OBAMA has arrived at a Dead End.. It is impossible for him to Beat McCain!

[Tellurian]

Obama has arrived at a Dead End..

So far, Obama's support had come from the RED States..

Hillary was strongest with her Democratic Base in the Blue States.

McCain will take back all the Red States Won by Obama.

Obama has failed miserably against Hillary in the Blue States.

What do you have when it's all over and done. A McCain Presidency!

NO THANKS!

[Eric J in MN]

1. So Massachusetts will vote for McCain over Obama in the general election? NT

NT

[Radical Activist]

4. Or California and New York?

uh huh :crazy:

[Tellurian]

5. Hmm.. MA , CA & NY are Blue states..

taken by Hillary OVER Obama..

[Eric J in MN]

6. That's why I chose it to make my point.

Are you saying Obama would lose to McCain in MA if he's the nominee?

[Tellurian]

9. Why would he be the nominee if his strength is in the Red states?

But McCain will take them. Hillary has a better chance of winning the General rather than Obama..

[Eric J in MN]

18. I'm skeptical of predictions based on who won Democratic primaries.

Most people who vote in Democratic primaries will vote for whomever the Democratic nominee is in November.

I voted for Obama, but I'm also skeptical of pro-Obama predictions based on the primaries.

[Tellurian]

33. You have to factor in Obama's wins in Red states were by Caucus..

He staged the vote in Iowa by busing in thousands of voters from ILL..

Two things are Obama's weakness. Debates and Voting Primaries.

[democrattotheend]

128. Link?

Can you point me in the direction of where anyone documented Obama rigging or cheating in the Iowa caucuses?

Can't you make the case for your candidate without stooping to that level?

[laugle]

157. And don't forget substance over style!

Many people are finally saying that he will need to come-up with more specifics, but he seems to be trying to dodge somewhat the debates, IMO that's a very bad strategy. He is still seen as a new face with an inspirational message, and I don't think that can carry him to the GE!

I know I could be wrong, but I'm hoping in the end, experience wins out over rhetoric.......

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

25. Here's a little hint for you:

Remember Bill Clinton? He won by winning some of those red states you've written off. This is something we haven't done in 2000 or 2004. THAT is how you win.

[onetinsoldier]

145. EXACTLY

an obama nomination puts a number of red states in play because it will energize the black vote,he will win every state that hillary could win in and possibly win some southern states,remember virginia voted for a black governor and tenn came very close to electing harold ford to the senate

[Recursion]

80. I hope you're kidding?

He needs to be the nominee because his strength is in the red states.

Or maybe you're somehow actually suggesting that MA or CA would vote for McCain over Obama?

[karynnj]

88. exactly

The Democrats START with the super blue states, the Republicans with the super red states. It's the states in the middle that are the battleground.

[frogcycle]

153. how many times does it need to be explained that

strength among democrats in heavily red states does not mean SHIT.

in the GE the state will go red, and it is winner take all. ALL of the state's electoral votes will go to the pug. The fact that the insignificant number of dems in that state favor Obama means NOTHING in the GE. Nothing. no.... thing.

[niceypoo]

94. McCain is running on a 'war forever' platform

A random skid row wino is more electable

[katty]

113. yup, all went for Hillary

[jackson_dem]

101. According to SurveyUSA, yes...

As will California and New York and almost all swing states...

[Radical Activist]

2. ummm...if we're going to win

then we need a candidate who can win more than the blue states. In case you hadn't noticed, the blue states weren't enough to elect a President last time. Obama isn't going to have a problem carrying the states Kerry won.

You're right that Hillary has little support beyond the Democratic base, which is exactly why she will lose.

[cali]

3. more stupid

thanks for lowering the collective IQ here

Both Obama and Clinton can beat McCain, genius. Try pulling your head out of that asshole site and educating yourself.

Thanks.

[Tellurian]

8. What Blue state has Obama won besides Lieberman's CT?

zero!

Obama is a loser going in..when the Red states have a choice between McCain or Obama, they will Vote straight (R)

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cgrindley]

19. Actually, I live in CT and the state isn't all that liberal

Dodd's okay, but the governor is a repuke. The previous governor was a crooked and imprisoned repuke and the idiots in my state still elected another repuke. Lieberman beat poor Ned (for whom I volunteered). It's not as blue here as it seems. Everyone's real fucking rich or at least upper middle class. It's funny. It likes its social programs but is very fiscally conservative.

Having said that... Obama rocks and kicked the shit out of Clinton in the primary... quite possibly because he's the candidate for upper middle class and upper class educated white voters.

[cali]

26. Actually, I grew up in New Canaan in the 60s and 70s and my family

still lives there. My mother is still in New Canaan and I have sisters in Darien, Ridgefield and Fairfield. Fairfield county was incredibly republican when I was growing up. Not so much anymore. And yeah, obviously I know that there's a lot of money in CT particularly in places like New Canaan, but there's also a lot of poverty in places like Bridgeport and a lot of working class folks in towns like Waterbury.

I still maintain that CT is deep blue. In fact, I think you all can say goodbye to that relic, Chris Shays this year; the last repuke Congressperson in New England.

[Tellurian]

20. Yes, more comprehensive analysis from the Potty Mouth Queen of DU..

Dearie, Obama's success has been with caucuses. The fact he took the red states by caucus is not the same as winning a Primary vote.

[frogcycle]

154. he bragged the other day that he has the advantage in caucus states

because there they have time to "really get to know the people"

put another way, his supporters have an opportunity to bully, intimidate, ridicule, scorn, do whatever it takes to sway people. combine that with busing in tons of these:



and you pretty much have the American Idol championship sewed up

[Carrieyazel]

158. I agree. Caucuses are not a good predictor of a general election.

Much less turnout than a primary, and a lot of kids turn up, who are wild-eyed and go with the current, hot media creation.

However, there are no caucuses on Election Day in November.

[cloudythescribbler]

24. Obama has won some SWING states (in addition to blue Illinois):

MINNESOTA and IOWA and "purple" Missouri. New Mexico, a swing state, was essentially a tie.

And in upcoming weeks we will see how well Obama NOW does in Washington State, Louisiana (a potential "purple" state) and then Maryland. If Obama wins both WA and MD, will that mean Tellurian will stop being an Obama-bashing troll?

[Tellurian]

58. I have little faith in the easily skewed Caucus state wins..

After Obama bused in thousands from ILL to show his (fake) strength in Iowa. I'm not a believer in his capability.

He tried the same stunt in NV and got his ass handed to him with all the dirty tricks he played with the Union employees.

[democrattotheend]

131. Still waiting for that link

with evidence of Obama rigging the caucus in IA by bussing people in from out of state. This is the first I've heard that.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

29. Delaware, Illinois and Minnesota.

Any more questions? :eyes:

[jackson_dem]

111. Minnesota is a swing state. Illinois his home state

Delaware and CT are blue states he won but Hillary didn't make a serious effort in Delaware like Obama did. I can't speak about CT but we know that is Lieberman's state.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

143. Well, New York is Hillary's home state, so we can't count that.

And what does Connecticut being Lieberman's state have to do with anything? If you're trying to imply something about it, remember that it's also Chris Dodd's state.

[Paulie]

125. Illinois perhaps?

Hillary is from here and she was behind huge.

[democrattotheend]

129. Delaware, Iowa (semi-blue), Illinois, Minnesota, maybe New Mexico

And I still don't understand your premise...are you suggesting that McCain will beat Obama in California, Massachusetts, or New York, just because Clinton beat him there? I think not, my friend. I don't think Obama's success in the red states necessarily points to his ability to be successful there in the general either, though I do think the strong showing he has had among independents in those states, especially swing states like Missouri and Colorado, is encouraging.

BTW, one of the reasons Obama won "Lieberman's Connecticut" is because he was endorsed by Ned Lamont. Exit polls showed that those with a favorable opinion of Lieberman were much more likely to vote for Hillary. That ought to tell you something about Obama's ability to do well in blue states.

[jackson_dem]

110. Another pathetic post attacking a fellow DUers from st. Cali

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

7. This only makes sense...

...if you assume large portions of the voters who voted for Hillary or Obama wouldn't vote for the democratic candidate in the general. Unless you've got something to back up that assumption, your post is nonsense.

[Tellurian]

10. Precisely!.. Hillary has proven she is the stronger of the two candidates in the Blue states

than Obama and has a better chance of defeating McCain on his own ground than Obama.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

23. It doesn't matter if we win a blue state by 55% or 95%.

It's all the same. I really don't see McCain (or any Republican for that matter) being a threat to any Democrat in states like NY, most of New England, California, etc. which is what I assume you're talking about when you talk about "blue states." We need a candidate who can compete in red as well as blue areas. Winning the blue areas overwhelmingly and abandoning the rest of the country basically gets us what we got in 2004.

[Tellurian]

64. Which is why my contention is Obama winning the Red States

is by no means a signal he is the stronger of the two Candidates to win the general. It's a false positive and has done nothing but muddy the water for our strongest and best candidate going into the general.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

66. You're contradicting your own claims and not making a lot of sense.

First you say that Obama winning in red states is meaningless because red states won't vote for us anyway. But somehow the fact that Hillary has won in blue states means that blue states will vote for a Republican if Obama is the nominee. What I gather from this is that you think that the red states are a monolithic voting block that will go for the Republican no matter what. Why then aren't the blue states a monolithic block that will vote for our nominee? You're using different sets of standards for red vs. blue states which are totally unsupported based on looking at previous election results.

Then you say Obama's red state wins are meaningless because they're caucuses, not primaries. (ignoring the fact that quite a few of them *weren't* caucuses and still went heavily for Obama.) It's also been pointed out to you, repeatedly, that Obama *has* won blue states. You are using a trend that doesn't exist to support a dubious claim, and your own arguments have no internal consistency.

But you appear to be highly partisan to begin with, so I doubt that logic has much to do with your arguments anyway.

[Tellurian]

73. No, your post is not an accurate representaion of what I'm saying..

However, I am going offline and will be back later on.. For now you can read on to my later posts on this thread.

[Tellurian]

104. ....

===First you say that Obama winning in red states is meaningless because red states won't vote for us anyway.===

First of all, Obama, is NOT us. And he stands NO chance of winning against a Republican because there is nothing unique about his platform to offer a voter except dreams and wishes! Most of all, Obama's Health Care Plan offers no incentive to Red state voters because it is not Universal, leaving millions uninsured, to what McCain might offer in the interests (empty rhetoric) of being competitive.

===But somehow the fact that Hillary has won in blue states means that blue states will vote for a Republican if Obama is the nominee.===

If McCain shows Obama to be the unseasoned candidate he is in any way Obama's naivete and lack of maturity could possibly send people running back to McCain because out of the two, McCain IS the stronger candidate in every way Obama is not.

===What I gather from this is that you think that the red states are a monolithic voting block that will go for the Republican no matter what.===

Yes, I do.. and historically that has been true in past elections. And what hasn't been factored in is Hillary has a better chance of turning the Red States from a Republican vote because she is proposing Universal Health Care coverage. Obama is not! I'm sure, even though it's a Red State, they also would like Universal Health care as reason enough to vote for Hillary.

===Why then aren't the blue states a monolithic block that will vote for our nominee? ===

The Blue states have already said they prefer Hillary over Obama and they are a given if Hillary is the nominee.

===Then you say Obama's red state wins are meaningless because they're caucuses, not primaries. (ignoring the fact that quite a few of them *weren't* caucuses and still went heavily for Obama.)===

If your counting a high volume of black voters as winning in a RED primary vote state. Then by the same token, will the vote for McCain or the Democrat (Hillary) offering them Universal Health Care win their vote where race isn't a factor?

[Nedsdag]

122. Boy, have you drank the Hillary Kool-Aid.

Is the flavor Chelsea Cherry or Bill Blueberry?

:beer:

[Tellurian]

137. Really, the poster I was answering hasn't rebutted my post yet..

so when you can offer a worthile opinion on what we're discussing.. come back soon, why doncha!

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

146. Yes, because I SLEEP and I HAVE A JOB.

Sorry if this inconveniences you. I'll respond to your gibberish shortly.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

148. OK, this is gonna be a long slog, but...

First of all,

First of, take your extreme partisanship and shove it. You have big, fat agenda. I'm not even sure why I'm still engaging in this discussion.

Obama, is NOT us.

At the moment, Obama and Hillary are effectively tied by any measure you care to use in analyzing the results of the primaries (oh, and those stupid worthless caucuses) so far. So tell me, who is this "us" of which you speak?

And he stands NO chance of winning against a Republican because there is nothing unique about his platform to offer a voter except dreams and wishes!

We ran with an extremely good platform in 2000 and 2004 and still lost because voters consider more than the platform when voting for a candidate. Bush's platform in 2000 was an intellectually bankrupt mishmash of slogans and ranting about tax cuts.

Most of all, Obama's Health Care Plan offers no incentive to Red state voters because it is not Universal, leaving millions uninsured, to what McCain might offer in the interests (empty rhetoric) of being competitive.

I think you seriously overestimate the desire of red state voters for universal health care. Also, you have frequently claimed (wrongly) that Obama is cleaning up in the red state primaries (and stupid worthless caucuses.) So what gives? Are these people crazy? Voting against their interests?


If McCain shows Obama to be the unseasoned candidate he is in any way Obama's naivete and lack of maturity could possibly send people running back to McCain because out of the two, McCain IS the stronger candidate in every way Obama is not.

McCain has little money, no support from his Republican base, has run a fairly lackluster campaign so far, and in my opinion is only winning now because every single other Republican candidate has proven to be either crazy or a terminal bore. McCain may be a strong candidate, but I could probably name at least five things right off the top of my head that would be similarly problematic for Hillary if she were to run against him. He is not unstoppable.

Regarding you believing that red states are a monolithic block:


Yes, I do.. and historically that has been true in past elections.

This is where you completely lose me. Let's go to the maps:

Here's 1992:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1992

Here's 2000:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_2000

Gee, can you spot the difference?

And what hasn't been factored in is Hillary has a better chance of turning the Red States from a Republican vote because she is proposing Universal Health Care coverage. Obama is not! I'm sure, even though it's a Red State, they also would like Universal Health care as reason enough to vote for Hillary.

Now back the truck up just a second here. First you say that Obama winning red states in the primaries is either irrelevant or bad (I can't tell which because your argument makes no sense.) Then you say that the red states are a monolithic voting block, which I've just shown you is wrong. Then you say that Hillary has a chance of turning those red states blue, even though you claim that Obama is cleaning up in the red state primaries and caucuses. This makes NO SENSE AT ALL.


The Blue states have already said they prefer Hillary over Obama and they are a given if Hillary is the nominee.

Ahh, so it turns out I wasn't misrepresenting your statements! You really do believe that the red states are a monolithic block (oh, unless Hillary is the nominee, because she um... magically... um...) and the blue states aren't. Basically your argument, as far as I can tell, comes down to this: You simply think Hillary will win everywhere, and Obama will lose everywhere. Why didn't you just come out and say this in the beginning instead of hiding behind a bunch of nonsensical and factually wrong statistical arguments?


If your counting a high volume of black voters as winning in a RED primary vote state. Then by the same token, will the vote for McCain or the Democrat (Hillary) offering them Universal Health Care win their vote where race isn't a factor?

I think this statement stands on its own as some kind of bizarre testament to the power of gibberish to corrupt the minds of otherwise sane individuals. I have read it four times and I still don't have the slightest idea what you are trying to convey. But, go Hillary! Obama iz teh eeevulz!

Edit: fixed map links. DU no likey embedded PNGs.

[Tellurian]

150. I need go no further than the first line of your response...

and understand I've blown whatever the rest of your response is to Hell..

Tuff cookies...but thanks for the effort anyway..

[Lochloosa]

12. A voice of reason.

:toast:

[thunder rising]

11. The Blue States will vote Blue, when given the choice between McCain and any Democrat

[Tellurian]

27. Iowa was staged by busing in tens of thousands from ILL.

The Red States won by Obama were by Caucuses. Who knows what his ground game engineered for those results.

When Obama was subjected to a Primary Vote in NH he was the weaker of the two as he is in all the Blue states.

[cali]

38. No it wasn't. That's a silly lie, that's been disproven conclusively

little smear monger. And your argument is so pathetic, it's actually fun to watch you try and make something of this nonsense. Keep it up. I always enjoy your asshattery.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

50. Alabama and Georgia were not caucuses.

Nor was Missouri. Or Utah. You're cherry-picking states. There is no overall pattern.

[moosen]

102. but 3 of those 4 were huge black populations

Alabama, Georgia, and Missouri were won by Obama because he overwhelmingly won the black vote. He won't be carrying any of those states in November

[democrattotheend]

132. So that makes the wins less legit?

And by your logic, since women made up the majority of voters in almost all of the states, doesn't that render all of the states she won meaningless too?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

162. And what does that have to do...

...with the point we were discussing?

[thesubstanceofdreams]

14. This doesn't make ANY sense

Hillary's strength in the primaries is based in the states which ANY dem nominee would easily carry (NY, CA, MA, NJ). How does that make her a stronger contender in the GE? (Answer: it does not).

It is true that winning deep red states in the primaries, like Utah, Georgia, etc, does not make Obama a better candidate in the GE, either.

But Obama has proved that he can get new voters, independents and a small share of crossover republicans to vote for him. EXACTLY THAT is what the dem party needs to win the GE convincingly.

[ProSense]

15. Isn't it Ironic that while Hillary claims Obama will have trouble beating McCain,

she is having trouble beating Obama?

She has also run out of money trying to do it.

7.3 million votes for Obama

7.3 million votes for Hillary

[cgrindley]

16. The bold faced all caps sure convinced me

don't you have a short bus to ride somewhere?

[jakem]

17. you do know you just made an argument FOR obama?

at least think through your own absurd rants...

[Tellurian]

21. The only argument I made is Obama is successful in Caucuses..

[scheming daemons]

22. Are all Hillary supporters this clueless? This is the argument FOR Obama....

Charles Manson would win NY, CA, and MA in the general election if he had a "D" next to his name.

Winning the blue states is a foregone conclusion.

Both Hillary AND Obama would beat McCain in the blue states.

The only way we're going to win this election is to pick off some RED states.



As an earlier poster said.... take off your stupid hat for a moment. CA, NY, MA are IN THE BAG for us no matter who our nominee is.

But unless we pick off some red states, we CANNOT win in the general election.


Hillary supporters like this Tellurian guy are making the Obama argument for us. Awesome! Welcome Aboard!

[Tellurian]

28. How many Primarys has Obama won without a win by Caucusing?

[thesubstanceofdreams]

32. Roughly as many as Hillary

Plus, what is wrong about winning a caucus? I personally think primaries are a better way to select a candidate, but it's not Obama's fault that many states are holding caucuses.

[Tellurian]

36. Most of the Red States won by Obama were by Caucus not primary votes..

[ElsewheresDaughter]

47. they were in "OPEN" caucus' and "OPEN" Primary states What part of this do we not understand?.....

a win in a red state primary will NOT be a win in a GE.

and also in some of Obama"s win states ....this was in the news already which stated that "most of the newly registered Dem voters asked for the registration form to immediately switch back to republican after the vote." now what does that tell you?

please please think about this?

on edit:

and think about why all the rethug radio asshats are putting out their that they "would vote for Hillary before McCain"

maybe because they want all us "liberals" who detest them to vote for Obama....because they know Obama can not win and they are trying to use (and eveidently quite successfully) reverse psychology? we are being DUPED!

dear god....help us wake up

[scheming daemons]

82. GA, AL, SC, IL, DE, CT.... to name six off the top of my head

[ProSense]

30. They are, or they're in denial! n/t

[mtnsnake]

31. Good point. I've been wondering about that very same thing, Tellurian

Even aside from this, Barack Obama just does not match up well against McCain. It's amazing how on DU most of the people underestimate him. He's too old, he's a lousy speaker, and blah blah blah. I watched some of the Republican action, and I couldn't believe my eyes how McCain set his sights on Romney and took him apart limb by limb, even shaming him with that patented arrogant laugh of his. I can just see the first debate between he and Obama when he goes after Obama for wanting to end the war on one hand and then voting to fund it on the other and then does that laugh of his. It'll be all over before it even started. The only candidates who could've matched up with McCain would be Hillary or possibly Biden.

:thumbsup:

[Dawgs]

35. It's not a good point.

Obama has a great chance to win Georgia. Trust me, I live here(unlike many from the North that think we are all a bunch of racists).

Obama wins all of the states that Hillary will win + a few more.

And, most people want to end the year. Where have you been?

Your argument is that Hillary is a war monger like McCain, so that helps her - are you nuts?

[mtnsnake]

61. People like you whose reading comp is the equivalent of a 2nd grader shouldn't be interpreting posts

unless you're going to have someone proofread your interpretation first.

I never ever argued that Hillary is a warmonger like McCain. Show me one friggin quote where I said or even implied that. The only reference I ever made to her in terms of hawkishness is that she is JUST hawkish enough to have it be a positive asset during a general election vs a warmonger like McCain. Wake the fuck up before you go misquoting me again. Jayeeeesus

[Tellurian]

46. Another weakness of Obama I forgot to mention upthread is Obama'd serious weakness in US History..

McCain may be old but he can quote text and verse about US Presidents and US History in general. McCain would dwarf Obama scant knowledge about our historical past seriously undermining Obama's credibility as suitable presidential timber.

What an embarrassment that would be to Democrats trying to retake the White House with a representative that has done nothing more than focus on our late heroes, wrapping himself in their past accomplishments projecting them as his own..

Ever wonder why Obama's focus is so heavily on the future, because he knows nothing about our historical past.

[desi]

53. There is one thing I believe we can all agree on.

McNut and the vast majority of Rethugs will not go into a swoon over Obamanation.

[cali]

54. you really are surprisingly ignorant

Obama is a Constitutional scholar and knows far more about U.S. History than McCain. When the fuck have you ever seen McCain display his knowledge of history? Obama lectured on Con Law and Election law for 10 years at U of C, where he was offered a full professorship, pumpkin.

Educate yourself instead of constantly flaunting stupidity and ignorance.

[Tellurian]

74. If you consider your IQ of a stunning *85* a match for anyone here..

you are sadly mistaken. My dog, Tequila, knows more about 'string theory' than you could ever learn in his lifetime. You, cali, are one of the nastiest, most bitter posters I've ever seen on this forum and that is saying something. I would rather be called "ignorant" than run from thread to thread like you do, acting like a crotchety old fart with a chip on her shoulders the size of Manhattan in a weak effort to shout down opposing views with the filth that comes from your mouth.

[cali]

79. bwahahaha. what a sour little piece of

work you are. bitter doesn't begin to cover your whining crap.

Go crying back to your cesspool and that whoring piece of shit Taylor. You fit in well there, you little DLC suck up.

[Nedsdag]

123. Um, Tellurian?

CALM DOWN!!!!!!!!!

[mtnsnake]

126. "crotchety old fart with a chip on her shoulders the size of Manhattan". OUCH!

:rofl:

[Tellurian]

138. After my friends, the Berrys, asked her kindly to leave Darien...when she didn't

they all moved to Bell Island!

:rofl:

[TwilightGardener]

77. WHAT??? Obama is VASTLY better-educated and more knowledgable than McCain--

McCain's only education is as a Naval officer. He might have read a lot, but so did Obama--McCain is not a fucking historian. You're just making shit up now, it's getting ridiculous.

[rodeodance]

108. You obviously have not listened to his speeches before you spouted off.

'formal' education is a mute point when it comes to his vast life experiences.

[rodeodance]

107. mcCain, in his speeches is good--he is knowlegeable about history/events. Hillary

has talked issues in detail during her stump speeches.
just my guess but i do think she will be able to go up against mccain and do well in any future debates.

[damonm]

116. Exactly where do you come up with this?

Please cite references showing Obama's weakness in history.

[Tellurian]

140. Ask Obama a question pertaing to US History..

any question at all.. Something easy, like: "Who was buried in Grant's Tomb"?..

[TwilightGardener]

76. McCain was able to get nasty, arrogant and smirky on Mittens and not

suffer for it because...wait for it...NOBODY LIKES MITTENS! And even then, it made McCain look bad--he got bad reviews for that performance. I guarantee, if he tries that sort of take-down with Obama, who is eminently likeable, then it will backfire--big.

[indimuse]

34. contrary to waht Obamabots say...

I KNOW RePUGS WILL vote for Hillary before Obama...I know this first hand...and am hearing it all over talk radio! I also know a lot of RePugs who will NOT vote for McCain...Obama CAN NOT WIN!!! The media has not let out ALL the info they've been holding back in case he is the NOM...I know some of you are in LOVE with BHO...That's fine...but ...please engage..your BRAINS!

[Dawgs]

37. Bullshit... right wing radio says their only chance is if Hillary is the nominee.

You do realize your BELIEVING Rush and Coulter?

[indimuse]

51. I DON'T listen to OxiLimballs..OR Coulter...

940 am winz So Fl...Tom...Sometimes Steph Miller..though she is an Obama idiot...Ed Shultz ..form his first year on air..Though he's is Obviously PUSHING for Barack Randi..and so on...My family...all across the US...Mostly RW...Will NOT Vote for BHO!! He scares them..! I have worked hard to introduce Hillary via town hall meeting clips and material off the web and Library of congress re: voting records...they are very impressed with what they DIDN'T know! HA!

[karynnj]

91. We all know people now saying they won't vote for one of the two

and guess what - they are correlated to who we support. Our friends and acquaintances are not random. This is where the head to head matchups are a little interesting as they show the CURRENT differences in Obama and HRC respectively against McCain. Even these are snapshots taken now.

[Vinca]

39. Blue states won't vote for McCain even if Charlie Manson is our candidate.

Lots of red states won't vote for McCain because they don't think he's a conservative. Obama has a chance of snagging some red states.

[Tellurian]

52. Well, by the same token many Dems won't vote for Obama ..

Due to his exclusion of huge voting blocks consisting of the GLBT Communities, Baby Boomers, Obama's pandering to Evangelicals and Religion, Obama's encouraging bi-partisanship.. Hell, I want Repukes 86ed.. We do learn from the past..

Hillary has been all inclusive of Democrats of all stripes and stands the best chance of getting us in to the WH..

Obama has too many anomalies that put us at risk of taking the WH back in 08'.

[damonm]

117. Oh Really? Then they'll be responsible

...for the destruction of the US at the hands of the Rethugs, should they help McCain get elected by NOT voting for Obama (assuming he's the nominee)

But you otherwise make no sense whatsoever.

Show me - with hard polling numbers - how Obama will lose any blue states, and then I might take you less lightly.

[THUNDER HANDS]

40. brilliant analysis

really, you should have a consulting job in the Clnton campaign. really.

[mckeown1128]

41. seems Hillary is the only one who has trouble in blue states...

Tell me. How in the world will she win the presidency if she loses a state like Washington? What red state will she take to make up for WASHINGTON?


McCain 46%
Clinton 46%
Undecided 8%

McCain 38%
Obama 55%
Undecided 7%


http://www.king5.com/topstories/stories/NW_020608POB_wa...

[mohc]

42. Without using the word "Arkansas"

Please list for me a state Clinton won the primary in that she will likely carry in the general election that Obama likely will not.

[desi]

48. Tennessee ?

Tennessee

Democrats
Candidate
Clinton 332,599
Obama 250,730
Edwards 27,644
Uncommitted
100% of precincts reporting

on edit: Link http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21660914

[mohc]

56. Fair enough

But if we are having a strong enough year to carry Tennessee, we are going to be winning comfortably enough to run anyone. OH, FL, NM, CO, MO, IA, VA, WV, and NV at the very least will all flip before TN.

[desi]

65. Also Oklahoma

Clinton 228,425 55%
Obama 130,087 31%
Edwards 42,718 10%


McCain 122,748
Huckabee 110,486
Romney 83,018
Paul 11,179
Giuliani 2,412

[mohc]

69. Ok..

If Clinton can flip OK, then I'm going to include AK, GA, KS, ND, and SC in a list of states Obama can flip, as they would certainly go before OK.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

72. Pretty much.

As I have been trying (in vain) to point out to the originator of this thread, the trend he cites does not actually exist. At a statewide level, the only clear trend I see right now is that Hillary has done better in larger (population-wise) traditionally democratic states, and that Obama has done well in smaller states that hold caucuses. Beyond that... who knows.

[Recursion]

81. Neither can take OK from McCain in the GE

Let's try to be realistic here

[Meshuga]

43. What are you trying to say?

That hillary voters in the blue states are going to vote for McCain in November in Obama gets the nod? Are you for real? :rofl:

Thank you for another extremely dumb thread, BTW!

[desi]

44. You forgot to mention.

What will Obama's reply be when and if McCain has the opportunity to ask Obama what experience he has to make him qualified to occupy the office of US President? Will Obama say? "Well I read a great speech off a teleprompter at the Democratic National Convention. So there!"

NO THANKS!

K&R

[DUyellow]

45. this coming from a person with over 1000 post on DU.... WOW

[Bodhi BloodWave]

49. Its a good thing that a large number of posts isn't a sign of wisdom

or knowledge, cause i would be quite worried about this forum if it was

[Tellurian]

55. Yes, especially when "role playing" is your game..

playing follow the leader over a cliff could affect your health and livelihood.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

59. Trying to use one of my hobbies against me, quite amusing if i may say so

Role playing helps people be more creative and look for solutions, as well as teamwork and a myriad of other things

[demokatgurrl]

57. I think you're sort of right

but she has to win the nomination first. Caucuses favor Obama. He is going to have a little run of wins. If that takes off in the public imagination, then the primaries following will be more competitive. But yes, when all is said and done, he ain't winning any red states in the general election, no matter how hard he tries to pretend they don't exist.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

62. Can you back up the claim he will be unable to flip any of the reds? n/t

[Tellurian]

68. Yes, and as I've indicated in post #64..

Obama winning caucus votes in red states IS a false positive that he is a qualified contender for the General. Against McCain, who is by far head and shoulders above Obama in political savvy is certainly a 'Roll of the Dice' choosing Obama over Hillary.

A cursory look at the odds of Obama taking red states away from McCain is almost nil. Hillary on the other hand has a mighty chance of converting Red states to Blue with her Health Care Plan, which Americans everywhere care about and ending the War in Iraq and the Economy... Obama has basically lost on the board with "any" of these three essential issues that would turn Red Voters into Blue ones..

[JeanGrey]

60. Sorry, No. Nice try though.

[usregimechange]

63. Yeah, he carried the red urban San Fran. He is doomed!

[Tellurian]

70. Oh, Boo- when did SanFran achieve statehood?

[mtnsnake]

71. haha

did you check the santa thing?

[Fabio]

67. That's just the silliest analysis I have ever read

[rndmprsn]

75. hillary will lose to mccain...period

she will UNITE the conservative base behind maccain like NO ONE else would.

and if you don't believe it, get out of fairy tale land.

you can't trust clinton anyhow...

[apnu]

78. It seems your logic suggests that Obama will lose the safe Blue states

Just because he didn't win them in the primary means NY won't go for Obama if he gets the nod? That would suggest then that Hillary can't carry Illinois by your reasoning.

I don't get that.

I further don't get why Hillary people keep repeating this. I've seen more than a few posts on this topic.

[karynnj]

92. Good point

But the conclusion would then be neither can win. Hillary can't win without Illinois and CT - because she is already assuming no red states can be won.

[snappyturtle]

83. McCain is a sacrificial lamb for the repukes. If the Dems put up Micky Mouse

they'd beat McCain. People, even many republicans, are fed up with their party that's why the red states went for Obama. Some repubs will vote for McCain, of course, but many will sit home or cross over. IMHO

[Occam Bandage]

84. So Obama will make the red states competitive, while the blue states stay Democratic. Sounds great!

[IsItJustMe]

85. What ever.

[onenote]

86. Hey, I can play this stupid logic game too: Look, Obama will win Utah!!

How do I know this? Well, McCain couldn't win Utah. In fact he was crushed in Utah. Got 5 percent of the repub primary vote, or roughly 15,000 votes. Obama won the Democratic primary in Utah and got 70,000 votes. (Heck, even Hillary got 48,000, so I guess we should just put Utah in the win column now since its clear McCain can't win there).

And looking at blue states ...woohooo!!! Even coming in second, Obama got nearly 700,000 more votes than McCain got, so we can chalk that one up too.

Stop being stupid, okay?

[RamboLiberal]

87. Bullshit - like the Blue states won't vote Dem

More troubling to me that Hillary may not have a chance in hell in the Red States where I think Obama can win some of them.

[workinclasszero]

89. You people are so silly! /nt

[book_worm]

90. So the polls showing Obama stronger are all wrong?

So Obama will lose blue states like MA, NY and CA?

So does that mean HRC will lose CT, DE, IL, IA, MN and other states she would need to win?

[polichick]

93. ...

:rofl:

[Jed Dilligan]

95. That's a steaming pile of horseshit!

There is no way McCain takes a single one of Hillary's big blue states. The Republican base also hates him, and I think Obama could take any number of red states and break us out of the status-quo-enabling red/blue deadlock forever.

[SteppingRazor]

96. That's not logical.

Just because Hillary won over Obama in states like CA and NY, it does not follow that McCain will win over Obama in those states in a general election.

[Tatiana]

97. Thanks. I needed this post.

:rofl:

[WilyWondr]

98. Avoid realclearpolitics.com

you won't like the taste of reality.

mccain vs clinton

mccain vs obama

[realFedUp]

99. I think Republican women will vote for Hillary.

at least the ones in my family already re-registered
to Indies and did.

[Tellurian]

105. ...

:kick:

[Wombatzu]

100. this is pretty stupid

sit down and think about it for a while... it will come to you.

[donheld]

103. Nice try Shill

[yardwork]

106. Nonsense. As a fellow Hillary supporter, I say for shame!

Obama has failed miserably exactly nowhere.

[DrFunkenstein]

109. In 2008, We Are Going to Be picking Up Even More States in Congress

The nation is heavily trending blue. Meanwhile, Obama is picking up huge favorables even in those in states which are still blood red.

[jeffrey_X]

112. Impossible?

REALLY?

[Downtown Hound]

114. This is among the dumber predictions I have read

Obama is going to win the blue states no matter what. Anybody who thinks otherwise is seriously deluding themselves. That Obama carries weight in the red states is all the more reason why we will have a blowout if he's the nominee.

Hillary, on the other hand, is not popular in the red states. If she's the nominee my hunch is that we will have a repeat of 2004.

[Hippo_Tron]

115. Sorry Tellurian, 2 + 2 does not equal 5

You've merely presented anecdotal evidence.

[damonm]

118. Your Troll Fu is WEAK, weedsmoker...

As realclearpolitics will show you when you are no longer stoned.

[mtnsnake]

133. Some of you braindead repukes should try a little weed sometime

It might wake up some of those dead brain cells that have given up on you.

Who the hell are you with 20 something posts to compare one of the best Democrats on this forum to a troll. Get lost ya little twit

[last_texas_dem]

119. Much of McCain's support has come from the blue states

while Romney and Huckabee have generally done better in the red states with the Republican base.

OMG! So if Obama can't win blue states because he has mostly won red states, and McCain can't win red states because he has mostly won blue states in the primaries, does this mean if it's Obama vs. McCain neither of them will be able to win any states at all? This is HUGH!!!!!1!!!1!

:sarcasm:

People here are putting way too much stock in the way states vote in primaries being relevant to how they vote in general elections. I'm amazed more and more everyday.

[Leopolds Ghost]

151. Since McCain can't win outside blue states, it means victory for Obama as he takes the red states!

[AtomicKitten]

120. The latest poll has him beating McCain by 17 points and Hillary tying McCain.

It takes some wicked fuzzy math to arrive at your conclusion.

[mtnsnake]

136. The Time poll I saw said 8 points, not 17. n/t

[Arugula Latte]

121. Stupidest post of the day ...

and that is saying something.

[mtnsnake]

134. Ever notice how people like you who say "stupidest post of the day" are too stupid to post anything

relevant, other than saying something incredibly stupid themselves? Why is that?

[avrdream]

124. Yep, Obama can't beat McCain.

For all the reasons you just pointed out.

McCain should get a lot of the Hispanic vote, huh?

[Lord Helmet]

127. how's that kool-aid tasting?

bitter flavor with a twist of irony

[Bucky]

130. Fox has their "No spin zone" while Tellurian gives us our own "No Fact Zone"

Thanks, Tellurian! Life on DU will suck without you.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

135. McCain would beat Clinton

they have too much stuff on her

[Carrieyazel]

159. McCain beats both Clinton and Obama in a general election.

In terms of actual electoral votes won, I can't think of a single state Obama would win that Hillary wouldn't, or vice versa. McCain does well among non-liberal independents; Obama among liberal independents and Hillary doesn't do well among any independents. But Hillary does much better than Obama among other segments of voters; like die-hard union members, Hispanics and Democratic base partisans.

So the percentages will be different, and Obama will do better in states with large numbers of Indeps; but a lot of that will be neutralized by McCain. So the result will be the same. Another Repube, John McCain, goes into the White House next year.

[calteacherguy]

139. It's not about red states and blue states. It's about ALL AMERICA.

Desperate you are Tellurian, desperate.

[Tellurian]

142. They keep using the 04' speech in his political ads...

people are starting to catch on wondering if he's nothing more than a media creation..

his stump speeches are nothing but Hot AIR!

[NC_Nurse]

141. I disagree. Plenty of Repubs hate Hillary AND McCain.

They would rather vote for Obama than McCain, or stay home, but they will DEFINITELY come out to vote for McCain
against Hillary. She is the Devil incarnate to a lot of them. Don't ask me why, I don't understand it.

[Thrill]

144. This is stupid. Obama isn't going to be running against Hillary in the General Election

[cooolandrew]

147. Barack polls higher than hillary against McCain and he has performed a miracle to be here even.

[Roland99]

149. New Time Magazine poll has Obama up 48-41 over McCain but Clinton splits at 46-46.

Michael Duffy mentioned that this morning on C-SPAN.

[Leopolds Ghost]

152. To a daaark place this line of thought, will take us.

A prophecy, yes, but one which misread, may have been. Hmmmmm?

[laugle]

155. That's how I saw it on Super Tuesday, but

hypothetically, if this damn party can unite behind our nominee,(depending on how this all ends up), hopefully we will all be voting democrat and not rethug.

However, I took great offense to Obama saying he could get Hillary supporter's, but she may not get his supporter's. Obama should not take for granted that we will all fall in line for him! This kind of talk is very divisive and if he loses, he will need to bring us all together if we are to win!

People do not like arrogance or a sense of entitlement............

[newmajority]

156. Hillary's ass is getting kicked in my blue state right now.

Despite the endorsement of both senators and a few other elected officials.

[Tellurian]

160. It doesn't matter... It's up to the delegates...

[high density]

161. You've got to be kidding. Kerry ran that "let's focus on the blue states" race in 2004

and as you can see, that didn't work out so well for him (or us.)

[Guava Jelly]

163. bye... bye...

I have a little red x to click on.

[themaguffin]

164. A Hillary nomination means hello President McCain

Obama will win all of the blue states, pick up the swing states and indpendent voters.

Hillary will not win the independent vote and will unite the unhappy GOP around McCain and vote in force.

Hillary will lose.

[DS1]

165. That's some pretty flawed logic if I ever saw it