Some small comfort for the Crazed.

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: aidanjm
I don't understand how Obama could be the right choice, when he failed to carry the most populous states. he basically won in a bunch of small states where the Democrats don't have much hope of prevailing anyway, right?

Because, he was only running against other Democrats in every state -- which does NOT translate to his/her performances in any particular state come November.

The entire Big-state vs. Small-state debate is a non-issue.

The interesting items to note are the inroads Obama made in states that are traditionally non-Democrat.

duh.

Gulp....I....agree.

Did I say that outloud?

careful... others are watchin'! LOL!

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: aidanjm
I don't understand how Obama could be the right choice, when he failed to carry the most populous states. he basically won in a bunch of small states where the Democrats don't have much hope of prevailing anyway, right?

Because, he was only running against other Democrats in every state -- which does NOT translate to his/her performances in any particular state come November.

The entire Big-state vs. Small-state debate is a non-issue.

The interesting items to note are the inroads Obama made in states that are traditionally non-Democrat.

I think Obama's inroads in non-dem states is about as relevant as Hillary's win in Texas, which is never going blue no matter what.

It's not the populous states that matter as much as the battleground states. CA/NY will go blue no matter who the dems run. But Ohio, pretty much required to win the GE?

From morhp's link above:

"That's why Clinton made so much in her victory speech about the "bellwether" nature of Ohio: "It's a battleground state. It's a state that knows how to pick a president. And no candidate in recent history, Democrat or Republican, has won the White House without winning the Ohio primary," she said.

There is no papering over the depth of the problem Obama faced there. He won only five of the state's 88 counties, an inauspicious foundation for a general election campaign. Clinton trounced him among Catholic voters, 63 percent-36 percent, according to exit polls. She beat him among voters in every income category and bested him by 14 points among those making less than $50,000 annually.

This is why Pennsylvania, which is demographically similar to Ohio -- and a must-win state for Democrats in November -- is considered such fertile ground for Clinton on April 22.

The Democratic Party is indeed developing a general election problem, and it's only partly because Obama and Clinton will be sniping at one another for the next seven weeks. Obama, the leading candidate, still hasn't shown he has appeal in a large battleground state that will be pivotal in the fall. In this sense, Pennsylvania is where Obama's back, and not Clinton's, is up against the wall."

Regardless, I'm not sure how the supers can or will give Clinton their vote if she lags in delegates and popular vote come the convention. Still, that doesn't mean we as dems should ignore Obama's problem's in these areas. They need to be addressed at some point.

I simply do not agree with anyone who says that you can correlate his performance against another democrat with any outcome next November. There is no way to compare his performance in those 88 counties against a Republican candidate.

Apples vs. Apples does not correlate to Apples vs. Oranges.

 

[RY62]

With or without supers, with or without, Florida and Michigan, I don't think either candidate will reach the required number of delegates. How they are polling at the time of the convention will be the biggest factor now. If it can't be settled in the first round at the convention, all bets are off. All delegates will be free to choose whoever they want. Hell, they just might choose Al Gore. LOL

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: aidanjm
I don't understand how Obama could be the right choice, when he failed to carry the most populous states. he basically won in a bunch of small states where the Democrats don't have much hope of prevailing anyway, right?

the problem is that you're trying to think about this.

vote for obama and he'll do all your thinking for you. you just need to close your eyes and hope.

these ideas like "thinking for yourself" are products of an old age of a dying empire and that's what Obama's here to change.

The argument Obama cannot carry CA, NY, NJ, or MA in the general is silly.

Obama won Missouri, VA, Colorado, all three are swing states in the general.

Its like you are implying
1. Clinton Supporters are racists and will vote McCain over Obama
2. Clinton Supporters are not democrats and will support McCain over Obama.

This argument that Obama couldnt carry NY, CA, etc means he cant carry them in the general is the most illogical I have ever fuckin heard. Its obvious the only people spouting it are Clinton supporters who appear not to be rationally thinking.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: aidanjm
I don't understand how Obama could be the right choice, when he failed to carry the most populous states. he basically won in a bunch of small states where the Democrats don't have much hope of prevailing anyway, right?

Because, he was only running against other Democrats in every state -- which does NOT translate to his/her performances in any particular state come November.

The entire Big-state vs. Small-state debate is a non-issue.

The interesting items to note are the inroads Obama made in states that are traditionally non-Democrat.

I think Obama's inroads in non-dem states is about as relevant as Hillary's win in Texas, which is never going blue no matter what.

It's not the populous states that matter as much as the battleground states. CA/NY will go blue no matter who the dems run. But Ohio, pretty much required to win the GE?

From morhp's link above:

"That's why Clinton made so much in her victory speech about the "bellwether" nature of Ohio: "It's a battleground state. It's a state that knows how to pick a president. And no candidate in recent history, Democrat or Republican, has won the White House without winning the Ohio primary," she said.

There is no papering over the depth of the problem Obama faced there. He won only five of the state's 88 counties, an inauspicious foundation for a general election campaign. Clinton trounced him among Catholic voters, 63 percent-36 percent, according to exit polls. She beat him among voters in every income category and bested him by 14 points among those making less than $50,000 annually.

This is why Pennsylvania, which is demographically similar to Ohio -- and a must-win state for Democrats in November -- is considered such fertile ground for Clinton on April 22.

The Democratic Party is indeed developing a general election problem, and it's only partly because Obama and Clinton will be sniping at one another for the next seven weeks. Obama, the leading candidate, still hasn't shown he has appeal in a large battleground state that will be pivotal in the fall. In this sense, Pennsylvania is where Obama's back, and not Clinton's, is up against the wall."

Regardless, I'm not sure how the supers can or will give Clinton their vote if she lags in delegates and popular vote come the convention. Still, that doesn't mean we as dems should ignore Obama's problem's in these areas. They need to be addressed at some point.

Obama can win moderate republicans from suburban areas in the general.

Clinton has won one swing state and she is the messiah. Give me a break. To win Ohio you NEED the independent vote. One could equally say, yeah Clinton won Ohio, but you need more than the democratic base in Ohio. And if she gets the nomination expect record LOW black voter turnout. Add to the fact McCain will beat her amongst independents. She doesnt look to carry Ohio in the general.

 

[Balt]

Originally posted by: aidanjm
I don't understand how Obama could be the right choice, when he failed to carry the most populous states. he basically won in a bunch of small states where the Democrats don't have much hope of prevailing anyway, right?

Personally, I just don't see people (independents, anyway) getting excited enough about electing Hillary to hit the voting booth on election day. I think she's going to have a difficult time making it seem like there's much of a difference between her and McCain.

On the other hand, I think Republicans will show up in big numbers to vote AGAINST Hillary.

 

[Phokus]

The topic summary should read: "Obama WILL win (unless Clinton pulls off some extremely dirty shenanigans)

Saying "Obama may win" makes it sound like a tossup/neck and neck race, which it sure as hell isn't.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: aidanjm
I don't understand how Obama could be the right choice, when he failed to carry the most populous states. he basically won in a bunch of small states where the Democrats don't have much hope of prevailing anyway, right?

the problem is that you're trying to think about this.

vote for obama and he'll do all your thinking for you. you just need to close your eyes and hope.

these ideas like "thinking for yourself" are products of an old age of a dying empire and that's what Obama's here to change.

The argument Obama cannot carry CA, NY, NJ, or MA in the general is silly.

Obama won Missouri, VA, Colorado, all three are swing states in the general.

Its like you are implying
1. Clinton Supporters are racists and will vote McCain over Obama
2. Clinton Supporters are not democrats and will support McCain over Obama.

This argument that Obama couldnt carry NY, CA, etc means he cant carry them in the general is the most illogical I have ever fuckin heard. Its obvious the only people spouting it are Clinton supporters who appear not to be rationally thinking.

QFT

Simply put, a primary contest != general election result.

A Dem vs Dem contest, or a Repub vs Repub, is so completely different than a Dem vs Repub contest it's irrational to draw any firm conclusions given wildly different dynamics.

But that's all the Clinton camp has at this point.

If she's elected President I'll brace myself for unending of stream of irrational and inaccurate arguments pouring from the White House. She puts them out so fast & furiously it's hard to address them all. It's fatiguing.

Fern

 

[StageLeft]

I simply do not agree with anyone who says that you can correlate his performance against another democrat with any outcome next November. There is no way to compare his performance in those 88 counties against a Republican candidate.

Apples vs. Apples does not correlate to Apples vs. Oranges.

I agree. We could easily make the argument that they went with Clinton because she is hardcore left, more than Obama in certain ways, but if they have to choose between him and mccain, they'll go with him.

The important numbers are the ones that pit him against mccain and from what I gather he has an edge that Clinton lacks.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: aidanjm
I don't understand how Obama could be the right choice, when he failed to carry the most populous states. he basically won in a bunch of small states where the Democrats don't have much hope of prevailing anyway, right?

the problem is that you're trying to think about this.

vote for obama and he'll do all your thinking for you. you just need to close your eyes and hope.

these ideas like "thinking for yourself" are products of an old age of a dying empire and that's what Obama's here to change.

The argument Obama cannot carry CA, NY, NJ, or MA in the general is silly.

Obama won Missouri, VA, Colorado, all three are swing states in the general.

Its like you are implying
1. Clinton Supporters are racists and will vote McCain over Obama
2. Clinton Supporters are not democrats and will support McCain over Obama.

This argument that Obama couldnt carry NY, CA, etc means he cant carry them in the general is the most illogical I have ever fuckin heard. Its obvious the only people spouting it are Clinton supporters who appear not to be rationally thinking.

um... where did I say anything about any of that?

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: aidanjm
I don't understand how Obama could be the right choice, when he failed to carry the most populous states. he basically won in a bunch of small states where the Democrats don't have much hope of prevailing anyway, right?

the problem is that you're trying to think about this.

vote for obama and he'll do all your thinking for you. you just need to close your eyes and hope.

these ideas like "thinking for yourself" are products of an old age of a dying empire and that's what Obama's here to change.

The argument Obama cannot carry CA, NY, NJ, or MA in the general is silly.

Obama won Missouri, VA, Colorado, all three are swing states in the general.

Its like you are implying
1. Clinton Supporters are racists and will vote McCain over Obama
2. Clinton Supporters are not democrats and will support McCain over Obama.

This argument that Obama couldnt carry NY, CA, etc means he cant carry them in the general is the most illogical I have ever fuckin heard. Its obvious the only people spouting it are Clinton supporters who appear not to be rationally thinking.

um... where did I say anything about any of that?

You didn't, although some crazy people suggest it. It's the simplest thing to refute, so it is seized on by the opposition. It's like wasting time refuting people calling Hillary a lesbian.

 

[lopri]

NY will go to whoever the Democratic candidate will be. NJ? You will be surprised. I know I was.

Oh and Florida.

 

[Rio Rebel]

Not all Obama supporters are mindless sheep. Some of us realize that voting for Obama is a risk.

When you add it all up, we have:

McCain, who is committed to continuing the Bush strategy in Iraq. (That precludes me from voting for him.)

Hillary, who has absolutely no integrity and cannot be expected to stand by any commitment or position she takes. And really doesn't have that much more experience than Obama, unless you consider her a major player in the Clinton Administration...but she does not accept responsibility for the decisions of the Clinton Administration, like NAFTA.

Obama, who has less history and who is certainly a risk. But he also is in a unique position to inspire and unite the country like no other candidate in decades.

Is my perspective perfect? Certainly not, and I may be wrong on many issues. But I am not being "led blindly" by Obama. I am weighing his comments and actions just like everyone else.

 

[homercles337]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
The big state/small state argument is ridiculous...sure Clinton carried the blue states, but the Democrats will carry those states regardless...you have to look at the demographics.

Clinton is carrying those who will vote Democrat regardless...Obama is pulling independents, the youth vote, moderates and even some Republicans...the Democrats will need this broad coalition of voters to defeat McCain.

I guess it all depends on what you believe...I contend that Obama supporters will probably reject Hillary as a candidate, because they are not hardcore Democrats...Clinton supporters, who are the Democrat base, will most likely vote for Obama.

Actually, i disagree with this. McCain is dead with his Bush II clone act. Sure they differ on some small irrelevant issues, but the big important ones where Bush II has failed (Iraq, the economy, immigration) McCain is supporting. He's embracing Bush when he should be distancing himself.

Everything else in your post i agree with though. :shocked: