Republicans for Obama

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: M0RPH

Originally posted by: Rainsford

snip...snip

Obama, who can lose 10 EVs and still win the election, needs to hang on to 34 EVs and could take up to 91 EVs away from McCain. Hillary, who can lose 6 EVs and still win, needs to hang on to 25 EVs and can take up to 39 EVs away from McCain. Under the possible scenarios you could get from the electoral math above, it doesn't look like Obama has as much of a problem with the math as you might think.

Look man, you can choose to put all your faith in that poll data if you like. I would argue that the Ohio poll data shown there is SERIOUSLY flawed. There are so many people there among the blue-collar working-class that are going to have a hard time voting for an inexperienced black man over a very experienced white man, war hero. Even those who are tenuously supprting Obama at first are going to be easily swayed by the same type of fear mongering as in Hillary's 3am ad, except those ads are going to be 10x more effective with McCain running them. Forget about all the elderly folks, the most reliable voters, who are going to be easily captured by steady old man McCain.

Mark my words, this election is going to come down to those working class manufacturing swing states, OH, MI, PN, NJ. And Obama is going to be dangerously close to losing all or most of those against McCain.

I'll admit poll data isn't perfect, but what exactly are you basing your analysis on, a magic 8 ball? Your insights into the blue-collar working-class mind aside, in order for the election to come down to any 4 states, the REST of the states need to be split up such that victory is impossible without those 4 states. In Obama's case, that doesn't appear to be particularly true. First of all, electoral math that shows him beating McCain quite handily already has Obama losing 2 of those 4 states (PN and NJ). Even if he lost the other two, all he would need to do is get Florida and he'd STILL win the election. You're trying to compare Obama and Hillary directly, but the problem is that the scenarios that have them winning the election involve them winning in very different ways. Arguing that one or the other gives a better chance at a handful of states ignores the much larger picture.

 

[Rockinacoustic]

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: Rockinacoustic
Is there anyone who actually supports Obama for his merits of achievement and not his "audacity of hope"?

His campaign advisor's are genius.

The same could of been said about Bush. Then again that's not much of compliment.

My point exactly (and no, I'm not calling Obama "Bush 2.0" like some people)

 

[Rio Rebel]

Originally posted by: M0RPH

Originally posted by: Rio Rebel
I find it hilarious how so many people buy the "Hillary has so much more experience" argument. Being the wife of Bill Clinton doesn't make her experienced, it makes her familiar. There's a difference.

I have been married to a pharmaceutical scientist for the last 13 years. I am much more familiar with scientific terms and concepts than most lay people, from being around her work. But I am no more a scientist than Hillary is an "experienced" President. You don't get experienced by being someone's spouse.

Hillary has been in Washington for what, 15 years? Even if you don't consider being first lady as real experience, the perception among normal people, among the masses if you will, is that she's more experienced than Obama. This is not going to change much.

You're right, the claim has been accepted by most people. But it's not true. It's just a testament to the skill of Hillary's spin machine and the gullibility of the electorate.

I'm having trouble understanding how she was such an integral part of the Clinton administration, even bringing peace to Northern Ireland and standing up for human rights in China, yet she didn't have anything to do with NAFTA. I guess coincidentally she was responsible for all the popular decisions in the administration.