Ominous rumblings in CA

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
If he doesn't it opens him to a line of attack.

What line of attack is that?

Feb 2007 <---- note the date, over a year ago when he was thought to have no chance at all.
NYTimes

Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, a contender for the Democratic presidential nomination, issued an unusual challenge to his rivals on Wednesday. He proposed a voluntary agreement between the two major party nominees that would limit their fund-raising and spending for the general election.

If Obama changes his mind it just shows that he is nothing more than a regular politician who will take the easiest path possible.

All this talk about Obama being different or about change is proving to be nothing but BS.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
If he doesn't it opens him to a line of attack.

What line of attack is that?

Feb 2007 <---- note the date, over a year ago when he was thought to have no chance at all.
NYTimes

Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, a contender for the Democratic presidential nomination, issued an unusual challenge to his rivals on Wednesday. He proposed a voluntary agreement between the two major party nominees that would limit their fund-raising and spending for the general election.

If Obama changes his mind it just shows that he is nothing more than a regular politician who will take the easiest path possible.

All this talk about Obama being different or about change is proving to be nothing but BS.

Ya think??:roll: All that happy horseshit is for those who are new to the process i.e. first time voters. He's not another fucked up Republican who got us into this big mess, that's what will get him elected. If he turns out to be half as bad as the current failure we have in the White House, the guy you supported twice, he'll be a 1 term President.

Speaking of which, why should anybody trust your judgment when it's been proven to be extremely faulty as you did vote for Bush twice.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Craig234
CA isn't a simple state. You can tell that by the fact we elected Ronald Reagan and Jerry Brown back to back as governor. For two terms each.

More telling is the fact that we've elected many Republican governors - Duekmajian, Wilson, CA voted out in a recall a fine democratic governor, Gray Davis, for two main things, the Enron problems he was actually fighting more than his successor who was a close friend of Enron, and the very proper ending of the suspension of the vehicle license tax when the dot com boom ended. They elected Arnold.

McCain actually strongly appeals to the odd California culture, in my view, with his (phony IMO) routine about being an independent maverick and straight talker. I've said for years he's Republicans' best bet, but I think the Republicans are doing so badly that McCain probably can't win CA. It remains to be seen how the election plays out, though.

California is indeed a 'swing state' in this election. Clinton (imo) has a better shot at holding it than does Obama for the simple reason she is a she! McCain can swing it IF he can deal with the LA and SF area attitude. Let him come out in support of Gay marriage for instance and he'd not loose SD area at all but would negate the advantage of the Left in the key precincts of SF and LA... and omg.. if he'd support ERA... and promise to have Congress revisit that (assuming the seven year issue of ratification is settled :+)...) and do it before anyone else and louder he'd do it... but I don't think he needs California. Obama/Clinton can't swing the needed states against McCain. He is too Left, too crafty, and, too well liked for his heroism among the less young of us all... Remember Kennedy's exploits were accepted in his favor cuz folks liked him....

 

[ericlp]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I doubt McCain could win Cali, but if he did then Obama wouldn't have a prayer at the White House.

There is no way he can make up the 55 votes elsewhere.

something we can agree on. I really doubt McCain would be able to win in any of the west coast states....

Edit.... I expect this vote to be a cake walk for the Dems this go around. American people have had enough...

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

California is indeed a 'swing state' in this election. Clinton (imo) has a better shot at holding it than does Obama for the simple reason she is a she! McCain can swing it IF he can deal with the LA and SF area attitude. Let him come out in support of Gay marriage for instance and he'd not loose SD area at all but would negate the advantage of the Left in the key precincts of SF and LA... and omg.. if he'd support ERA... and promise to have Congress revisit that (assuming the seven year issue of ratification is settled :+)...) and do it before anyone else and louder he'd do it... but I don't think he needs California. Obama/Clinton can't swing the needed states against McCain. He is too Left, too crafty, and, too well liked for his heroism among the less young of us all... Remember Kennedy's exploits were accepted in his favor cuz folks liked him....

McCain is not 'too left'. He is running on a platform that is as hard right as any GWB ran on. Coming out in support of gay marriage would be a catastrophe for him. He still wouldn't get the voters in SF or LA any more then he'd lose the right wing vote down here in SD, but remember a large part of his national base is strongly homophobic. He would be losing that for a marginal gain in CA (if any at all). It certainly wouldn't swing the 7 or 8 point difference that's present now when he's probably at the high tide of his popularity.

 

[RKDaley]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975


Similarly, the Latino vote was firmly in Clinton's corner...given the racial tensions between Hispanics and African Americans in many CA cities, it wouldn't come as a shock if they do not support Obama...similarly, McCain does have ties to the Hispanic community, and the gay marriage issue could be the wedge that drives a largely devout Catholic demographic to shift Republican.

According to the article:

Obama won larger percentages against McCain than did Clinton among white voters; he lost them to McCain by four points, while Clinton lost by eight. Surprisingly, however, Obama made up ground among Latinos, who overwhelmingly backed Clinton in the primary. A little more than half of Latinos sided with Obama over McCain, while just under half sided with Clinton over McCain.
McCain has argued that he can run strongly among Latinos, in part because he has long favored comprehensive immigration reform that would include a strategy to legalize immigrants, much to the disdain of many in his party. In the survey, he lost Latinos to Clinton by six points and to Obama by 14 points.

http://www.latimes.com/news/po...8may24,0,6353526.story

I really don't put too much credence in the polls at this point. However, based on the article, it does not seem like Sen. Obama is doing too bad among Latino voters at this point in time.

 

[LunarRay]

Yeah, I live down here in SD too... :+)
My point is that he don't need California and if his machine felt he did the only way to get the KEY precincts in the SF and LA area is to do as I said... the Right will not leave his side over that issue cuz they can't stand either of the Left's candidates.
So... in essence, he has to somehow contain his statements to California maybe with a crafty "I'm looking into that hard" type statement. But, he can offset California with two states that I think he'll win easily over Obama (Pa and Fla).


edit: by too left I mean within the Right... he is not historically far Right. He is a maverick among the Right. He is prone to support what tickles his fancy and my guess is he'd be a thorn in the side of the Right big time.. but they have no other choice.. and they will loose maybe 20 House seats and two Senate seats... 2008 is going to be fun to watch unfold.