My favorite scenario: Obama gets Colorado and New Mexico, putting him even with McCain. The election gets thrown to Congress. Won't that be fun?
The most realistic scenario: Obama's map is the same as Gore's, except Obi gets CO while Al got NM. That's a loss.
Hillary's map gives her a clear win, because she takes Ohio, PA and FL. Even if she loses Florida, she can compensate.
The really grim maps come at the very bottom of the page. If just one out of 16 Hillary voters stay home, guess what happens?Things become far, far worse if one out of four Hillary voters go elsewhere, as they now threaten to do.
All McCain has to do is to seem non-threatening, maybe sputter a few words about peace in Iraq, and the Hill voters will feel comfortable fulfilling their threats.
NOW do you see why it's a bad idea to run a smear campaign in a primary? NOW do you see why it was a bad idea for Kos, DU, TPM and the other sites to accuse the Clintons of being racists? NOW do you see why it was a bad idea for Democrats to repeat all those Starr-era lies?
"But..." (I can hear the O-Bots snarling) "...the Clintons deserved it! They were eeeevil! EEEEEEEEE-VILLLLLL!!!"Keep it up. Just keep it up. Just keep expressing all that inchoate hate, because it is so important for you to express yourself. Don't give one thought to tactics. And keep looking at that map, because that is your future.
UPDATE: Looking at these maps again, I would say that Richardson has a mortal lock on the VP slot, if Obama gets the nomination. Obi is weak with Hispanics, and he needs NM just to pull off a tie.
17 comments:
"My favorite scenarios: Obama gets Colorado and New Mexico, putting him even with McCain. The election gets thrown to Congress. Won't that be fun?"
You have an interesting sense of humor, sir.
NOW do you see why it's a bad idea to run a smear campaign in a primary? NOW do you see why it was a bad idea for Kos, DU, TPM and the other sites to accuse the Clintons of being racists? NOW do you see why it was a bad idea for Democrats to repeat all those Starr-era lies?
But not a bad strategy if you are trying to destroy the Democratic Party from within, and make sure Senator Clinton does not get elected President of the United States of America.
(What's this about one out of four Hillary voters threatening to go elsewhere? -- Where's that from?)
A continental republic, from sea to shining sea; if you can keep it. Or feuding city-states as the financial-corporate oligarchy would have it... after the wars.
Joe, why do you waste your time? ;)
The gate crashers only care about one thing - Hillary losing. Nothing else matters.
I've said it many times, and I'll say it again - many of these so-called progressives are right wingers in disguise. Take a good look at Free Republic these days - it's not a very lively place. Why? Because they are busy elsewhere.
John
SluggoJD
Did you read the comments? An anonymous says:
It's over. She's lost. Get over it. Once she finally sheds the role of psychotic ex girlfriend and leaves the race, the numbers will change. You are dealing with totally flawed data, and cherry picking the results your way anyhow.
Vorlath's reply is great (emphasis mine):
"I cherry picked them Obama's way. I specifically pumped up his numbers with MI & WI while taking those states away from Hillary. I even took away MO, IA, KY & NM as well. She's competitive in AR in some polls too. And she still wins. If I took away that many states from Obama, it'd be McGovern all over again.
BTW, I don't care who wins. I'm Canadian. There is no "get(ing) over it." I was never under it to begin with. This just shows your irrational attachment to your candidate. I only used NUMBERS. That's all I care about.
My data isn't flawed either. Obama will not get the white vote. He's supposed to have been the presumptive nominee for a VERY long time and he keeps losing. Since February, he's won a grand total of two states. As a Canadian who's watched a lot of elections, please explain how this works? Maybe because I'm Canadian I don't understand how losing is actually winning. Because if he's losing now, how is he going to win in November? Is Hillary stronger than McCain? If so, then that's an argument as to why Hillary should be the nominee. If not, then he's got a serious problem when it comes to winning swing states. What's the presumptive nominee doing losing states at this stage of the game? I want to know. I'll add it in if you can explain it.
Obama supporters need to realise that there are people on this planet who have ZERO involvement and have ZERO stakes in the game. Whatever way it plays out is fine by me. But by these numbers, Obama cannot win in November. You can call it flawed data or wishful thinking, but it is what it is. The numbers are there.
Also, you're only thinking about the nomination. This article isn't about Hillary vs. Obama for the nomination. It's about winning the White House. The ultimate goal is the White House. The nomination and delegates are worth zip in the general election. They are worthless. By your comment, you don't seem interested in the path to victory. Only about getting to the next stage. As a Democrat, you should want the best person who can win. Not the one you have a personal attachment to."
I notice that he compares Obama's map with Gore's and they are very close. But if Obama wins either he wins, unless I'm misreading this. And of course Gore did win Florida and Kerry did win Ohio, except for the thievery.
Gary -- Although I honestly believe that the vote will be fairer in FL, Obama can win Florida about as easily as I can knock down the Matterhorn with a single punch. Everyone in FL blames him for blocking a revote.
He has a better chance in Ohio, but I still think he will lose there.
And how do you think an Obama-Clinton ticket would fare?
First, I don't think it would happen.
Second, it would combine all the deficits of both candidates.
Really, Richardson is the way to go.
Real America is not going to allow itself to be taken over by a bunch of racist dumbfucks. Get used to it. Real America is not going to be blackmailed by them, threatened by them and will not submit to them. Real America doesn't give a rat's ass if Obama is not getting the racist dumbfuck vote and is not going to degrade itself and pander to these losers to get it.
If McCain becomes President because of a bunch of racist dumbfucks... then you are going to see a massive exposure of the racists manipulating America since they killed JFK back in the 60s. Count on it. It will become obvious to Real America that these cockroaches need to be uprooted and exposed for the sake of keeping this country in one piece and it will happen.
Real America knows what is going on behind the scenes and who is the cause of it... and although the media won't discuss it... we know who Hillary is pandering to for the sake of her own self-preservation... the Real America is not going to let these guys get away with it anymore. Watch and see.
There's an interesting inconsistency at play here. When some were calling for Hillary to quit the race when it seemed mathematically unlikely that she could win, you were shocked that people would call the game in the third quarter. Fair enough. We've waited out the results and nothing has changed. Nor can it, at this late date.
Now, because you have maps, you're prepared to predict the outcome of the coming game before it's even begun? Could you be more disingenuous and inconsistent? You give McCain more credit than he deserves, and too little to the man who's already defied the odds to become the Dem nominee.
The past may be prologue, but nothing is etched in stone or else there'd have been one-party rule since time immemorial.
All recent polls indicate that 8 of 10 US citizens feel their country is on the wrong path and are crying out for change. Were that not the case, Hillary would have been the nominee since no later than Super Tuesday.
There's something bigger going on in your politics than you've noticed Joe, simply because you don't like the trendlines and how you think they've been orchestrated. Again, fair enough.
But in November, when Obama positively thrashes McCain in a head-to-head contest, will you still brandish these premature pronouncements as a sign of your ability to prognosticate? Or will you man up and declare that you've been blinded by your own disdain for a candidate who has appeal to the voters, albeit not to you?
Here's my own prediction, even though I have no maps: In November, we'll have a chance to see who is the more gracious loser: John McCain or Joe Cannon.
The anon comment represents the sort of thing I get roughly twice an hour. Based on the writing style, I think I'm dealing with only two or three obsessives. At any rate, I thought you might want to see the typical O-Bot mentality at work.
It is amazing to think that these clowns think they are going to turn around the Hillary voters by calling them "racist." These numbskulls remind me of the guy who routinely kicks his dog and then can't understand why the hound won't lick his hand.
Look, I can be objective enough about this matter to see it (temporarily) from a pro-Obama viewpoint. How the hell can you honestly expect to win an election with that attitude toward half of your own party?
JFK Guy: Predicting the winner in November is, in large part, the entire POINT of the primary process.
Much of the reason why I voted for Obi in the primary, you will recall, was that I thought him the stronger candidate in the general. At the time, I didn't know the truth about Chicago politics, I didn't know about Wright and Ayers, I didn't know what a bad impression Michelle would make, I didn't fully comprehend that Obama was running a shameless cult of personality, I didn't know about Goolsbee and Liebman and Brzenzinski, and -- most of all -- I didn't know that Obi would play the race card or that his forces would resort to Rovian smear tactics.
All of those things, and much more, are going to play against him in November.
If Obama wins, I promise to show no grace whatsoever.
I will steadfastly oppose him. I will do my best to undermine the "progressive" (read: Libertarian) influence in the Democratic Party.
The best thing that can happen to the party is for the Kos/Randroid wing to lose face forevermore. Achieving that goal is more important to me than to see my former party to win in November, 2008. What I want to see is the day when Kos, Arianna, Skinner, Josh Marshall, and Howard Dean are treated as pariahs.
If all major candidates shun yearly Kos in 2011-2012, I can die a happy man.
If a McCain victory achieves that goal, so be it. If a failed Obama presidency accomplishes this goal, so be it.
Joe,
There is only one thing about the Obama/McGovern analogy that bothers me.
McGovern was a man of unblemished character with basically the right ideas. He was 100% right on Vietnam. He had been a respected Senator for many years, and was a decorated fighter pilot in WWII. He made a huge mistake with Eagleton and wasn't a very dynamic speaker or campaigner. He had no charisma. No one swooned in packed stadiums at McGovern speeches. He also had the misfortune of running against one of the most devious and unscrupulous politicians in any country, ever.
But all in all, McGovern was a good man who had little political talent.
Obama on the other hand is, well, what you have pointed him out to be: a machine hack of no particular accomplishment, corrupt, superficial, and silly, who basically has one thing going for him: a loyal cult of personality, whose addlepated members have no compunctions about sliming opponents with the scarlet letter "R". (This includes the media.)
That being the case, I do not look forward to a McGovern blowout precisely because Obama has more aptitude for politics. In any case, there is no comparison between Obama & McG. as *individuals*, as *men."
I don't get it...
It's not just winning or losing. You can win and lose at the same time.
This is a transformation. Every election is a transformation (not just this one). People change. The change details who we are and aren't. It's clear from this process so far that we are very narrow-minded people. Do you think one candidate will change that one way or another? No. The change comes from the transformation. That's what this is about. The people have to change. We have to change. People, so far, have voted to chance transformation. That's what the Obama ticket is about.
Now, (your) reality kicks in and you count odds (yeah, like I can believe your odds:)). But that reality is so passe. I think we have to be realists to pick a candidate that has a chance at winning (one of the candidates of the 2 parties whether we agree with that process or not). I think Obama will have a tough time this year, big deal. Hillary would have a tough time and, in my opinion would have lost. It would have been a very negative campaign, but boring. She would have tried to turn some minds by attacking the intent and purpose of the McCain ticket and very subtly allowing personal attacks on him. Touche. It would work to a large extent, but would alienate a lot of folk as well. Very boring stuff. I think we would all feel lost at the end of that process and the economy would finish its slide into the Atlantic.
Obama's a light weight, but he ain't dumb. What's wrong with the guy? Reverend Wright? You've got to be kidding. At least the boy goes to church. What's wrong with Michelle, she doesn't sit well with you? You're characterizing the guy by how you THINK that he will come across to others. How about simply judging the man himself, regardless of his universal or national potential appeal? I know there's that 'reality' kicker that should come to play, but... we're talking about running the government. Your girl lost, now back the candidate that you think can best run the government, not the one who has the best odds in the electoral swap.
I think I appreciate where you're coming from and I understand your caution. But let's not lose this thing before we begin.
ugh? hmm? what? referring to post above me.
what is so confounding to me is that ob's base are sposed to be intellectual intelligents, yet sound like callous metro rubes to me.
blue collar jersey shore dude.
anon, you must be new here. You simply do not GET me.
Very well. One more time.
First -- unlike some of the comments I get, yours was fairly thoughtful. So please sign in with a nick or name. I came close to deleting your piece sight unseen.
Hillary is not "My girl." My god, HOW MANY FUCKING TIMES MUST I SAY IT? I support her only because she is the only thing standing between Barack Obama and the nomination. I never thought she should run, although I think she would be a competent president. That was my stance three years ago; that is my stance today.
Got it? FINALLY?
Or do I need to say it ANOTHER six dozen times?
"No. The change comes from the transformation. That's what this is about. The people have to change. We have to change. People, so far, have voted to chance transformation. That's what the Obama ticket is about."
That is precisely the kind of sickening romatnicized CRAP that turned me off from the O-Bots. My god, are you so caught up in that Messianic claptrap that you really don't know what a terrible impression you are making on the non-converted?
"What's wrong with the guy?"
Again: How many times must I say it?
HE USED THE RACE CARD. HE USED THE RACE CARD!
Bill and Hillary are 100% innocent of the charges leveled against them, as I have discussed in agonizing detail. The "darkened video" smear, the South Carolina smear, the "fairy tale" smear -- ALL smears.
It was Obama who used the race card.
One word from him, one telephone call, and all of that "Clinton's a racist" crap on Kos and elsewhere would have stopped.
Instead, Obama and his close surrogates (such as Jackson) encouraged that nonsense. Why? Because Hillary had the majority of the black vote, and that fact was KILLING Obama, both psychologically and at the polls.
His followers accused ME of racism simply because I turned against him.
Here's a small example of the process at work. You can call Hillary a "girl." (Look at your own letter.) At one time, feminists would have slapped you upside the head for that. Now you can do it all you want.
And yet god HELP me if I refer to Obama as "your boy" in exactly the same vein.
What you don't understand that if you hyper-scrutinize every single syllable uttered by your opponent, looking for any justification, however thin, to cry "Racist!" -- if you do THAT, then in the end, you will make many more enemies than friends.
Time and again, the O-Bots have smeared anyone who won't vote as they tell us to vote as a racist.
Didn't it ever occur to you that this tactic would PISS PEOPLE OFF?
I will never forgive Obama. Never. Do not try to find the words to turn me around -- you will never possess them.
Even worse, Obama's followers turned the progressive movement into a left-wing version of the Free Republic. Let me be very clear how I feel about their tactics:
I will NEVER...NEVER...NEVER...
!!!!NEVER!!!!
...forgive or forget.
Another thing. Obama is a crook.
Most people in America don't even know that there was a Rezko trial, or that Obama was mentioned (though not by name) in Fitz' indictment. Cah-MON...if you have any honesty, you will admit that if Hillary had ties to Rezko, then the trial would have led off every single news program for MONTHS.
My god, just a couple of years ago the Daley machine was considered the great embarrassment within the Democratic Party. Now the party is going to nominate a couple who crawled out of that pool of slime. If Obama wins the presidency, expect to see the same corruption that is causing taxes to skyrocket in Illinois.
Cronyism? Bush gave you just a TASTE of it.
Worse, Obi's a Libertarian. Look at his team: Liebman, Golosbee, Zbig, Daley, Axelrod -- fiends. The whole fucking lot of 'em.
Damn right I would rather see a victory by the most moderate Republican in ages, a Republican who PISSED OFF the Limbaugh base, than I would like to see Obama succeed.
And I do not want to see Kos gloat. Yes, I would rather see McCain president than to see Kos' Libertarian wing take over the Democratic Party.
"now back the candidate that you think can best run the government"
Well, that means I have to make a choice between McCain or McKinney. Probably the latter. I'm also considering a write-in for Hillary. I will never -- EVER -- vote for Obama.
No Republican -- and no Green, for that matter -- ever called me racist. The progs did, AND I WILL NEVER FORGIVE.
This may be the single smartest thing written about Obama. And in TNR, yet, which has been in the tank for Obama:
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=331c77bb-9591-422c-aa2b-11a741c6ebb9
In it, he gets to the secret of Obama's appeal to blacks:
"Why do black people love Obama? In large part, it's because of the dark-skinned woman on his arm. Black people (especially black women) are nuts for Michelle. Had Barack married a white woman, his candidacy would've never gotten off the ground with black people..."
Indeed.
Thanks for posting my article! Recent polls indicate that Hillary is winning against McCain in AR by large margins. So another state in the electoral map where Obama has no chance, but Hillary does.
Take away AR, MO, KY, WV, FL (and some say OH), and what have you got? Sure shot loss.
So to those that say it's trite to predict November at this stage of the game, I say to you that Obama has DEFINITIVE states where he cannot compete. As such, there is nothing he can do in November to compensate for the lack of these states.
(Yes, I am Vorlath. I'm Mr X on No Quarter).
The major shortcoming of the current system is that candidates have no reason to worry about the voter concerns in states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind, because the winner-take-all rule awards all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The bill would make every vote politically relevant in a presidential election. It would make every vote equal.
To be involved in the National Popular Vote bill effort . . .
You can check the status of the bill in your state at http://www.NationalPopularVote.com/pages/statesactivity.php
If it's still in play in your state, let your legislator(s) know what you think. If you need help to identify and/or contact your state representatives, senators, and/or governor about National Popular Vote, you can search by your zip code using online sites such as http://www.congress.org/congressorg/home
Sign up to get email updates - http://www.NationalPopularVote.com/pages/getemailupdates.php
Tell a friend- http://www.NationalPopularVote.com/pages/tellafriend.php
Help get the word out and show your support.
Distribute literature at political, civic, or other meeting, convention, or conference.
Post on discussion groups.
Write letters to editors, OpEds, and/or blog.
Please include a link to the National Popular Vote web site by including something like "See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com"
Post a Comment