new battleground states

[oldanforgotten]

One of Hillary?s biggest arguments is her viability in states such as Ohio and Florida, 2 prior battleground states that have, in recent history, been make or break states for each candidate. Between the two, 47 electoral votes will be decided. Additionally, while both have leads on McCain in Pennsylvania, there is no denying that Clinton has a larger lead, and 21 electoral votes are at stake.

In the past 2 elections, republicans have taken both Ohio and Florida, leading them to slim electoral vote wins in both elections.

Given the state of the country and the general trends, Both Pennsylvania and Michigan are most likely to be staying democratic either way, barring some sort of collapse.

People seem to forget the historically republican states that Obama puts into play. Georgia (15), Virginia (13) , South Carolina (8), North Carolina (15) , Nevada (5), Colorado (9), Wisconsin (10) , and Iowa (7). That is 8 Republican states that, at least as of right now, would favor Obama in a matchup versus McCain. People point often to how the African American population represents only 13% of the vote, and historically has been 7-1 in favor of Democrats, but fail to realize that their historic voter turnout rate was close to 30%, just over half the national average. This time around? In some states, more than 60% voted in the primary. Wealthy suburban areas, typical upper middle class living areas, have uncharacteristically turned blue. On top of that is the youth vote. Younger people are showing up at the polls in record numbers, specifically college students. Those 18-29 people that Kerry counted on who didn?t turn out for the primaries, but he ?knew? they?d vote for him in the general election? They stayed at home, or hit the books. This time, they?re riled up already and voting in the primaries too.

Hillary has single women and women in general, but single women were already a democratic voting bloc, and more importantly, women have always had higher proportional representation at the polls. The gains to be made in the group are significant, but it was on their side anyway. Blue collar white America? That actually is a concern for Obama, as he is having the same fundamental problem getting his base with them that McCain initially had with the conservative right. Perhaps when and if Hillary concedes, those reconciliations can be made. Here?s to betting, at this point, she is doing nothing more than snowballing his campaign to lose so she can run in 2012.
________
Ford Explorer Sport Trac History (http://www.ford-wiki.com/wiki/Ford_Explorer_Sport_Trac)

[Mabus]

Interesting way to look at it, but doubtful Obama can win all of the states listed as possibles.

The monetary outlay, campaign time, historical voting trends and possible changes to voter ID laws (since the Supreme Court decision) could impact the campaign in unexpected, and expected, ways.

[ClydeR]

I don't know about those other states, but there is no way Obama will win Florida against McCain. Obama wants to meet with unconditionally with Cuban leaders.

[CrystalTears]

Yeah FUCK THE CUBANS!

[Clove]

I don't know about those other states, but there is no way Obama will win Florida against McCain. Obama wants to meet with unconditionally with Cuban leaders.Yeah, probably doesn't have anything to do with Florida being a red state.

[Mabus]

Yeah, probably doesn't have anything to do with Florida being a red state.
Florida would be in contention if Obama was not the nominee. With Obama, it will stay "red".

[CrystalTears]

Florida would be in contention if Obama was not the nominee. With Obama, it will stay "red".
Sure because all of Florida love Clinton.

[Clove]

Florida would be in contention if Obama was not the nominee. With Obama, it will stay "red".Yeah those Republican Cubans were just waiting for Hillary to win the ticket....

[AnticorRifling]

I thought this was going to be about Arathi Basin.....

[Mabus]

Sure because all of Florida love Clinton.
No, just looking at the turnout in Florida in the primary shows it could be close. granted, it is just a primary, and tere was likely Democratic suppression because of the DNC decision to deny delegates, but it could be considered close enough to consider Florida a "purple" state.

GOP: 1,948,479
DNC: 1,749,920

And if we look at Florida in 2004:

Bush: 3,964,522
Kerry: 3,583,544

[CrystalTears]

But you were saying that it might be different if it was Hillary on the ballot, and I'm telling you that it wouldn't have made a lick of difference.

[Clove]

200k is close?

[Mabus]

200k is close?
In a state where you have been told your vote will not count in delegates, yes, it could be called "close".

Florida is like Ohio, in that it is still in play. Both states can be won, or lost, by either side.

[Clove]

In a state where you have been told your vote will not count in delegates, yes, it could be called "close".

Florida is like Ohio, in that it is still in play. Both states can be won, or lost, by either side.It won't count for the Democrats, how is that going to hurt the Republicans?

[oldanforgotten]

Most people in general fail to realize something. The biggest parts of Hillary?s base are people who have a historically high voter turnout rate and vote democrat anyway. Large chunks of Obama?s base are historically republican leaning independants (the upper middle class college educated folk), and disproportionately strong democrats that suffer from low voter turnout (college students, African Americans).

When people pull out the ?If so and so gets the nomination, I?m voting for the other guy? argument, it is generally a) bullshit, b) A pissed off gut reaction that will be overturned anyway by historic affiliation or c) Ilvane. 90% of them will get behind their party?s candidate anyway.

Take away Obama, and those college students will still support Hillary, as will the African Americans, but will they still go out and vote in record numbers? Something got them riled up to turn out (which is something they don?t normally do), and it wasn?t Hillary. And what happens to those upper middle class independants? They actually like McCain too. But they aren?t Hillary fans by any means. Obama?s supporters will still support Hillary in the end for the most part, but apathy is the danger, since some of those blocs don?t normally even bother to turn out, and seemingly have only done so because its Obama.

And BTW. Party at Ilvanes!
________
Marijuana Strain Strawberry Cough (http://trichomes.org/marijuana-strains/deep-chunk-x-strawberry-cough/deep-chunk-x-strawberry-cough)

[BigWorm]

Most people in general fail to realize something. The biggest parts of Hillary’s base are people who have a historically high voter turnout rate and vote democrat anyway.
You mean old people

Large chunks of Obama’s base are historically republican leaning independants (the upper middle class college educated folk), and disproportionately strong democrats that suffer from low voter turnout (college students, African Americans).

When people pull out the “If so and so gets the nomination, I’m voting for the other guy” argument, it is generally a) bullshit, b) A pissed off gut reaction that will be overturned anyway by historic affiliation or c) Ilvane. 90% of them will get behind their party’s candidate anyway.

Take away Obama, and those college students will still support Hillary, as will the African Americans, but will they still go out and vote in record numbers? Something got them riled up to turn out (which is something they don’t normally do), and it wasn’t Hillary. And what happens to those upper middle class independants? They actually like McCain too. But they aren’t Hillary fans by any means. Obama’s supporters will still support Hillary in the end for the most part, but apathy is the danger, since some of those blocs don’t normally even bother to turn out, and seemingly have only done so because its Obama.

And BTW. Party at Ilvanes!

So what you're saying is that the people who support Clinton will vote democratic almost no matter what and a large amount of the people who are voting for Obama may or may not vote democratic. Since almost all of Clinton's supporters will get behind Obama, but not vice versa, wouldn't Obama be a much stronger candidate in the general election? He can bring votes that Hillary doesn't have much chance of getting.

[oldanforgotten]

You mean old people.

Specifically, old people and women.



So what you're saying is that the people who support Clinton will vote democratic almost no matter what and a large amount of the people who are voting for Obama may or may not vote democratic. Since almost all of Clinton's supporters will get behind Obama, but not vice versa, wouldn't Obama be a much stronger candidate in the general election? He can bring votes that Hillary doesn't have much chance of getting.

Not exactly. Most of the voting blocs behind Clinton will stay behind Obama, and since they tend to vote in high frequency anyway, there's less risk.

One of Obama's voting blocs may have people who switch parties (upper middle class college educated folk).

Two of them (African Americans, College Students), will still support her, but may not care enough to actually go out and vote. Those 2 blocs have historically anemic turnout, although that turnout is disproportionately democrat.

It's like take 100 of them in a room, and even though all of them prefer your party to the other party, if person A is the candidate, 70 of them vote for person A, and 5 vote for the other party, and if its person B, 40 of them vote for person B, and 5 vote for the other party. 30 votes were lost to the "who gives a shit" factor
________
SHELBY MUSTANG (http://www.ford-wiki.com/wiki/Shelby_Mustang)

[BigWorm]

If Obama can get almost all of Clinton's supporters (except Ilvane) plus some people that switch parties whereas Clinton will get less than all of Obama's supports and few people who would cross party lines... doesn't that mean he would have stronger support in the general election?

[oldanforgotten]

If Obama can get almost all of Clinton's supporters (except Ilvane) plus some people that switch parties whereas Clinton will get less than all of Obama's supports and few people who would cross party lines... doesn't that mean he would have stronger support in the general election?

That is the general assumption, yes.
________
FAKE WEED (http://syntheticweed.org)

[Parkbandit]

It's a bad assumption because it's not putting McCain into the equation. He'll peel off many independents, Reagan Democrats and old people from those groups you are just throwing into Obama's column.

[Gan]

What about all those Republicans voting for Hillary in the primaries?

Are you guys still counting those votes WR2 the general election?

[Parkbandit]

What about all those Republicans voting for Hillary in the primaries?

Are you guys still counting those votes WR2 the general election?

I don't think anyone is really using those "Operation Chaos" votes in these estimates.. and really, were there that many do you think? 100k total maybe?

[Mabus]

It's a bad assumption because it's not putting McCain into the equation. He'll peel off many independents, Reagan Democrats and old people from those groups you are just throwing into Obama's column.

And Reagan Democrats are called "Reagan" Democrats for a reason. The stand in the moderate to conservative wing of the Democratic party.

You cannot get much further to the left then Obama.

[Keller]

Yeah FUCK THE CUBANS!

I'll sign up to fuck a cuban!

[Stanley Burrell]

In Soviet Cuba, fuck signs up you!

I dare you to read this entire article: http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Russian_double_reversal

[longshot]

Given the state of the country and the general trends, Both Pennsylvania and Michigan are most likely to be staying democratic either way, barring some sort of collapse.



I sincerely doubt that Michigan will go democratic this time around.

It has the worst economy of any state, and currently holds the title for highest unemployment rate.

The person in charge of revitalizing the state is the much maligned Jennifer Granholm (D).

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080509/NEWS06/80509066/1008/news06

"Also, Michiganders give Gov. Jennifer Granholm low marks of approval that rival those of President George W. Bush. Both were rated “good” or “excellent” by 20% of those surveyed."

It's going red.

[Hulkein]

I don't think there needs to be a 'collapse' at all for Pa. to go red, either. That's if Obama wins the nomination, at least. Outside of Philadelphia it's like the South. Even though a lot of them are Democrats and would vote for Hillary, the same isn't true of Obama.

[ClydeR]

I don't think there needs to be a 'collapse' at all for Pa. to go red, either. That's if Obama wins the nomination, at least. Outside of Philadelphia it's like the South. Even though a lot of them are Democrats and would vote for Hillary, the same isn't true of Obama.

This general election may be one of those rare cases when the popular vote goes to one candidate but the electoral vote goes to the other candidate.

The people who like Obama really like him. The people who like McCain think he's an acceptable candidate. There may be very large turnout in November in states where Obama is popular but lackluster turnout in states where voters like McCain more than Obama.

[oldanforgotten]

This general election may be one of those rare cases when the popular vote goes to one candidate but the electoral vote goes to the other candidate.

The people who like Obama really like him. The people who like McCain think he's an acceptable candidate. There may be very large turnout in November in states where Obama is popular but lackluster turnout in states where voters like McCain more than Obama.

I don?t think that?s a fully accurate statement. The religious right, which make up about 25-40% of Republican voters (depending to which estimate you hear), find John McCain to be an acceptable or barely acceptable candidate, whereas the remainder of Republicans tend to like him more as a person for his being a maverick and being more moderate socially. He is also popular amongst Independent voters for the same reasons.

While the religious right have a major influence within the party, their influence is also concentrated within certain states. In some states, they have an overwhelming majority, whereas in others, minimal presence. General republicans have been shifting away from the religious right for years now, but the George Bush years accelerated it to the point we are now, where there is a serious fracture in the party between the moderate social republicans and the religious right.

Many of the republican candidates were unknown prior to the primary season. People knew McCain, they knew Giuliani, but the others, at least early on, were relative unknowns that had on the order 75-90% I don?t know rates on people with favorable/unfavorable opinions of the candidate. But not Huckabee. Right from the get-go, 20 some odd percent viewed him favorably or very favorably, and almost 35 percent viewed him unfavorably. The reason was it was becoming public knowledge that he was a former minister, which instantly created the divide.

Some red states may have lackluster turnout amongst the religious right, but will likely have increased turnout among other groups. Makes me wish at times that there was a third party, where Republicans could split into one party for the religious right, and one party for social moderates who advocate conservative fiscal policies, if just for the fact that on the national scale, it would ensure that people like you didn?t have a voice anymore in politics.
________
Cbr600F (http://www.honda-wiki.org/wiki/Honda_CBR600F)

[longshot]

I don’t think that’s a fully accurate statement. The religious right, which make up about 25-40% of Republican voters (depending to which estimate you hear), find John McCain to be an acceptable or barely acceptable candidate, whereas the remainder of Republicans tend to like him more as a person for his being a maverick and being more moderate socially. He is also popular amongst Independent voters for the same reasons.


Do you remember "JohnKerryIsADouchebagButI'mVotingForHimAnyway.com"?

Even if McCain isn't trusted by most Republicans, you can't underestimate the power of voting against a candidate.

The OP states that Obama will put certain states in play. I disagree.

It's my opinion, which unfortunately only counts for one vote (it should count for at least 10,000 votes), that Hillary is a much more viable candidate in the general election.

[oldanforgotten]

Do you remember "JohnKerryIsADouchebagButI'mVotingForHimAnyway.com"?

Even if McCain isn't trusted by most Republicans, you can't underestimate the power of voting against a candidate.

The OP states that Obama will put certain states in play. I disagree.

It's my opinion, which unfortunately only counts for one vote (it should count for at least 10,000 votes), that Hillary is a much more viable candidate in the general election.



Do you remember "JohnKerryIsADouchebagButI'mVotingForHimAnyway.com"?

Even if McCain isn't trusted by most Republicans, you can't underestimate the power of voting against a candidate.

The OP states that Obama will put certain states in play. I disagree.

It's my opinion, which unfortunately only counts for one vote (it should count for at least 10,000 votes), that Hillary is a much more viable candidate in the general election.

I agree with you that people will vote against John McCain, or against Obama, and that will have some energy to it.

However, that being said:
Some groups have larger tendencies to come out and vote than others, and are sporadic in choosing to vote or not.

Affluent people have always had higher percentage turnout than working class people.
College students have always had a low percentage turnout.
Voters over the age of 65 have always had a very high percentage turnout.
Voters 18-29 have always been the lowest.
African Americans and Hispanics have always had VERY low relative turnout.
White Women have the highest.
Those who identify themselves as born again or evangelical are sporadic. They showed up en masse in 1984 and 2004, had strong turnout in 1988 and2000, but were extremely silent in 1992 and 1996.

Look at the demographics of Texas. 52% of the people are white, 48% are minorities, including 32% hispanic american, and 12% african american. Look at the 2004 presidential election polls. 66% of the people who voted were white. Now look at the Texas primaries and tally up the total votes and percentages (CNN's exit polls has em), and what you see is this time around, only about 57% of the voters were white. Look at South Carolina, you see the same thing. The African American turnout was at a record high.

What Obama does it a) increase the voter levels among some groups that historically have low turnout rates.

There's no question that most of these groups, as a whole, will support Clinton over McCain, but historically, they don't go to actually vote all that much to show it. My preferring Coke to Pepsi doesn't mean anything unless I actually go out and buy the Coke. Many groups that he is attracting to the democratic party and getting excited into actually voting are at risk of not voting if Hillary is the candidate.

As for some of the states, in the Kentucky Primary, something like 30% of people said race was a factor in their vote, and they broke heavily for Clinton. Those people will likely vote for McCain in the fall, as he would definitely see a boost in votes from racism in the general election, and in some states, it would significant. Hillary would face the same hurdle with sexism from some voters. At the same time, there are a number of Obama supporters who know nothing about the issues and support him only because he is black, and the same goes for Clinton and women. One can only hope that the cross section of those votes cancel each other out.

[Kefka]

I sincerely doubt that Michigan will go democratic this time around.

It has the worst economy of any state, and currently holds the title for highest unemployment rate.

The person in charge of revitalizing the state is the much maligned Jennifer Granholm (D).

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080509/NEWS06/80509066/1008/news06

"Also, Michiganders give Gov. Jennifer Granholm low marks of approval that rival those of President George W. Bush. Both were rated “good” or “excellent” by 20% of those surveyed."

It's going red.

Due to layoffs and their jobs getting outsourced to India. I highly doubt there's many in Michigan blaming Democrats for that. Any candidate that supports NAFTA has lost Michigan. To say they hate Bush with a passion is an understatement. The word is being sent out that McCain is a Bush third term. And don't forget, Michael Moore is from there.

[Kefka]

Specifically, old people and women.



Not exactly. Most of the voting blocs behind Clinton will stay behind Obama, and since they tend to vote in high frequency anyway, there's less risk.

One of Obama's voting blocs may have people who switch parties (upper middle class college educated folk).

Two of them (African Americans, College Students), will still support her, but may not care enough to actually go out and vote. Those 2 blocs have historically anemic turnout, although that turnout is disproportionately democrat.

It's like take 100 of them in a room, and even though all of them prefer your party to the other party, if person A is the candidate, 70 of them vote for person A, and 5 vote for the other party, and if its person B, 40 of them vote for person B, and 5 vote for the other party. 30 votes were lost to the "who gives a shit" factor

Due to the route the Clinton campaign has taken in the past 3 months, I wouldn't put money on the AA vote. Attacking a black candidate with 2 influential black people won't bode well for Hillary.

[ClydeR]

I used the interactive map at 270towin.com (http://www.270towin.com) to make a prediction for the electoral vote. My current prediction is McCain at 279 to Obama at 259. I wish there was a way for users of that or a similar site to save their map and post it here so we could compare.

Because it takes 270 of the 538 electoral votes to win and because my projection is that McCain will win by only 20 votes, a change of a mere 11 votes to favor Obama would alter the outcome. I gave Missouri's 11 electoral votes to McCain.

The map at 270towin.com does not allow you to allocate Maine's and Nebraska's electoral votes proportionally, and that could make a difference this year.

[longshot]

And don't forget, Michael Moore is from there.

You're a retard.