States Clinton won that have a chance in 2008-AR, AZ, CA, MA, NY, NJ, OK, TN, NH, NV, NM, MO, FL, MI

[jsamuel]

Given that NM and MO are essentially ties and FL and MI were not campaigned in.

Obama's states won that we have a chance in - IL, CT, DE, CO, MN, IA, NM, MO (also close behind Clinton in NH)

[MadBadger]

1. I dont care what you say, she didnt win Missouri.

[jsamuel]

2. Obama didn't win NM either, but I gave both MO and NM to both of them because they were essentially

a tie.

[Cameron27]

4. Good idea

[faithfulcitizen]

3. ummm, okay then Obama won FL, & MI too right?

Given your "givens" :silly:

[jsamuel]

5. Clinton got 50% or more in those states. If you don't want to count them, you don't have to.

[Cameron27]

6. He certainly didn't win FL.

[jsamuel]

7. kick

[Perky]

8. This is a really pathetic thread.

Do yuou honestly meant to suggest that Obama could not win Claifonrina and New York in a general election?

[jsamuel]

9. That is so not the point of this thread.

I just listed who won the states that we can win in November, that is all.

I also don't think Clinton will have a problem in IL, CN, or DE, but I listed them under Obama.

[sandnsea]

10. The point is he brings more people to our side

She keeps us at the place we've been for 28 years, since the Reagan Revolution. He changes the trajectory, he's transformative, because he attracts people in the REST of the states. That's the entire point. That's what his election is about. ENDING the Reagan Revolution, not just nibbling at the edges.

[jsamuel]

11. We haven't won OK, AR (except for Clinton), TN (except for Clinton) in a while

Nor AZ or NV. We lost NH in 2000. Both do well in NM and MO. Getting 40% in GA and AL instead of 35% isn't going to change anything. I do agree we need to work on red states too, but I think the ones Clinton is winning are ones we are more likely to win in November.

[sandnsea]

14. And by the end of their term

They were lost again. Just because she wins states in the primary, it doesn't mean she'll win them in the GE. He'll retain her voters, she will not retain his. He's the one that can build on this Democratic wave that is growing.

Why would an Edwards supporter go to a centrist globalist like Hillary anyway. You do know that every single thing that came out of their campaign was a lie, right?

[jsamuel]

15. "every single thing that came out of their campaign was a lie"

statements like that don't help


"centrist globalist"

On the issues that matter to me, like UHC, Clinton has shown to be more liberal while Obama is more centrist. Both voted for the Peru Free trade agreement. Edwards was the progressive and pro fair trade. I support Edwards, I don't "support" Clinton. I really don't like Obama. I do not trust him. The 527 attacks on Edwards in Iowa is a good example why. He had his own 527's, but still attacked Edwards for his when he knew full well Edwards had no control over them.

[sandnsea]

16. It's the Truth

You're just repeating mindless Krugman babble. You need to learn the difference between campaign babble and reality.

"I’m equally concerned about her attack on his health care plan. She says his would insure fewer people than hers. I’ve compared the two plans in detail. Both of them are big advances over what we have now. But in my view Obama’s would insure more people, not fewer, than HRC’s. That’s because Obama’s puts more money up front and contains sufficient subsidies to insure everyone who’s likely to need help – including all children and young adults up to 25 years old. Hers requires that everyone insure themselves. Yet we know from experience with mandated auto insurance – and we’re learning from what’s happening in Massachusetts where health insurance is now being mandated – that mandates still leave out a lot of people at the lower end who can’t afford to insure themselves even when they’re required to do so. HRC doesn’t indicate how she’d enforce her mandate, and I can’t find enough money in HRC’s plan to help all those who won’t be able to afford to buy it. I’m also impressed by the up-front investments in information technology in O’s plan, and the reinsurance mechanism for coping with the costs of catastrophic illness. HRC is far less specific on both counts. In short: They’re both advances, but O’s is the better of the two. HRC has no grounds for alleging that O’s would leave out 15 million people."

This is the truth about Hillary's tactics:
http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2007/12/why-is-hrc-stooping-so-low.html

[jsamuel]

17. I know full well the differences between the UHC plans and Obama's is by far inferior.

In fact, it is not Universal at all. I agreed with Krugman before he printed a word about the UHC plans.

And it is not true that everything out of the Clinton camp is a lie.

[sandnsea]

18. Nice refutation

Jump up and down some more and see if it makes anything they say more true. *sigh*

Mandates don't make anything universal. Vagrancy laws didn't end homelessness. It's the biggest fairy tale of the entire campaign.

Here is what John Edwards' plan REALLY SAID about mandates. HIS plan wasn't based on mandates at all.

"Once these steps have been taken, requiring all American residents to get insurance."

His plan was to reduce costs, implement a public plan, provide assistance, and make health care affordable.

The mandates were to come AFTER all the other programs had been implemented, which is exactly what Obama has said. The problem isn't that people are trying to game the system, the problem is people can't afford to participate. Edwards got that, he just didn't have the integrity to stand up to Krugman and tell him he had misunderstood and was wrong.

[jsamuel]

21. Social Security is mandiated and is universal. That is the same way it will work. Not like

forcing people to buy a home or get car insurance. Edwards mandated, he covered those who can't afford it as will Clinton. Edwards has said repeatedly that Clinton's plan is basically his.

[sandnsea]

24. No, she offers tax credits

She is not offering a social security type program at all. I know how these bait and switch tax credits work, just like their Hope College Tax Credits. It really doesn't matter because she will never be President. If Obama doesn't beat her now, I guarantee McCain will beat her in November.

[karynnj]

12. Many of those are states ALL Democrats will win barring a McGovern like landslide for the Republican

I just don't get the point of this. Now, if you had McCain/Obama matchups that showed McCain winning MA - that would be interesting.

[jsamuel]

13. some of them are, many of them are not

For Clinton - CA, MA, NY will be Dem
For Obama - IL, CN, DE will be Dem

[bicentennial_baby]

19. MA will always go Dem, regardless...

Jeez...

[jsamuel]

23. that is exaclty what I said

[karynnj]

28. NJ very likely will be with either candidate.

[avrdream]

20. So they finally awarded NM to Clinton?

Wasn't there some data somewhere showing that Clinton would pull in more of the purple states in a GE? It was a few months ago when that was posted.

[jsamuel]

22. still counting, but she is ahead by over 1000 votes now

[MadHound]

25. First off, Hillary didn't win Missouri

Second of all, living in Missouri I can tell you that if Hillary is on the ticket come November, she will lose. A lot of liberals and Democrats here despise the Clintons and will either stay home or vote third party, or even McCain. And with Hillary on the ticket, all the conservatives will come swarming out to vote against here, whether it is for McCain, Huckabee, or a dead dog on the ticket.

Why do you think McCaskill backed Obama? She knows that the Clinton name is poison in this state and she'd be cutting her own political throat if she endorsed Hillary.

[jsamuel]

26. and Obama didn't win NM

I put them both down for states that were really close. Both got MO and NM.

[MadHound]

27. Way to sidestep my main point, that Hillary can't win here in MO

Obama has a serious chance at it, but hey if you want to continue to delude yourself:shrug: