A twist on the horse race

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: piasabird
What Hillary has not pointed out is that the democratic party might be able to convert some of the red states to blue states. There could be enough republicans dissapointed in McCain that they are willing to vote for Obahma. Maybe they tried Republican and now they want to try Democrats. Many people vote with their pocketbook. The Republicans have not reduced the size of the government or spending.

I haven't heard her talk about this, but I have heard various politicos. If you look at the 6 states Bush won by less than 5 percent in 2000, Hillary has beaten Obama in 5 out of 6 (if you count Ohio, where she currently leads by 21pts in the polls): Florida, New Hampshire, Nevada, Tennesee, and potentially Ohio. Missouri is the only really close state Obama won, and it was essentially a tie. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...ntial_election%2C_2000

If you look at the 6 states Bush won by more than 5% but less than 10% in 2000, Hillary has won 3, Obama 3.

So among the 12 states Bush won by less than 10%, Hillary has won 8 (with ohio) and Obama 4. These are the swing states, and Hillary is doing better than Obama there.

Am now looking at 2004, will update.

In 2004, there were 5 states Bush won by less than 5%. Iowa, NM, Ohio, Nevada, and Colorado. Hillary won 3 (with Ohio), Obama 2.

There were 4 states Bush won by more than 5%, but less than 10%. FL, Missouri, Virginia, Arkansas. Hillary won 2, Obama 2.

Much closer, but to argue Obama is clearly better at winning the swing states is at best optimistic, and at worst, contrary to the evidence this year's primaries have provided.

That said, again, I think either dem candidate would win in the general.

Interesting stats, but you really can't count Florida right now. The Dems all promised not to campaign there (a promise Hillary broke), so Obama didn't get the exposure down there that Hillary did. Yes, Florida will actually get to vote in the general election, and yes, they are an important swing state, but I don't think you can honestly make the claim that Hillary polls better than Obama down there simply because of the way the campaigns were run. If Florida had not been excluded from the primaries and both candidates had campaigned heavily, there's no telling what the outcome would have been.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: piasabird
What Hillary has not pointed out is that the democratic party might be able to convert some of the red states to blue states. There could be enough republicans dissapointed in McCain that they are willing to vote for Obahma. Maybe they tried Republican and now they want to try Democrats. Many people vote with their pocketbook. The Republicans have not reduced the size of the government or spending.

I haven't heard her talk about this, but I have heard various politicos. If you look at the 6 states Bush won by less than 5 percent in 2000, Hillary has beaten Obama in 5 out of 6 (if you count Ohio, where she currently leads by 21pts in the polls): Florida, New Hampshire, Nevada, Tennesee, and potentially Ohio. Missouri is the only really close state Obama won, and it was essentially a tie. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...ntial_election%2C_2000

If you look at the 6 states Bush won by more than 5% but less than 10% in 2000, Hillary has won 3, Obama 3.

So among the 12 states Bush won by less than 10%, Hillary has won 8 (with ohio) and Obama 4. These are the swing states, and Hillary is doing better than Obama there.

Am now looking at 2004, will update.

In 2004, there were 5 states Bush won by less than 5%. Iowa, NM, Ohio, Nevada, and Colorado. Hillary won 3 (with Ohio), Obama 2.

There were 4 states Bush won by more than 5%, but less than 10%. FL, Missouri, Virginia, Arkansas. Hillary won 2, Obama 2.

Much closer, but to argue Obama is clearly better at winning the swing states is at best optimistic, and at worst, contrary to the evidence this year's primaries have provided.

That said, again, I think either dem candidate would win in the general.

Interesting stats, but you really can't count Florida right now. The Dems all promised not to campaign there (a promise Hillary broke), so Obama didn't get the exposure down there that Hillary did. Yes, Florida will actually get to vote in the general election, and yes, they are an important swing state, but I don't think you can honestly make the claim that Hillary polls better than Obama down there simply because of the way the campaigns were run. If Florida had not been excluded from the primaries and both candidates had campaigned heavily, there's no telling what the outcome would have been.

Hillary did not publicly campaign in Florida. She held private fundraisers, as did Obama. She held more of them there because she has more supporters there. She didn't break the agreement no matter how many times people keep saying it.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Vic
Additionally, it is the opinion of most political experts, supported by overwhelming poll data, that Obama is the more electable candidate against the Republicans in the general. So if the Pubs were defensive voting in the primaries, they'd be voting for Hillary.

I think most political experts expect the democratic nominee to win regardless of which one it is. As to the polls, last year Hillary was, by far, the candidate voters picked to beat all the rep candidates in a general election. Now that obama has risen in the polls, his supporters obviously think he's the better candidate to win, if only by a small number of percentage points. All this reflects is that the larger a candidate's support base, the better they do in a poll asking who is thought to be the best candidate to win the general election. If I really thought Hillary couldn't win the general, or that Obama was significantly more likely to win it, my choice, and most other people's choice, would be much easier. I think either can win it, I think the country is fed up with reps in the white house, and McCain's recent GWB policy backing is just more fuel.

If the Democrats or the Republicans win the American people lose. This is why we need Obama.

He's now an independent? News travels slow around here. Even if he magically pulled in 5% of the republican vote, it doesn't make him anything other than what he is, a liberal democrat with an appealing message of change. Post-partisanism is a nice buzzword, but that's all it is.

Hope and vision have no appeal to you. You're a technocrat. What kind of mind can say people are fed up with Republicans and not include the Clintons?

About half the democratic electorate can apparently make such a distinction. Just because only 4 or 5 of us on here are Hillary supporters vs the dozens of vocal Obama supporters, don't ignore the fact that she has gotten nearly the same amount of votes as Obama has.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Vic
Additionally, it is the opinion of most political experts, supported by overwhelming poll data, that Obama is the more electable candidate against the Republicans in the general. So if the Pubs were defensive voting in the primaries, they'd be voting for Hillary.

I think most political experts expect the democratic nominee to win regardless of which one it is. As to the polls, last year Hillary was, by far, the candidate voters picked to beat all the rep candidates in a general election. Now that obama has risen in the polls, his supporters obviously think he's the better candidate to win, if only by a small number of percentage points. All this reflects is that the larger a candidate's support base, the better they do in a poll asking who is thought to be the best candidate to win the general election. If I really thought Hillary couldn't win the general, or that Obama was significantly more likely to win it, my choice, and most other people's choice, would be much easier. I think either can win it, I think the country is fed up with reps in the white house, and McCain's recent GWB policy backing is just more fuel.

If the Democrats or the Republicans win the American people lose. This is why we need Obama.

He's now an independent? News travels slow around here. Even if he magically pulled in 5% of the republican vote, it doesn't make him anything other than what he is, a liberal democrat with an appealing message of change. Post-partisanism is a nice buzzword, but that's all it is.

Hope and vision have no appeal to you. You're a technocrat. What kind of mind can say people are fed up with Republicans and not include the Clintons?

About half the democratic electorate can apparently make such a distinction. Just because only 4 or 5 of us on here are Hillary supporters vs the dozens of vocal Obama supporters, don't ignore the fact that she has gotten nearly the same amount of votes as Obama has.

Those who didn't know there was hope plus those who want more of the same.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: GroundedSailor
What bothers me more is what will happen after the election. Should Obama become president he's going to find it tough going to get his undefined concept of reaching across the aisle to make good his promises of undefined change. The old guard is still around on both sides and one man cannot break the decades long logjam in partisanship. Even his health care plan - which I think has a fatal flaw in itself - is going to face fierce opposition from the right and, honestly, is going to need partisanship to get it through. Much in the way we've seen partisan legislation pushed through the last few years. Throw in the problems of dealing with a war you don't believe in and the state of the economy it becomes an extremely difficult task to keep the message of hope alive and deliver on it.

I hope he can pull it off although I personally feel Hillary is stronger on policy & positions and, had it not been for the irrational negativity affecting her electability, would have a better chance of success as a president

Remember Reagan?

He was such a popular president that many in Congress, on both sides of the ailse, were afraid to oppose him. Partisanship wasn't much of a problem for much of his term.

If the Obamapalooza continues we may see the same thing. If he becomes President and takes his case directly to the American people like Reagan could do, we could see partisanship dimminish significantly.

I'm not predicting that this will happen, but do belive Obama is the only current politition who could possibly make it happen.

Hillary can't pursuade or inspire, she "wins" by beating down her opponents. That's not ever gonna work well, her negatives are higher than her positives and have been for a long time.

Fern

 

[M0RPH]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Those who didn't know there was hope plus those who want more of the same.

Yes we are the ignorant masses :roll:

Maybe we're just not so easily swayed by a preacher in a shiny suit and a slick speech.