Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
TLF

Election 08 - Nebraska

Recommended Posts

I'm intended this thread to be a discussion of the election, state and national, of 08. We've all got something to gain or lose this year, and most of us stay on top of this sort of thing. I'm open for debating the merits of the candidates or theorizing about outcomes, etc. i'm gonna start with some older news, but still interestin discussion. this poll shows mccain beating either democrat in NE. that much anyone could have predicted. what's interesting though, is that he only beats obama by 3% with a 13% undecided margin - meaning NE could go blue. not true for the other side where mccain has hillary by 27 points. so the question i'm salivating to ask - does anyone think NE goes blue this time around? why or why not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good thread idea. I think NE could go blue with a well-chosen running mate. Someone like Tom Daschle could swing Nebraska into the blue collumn, there are others too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another possibility is that if it is a very close race, Nebraska could split the electoral votes. One or two electoral votes may not mean a whole lot in national terms, but even that would be momentous for Nebraska.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that NE will go blue if Obama gets the nomination. This is just based on the enthusiasm that I witnessed on February 5th. All Obama really needs to do is win Omaha and Lincoln and he gets the state.

 

I plan on watching Scott Kleeb speak at Wayne State on Thursday April 3rd. I think it was a great idea for Kleeb to run for Senate considering he was more popular in the rest of the state than in the district he ran in for his House campaign.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1.) realistically nebraska will stay red. Once the primary is determined and Obama is the *democratic* nominee, and mccain gets some air time again, nebraska will come back to its lack of sense and realize that obama is a liberal, and that that is a bad thing. to them.

 

2.) on the national level, this is the news: http://www.slate.com/id/2187558/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the cynic in me is inclined to agree with you ben. however, it's worth mentioning that obama shattered turnout precedents with NE caucus #s.

 

as to national news i've thought for a long time that obama should be using a strategy that ignores hillary and focuses on fundraising and mccain. her game is over, his has only begun. when she wins PA everyone will have a little conniption fit over how she won all the big'uns and momentum blah blah blah. then the DNC will remind them that she still didn't win -- either that, or they'll tell most of america's registered democrats they can fuck themselves and set out ot lose yet another election. but i don't find that last bit likely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
then the DNC will remind them that she still didn't win -- either that, or they'll tell most of america's registered democrats they can fuck themselves and set out ot lose yet another election. but i don't find that last bit likely.

you must keep in mind who it is that you're talking about here. if anyone can lose an election...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Earlier I would have argued that even if Hillary did get the nomination (this was when everyone said it was "inevitable") she could still beat any of the republicans in the fall. However, now if Hillary somehow comes out with the nomination, I could definitely see the republicans winning in 08.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree that a running mate like Daschle would get NE to go blue this year. I know many Nebraskans, including republicans who have intimated they might vote democrat, who have had bad experiences with Daschle. At least two of these people have lived in South Dakota, and the rest merely dislike him by reputation.

As an independent, I would probably vote for Obama over McCain, and McCain over Clinton. I think most swing voters that I have seen would like Obama to partner with a pretty moderate running mate, but probably not Dean or Gore.

Just my observations and two cents...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

others have suggested KS gov sebelius as his running mate. i think that makes the odds NE goes blue much higher. i think a moderate is the way to go here. obama already got the base excited about him. someone like sebelius may even start picking up those voters that wanted it to be hillary on the ticket.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I disagree that a running mate like Daschle would get NE to go blue this year. I know many Nebraskans, including republicans who have intimated they might vote democrat, who have had bad experiences with Daschle. At least two of these people have lived in South Dakota, and the rest merely dislike him by reputation.

As an independent, I would probably vote for Obama over McCain, and McCain over Clinton. I think most swing voters that I have seen would like Obama to partner with a pretty moderate running mate, but probably not Dean or Gore.

Just my observations and two cents...

I have a few friends who call themselves "independents" and also say that they would take McCain over Hillary but Barack over McCain. My question is, if you are "independent" what makes you want one of the most liberal senators in Congress (Obama) and not someone who is more "independent".

Also, how can you justify voting for McCain? He lost his anti-torture creds and that was the only issue that I found appealing about the guy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
someone who is more "independent".

 

who are you talking about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Obama is really the "most liberal candidate" than I would expect some people who consider themselves moderate to default to some a little closer to the center. I was really just trying to figure out why moderates or independents say they would vote for Obama, but pick McCain over Hillary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what i mean is, which candidate do you think is the closest to the center? your question implies that it's either HRC or mccain, and i'm just wondering which.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If Obama is really the "most liberal candidate" than I would expect some people who consider themselves moderate to default to some a little closer to the center. I was really just trying to figure out why moderates or independents say they would vote for Obama, but pick McCain over Hillary.

 

The brunt of the attack against Obama in the election right now has been from Hillary. McCain only recently launched his first national ad campaign, and it really doesn't say much anyways.

 

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j5lQ8Xt2nV-ZIMVgsE4TK63RSyCwD8VMH3VO0

 

Hillary has had to nitpick in her attacks against Obama. Her attacks have been focused on electability and experience. Her focus has not been on him "being to liberal." I don't think "Obama is too liberal" attacks would go over well in a democratic primary. So since Hillary doesn't attack his liberal record, and McCain is still biding his time (not to mention he's still piss poor), all the independents know about Obama (still) is that he's a charismatic, young Washington outsider who we don't know what he's going to do, but dammit it's going to be something different. Something we haven't seen since the 70's. The moderate, or "independent", democrats see Hillary as the shining beacon of Democrats in Washington. Being intimately apart of Washington for the past decade and a half has nothing to do with her political leanings, but I believe Independents are anti-Washington and that's why they climb on board with Obama so quickly.

 

As a side note, I believe that Obama will lose to McCain by quite a bit. Several reasons.

 

*First, he will lose a great deal of Independent support.

 

1.) His liberal record will be highly scrutinized by the Republicans. All of McCain's promises to run a positive, clean campaign are irrelevant. Prominent conservatives, with talk radio leading the way, will harp day after day on his record. Even moderate pundits will point out that McCain has crossed the isle numerous times (McCain-Lieberman, McCain-Kennedy, Gang of 14, etc...)

 

2.) Obama made a HUGE mistake with his race speech in response to the Reverend Wright business. From that day forward Obama became a candidate of race. It's the first time he harped on his identity as an African-American (even though he's whiter than Dylan...in many respects) He was incapable of denouncing his minister's preachings beyond saying he disagreed with him on several issues. This issue was the turning point for Hillary, all be it too late. Ever since then she's been running even with Obama or even ahead of him in several national polls, and her lead in Pennsylvania has grown. White Independents will be, and are being, turned off by him for the first time in this election, and I see no reason why this won't change, if not become worse.

 

Penn Polls: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/pa/pennsylvania_democratic_primary-240.html

 

Nat. Polls: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/democratic_presidential_nomination-191.html#polls

 

*That brings me to my second point, Obama will even lose support amongst Democrats.

 

1.) Again, his race will work against him. The independents that did support Clinton were predominantly white and middle to lower middle class. Obama will have trouble appealing to them over McCain.

 

2.) There is no reason McCain shouldn't pick up a sizable amount of Hillary's Hispanic support. McCain's immigration reform bill should lead the way in his ability to capture a great deal of the Hispanic population.

 

3.) Finally, just read this article: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/26/poll-democrats-might-vote-mccain-if-their-candidate-isnt-the-nominee/

 

*My final point is quite simply that the electoral college favors McCain.

 

1.) Discounting Florida and Michigan was one of the stupidest things the DNC could have done. Now no one in either state really knows about Obama. Florida should be an easy take for McCain with Gov. Crist's support (and possible Veep nomination). Michigan not so much, but McCain's is starting ahead in awareness versus the "uncommitted" candidate.

 

2.) Obama's victories have come primarily from red states (besides his home state of Illinois and a few other exceptions like ) He's not going to win Mississippi, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Alabama, Kansas, Utah, North Dakota, Wyoming, or even Nebraska. It just won't happen, and he doesn't have the time to visit these states to try. Hillary's strong showing in Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Missouri, and even California will be sorely missed.

 

3.) I believe that even if Obama can open up Red States that were normally considered safe, McCain can open up Blue States that were normally considered safe. California in particular (a definite knock-out blow if it went red) isn't safe for Obama because of Arnold and McCain's appeal to Hispanics. Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Washington, Minnesota, and Wisconsin are also states that McCain may turn.

 

This election should have been an easy win for the Dems. Unfortunately the Clintons started a civil war and the Republicans nominated a moderate who has made a career of distancing himself from our unpopular incumbent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama will lose for the following reasons:

 

1) He is black - alot of people, at least in my community do not trust blacks. (those are not my personal views, i am not a racist)

 

2) is middle name is hussein. i do not support those affiliated with al qaeda or the terrorist network, and i feel alot of others do also.

 

Clinton will lose for the following reasons:

 

1) shes a women. and probally a dyke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) He is black - alot of people, at least in my community do not trust blacks. (those are not my personal views, i am not a racist)

 

2) is middle name is hussein. i do not support those affiliated with al qaeda or the terrorist network, and i feel alot of others do also.

 

Clinton will lose for the following reasons:

 

1) shes a women. and probally a dyke.

 

Quoted for the lovely spelling and general bigotry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Obama will lose for the following reasons:

 

1) He is black - alot of people, at least in my community do not trust blacks. (those are not my personal views, i am not a racist)

 

Where is that, specifically, Honkey McCrackatown?

 

2) is middle name is hussein. i do not support those affiliated with al qaeda or the terrorist network, and i feel alot of others do also.

 

The closest Obama gets to terrorism was his attending a house party at Bill Ayers' (former Weather Underground leader) home. That's not some bullshit about his middle name, it's not some bullshit about being a secret muslim or his early schooling. That's the most substantive link, and all it amounts to is a lame guilt-by-association.

 

Clinton will lose for the following reasons:

 

1) shes a women. and probally a dyke.

 

Gosh, who would mistake you for a racist when you're such a bigot against others? (I.e. birds of a feather...)

 

The polling conducted so far, and this is relatively scientific (unlike your flaccid analysis), shows Clinton and Obama with a general advantage in the general election against McCain. Additionally, both have broken, just absolutely crushed, previous attendance of primaries and caucuses and set new records. And that's not just liberal states - more people participated in Nebraska's Democratic caucus than in Washington state's. Traditionally blue states show little or no sign of swinging a random red this year, battleground states generally trend blue in the polls conducted so far, and a number of red states (especially the west) are wavering into becoming battlegrounds.

 

But an election isn't just about pontificating analysis, it's also, sometimes, about the candidates. I might be the minority among SDS organizers (some of whom are planning really stupid shit... romanticizing the past and recreating it to play out a sick violent fantasy), but I really think Obama offers a vision of a better society. I'm cynical about whether he'll deliver, I think a lot of progressives are cynical about whether he'll deliver, but at that point it becomes our duty and responsibility to carry that vision forward if he doesn't want or have the political will to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Where is that, specifically, Honkey McCrackatown?

 

 

 

The closest Obama gets to terrorism was his attending a house party at Bill Ayers' (former Weather Underground leader) home. That's not some bullshit about his middle name, it's not some bullshit about being a secret muslim or his early schooling. That's the most substantive link, and all it amounts to is a lame guilt-by-association.

 

 

 

Gosh, who would mistake you for a racist when you're such a bigot against others? (I.e. birds of a feather...)

 

The polling conducted so far, and this is relatively scientific (unlike your flaccid analysis), shows Clinton and Obama with a general advantage in the general election against McCain. Additionally, both have broken, just absolutely crushed, previous attendance of primaries and caucuses and set new records. And that's not just liberal states - more people participated in Nebraska's Democratic caucus than in Washington state's. Traditionally blue states show little or no sign of swinging a random red this year, battleground states generally trend blue in the polls conducted so far, and a number of red states (especially the west) are wavering into becoming battlegrounds.

 

But an election isn't just about pontificating analysis, it's also, sometimes, about the candidates. I might be the minority among SDS organizers (some of whom are planning really stupid shit... romanticizing the past and recreating it to play out a sick violent fantasy), but I really think Obama offers a vision of a better society. I'm cynical about whether he'll deliver, I think a lot of progressives are cynical about whether he'll deliver, but at that point it becomes our duty and responsibility to carry that vision forward if he doesn't want or have the political will to do so.

 

 

LMAO

 

Posts by people like FritzMondale make me laugh and cry at the same time...Why? He makes three blanket, baseless assertions and purposefully liters his post with misspellings and a few slurs. Where as I spend a good half an hour talking out several points I had to offer to the discussion. His post takes 30 seconds at most. Yet, where does the attention go to?

 

Just chill and ignore these type of posts. He won, you know why? Because he wasn't making an argument. He was trying to get a rise out of someone. He accomplished his goal, he wins by default. He's laughing, and frankly I'm laughing too.

 

Ohhhh and in response to your polling comment, while it's impressive that Nebraska had greater rep than Washington State, I won't believe a thing until I see Obama within 10 points of McCain come early October, or even September. I just can't see it lasting. And what red states are going to turn out west? Colorado and New Mexico would be the only ones I could see. Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, Arizona? Dream on.

 

Everyone thinking that Nebraska will go Blue is stuck in a pre-Texas/Ohio/Rev. Wright mindset. We cut politics updates every week for a reason...The landscape has changed drastically and Obama is slipping amongst key constituencies, namely Women, Hispanics, and Middle and Upper-Middle Class Whites. Hillary is digging in, and the longer she's around the more pissed off her base will be when she loses. And because she's going to win Pennsylvania, she'll be there to the convention. Unfortuantly for the Dems, she has a big base in swing states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm really surprised you think the Wright controversy was so damning. It was the first really negative attention Obama's gotten, but that was bound to happen sometime, and it hasn't really affected his polling numbers (not in the upcoming states and not in the national polls -- Since the numbers Dylan posted are recent numbers, they'd assume the Wright scandal, proving it hasn't really impacted his support in Nebraska). The overwhelming majority of people (I want to say 76%? I saw the numbers on CNN) who saw or read his speech thought it was a VERY good speech and said they came away from the speech thinking of Obama's relationship to Wright in a different light. The speech still gave white voters many outs (he wasn't guilt tripping anyone), which allows him access to the same "let's heal the country on this race issue" position he was taking before Wright. Additionally, the race has been about race since South Carolina if not from the very beginning; Obama is black and the voters understand that. I highly doubt saying "Since race came up, let's talk about it," is going to turn people into raving racists who can't look past the color of Obama's skin.

 

Not to mention all of the endorsements McCain has been getting by bigoted right wing preachers -- who he has NOT denounced (in fact he's said he agrees with them) and who have said FAR worse things than Wright ever did. If this continues to plague Obama (which I don't think it will), I'm willing to bet he'll ask some fair questions about McCain's relationship with religious bigotry. Wright will pale in comparison.

 

I think you underestimate Obama's ability to paint McCain with the brush of the Bush Administration, and make some key distinctions about an unpopular war. The war has gone away as an issue during the primary, but that's because all of the Dems were mostly against it; with some pointed campaign ads to remind people how mad they are about Iraq, McCain will have an uphill battle.

 

Additionally, McCain's "independent" track record will be tarnished by his filp-flopping in the primary on basically the only issues he was ever liberal on. Obama can draw distinctions based on things like the fact that his campaign had over a million donors and that he's refused PAC money -- McCain's "experience" will start to turn into Washington insider baggage (especially if Obama's VP is a governor).

 

Obama's liberalism may also turn out as a plus for him on issues like healthcare and the economy -- as people start to worry about finances, they start to get concerned about paying medical bills either in old age or if something awful happens. If Obama can rebrand the "liberal" tag by downplaying the importance of calling people "liberal" and "conservative" and then talking about what liberalism means to him -- namely his campaign issues and concern for other human beings, solidarity -- he'll be well on his way to convincing independents. At any rate, he won't come off as a partisan hack.

 

VP choices will play a big role in shoring up the base (Richardson gets the Hispanic vote, Sebelius the women's vote, etc), but considering the absurdly high turnout in all of the primaries and caucuses, I don't think the base is reasonably going to be a problem for the Dems. The Republicans will be the ones with the base turnout problem. The religious right hates McCain and has been murmuring about how they only get lip service even under Bush, and some young evangelicals are beginning to vote on poverty and the environment as their key moral issues. Conservatives think McCain is a liberal. I'm not suggesting that these people will vote blue, but rather that they will stay home and not vote at all. The only way to attract these voters to the polls is a conservative veep like Huckabee, who will turn off the moderate/independent vote and ruin McCain's biggest advantage over Obama (namely, that he can play the crossing the aisle card too). McCain is walking a tightrope between being too independent or too conservative, and I don't think it's tenable.

 

But in all honesty, the race is Obama's to lose. What blue state can you see going red for McCain? I see none. So all he has to do is pick up some battleground states (California) or some formerly red states (Nebraska, Wyoming, maybe some heavily black Southern states), and he has the nomination in hand. Of course, the polling numbers are all premature, but Obama's still in a statistical tie or slightly ahead in several major states. I just don't see the Democrats losing this one especially with a charismatic candidate like Obama against someone as uninspiring as McCain.

 

P.S. This analysis of course assumes everything goes Obama's way in the general, but your analysis assumed everything goes McCain's way in the general. I think the reality is probably somewhere between the two, but I still think Obama is capable and likely to pull out a sound victory...at least assuming Hillary gets herself out of this race in a timely fashion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

*First, he will lose a great deal of Independent support.

 

1.) His liberal record will be highly scrutinized by the Republicans. All of McCain's promises to run a positive, clean campaign are irrelevant. Prominent conservatives, with talk radio leading the way, will harp day after day on his record. Even moderate pundits will point out that McCain has crossed the isle numerous times (McCain-Lieberman, McCain-Kennedy, Gang of 14, etc...)

 

couldn't disagree more. mccain is terrible candidate

 

on the other side of the same token, independent voters aren't (all) morons. thus, they'll realize pretty quickly, with the help of the same media machine you're talking about (albeit the liberal side) that mccain isn't actually independent. in fact, for all his (actually very limited) asile crossing he's actually got a very conservative voting record. he voted to extend tax cuts on dividends and capital gains; During the 2000 campaign he called for a policy of "rogue state rollback," anticipating the "Bush doctrine" (alled for a systematic effort to overthrow nasty regimes even if they posed no imminent threat to the United States; he singled out Iraq, Libya and North Korea); McCain's spokesperson says that he would have signed South Dakota's extremist new anti-abortion law. wapo says he voted with the party 88.3% of the time. that puts him up there with other "moderates" like byrd and lott.

 

further, he's got a ridiculously inconsistent voting record. His voting record during the 107th Congress, from January 2001 through November 2002, placed him as the sixth most liberal Republican senator, according to Voteview.com. McCain's voting record in the 109th Congress was the second most conservative among senators, according to the same analysis.consider also his radical change on torture and the "agents of intolerance".

 

what should be made of his limited aisle crossing? posturing. he lost the presidential nomination in 00. so he gets all pissy and starts trying to play himself as a moderate, a rebel. more recently, he's (again looking to be president) voted very, very conservatively. this business about him being a maverick is about as straight talk as tom cruise claiming he's really a top gun.

 

 

2.) Obama made a HUGE mistake with his race speech in response to the Reverend Wright business. From that day forward Obama became a candidate of race. It's the first time he harped on his identity as an African-American (even though he's whiter than Dylan...in many respects) He was incapable of denouncing his minister's preachings beyond saying he disagreed with him on several issues. This issue was the turning point for Hillary, all be it too late. Ever since then she's been running even with Obama or even ahead of him in several national polls, and her lead in Pennsylvania has grown. White Independents will be, and are being, turned off by him for the first time in this election, and I see no reason why this won't change, if not become worse.

 

 

dude, did you even read your own polls? RCP's average has obama up 4 points. of the msot recent polls you linked to -

Gallup Tracking - Obama +7.0

Rasmussen Tracking -Obama +6.0

NBC/WSJ 03/24 - Tie

Pew Research Obama +10.0

FOX News Clinton +2.0

CBS News Obama +3.0

CNN Obama +7.0

USA Today/Gallup Obama +7.0

Reuters/Zogby Obama +3.0

 

that RCP link showed obama ahead in 11 of the 36 polls conducte dsince feb (by my count) and where clinton leads she barely leads whereas obama is sometimes counted ahead by double digits.

 

PA yeah, but that's a stronghold for her. even the obama campaign is predicting they'll win. i haven't seen those for at least 5 months.

 

more substantively, your analysis is a regurgitation of the media echo chamber reaction to his speech. he was "incapable"?? he flat out said he rejected the guy's viewpoints. all this business about whites being scared of his blackness contradicts the arguments being made by the same people that he's not "really black". further, he's not playing the race card. he only made the speech in response to the big shitstorm that HRC and the media were playing. lastly, his speech was the only brilliantly honest assessment of race relations in the US i've seen from a mainstream politician. ever. indys who aren't morons and/or racists will see it for what it was. plus, this business has ample time to just fade away.

 

*That brings me to my second point, Obama will even lose support amongst Democrats.

 

1.) Again, his race will work against him. The independents that did support Clinton were predominantly white and middle to lower middle class. Obama will have trouble appealing to them over McCain.

 

this is the only troubling issue at this point. that poll that just came out said 28% of HRC supporters would vote mccain if obama got the nod. i also read something that siad that this sort of exit polling occurs alot during the primary processes, and usually doesn't end up being true. that analysis makes sense to me, since everyone's all heated about their candidate right now but when the attentions turn to red v blue things'll change.

 

futher, it's worth noting that mccain is equally likely to lose support amongst conservatives. consider my analysis above about him losing moderates. also, there are a lot of hardliners who don't like him because of the very image he's created for himself as a "rebel".

 

2.) There is no reason McCain shouldn't pick up a sizable amount of Hillary's Hispanic support. McCain's immigration reform bill should lead the way in his ability to capture a great deal of the Hispanic population.

 

this is ridiculous. mccainisn't going to be able to "out left" obama or hillary on immigration regardless of his work on the bill. it's quite simple - if he brings it up and pushes for anything close to "amnesty", the dem can just go "yeah, i agree" and then mccain loses a TON of his conservative support. maybe you don't remember, but this issue was a political disaster, a real lightning rod, especially for mccain. this wapo article does a pretty good job of telling that story. he was thought of as innevitable, he talked shit about immigration and found himself in 3rd, 4th, and 5th in the polls.

 

 

i did, and said exactly what i thought it would:

"Historically, the pollsters say, voters who are distraught over a primary candidate in the spring often return to the fold by the fall.

 

Here’s more from Gallup, which surveyed more than 6,600 Democratic voters between March 7 and March 22, with a margin of sampling error of 2 percentage points:

 

“… it may be equally likely that they fall back into line by the time of the general election. It is worth noting that in Gallup’s historical final pre-election polls from 1992 to 2004, 10 percent or less of Republicans and Democrats typically vote for the other party’s presidential candidate."

 

 

*My final point is quite simply that the electoral college favors McCain.

1.) Discounting Florida and Michigan was one of the stupidest things the DNC could have done. Now no one in either state really knows about Obama. Florida should be an easy take for McCain with Gov. Crist's support (and possible Veep nomination). Michigan not so much, but McCain's is starting ahead in awareness versus the "uncommitted" candidate.

 

because they don't have the news in MI and FL and there's no time to campaign there before november? granted FL will be tough, but it's always been tough. i'm not hearing a single coherent argument from anyone that puts mccain on the map in MI. the dems did the right thing. rules is rules and if they'd let states rush the deadlines now, the next cycle would have been anarchy. plus, MI just recently decided on their own that they're not gonna seek to challenge.

 

2.) Obama's victories have come primarily from red states (besides his home state of Illinois and a few other exceptions like ) He's not going to win Mississippi, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Alabama, Kansas, Utah, North Dakota, Wyoming, or even Nebraska. It just won't happen, and he doesn't have the time to visit these states to try.

 

why can't he win them? the dude exploded turnout record in most of those states and with a smart VP choice, they all become competitive - something they haven't been for a long time.

 

he doesn't have time? do you own a calendar? he's got 8 months.

 

Hillary's strong showing in Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Missouri, and even California will be sorely missed.

 

does anyone really think a democratic is gonna win texas? as to the other states, i think that anaylsis falls back into the above arguments about whether hillary supporters will support obama. consider also that obama leads mccain in most of those states right now.

 

 

I believe that even if Obama can open up Red States that were normally considered safe, McCain can open up Blue States that were normally considered safe. California in particular (a definite knock-out blow if it went red) isn't safe for Obama because of Arnold and McCain's appeal to Hispanics. Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Washington, Minnesota, and Wisconsin are also states that McCain may turn.

 

i'll leave the CA hispanics argument above. what's you warrant for that random list of blue states? i haven't seen any polling data or heard any arguments about why mccain might open them up. you don't get to just list states and call it analysis. kaut gives you the polls you're looking for. on that level, i'm just not seeing the analysis to make sense of the polls. i think you're seeing polls like that because it's so early and the democratic debate has been rather divisive, plus a lot of people simple aren't gonna be responding to phone polls like that this early. i think it's a "wait and see" game, and once we get a month or two into the general cycle, those states will head back to where they've traditionally been. like you said, obama is really liberal and those states will realize it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my experience, these posts get ridiculously long if everything is given a response too, plus I have a midterm that I'm ignoring right now...

 

further, he's got a ridiculously inconsistent voting record. His voting record during the 107th Congress, from January 2001 through November 2002, placed him as the sixth most liberal Republican senator, according to Voteview.com. McCain's voting record in the 109th Congress was the second most conservative among senators, according to the same analysis.consider also his radical change on torture and the "agents of intolerance".

 

what should be made of his limited aisle crossing? posturing. he lost the presidential nomination in 00. so he gets all pissy and starts trying to play himself as a moderate, a rebel. more recently, he's (again looking to be president) voted very, very conservatively. this business about him being a maverick is about as straight talk as tom cruise claiming he's really a top gun.

 

I agree in reality, but perception is always key. The Dems would be wise to paint McCain as a "flip flopper." I personally think that McCain isn't just "Bush Light." I think he showed his true colors from 2003-2007 when he routinely crossed the aisle just so he could get shit done. This will be a key point that has to be played out.

 

dude, did you even read your own polls? RCP's average has obama up 4 points. of the msot recent polls you linked to -

Gallup Tracking - Obama +7.0

Rasmussen Tracking -Obama +6.0

NBC/WSJ 03/24 - Tie

Pew Research Obama +10.0

FOX News Clinton +2.0

CBS News Obama +3.0

CNN Obama +7.0

USA Today/Gallup Obama +7.0

Reuters/Zogby Obama +3.0

 

that RCP link showed obama ahead in 11 of the 36 polls conducte dsince feb (by my count) and where clinton leads she barely leads whereas obama is sometimes counted ahead by double digits.

 

what's you warrant for that random list of blue states? i haven't seen any polling data or heard any arguments about why mccain might open them up. you don't get to just list states and call it analysis. kaut gives you the polls you're looking for. on that level, i'm just not seeing the analysis to make sense of the polls. i think you're seeing polls like that because it's so early and the democratic debate has been rather divisive, plus a lot of people simple aren't gonna be responding to phone polls like that this early.

 

Answering these both...

 

I want you to read between the lines again and look at the differentials between polls taken before and after the week of March 13th/18th (ABC broke the Wright story on 13th and Obama made his speech on the 18th) All these are taken from RCP whose link I posted earlier.

 

CBS News (3/15-3/18) Obama +3.0

CBS News/NY Times (2/20-2/24) Obama +16

Difference = Obama loses 13 pts

 

Gallup Tracking (3/27-3/29) Obama +10.0

USA Today/Gallup (3/14-3/16) Obama +7.0

USA Today/Gallup (2/21-2/24) Obama +12.0

Difference = Obama lost 5 pts initially and is still down 2 pts after speech

 

Now I know not all the polls support this, in fact here is one poll that differs:

Rasmussen (2/28-3/02) Clinton +1.0

Rasmussen Tracking (3/26-3/29) Obama +5.0

Difference = Obama gains 6 pts?

 

Well, lets look at this closer. Rasmussen does daily tracking of Obama v. McCain (among many other polls) and here is what's happened since the Wright business started. They also reiterate what Kaust posted. http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/general_election_match_up_history

 

3/08/2008: McCain 45% vs. Obama 46%

3/16/2008: McCain 47% vs. Obama 43%

3/26/2008: McCain 51% vs. Obama 41%

3/30/2008: McCain 47% vs. Obama 44%

 

Look at the difference even after Hillary's victories in Texas. There is a noticeable spike against Obama! Why? Well duh! And notice the gap actually widened after the speech. It has since been coming back down, but the speech was not a hit folks. It turned people off.

 

Point being, those Obama v. Hillary polls probably weren't as indicative of the damage Wright did to Obama as general election polls. General election polls consider reactions of liberal republicans and, much more importantly, moderate independents.

 

U.S. News and World Report took notice of this change since Wright emerged. They agree, Wright and even the speech has done more harm than good. http://www.usnews.com/blogs/barone/2008/03/25/polls-show-obama-damaged-by-reverend-wright.html

 

Also look at that article and look at close to the bottom where they look at the numbers for blue states and toss up states. McCain is leading or statistically tied in the following states: Colorado, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, Ohio, Iowa, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Washington, and Wisconsin. There's your poll numbers to back up a list.

 

Finally, McCain already won the first battle for Independent voters...New Hampshire! An open primary where Independents could chose who to support on either ticket. The only state in the primary of it's kind. McCain used independent support to cruise ahead and launch himself to the nomination. Obama? Well a teary eyed Clinton was able to bounce back from Iowa. And it's not like Obama was an unknown there either.

 

this is the only troubling issue at this point. that poll that just came out said 28% of HRC supporters would vote mccain if obama got the nod. i also read something that siad that this sort of exit polling occurs alot during the primary processes, and usually doesn't end up being true. that analysis makes sense to me, since everyone's all heated about their candidate right now but when the attentions turn to red v blue things'll change.

 

futher, it's worth noting that mccain is equally likely to lose support amongst conservatives. consider my analysis above about him losing moderates. also, there are a lot of hardliners who don't like him because of the very image he's created for himself as a "rebel".

 

You are darn right it's troubling. And yes, the poll points out the Dems could fall back in line, but its justification?

 

"Historically, the pollsters say, voters who are distraught over a primary candidate in the spring often return to the fold by the fall."

 

What History? It continues...

 

"It is worth noting that in Gallup’s historical final pre-election polls from 1992 to 2004, 10 percent or less of Republicans and Democrats typically vote for the other party’s presidential candidate."

 

1992 to 2004? Neither party had the intense divisions that Dems are experiencing right now. Carville is calling Richardson a Judas! Need I say more?

 

This brings me to one of the things Brittany said:

 

P.S. This analysis of course assumes everything goes Obama's way in the general, but your analysis assumed everything goes McCain's way in the general. I think the reality is probably somewhere between the two, but I still think Obama is capable and likely to pull out a sound victory...at least assuming Hillary gets herself out of this race in a timely fashion.

 

Hillary will not get out before the convention. I repeat Hillary will not get out before the convention. One more time for emphasis. Hillary will not get out before the convention.

 

Bill wants to saddle up and says Hillary is in it for the long haul: http://www.newsweek.com/id/129430

 

Bill Clinton also said, "My family is not big on quitting."

 

Even Obama won't pressure her to step aside. http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/03/29/obama-says-clinton-can-run-as-long-as-she-wants-expects-resolution-by-june/

 

i think it's a "wait and see" game, and once we get a month or two into the general cycle, those states will head back to where they've traditionally been.

 

I really agree with this. I think there are a lot of things that can turn the tides, particularly if Hillary does come to her senses and steps aside. The only way I can see this happening though if Howard Dean forces a super delegate declaration of loyalty before the convention, and even then I highly doubt she would stop until all the votes are counted.

 

I also think the Rev. Wright stuff may fade into the past, but I think it scared the shit out of a lot of people, a lot more than Dems and Obama supporters think.

 

Veep selections could sway things a little, but I don't think they're critical. I personally think Veep selections are overrated. Cheney, Edwards, Lieberman, Gore, Kemp, I really don't think any of these guys helped their candidates a ton. Only someone who inspires people of a particular identity would make a difference, or someone who comes directly from a swing state, and then just in that particular state. For example: Richardson would save the Hispanic Vote, Huckabee would shore up the Evangelical base, Gov. Pawlenty and Gov. Crist of MN and FL respectively and may assure victory in each state for McCain, and Sen. Webb and Former Gov. Bayh may push Obama ahead in Virginia and Indiana respectively. Or, the Candidates may pick safer choices, such as Romney for McCain or Biden for Obama. Point being, I don't think Veep selection will make or break an election. At most it will give a candidate an edge in a single state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...