If you can't win Ohio ,you can't win the presidency!

[Mags]

Only two Democrats in the last century – Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1944 and John F. Kennedy in 1960 – won the presidency while losing Ohio. (FDR lost Ohio because the state’s governor, John W. Bricker, was the running mate for Thomas E. Dewey, the GOP nominee).

[Cooley Hurd]

1. FDR, JFK, BHO...

Three of a perfect pair!:D

[styersc]

12. Difference being of course is that FDR and JFK were both

grown, experienced men when they became president.

[damonm]

18. Pleaase DO explain...

How 43 year old JFK was a grown man, and 46 year old Obama is not...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

41. JFK Was A War Hero, A Pulitzer Prize Winner, And Served Fourteen Years In The Senate And House

~

[Cooley Hurd]

25. JFK was 43 and FDR was 51...

BHO is 46 - the same age Bill Clinton was when HE became President.

*swish*

[midora]

23. You're Right, Cooley!

by placing Obama in such sacred company. My brother is old enough to remember JFK, and he says Obama is a lot like him.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

2. There are two different elections.

There are things called the "primaries."

And then there is a "general election."

I'm sorry this is so confusing to newbies.

[Mags]

7. Been here longer then you , I am not a newbie. You are.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

9. OK, that's great. So then you'll be able to tell me...

why on earth you'd think Clinton would win Texas.

[Mags]

32. because they loved her there. She has many hispanic and women supporters.

Why did you think she would you think she would lose?

[jakem]

3. GE, not primary.

geez.

[sandnsea]

4. Kerry won OH in the primary and lost OH in the GE

Can we put this stupid fucking argument to rest. It's just another goddamn Clinton LIE.

[AnarchoFreeThinker]

5. if you can't win a city in Ohio, you can't beat McCain....all those rural votes will be his, not any

democrat's.

[LisaL]

54. OH is leaning blue right now.

It elected a democratic governor.
So, no, I don't think all those rural votes will be McCain's.

[Monty__]

6. Meaning what?

Serious question. Are you implying that only Clinton can win Ohio? Will the people who voted for Clinton yesterday not vote for Obama in November if he's the nominee?

[Mags]

11. don't think they all will. Sorry

[Monty__]

20. Well that's just sad in my opinion

I am and always will be an Edwards supporter but I'm a Democrat first and will vote for our nominee. I wish more people thought along these lines.

[goletian]

8. what do you know, obama has been compared to jfk - a sign?

i think so ^_^

[Mags]

13. believe me, I was around when JFK was, and Obama is no JFK>

[goletian]

53. were you jfks son or daughter?

dont think so...

[thevoiceofreason]

10. Luckily, this is a new century!

[peaches2003]

14. Interesting, but misleading

I'm fed up with Hillary listing the states she won and then saying they have to be won in the GE so therefore she has to be nominated. Does she think we are so effing stupid to think that Obama can't win CA, NY, and probably all she won over McCain? Because she won the primary (by small margins usually) that means Obama can't won the GE in those states?? I am so sick of her and Bill playing to the dumbest among us and then smiling that toothy grin. :puke:

[knixphan]

47. agreed.

[FrenchieCat]

15. McCain won Ohio......

so does that mean that he wins?

[Mags]

17. No but Hillary won it. That means she wins.

[anigbrowl]

26. Your OP is about how the state goes in the GE, not in primaries

[Mags]

33. we'll see who fails in the end.

[anigbrowl]

37. Indeed we will. So far I like the odds.

[cali]

16. Of course you can. What a dearth of logic your post exhibits.

Nothing remains static and demograpics and issues change over time. How can you not know this? A dem candidate could win while losing FL and OH. He/she could win VA, NM and CO, for instance, all states that are in play this year.

[Mags]

22. I don't really believe they have changed that much.

a lot of things appear to change , but they never really do.

[cali]

50. One line assertations do not a cogent argument make. In other words

bzzzzt. What a pathetically nonsensical claim: "a lot of things appear to change , but they never really do." Really? Such as what things appear to change and don't? Are you claiming that Ohio is some mythical state of mind into which all people are magically absorbed, a sort of political Brigadoon? Ridiculous. Are you claiming that CO hasn't been trending blue? That they really didn't elect a dem Senator or dem Governor? Are you claiming that NM isn't trending blue and that they don't have a dem Governor and a dem Senator and will almost certainly pick up another dem Senator this fall? How about VA where the legislature is becoming increasingly dem?

Let me illustrate my point: New Hampshire was solidly red up until about 15 years ago; it's now solidly blue. My state of Vermont was rock ribbed republican up until the late sixties. It's now the most liberal state in the country.

Your claims are utterly hollow. And it seems you can't be bothered to make a real argument. Either that or you're incapable of doing so.

[featherman]

19. Of course few Democrats have been elected President at all

since FDR in 1944.
We won in 1948, 1960, 1964, 1976, 1992 and 1996
They won in 1952, 1956, 1968, 1972, 1980, 1984, 1988, 2000, and 2004.

9-6 by my count.

But I agree that Ohio is important to either party and is often the state that swings the election.

What that has to do with a primary, I'm not sure.

[midora]

21. That's the Conventional Wisdom

But this is a very unconventional campaign, so don't count your chicks before they've hatched.

[Mags]

24. don't worry I won't. I know thing can be snatched right out from under in the wink of an eye.

[mahina]

27. unless you can...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4912476
YES we can.

[AZBlue]

28. Let me correct that for you.

Your post is factually wrong, here's the correct version:

Only two Democrats in the last century – Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1944 and John F. Kennedy in 1960 – won the presidency while losing Ohio in the General Election. (FDR lost Ohio because the state’s governor, John W. Bricker, was the running mate for Thomas E. Dewey, the GOP nominee). This has nothing whatsoever to do with who Ohio picked in the primary, so it's completely irrelevant to yesterday's vote. It also proves that while there's a trend in Ohio's choice, it's by no means set in stone even for the G.E., especially when you have such a phenomenal candidate like Kennedy, Roosevelt or Obama.

There - maybe there's still time for you to copy and paste my version?

[Mags]

30. no thanks sweetie, those are our words and you can keep them

[AZBlue]

35. But they're WRONG words.

Don't you get it? You posted incorrect facts, you got it wrong. Everyone in this thread is trying to explain it to you but you don't want to hear the truth.

[Mags]

39. look, you see it one way and I see it another. Every one in this thread can see it anyway they want.

doesn't bother me.

[AZBlue]

42. So you're saying that only two people have lost primaries in Ohio and then won the Presidency?

That's factually incorrect. It's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of record. Look it up for yourself.

And then look into therapy.

[Mags]

44. Therapy my ass, Most of the Obama fans are soooo

caught up in a movement that you can't see anything for being blinded by the light of BO's halo. I , myself am in reality and did not drink the Jim Jones ( Obama) drink. You know what happened to those poor people. Wake up before it is too late.

[AZBlue]

45. How can you say you're "in reality" when you argue for incorrect statistics?

When the facts are staring you in the face and you willingly refuse to believe them? When you argue that something happened that never actually did happen? Answer that.

[NorthernSpy]

29. Wow -- another JFK coincidence! The stars are lining up...

:)

Until he wins in November. Then they can please stop lining up!

[truebrit71]

31. Repeat after me..."In the GENERAL election"....NOT the primary...

...that should help you prevent further foot-in-mouth-itis...

[Mags]

34. do you really think I would repeat anything after you? No

[truebrit71]

43. Wrong AND stubborn....nice combination...

...:eyes:

[aquarius dawning]

52. Ohio sent a clear unambiguous message to you and Barack Obama.

You're just too blind to see it written all over the wall.

[Vinca]

36. You do realize you contradicted your own post . . . don't you? nt

[Mass]

38. Welcome to president Dukakis

And also, you have no clue whether Obama can win OH or not in the general, and, applying your principle, nobody can win who does not win Missouri. So, Hillary is unelectable.

[The Stranger]

40. Wow, you just disproved your own point.

Thanks. That was fascinating.

[zulchzulu]

46. Dukakis won Ohio in 1988...Nixon in 1960...whoops! There goes your theory

Nice try.... swing and a miss...

[SKKY]

48. That's fine, but no president has ever been elected having lost Missouri...

:shrug:

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

49. You contradicted your headline with the first sentence of your post

Or are FDR and JFK just more things that "don't count"?

[aquarius dawning]

51. And JFK won by cheating in illinois. Nixon should have won.

[johnnydrama]

55. bzzzzzzt

you are incorrect.

JFK won 303 to 219.

Illinois had 27 electoral votes.

Give Illinois to Nixon and it's.

JFK 276 - Nixon 246

JFK wins.

[totodeinhere]

56. Just because Obama lost Ohio to Clinton...

in the primary that doesn't necessarily mean that Obama would lose Ohio in the general. Especially considering McCain's strong unapologetic support for NAFTA, it's likely that either Clinton or Obama will win Ohio.