Stupidest Hillary claim - Pennsylvania example

Email Print posted by MedfordTim 04/23/2008 09:46:44 PM EST

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit
If you like this story, digg it!

"I won that double-digit victory that everybody on TV said I had to win, and the voters of Pennsylvania clearly made their views known, that they think I would be the best president and the better candidate to go against Sen. McCain," referring to the presumptive Republican candidate, John McCain of Arizona.

"Clearly, [Obama] outspent me again in Pennsylvania, 3 to 1, and we roared back with a tremendous grass-roots campaign and millions of people turning out to vote and favoring me by a big margin. ... The fair question is, if you can't win the states we have to win in the fall, maybe that says something about your general-election appeal," she said. - Senator Hillary Clinton

I don't watch TV. I do watch the snippets available on the Internet so I could very easily have missed someone bringing this up. Why is there even a question about Obama being able to beat McCain in Pennsylvania? He already DID!

Here are the numbers I have from Pennsylvania's results (From Crooks & Liars). If not exact, they are close enough:

Clinton, 1,258,245
Obama 1,042,297
Total Dem votes: 2,300,542

McCain, 585,447
Total Repub votes: 804,846

Hillary voters could stay home in November and Obama would STILL win.

You would need to get 20% of Hillary voters to vote for McCain just to tie Obama. It would require somewhere around 60% of the Democrats who voted for Clinton on Tuesday crossing over to the Republicans in order for McCain to take Pennsylvania as a best case scenario. Do YOU really think that 750,000 DEMOCRATS are going to vote for McCain over Obama in November?

Now, take the same formula and apply it to all those other Big States that Clinton refers to - or any state, for that matter. The Democrats are going to HAMMER Republicans just about everywhere. It doesn't matter how often Hillary or the pundits try to ignore it, the numbers don't lie. The Democratic nominee WILL win in November, and Obama WILL be that candidate.

< BREAKING NEWS! OBAMA HAS WON THE NOMINATION! | Americans hoard food... >
 Display:
Stupidest Hillary claim - Pennsylvania example | 47 comments (47 topical, 0 hidden)
Tim, you are being dishonest... (none / 1)
Come on MedfordTim, you know that the Republican candidate is already determined, so why do the Republicans in PA need to vote now? You're twisting numbers that you know dont mean shit in the General election...

Now I will concede to you the fact that the Democrats have had much higher turnout and voter registration in this cycle... I will also concede that anyone who votes Republican against their own economic self interests should be taken out and shot... In a perfect world, the Democrat would take this in a walk...

Unfortunately, we do not live in a perfect world... I hate when you guys here on the blog rave about Obama winning more states and such. Lets look at the states he has won that make a difference forthe Democrats in the electoral map - States the Dems could win in November...

(Insert Crickets Chirping here...) -

Maybe Missouri and Virginia could go blue for us (with some divine intervention) All the other ones are either solidly Blue already (Il, MN, HI, VT, ME, CT and WA) or they are red states in November (ID, NE, KS, LA, CO, UT, MS, AL, GA, NC, AK, WY, ND, SC) All of this last list is RED, and they are not gonna be won by Obama Or Hillary in November!!!! So this whole argument about "Obama won more states" is bullshit, because there is little chance that any of those will go Blue (Maybe CO, but thats it really).

Now let us look at the States Hillary has Won:

The Others are the BIG BLUE STATES with the majority of Electoral Votes - CA, NY, NJ, MA, OH, PA, RI, NM NH and MI - all of these are gonna be blue... and she won them all, somewhat convincingly...

The red States that Hillary got - (other than TX) are - OK, AR, AZ, NV, TN and FL. Only TX will remain Red for sure (There is no way TX goes blue people, sorry if you thought it was, it isnt...)

Im not good with numbers and totalities like adamg and some others here,  but I ask this question - Who has the better states under their belt? Why cant Obama win in areas that will remain Blue during the general election? If he cant beat her in places like OH, PA and CA, why do the Obama supporters just discount Hillary and assume Obama should just be given the nod?

Mathmatically, neither of them can win by votes alone - It is now up to the Super Delegates - If I rememeber correctly, the popular vote is 49% - 48% Obama over Clinton - Hardly a Mandate, guys...

Let things play out, and see what comes down the road... I know you think Im some Hillary Troll, (Im not, really), but I just dont see where Obama has this commanding lead that you guys insist that he does - he doesnt - This is about as close as close can get!!!

Thanks for your time...

:)



by bobo1 on 04/23/2008 11:09:18 PM EST

objective third party (none / 0)
Here are the red states Hillary would run well in:
NM, AR, OH, NV, LA, FL

I didn't say she would win these states, but she would do well.

I'm having problems developing a similar list for Obama.

by KenTX on 04/24/2008 12:04:08 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Tim's silly post. (none / 0)
KenTX voted for Barack Obama. I know 12 other Republicans who voted for Barack Obama. I know 5 Republicans who voted for Hillary. We didn't do it because we want them to be the president.

by KenTX on 04/24/2008 12:06:53 AM EST

[ Parent ]
My electoral strategy (none / 0)

I am going to break my rule of ignoring bobo's posts because this is both important and interesting.

According to my electoral map (what, you didn't think I had an electoral map?) here are the key states and who won them.

In terms of the 2004 map.

Toss-up states that must stay blue:

Michigan- no one won it in the primary.  Latest poll vs, McCain - Obama +2, Clinton -9

Wisconsin - Won by Obama.  Latest poll vs. McCain - Obama +5, Clinton Even

Minnesota - Won by Obama.  Latest poll vs. McCain - Obama +5, Clinton +1

Red States to flip

Iowa - Won by Obama.  Latest poll vs. McCain - Obama +7, Clinton -6

New Mexico - Won by Obama. Latest poll vs. McCain - Obama -1, Clinton -3

Colorado - Won by Clinton. Latest poll vs. McCain - Obama -1, Clinton -14 

Nevada - Won by Clinton. Latest poll vs. McCain - Obama +4, Clinton +1 

So in short, you can take out the crickets and replace them with Wisconsin, Minnesota, New Mexico and Iowa.

And he is polling better in every key state (IMO).  The GOP can have Ohio and Florida.  Won't be the key states this time. 

by ProfRich on 04/24/2008 12:55:10 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I dont catch.... (none / 0)
Professor...

I said that MN and MI are already blue, regardless (I think I left out WI, my apologies, but it too is amost always blue...) These states are a iven in this election to the Dems...


The Red battleground states of CO, MO and VA are really the only ones Obama has won (barely in MO).


Other than that, where is he gonna pick any reds up? NM and IA certainly dont make any real difference as compared to places like AZ, TN, AR or OH and FL.


If the Republicans win in FL and OH, the Dems are toast - period. End of discussion...


Thanks for your contribution!


:)

by bobo1 on 04/24/2008 01:07:10 AM EST

[ Parent ]
electoral trends (none / 0)
Looks like the GOP will pick up another eight electoral votes in 2012, before the election even begins.

This is like Oregon moving from the Democrat column to the Republican column forever.map

by KenTX on 04/24/2008 01:37:03 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Right (none / 0)

"This is like Oregon moving from the Democrat column to the Rpublican column forever."

Anyone remember when Ken said Democrats were such stupid losers because they always tried to win the last election and didn't look at the current one?

So now he is trying to win the 2012 election by virtue of the 2004 election.  Curious.  I guess Ken doesn't understand that generall as states grow in population they virtually always become more urban and more urban usually equals more Dem.  Also this is clearly a time of forging new coalitions on both sides. I am very curious as to what these will be. 

by ProfRich on 04/24/2008 09:38:54 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Bullshit (none / 0)

 A few photos are worth a thousand words. Heres a photo essay even Republicans can understand:

PLUS

 

PLUS

 

PLUS

 

PLUS

 

PLUS

 

 PLUS

 

PLUS

 

 PLUS

 

EQUALS

 

by MRFred on 04/24/2008 02:13:48 PM EST

[ Parent ]
So.... (none / 0)

All that means we should cut taxes for the rich, right?

 

Seriously, I bet that Saudi guy is gonna be pissed when he sees Shrub is stepping out on him.  Meow. 

by ProfRich on 04/24/2008 02:23:58 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Oh yea (none / 0)

Well take a look at this picture.

Ken's favorite 

This is Bill Clinton's legacy and that is important because....

I don't know but Ken is obsessed with it. 

by z1p101 on 04/24/2008 02:39:57 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Because (none / 0)
Bill get laid more that the Republicans

by MRFred on 04/24/2008 03:16:43 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Fred (none / 0)
That was a good title you selected for your post. Feel free to employ it more often.

by KenTX on 04/24/2008 11:00:50 PM EST

[ Parent ]
You're not a math teacher are you? (none / 0)

Flipping any three of NM, IA, NV and CO gives the election to the Dems.  I am gonna continue to argue that constitutes a "real difference".

Oh and if the Dems win Florida it won't matter because we would have won enough states by bigger margins.  This may be true of Ohio too. 

by ProfRich on 04/24/2008 09:27:06 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Fortunately... (none / 0)
I am not a math teacher - the world is safe...

I think you are pipe dreaming to think though, that Obama will be able to flip all/any three of the above mentioned states... You are giving him way too much credit, unless John McCain like kills a baby onstage or something, he isnt gonna lose many red states - and if he does, I will be hoarding food and bullets, because Armegeddon will be upon us...


Thanks...

:)

by bobo1 on 04/24/2008 09:34:08 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Hey, thanks Rich! (none / 0)
"The GOP can have Ohio and Florida." 

OK. You spot me OH and FL.

Now use this handy map tool, and tell me how you get to 270 electoral votes with Barack Obama.

You cannot have New Mexico and Nevada. They are heavily populated by Hispanics, and you know my Latino brothers don't like your soul brothers.

Colorado is iffy, because again, there are a lot of Mexican Americans in the state.

But I'll let you in on a little secret. Here's how Barack Obama can win with the ProfRich electoral strategy. He has to choose the right VP running mate.

by KenTX on 04/24/2008 02:40:56 AM EST

[ Parent ]
We'll see (none / 0)

I have already explained what I think the Dems easiest path to victory is. Repeatedly. Should Obama find a VP who is likely to draw hispanics? Of course. Is that Richardson, I am not clear but he should deliver NM and CO. Won't hurt in NV and could possibly weaken GOP support in TX.

I know people bitch and moan about him on here but I think he makes a good deal of electoral sense.  I think is stronger overall but I think Richardson bringing home the Southwest is just a hell of a lot more likely than Webb landing Virginia.  Is there a candidate who can bring in Ohio?  That would be a strong choice as well.

Looking at the map I see the Dems don't need any southwest flips if they win Ohio and would need any one of them if they land Virginia. 

by ProfRich on 04/24/2008 09:51:35 AM EST

[ Parent ]
List of VPs ready to be president whenever: (none / 0)
Bill Richardson
Gen. Wesley Clark

...

...

uhhh.

Got anybody else who's likely to be a pick for VP?  I sure don't.

by jarett on 04/25/2008 06:13:10 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Eye of the beholder (none / 0)

Why is Biden not ready?

How is Clark any more ready than Edwards?

Al Gore is ready but obviously not realistic

Hillary Clinton comes to mind

Chris Dodd seems ready

Byrd? 

These are not my favorite options neccessarily, just people who are ready. 

 

 

by ProfRich on 04/25/2008 09:35:45 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Comments for all (none / 0)

"...so why do the Republicans in PA need to vote now?"

Bobo, this question makes me glad you aren't teaching civics. Were you under the impression that there was only one item on the ballot? Do you only vote for the Presidential candidate? Don't you participate in any state office voting?

You can call it raving; labels don't change the fact that Obama has won more states, more delegates, and the popular vote. To argue those points is to piss into the wind. And if you add how many people have voted Republican and compare it to the number of people who have voted Democratic, you will see that they overwhelmingly favor the Dems. These are FACTS, not intelligent design.

Ken, yes I know that Republicans in Texas and other states where people can vote in each others primaries were up to shenanigans, but 1) that didn't happen in Pennsy because it wasn't an option, and 2) although there are a few dirty-dealing, underhanded assholes out there who would rather subvert the process than run an honest contest, I take comfort in knowing they are but an insignificant minority. Not worth the trouble to consider.

Prof, I wouldn't lean too heavily on data from 2004. It's a much different place and those numbers are fairly meaningless.

What the pundits, especially the Republicans although it doesn't say much for the Democrats who don't refute the nonsense, are failing to point out is that the numbers as racked up by actual voters over the last few months show a clear trend toward the Republicans feeling the sting of a reversal of the Carter-Reagan massacre. And I can hardly wait...

by MedfordTim on 04/24/2008 01:35:39 AM EST

You guys say I don't read much, (none / 0)
But I sure supply this forum with a lot of topical links.

Even in Pennsylvania, where the primary was closed to Democrats:
“One out of 10 voters said they'd changed their party registrations so they could vote in the primary, according to exit polls. They broke for Obama by a margin of nearly 2-1.”

I’d be willing to bet that the number of Republicans voting in the PA Democrat primary was much higher than 10%, but they were afraid to admit it because they were concerned about breaking some silly law.

by KenTX on 04/24/2008 01:47:35 AM EST

[ Parent ]
This great news for Dems (none / 0)
Ken can't grasp this but this seems to indicate this was not project chaos but real live Republicans voting for a Dem (a la Reagan Democrats).  Since PA is an extremely vital state and the midwest is the most important region for the GOP in 2008 this is an extremely dark omen for McCain.

by ProfRich on 04/24/2008 09:43:18 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Operation Chaos (none / 0)
I'm a "real live Republican", and I voted in the Democrat primary. I know dozens of other "real live Republicans" who voted in the Democrat Primary.

The GOP primary was settled months ago. We wanted our votes to count, so we voted in the Democrat Primary.

Here's a hint. You guys have been burning through $60 million every month, just trying to make each other look bad. We would like to see Democrats still fighting it out at the Denver convention in September. Then we want half of the Democrats so angry that they vote for John McCain in November.

Is Operation Chaos working? Take a look.

by KenTX on 04/24/2008 05:41:48 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Not buying it (none / 0)

2/3rds of Republican voters voted for Obama.

Rush's order were to vote for Hillary.  So what?  Operation Chaos douche bags

A) showed up and got confused who to vote for?

B) showed up and decided to vote for the guy who could end the primary if he won?

C) showed up and voted for Obama because they are jumping ship this time around.

Say what you want, Ken.  I am sure this is what dems were saying in the 1980 primaries. 

by ProfRich on 04/24/2008 06:29:09 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I voted for Obama. (none / 0)
I know many, many Republicans who voted for Obama. We don't want him to win in November. Some Republicans are voting for Hillary, and some are voting for Obama. I think the split is about 2 to 1. We are having fun voting strategically. I wore a tie-dyed t-shirt with a marijuana leaf on it when I went to the polls. I was trying to look like you.

by KenTX on 04/24/2008 06:59:56 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Ooooooook (none / 0)

You think I look like an old mexican guy in a tie-dyed shirt with a marijuana leaf on it?

Then again you think people should vote for McCain based on the failures of the Carter presidency so....

And, doesn't you jackasses showing up and voting for both candidates really mean you are just wasting your time so you can call your master Rush and giggle at your school girl pranks?

And if you are wondering, we don't do this childish meaningless crap so the fact that John McCain has actually lost the nomination voting to "uncommitted" is all you GOP losers. 

by ProfRich on 04/24/2008 09:33:36 PM EST

[ Parent ]
The "Operation Chaos" playbook (none / 0)

What a bunch of pussies! Afraid of a straight-up contest, all these people whose cries of "straight up or down vote" echoes across the land when it suits them. They don't believe in fair play - they would rather knee-cap their opponent ala Tonya Harding.

Their glorious leader - a known drug addict and rabble rouser - has stated publicly that he wishes to see riots in the streets of Denver as a result of the actions he urges others to take. This is the sort of America envisioned by "conservatives" - waste money, waste resources, waste people...it's all the same as long as the business world sees a profit. The last concern is if someone (other than themselves) gets hurt in the process. Or the country, for that matter.

This is the shoddy morality that they would have the rest of us emulate - cheat, disrupt, obfuscate, lie, and blame someone else for your troubles.

And they - the "law and order" party - celebrate these anarchic actions with glee instead of the shame they should feel. Rush and his saboteur followers deserve no respect, only scorn for their subversion.

by MedfordTim on 04/24/2008 08:48:12 PM EST

[ Parent ]
The Truth About Operation Chaos (none / 0)
"Afraid of a straight-up contest, all these people whose They don't believe in fair play - they would rather knee-cap their opponent ala Tonya Harding."

The only person doing any knee-capping is Hillary Clinton, and the Whole World Is Watching!
tonya

 

"Afraid of a straight-up contest, all these people whose cries of "straight up or down vote" echoes across the land when it suits them."
We want every vote to count, and every state to count. We're taking this contest to Guam and Puerto Rico and... 

dean 

and Mississippi
miss

and Pennsylvania
pic 4 

The DNC is marching to our tune.
pic 3 

The Clinton Campaign is melting
pic 6 

The Obama Campaign is sinking 
pic1 

Liberals are being forced to show the world who they really are.
pic 7

The voters are forming an unfavorable opinion.
pic 5

Republicans are coming together in unity. We are the ones we have been waiting for.
pic 8

by KenTX on 04/24/2008 10:04:16 PM EST

[ Parent ]
The truth comes out (none / 0)

So all these stupid little pictures you paste are just from Rush's site?

That is so pathetic. 

by ProfRich on 04/24/2008 10:38:01 PM EST

[ Parent ]
You might find this surprising but, (none / 0)
all of the photos I found related to Operation Chaos were on the Rush Limbaugh website.

Amazing, isn't it?

by KenTX on 04/24/2008 10:54:53 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Tim... (none / 0)
BTW, I do teach civics...

Anyway, In April of an election year, what the Hell would anybody be voting for other than a Presidential primary?
State ballot initiatives -NO
State offices - NO
Local seats on School Boards - NO
Tax Levies and Increases - NO


Those things are decided in November during the General Election, unless you have some strange scheduling in PA...

Please be reasonable here, Tim - the only important thing anybody votes for in April in an election year are Presidential primaries - This is not in dispute...

I already conceded that the Democrats have more turnout and interest in the results of this race - I am not blind to this fact - what I am asking is -

Where is this insurmountable lead Obama supposedly has?

Why cant Obama beat Clinton in states that actually matter in the General Election in November?
 
What does it say when the favored candidate cant beat someone who is already supposed to be dead in the water?

What will we discover next about Obama's past and his character?

I really believe we are witnessing the death of the current Democratic Party and the new beginnings of 2 new parties - the Liberals and the Blue Dogs - Its gonna be really hard to grin and bear it much longer when there is such deep division within the ranks - I think this struggle between Hillary and Barack is tantamount to this eventual schism...


Thanks again for your thoughts, Tim...


BTW - Side Note - Did anyone watch Carville mop the floor with Richardsons face on Larry King this evening? It was great - made Richardson look like more of a bufoon than he ever has!!!


:)

by bobo1 on 04/24/2008 01:47:55 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Assigning the teacher homework (none / 0)

Visit the Penn Sec of State page and check out the Republisan primary runoff candidates for state offices, the winners running against the Dem candidate in the General. Not a lot, but they are there.

Oregon's primary is on May 20th. Besides choosing between the two Presidential candidates, I have 6 options for US Senator, 2 for the House, 4 for Sec of State, 2 for A.G., a couple of judge races and 3 statewide measures. Maybe AZ does things differently.

Where is this insurmountable lead Obama supposedly has?

Delegate count, states won, popular vote - take your pick. Hillary Clinton would have to win by a 70% margin in ALL of the remaining contests to TIE Obama. Like the man said, "It's possible, I guess...but then it's also possible I'll start shitting gold nuggets."

Why cant Obama beat Clinton in states that actually matter in the General Election in November?

I keep hearing variations of this silly-assed question and am always amazed when the person being asked doesn't say "It really doesn't MATTER. This is a PRIMARY and in November, the same Democrats who are choosing between Democrats now will be choosing between a Democrat and a REPUBLICAN. He WILL win in California and New York, etc., etc. Oh, and btw...ALL states "matter."

What does it say when the favored candidate cant beat someone who is already supposed to be dead in the water?

It says that the one in the water is thrashing about uselessly, expending precious energy in a hopeless effort to stay afloat. Meanwhile, the favored candidate has already beaten the struggler. This is a marathon, not a series of sprints, and Hillary is gasping with every breath while Obama - way, WAY in the lead - has barely broken a sweat.

What will we discover next about Obama's past and his character?

Dunno, but if it's as silly as the crap that has already been dished up to us as "outrages," I can't help but think it will strengthen Obama's chances. My biggest complaint agianst him is still that he said kind things about that son of a bitch Reagan. Compared to McCain's past and character, Obama is as white as a lily...

by MedfordTim on 04/24/2008 03:07:09 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I agree (none / 0)
Obama's kinda-sorta praising of Reagan is my least favorite thing about him.

by ProfRich on 04/24/2008 09:55:24 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Its part of his appeal (none / 0)
Its not for nothing that some conservatives have called him a potential liberal Reagan. Reagan was known to invoke FDR on occasion (we don't need to discuss how crazy that is), probably to appeal to the crossover vote. In light of the last 7 years even many democrats are remembering Reagan with a little nostalgia, even if they disagreed summarily with his policies. He led a competent government with a different set of priorities. An acknowledgment of that sentiment undoubtedly helps Obama in the eyes of moderate republicans who are considering switching this year.

by hazmat on 04/24/2008 11:05:03 AM EST

[ Parent ]
On the other hand... (none / 0)

It just might be that those nostalgic thinkers get slapped upside the head with the reality that Reagan was the real "Bush 1" when it came to "lowering taxes" at the expense of future generations. Democrats are just plain more fiscally responsible.

The fact is that Reagan was able to push his tax cuts through both Houses of Congress, but he never pushed through any reduced spending programs. His weak leadership in this area makes him directly responsible for the unprecedented rise in borrowing during his time in office, an average of 13.8% per year. The increase in total debt during Reagan's two terms was larger than all the debt accumulated by all the presidents before him combined. From 1983 through 1985, with a Republican Senate, the debt was increasing at over 17% per year. While Mr. Reagan was in office this nation's debt went from just under 1 trillion dollars to over 2.6 trillion dollars, a 200% increase. The sad part about this increase is that it was not to educate our children, or to improve our infrastructure, or to help the poor, or even to finance a war. Reagan's enormous increase in the national debt was not to pay for any noble cause at all; his primary unapologetic goal was to pad the pockets of the rich. The huge national debt we have today is a living legacy to his failed Neo-Conservative economic policies. Reagan's legacy is a heavy financial weight that continues to apply an unrelenting drag on this nation's economic resources.
United States National Debt (1938 to Present) - An Analysis of the Presidents Who Are Responsible for the Borrowing By Steve McGourty

by MedfordTim on 04/24/2008 12:22:36 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Sure (none / 0)

Massive debt was Reagan's dream solution to almost every "problem" he saw.

Through the magic of mortgaging our kids future he could

  •  Push through massive tax cuts for his key supporters (the extremely wealthy) without having to explain how he was going to pay for them
  • Spend hundreds of billions of dollars on a peacetime military enriching his other key supporters (defense contractors)
  • Cripple the governments ability to enact New Deal and Great Society type programs by eviscerating the budget for generations to come with crippling debt payment
  • Enrich even more rich people by borrowing money from them (this applies to many foriegn institutions and countries as well who he and Bush (I) would reap millions in "speaking fees" when they left office)
  • Fuel the junk market of currency exchange which was, you guessed it, enriching the rich.
  • Destroy the country for generations which would draw attention away from the numerous affiars he had with Hollywood starlets behind Jane Wyman's back

And the only price to be paid was screwing the children.  Big deal, he didn't really like his own children anyway.  Ronnie Jr. was gay, Maureen was from his first wife and was a pro-choice Catholic harridan who wanted Ollie thrown in the brig and Patti was damn hippie. 

He showed them!

Just goes to show you, don't fuck with Captain Jellybean. 

by ProfRich on 04/24/2008 01:04:37 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Totally agree (none / 0)

but Reagan did not tamper with the justice department, torture people, spy on the american people, ignore national disasters, appoint unqualified cronies to positions of responsibility... and on and on.

Many former Reaganites have already crossed over to the democratic side out of disgust for Bush's incompetence and radicalism. Just look at Jim Webb. There are many other examples over the last few years of principled republicans rejecting the extremism of the Bush administration. I think Obama's message of inclusion is poised to capitalize on that trend, without selling out to the flag-lapel-pin crowd. 

by hazmat on 04/24/2008 02:13:49 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Wait a sec (none / 0)

Reagan tampered with the military unconstitutionally, defiinitely appointed unqualified cronies to positions of responsibility and ignored national disasters (AIDS!!!!).

He may not be Bush bad but lets keep the record straight. 

by ProfRich on 04/24/2008 02:26:00 PM EST

[ Parent ]
For the record (none / 0)

I am not really looking too much at 2004.  I am looking at current polling data, voting blocks (latinos), midterm results and whatever else I can find.  I almost completely reject the idea the next election will look exactly like the last one with a couple of minor shifts.  In fact, I have made a huge spreadsheet to analyz this topic and am trying to figure out what a realistic amount of shift will be and where.

Also, I don't really believe this will be a close election.  When I talk electoral strategy I am approaching it as a 50/50 election.  That does not mean that is what I expect. In a 53/47 election micromanaging individual states is a waste of time. 

by ProfRich on 04/24/2008 09:32:37 AM EST

[ Parent ]
FYI (none / 0)

Obama went up by two McCain today in Rasmussen daily.

Hillary still trails McCain by two.

I'm not saying anything... 

by ProfRich on 04/24/2008 11:17:06 AM EST

MedfordTim's claim is questionable (none / 0)
It would require somewhere around 60% of the Democrats who voted for Clinton on Tuesday crossing over to the Republicans in order for McCain to take Pennsylvania as a best case scenario.

In PA in 2000, George W. Bush received 2,264,309 votes to Al Gore's 2,465,412. If John McCain comes close to matching Bush's numbers, Obama is going to need a lot of the rural, gun-owning, bible-thumping, lower-income white folks in PA who voted for Clinton in the primary to not jump ship and vote for McCain.

Now, take the same formula and apply it to all those other Big States that Clinton refers to - or any state, for that matter.

Texas
Obama 1,358,000
McCain 709,000

So, Tim, by how much will Obama win TX?

by Twba on 04/25/2008 05:30:16 AM EST

Pay closer attention (none / 0)

I used total Republican numbers, not just those cast for McCain.

This ain't 2000. 2000 didn't come at the end of 7 years of insanity. It has no bearing on the race this year.

Go ahead - vote against your own interests. Again.

by MedfordTim on 04/25/2008 09:52:37 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Pay attention, Tim (none / 0)
Texas

Obama 1,358,785
Total Democrat 2,818,599

McCain 709,477
Total Republican 1,320,653

So, Tim, by how much is Obama going to win TX?

by Twba on 04/25/2008 10:35:10 AM EST

[ Parent ]
1 or a million, doesn't matter. (none / 0)

...as long as he wins.

Texas Republicans should be so ashamed at the shoddy product they foisted upon us that they stay home hiding under blankets on election day.

by MedfordTim on 04/25/2008 11:30:35 AM EST

[ Parent ]
OK (none / 0)
We'll have to revisit this thread in November to see how close your prediction is.

by Twba on 04/25/2008 12:59:57 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Addendum (none / 0)
Seriously, Tim, did you not think that I picked Texas for a reason? Obama received more votes than all Republicans combined. Do you really think Texas will be that lopsided come November?

This ain't 2000. 2000 didn't come at the end of 7 years of insanity. It has no bearing on the race this year.

Yeah, we never step into the same river twice. Some who voted in 2000 are now dead. Some who were still running around in short pants in 2000 are going to vote in the next one. But patterns do emerge from the past and give us clues as to how the future will unfold. And don't assume everyone is as insane as you seven years later.

by Twba on 04/25/2008 10:44:51 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Twba... (none / 0)
...you'd have to be crazy to NOT be insane....

by MedfordTim on 04/25/2008 11:25:03 AM EST

[ Parent ]
2004 vs. 2008 and Texas (none / 0)

First, the political line of scrimmage appears to have shifted.  I think I showed that here.

Does that gaurauntee a Dem win.  No.  But it certainly suggests that just looking at 2004 and saying same thing will happen again is silly.

As for Texas.  Texas will be much closer in 08 that it has been for a damn long while.  I am not calling for a Dem win in Texas unless it is a landslide but I think there is a decent chance McCain will have to run ads here and visit and that will be pretty devestating to his broke ass.  Latest poll in Texas? Grampa Death 47%, Messiah 46%.

May not be that close in reality, but it isn't McCain by 10 either.  Beware the brown. 

by ProfRich on 04/25/2008 11:29:21 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Stupidest Hillary claim - Pennsylvania example | 47 comments (47 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: