in the party.

I have a whole case of towels to hand out for all you after the election, I will send them to you if needed.

A primary isn't a true democratic system either. They have different rules; some open to all parties, some closed. Neither represent the will of the voters of the state, they represent the cross-section of voters who are eligible and who choose to participate. You can make a case that the bigger the cross-section the more accurate the sample will be, but that all depends on what you are trying to measure. There isn't anything inherently wrong with favoring the candidate with a stronger organization, whose supporters will be more vocal and active during the general election.

 

[Mark Davis]

Listen guys, it is this simple:

slim delegate lead + slim popular vote lead + losing certain important swing states + Florida + possibly alieanating whites, Jews and Hispanics + Rev. Wright + neither candidate able to acquire enough pledged delegates to secure nomination = realistic chance the supers give the nomination to Hillary.

A month or so ago I would have considered this impossible that the supers would risk pissing off black voters like this. But some of the recent stuff that has come out may give them the excuse they are looking for (if they are looking for one) to hand the nomination to Hillary.

It ain't over.

Slim delegate lead? Methinks not with a >100 lead.Slim popular vote lead? Methinks not, with a >700,000 vote lead

Losing important swing states? Yeah, to another democrat, very similar to Obama. Would those who voted for Hillary really not vote for Obama and go further away from their platforms and vote for McCain? Methinks not.

Rev Wright issue has not negatively affected him, as tested and shown by numerous polls. If anything, he's gained support from how he handled it. An issue? Methinks not.

Me also thinks that alienating whites, Jews and Hispanics a bunch of bull.

These elections, barring unforeseen calamity, are simply a process of confirming what we already know:

Obama will end with significantly more delegates, states won, and popular votes than Hillary. It's over, Hillary just doesn't know it yet.

I think this depends on the state. Take Pennsylvania, I think Obama is going to have a hard time with Democrats in the central area of PA if he is indeed the Democratic nominee. He may carry Philadelphia and Pittsburgh by enough to hold on to PA, but my guess is he won't do as well as Gore and Kerry did against Bush in those rural areas. I agree many of the gaffes on comments are not big deals, but when you're dealing with razor thin margins in swing states, you have to look at the demographics.

True, but imagine if Obama wins what will happen? All democrats will rally behind him, including Clinton I imagine. If I were party leaders, I'd send her out to these "swing" states rallying for Obama. She should throw her support behind him, tell others who voted for her to vote for Obama because he stands for many of the principles she was promoting, and that we need him in office.It would be a hard thing to imagine for her to refuse to stump for the democratic nominee even if it's not her. With that granted, with an eventually unified party, I think she will be able to pull a lot of former supporters to Obama.

I don't see that helping him in rural central PA. I'm from the South and there are a lot of Democrats here that voted for Hillary in the primary who will vote for McCain in November. We know the reason, it doesn't make it right, but let's be honest. It won't change the outcome as no Democrat will win most any southern state. However, that does change in places like PA where large areas of land and demographics are more like the South than anywhere else. If you disagree, I advise you to go to places out in central PA and up the I-81 corridor between Harrisburg and Scranton. I dated a girl from there for several years and when I flew up and drove from whichever airport I flew into it was as rural as anywhere in Alabama. That's just one state. There's also a great chance Obama hangs on to PA. But his chances there are less than Hillary's and that's why she's making the argument. If Obama truly can claim OH and PA then he can concede FL in November and still have a great chance. But if the Democrats lose FL, they can't afford to lose both OH and PA. Losing one of those two would be hard enough to overcome.

 

[Orange Crush]

Texas will be McCain.. Not a battleground state.

there are plenty of other states that went Bush in 2004 that could be in play. any talk of Hillary's "electability" is a tribute to her trench fighter political will. it's not like obama wouldn't carry states that hillary won. dem strongholds are just that - strongholds.

You're discounting Florida. Every poll I've seen there shows Hillary defeating McCain and McCain defeating Obama in Florida. If that proves to be the case, then states where Obama is weaker than Hillary such as Ohio and Pennsylvania become musts for Obama. I think this is why Hillary is hanging on. She's trying to make an argument out of the electoral math and being stronger in OH and PA while getting FL as well. Obama likely secures WA and OR which are no locks for Hillary, but combined they don't equal FL. There are other smaller states like WI that favor Obama and WV that favor Hillary as well. But of the states truly in play, FL is the biggest prize.

Obama could lose FL, OH, and PA and still win the general election over McCain. It would be difficult, but looking at state-by-state polling it's still possible. He could (and has good shots at taking) VA, CO, MO, and IA. All of which went red in '04.

With none of these 3 states how do you get to 270 EVs? I think Obama has a shot in Colorado for instance and a pickup of 9 EVs there that Hillary likely has no shot at. He may very well have a good shot at IA too, possibly MO. VA may be a bit of a stretch, but I agree not impossible. Those 4 states total 40 EVs. I still don't see how the math works unless he also picked up a state such as NC, which is unlikely I'd think.

Obama would have to keep all the other states that went blue in '04, including Michigan, Wisconsin, and New Hampshire. By doing that, he loses PA but wins the other 4 so he picks up just enough EVs to get to 270.

 

[Mark Davis]

Texas will be McCain.. Not a battleground state.

there are plenty of other states that went Bush in 2004 that could be in play. any talk of Hillary's "electability" is a tribute to her trench fighter political will. it's not like obama wouldn't carry states that hillary won. dem strongholds are just that - strongholds.

You're discounting Florida. Every poll I've seen there shows Hillary defeating McCain and McCain defeating Obama in Florida. If that proves to be the case, then states where Obama is weaker than Hillary such as Ohio and Pennsylvania become musts for Obama. I think this is why Hillary is hanging on. She's trying to make an argument out of the electoral math and being stronger in OH and PA while getting FL as well. Obama likely secures WA and OR which are no locks for Hillary, but combined they don't equal FL. There are other smaller states like WI that favor Obama and WV that favor Hillary as well. But of the states truly in play, FL is the biggest prize.

Obama could lose FL, OH, and PA and still win the general election over McCain. It would be difficult, but looking at state-by-state polling it's still possible. He could (and has good shots at taking) VA, CO, MO, and IA. All of which went red in '04.

With none of these 3 states how do you get to 270 EVs? I think Obama has a shot in Colorado for instance and a pickup of 9 EVs there that Hillary likely has no shot at. He may very well have a good shot at IA too, possibly MO. VA may be a bit of a stretch, but I agree not impossible. Those 4 states total 40 EVs. I still don't see how the math works unless he also picked up a state such as NC, which is unlikely I'd think.

Obama would have to keep all the other states that went blue in '04, including Michigan, Wisconsin, and New Hampshire. By doing that, he loses PA but wins the other 4 so he picks up just enough EVs to get to 270.

I stand corrected, took a 2nd look and while it's unlikely he could win all of those necessary states, it isn't impossible to consider a way for him to get to 270. Let me know if you disagree with this or if I missed one:Likely Obama wins (215 EVs): WA, OR, CA, NV, MN, WI, IL, NY, MD, DE, DC, HI, MA, VT, ME, CT, RI, NJ (NJ is polling 2% right now Obama over McCain but I doubt McCain has a legit shot here in November)

Battlegrounds to differing extents with EV's: MI (17); NH (4); IA (7); CO (9); MO (11); VA (13); OH (20); PA (21); FL (27).

If the Democrat, be it Obama or Hillary, wins 2 of 3 of OH, PA, and FL it's hard to conceive they would lose.

 

[SofaKings]

Texas will be McCain.. Not a battleground state.

there are plenty of other states that went Bush in 2004 that could be in play. any talk of Hillary's "electability" is a tribute to her trench fighter political will. it's not like obama wouldn't carry states that hillary won. dem strongholds are just that - strongholds.

You're discounting Florida. Every poll I've seen there shows Hillary defeating McCain and McCain defeating Obama in Florida. If that proves to be the case, then states where Obama is weaker than Hillary such as Ohio and Pennsylvania become musts for Obama. I think this is why Hillary is hanging on. She's trying to make an argument out of the electoral math and being stronger in OH and PA while getting FL as well. Obama likely secures WA and OR which are no locks for Hillary, but combined they don't equal FL. There are other smaller states like WI that favor Obama and WV that favor Hillary as well. But of the states truly in play, FL is the biggest prize.

Electoral>general vote

 

[SofaKings]

Listen guys, it is this simple:

slim delegate lead + slim popular vote lead + losing certain important swing states + Florida + possibly alieanating whites, Jews and Hispanics + Rev. Wright + neither candidate able to acquire enough pledged delegates to secure nomination = realistic chance the supers give the nomination to Hillary.

A month or so ago I would have considered this impossible that the supers would risk pissing off black voters like this. But some of the recent stuff that has come out may give them the excuse they are looking for (if they are looking for one) to hand the nomination to Hillary.

It ain't over.

Slim delegate lead? Methinks not with a >100 lead.Slim popular vote lead? Methinks not, with a >700,000 vote lead

Losing important swing states? Yeah, to another democrat, very similar to Obama. Would those who voted for Hillary really not vote for Obama and go further away from their platforms and vote for McCain? Methinks not.

Rev Wright issue has not negatively affected him, as tested and shown by numerous polls. If anything, he's gained support from how he handled it. An issue? Methinks not.

Me also thinks that alienating whites, Jews and Hispanics a bunch of bull.

These elections, barring unforeseen calamity, are simply a process of confirming what we already know:

Obama will end with significantly more delegates, states won, and popular votes than Hillary. It's over, Hillary just doesn't know it yet.

I think this depends on the state. Take Pennsylvania, I think Obama is going to have a hard time with Democrats in the central area of PA if he is indeed the Democratic nominee. He may carry Philadelphia and Pittsburgh by enough to hold on to PA, but my guess is he won't do as well as Gore and Kerry did against Bush in those rural areas. I agree many of the gaffes on comments are not big deals, but when you're dealing with razor thin margins in swing states, you have to look at the demographics.

True, but imagine if Obama wins what will happen? All democrats will rally behind him, including Clinton I imagine. If I were party leaders, I'd send her out to these "swing" states rallying for Obama. She should throw her support behind him, tell others who voted for her to vote for Obama because he stands for many of the principles she was promoting, and that we need him in office.It would be a hard thing to imagine for her to refuse to stump for the democratic nominee even if it's not her. With that granted, with an eventually unified party, I think she will be able to pull a lot of former supporters to Obama.

Not really. Her support would be tepid at best.

 

[Sweet J]

Texas will be McCain.. Not a battleground state.

there are plenty of other states that went Bush in 2004 that could be in play. any talk of Hillary's "electability" is a tribute to her trench fighter political will. it's not like obama wouldn't carry states that hillary won. dem strongholds are just that - strongholds.

You're discounting Florida. Every poll I've seen there shows Hillary defeating McCain and McCain defeating Obama in Florida. If that proves to be the case, then states where Obama is weaker than Hillary such as Ohio and Pennsylvania become musts for Obama. I think this is why Hillary is hanging on. She's trying to make an argument out of the electoral math and being stronger in OH and PA while getting FL as well. Obama likely secures WA and OR which are no locks for Hillary, but combined they don't equal FL. There are other smaller states like WI that favor Obama and WV that favor Hillary as well. But of the states truly in play, FL is the biggest prize.

Obama could lose FL, OH, and PA and still win the general election over McCain. It would be difficult, but looking at state-by-state polling it's still possible. He could (and has good shots at taking) VA, CO, MO, and IA. All of which went red in '04.

With none of these 3 states how do you get to 270 EVs? I think Obama has a shot in Colorado for instance and a pickup of 9 EVs there that Hillary likely has no shot at. He may very well have a good shot at IA too, possibly MO. VA may be a bit of a stretch, but I agree not impossible. Those 4 states total 40 EVs. I still don't see how the math works unless he also picked up a state such as NC, which is unlikely I'd think.

Obama would have to keep all the other states that went blue in '04, including Michigan, Wisconsin, and New Hampshire. By doing that, he loses PA but wins the other 4 so he picks up just enough EVs to get to 270.

I stand corrected, took a 2nd look and while it's unlikely he could win all of those necessary states, it isn't impossible to consider a way for him to get to 270. Let me know if you disagree with this or if I missed one:Likely Obama wins (215 EVs): WA, OR, CA, NV, MN, WI, IL, NY, MD, DE, DC, HI, MA, VT, ME, CT, RI, NJ (NJ is polling 2% right now Obama over McCain but I doubt McCain has a legit shot here in November)

Battlegrounds to differing extents with EV's: MI (17); NH (4); IA (7); CO (9); MO (11); VA (13); OH (20); PA (21); FL (27).

If the Democrat, be it Obama or Hillary, wins 2 of 3 of OH, PA, and FL it's hard to conceive they would lose.

I would add NC to Obama's "battleground." Possibly other southern states, as well. NC in particular, though, because of the influx of latte drinkers and college proffesors.

 

[Orange Crush]

Texas will be McCain.. Not a battleground state.

there are plenty of other states that went Bush in 2004 that could be in play. any talk of Hillary's "electability" is a tribute to her trench fighter political will. it's not like obama wouldn't carry states that hillary won. dem strongholds are just that - strongholds.

You're discounting Florida. Every poll I've seen there shows Hillary defeating McCain and McCain defeating Obama in Florida. If that proves to be the case, then states where Obama is weaker than Hillary such as Ohio and Pennsylvania become musts for Obama. I think this is why Hillary is hanging on. She's trying to make an argument out of the electoral math and being stronger in OH and PA while getting FL as well. Obama likely secures WA and OR which are no locks for Hillary, but combined they don't equal FL. There are other smaller states like WI that favor Obama and WV that favor Hillary as well. But of the states truly in play, FL is the biggest prize.

Obama could lose FL, OH, and PA and still win the general election over McCain. It would be difficult, but looking at state-by-state polling it's still possible. He could (and has good shots at taking) VA, CO, MO, and IA. All of which went red in '04.

With none of these 3 states how do you get to 270 EVs? I think Obama has a shot in Colorado for instance and a pickup of 9 EVs there that Hillary likely has no shot at. He may very well have a good shot at IA too, possibly MO. VA may be a bit of a stretch, but I agree not impossible. Those 4 states total 40 EVs. I still don't see how the math works unless he also picked up a state such as NC, which is unlikely I'd think.

Obama would have to keep all the other states that went blue in '04, including Michigan, Wisconsin, and New Hampshire. By doing that, he loses PA but wins the other 4 so he picks up just enough EVs to get to 270.

I stand corrected, took a 2nd look and while it's unlikely he could win all of those necessary states, it isn't impossible to consider a way for him to get to 270. Let me know if you disagree with this or if I missed one:Likely Obama wins (215 EVs): WA, OR, CA, NV, MN, WI, IL, NY, MD, DE, DC, HI, MA, VT, ME, CT, RI, NJ (NJ is polling 2% right now Obama over McCain but I doubt McCain has a legit shot here in November)

Battlegrounds to differing extents with EV's: MI (17); NH (4); IA (7); CO (9); MO (11); VA (13); OH (20); PA (21); FL (27).

If the Democrat, be it Obama or Hillary, wins 2 of 3 of OH, PA, and FL it's hard to conceive they would lose.

That looks about right. I don't know about Nevada being a "likely Obama win." I've been putting that state in the McCain likely column. Do you have any polling numbers?

 

[Orange Crush]

I would add NC to Obama's "battleground." Possibly other southern states, as well. NC in particular, though, because of the influx of latte drinkers and college proffesors.

I'm not holding my breath.

 

[Pai Mei]

:joined in progress:

:Obama, wearing shades, stands in center of ring alone:

Obama: And McCain! Get ready to to go ONE! ON ONE! WITH THE GREAT ONE!

:fans cheer:

Obama: And get ready to check your fat ### into the Smackdown Hotel!

:fans cheer:

:lights go out:

JR: What is goin on? Is McCain here?

:massive pyro display at the top of the ramp:

:cue music:

Hillary: Welcome to Raw! is! Clinton!

Obama: aces: :smirks:

Hillary: For those that don't know me, I am Hillary Clinton, your new hero! The most charismatic person to ever enter your television screen! I am the dawning of a new era!

:fans chant Obama! Obama!:

Hillary: Thank you! Thank you!

:fans keep chanting for Obama:

Hillary: And a new era is what the nation sorely needs! Hillary Clinton has come to save the USA! You could care less about every single candidate in the dressing room, and especially that idiot in the center of the ring. You people have been led to believe that mediocrity (points to Obama) is excellence. Hillary is Excellence!

JR: Oh c'mon.

Hillary: Now you finally have someone you can cheer for!

ause as Hillary smiles and waves and Obama slowly brings his mic to his lips:

Obama: After THREE BORING minutes, Barack says to KNOW YOUR ROLE AND SHUT YOUR MOUTH!

:Hillary looks around at crowd confused:

Obama: How dare you JABRONI come on Barack's show and not even have the class to introduce yourself?! What is your name?

Hillary: I TOLD you my na-

Obama: IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOUR NAME IS! Barack says you talk about your plan for a new era? Well Barack has a plan of his own! And its called the KY Jelly plan and--

:Obama stops and cocks his head slighty to listen to the fans cheer:

Obama: Which means Barack is gonna lube his size 13 shoe real good, turn that sumb*tch sideways, and STICK IT STRAIGHT UP YOUR CANDY @ZZ! IF YOU SMELLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL WHAT BARACK IS COOKIN'!

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

:joined in progress:

:Obama, wearing shades, stands in center of ring alone:

Obama: And McCain! Get ready to to go ONE! ON ONE! WITH THE GREAT ONE!

:fans cheer:

Obama: And get ready to check your fat ### into the Smackdown Hotel!

:fans cheer:

:lights go out:

JR: What is goin on? Is McCain here?

:massive pyro display at the top of the ramp:

:cue music:

Hillary: Welcome to Raw! is! Clinton!

Obama: aces: :smirks:

Hillary: For those that don't know me, I am Hillary Clinton, your new hero! The most charismatic person to ever enter your television screen! I am the dawning of a new era!

:fans chant Obama! Obama!:

Hillary: Thank you! Thank you!

:fans keep chanting for Obama:

Hillary: And a new era is what the nation sorely needs! Hillary Clinton has come to save the USA! You could care less about every single candidate in the dressing room, and especially that idiot in the center of the ring. You people have been led to believe that mediocrity (points to Obama) is excellence. Hillary is Excellence!

JR: Oh c'mon.

Hillary: Now you finally have someone you can cheer for!

ause as Hillary smiles and waves and Obama slowly brings his mic to his lips:

Obama: After THREE BORING minutes, Barack says to KNOW YOUR ROLE AND SHUT YOUR MOUTH!

:Hillary looks around at crowd confused:

Obama: How dare you JABRONI come on Barack's show and not even have the class to introduce yourself?! What is your name?

Hillary: I TOLD you my na-

Obama: IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOUR NAME IS! Barack says you talk about your plan for a new era? Well Barack has a plan of his own! And its called the KY Jelly plan and--

:Obama stops and cocks his head slighty to listen to the fans cheer:

Obama: Which means Barack is gonna lube his size 13 shoe real good, turn that sumb*tch sideways, and STICK IT STRAIGHT UP YOUR CANDY @ZZ! IF YOU SMELLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL WHAT BARACK IS COOKIN'!

lolI surprised you left out the part about Barack dropping the "People's Elbow" on her... a communist manuver if ever I've heard one.