|
|
|
U.S. Elections 2008
- Thread starter Admiral Beez
- Start date
Roy G Biv
Senior Member
Not much is going to change between now and the end of the primaries. The longer it goes on, the worse it is for the party.
Waiting until the convention will be disastrous, because the Dems are missing out on their chance to define McCain. They'll have cut each other down to the root by then.
Pelosi has asked that SD's start weighing in NOW, and I hope they do.
Obama will have more pledged delegates, and rumours are swirling that most of the SD's will support the candidate with more pledged delegates.
If Clinton's only hope is some chance that she convinces the SD's to support her because of a March 7-22nd Gallup poll.... she's damaging the party.
Roy G Biv
Senior Member
McCain's maverick shine is long gone. Just wait until the Dems go after him. There's enough YouTube material to make him look stupid. He's already admitted he doesn't understand the economy. But yes, if anyone can fuck it up, it's the Democrats.
Meaning by election time, McCain will be much harder to defeat. Really if the older people go to McCain, Obama is done no matter how many crazy cult worshipers Obama musters from Universities and Colleges from across the country.
Another reason the SD's need to give Hillary the hook ASAP.
I don't understand your last scenario...
Do you realize that Rush Limbaugh has asked all Republicans who can vote in Democrat primaries to vote for Hillary? You know why? Because she's viewed as easy pickings. 75% of Republicans voted for Hillary in Mississippi and were responsible for 12% of her vote, thanks to Rush.
Republican strategists have not hid their desire to see Hillary win the nomination. If she wins, the Dems can no longer play the Iraq card.
So what will she have to trump McCain with (other than Bill Clinton's accomplishments)?
lordmandeep
Banned
no, I see a demographic divide between a Obama vs McCain fight.
Some see a Obama landslide, but I have felling white voters will be more receptive to McCain.
McCain due to his more centrist status will be hard to beat. It won't be easy and I think one must be a fool to think otherwise.
I disagree with McCain on Iraq, but I deeply respect the man a lot and that is true for a lot of people even in the democrat side.
Some see a Obama landslide, but I have felling white voters will be more receptive to McCain.
McCain due to his more centrist status will be hard to beat. It won't be easy and I think one must be a fool to think otherwise.
I disagree with McCain on Iraq, but I deeply respect the man a lot and that is true for a lot of people even in the democrat side.
Roy G Biv
Senior Member
McCain won't be centrist by November. He's moved dramatically right to shore up Republican support. The dude is a giant flip-flopper, and his rabid need for war won't go over well.
I used to like him too, but he's turned into everything he wasn't.
Perhaps I'm being naive, but I think the people will prioritize the economy and Iraq as the most important issues of the election. McCain is not strong here.
lordmandeep
Banned
Yeah imo, the respect I have had for McCain has not come recently at all.
I think independents and some democrat liked him for being a maverick and a small c Conservative. I liked him being a lone wolf, bi-partisan and having rather liberal views on the environment.
However he has changed...
Economy is Issue # 1, however if some serious doubts about security issues come about from Obama, then the economy is not an issue. We know Americans, when they get scared, they will vote for anyone that makes them feel the most comfortable.
I think independents and some democrat liked him for being a maverick and a small c Conservative. I liked him being a lone wolf, bi-partisan and having rather liberal views on the environment.
However he has changed...
Economy is Issue # 1, however if some serious doubts about security issues come about from Obama, then the economy is not an issue. We know Americans, when they get scared, they will vote for anyone that makes them feel the most comfortable.
Brandon716
Senior Member
If Obama thinks that ignoring MI and FL has been wise, discounting two of the largest states in this process, he's damaging the party equally as much.
As someone who admires both of these politicians I think its silly to suggest that either candidate isn't playing the game as hard as they can to win.
Ultimately its not the politicians who are destroying the party, its the supporters who idealize their candidate to the point of not understanding the bigger game at play. The idea that 20 or 30% of Democrats will not vote for someone who has nearly identical policies is a self-defeating, self fulfilling prophecy.
Leave it up to the American Left to use the most pro-left election cycle in decades to screw it all to hell. Just another day in America...
Brandon716
Senior Member
Yeah imo, the respect I have had for McCain has not come recently at all.
I think independents and some democrat liked him for being a maverick and a small c Conservative. I liked him being a lone wolf, bi-partisan and having rather liberal views on the environment.
However he has changed...
Economy is Issue # 1, however if some serious doubts about security issues come about from Obama, then the economy is not an issue. We know Americans, when they get scared, they will vote for anyone that makes them feel the most comfortable.
John McCain is a chameleon. I can't tell what is more scary about him, the fact he wants the Iraq war to go on forever, or the idea that some liberals actually like guy enough to consider wasting a vote on him.
lordmandeep
Banned
I think the reason why Liberals like McCain because of his past...
Roy G Biv
Senior Member
That Gallup poll means nothing. 9 point lead +/-2%? And it's from March 7--22nd. That's just so arbitrary. These polls are so volatile right now.
And don't blame Obama voters. That's completely unfair. They are voting for who they know is the best candidate, as they should. You're basically blaming Obama for being better? Hillary offers nothing new when it comes to politicians. She is only in her current position because of Bill Clinton. She claims his experience as her own.
EnviroTO
Senior Member
The only alternative for the states which broke the rules of the Democratic National Committee is to have a new vote or disregard the results. It would be stupid to allow the results of states which broke the rules, which didn't have any campaigning, and in the case of Michigan didn't even have Obama on the ballot would be really dumb.
Roy G Biv
Senior Member
Maureen O'Dowd of NY times chimed in on the "kitchen sink" strategy that Clinton is using...
she said that Clinton knows she is far behind and odds of her getting nominated is really small. She will be 61 y.o. election day in November. She is trying to mortally wound Obama so that Obama would not be able to beat McCain in November. Thus, in 4 years she can run again at age 64...and possibly be president at age 65. This is a much better scenario for her cause if Obama wins, the next time she could run, she will be 69.
O'Dowd thinks that this will be too old for Mrs. Clinton to go through the rigors of campaigning...
AND
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/26/821438.aspx
Considering the doom-and-gloom some predicted for Obama with regard to the Wright controversy, the overall tenor of the electorate appears to still be favorable for him.
she said that Clinton knows she is far behind and odds of her getting nominated is really small. She will be 61 y.o. election day in November. She is trying to mortally wound Obama so that Obama would not be able to beat McCain in November. Thus, in 4 years she can run again at age 64...and possibly be president at age 65. This is a much better scenario for her cause if Obama wins, the next time she could run, she will be 69.
O'Dowd thinks that this will be too old for Mrs. Clinton to go through the rigors of campaigning...
AND
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/26/821438.aspx
. . . .
Considering the doom-and-gloom some predicted for Obama with regard to the Wright controversy, the overall tenor of the electorate appears to still be favorable for him.
Brandon716
Senior Member
You're missing the entire point.
It does NOT MATTER who is the Democratic nominee at this point, the party is split.
Its that simple.
I'm not sure where the second part of your comments come from at all. I never said that Obama was better, and I don't know what you mean.
Admiral Beez
Superstar
If Hazel can keep on campaigning in Mississauga well into her 80s, then it's premature to count Hillary out. Yes, municipal and federal elections are different, but we should recognize that women generally keep on ticking when us guys are either sleeping or dead. My Grandmother on the Isle of Wight, UK is 93 years old, still drives stick shift (refuses to drive an automatic car, says she learned to drive in 1931 and always wants her clutch), whereas my Granddad died in his early 80s and was quite tired and weak in his later years.
Brandon716
Senior Member
The problem with O'Dowd's article is that she's so blatantly biased for Obama she can't report the facts. Hillary isn't "far behind" Barack Obama, and she isn't behind when two states are factored into the race that were left out due to their bumping up the primary.
This is the entire fallacy of the Obama team: they are making the mistake of trying to make the case that this primary is already over and Obama is the clear winner.
I keep hearing this push that Obama has "won the most states" when in fact, he has won almost none of the largest states.
Here is a ticker of the 10 largest US states:
1) California - Hillary won
2) Texas - Hillary won
3) New York - Hillary won
4) Florida - Hillary won (and her votes there don't count)
5) Illinois - Barack won
6) Pennsylvania - Hillary is posed to win, her poll numbers are very high
7) Ohio - Hillary won
8) Michigan - Hillary won over uncommitted (and her votes don't count from here)
9) New Jersey - Hillary won
10) Georgia - Barack won
So out of the 10 largest states, Hillary has swept the board. This is where most electoral votes will be won.
If Barack won every single state from Idaho to Wyoming to Nebraska to Kansas and Utah, I don't think it matters, because those group of 8-10 states combined have fewer electoral votes than one state in the top, like New York or California, and they don't have a chance of going Democrat this fall anyway.
Obama is winning a lot of primary states where they really aren't important to the general election.
So Obama wins heavily in Georgia, Utah, and Idaho for the primaries. Big whoop, those are clearly McCain states this fall.
I've always focused on how to get a Democrat elected in the fall, and its why I support Hillary. She has more appeal to the base AND to some key battleground states (in a general election she's much better in Ohio, Missouri, Arkansas, West Virginia, and a whole group of states Obama has less/little chance of winning).
In Canada, if a party won all major ridings in Quebec, Ontario, and BC while opposing parties swept Nunavut, Yukon, and NW Territories, would you say the vote was equal because the opposing parties won "as many provinces and territories" as the party who won Quebec, Ontario, or BC?
LOL I think not.
Out of the top 10, I already know the results. Barack Obama cannot win Florida and he is possibly going to lose Ohio. THESE ARE THE REASON WHY AL GORE AND JOHN KERRY ARE NOT PRESIDENT. Florida and Ohio.
American electoral politics aren't as easy as saying Barack has "won more states" so he should automatically be nominee. I am sick and tired of Republicans and would like a win for the Democrats.
If Hillary is our nominee, here is how the top 10 will vote in November (my projection):
1) California - Hillary
2) Texas - McCain
3) New York - Hillary
4) Florida - Hillary
5) Illinois - Hillary
6) Pennsylvania - Hillary
7) Ohio - Hillary
8) Michigan - Hillary
9) New Jersey - Hillary
10) Georgia - McCain
Hillary will automatically have 207 electoral votes if she's our nominee based on my projections. She will have to win 63 more electoral votes from other states to win the election (and she can easily do this).
If Obama is our nominee, here is how the top 10 will vote in November (my projection):
1) California - Obama
2) Texas - McCain
3) New York - Obama
4) Florida - McCain
5) Illinois - Obama
6) Pennsylvania - Obama
7) Ohio - McCain
8) Michigan - Obama
9) New Jersey - Obama
10) Georgia - McCain
Obama will have 160 electoral votes out of the top 10 if he's our nominee based on my projections. Obama will have to win 110 electoral votes to win the Presidency by winning tons of smaller states, many out of his reach. He's much more beatable by McCain. I LOVE OBAMA, but I don't see him winning in November.
There are 538 electoral college votes, it takes 270 electoral votes to win the Presidency.
In the electoral college, as it stands in 2008, its winner takes all, loser loses all. There is no proportion. If Obama loses Florida and Ohio, he automatically loses 47 electoral votes. What is 47 divided by 270? 17.4% Obama loses 17.4% of the necessary electoral votes automatically when he becomes our nominee and he has to make it up by winning tons and tons of small states, most of which he can't win.
For crying out loud, Hillary is the first Democrat to come along in years that Ohioans actually like and she will have an easy ride to winning Ohio. She's not AS competitive in Florida, but she's still up in polls over McCain and has a good relationship with Cuban Americans in South Florida, a huge typically Republican voting block. She has elderly women in her favor, TADA another HUGE DEMOGRAPHIC MATCH that makes Florida favorable for the Democrats if Hillary is our nominee. Obama stands no chance of winning Florida. Demographics are heavily against Obama, he's consistently down against McCain in polling for general elections. I care more about the Demographics than current polls: Florida is simply not Obama territory.
You want to know how many electoral votes Wyoming has? 3 votes. South Dakota and North Dakota have 3 each. If Barack wins the primaries in ND, SD, and WY, he has just won 3 states that have a total of 9 electoral votes and none of these states are Democratic friendly in a general election.
Arguing over spilled milk.
Hillary is a very electable Democrat.
And I don't blame anyone for not understanding electoral politics. Most Americans don't even get it, and this is a Canadian forum. But Canadians tend to be more educated than Americans anyway, so I still put you guys on equal footing even though we're discussing foreign politics here.
This is the entire fallacy of the Obama team: they are making the mistake of trying to make the case that this primary is already over and Obama is the clear winner.
I keep hearing this push that Obama has "won the most states" when in fact, he has won almost none of the largest states.
Here is a ticker of the 10 largest US states:
1) California - Hillary won
2) Texas - Hillary won
3) New York - Hillary won
4) Florida - Hillary won (and her votes there don't count)
5) Illinois - Barack won
6) Pennsylvania - Hillary is posed to win, her poll numbers are very high
7) Ohio - Hillary won
8) Michigan - Hillary won over uncommitted (and her votes don't count from here)
9) New Jersey - Hillary won
10) Georgia - Barack won
So out of the 10 largest states, Hillary has swept the board. This is where most electoral votes will be won.
If Barack won every single state from Idaho to Wyoming to Nebraska to Kansas and Utah, I don't think it matters, because those group of 8-10 states combined have fewer electoral votes than one state in the top, like New York or California, and they don't have a chance of going Democrat this fall anyway.
Obama is winning a lot of primary states where they really aren't important to the general election.
So Obama wins heavily in Georgia, Utah, and Idaho for the primaries. Big whoop, those are clearly McCain states this fall.
I've always focused on how to get a Democrat elected in the fall, and its why I support Hillary. She has more appeal to the base AND to some key battleground states (in a general election she's much better in Ohio, Missouri, Arkansas, West Virginia, and a whole group of states Obama has less/little chance of winning).
In Canada, if a party won all major ridings in Quebec, Ontario, and BC while opposing parties swept Nunavut, Yukon, and NW Territories, would you say the vote was equal because the opposing parties won "as many provinces and territories" as the party who won Quebec, Ontario, or BC?
LOL I think not.
Out of the top 10, I already know the results. Barack Obama cannot win Florida and he is possibly going to lose Ohio. THESE ARE THE REASON WHY AL GORE AND JOHN KERRY ARE NOT PRESIDENT. Florida and Ohio.
American electoral politics aren't as easy as saying Barack has "won more states" so he should automatically be nominee. I am sick and tired of Republicans and would like a win for the Democrats.
If Hillary is our nominee, here is how the top 10 will vote in November (my projection):
1) California - Hillary
2) Texas - McCain
3) New York - Hillary
4) Florida - Hillary
5) Illinois - Hillary
6) Pennsylvania - Hillary
7) Ohio - Hillary
8) Michigan - Hillary
9) New Jersey - Hillary
10) Georgia - McCain
Hillary will automatically have 207 electoral votes if she's our nominee based on my projections. She will have to win 63 more electoral votes from other states to win the election (and she can easily do this).
If Obama is our nominee, here is how the top 10 will vote in November (my projection):
1) California - Obama
2) Texas - McCain
3) New York - Obama
4) Florida - McCain
5) Illinois - Obama
6) Pennsylvania - Obama
7) Ohio - McCain
8) Michigan - Obama
9) New Jersey - Obama
10) Georgia - McCain
Obama will have 160 electoral votes out of the top 10 if he's our nominee based on my projections. Obama will have to win 110 electoral votes to win the Presidency by winning tons of smaller states, many out of his reach. He's much more beatable by McCain. I LOVE OBAMA, but I don't see him winning in November.
There are 538 electoral college votes, it takes 270 electoral votes to win the Presidency.
In the electoral college, as it stands in 2008, its winner takes all, loser loses all. There is no proportion. If Obama loses Florida and Ohio, he automatically loses 47 electoral votes. What is 47 divided by 270? 17.4% Obama loses 17.4% of the necessary electoral votes automatically when he becomes our nominee and he has to make it up by winning tons and tons of small states, most of which he can't win.
For crying out loud, Hillary is the first Democrat to come along in years that Ohioans actually like and she will have an easy ride to winning Ohio. She's not AS competitive in Florida, but she's still up in polls over McCain and has a good relationship with Cuban Americans in South Florida, a huge typically Republican voting block. She has elderly women in her favor, TADA another HUGE DEMOGRAPHIC MATCH that makes Florida favorable for the Democrats if Hillary is our nominee. Obama stands no chance of winning Florida. Demographics are heavily against Obama, he's consistently down against McCain in polling for general elections. I care more about the Demographics than current polls: Florida is simply not Obama territory.
You want to know how many electoral votes Wyoming has? 3 votes. South Dakota and North Dakota have 3 each. If Barack wins the primaries in ND, SD, and WY, he has just won 3 states that have a total of 9 electoral votes and none of these states are Democratic friendly in a general election.
Arguing over spilled milk.
Hillary is a very electable Democrat.
And I don't blame anyone for not understanding electoral politics. Most Americans don't even get it, and this is a Canadian forum. But Canadians tend to be more educated than Americans anyway, so I still put you guys on equal footing even though we're discussing foreign politics here.