YOINK! Obama takes lead in NH, Ohio

Email Print posted by MalmoBlue 05/23/2008 07:07:10 PM EST

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit
Wrote yesterday about how Obama clinched the lead in the Virginia polls, but still trailed McCain in the electoral vote counting. I've collected some polls from New Hampshire and Ohio putting Obama in the lead - and getting past McCain in the electoral count. Wanna see, wanna see?

Aah, you wanted to see. :-) Let's start with the New Hampshire poll, courtesy of Rasmussen:

Barack Obama 48% John McCain 43%

I guess the voters in The Granite State aren't buying McCain's "maverick" rumor. Especially when one looks at a politician with more flip-flops than a sandal store. Anyone want to bet the religious right-wing are running away from McCain after he bumped Hagee and Parsley out? Over to Ohio:

Barack Obama 48% John McCain 39%

SurveyUSA's Ohio poll indicating that he is losing it. McCain has sported a 10-point lead in NH, and a much slimmer lead in Ohio in earlier polls. And these states are now joining Obamaland. That's 24 new electoral votes going to Obama. And if we give Indiana to the McCain camp (since he's been stronger there - at the moment), he would only have 259 electoral votes. And Barack Obama now has 279 electoral votes.

Attaching a map of how the map would look like if the election was held today.

Barack Obama 279 - 259 John McCain 

< L.L.B.O. (Ladies Love Barack Obama) or not | She wants him assassinated >
 Display:
YOINK! Obama takes lead in NH, Ohio | 6 comments (6 topical, 0 hidden)
re: (none / 0)
Consider also that come Nov. I doubt that the evangelical voters are going to come out in force. It points to a serious "civil war" within the GOP, as many moderate Republicans are going to vote for Obama or not vote at all. The evangelical vote is like crack for the GOP, its cannot ween off the sweet teet of ignorance. After the Hagee reversal, and the support other freak-o paster who lambasts Islam, good-bye Michigan for McCain. The election is shaping up very well for Obama, the end of Republican hegemony is in sight. :D

Blog: http://perspectivos.blogspo t.com/

by Nick86 on 05/23/2008 07:34:28 PM EST

The Polls are too early (none / 0)

And they are too sparse to be reliable.  You need to have multiple polls from multiple sources in ordeer to get a real sense of which way a state is leaning.  Also Obama is "losing" a lot of states by tiny margins. And with a 5-7% National lead?  Screw that map.  Obama wins.

Hillary's "electablity" issue with Obama was just NONSENSE.  From her electoral map you can see she was headed for a Gore/Kerry redux, focusing only on Ohio and Florida.  That was STUPID because it tells the Republicans where to campaign as well.

Obama puts more states into play.  Nevada, Colorado, Nebraska, North Freaking Dakota, Virginia.  And the only TEXAS Obama/McCain poll had McCain up by ONE.  Bushland.  One point.

Obama puts the Republicans on the Defensive just like Kerry was in 2004.  He had to hold all the Gore states and hope to win FL or OH.  Cat jugglingly retarded.

If Obama can put Texas into play, McCain will have to dump a lot of resources into a state that ought to be easily his.  That means less resources for OH and FL.  Now McCain has to hold all the BUSH Red States AND try to win OH or FL.  See!  It's Kerry in REVERSE. 

by sunsawed on 05/24/2008 01:02:10 AM EST

thanks blue (none / 0)
I know we've heard a lot of jizz about the Southern Strat somehow being racist (instead of a reality) but this is the first time I've seen visual evidence suggesting that Barack can really win without using it. That heartens me. I want to check your numbers, just looking at that map my gut tells me it can't add up, but I'll trust ya. I'm just amazed, I keep looking at it and shaking my head. Can it really add up like that? 'Twould be awesome if it were true.

If you just look at history, modern history at least, you need the South, you either have to be very liberal and from the South, Bill Clinton, Carter, LBJ, or you have to get the former Dixiecrats (aka the KKK) with subtle parsed code speech (Reagan and Bush). I think Nixon is maybe the exception, but I still place him as part of the 50's, he's from another era when men wore hats and played golf.

I'm really glad to see someone not focusing on Hillary and looking to McCain and Novermber, living in the present and the future instead of the past. I'd love to believe this map will hold up. I mean people talk about the realities of politics but they are all relative, the politics of FDR and the depression, of Lincoln and the South and the war and reconstruction, they all fit a period and then that period eventually passes and we have new realities. I think to ignore the Southern Strategy and the past 30 or 40 years is foolish but to also think it can't or won't eventually change and be replaced by new realities is just as foolish.

In the end though, regardless of what everyone does and says, the math has to add up, it just has to add up. This is really really good news though. I think people should be concentrating much more on this and how to win in November. Thanks again blue.

by tiggerporn on 05/24/2008 05:31:46 PM EST

Nixon and Southern Dems (none / 0)

Clinton and Carter were both fairly centrist for thier time.  their times just happened to be aduring a shift to the right.

Nixon injected the racism into the GOP.  That is how he won the south.  He was not running a 50s political playbook in 68, he was debuting the Reagan/Bush offense. 

by ProfRich on 05/27/2008 10:17:46 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Obama's map (none / 0)

Obama doing so well in Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico and not far behind in Texas and Florida shows one thing clearly.  Hispanics, they LIKEY the Obama.  Maybe they would have PREFERRED Hillary, but they ain't leaping over to John McCain any time soon.  What Obama Hispanic Problem?

Also Obama seems to have pull among Libertarian Western values.  Howard Dean was really SMART to put the Convention in Denver.  It's a new Western Strategy. With the Deep South so strongly Conservative, the West and Midwest are the new battlegrounds. 

With Obama, you have a Midwestern candidate.  With Richardson as Veep, he can make great inroads in the West and with Hispanics.  With Edwards, he can nail down skeptical White Working-Class voters and seal the deal with rust-belt states like NJ, PA, OH and MI.

by sunsawed on 05/25/2008 01:14:44 AM EST

This poll is just the beginning of the story (none / 0)
Obama's money and campaign organization will put WAY more states into play and at the very least make McCain and the repubs fight a 50 state battle. I also think that Obama will eke out a win in one of the SE states (NC, SC, GA, MS, AL, or LA), especially if McCain takes them for granted and does nothing to counter the Obama organization that is even going on in those states right now, while the repugs are doing nothing. I'm reading articles that actually say privately the repugs think that the election is in the bag for them and are not wrooied at all:

http://www.politico.com/new s/stories/0508/10585.html

Unbeilevable. They are fools and will get the ass kicking that they deserve.

by mijoh on 05/25/2008 01:06:24 PM EST

YOINK! Obama takes lead in NH, Ohio | 6 comments (6 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: