Have I mentioned that I love Electoral-Vote.Com? I know I gush like a school girl over Andy's site but it really is magnificent. For those of you who love polls and want to check on the hard numbers so far, it is second to none. Here is a quote from today's report which jibes with what I have been saying.
A point that has come up repeatedly with Hillary Clinton's strong wins in blue-collar states is can Obama get downscale whites to vote for him in the general election? The NY Times has a story about polling on this issue in these states. The bottom line is that while many blue-collar workers prefer Clinton, they still prefer any Democrat to John McCain so the Democrats are not in grave danger of losing states like Pennsylvania that they must win in November. What Obama brings to the table is sudden competitiveness in states like Virginia, Iowa, Missouri, and Colorado, which Republicans normally win easily.
So, basically, when you hear the "liberal" media talk about how Obama can't close the deal with white, blue collar voters, they are sensationalizing the story to make the race seem more exciting. He will win all the states John Kerry won plus Ohio, Iowa, Colorado, and very possibly two of the following four states: North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia and Texas.
Sounds shocking, I know, but these states are totally in play. Dean's 50 state strategy may be more realistic than was thought a few months ago. Hillary has no clue what she is talking about when she says that the Democrats have no chance of winning them. It is so demonstrative of how this election really is about folks who are trapped in the old way of doing politics simply not getting it.
Speaking of not getting it, the North Carolina GOP is running attack ads against Obama, courtesy of the guy who brought us Willie Horton. Thanks, GOP NC and please keep it up. We are starting to see a correlation between more votes for Obama when people go negative on him.
I suggest mentioning his middle name a few times.....
10 comments:
You can add Missouri to that list as well. Hillary polls stronger there than Obama against McCain but once the Dems start to go to work on McCain and his laissez faire attitude about the economy, they could pick up this state as well.
Hillary is now saying she has more of the popular vote than Barack. Of course, she is including Michigan and Florida which don't count.
She has really gone off the deep end.
I must confess to having a sweet tooth for the current Democrat infighting. ...and the Michigan/Florida bit is going to be like a brownie sundae. If they count 'em, Clinton has a chance because Obama just didn't show up and if they don't, well, that type of disenfranchisement should put to rest any type of misplaced quibbling over the 2000 election.
I wouldn't be so happy about the Democratic infighting, dave. I think it's great. They are on the news 24-7 and the Republican agenda is...where exactly? This is really about a fight between the old and the news...2004 politics and the future. Which side do YOU want to be on?
And I would also recommend that you heal thyself, sir, because the reaction to a McCain candidacy exposed the three way feud going on right now in the Republican Party. Now that is nasty!
like it :)
i'm also happy watching more of obama tell us how he would fix things on us networks abroad.
+ the way it's mentioned above ('Obama just didn't show') gives the slightly wrong impression that he's the weaker candidate of the two, when they're head to head, or he's ahead. also i'd bet anything, that even with a re-vote in michigan and fla. he would close the gap so much, that the delegate+ counts would still not be enough for HC to win. we'd be exactly where we are today. transparent rules are rules. it's up to the party committee to see how they want to do it, IF they want to do it. why both states would hold their primaries early & at the wrong time, is kind of silly. They can have a re-vote, it won't change the overall count. jt.
Apples & oranges, Mark. Surely the GOP is having issues, but I was only talking about the Democrats for today.
Again, apparently, I’m not clear… When I reference Obama not showing up, I’m not stating whether he’s a stronger or weaker candidate or how he’d fair in re-vote in Florida/Michigan, I’m simply saying that he didn’t participate in the Florida/Michigan votes that ‘did’ occur. I’m sure the results would have been different had he participated. The issue at hand is that it looks like Florida/Michigan will not have re-votes. So, as it currently stands, Clinton wants the votes counted and Obama doesn’t. If Clinton gets her way, it has obvious benefits for her. If Obama gets his way, entire states are discounted. And if I were a resident of those states and my votes didn’t count because Crazy Howard says so, well...
Now, discussing the ridiculous primary process and why relatively insignificant states such as Iowa & New Hampshire (sorry, guys) are given so much clout in the process and how the ordering should go is whole other topic…
I think he would do well in Michigan, winning about 55-45 percent, and not as well in Florida, losing about 58-42 percent.
Rules are rules, dave, and Michigan and Florida broke them. Ironically, had they not felt the need to be early, their votes would have been very important and an exciting part of the process. And there would not have been the six week gap between primaries as Florida would've been in the beginning of April.
So, Michigan and Florida need to take responsibility for fucking up and deal with it.
Hey, I'm a stickler for the rules, ask anyone. I'm sure he'd do well in the election, as well...just not the point. The point is...what about poor John Dough voter who doesn't get a chance to make the rules; he didn’t break any rules…he just wants to show up and have his voice heard? For people who clamored so much over even the perception of voter disenfranchisement in 2000, you seem very nonchalant about ignoring millions (millions) of votes when it suits you. In the end, it makes little difference to me, but the irony of the situation is worth noting.
i think they're going to find a compromise. read this earlier today.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080426/ap_on_el_pr/primary_scramble;_ylt=AsymYSoE4t_rO3B9Q4nsFTys0NUE
jt
I'm afraid I don't see any similarity between 2000 and Michigan/Florida. The people of Florida and Michigan elected officials who decided it would be nifty to change the rules of the primary. The DNC said no but they went ahead and did it anyway in their respective state legislatures. John Dough's voice was heard through his elected official who decided to go early.
Correct me if I am wrong but wasn't it the Republican controlled state legislature that decided when the Democratic primary would be?
Post a Comment