"I'm GGG and I approve this message."

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by Not Bob
Yeah, I'm whiffing.

Ty probably meant that she is the junior senator from New York, and had the state Democratic organization (such as it is -- the tyger hasn't exactly been burning bright since Mrs. Roosevelt knee-capped Carmine DeSapio) behind her.

But another reason is that New York isn't typically considered a swing state.

Aren't you missing a "the" in your re: line? Which I love by the way. But if it is not missing a "the", then I may not understand it. Which would probably make my love a bit misplaced.

not bob was here to fix the re line

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Why toss out New York?

If you want Not Bob to post a 19th-century cartoon of a carpetbagger, just ask him.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
The more important question is, are there any of these states that Hillary would win in November but Obama will lose? California, New Jersey

With McCain running, I wouldn't put NJ in that bucket so quickly.

I think the Democrats have two strong candidates this time around, and the Republicans now have one weak one.

OK, this comment is just plain silly. McCain is hardly a weak candidate. He's the candidate the Dems always feared the most because of his centrist/independent appeal.

Hillary never polls greater than 50% nationally - so not sure how she is then a "strong" candidate (on a national level) either.

It doesn't mean that McCain can't win, since all sorts of things can happen

Unless you miraculously get an Obama/Hillary ticket (in that order) - and you wont - or unless McCain has some Gary Hart/Howard Dean meltdown, McCain is poised to win.

....people have got to stop interpreting Obama or Clinton's successes as failures on the part of the other. More people voted in Texas's Democratic primary than voted for Kerry in Texas in 2004. That tells you something.

Polls show Hillary won by an astounding margin those folks that decided in the last week. Coincidentally, this was the post-SNL week when the media finally began to ask Obama some tough questions, and he then walked out of the room. Looks like a failure to me.

As for vote turnout, it probably means nothing more than they hate the other person seriously enough to leave work early to vote.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
Aren't you missing a "the" in your re: line? Which I love by the way. But if it is not missing a "the", then I may not understand it. Which would probably make my love a bit misplaced.

Whoops. I'll fix it.

[Adder]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Speaking of - here is a serious question for you and others that generally vote Democrat.

Is it of any concern that - Illinois aside - Hillary has swept all of the important, large Blue (and Swing) states, while Obama has dominated in all of the states that tend to go Red?

To me, Obama seems most popular in states that wont vote Democrat in November.

This could ultimately be a meaningless distinction, but I am curious as to your thoughts.

Either of them will win the blue states that Hillary won in the general election.

Obama's relative sucess in the red states may suggest that he can bring them into play.

But then Hillary went and won Texas and Ohio, so who the heck knows.

[SlaveNoMore]

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
The electoral math is tough, but I swung from Hillary to Obama on election day to a great extent because I think his electoral math is better.

Hillary looks like she'll do better in a number of the traditional swing states like Ohio and Florida. She also could conceivably win Arkansas. BUT, it looks like Obama will do better in a number of states that have been trending Democratic but haven't been as central to the Democratic strategy since Bill Clinton's first election - Virginia, Missouri, Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada. He consistently polls ahead of her in national polls against McCain, and that means he'll also have a stronger 50 state run, and could surprise McCain in a couple of spots not expected to be in play. The 50 state run will help consolidate Congress and the Senate. And Hillary doesn't run as well in the upper Mid-West, and could lose Minnesota, Wisconsin, or Iowa, all sizable states that Obama runs well in.

It's a tough call as to which will do better. But those spreads in national polls against McCain are pretty significant. Making electoral math work when you're 2% down nationally is a lot tougher than making it work when you're 4 or 5% up.

Interesting answer. Thanks.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop


The more important question is, are there any of these states that Hillary would win in November but Obama will lose? California, New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts -- obviously not.

I will be offering 6 bets this time around. 1 month of board support each on the election. The kicker is that if McCain carries any of those states, or Mi. or Pa., the Dem has to pay 2 months.

First 6 takers.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Yes, such a common crime. I find myself doing an awful lot of hand wringing over that.

There are a lot of domestic violence cases where the husband/boyfriend gets pissed off at his wife/girlfriend and to punish her, he intentionaly assualts her in a way to hurt the fetus.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Spanky
There are a lot of domestic violence cases where the husband/boyfriend gets pissed off at his wife/girlfriend and to punish her, he intentionaly assualts her in a way to hurt the fetus.

have you moved to, like, Kentucky, or something?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Cletus Miller
There's been a lot of chatter about Clinton being easier for McCain to beat than Obama.

I don't think that is true. Once the voters see how liberal Obama is, I think he will be much easier to beat. The Republican in me wanted Obama to win last night, but my political voyeur side wanted Hillary to win.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
OK, this comment is just plain silly. McCain is hardly a weak candidate. He's the candidate the Dems always feared the most because of his centrist/independent appeal.

From what other people have said around here, I expect my view is in the minority. You are right that McCain appeals to independents. OTOH, he has a fractured base. Lots of conservatives don't like him. Many will hold their noses and vote for him, but many won't bother. And won't give him money. He's running way behind in fundraising. His campaign's organization has been a running soap opera. I tend to think Senators make lousy candidates, for reasons that Kerry helped illustrate, and McCain really suffers from this. And if he's ever been in a tight race, it was in the late Jurassic Era. He doesn't give a hoot about domestic policy, and we're heading into a recession.

And I haven't even said anything about the war yet.

eta: Oh, and he's really old.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
The electoral math is tough, but I swung from Hillary to Obama on election day to a great extent because I think his electoral math is better.

Hillary looks like she'll do better in a number of the traditional swing states like Ohio and Florida. She also could conceivably win Arkansas. BUT, it looks like Obama will do better in a number of states that have been trending Democratic but haven't been as central to the Democratic strategy since Bill Clinton's first election - Virginia, Missouri, Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada. He consistently polls ahead of her in national polls against McCain, and that means he'll also have a stronger 50 state run, and could surprise McCain in a couple of spots not expected to be in play. The 50 state run will help consolidate Congress and the Senate. And Hillary doesn't run as well in the upper Mid-West, and could lose Minnesota, Wisconsin, or Iowa, all sizable states that Obama runs well in.

It's a tough call as to which will do better. But those spreads in national polls against McCain are pretty significant. Making electoral math work when you're 2% down nationally is a lot tougher than making it work when you're 4 or 5% up.

If Gore couldn't win Tennessee, Hillary can't win in Arkansas.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If you want Not Bob to post a 19th-century cartoon of a carpetbagger, just ask him.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Spanky
There are a lot of domestic violence cases where the husband/boyfriend gets pissed off at his wife/girlfriend and to punish her, he intentionaly assualts her in a way to hurt the fetus.

There was one in Texas where she testified that she asked him to do it, but prosecutors were pretty sure that she was the victim of domestic abuse and her testimony wasn't particularly credible.

http://www.dentonrc.com/sharedconten....bbda0e47.html

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
From what other people have said around here, I expect my view is in the minority. You are right that McCain appeals to independents. OTOH, he has a fractured base. Lots of conservatives don't like him. Many will hold their noses and vote for him, but many won't bother. And won't give him money. He's running way behind in fundraising. His campaign's organization has been a running soap opera. I tend to think Senators make lousy candidates, for reasons that Kerry helped illustrate, and McCain really suffers from this. And if he's ever been in a tight race, it was in the late Jurassic Era. He doesn't give a hoot about domestic policy, and we're heading into a recession.

And I haven't even said anything about the war yet.

am I on ignore?




or are oyu full of shit?