The Clinton Thread

[bored]

Eight Myths Regarding Obama's Chances This Election Season

MYTH 1: He Wins States Traditionally Won by Republicans

Actually, this may be the biggest myth of the entire contest. While Hillary is having trouble besting McCain in states such as Oregon and Washington, she has a fifteen point lead in Arkansas and a six point lead in Ohio, according to polling from the Cook Political Report. Meanwhile, Obama not only loses Ohio and Missouri significantly to McCain, he fails to win Pennsylvania and Michigan. Sure, he wins one electoral vote in Nebraska, because the state splits its electoral votes by Congressional districts, but he fares worse when it comes to the electoral map than Clinton does. Now, I know what you're thinking: What about those states with significant African American populations? Well, Clinton and Obama are both trounced by McCain by a margin of twenty points or better in Georgia, South Carolina and Mississippi. Sure, McCain only defeats Obama by 27 points, whereas Clinton is defeated by 29 in Alabama... but hey, who really pays attention after three or four points?

If the election were held today, McCain would have 328 electoral votes against Obama, whereas he would have 298 against Clinton. Both of them fail to win against him.

MYTH 2: Obama's Pastor Will Have No Effect on Him

Absolute lie. While only 39% of voters say that Wright will have an effect on their decision come this November, 35% percent of Democratic voters in Pennsylvania and Ohio say that the Wright situation will have affect their decision come this November. Considering that doesn't account for the Republicans and independents, Obama may have a bit of a problem convincing people in those states that Wright was totally justified in saying what he said.

MYTH 3: There Doesn't Need to be a Re-vote in Michigan and Florida-- After all, Rules are Rules!

Again, not so. DNC rules say that states can hold re-votes if the results of their primary/ caucus are voided. Because Michigan and Florida's votes did not count when they first voted, both states have the ability to hold primaries before the convention in August. Each state would be perfectly justified to hold re-votes, assuming the state legislatures agree.

MYTH 4: Obama is Not Disenfranchising Voters in Michigan and Florida

Wrongaroo. Considering Michigan is considered a reliably Democratic state, it must be a shock to learn that 10% of Democratic voters will vote for McCain in the general election if their voices aren't heard. Again, that doesn't take into account the independents or Republican converts. Additionally, the amount of calls certain posters receive at their political-based jobs in which Florida and Michigan voters say they will vote for McCain if their votes aren't counted speaks volumes.

MYTH 5: Well, at Least Obama Isn't Dividing the Democratic Party as much as Hillary! If She Wins at the Convention, She'll Divide the Democrats!

Again, not true. According to polls released last week, 28% of Clinton supporters say they will not vote for Obama, while 20% of Obama supporters say they will not vote for Clinton if either one of them becomes the nominee. After statisticians ran a few regressions and analyzed the number line, it was confirmed that 28 is higher than 20... meaning Obama is actually more divisive than Clinton...

MYTH 6: Hmmm. If that's the Case, then Obama should Pick Clinton as his Running Mate

Not a smart move. While there are no Obama/Clinton or Clinton/ Obama polls released, it can be reasonably assumed that the ticket would do no better against McCain than if either one them ran separately. This can be taken into account by looking at polls on a state-by-state basis. They each gain as many states as they take away from themselves, effectively canceling those states out and putting them in the same position as they would be in if they ran separately.

MYTH 7: Well, then Obama Should Be the Nominee. After all, He is Winning the Democratic Primary

That's not true-- He's Leading in the Democratic Primary. There are six states left, and if Hillary can at least make the gap narrow and prevent him from taking the 2025 delegates needed to become the Democratic nominee, she will have just as great a chance as Obama has when they go into the convention.

MYTH 8: Fine then! Obama can run as an Independent and beat both of them!

Not on your life. If Obama runs as an independent against Clinton and McCain, you'll effectively hand John McCain the election. In fact, that may murder the Democrats, giving McCain a 532-3 victory in the electoral college (DC won't go for McCain, so one of them will carry the city. A full 3 electoral votes, eh? Mondale did better than that...)

Fail.

 

[The Senator]

Fail.

How about instead of typing four letters, you actually take the effort to come up with a response?

 

[Excel]

How about instead of typing four letters, you actually take the effort to come up with a response?

1st post in thread

Face it Jman, Obamas winning and its very unlikely thats changing.

 

[The Senator]

Which is exactly why she is hurting the democratic party more than Obama.

Does anyone really think Obama will go independent if he lost?

Cause I have air to sell to you.

Statistics don't lie. More Clinton supporters flat out refuse to vote for Obama if he's the nominee, than if it was the other way around. Granted, stats can exaggerate, but even still... as it stands now, Obama hurts the Democratic Party more than Hillary does.

 

[The Senator]

1st post in thread

Face it Jman, Obamas winning and its very unlikely thats changing.

What am I supposed to face? Obama hasn't won yet. He's leading the Democratic Primary. He still loses the general, if we're going by polling data which is what everyone else seems to be basing their opinions off of. And if the Democratic Party doesn't want to lose this November, they'll be wise to kick both their asses to the curb and bring in Gore to take on the nomination. Or simply forfeit this contest, let McCain win, and get their act together in four years so they can run the election they should have run from the very beginning.

 

[Superman4ever]

Myth: Okay, the popular vote is tied.

There are people who claim that because of the 3% separation, that Obama's lead in the popular vote is a "statistical tie." This is a myth because, when you can actually count things, there's no need of statistics and no such thing as a margin of error. The popular vote is not an estimate based on a sampling, like a poll. Like the general election, there are winners and losers and, so far, Obama is the winner.

I thought Obama lead the popular vote by 7%?

 

[Excel]

Statistics don't lie. More Clinton supporters flat out refuse to vote for Obama if he's the nominee, than if it was the other way around. Granted, stats can exaggerate, but even still... as it stands now, Obama hurts the Democratic Party more than Hillary does.

Your telling me that Hillarys people being too stubburn and ignorant to admit their candidate lost is Obamas fault?? Thats what is is, no way around it, dont try to argue it, it wont work. The 2 are 995 the same on issues, anyone who really wanted the dem's to win would accept either one and thats what WILL happen come November.

What that actually shows is Clintons supporters hurt us. Obamas supporters have loyalty to the PARTY, something Hillary and her peeps dunno **** about.

 

[Excel]

What am I supposed to face? Obama hasn't won yet. He's leading the Democratic Primary. He still loses the general, if we're going by polling data which is what everyone else seems to be basing their opinions off of. And if the Democratic Party doesn't want to lose this November, they'll be wise to kick both their asses to the curb and bring in Gore to take on the nomination. Or simply forfeit this contest, let McCain win, and get their act together in four years so they can run the election they should have run from the very beginning.

Obama lead McCain is every poll until Huckabee left. Whenever Hillary gets her ass outta the campaign, Obama will go back over him. Same goes for her if he gets out, really. Right now everybodys bitter; if the polls obama vs. mccain than Hillary voters vote for McCain to make it seem as though Obamas weaker, ect. The biggest problem noone takes into a count is while Hillarys voters will rally around Obama, Obamas wont rally around her. They just wont vote period. All these young folks and black people who have never voted before will keep it that way fi he aint the nominee; cant say the same about Hillarys people and the DNC knows that.

Come November, whever it is thats running for the democrat will win barring some major turn of events. A Obama-McCain or Clinton-McCain debate would be ajoke; either democrat would make a mockery of the stuff that comes outta that guys mouth. He really is Bush 2.0 except hes saying the stupid stuff BEFORE he's won. Just wait till Obama ot Hillary taunt the "100 year war" quote against him; he'll get booed off the stage and his own people know it.

 

[Gilpesh]

Statistics don't lie. More Clinton supporters flat out refuse to vote for Obama if he's the nominee, than if it was the other way around. Granted, stats can exaggerate, but even still... as it stands now, Obama hurts the Democratic Party more than Hillary does.

Do you not understand what I just said... Hillary is willing to forsake 'her party' if through the whole process that her party set up and she lost... doesn't GIVE her the nomination. Then on top of that, she's going to run independent and make that stat of 28% come true just cause she wants to be president and not have Obama be president... even though everyone likes to point out... they are practically the same on the issues.

I think that does more damage than Obama losing and a few people 'protesting'.

Heck, I haven't even brought up Hillary's endorsement of McCain over 'her own party's' probable nominee Obama.

 

[The Senator]

Your telling me that Hillarys people being too stubburn and ignorant to admit their candidate lost is Obamas fault?? Thats what is is, no way around it, dont try to argue it, it wont work. The 2 are 995 the same on issues, anyone who really wanted the dem's to win would accept either one and thats what WILL happen come November.

What that actually shows is Clintons supporters hurt us. Obamas supporters have loyalty to the PARTY, something Hillary and her peeps dunno **** about.

How is are Hillary supporters being ignorant? Stubborn, maybe. Ignorant? I don't think so.

Obama supporters are being ignorant if they think they're going to ride into victory this November. Obama supporters are ignorant if they can't take a step back and realize their candidate has some serious judgment issues voters are starting to take a closer look at.

If you want to say these voters aren't loyal to the party, then so be it. That isn't going to change their minds at all. Remember when Democrats left the party to vote for Nixon and Reagan? That same exact thing will be happening with this election. The Democrats ought to get their friggin act together and nominate a capable, moderate leader with very little baggage. The fact of the matter is, with each election passing, the Dems are becoming more and more of a minority party with national elections, because they can't run scandal-free nominees.

Hell, let's change topics for a second. Let's say Obama wins all of Kerry's states, plus Ohio this fall. His chances of winning re-election are incredibly slim.

We have a huge problem on our hands in 2012. Redistricting takes place in 2010, and as it stands, we will lose about 14-18 electoral votes in the North. And where do all those votes go? To states like South Carolina, Virginia, Florida, Texas and Arizona-- Republican bastions we need to start winning in if we hope to win the Presidency in the future. None of our two candidates secure these for us.

I say we forfeit the election now, find someone from one of those aforementioned states, and start them on the path to the Presidency on January 21. That's our best bet if we hope to ever win the White House again. Neither Clinton or Obama have what it takes to keep this for us. They're both total wastes.

 

[redfirebird2008]

Myth: this thread is a good one.

 

[Excel]

Obama supporters are being ignorant if they think they're going to ride into victory this November. Obama supporters are ignorant if they can't take a step back and realize their candidate has some serious judgment issues voters are starting to take a closer look at.

Serious judgement issues? Your using the judgement argument aginst Obama and for Clinton? Wow. Voting to go to war in Iraq shows far worse judgement on Hillarys side than being friends with Wright does for Obama

If you want to say these voters aren't loyal to the party, then so be it. That isn't going to change their minds at all. Remember when Democrats left the party to vote for Nixon and Reagan? That same exact thing will be happening with this election.

A few will, like Matt, but for the most part...nope

The Democrats ought to get their friggin act together and nominate a capable, moderate leader with very little baggage.

Hillary isn't "capable" of telling the truth, Jman, and thats what voters are taking notice upon hence her 37% approval rating, not Obama bad judgemebnt as you wish .

As for "baggage"...you've gotta be kidding me if you think Obama has more baggage than Hillary.

I say we forfeit the election now, find someone from one of those aforementioned states, and start them on the path to the Presidency on January 21. That's our best bet if we hope to ever win the White House again. Neither Clinton or Obama have what it takes to keep this for us. They're both total wastes.

Obama will eat McCain alive in a national election. He is actually leading McCain in current GE polls, and thats with Hillary still int he race.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html

Whenever the hell she gets out, it'll be all over.

 

[Gilpesh]

Myth: this thread is a good one.

Myth: This thread hasn't been done before.

 

[redfirebird2008]

Myth: This thread hasn't been done before.

Myth: that wasn't funny. t:

 

[Matt]

Serious judgement issues? Your using the judgement argument aginst Obama and for Clinton? Wow. Voting to go to war in Iraq shows far worse judgement on Hillarys side than being friends with Wright does for Obama

The fact is, speech or none, Obama cannot comment on the Iraq War. He was not in Congress and did not have the same reports and intelligence. He is simply playing monday morning quarterback.

A few will, like Matt, but for the most part...nope

A ripple in the water can quickly turn into a wave.

Firstly, 28 % of Democrats at this point in the election saying that they will not vote for Obama if he gets the nomination is REMARKABLY high. Granted, it will drop some, but it is still very high for this point. 10-15 % of Clinton supporters could very well carry out on that promise.

Second, key states are what matters. If Democrats in Florida and Michigan defect because Obama would not sign off on the re-vote, the Democrats are screwed. Even if it is a small number, it will be enough to tip the scales, especially in a state like Florida. Flordia is shaping up to be a crucial swing state once again and Michigan is a neccessity for any Democrat president. Losing either of those states in the general is a deadly blow to the Democratic candidate.

Hillary isn't "capable" of telling the truth, Jman, and thats what voters are taking notice upon hence her 37% approval rating, not Obama bad judgemebnt as you wish .

Based on his comments on Wright (constant flip flopping "I did know, I didn't. I did, I didn't. It was wrong, but I wouldn't leave the church over it, unless he retires"), his relationship with Rezko, and his claim to not take oil company money while doing so, simply from "private" donors who are high-up oil executives shows that he is at the very least just as dishonest. People will catch on sooner or later.

As for "baggage"...you've gotta be kidding me if you think Obama has more baggage than Hillary.

But there's the catch 22, Hillary hasn't put herself on a huge pedestal. When you're that high up, the only place to go is down.

Obama will eat McCain alive in a national election. He is actually leading McCain in current GE polls, and thats with Hillary still int he race.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html

Whenever the hell she gets out, it'll be all over.

National polls mean jack **** in politics. All that matters is who wins what states and McCain is beating both of them in electoral votes in basically every poll. Furthermore, the link you gave has them in a virtual tie. They are seperated by .2%. Hardly eating anyone alive.

Seriously Excel, do you realize how ridiculous you sound when you say things like that? You make outlandish claims that you clearly cannot back up nor do you even seem to understand the basic concepts of the systems you speak of. Be it primary processes or the national election system. Most of the claims you make are simply flat out wrong. You come off as a child who overhears his parents saying something so he runs and says it to sound smart and show off.

If you're going to debate, do so objectively. Obama cannot walk on water. He is not "eating anyone alive" when he is leading by .2% and losing in electoral college votes.

 

[The Senator]

Serious judgement issues? Your using the judgement argument aginst Obama and for Clinton? Wow. Voting to go to war in Iraq shows far worse judgement on Hillarys side than being friends with Wright does for Obama

Don't even start with the war in Iraq. Obama has voted just as many times as Clinton has to continue funding the war in Iraq. If he has been against the war from the beginning as he claimed he has been, then why did he vote to continue funding the war? Why did he vote against the first bill presented in 2006 by John Kerry to withdraw troops from Iraq by April 2007? Hillary may have voted to authorize the war, but Obama has voted consistently with her and other Senators to keep funding it and to keep troops there.

A few will, like Matt, but for the most part...nope

Well, you obviously don't work on Capitol Hill. I've received calls every single day from people who say they aren't voting for Obama if he becomes the nominee. For the most part, these constituents say they're voting for McCain over Obama. So Matt is not the only person saying this.

Hillary isn't "capable" of telling the truth, Jman, and thats what voters are taking notice upon hence her 37% approval rating, not Obama bad judgemebnt as you wish .

As for "baggage"...you've gotta be kidding me if you think Obama has more baggage than Hillary.

Who said she has more baggage? Obama has more unexposed baggage. People have started to question his judgment on Wright and there are a few Obama supporters who have renounced their support for him over this pastor situation. Whether you're able to admit it or not, there are plenty of folks who cannot buy into the whole "yeah, I sat there for twenty years... so what?" argument he's been giving. And reports surface by the day, it seems, over more outlandish statements from the filthy mouth of Jeremiah Wright. Reporters are analyzing and dissecting Obama's motives, questioning why he hired this man in the first place. If you don't think that's resonated with voters you're obviously living in your own plastic bubble.

They both have problems. Hillary can't keep her stories straight and Obama can't account for his own actions. Hillary keeps positioning herself on issues while Obama keeps making excuses for himself. You know who hasn't had to do that? John McCain. While most voters hate the war in Iraq, you can bet your ass that he isn't going to switch positions between now and November. Yeah, that'll piss a lot of liberal voters off... but if people are looking for honesty in a candidate, they need not look further than McCain.

Election results from 2004 said that voters did not pay attention to the issues whatsoever. They looked at who they thought was the best leader. Bush trumped Kerry, 54-45%. And if you look at the election results, that didn't really deviate much from the final totals.

McCain is starting to look like a leader. He's traveling the world meeting with foreign dignitaries and visiting places such as Israel and Baghdad. Meanwhile, Obama and Hillary are stuck visiting such exotic locales as Pittsburgh and Indianapolis. McCain is talking foreign policy and diplomacy, while Obama and Hillary are debating who lied about their pastor or who lied about their trip to Bosnia. When we have a nominee, McCain will be able to say he took charge before they could get their act together.

Right now, McCain has a huge advantage, and that will be hard to crush by either candidate.

Obama will eat McCain alive in a national election. He is actually leading McCain in current GE polls, and thats with Hillary still int he race.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html

Whenever the hell she gets out, it'll be all over.

Actually, McCain leads Obama by five points in a Rasmussen poll released Monday.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html

And if you're telling me Obama is going to crush McCain because the spread has him 0.2 points ahead of him, I don't know if I can take you seriously. The trend shows McCain is gaining more steam against Obama by the week. Not to mention Obama still trails in crucial states such as Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and New Jersey. I don't see how you can say he'll crush McCain in the general election when he fails to win electorally-- which is the only thing that matters in Presidential elections, as 2000 told us.

Whenever the two of them both get out, invent a time machine and go back to October 2006 to convince Mark Warner and Evan Bayh to stay in the race, then the Dems can cruise into victory. But until then, I wouldn't hold your breath on a "crushing" defeat by Obama against McCain.

 

[souvlaki]

MYTH 5: Well, at Least Obama Isn't Dividing the Democratic Party as much as Hillary! If She Wins at the Convention, She'll Divide the Democrats!

Again, not true. According to polls released last week, 28% of Clinton supporters say they will not vote for Obama, while 20% of Obama supporters say they will not vote for Clinton if either one of them becomes the nominee. After statisticians ran a few regressions and analyzed the number line, it was confirmed that 28 is higher than 20... meaning Obama is actually more divisive than Clinton...

You do realize that right now Obama has a 10 point lead nationally, right? I don't feel like doing the math, but I doubt it's an 8% difference once you factor in that 28% of Clinton's support does not equal 28% of Obama's support. Also you have to take into account that that poll was taken after arguably Obama's worst week ever. Either way, the number is exaggerated on both sides. You said yourself a couple months back that most Democrats are inevitably going to support whoever wins the primary after they get past the fact that their candidate lost.

 

[The Senator]

You do realize that right now Obama has a 10 point lead nationally, right? I don't feel like doing the math, but I doubt it's an 8% difference once you factor in that 28% of Clinton's support does not equal 28% of Obama's support. Also you have to take into account that that poll was taken after arguably Obama's worst week ever. Either way, the number is exaggerated on both sides.

You also realize that the polls which are released now only feature Democratic voters in the remaining states? That doesn't take into account voters in Ohio, New York, Tennessee, and all the other states which have voted already. Or at least, they aren't suppose to. Correct me if I'm wrong.

You said yourself a couple months back that most Democrats are inevitably going to support whoever wins the primary after they get past the fact that their candidate lost.

Yes, and that was before this thing blew itself out of the water. At this stage in the game, I really don't care who will be the nominee. They've both pissed me off to a point where I would have to shower six or seven times after pulling the lever for them in November. Considering I'll be a registered New York voter and my vote won't count for jack, I'm casting my ballot for Nader. I was thinking about McCain, but I can't vote for a war fiend such as himself. But Nader lets me say "hey, I didn't vote for any of those guys, so there!"

Both sides have some serious issues, and both sides are going to lose a fairly significant chunk of support. Voters in Michigan who won't vote for the Democratic nominee because they won't get their votes counted are also a huge problem. There are so many significant problems with the Democratic base and the independents that every single statistic which said we have this in the bag has been proved irrelevant.

 

[souvlaki]

^Not to mention that poll only accounts for voters that will vote for McCain. It doesn't take into account people that just wont vote... which I'd suspect are people probably supporting Obama.

 

[souvlaki]

You also realize that the polls which are released now only feature Democratic voters in the remaining states? That doesn't take into account voters in Ohio, New York, Tennessee, and all the other states which have voted already. Or at least, they aren't suppose to. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Wait... which poll? The one you are talking about, or the one where Obama has a 10 point lead? Because I'm almost 100% positive that that poll was nationwide. For some reason I was thinking the poll regarding which voters would vote for McCain if their candidate lost was actually only in regards to Pennsylvania voters. If that poll is representative of the remaining states, that makes sense, as a lot of the upcoming states favor Clinton anyhow.

Yes, and that was before this thing blew itself out of the water. At this stage in the game, I really don't care who will be the nominee. They've both pissed me off to a point where I would have to shower six or seven times after pulling the lever for them in November. Considering I'll be a registered New York voter and my vote won't count for jack, I'm casting my ballot for Nader. I was thinking about McCain, but I can't vote for a war fiend such as himself. But Nader lets me say "hey, I didn't vote for any of those guys, so there!"

Both sides have some serious issues, and both sides are going to lose a fairly significant chunk of support. Voters in Michigan who won't vote for the Democratic nominee because they won't get their votes counted are also a huge problem. There are so many significant problems with the Democratic base and the independents that every single statistic which said we have this in the bag has been proved irrelevant.

I'm personally not sure how this will go. But honestly, I think you and Matt will end up being the exception to the rule. I doubt very much the people that traditionally vote Democrat on a consistent basis will switch sides if their candidate loses (for the most part). The independents voting for Obama (and most likely, the youth vote as well) probably were never going to vote for Clinton anyhow, and the Republicans voting for Clinton in recent states are probably not going to vote for Obama (hell, I'm not even convinced they will vote for Hillary).

And in regards to people being pissed about Michigan/Florida, there was a proposal made today in regards to the Michigan vote that I personally think is a great compromise. They would keep the vote as is, giving the uncommited votes to Obama. Those votes would only account for 50% of the total delegates given. The other 50% would be based on the popular vote nationally. I don't know if it will fly, but it's a lot better than just counting the votes as is, privately financing a new election, or completely ignoring the state altogether in my opinion. Nonetheless, I think some sort of compromise in regards to those two states will happen at/before the convention. It's not to anyones benefit to ignore the states altogether.

 

[demento]

Christopher Hitchens says her lies regarding her visit to Bosnia are just the tip of the iceberg. Granted, he's kind of a neo-con prick, but still:

http://www.slate.com/id/2187780

 

[Darthphere]

Yeah, I feel dumber for reading that, thanks.

 

[Excel]

Jman theres no use arguing with you. Your a Clinton supporter, so obviously your not gonna agree with me. I know whats up, so I see noreason to continue the debate.

If you're going to debate, do so objectively. Obama cannot walk on water. He is not "eating anyone alive" when he is leading by .2% and losing in electoral college votes.

Obama will eat McCain alive in a national election.

Matt, I know you can read, why not do it? Don't call me childish when you cant even interpret what I say correctly. I never said Obamas eating McCain alive. I said he WILL in a general election. What claims do I make that a flat out wrong? Tell me Matt. They arent wrong, you just disagree with them.

Obama is winning, will take Cali and NY in a GE, and will make McCain look like a fool in a debate, anybody could. How does he talk about the economy or the war or healthcare against Hillary or Obama.

 

[The Senator]

Jman theres no use arguing with you. Your a Clinton supporter, so obviously your not gonna agree with me. I know whats up, so I see noreason to continue the debate.

This isn't a matter of you simply disagreeing with me. It's a matter of you using bogus statistics to justify your answer. 0.2% is not eating McCain alive. Both sides can use that statistic to their advantage because it is within a margin of error. Trends matter more than spreads. And the trend says that McCain has been gaining on Obama in the past week, and if this trend continues, Obama will hardly "eat McCain alive" in the general.

Matt, I know you can read, why not do it? Don't call me childish when you cant even interpret what I say correctly. I never said Obamas eating McCain alive. I said he WILL in a general election. What claims do I make that a flat out wrong? Tell me Matt. They arent wrong, you just disagree with them.

Obama is winning, will take Cali and NY in a GE, and will make McCain look like a fool in a debate, anybody could. How does he talk about the economy or the war or healthcare against Hillary or Obama.

This quote proves you know nothing about Presidential politics. Seriously. California and New York have been won by the Democratic candidate every year since 1992, by significant margins. California and New York haven't even been close since 1988, when California went to Bush and New York went to Dukakis by only a few points.

On the other hand...he needs Ohio and Pennsylvania, at the very least, to win. He needs to reach the magic number of 270 electoral votes. Kerry had 251 electoral votes in 2004 without winning Ohio. With Ohio, Obama would have 271 electoral votes... enough to win. However, if he loses Pennsylvania, he's right back where Kerry was. That certainly isn't a victory because, as I recall correctly, Kerry lost when he had that number.

Not to mention he's being trounced by McCain in both states. So your claim that Obama WILL win is an absolute fallacy at this point. As of now, McCain stands a better chance than he does in the general.

 

[The Senator]

Wait... which poll? The one you are talking about, or the one where Obama has a 10 point lead? Because I'm almost 100% positive that that poll was nationwide. For some reason I was thinking the poll regarding which voters would vote for McCain if their candidate lost was actually only in regards to Pennsylvania voters. If that poll is representative of the remaining states, that makes sense, as a lot of the upcoming states favor Clinton anyhow.

Most national polls reflect the remaining contests, or at least they're suppose to. It doesn't make sense to me to include people who have already voted in the primary in a poll which asks "Who are you voting for in the Democratic Primary?" So that's the poll where Obama was leading by ten points.

As for those who would vote for McCain over Obama... there was one conducted statewide in Pennsylvania, where the number of wayward supporters were roughly the same (around 20% for both candidates). The one where 28% of Hillary supporters say they'll vote for McCain was done at the national level.

I'm personally not sure how this will go. But honestly, I think you and Matt will end up being the exception to the rule. I doubt very much the people that traditionally vote Democrat on a consistent basis will switch sides if their candidate loses (for the most part). The independents voting for Obama (and most likely, the youth vote as well) probably were never going to vote for Clinton anyhow, and the Republicans voting for Clinton in recent states are probably not going to vote for Obama (hell, I'm not even convinced they will vote for Hillary).

I'm not so sure about that. I know a lot of people who are Hillary supporters who have said they will not vote for Obama in 2008. One of my friends worked on the Edwards campaign last fall... her brother was a communications manager on his campaign... and they both are voting for McCain in November. I even know people in the gay community willing to vote for McCain over Obama if Hillary isn't the nominee. I'd imagine this mood exists all over the country. I mean, I get calls in at work every day from people saying they'll vote for McCain over Obama, so it is a widespread phenomenon.

And in regards to people being pissed about Michigan/Florida, there was a proposal made today in regards to the Michigan vote that I personally think is a great compromise. They would keep the vote as is, giving the uncommited votes to Obama. Those votes would only account for 50% of the total delegates given. The other 50% would be based on the popular vote nationally. I don't know if it will fly, but it's a lot better than just counting the votes as is, privately financing a new election, or completely ignoring the state altogether in my opinion. Nonetheless, I think some sort of compromise in regards to those two states will happen at/before the convention. It's not to anyones benefit to ignore the states altogether.

I don't really like that idea at all. Some people who went uncommitted voted for Edwards. They didn't all vote for Obama. And on top of that, this would skew the results by making 50% of the uncommitted vote based on the popular vote. A state primary isn't suppose to reflect the popular vote-- it's suppose to reflect the will of the people in that state. Obama may agree to do it that way, but only because it favors him.

If they're going to count Michigan and Florida, they should do a complete re-vote. That's the only fair way to go about it.