Anyone notice that Obama won mostly in states we won't get in Nov?

[MagsDem]

The states that Dems need to win in Nov were won by Hillary. Sorry, I am not overly impressed with Obama wins in state's like GA, AL, UT, AK, etc., since they will mean nothing in November for our party. She also won in the states that actually have people in them. ;)

[TeamJordan23]

1. Colorado, Missouri, Minnesota, New Mexico are all swing states. nm

[MagsDem]

5. That's why I said mostly

[jasmine621]

160. How many are open? How many caucus? nt.

[BootinUp]

15. I don't think Obama won New Mexico. nt

[BootinUp]

19. Hillary won the rural areas of Missouri.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

25. Yup Obama won the arease we ALWAYS win

[misslauren66]

248. Right - we've been winning LOTS of those swing states lately in the GE

And I don't believe New Mexico counts as a swing state - that one is pretty much always in our column. But there are a few in the Midwest that could go either way this year. Has Hillary actually won anything in the Midwest that doesn't border Arkansas? If Missouri didn't share a border with Arkansas I suspect she'd have really been hosed there.

[MnFats]

20. obama is going to bust up the GOP stranglehold on the south.

it's been there for decades.
Obama pulls say, two or three southern states from that mass of red and he's almost in the White House.
mark my word.
If Gore or Kerry had been able to do it the margin would have been fraud-proof.

[MagsDem]

32. Yeah, the south is going to vote for a black dem - sure they are

Seriously, what are you smoking? Or have you never been to the south?

[last_texas_dem]

96. In all fairness, do you really find it likely that southern states are going to vote

for Clinton, either? I don't see her having a better shot at helping us pick up southern states than Gore or Kerry did.

[MagsDem]

121. I think she can win AR and TN - absolutely

And I think Obama doesn't have a prayer in either. I also think McCain can win CA if the hispanics turn their back on Obama, which is certainly a possibility. So yes, I think we have a much better chance with her.

[last_texas_dem]

163. AR I agree with in terms of Clinton having a better shot

Former first lady of the state, and did very well in the primary; I know she's popular there. I do think she might have a shot at taking it, although if Huckabee ends up VP for the Repugs, it's a different story.

TN, I'm not sure. I know Bill Clinton carried it twice, but I believe part of that had to do with having Gore on the ticket, and then Gore wasn't able to carry it whenever he ran for President. I'm worried TN may have moved too far into the "red state" category to be a possibility for HRC to win.

The other southern states I think we have at least long-shot possibilities in are FL and VA (It may be too early to consider the latter a possibility, but it's moving in our direction at a decent rate), and I don't know that Clinton would have a much stronger shot in either of those.

In terms of CA- well, the idea of Hispanics not voting Dem in the general with Obama as the nominee due to his being black is premised on the notion that his race is the reason Hispanics did not vote for him in the primary. I think there is a better chance that Clinton does well with Hispanics because many of them have a positive opinion of her husband's administration and that she is more of a known quantity than Obama. I think it's similar to the reason that more poor and lower middle-class voters voted for Clinton. Other than the opinions of some pollsters and people working in politics, I just haven't seen this strong evidence that Hispanics would go Republican en masse to avoid voting for a black Democrat, especially with the xenophobic appeals that the Repugs have been making over the last several years. I know McCain isn't quite as extreme as most of his party, but still...

[RummyTheDummy]

196. Tennessee? You're out of your skull.

[MagsDem]

218. TN votes dem when the dem candidate is a southern

Look at the historical data. Gore lost it by a hair, and only because he forgot he was from there. Nothing out of my skull about it.

[last_texas_dem]

227. TN seems to have become a substantially more Repug state in the last couple of decades

They voted for Clinton twice, but rejected Gore despite his having represented the state less than a decade before as Senator, and it wasn't even close with Kerry. At the time Gore became VP they had two Democratic Senators. With Gore becoming VP and Jim Sasser retiring, they have since elected four Repugs: Fred Thompson, Bill Frist, Lamar Alexander, and Bob Corker to the Senate. They aren't as hopeless of cases for the Democrats as, say, MS and AL, but TN does not look to be trending in the right direction.

[MagsDem]

230. yeah, cuz we ran Ford for the open senate seat

I guess we thought they'd go for a black guy if he pandered to rethugs. Sound familiar, doen't it?

[last_texas_dem]

243. Ford's race was actually much closer than any of the other recent open-seat elections

Ford only lost 51-48% vs. Corker in 2006. Lamar Alexander defeated his Democratic opponent Bob Clement 54%-44%, Fred Thompson defeated his Democratic opponent Jim Cooper 60%-39% in a special election, and, although it wasn't an open seat race, Bill Frist was first elected in 1994 (granted, it was the Repug "Revolution" that year) to the Senate by defeating Democratic incumbent Jim Sasser 56%-42%. (I erred in my previous post by saying that Sasser had retired.)

So, using your logic that race is such an important factor, perhaps we should always run black Democrats in Tennessee. They apparently perform more strongly against the Repugs than white Democrats do.

[Carolina]

199. yeah, like Gore did!

[MagsDem]

232. Cater won it, Bill x 2, Gore lost by a hair

Are you saying Obama has a better chance?

[Carolina]

270. YES!

WE CAN

[harun]

198. Those states hate McCain, they will go to Obama (n/t)

[MagsDem]

234. NOT A CHANCE IN HELL

Seriously, I don't care how much they hate McCain, Obama will not win a single southern state because they simply will not vote for a black for president. You Obamaites must all live in CA and MA or something. It's like your oblivious to the racial politics of the south.

[last_texas_dem]

250. I live in a red county in a red state

and while I agree with you that Obama is unlikely to perform well in the south, I believe potential strength in the south is far from HRC's selling point, either. I have heard much more passionate dislike of Clinton than I have heard of Obama where I live. I think it is highly likely that the Democratic candidate, whether Clinton or Obama, will carry no southern states in 2008. They doesn't mean they can't win by carrying other important states, however.

[MagsDem]

261. Nah, she'll take AR easy, and has a decent shot at

TN, VA, FL, and MO. He can't win any of those. Not a single one.

[RubyDuby in GA]

273. The only thing Clinton being on the ballot will do, and I'm speaking as a Southerner,

will make every single Republican, who might have stayed home if they didn't like their candidate, come out and vote. With Obama on the top, some down ballot people would really be helped out in the South.

I'm speaking only of Georgia as it's what I know - and I make it a point to know this state backwards and forward.
The African American turnout for this primary was absolutely huge. In my county alone - we had record turnout and it went 4 to 1 for Obama over Hillary.

I am not saying that blacks will vote in a block just because there is a black man at the top of the ticket, but it most certainly won't hurt. And white Dems (like me) will vote for him becuase he is a Democrat and we want a Democrat in the White House. Plain and simple.

[WCGreen]

53. You tell me how Obama is going to win any state in the south other

than Virginia and or Florida based on democratic primary votes...

To extrapolate a wished for outcome based on a subset of data that has no correlation to the whole set is foolish indeed...

[Donnachaidh]

205. uhh yeaaaahhhh, and the south shall rise again, right?

Yeah -- that's gonna happen soon -- NOT.

[in_cog_ni_to]

256. What planet are you living on? Obama doesn't have a chance in HELL of winning the South.

:crazy:

[spooky3]

69. CNN site shows NM & MO were basically tied for HC & BO

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#NM

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#MO

Many of Obama's victories were in caucus states. Not sure how well those translate into November votes.

[joeybee12]

274. In 2004, Kerry only took minnesota n/t

[DemGa]

2. Exactly why it's over for Obama

Sorry Obama supporters, it's true.

[pbca]

10. Not at all, that's absurd

Obama is moving up in the polls by the day. He gained 20 points on Hillary in California in 2 weeks. He has all of the momentum, including fundraising and he is poised to win most of the remaining primaries.

[LordJFT]

3. winning in states that are locks for the dems

like cali, ny and ma is just as unimpressive.

[pbca]

4. If Obama is the nominee

He'll easily carry California, New York, Mass., etc., - he may even bring some of those Southern 'Red' states on board because of the high African-American turnout. Besides, if McCain is the nominee the far right people may sabotage themselves by throwing in some freakshow evangelical independent candidate.

[MagsDem]

35. maybe, but that is not who those states support

They supported Hillary by a very large margin, and expect their super delegates to follow the lead of the their state's voters.

[pbca]

40. So what?

Those states don't get to choose the candidate by themselves. And the margins weren't that wide 10% in California, 15% in Mass and 17% in Hillary's home state of NY - hardly a blowout

[sunonmars]

99. ha, you guys were calling a 8 point win for Obama in Iowa a blowout, hypocrites.

[pbca]

106. I wasn't - watch it with the name calling

You can't call me a hypocrite because someone else who supports Obama said something that I didn't

[MagsDem]

114. Actually, yes, those are blowouts for Clinton

And translate into hundreds of thousands of votes where we need to win.

[druidity33]

156. are you saying

if Obama were the nominee those HRC supporters would vote for McCain instead?

:shrug:

[MagsDem]

235. Again, Hillary has nothing to do with it

Your assumption that every bigoted person in the south is a rethug is pure fantasy. Bigotry is not as partisan as you think in the south.

[last_texas_dem]

264. But if we're looking at it that way

Isn't it also fair to consider that not every sexist in the south is a Repug?

[rodeodance]

6. Lehrer news hr has this discussion also-including -how Kerry left MO.

[Hippo_Tron]

7. So Democrats that don't live in blue states should have less of a say?

That's certainly a winning attitude...

[MagsDem]

9. No, just saying the support he has won't translate in Nov

It certainly doesn't bode well for his "electibility" argument.

[TeamJordan23]

11. So are Colorado, Missouri, Minn, and NM not swing states?

He will easily win the blue states that Hillary won (CA, Mass, NY, NJ) in a GE.

[Hippo_Tron]

Primaries don't translate into electability either way

Clinton won in mostly blue states that we will win anyway but that says nothing about how well she will do in November.

The proportional delegate system is a very good thing because people get to have a say in who the nominee is no matter what state they live in.

[MagsDem]

46. She'll take all the blue states, no doubt

Which one do you think she could possibly lose? She can also credibly take AR and TN. Obama cannot overcome rethugs in those states because of the prejudice against blacks there. Obama is doubtful in CA because of the huge hispanic vote. Not saying most will vote rethug, but I don't think they will turn out for him.

[sunonmars]

102. I doubt Obama could take Florida or Ohio, Clinton can, thats my major problem

[amborin]

115. problem?

so, you're against universal health care?

you don't support a progressive agenda?

[MagsDem]

122. I think you're right

[LiberalFighter]

76. Democrats that live in red states don't have as much of a say.

Check the DNC rules for delegate selection. Part of the process is based on votes for Democratic candidate in the previous 2 presidential elections.

Indiana has a higher population than Wisconsin or Minnesota but has fewer delegates than them.

The more Democratic elected officials a state has the more delegates they receive too.

[Hippo_Tron]

176. Which makes sense because there are far more Democrats per capita in Minnesota than in Indiana

Therefore they should be awarded more delegates. Democrats in red states don't get less of a say.

[LiberalFighter]

190. Porportionally they are probably represented equally when it involves just district and at-large

[muntrv]

8. You think Hillary has a better chance than Obama of winning GA, AL, UT?

And Illinois doesn't have people?:eyes:

[MagsDem]

No, just saying his wins will not translate into bumpkis in Nov

He may have gotten some delegates but it doesn't speak well to his electibility. If you can't win the blue states I'm not sure how electibile you can really be in Nov.

[Hippo_Tron]

27. I don't see how you can defend your logic for the red states but not the blue states

The fact is that this is NOT a general election and two Democrats are running against each other not a Republican against a Democrat. In November it will be much harder for ANY Democrat to win in the red states and much easier for ANY Democrat to win in the blue states.

If nominated, Obama will not be running against Hillary Clinton he will be running against John McCain.

[MagsDem]

37. So your point is that folks in those states that carry dems

Should have to vote for the second choice? Don't forget, the super delegates in the blue states that Hillary won will likely follow the popular vote in their states, as it should be. No whining when that happens, okay?

[Hippo_Tron]

Yes they will have to vote for their second choice IF Obama is the nominee

And no the Super Delegates won't necessarily follow how their states go, although some of them might. As dumb as the Super Delegates system is, it is in place and the Super Delegates are free to vote for whomever they want to and there will be no complaints from me.

[spooky3]

93. no, they won't--some may stay home in Nov., since they may not be as

enthusiastic about their second choice. And, particularly in swing states, they could be outnumbered by a motivated Rethug. turnout.

And winning the Dem. primaries in red states is of questionable value, because we are highly unlikely to carry those states in Nov. no matter who is the Dem. nominee.

Winning the swing states' primaries might be the most relevant for trying to guess what will happen in Nov.

[muntrv]

31. What makes you think, if Obama is the nominee, that he can't win NY, CA

in November? He turns out the under 30 crowd more so than Hillary.

[MagsDem]

38. He's going to have a tough time in CA at the least

... hispanics don't like him, and may just not vote. That's 30% in CA. It will be tough for him in Florida as well. And we cannot win in Nov without CA, and probably FL as well.

[okasha]

64. If Obama is the nominee, the Hispanic vote goes to McCain.

n/t

[MagsDem]

71. Yep, which may mean we lose CA

And we cannot win the GE if we lose Cali.

[okasha]

74. We also lose any hope of swinging Texas.

I think that's just possible with Hillary. It's not possible at all with Obama.

[last_texas_dem]

265. There was hope of swinging Texas?

[returnable]

262. Are you high? Obama: 1,735,105. McCain: 985,900.

Those are the totals from last night. So unless you think there's a significant number of Hillary supporters who will jump ship for the Straight Jacket Express, Cali is in the bag in the GE.

In fact, such fearmongering about losing CA in the GE is pretty sad...

[Hippo_Tron]

73. Doubtful...

You're going to be watching McCain juggle his appeal to the Hispanic community with the xenophobic build a fence crowd in his base that he needs to win. That is going to be quite a sight to see.

Give Obama more time and the Hispanic voters will come around.

[okasha]

84. He'll need "time" to change a number of basic characteristics

of Hispanic culture.

If it's Obama v. McCain, McCain will get the Hispanic vote on his war-hero status/military background. There are a lot of young Hispanics in the armed services right now, and a lot of Hispanic veterans. (Fact you may not know: proportional to their representation in the population, Hispanics have won more CMoH's than any other ethnic group.) Hispanics tend to be intensely patriotic in very traditional ways. McCain can appeal to that love of country without in any way stepping on the toes of other segments of his base.

[Hippo_Tron]

90. Still not convinced McCain won't step on a lot of toes trying to appeal to the base

I don't doubt what your saying and McCain's personal story is going to be a big strength for him across all demographics.

[MagsDem]

88. rethugs will hold there nose... and McCain will present as the...

... ultimate moderate. Obama is a bad, bad bet.

[Hippo_Tron]

92. Don't bet on it

The conservatives will cut their nose off to spite their face. They will hedge their bets on McCain losing and them being able to beat Obama in four years.

[MagsDem]

97. I actually would bet on it

Without a second thought, in fact. Hence my post. :)

[Hippo_Tron]

68. The Iraq War isn't very popular in California and that will hurt McLame in the GE

He will also have to juggle any appeal he has to Hispanics with the build a fence crowd that makes up his base.

Obama is new to the political scene and still hasn't had a lot of time to appeal to many voters. He did significantly better in California with Hispanics than he did in Nevada. He also won Colorado which has a decent sized Hispanic population and thus far has basically tied Clinton in New Mexico. Lets see what happens in Texas on March 4th. I have a feeling he will do better with Hispanics than he did in California.

[MagsDem]

89. Iraq war is fast becoming a non-issue since the news...

has gotten better. By Nov no one will care. I'll predict Clinton creams Obama in TX, by the way.

[Hippo_Tron]

94. The Iraq War being a non-issue is a pipe dream for the Republicans

[MagsDem]

100. Here's something many dems fail to understand....

Rethugs are not anti-war. They are anti losing a war. If the rethugs can make things seem calm there up to Nov rethugs will have no problem voting for McCain in droves.

[FrenchieCat]

22. No, these are not people.....

they are Obamabots! They have been assimilated and no longer count for anything.

And Black folks too. They just really don't count.

Only Hispanic voters are valuable, evidently. :shrug:

[MagsDem]

109. Politics is a game of numbers

Whether you want to accept it or not.

[ArkySue]

223. No, the point is

NO Dem will carry Idaho, Utah, Georgia, South Carolina. Those states vote consistantly RED every Presidential election. So what if Obama got the few Dem votes in those states...the majority will go Republic in the GE.

[Clarkansas]

12. Yes, lets focus on the states that Dukakis won!

That is the key to victory!

[MagsDem]

17. Dukasis isn't running, and if I remember correctly didn't win....

many states at all in the general. I think the point of the thread must be over your head.

[LiberalFighter]

80. How is that the key? He lost.

[Texas_Kat]

13. How could anyone miss it?

[Tom Rinaldo]

21. Here is how Obama and Clinton have done in states that actually could turn blue

I made a thread for it with them all grouped accordingly:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4439659&mesg_id=4439659

[calteacherguy]

14. States that "actually have people in them?"

So folks who live in Idaho aren't people? What a rude and negative post. What makes you think we can't win Idaho in the general? With Obama, YES WE CAN! And all the rest, too!

Wow, it must be depressing to be involved in such a hopeless cause.

[MagsDem]

29. Not really....

Looks like "no you can't" in the states we need to win in Nov. As far as "states with people in them" it's a fairly famous Molly Ivins quote responding to republicans that claim they win so many more states than dems do. Obama basically took the states where Dems don't usually win in the general. Not helpful to the party in Nov.

[calteacherguy]

33. Uh, you don't seem to understand the party needs to win more states

nor that fact that Obama and Clinton tied in popular vote Tuesday.

[MagsDem]

49. I know it's a shocker, but we use the electoral college in this country

[yourout]

16. In Georgia...Obama got more votes than McCain and Huckabee combined.

Obama...696,971
McCain and Huckabee...626,405

[MagsDem]

41. You're insane if you think a black dem is going to win ANY southern state

Hillary can take AR and TN, and maybe MO. Obama will not win any of those states in the general.

[yourout]

45. I would bet a 5 spot that Obama would fare better than Hillary in the south.

[spooky3]

87. I think the point that some people are making is that NEITHER will win

in the south in Nov.; it will go Repub. as usual. As long as we have an electoral college system and can't get any electoral college votes without winning at least a plurality, we have a problem there.

[LiberalFighter]

111. How many of them regularly vote in the General Election?

2000
1,419,720 - Bush
1,116,230 - Gore

2004
1,914,254 - Bush
1,366,149 - Kerry

2008 Projected
2,584,242 - Rep
1,666,701 - Dem

917,541 Difference
458,772 Needed to turn from Rep/Ind to Dem

Projected total needed to win Georgia - 2,125,472

[Laelth]

280. I can hardly believe I am writing this.

But Obama can win Georgia. Of a total population of 9,363,941, and a voting-age population of 6,910,600, fully two million of those turned out to vote in the Georgia primary (an unprecedented 29% of the voting-age population). When the combined totals of votes cast for all Democrats is compared to the total votes cast for all Republics, you see the following:

1,046,485 D
954,462 R

Of those million+ votes for Democrats, 700,366 (or 67%) voted for Obama.

Source: CNN
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/dates/index.html#20080205

Romney's pulling out tells me that the money Republics (the true core constituency of GWB) see no hope of winning in the GE. They're cutting their losses. They've decided to let McCain have the nod, knowing he can't win, just as they gave Bob Dole the nod in 1996. The money interests of the Republic party know that if the Democrats can win Georgia, it's all over for them.

The results of the Georgia primary are truly astounding. We live in interesting times.

:dem:

-Laelth

Statistical data above here: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/13000.html

[Fresh_Start]

18. a couple of those states, dem turnout was much higher then GOP

which suggests that the state might be won....
if the Obama supporters and the Clinton supporters agree to support the eventual nominee

[MagsDem]

42. That has zero relation to the general

Honestly, I think you Obama people have never paid attention to a general election in this country. You truly say the most absurd things.

[Fresh_Start]

59. I'm not an Obama person, but you're right

I'm not political and never have been
but the entire country is ready to throw out the Bush administration and that includes the Bush wannabes that are vying for the GOP candidacy

[bunnies]

23. How exactly do you know that oh psychic one?

Based on the history of AA candidates in a GE? Didnt think so. :eyes:

[MagsDem]

47. Watching and working in politics for 29 yrs.

[alteredstate]

24. Do you realize that the Dems could take SC in November?

This is largely due to the voter registration and get-out-the-vote efforts of the Obama SC team.

[TeamJordan23]

28. Obama got more votes than McCain and Huckabee combined....he puts SC in play. nm

[LiberalFighter]

132. Facts and Projections for SC

Republican Primary turnout 442,918
Democratic Primary turnout 530,322

2000
786,426 - Bush
566,039 - Gore

2004
937,974 - Bush
661,699 - Kerry

2008 Projected
1,116,189 - Rep
767,570 - Dem

348,619 Difference
174,310 Needed to turn from Rep/Ind to Dem

Projected total needed to win Georgia - 941,880

[MagsDem]

48. That won't make up for losing MO, TN, AR, and possibly CA

And I don't know anyone involved in politics that thinks Obama will win SC.

[opihimoimoi]

26. its the pub crossover factor being pushed by many commentators, media guys

Per Sun Tzu..."Weaken your enemies from within"

Come Nov...Enough of his support will go RED to give it to the McLame guys....I smell Rove in here somewhere.....

[MagsDem]

51. I think you're exactly right

[NoodleyAppendage]

57. CLINTON'S NEGATIVES...take a look at them sometime. n/t

J

[MagsDem]

70. His negatives would be just as high....

... if people weren't concerned about appearing bigoted. People LIE to pollsters when they think it will make them look like bigots. And when the rethugs finish with him his negs will be as high as hers before the bigots are factored in.

[amborin]

118. Obama's negatives are huge

so far the MSM has tread lightly, for fear of being labeled racist

the thing about Hillary Clinton is she's already been through the fire of vicious media scrutiny

she's weathered it

for Obama, it has not begun

if Obama were to get the dem nom, all hell would break loose....the rethug media would lead the attacks

but even dems might have buyer's remorse

[opihimoimoi]

144. I can see it coming........,the dust cloud is getting larger........

[NoodleyAppendage]

149. REALLY? Please provide FACTS and POLL NUMBERS. Otherwise, check back at headquarters.

Low posting number and fervently pro-Hillary. Hmmm...someone is getting desperate.

J

[anamandujano]

82. In other words, they messed with our primaries, if I get your drift.

They are not really Obama people, just getting the nod for the weaker candidate?

[opihimoimoi]

147. Its an old trick in these matters,,,weaken your opponents odds whenever possible.

[Sal316]

30. However, you're missing one thing....

...with the exception of UT, AZ, and possibly AL.... in all those "states we won't get" our turnout was larger and our winner got more votes than the GOP's.

AZ will probably swing this year no matter the Democrat... even if it's against McCain. There's a strong "anti-McCain" sentiment here and I hear the Coulter line all the time.. "If McCain's the nominee, I'm voting Democrat....even if it's Hillary."

As for me, Edwards was my guy. I voted Obama yesterday. Ya know what..if Hillary wins the nomination, I will knock myself out working on putting a Democrat in the White House. Period.

All this "I won't vote for _______ " crap is better left for the apoplectic whiny asses on the hard right.

[MagsDem]

52. Sorry, that doesn't mean jack for the GE

You might wish it did, but it absolutely does not. It's irrelevant.

[Sal316]

127. Yeah, because turnout is meaningless.

:eyes:

[MagsDem]

131. You miss the whole point....

Turnout is not meaningless. Obama won where dem turnout was pretty bad, actually. I think he took AK with a whole 176 votes. That's the whole point -- he won in states where dems do not turn out because they aren't dem states.

[enki23]

34. that can be looked it in more than one way, you know

you could worry that obama won't be able to carry new york in november, or you could worry that hillary won't be able to take away red states. of course, she *did* win some red states, and was (not unjustifiably) trying to make the case that she might be able to break into some republican bastions after all. and he won a number of "blue" states. of course, party primaries and caucuses may well not tell you a damned thing about how well the ultimate winner will do in getting out the vote, and getting swing voters, in november. they'll be running against mccain, not each other.

[MagsDem]

55. I repeat, most of his wins will translate to zilch in the GE

And there is no doubt that Hillary is perfectly capable of carrying AR, TN, and possibly MO in the general. Obama has zero chance of doing that. None.

[enki23]

66. i repeat, there is no way to extrapolate that conclusion from any data at hand

none. nada. zilch. the argument-by-assertion method is just not viable outside religious debates.

[MagsDem]

72. You can repeat it until the cows come home....

but you'd still be wrong.

[enki23]

161. jesus, irony is completely dead ain't it?

i'm not making *any* assertions about the meaning of what states the candidates had larger percenteges of the vote in, except that there is no way to know how to extrapolate democratic turnout or swing votes a candidate might get in the general election. at the very least, not without some sort of additional data.

that's simply how it is, and it doesn't take a whole lot of processing ability to see why it's the case.

here's a helpful analogy. imagine you work for a company that makes jello, and they wanted you to come up with a poll to figure out what flavor of jello to feature in a national ad campaign to try to gain an edge against your company's major competitor, a pudding manufacturer. (not that it matters, but they ran a much-publicized national taste test, and it appears they will be featuring pistachio pudding in a competing national ad campaign). now, imagine you devise that poll, and the answer tends to vary from place to place, region to region. however, since you can only afford a single ad to run nationally (for whatever reason), you have to pick the one preferred by a thin majority. it turns out the nation preferred strawberry by a slight margin.

now, can you tell me, from the above information, whether your ad campaign will be successful in grabbing some of the dessert market share from the pudding company in some of the regions that preferred orange jello? how about regions that preferred strawberry?

(here's a hint: not a damned thing. sorry to spoil it. but perhaps we all need to work that one out for ourselves)

[MagsDem]

Except your analogy bears no resemblance to the topic at hand

We aren't looking at national numbers, which I agree on meaningless. Go back to the original post. Based on historical data (just about ALL of it by the way) the facts are that Obama's primary wins are not going to translate into anything for dems in Nov. The dem that wins UT, AK, ID, SD, et al doesn't mean anything. He has not inspired or turned out voters in large enough numbers there to overcome the overwhelming red state vote.

[enki23]

249. you people are crazy, you know that?

are you actually convinced that the dem who is edged out in new york will lose new york in november? do you have any actual data to show that a significant fraction of people who prefer strawberry jello won't eat orange jello if that's what they're served? think they'd rather switch to fucking pigs blood, out of spite? maybe *you* are that spiteful. most of us just aren't. the primaries are completely fucking different from the general. the idea that obama can't win california in november because they preferred hillary to him there today is not fucking supported by the data. i can't believe how hard this is to cram through some people's skulls.

hillary knows better. she was bragging about her wins in some "red" states. and there's nothing wrong with that. though, obviously, that doesn't necessarily mean what she says it means, that she could take those states in the general. on the other hand, there *is* a reason democratic presidents in recent history have all come from the south. they were able to eat into even just a small part of the republican base, while carrying the traditional democratic bastions just fine, even if those bastions might have preferred, say, a massachusetts liberal. so, if there were to be *anything* gleaned from wins in southern states (and it's a heck of a reach in any case), it would be a positive rather than a negative in the general. unless you think democratic bastions would prefer mccain to the democrat, or simply not turn out to vote. the primary results, however, don't show anything of the kind. democrats are turning out in droves for *both* candidates, in *all* the states.

it's not fucking rocket science. if you don't get it, well, i can't say it's my fault.

[MagsDem]

253. Again, you fail to comprehend the topic

No one is arguing that Obama can't most of the blue states. CA if certainly no lock because of McCain being the challenger, and the hispanic vote that swings and traditionally does not support black candidates. But any dem will get most of the dem states. Of course without CA none of the others will matter.

The point of the thread, if you would actually read it, is that Obama will not take one southern state, and Hillary has a decent chance at several of them.

You have to actually read before you go off half cocked.

[enki23]

257. i get it just fine. you think he won the wrong red states

but as i shouldn't need to keep repeating, that does *not* tell you he couldn't carry some of the swing states that went for hillary, and it doesn't mean she couldn't carry some of the ones he was preferred in. the possible exception is arkansas, but even that is a serious reach without some other source of information.

[MagsDem]

259. No, you don't get it

I don't think he can win a single southern state in the GE, and I think she can. Name me a single southern state you think he can win?

[enki23]

275. i give up. that your posted observations doesn't support your conclusions is apparently irrelevant

so, i give. uncle. it's like arguing with a creationist. "in the bible, god said his creation was good, therefore evolution couldn't have happened."

dear lord.

[opihimoimoi]

287. Take a deep breath Fnki....its only me chiming in...Aloha ..Come, we go drink

:toast:

[amborin]

189. you're right

Hillary has been able to mobilize the dem base for her support

she's won the crucial dem states....crucial for a nov win

she's ahead in that regard

that's not to say Hillary supporters would not support Obama in Nov, if he were the nominee....surely many will....

but that's the crucial issue: would Obama also be able to win those crucial Dem states in Nov?

it's not that simple.....California's hispanics, for example, might vote republican

what about Arizona's?

[kennetha]

36. Right!

Obama goes cherry picking for votes and delegates in places like Idaho, Kansas, and North Dakota, spending how much to get a grand to total of, what, 56K votes? And Democrats are supposed to be impressed. Imagine that you are a super-delegate from Florida or Michigan. Is that supposed to impress you? If neither side goes to the convention with a majority of delegates, I'm sure the fact that a significant proportion of his delegates come from places Democrats have no chance of carrying, will weigh heavil with the super delegates. Especially since two bell weather states -- Florida and Michigan - that Democrats MUST carry to win, went heavily for Clinton but didn't count at all.

[MagsDem]

56. Nice to know someone gets it -- thanks

[amborin]

120. yes, if those delegates had been included, she's be way ahead

[Rosemary2205]

39. Blue states will go blue regardless of who gets the Dem Nomination.

You are saying can't get enough wide support to get a purple state or even a red state in play for the Dems -- not a good sign for her if that's true.

[MagsDem]

60. Let's look at this as democrats

Hillary has a real chance of winning AR and TN, possibly MO. Obama will never be able to overcome the rethug vote in those states. She is our best shot at a Dem president, and yesterday proved it.

[amborin]

123. don't bet on it

california is a blue state

if obama gets the nomination, watch hispanics turn california red

mccain's stance on immigration is at least palatable to them....

hispanics started voting red in 2004.....they can continue

[Exultant Democracy]

43. have you ever heard of coat-tails?

CO and MO are serious bell weather states and are a far better mesure for overall electoral health the. Say new York or new jersey.

[MagsDem]

62. Yes, I have, but...

Presidential candidates have the coattails, they don't ride them. Honestly, when I exchange with Obama supporters I am often left wondering if they understand politics at all.

[Exultant Democracy]

110. duh and obama obviously has the bigger coattails per your argument

Obama can obviously bring out more voters in areas that we have something to win in. Hillary can't hey is anymore congressmen in new York or mass but we have a whole lot to the states that obama carried even in the states that he won't win outrigt he will be able to put the hurt on the republican delegations. In addition by bringing CO, MO, SC and others into the race he will make the republicans spend money in places that they never had to. Considering that this might be the first time we have a real money advantage it only makes sense to go with a full court press strategy as opposed to the same tried and failed strategies of the last two elections which your post suggests.

Sometimes when I see what you Hillary people post it makes me think you want to lose the GE.

[MagsDem]

124. You're naive in the extreme....

if you think Obama can bring a single one of those red states he won yesterday. NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

[Exultant Democracy]

155. MO and CO are more then in play for Obama you are nuts

And Obama doesn't have to win a state to put a hurt on their congressional delegation. Obviously you have no clue what coattails are or you as so myopic that you can't understand the value of pulling a few more states/districts into the competitive category.

I will try to make this simple for you.

1. More democrats in congress is GOOD! Right?
2. We can win many more seats in our traditional strongholds. We already picked off all thoes seats in 06.
3. The states that Obama won also have congressmen.
4. Since Obama was clearly more poular in these states then Hillary he is better poised to help win seats.

[MagsDem]

171. LOL -- do you even believe that?

There is not a single logical statement in that post as relates to the GE. But it's okay, if it makes you feel better to believe that stuff means southern indies, or even dems in a majority will vote for a black guy for president you are free to dream on. As usual, our base makes sure we stand no chance of winning the GE.

[Exultant Democracy]

204. if you believe that southern dems will vote for a black guy for president you are free to dream on

"if you believe that southern dems will vote for a black guy for president you are free to dream on"

It wasn't a dream it was yesterday, remember you wrote a big long post about how he won in states we don't generally get. Unless you think he somehow won while the majority of the Dems in those states voted against him?

[MagsDem]

216. Okay, which of the southern states that he won yesterday...

do you think he has a farmer's chance in hell of winning in the GE?

[Exultant Democracy]

236. once again you ignore the value of coattails

He doesn't need to win the state in the GE to make a positive change. In every single state he won in a primary (and a few of the cacus states too) he has a far better chance of winning a few more congressional districts for us then Clinton does. Clinton cant win us more seats in the blue states then we already won.

COATTAILS!

[MagsDem]

238. Now that's just totally unsupported crap

Sorry, but you don't have a scintilla of data to back that up. Even if you did, I am not willing to sacrafice the presidency for a few more congressional seats that we will probably win anyway. 28 rethugs are retiring so far, and not for no reason.

[LiberalFighter]

140. Both sides generally don't know jack about political campaigns.

If they did we win more elections.

[bigbrother05]

44. You mean the kind of states that could bring a GE win?

With seriously contested primaries on both sides, the Dems effectively doubled the Repug turnout. That says a lot for our nominee in the GE. We need to win in states that we've been missing for the last two cycles to take this back.

The real headline is that the Dems won the primary, just as they have since the beginning, and will continue to do so from hear on out if we don't beat ourselves.

[Raine]

50. So???

:shrug: that's good then cause there's enthusiasm for a Democrat where there ordinairly isn't.

Anyone with a "D" after their name can basically carry CA. Most of the time in the GE Democrats don't even bother campaigning here.

[MagsDem]

75. You underestimate Obama's lack of hispanic support

And we need a few southern states to win, like AR and TN that Hillary can deliver.

[LiberalFighter]

151. Past results

Arkansas should be a whole lot easier to win than Tennessee for Clinton. It would depend on the political activity in Tennessee as to whether it can be won.

2004 AR (6)
572,898 - Bush
469,953 - Kerry

2000 AR
472,940 - Bush
422,768 - Gore


2004 TN (11)
1,384,375 - Bush
1,036,477 - Kerry

2000 TN
1,061,949 - Bush
981,720 - Gore

[NoodleyAppendage]

54. Delusional Clintonite Post #7969

Next time you have a chance to pull your head out of Hillary's ass, take a long look at Clinton's negatives and how she fares in the general election against McCain.

J

[BootinUp]

65. Clue

Obama is running a PRIMARY strategy that makes his current numbers v McCain look good relative to Hillary. Hillary will be able to appeal to his independent voters in a GE election campaign. Back before this primary heated up, she had some very good poll results in the south as a matter of fact, and very good against McCain as well. During the primary she is not focusing a strategy on those voters like Obama is.

[MagsDem]

104. That's exactly right...

It's almost as if he doesn't care about the GE. It's another example of him playing dem voters. Another reason why I really dislike him. The Clinton strategy will translate in Nov. Obama doesn't even appear to be thinking that far ahead.

[MagsDem]

77. I actually prefer Edwards, but facts are facts

You can dispute them, but his wins, in my opinion, are pretty meaningless for Dem chances in the GE.

[Auntie Bush]

58. Good thought!

I hadn't thought of it in that way.

Also, many of those southern votes/Indies will go to McCain and not Obama in the GE.
We are screwed if Obama becomes the Dem nominee. At least 4 or more years of Rethug/bush* policy. Our country can't take it!

[MagsDem]

78. That's right!

Obama = a dem loss in Nov.

[Yossariant]

61. Six of his wins last night were in red state caucuses.

[loveangelc]

63. So what are you saying? The fact that Hillary won in states that either Obama or Hillary will win in

is not very impressive either. I truly feel as if Obama would win more surprise states than Hillary in Nov..

I can definitely see Obama going to Idaho again and asking for their vote. No one ever goes to Idaho so I can see them really being impressed by that.

[MagsDem]

85. Let me spell it out for you...

1. In states that vote dem Hillary is the clear preference

2. Obama cannot bring any southern states.

3. Hillary has a very good shot at bringing AR and TN, possibly MO in Nov.

4. It's going to be difficult if not impossible to win without some part of number 3 happening

5. If hispanics in CA prefer McCain over Obama, a distinct possibilty, we simply cannot win in Nov.

[loveangelc]

117. You don't have to spell anything out to me.

Hillary will not win AK, TN or MO. If she didn't win MO in the democratic primary what makes you think she'd win it in a general election more so than Obama, when Republicans and Independents prefer him?

[MagsDem]

128. I think you mean AR and not Alaska

She will definitely take AR in the general, and has a good chance of taking TN. Those states still have a strong southern dem party, and they see her as a home girl, not a eastern liberal like Kerry. Bill won those states, and she can certainly do the same. MO is trending dem the same way. But they will not elect a black guy. Spent much time in the south? Doesn't appear so.

[loveangelc]

133. Well whatever you say...I still dont think Hillary will win TN, AR, or MO.

They will go to McCain if she is the nominee. Maybe she could pull off Arkansas, but it's unlikely. Like I said, Why would Hillary win MO in a general election when she didnt even carry it in a DEMOCRATIC primary? Yes, I understand she won a lot of rural voters, but the fact remains...she didn't win the state in the democratic primary where she was ahead 10 points not long ago.

[MagsDem]

139. So Bill won them.....

Only Dem to do so since Johnson, but you don't think Hillary can. Interesting logic you have going there. Obama voters will turn to Hillary if she is the nominee, but he will not win a single southern state if he is the nominee. You can take that to the bank. There is a reason we don't have a any black southern state sentate dems.

[loveangelc]

166. So you're saying Hillary supporters are racist and won't go to Obama?

I think most people know theyre not voting for Bill Clinton when theyre voting for Hillary Clinton. There are plenty of people who voted for Bill Clinton who aren't supporting her wife now and even less people who didn't support Bill before who would support her now, especially men...

[MagsDem]

173. No, I'm saying southern indies and dems will not turn out for a black candidate

Hillary has nothing to do with it. As for the rest of your statement, that's your opinion. There are no actual numbers to back that up, as you will know.

[loveangelc]

179. Basically southern democrats who support hillary are racist is what you are saying.

I don't think its fair for you to say that unless you know most southern democrats..

[MagsDem]

183. Again, Hillary has nothing to do with it

If it was Obama and Edwards, or Obama and Richardson, or whatever it would be the same story. Hillary has nothing to do with it. I don't have to "know" most southern dems and indies. All I have to know is they have never elected a black candidate to the senate. Are you saying there are no talented black candidates in southern states that are capable of being a US sentator? Reality is a tough pill to swallow. But it is reality.

[marions ghost]

276. what BS

Most of the southern Indies and Dems I know will vote for Obama.

You'll see.

[LiberalFighter]

167. Missouri

I like chances winning with Missouri. Maybe work to offset the counties along the southern border of the state.

2004 MO (11)
1,455,713 - Bush
1,259,171 - Kerry

2000 MO
1,189,924 - Bush
1,111,138 - Gore

[MagsDem]

174. Hillary yes, Obama, no

Not going dem if Obama is the candidate.

[LiberalFighter]

162. Idaho? How? Why waste time with Idaho with 4 electoral votes?

2004 (4)
409,235 - Bush
181,098 - Kerry


2000
336,937 - Bush
138,637 - Gore


Only Blaine County went Democratic in 2000 (220 votes) and 2004 (by 1,900)

[cottonseed]

67. In November, he'll take every blue state Hillary took.

analysis no good

[MagsDem]

86. Don't bet on CA

And we need MORE than those states to win the GE.

[Hawaii Hiker]

164. No Democrat will lose California - it absolutely will not happen

There is a better chance of Shaquille O'Neal playing for the New England Patriots next year than a Republican winning CA. in November....

Obama almost had more votes than McCain & Romney COMBINED yesterday & he was second to Clinton....

Hell, Paris Hilton would probably win California....

[MagsDem]

175. You mean like Reagan, and Arnie

Never happen, huh? LOL!

[Hawaii Hiker]

185. Come on, the only reason Arnold won as governor is because he's a social liberal

If Arnold went Mike Huckabee & started with the preaching & pontificated the social conservative blues, Phil Anglelides (spelling) would be the governor now...

Arnold is a Republican who governs like a Democrat.....

From CNN here were yesterdays vote totals for California:

Clinton - 2,079,707

Obama - 1,898,048

Edwards - 167,822

Total - 3,945,577


McCain - 961,399

Romney - 774,707

Huckabee - 263,344

Giuliani - 115,094

Paul - 97,125

Total - 2,211,669

Do the division & Democrats received 64% of the vote....

We can talk about can Obama win Ohio, New Mexico, South Carolina, etc?, but there is no debate on California..The Democrat will win CA, NY, MA, IL, NJ, CT, (among a few others) without question, & will be announced the winner 4 seconds after the polls close....

[MagsDem]

188. Like McCain?

Yeah, like McCain.

[Hawaii Hiker]

201. Like McCain what? - Arnold is certainly more socially liberal than McCain

it's not even close...Arnold is more of a liberal than some Democratic senators we have....

Again, & I think orange bang head man needs to come out, neither Clinton nor Obama will lose California (why do you think the Republicans tried to split the states electoral votes last summer, cuz they know they'll lose the state )but it hopefully has been defeated....

www.nodirtytricks.com

No Democrat will lose California, :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

[MagsDem]

219. Not to hear the right wing pundits tell it - lol

But on a serious note, McCain can definitely get the CA hispanic vote versus Obama, and AZ too. Not likely if McCain runs against Hillary. If we lose CA, we lose. Period.

[amborin]

209. California could easily vote republican in the GE

Hispanics have been trending republican....they did in 2004....they're attracted to religious themes and family values, among other issues

they'd accept McCain, since his immigration stance is tolerable

don't underestimate the strength of the 'get out the vote' drive in the ex-urbs, either....

[last_texas_dem]

268. A couple of major factors regarding Hispanics trending Repug

1) The Bushes are (or at least, were at one point) more popular with Hispanics than the vast majority of white, Republican politicians.

2) The Repugs made an anti-immigrant message a major part of their platform for the 2006 elections, and let some of their nastiest, xenophobic elements come to the fore. It hurt them with Hispanics in those elections, and likely did enough damage to their image with a sizeable number of Hispanics that they will not be able to easily "shake it off" for this year's elections.

While Hispanics were trending Repug earlier in the decade, I believe that this trend may have been based substantially on Bush's popularity. W/o Bush on the ticket, and with the Repugs no longer attempting to court Hispanics on the same level, it's a different scenario altogether. Additionally, McCain is more of a "compromise" candidate for the 'pugs than anything; the media may still love him but I haven't seen evidence that he's the type of politician who inspires any sort of worship among regular Americans, such as the type that would be needed to swing millions of California Hispanics to vote for the Repug.

[rodeodance]

288. Yeah--that is what he claims-but i don't believe him

[KoKo]

79. Well...that's an interesting point....who knows if it holds true with the crash of Repugs..

but just because they are pretty quiet with their own problems these days doesn't mean they aren't in the back rooms plotting for the kill to the Dems in November. :shrug:

[yellowcanine]

81. Bill Clinton won in Georgia in 1992. I am not ready to concede any states.

Besides, the Democrats in red states have just as much right to have a say in who the nominee is as Democrats in blue states. I am actually not sure what your point is. What is your point? It is a pretty silly argument you are trying to make.

[MagsDem]

91. You might not agree with my argument....

... but there is nothing the least bit silly about it. You can bet all the campaign teams were discussing it in detail today.

[yellowcanine]

101. You can bet a lot of things but you can lose also. It is a silly argument. Taken to its

logical extreme we would only seat the state delegations from the states won by the Democrats in the last election. How stupid would that be? Democrats would never win in red states if we followed your formula. A vote is a vote. The color of the state does not matter.

[MagsDem]

107. Where did I suggest any such thing?

I didn't. What I am saying is many of his wins will NOT translate into a thing in Nov. Hers will.

[yellowcanine]

116. You didn't. I said "taken to its logical extreme..." It's a silly argument.

You also presume that Clinton voters will not mostly vote for Obama if he is the nominee. You have nothing to back up that presumption.

[MagsDem]

135. Oh really?

I have plenty to back up that presumption. Have you seen how Obama does with the hispanic voters? That's why we will lose if he is the nominee. That, and the fact that not a single southern state will go to him in the GE. Southerners, even dems, as a bloc will not turn out for a NE liberal, or a black guy. That's why there is not a single black dem senator from the south in the senate.

[LiberalFighter]

170. Clinton did not win in 1996 against a real loser.

Ross Perot was in it for the 2nd time too drawing from Republicans.

[yellowcanine]

213. The point is that a Democrat can win there. It shouldn't just be written off.

[LiberalFighter]

231. If Bill couldn't beat Dole then how will a different D win in Georgia?

And it's been 16 years since 92. Makeup of states change. Bush won by wider margins since then.

[LiberalFighter]

228. Posted wrong

[Raiden]

83. Laugh all you want, but the 50 state strategy

took the wind out of HRC's sails last night...the DLC strategy of only competing where victory is almost certain is failing Hillary. I hope she continues ignoring small states, because BHO will win those states by default.

[MagsDem]

95. I'm all for a 50 state strategy

But what you don't seem to understand, along with most Obama supporters is that our 50 state strategy doesn't stand a prayer with Obama. You severely underestimate the prejudice against black people by southern whites, regardless of their political party. Hillary can definitely bring AR and TN to us in the general. Obama - zero southern states in the GE.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

103. Obama got 43% of the white vote in GA. Not bad. nt

[LiberalFighter]

233. Sure he got 43% of the white vote but not in the General Election.

Those were Democrats and maybe some Rep/Ind.

In the General Election Obama would receive a lower percent of whites.

[Raiden]

258. Oh yes, if a black man cannot win the South, I'm sure a woman can

Spare me...what makes you think Obama has any less chance of winning conservative states as a black man than Hillary has as a woman? Are you serious? I'm sick and tired of letting cynics decide who we should support...telling us who's the most "electable"--It sure isn't HRC with her high negatives. People have already made up their minds about Hillary whereas Obama is a fresh face with charisma and a message of hope and national unity. That may seem empty and hollow to you, but in these times, after eight years of Bush and Republican hatemongering I think America could benefit from some genuine optimism.

Barack Obama actually opted to compete in small conservative states that Senator Clinton simply wrote off. It served him well and demonstrated his solid JUDGEMENT. Clinton's strategy has always been inevitability--which has been the DLC's losing electoral strategy for the past two Presidential elections (i.e. only compete in states that aren't inevitably Republican--can you say "self-fulfilling prophecy"???). I'm tired of a losing strategy of only competing for tried-and-true swing-states and unprincipled triangulation. Your assumption is that BHO should write off the South because they'll never vote for a black man...how can you win if you don't compete, or if you talk down to people and call them racist. You should give the South a little more credit.

[LiberalFighter]

178. 50 state strategy only applies to the General Election

[NoBorders]

98. You've got it totally backwards

He has the ability to flip some red states blue, while taking all the blue states that hillary got.

[MagsDem]

105. Name one

Name a single southern state that he will be viable in in Nov? There isn't a single one.

[NoBorders]

126. Colorado, perhaps Virginia

for starters. Plus, he'll get all the traditional blue states that HRC will.

[MagsDem]

130. CO is not a southern state

VA - no, not in the general if Obama is the candidate. I think you underestimate the prejudice against blacks by hispanics and southerners, even democratic ones.

[NoBorders]

158. What?!!! It's not?

Not sure why your question was limited to southern states.

Here's some info on blacks and hispanics for you: http://pewresearch.org/pubs/713/blacks-hispanics

I am aware of the existence of racism in the south, seeing as I live here, and I still think Obama has a chance in VA.

[MagsDem]

169. It's limited to the southern states because Hillary can bring some of them....

AR, TN, and possibly MO. Obama cannot. And his primary wins there last night should not lead people to think otherwise.

[rufus dog]

108. nice thread, you rock!

All negatives and not one positive about your candidate.

[MagsDem]

112. Maybe you should read it again

The positives about Clinton are she can bring AR and TN, possibly MO, and she won big in the major blue states. That actually means something for the GE. Many of Obama's wins are not going to translate into anything in the GE.

[amborin]

113. exactly, Hillary Clinton won the CRUCIAL states, crucial for DEM victory in November

nice that Obama won in some "red" areas, but in many of those "red" states, such as Idaho, there are few DEMS in the general population

so, come November, even if Obama won Idaho in the primary, odds are Idaho will wind up "red"

same with other states Obama has won

Hillary is winning the "must win" crucial DEM states, the states that affect the November election

[robbedvoter]

119. Also, states with open primaries, where GOP-ers could cross to vote against Hillary

[RockyTorres]

125. Super Tuesday Results, Indication?

Well the day finally came and went and what more do we know??? Ask your self that question...Here are a few of my observations...

Republicans:

I guess the question of the night still begs is McCain really the GOP candidate? If someone without any basic knowledge of politics were to look at the delegate map from Super Tuesday, they would think that hands down, John McCain is the favorite in the GOP party. On the contrary, let's look at the states from a perspective with a little bit more political insight.

John McCain managed to win blue states (ie: for those of you who do not know politics, that means states that generally vote Democrat in the general election). This brings to light two observations. One, Republicans in liberal states are leaning toward a moderate, more liberal, Republican candidate. Two, the people who are essentially putting him in the position to be the GOP candidate do not represent the Republican party or ideals.

Let's look at the Republican strong hold, or Red States. Overwhelmingly, these states were split between Huckabee and Romney. This split also shows part of the split between the Republican party. The traditional Southern states (ie: Alabama and Georgia) are Republican based on religious values and conservatism. That is that regardless of a candidates views, 90% of the time, they will vote for the candidate that essentially invokes Jesus. It was no surprise that Huckabee did very well in the South and carried all the 5 Southern states on Super Tuesday. On the other hand, there are the western Republicans. This half of the Republican party is pro-Republican based more on fiscal issues and are very against government interference. By government interference, I mean, welfare programs, taxes, and excessive legislation. It was no surprise that Romney had success in these states. One he is Mormon, so he of course had an advantage in Utah (duh!). His premise is on the government and tax cuts and lack of government intervention, so essentially these Republican states clearly prefer him.

In the GOP many but not all states are winner take all states. This means that if you win the primary in that state, you win all the delegate representation from that state at the GOP convention. So, if you win the GOP primary by one vote and there are 50 delegates assigned to that state, the candidate who won by 1 vote wins all 50 delegates no matter what.

Having explained that, let's go back and take a look at the Super Tuesday map for the GOP...



John McCain is the front runner as of last nights results, yet he only one two red states on Super Tuesday, Arizona (which by the way Bill Clinton was able to carry), which is his home state, and Oklahoma. These two states are states that have traditionally voted Republican in the general elections. He was also able to carry the swing state (a state the has voted both Democrat and Republican in the general election in the past few elections). All of the other Red States were carried by Romney and Huckabee, which begs the question is he the real GOP candidate? If you listen to conservative talk radio, you will understand the frustration of the GOP party at the potential candidacy of John McCain. What is next is yet to be said, but as of right now, it looks like the GOP is going to put up a candidate that would have just as easily possibly won the Democrat endorsement.

If we look at the success that George W. had within his party, it is very apparent. He was able to appeal to all sectors of the Republican party. He appealed to the Bible Belt south with his mentions of Christianity. He appealed to fiscal Republicans with his promise of tax cuts. He appealed to Republicans out west, because he is after all, for a lack of better explanation, a cowboy from Texas. Put all this together and you get an ideal candidate for the GOP. What we see today is a divided party between fiscals, religious and liberal/moderate Republicans. The Democrat party is surely loving this cluster in the GOP but should not jump the gun too soon. The GOP is traditionally known for their organization and being able to rally their party. So, before the Democrats get too excited about overwhelming polling numbers and uncertainty within their competitors party, they must realize that a good running mate for McCain could change the opinion of many conservative and religious Republicans and bring about a highly strong ticket come November.

Democrats:

This race proved to be what was expected of it. At least in my opinion...a dead draw on paper. By this I mean, if you look at the total Democrat vote across the country, it was split almost 50/50. Keeping this in mind, Obama did win more states than Clinton, however, not all of these states are Blue (or Democrat) states, and not all of the states and very populated, for lack of a better explanation. The idea of the population of a state is important because, one, it determines the number of delegates that state sends to the DNC Convention, and two, it determines the number of electoral votes assigned to that state in the general election in November.

Obama, did however, make a strong showing that is worth noting in the staunch republican south. These results were extremely important and very underplayed in the media. WIth Clinton and Obama on the ticket, they were able (mostly Obama) to bring out 1,046,485 democrat votes in GEORGIA! This is huge because on the GOP side, there were only 954,462 votes cast. This means that if this was the general election, which I am not insinuating would be an actual result, Obama, would have won one of the Republican stronghold states.

All that being said, I still believe that Clinton may have been the overall winner of Super Tuesday. Before any of you jump the gun and scream HILLARY SUPPORTER, let's look at the facts...While Obama won more states, with the exception of Georgia, I would say that his only big wins would be Minnesota and Connecticut. These were huge wins because these are traditionally Blue states. Minnesota was a huge win that was not talked about much by the media. This is huge because Minnesota has been a Blue state for as long as anyone can remember. While I am not positive about the campaign dollars and time Hillary spent there, a huge Democrat state backing Obama does not nothing but great things for his campaign. The other huge victory was Connecticut. This state is also traditionally blue, and represents the Trifecta (As I will call it) that should have been a Hillary string hold. The Trifecta is the metro NYC area. This is comprised of New York, New Jersey and Connecticut (also called the Tri-State area). The loss in Connecticut should be somewhat of a smack in the face to the Clinton camp, seeing as she is a NY senator and this is essentially their backyard and the northern suburbs of NYC.

Now that that is out of the way, let me explain my distinction as Clinton being the winner for the DNC on Super Tuesday. I am going to start with delegate counts... Unlike the GOP, the DNC does not have winner take all states. This process was changed in the 80's by request of Jesse Jackson. The idea is that minority groups may be underrepresented. the idea goes something like this...and I will use Ohio as an example since it is my home state...

Let's say that there are two democratic candidates on the DNC primary ballot to be the DNC presidential nominee. One is very conservative and appeals to the rural areas of Ohio. The other is pro-union and seen as being more liberal and has more of an advantage in the cities. Should the cities have a huge turn and the country have a huge turn out, it will end up being a close race. If it were a winner take all state, who ever gets the majority vote wins ALL the DNC delegates from the state of Ohio. The way that the DNC does it, in order to preserve the integrity of the election and make sure everyone has a voice is by congressional district. So, the delegates are split by their congressional district. So, each candidate gets the delegates of the congressional district that they win.

Lots of info., but here is where the Clinton camp took the advantage yesterday...In my opinion, five of the big states up for grabs yesterday were California, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York. All five of these states had the highest number of delegates up for grabs, all five of these states are DNC stronghold states, and four out of five of these states were won by Senator Clinton. These states are important victories because similar to what was previously mentioned on the GOP side, these are the base states and states that truly represent Democratic values. It should be noted that none of the states are winner take all, so, of course, the delegates will be split. But here is a breakdown...California: 441 delegates, Clinton wins 52% - 42%. Illinois (Obama's home state): 185 delegates, Obama wins 65% - 33%. New York (Clinton's home state): 281 delegates, Clinton wins 57% - 40%. New Jersey: 127 delegates, Clinton wins 54% - 44%. Massachusetts: 121 delegates, Clinton wins 56% - 41%.

Based on this info., I would say Clinton was the winner. This does not mean that at the end of the day she will get the nomination, but shows that in the Democrat heart land and large stronghold, the democrats are calling for Clinton to be their candidate. But the DNC is not a winner takes all party, so we will have to wait and see.

The big issue for the November general election is not between the DNC candidates though. If you talk to almost any democrat, they are going to support the candidate that gets the nomination and strongly. It is safe to assume that whoever loses the nomination will support the other candidate and in turn have their base vote for the other candidate. That being said, the question is whether the GOP will be able to unite and ignite their party by November, with the understanding that the DNC candidates have shared values and similar agendas and will be backed strongly by their party without divide!

[MagsDem]

129. Nice post

I will simply add that Clinton can bring us AR and TN, which can seal the deal in Nov. I don't believe Obama can do that, nor bring any red states of the last few years into our column. He is simply not as electible, and yesterday proved it to me.

[RockyTorres]

137. 100% agree

While Obama was able to pull off big numbers in Georgia, we are totally flawed if we think that numbers like that will win in November. In my opinion, and I should say I think we all know, that if there is a black man on the ticket the southern white base will begin to register and vote in droves. I do not see how the southern republicans will ever let him win a southern state regardless of what the trunout was in a state like Georgia last night...

[usregimechange]

134. Like St. Louis city and San francisco?

I realize those are cities but I am just pointing out there is no single pattern. Delaware, Connecticut, Illinois, Minnesota, go blue often.

[MagsDem]

136. Pity electoral votes are decided by STATE popular votes

... not cities, for gawd's sake. I suppose that must be your way of admitting I am exactly correct. You don't seriously think Obama can win a single southern state in the GE, do you? If so, which one, and how do you come to that conclusion?

[usregimechange]

152. I am saying he can and did win liberal areas as well, he can win typically red states like Missouri

[MagsDem]

194. And on what do you base that prediction?

Faith based hope or what?

[FVZA_Colonel]

285. Self-Delete.

Meant to reply to a different post.

[Renew Deal]

138. Obama won just as many "blue states" as Hillary

and cleaned up red states.

[RockyTorres]

142. Whon won the BIG blue states

The point is that Hillary carried all the big blue states...except Illinois, which would have been an embarassement if she did. The democratic strong hold states of California, Massachusette, New York and New Jersey went to her...These are the base states of the democratic party and that cannot be ignored...

[Renew Deal]

148. Obama won 2 of them

Hillary won 3. And Obama did much better in his home blue state than Hillary did hers.

[RockyTorres]

153. But she beat him by 10% + in all th others

But she beat him by 10% + in the other big states!

[Renew Deal]

157. And he beat her 20+ in all other states

And won MO. So I don't get your point.

[RockyTorres]

165. MO was a tie and I do not consider a big win

in Idaho anything extraordinary.

[Renew Deal]

172. Obama won MO by 10,000 votes

Idaho and 9 other states.

[MagsDem]

143. What southern red state do you think Obama will win in a GE?

Name a single one. His wins in dem primaries in those states will translate into a big fat zero in Nov.

[Renew Deal]

154. Virginia?

Maybe Arkansas. Maybe Florida. And he's got a better shot than Hillary at any of the 50 states.

[MagsDem]

180. Dream on

Seriously. Do you really think we've never had a black elected to the US senate from those states (a statewide race for federal office) is because we haven't ever had any talented black politicians in those states?

[Renew Deal]

182. I don't know the history of all of those states

But Ford would be a senator right now if he didn't run as a right winger.

[MagsDem]

186. Oh really?

I'm afraid not. The nail in his coffin was them (rethugs) portraying him as having a relationship with white woman. And it worked like a charm. You really don't understand the south.

[Renew Deal]

191. He alienated his Democratic vote and lost a chunk of his base.

The playboy party thing didn't help, but there were even people at DU that didn't want to vote for Ford.

[MagsDem]

206. Yeah right

The ad they ran against him portraying him as dating a white woman was just coindcidence, and it was just an accident they didn't hire a black woman for the commercial. Seriouly, for the sake of the party, Obama supporters need to wake up. You're going to be responsible for our burial in Nov.

[Renew Deal]

212. I've thought it out already

Clintonite selfishness is going to cost us the election if she is nominated. Hillary has 0% chance of being elected. You can't win when 50% doesn't like you outright. Worse than that, you can see that at least 50% of Democrats don't like Hillary.

[MagsDem]

237. well I guess you could 50% of dems don't like Obama then

National polling, and national negatives are absolutely irrelevant here. All the blue states will still be blue, and she can pick up AR, TN, and possibly FL and MO and VA. Obama doesn't have a prayer in any southern state because of racial politics.

[dsharp88]

141. LA, a possible blue state, votes Saturday

I'm in New Orleans and believe Obama will carry the city on Saturday, Feb. 9th in the Louisiana primary. Hillary's former home state of Arkansas is right next door to the north so North Louisiana (a mix of liberal Shreveport and conservative Monroe) will likely go her way. West Louisiana (near Lafayette and Lake Charles) tends to vote "carefully" and likely to back Hillary. That leaves Central Louisiana, which is a mix of liberal (nearer to Alexandria) and conservative (nearer to Baton Rouge). I don't know of any polls, but it should be an interesting benchmark for a reddish-purple Southern state (blue in 92 and 96, purple in 00, and red in 04) as opposed to the deep red rest of the USA's SE quadrant. The problem, of course, is that there are still WAY too many displaced New Orleanians who may not have re-registered to vote yet.

[RockyTorres]

145. ARKLATEX

I agree 100%. At first I thought this was going to be a knock out for Obama. I thought about it for a while and then realized that the ARK-LA-TEX is going to play a huge role in who wins this race.

[MagsDem]

146. He may win in in the primary, just like he won ID and AK

But he sure as hell isn't going to win it as a GE election candidate. What southern state do you think he can win in a general? I can't think of a single one. If you want a 50 state strategy Obama supporters need to take a reality pill about the chances a black dem stands in the south. Worse than a NE liberal like Kerry, if you can even imagine that is possible.

When will stop nominating unelectable GE candidates? Hopefully this will be the year, finally.

[RockyTorres]

150. Bill carried LA

Sorry to say it but I agree. While I think that Hillary will have a hell of time carrying a state like Louisiana, she has a hell of a better shot than Obama. Especially since Bill won there in both '92 and '96. An endorsement from him, while a long shot, may be able to help her carry a state like Louisiana..More so, because she was the first lady of their neighbor state for so long

[LiberalFighter]

184. How? Louisiana went to Bush both times and after Katrina...

how many have returned? And you are right that there are way too many that have not re-registered.

[Sanctified]

159. Hillary won states that traditionally vote Dem...

I highly doubt they will change and vote Republican if Obama is the nominee. On the other hand some of the swing states that Obama won in have the chance to go Dem.

[RockyTorres]

168. Name one with conviction

[MagsDem]

187. I'll ask as well... name a single one

[DaveinMD]

177. red state dems

count the same as blue state dems.

[MagsDem]

193. No, they don't

Blue state dems will have no problem voting for a black candidate. Unfortunately that is not the case in red states, as evidenced by the fact that we have never had a black senator from a red state elected. Not a single one.

[DaveinMD]

200. haven't had too many

from blue states either. And not too many white dems have been winning those red states either. All our votes count no matter where we live.

[MagsDem]

215. You can make the case that he can take a lot of the blue states

... but you just cannot make the case that he can win a single southern state.

[DaveinMD]

221. I think

he can carry Virginia. I also think he'll compete pretty well in the Mountain West.

By the way, I've never been an Obama guy. I liked Edwards best. Undecided right now.

[CTLawGuy]

181. the reason we don't win them

is because we ignore them.

and guess what? the states we DO win in haven't been enough lately. I'd like to have a win they can't steal for once.

[MagsDem]

197. Bill won them in 92 and 96

We don't win them because we nominate candidates they are prejudiced against.

[AtomicKitten]

192. No worries. The Democratic candidate will take the states she won.

Now, who has the better chance of turning some swing and, dare I ask, some red states?

Do the math and show your work.

[MagsDem]

203. No math necessary

No southern state has ever elected a black as US senator, a statewide, federal race. So, what southern state do you think Obama can win, and why? And don't give me any bullshit about primary voters. If those states had enough dem voters to win a statewide federal race they wouldn't be red states.

Using your presumption, you are assuming all dem voters in the south will hold for Obama, and that is just fantasy land. They have a much better chance of holding for white woman that is preceived to have spent most of her adult life in the south. In fact, when Obama said he could get Hillary voters and she couldn't get his, I really knew the guy was out of touch with reality, or just plain full of shit.

He has no 50 state strategy, that's for damn sure.

[AtomicKitten]

208. "YES, WE CAN!"

We know the battle ahead will be long, but always remember that no matter what obstacles stand in our way, nothing can stand in the way of the power of millions of voices calling for change.

We have been told we cannot do this by a chorus of cynics...they will only grow louder and more dissonant ........... We've been asked to pause for a reality check. We've been warned against offering the people of this nation false hope.

But in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope.

Yes, we can.

* Barack Obama

[MagsDem]

211. Why would you expect him to say any different?

The problem is that it is completely divorced from reality. Once McCain is locked you will start to see state by state polls against both Obama and Clinton. And even then you will probably deny reality. I think that is why some people call it cultist.

[AtomicKitten]

214. Because he knows people like you.

The naysayers, the crushers of dreams.

And we all know Obama fares better and sometimes much better than Hillary against McCain, and Obama kicks the ever lovin' sh*t out of Romney.

You have a bit of spittle on your chin from your nasty spew.

Gobama.

[MagsDem]

220. I don't find him dreamy

I find him either naive, or a total operator -- more likly the latter. I also don't think he has anywhere near enough experience to clean up the Bush mess. And those polls you are looking at our National polls. You're in for an eye-opener when we start getting polls that reflect the electoral college process.

[AtomicKitten]

222. We shall see. I think you're wrong. Game on.

[MagsDem]

240. Issues

I vote on issues, not on McDreamy speeches with no substance by candidates thin on credible experience. And I have faith that the American people will do the same.

[AtomicKitten]

245. As do I

And your insinuation that those the don't support your candidate do so because they prefer a candidate of no substance is boorish and bereft of integrity on so many levels.

Suffice to say, you are tragically wrong about Obama but, no worries. He is winning the hearts and minds across this country who are overwhelmed by his depth and intelligence and experience and damn good sense when it comes to such matters as war. He was right and Hillary so terribly wrong on Iraq, and that matters more than I'm sure you are capable of comprehending much less caring about.

Yes, he can. You will see.

[MagsDem]

251. So you're in favor of his votes against

Iraq troop withdrawal timelines and his vote against the dem bill to require Bush to get authorization from Congress before sending more troops in?

[AtomicKitten]

252. I'm in favor of leaving Iraq. Obama promises it within 16 months. Hillary?

She's still triangulating.

[MagsDem]

254. Hillary promises day one, and yesterday if possible

Your guy is voting against withdrawal timelines. Why does he have to wait until he's president to support them?

See Hillary's months old plan below:

Hillary Clinton has announced her plan to end the war in Iraq and urged President Bush to act immediately.

"Our message to the president is clear. It is time to begin ending this war -- not next year, not next month -- but today.

"We have heard for years now that as the Iraqis stand up, our troops will stand down. Every year, we hear about how next year they may start coming home. Now we are hearing a new version of that yet again from the president as he has more troops in Iraq than ever and the Iraqi government is more fractured and ineffective than ever.

"Well, the right strategy before the surge and post-escalation is the same: start bringing home America's troops now."

If President Bush does not end the war, when Hillary Clinton is president, she will. Her three-step plan would bring our troops home, work to bring stability to the region, and replace military force with a new diplomatic initiative to engage countries around the world in securing Iraq's future. Hillary has been fighting every day in the Senate to force the president to change course. And today she described how she would bring the war to an end.

Starting Phased Redeployment within Hillary's First Days in Office: The most important part of Hillary's plan is the first: to end our military engagement in Iraq's civil war and immediately start bringing our troops home. As president, one of Hillary's first official actions would be to convene the Joint Chiefs of Staff, her Secretary of Defense, and her National Security Council. She would direct them to draw up a clear, viable plan to bring our troops home starting with the first 60 days of her Administration. She would also direct the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs to prepare a comprehensive plan to provide the highest quality health care and benefits to every service member -- including every member of the National Guard and Reserves -- and their families.

[AtomicKitten]

266. try to keep up

Randomly choosing tidbits of information and throwing them out there with no context and out of sequence is a neat magic trick and all, but moot with regard to our discussion.

FACT: Obama was against the Iraq War from the get-go. He did vote for funding for a while, but then made the decision to cut off funding unless it had a timeline for withdrawal attached. And his plan is to start immediate withdrawal at the rate of one to two battalions a month (a concept Hillary lifted from Barack). He has pledged no permanent bases, that he will close Guantanamo, he will restore habeas corpus, and he advocates a no nukes policy globally.

FACT: Hillary voted YES on the IWR giving Junior a blank check which he promptly cashed. She voted YES on Kyl-Lieberman. She has also voted for funding all along, just like Barack whom she tries to paint with her own sins. And nobody, and I do mean nobody has been able to pin her down on her actual exact "plan" for withdrawal. Now why's that? Hmmmmm. Insight can be gleaned from Zogby who on 12-30-07 Washington Journal stated unequivocally that Hillary is THE choice of the necons for the win. Makes perfect sense.

It is clear to apparently everyone else except dewy-eyed Hillary supporters who hang on her every triangulating word that we aren't getting out anytime soon from Iraq with her at the helm.

Obama on the other hand has a clear, concise plan backed up by a promise. And, no matter how you slice it, Obama is infinitely more trustworthy on all counts.

[kdpeters]

263. The first two black Senators ever elected were from Mississippi

Just a little fact check for you.

[harun]

195. If McCain gets the nomination they will all be in play, every one

of them.

[MagsDem]

207. Yes, that's the point....

And we will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory if we nominate Obama. We need this win, and we will lose every southern state if he is the nominee.

[milkyway]

202. Anyone notice that I could win as the Dem candidate in most of Hillary's states?

[MagsDem]

210. Obama didn't though

But that's not really the point anyway. The point is we need a candidate that can bring a few southern states, and apparently the only southern states he plays well in are out of play for us in the general.

[AtomicKitten]

217. Dude, I'd vote for you.

:patriot:

[AtomicKitten]

239. Seriously, I would totally vote for you.

[MagsDem]

241. Because no credible experience required, or so say...

... the Obamamaniacs.

[AtomicKitten]

247. you need a nap

[MagsDem]

255. Ah, but my statement will still be true when the nap is over

.... unforunately.

[AtomicKitten]

267. sadly you haven't a clue

You have summarily dismissed Barack when it is clear you have ZERO knowledge of his platform or his curriculum vitae. We get it; you don't like him. Guess what? I think the Clintons suck ass. I carried their water for two decades so I know of what I speak. You? Not so much.

[FVZA_Colonel]

282. Self-Delete.

Changed my mind about what I was saying, sorry for taking up "space."

[Spider Jerusalem]

224. States that actually have people in them?

Uh-huh...population of Illinois, 12 million; population of Georgia, nine million; the fact that NY and California are disproportionately populous compared to the rest of the US DOESN'T mean other states 'don't have people in them'.

Nice try, though.

[MagsDem]

242. It's a Molly Ivins quote

But in this case I should have probably said "have democratic people in them." And yes, bully for him, he won his home state.

[FVZA_Colonel]

281. Self-Delete.

I changed my mind about what I was writing.

[FlyingTiger]

225. So... you're impressed by someone who wins states that the Dem will win anyway.

Bulletproof logic right there.

[MagsDem]

244. Nice strawman.... reality is, I'm not impressed by a....

candidate that mainly only seem to win states we aren't going to win anyway in the GE. That was the point of the post.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

226. a naive post

[MagsDem]

246. But let me guess.... you can't articulate why

Kind of like Obama can't articulate how his positions on the issues are in any way new, or transformational. Fact is most of them, like his position on health care, are actually quite limited compared to Clinton's.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

272. at least he's not a weather-vane

she likes to see which way the wind is blowing before crossing the road. It was pointing east to Iraq at the time!

[JVS]

229. Yeah, fuck states like IL, MN, IA, ND, we have no need of them.

:eyes:

[MagsDem]

260. We'll win IL and MN with either candidate

We won't win ND with either candidate. IA is always ify for dems. Obama will not win a single southern state in the GE because of racial politics. Hillary has a credible shot TN, VA, FL, and AR is practically a given. Do the math -- we run Hillary we win. We run Obama, we lose.

[intaglio]

269. So these states should have no say in the Democratic Convention?

It seems that your opinion is anti-democracy, indeed extremist. States that "will mean nothing" in a GE must be denied a voice in selecting a Democratic candidate? Appalling, elitist nonsense.

[Dawgs]

271. How the fuck would you know if Obama could win the South.

You live in Washington, you dumbass.

I live Georgia. You're crazy if you don't think Obama could win here in November.

[marions ghost]

277. right, Dawgs

:applause:

The OP is operating from an old view of the South. The stereotypes are fading...successful women and black candidates are common in politics in the South. Religion still is a factor--one would not admit to being an atheist...

[Robbins]

278. Polls

Polls here In Missouri when Hillaryw as ahead In the primary showed Obama(as wel as Edwards) beating Mccain.Washington State polls shows Obama beating him but he tied with Hillary.Polls that showed Hillary winning the California primary showed her In the general Election tied with Mccain but Obama ahaead of Mccain In a general election.You can't Ignore this data.

[Sojc]

279. Actually the numbers in a general election against McCain have favoured Obama for a while

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm


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


"Looking to the General Election, daily tracking results show that McCain leads Clinton 46% to 44% while Obama leads McCain 46% to 43%."

[donheld]

283. Only idiots and real psychics can say we won't get those states. n/t

[ElsewheresDaughter]

284. exactly

[Bonobo]

286. This argument makes sense ONLY if Hillary supporters will note vote for Obama. NT