Electoral College Math

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Obama is going to have a tough time winning this thing if he does get past Hillary. [/quote]

If?

[quote]lixy wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
Obama is going to have a tough time winning this thing if he does get past Hillary.

If?[/quote]

Yes. Obama’s supporters have this funny habit of acting as if the nomination race isn’t essentially 51%-49% in favor of Obama. Since that is the case – and two large states have, in effect, been denied any say in the matter – it is more than presumptuous for Obama’s camp to claim victory and demand that Hillary drop out.

Listening to them talk, you’d think that Hillary’s primary performance was more like Ron Paul’s.

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
Particularly given most people don’t pay attention, McCain should be able to distance himself from Bush, particularly on foreign policy issues.

lixy wrote:
So what was that “bomb, bomb, bomb Iran” and “100 years in Iraq” all about?[/quote]

The “bomb Iran” was McCain remembering a song that was popular on the radio back in 1979 ( See track 9: http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Run-Vince-Vance-Valiants/dp/B00008V605 ). McCain is old enough to remember it. He was trying to be funny - and he doesn’t care if he offends Iran. I don’t think anyone thinks he was announcing policy.

The 100 years comment has been explained ad nauseum, but here’s the explanation again: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/dnc_vs_mccain.html

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
Particularly given most people don’t pay attention, McCain should be able to distance himself from Bush, .

lixy wrote:
So what was that “bomb, bomb, bomb Iran” and “100 years in Iraq” all about?

The “bomb Iran” was McCain remembering a song that was popular on the radio back in 1979 ( See track 9: http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Run-Vince-Vance-Valiants/dp/B00008V605 ). McCain is old enough to remember it. He was trying to be funny - and he doesn’t care if he offends Iran. I don’t think anyone thinks he was announcing policy.

The 100 years comment has been explained ad nauseum, but here’s the explanation again: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/dnc_vs_mccain.html [/quote]

I am well aware of the context in which those phrases were blurted out, but it doesn’t change the fact that most people took them for war-mongering. And seeing how Bush war running on a quasi non-interventionist platform in 2000, this puts McCain way ahead in the “kill 'em all” department.

It’s worth noting that McCain called the war on Iraq “necessary and just”, and that he actively defended Bush and his policies in 2004.

I don’t really know where you’re coming from when you say that McCain distanced himself from Bush “particularly on foreign policy issues”. You see, in a recent poll, 43% of respondents say that McCain’s alignment with Bush and his policies are a major concern.

I see a lot of hopeful thinking in here from the right, but not much reality.

  1. Obama is wildly ahead under the rules of the game.

  2. Only staunch republicans are going to possibly think of McCain as anything but a Bush clone.

  3. Frankly, Obama is doing poorly in states full of uneducated rednecks… there is no mystery as to why that is occurring and it has nothing to do with elitism.

However, I’ll conceded that there are certainly potential game changers – but without them, it might be prudent not to get too excited because the local right wing all agree with each other.

[quote]lixy wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
Particularly given most people don’t pay attention, McCain should be able to distance himself from Bush, .

lixy wrote:
So what was that “bomb, bomb, bomb Iran” and “100 years in Iraq” all about?

The “bomb Iran” was McCain remembering a song that was popular on the radio back in 1979 ( See track 9: http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Run-Vince-Vance-Valiants/dp/B00008V605 ). McCain is old enough to remember it. He was trying to be funny - and he doesn’t care if he offends Iran. I don’t think anyone thinks he was announcing policy.

The 100 years comment has been explained ad nauseum, but here’s the explanation again: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/dnc_vs_mccain.html

I am well aware of the context in which those phrases were blurted out, but it doesn’t change the fact that most people took them for war-mongering. And seeing how Bush war running on a quasi non-interventionist platform in 2000, this puts McCain way ahead in the “kill 'em all” department.

It’s worth noting that McCain called the war on Iraq “necessary and just”, and that he actively defended Bush and his policies in 2004.

I don’t really know where you’re coming from when you say that McCain distanced himself from Bush “particularly on foreign policy issues”. You see, in a recent poll, 43% of respondents say that McCain’s alignment with Bush and his policies are a major concern.

Can’t get your link to work - how many of the respondents were Democrats? 43% is about right for a national sample, particularly given they like to weigh them toward Dems. And if that tracks, then McCain is doing great, because then independents aren’t equating him with Bush. In other words, I’d like to see a breakdown of the respondents on that question. vroom up there in Canada is pretty deluded if he thinks most voters equate McCain with Bush.

McCain distanced himself from Bush’s foreign policy on several fronts - w.r.t. Iraq, the most notable was that he said Rumsfeld et all were screwing up the occupation as early as 2004, and was pushing for a surge-like solution from that point until it was finally enacted years later.

McCain’s FP will be more Realism than Bush’s has been - and McCain is a classic Jacksonian, not a neo-con (in other words, he’s not going to be doing any Democracy promotion with the military).

[quote]hedo wrote:
The Dems will screw the General Election up somehow.[/quote]

True, a lot of local democrats that are Hilliary supporters seriously tell me they will go with McCain. I’m in pa., btw.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
McCain’s FP will be more Realism than Bush’s has been - and McCain is a classic Jacksonian, not a neo-con (in other words, he’s not going to be doing any Democracy promotion with the military).[/quote]

This deluded guy “up there” thinks that this is too little too late.

The lack of future actions, when they are very unlikely anyway, is hardly a way to prove differences.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Can’t get your link to work - how many of the respondents were Democrats? [/quote]

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/05/01/966433.aspx

Yeah, I tend to forget about this partisan mentality you have over there.

The question isn’t whether Bush is damaging McCain’s campaign. It’s merely about the extent of said damage.

How’s that distancing himself from Bush? The man praised Bush ad nauseaum in 2004, and now the roles are reversed.

The idea that the war on Iraq was mismanaged is not up for debate. Bush’s innermost circle acknowledge that. What is generally discussed is whether there should have been a war in the first place. And McCain alienates the majority by defending what came to be known as “The Bush Doctrine”.

Wait…you actually bought that “freedom” and “democracy” crap?

You seriously disappoint me, BB.

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
McCain’s FP will be more Realism than Bush’s has been - and McCain is a classic Jacksonian, not a neo-con (in other words, he’s not going to be doing any Democracy promotion with the military).

vroom wrote:
This deluded guy “up there” thinks that this is too little too late.

The lack of future actions, when they are very unlikely anyway, is hardly a way to prove differences.[/quote]

The deluded guy up there said:

2) Only staunch republicans are going to possibly think of McCain as anything but a Bush clone.

The non-deluded guy temporarily “over there” said:

vroom up there in Canada is pretty deluded if he thinks most voters equate McCain with Bush.

The poll lixy cited say 43% of whomever was the sample was worried that Bush equaled McCain. So, registered Republicans are around 38% or so - “staunch” Republicans somewhat less than that.

The guy “over there” thinks that lixy’s poll shows the number representing what Dems believe - and that what Dems believe really doesn’t matter, given Independents are going to provide the decisive vote (although he is also hoping lots of Dems are pissed off about the primary and stay home).

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:

Can’t get your link to work - how many of the respondents were Democrats?

43% is about right for a national sample, particularly given they like to weigh them toward Dems. And if that tracks, then McCain is doing great, because then independents aren’t equating him with Bush. In other words, I’d like to see a breakdown of the respondents on that question.

lixy wrote:

Yeah, I tend to forget about this partisan mentality you have over there.[/quote]

If you’re going to try to interpret polls from the U.S., you should keep U.S. characteristics in mind…

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

vroom up there in Canada is pretty deluded if he thinks most voters equate McCain with Bush.

lixy wrote:

The question isn’t whether Bush is damaging McCain’s campaign. It’s merely about the extent of said damage.[/quote]

If the extent of said damage doesn’t go beyond Democrats, there’s not much damage. See the whole “partisanship” thing above. Dems are going to believe what they’re going to believe, and they’re not voting for McCain in significant numbers anyway.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

McCain distanced himself from Bush’s foreign policy on several fronts - w.r.t. Iraq, the most notable was that he said Rumsfeld et all were screwing up the occupation as early as 2004, and was pushing for a surge-like solution from that point until it was finally enacted years later.

lixy wrote:

How’s that distancing himself from Bush? The man praised Bush ad nauseaum in 2004, and now the roles are reversed.

The idea that the war on Iraq was mismanaged is not up for debate. Bush’s innermost circle acknowledge that. What is generally discussed is whether there should have been a war in the first place. And McCain alienates the majority by defending what came to be known as “The Bush Doctrine”. [/quote]

Yeah - he had a knock-down, drag-out affair with Bush in 2000, and most people who will vote are aware there was bad blood there.

Then he was among the only vocal Republican critics of Bush’s policies in Iraq starting in 2004, and thus got a lot of media attention precisely because he was a critic (it served the general preferred rhetoric of the media at the time to play up, loudly, any critique of Bush’s policies, particularly from another Republican). Most voters are also aware of the speculation that Kerry was considering McCain as a running mate in 2004.

So yeah, McCain’s critique of Bush’s Iraq strategy played into the general story of a rift between Bush and McCain, and any voter who was paying attention knows the storyline. Not that you foreign observers would necessarily have the same story, but the Dems will have a mighty rough time tying McCain to Bush with anyone but partisan Democrats.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

McCain’s FP will be more Realism than Bush’s has been - and McCain is a classic Jacksonian, not a neo-con (in other words, he’s not going to be doing any Democracy promotion with the military).

lixy wrote:

Wait…you actually bought that “freedom” and “democracy” crap?

You seriously disappoint me, BB.[/quote]

I brought it up because that’s a major difference between Bush and McCain, which was kind of the overall point of the post. But the administration definitely held it as one of its priorities - that’s part of the whole neo-conservative school of foreign policy - or haven’t you read your Fukyama circa the late 90s?

You conveniently left this out of your original post:

[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
lixy wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
Obama is going to have a tough time winning this thing if he does get past Hillary.

If?

Yes. Obama’s supporters have this funny habit of acting as if the nomination race isn’t essentially 51%-49% in favor of Obama. Since that is the case – and two large states have, in effect, been denied any say in the matter – it is more than presumptuous for Obama’s camp to claim victory and demand that Hillary drop out.

Listening to them talk, you’d think that Hillary’s primary performance was more like Ron Paul’s.[/quote]

Uh, no it is still over. Count the 2 states and it is still over. Since they don’t count, it is really over. (Has been for months now)

[quote]100meters wrote:
tGunslinger wrote:
lixy wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
Obama is going to have a tough time winning this thing if he does get past Hillary.

If?

Yes. Obama’s supporters have this funny habit of acting as if the nomination race isn’t essentially 51%-49% in favor of Obama. Since that is the case – and two large states have, in effect, been denied any say in the matter – it is more than presumptuous for Obama’s camp to claim victory and demand that Hillary drop out.

Listening to them talk, you’d think that Hillary’s primary performance was more like Ron Paul’s.

Uh, no it is still over. Count the 2 states and it is still over. Since they don’t count, it is really over. (Has been for months now)[/quote]

There is nothing to prevent the super delegates to take Florida into account.

Hey, maybe they want to piss on a state that could decide this election for them, maybe they want to ignore that Obama wins in states the he will not carry against a republican but I highly doubt it.

They would also very likely have to choose to ignore the result of the popular vote which Clinton could actually win with Florida and Michigan.

If they should choose to do all that, the republicans will hammer away at it, so ignoring Fl and MI was an incredibly stupid move.

[quote]100meters wrote:
tGunslinger wrote:
lixy wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
Obama is going to have a tough time winning this thing if he does get past Hillary.

If?

Yes. Obama’s supporters have this funny habit of acting as if the nomination race isn’t essentially 51%-49% in favor of Obama. Since that is the case – and two large states have, in effect, been denied any say in the matter – it is more than presumptuous for Obama’s camp to claim victory and demand that Hillary drop out.

Listening to them talk, you’d think that Hillary’s primary performance was more like Ron Paul’s.

Uh, no it is still over. Count the 2 states and it is still over. Since they don’t count, it is really over. (Has been for months now)[/quote]

Case in point.

[quote]ceeej wrote:
You conveniently left this out of your original post:

The bottom line is that 270 is achievable, provided the Democratic ticket keeps all of these 17 states in play as long as possible. And it looks like it can. Obama has the money to fight in the truly purple states and force his opponent to defend some of the redder ones.

For the moment, McCain doesn’t have the money to respond in kind. Obama can stretch McCain’s scarcer resources. He can also improve the Democratic Party’s odds of breaking through and winning its first Electoral College majority in a dozen years. [/quote]

Conveniently because I provided the link to the original article? My, how convenient. I excerpted one paragraph - read the whole thing for yourself…

The original is by a Democratic pollster, BTW… what do you think he’s going to conclude?

Also, I stated at the beginning that the purpose of this was to illustrate to people it was going to be closer than all the Democrats around here have been assuming (contrary to whatever 100meters has been reading, a lot of people assume it’s already over and in the bag for Obama - to which this thread says: “Not so fast…”).

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

BostonBarrister wrote:

Can’t get your link to work - how many of the respondents were Democrats?

43% is about right for a national sample, particularly given they like to weigh them toward Dems. And if that tracks, then McCain is doing great, because then independents aren’t equating him with Bush. In other words, I’d like to see a breakdown of the respondents on that question.

lixy wrote:

Yeah, I tend to forget about this partisan mentality you have over there.

If you’re going to try to interpret polls from the U.S., you should keep U.S. characteristics in mind…

BostonBarrister wrote:

vroom up there in Canada is pretty deluded if he thinks most voters equate McCain with Bush.

lixy wrote:

The question isn’t whether Bush is damaging McCain’s campaign. It’s merely about the extent of said damage.

If the extent of said damage doesn’t go beyond Democrats, there’s not much damage. See the whole “partisanship” thing above. Dems are going to believe what they’re going to believe, and they’re not voting for McCain in significant numbers anyway.

BostonBarrister wrote:

McCain distanced himself from Bush’s foreign policy on several fronts - w.r.t. Iraq, the most notable was that he said Rumsfeld et all were screwing up the occupation as early as 2004, and was pushing for a surge-like solution from that point until it was finally enacted years later.

lixy wrote:

How’s that distancing himself from Bush? The man praised Bush ad nauseaum in 2004, and now the roles are reversed.

The idea that the war on Iraq was mismanaged is not up for debate. Bush’s innermost circle acknowledge that. What is generally discussed is whether there should have been a war in the first place. And McCain alienates the majority by defending what came to be known as “The Bush Doctrine”.

Yeah - he had a knock-down, drag-out affair with Bush in 2000, and most people who will vote are aware there was bad blood there.

Then he was among the only vocal Republican critics of Bush’s policies in Iraq starting in 2004, and thus got a lot of media attention precisely because he was a critic (it served the general preferred rhetoric of the media at the time to play up, loudly, any critique of Bush’s policies, particularly from another Republican).

Most voters are also aware of the speculation that Kerry was considering McCain as a running mate in 2004.

So yeah, McCain’s critique of Bush’s Iraq strategy played into the general story of a rift between Bush and McCain, and any voter who was paying attention knows the storyline. Not that you foreign observers would necessarily have the same story, but the Dems will have a mighty rough time tying McCain to Bush with anyone but partisan Democrats.

BostonBarrister wrote:

McCain’s FP will be more Realism than Bush’s has been - and McCain is a classic Jacksonian, not a neo-con (in other words, he’s not going to be doing any Democracy promotion with the military).

lixy wrote:

Wait…you actually bought that “freedom” and “democracy” crap?

You seriously disappoint me, BB.

I brought it up because that’s a major difference between Bush and McCain, which was kind of the overall point of the post. But the administration definitely held it as one of its priorities - that’s part of the whole neo-conservative school of foreign policy - or haven’t you read your Fukyama circa the late 90s?[/quote]

Mildly criticizing the war effort’s tactics, isn’t really a major difference of course.

[quote]100meters wrote:

Mildly criticizing the war effort’s tactics, isn’t really a major difference of course. [/quote]

It was hardly mild, your poor memories notwithstanding:

And of course, it helps that McCain was right:

http://www.redstate.com/stories/war/about_that_surge_strategy

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
ceeej wrote:
You conveniently left this out of your original post:

The bottom line is that 270 is achievable, provided the Democratic ticket keeps all of these 17 states in play as long as possible. And it looks like it can. Obama has the money to fight in the truly purple states and force his opponent to defend some of the redder ones.

For the moment, McCain doesn’t have the money to respond in kind. Obama can stretch McCain’s scarcer resources. He can also improve the Democratic Party’s odds of breaking through and winning its first Electoral College majority in a dozen years.

Conveniently because I provided the link to the original article? My, how convenient. I excerpted one paragraph - read the whole thing for yourself…

The original is by a Democratic pollster, BTW… what do you think he’s going to conclude?

Also, I stated at the beginning that the purpose of this was to illustrate to people it was going to be closer than all the Democrats around here have been assuming (contrary to whatever 100meters has been reading, a lot of people assume it’s already over and in the bag for Obama - to which this thread says: “Not so fast…”).[/quote]

If you notice I changed what I said originally. Funny thing is, I edited my post within a minute of posting it… WAIT… I edited it to say “I hope we don’t screw up this election, like we always do” BUT it went back to the old post. WTF.

I’d rather not debate this online. Right now I live in Texas in a very conservative city… Case in point:

http://media.www.dailytoreador.com/media/storage/paper870/news/2008/02/12/News/Professor.Watch.List.Tech.Conservatives.Establish.List.Of.biased.Professors-3202268.shtml

I see where you were going with your post. I get frustrated being a liberal in such a conservative state/area.

So I have to put up with this stuff way too much. But I do agree that it isn’t “over”. I would prefer if Hillary just backed off and supported Obama. If she wins I may just vote for Superman or Mickey Mouse.