Wikipedia can be your friend. You can also just have a look at the brevity of the periods in recent history in which the same party has controlled both ends of the street - split control is the tradition, not the exception. Don’t you think that the Dems were given back control of Congress in 2006 largely in the expectation that they’d keep Bush under control, for instance?
Coupla things - there are more independents than adherents of either party, especially now, and that’s who decides elections. An independent has an interest in not allowing either party to gain too much power. For another thing, the level of partisanship we’ve had since Gingrich’s rise is not the historical pattern - it has been customary for the 2 major parties to be able to compromise, and split control forces them to do so (or else get nothing done, which is usually far from the worst possible outcome anyway).
McCain has not begun to be tested yet. His nomination was won by sheer luck. His New Hampshire win was triggered by independents bypassing a Democratic race that they assumed was in the bag for Obama. In South Carolina, he benefited by having Thompson, Romney, and Huckabee dividing up the fundamentalist vote. Then Guiliani helpfully didn’t start his campaign till Florida and Huckabee was kind enough to prevent Romney from monopolizing the fundamentalists. To use a sports analogy, Obama won his nomination with a 99 yard drive against a tough defense. McCain had a fumble roll right to him in the end zone.
The guy has a tough job. He’s trying to sell an unpopular war and the sorry state of the economy. He even admits he knows little about the economy. On the issues, he’s clearly toast. He has his biography to fall back on, but when he gets the scrutiny of the fall campaign he’s going to look like a mean little man hopelessly out of touch with the country.
Dude, if you had bothered to fucking pay attention any of the previous times, you wouldn’t have any excuse to blame anybody else for your failure to do so. Now cut the shit, okay? :rolleyes: If you can, that is.
But if you’re still having trouble understanding that “having less than half the vote” is not synonymous with “winning”, there’s plenty more basic work to do first.
Either answer the question asked or admit what is otherwise obvious, that you just can’t make yourself do so.
Said like a red blooded Clinton Supporter. Unless Obama takes your candidate as his Vice Presidential candidate thereis no way he can win.
I think not. I’m finally tired of the BS, seriously, this is shit. Clinton’s campaign LOST months ago, when they were mildly playing by the rules, when Obama began winning, and winning big all the goal posts changed, all the rules suddenly had caveats and the end game was becoming more and more opaque to these people.
Good God, WTF!
Political threads are always veiled in “the best interests of your candidate” but they have morphed into something else - they have morphed into a “He said, she said grudge match”. Listening to the pundits, NPR, CNN, and other news agencies in the Main Stream Media it appears clear to me that Obama is going to be the Nominee. He will NOT choose Clinton as his running mate, and will go on to run a 50 state campaign - AGAIN. This is not McCain’s election to lose.
Glad you cleared that up for me, since what you’re saying and the wikipedia article are saying are two different things. The wikipedia article says that split ticket voting means people vote for who they think is the best candidate, regardless of their party, as opposed to straight ticket voting.
You’re saying that it means people will go out of their way to try and maintain one party as a majority in congress and one party controlling the white house… which isn’t what split ticket voting means at all.
Having an opponent for starters. The media will at some point quit fawning over his POW record and decide that perhaps the last 40 years have some relevance.
You have more faith in the sense of community responsibility of the Beltway Bubble Media than seems to be borne out by their performance since their corporatization in the Reagan years, then.
FWIW, I’ve seen almost no references this year to his POW record, only to his image of leadership and ethicality and straight-talking and maverickness.
Come on. I suppose you never heard Rudy invoke 9/11 either? He gave up the maverick schtick a long time ago. How do his policies substantially differ from Bush’s?
Obama’s got six months to campaign in FL. I find it hard to believe that Hillary Clinton is his only salvation for winning that state. No I have no cites. However, his choice of VP will certainly take winning FL into account. I don’t think Obama got to where he is by being dunce - and I’ve got no ill will towards Hillary or her constituents [I’ve got some gripes about how she ran her campaign] but as a human being I actually like the woman. I think Obama and his choice of VP will be carefully thought out and FL will be taken into account.** I think there are some who underestimate how many Obama/Clinton democrats there are out there who do not want another 4 years of a republican in office. **
They don’t. I was talking about his media image, which like it or not is what matters in a campaign. Weren’t you?
Phl, you do know Obama’s put his VP choice in the hands of the same guy who did it for Kerry and Mondale, right? We can *hope * he’s learned something since, at least.
The media image will change as soon as they pan the cameras away from Obama and Hillary and focus on John W. McCain.
Fritz Mondale could have run with Jesus Christ as his running mate and still have gotten trounced by Reagan. Sometimes the American people are determined not to do the right thing. In fairness to Kerry/Edwards, the only reason they aren’t running for reelection is the crookedness of the 2004 Ohio election.
Yes, ultimately the vote for Reagan was the responsibility of the electorate, not the media, as any election is. But don’t you think that was very heavily influenced by the coverage provided by a coterie of club-member reporters who simply *liked * Reagan personally more than they liked Mondale? Wasn’t the same factor present for Dubya vs. Kerry, and certainly vs. Gore? Was either campaign dominated by issues, or was coverage dominated by inventing the Internet and Swiftboating?
Now compare that to the fawning treatment McCain has received so far, and tell us where you get your belief that *somehow * this time will be different.
Here is what Obama will have to do to get all the Hillary votes on his side: Nothing. Nada. Zip. His opponent is a fucking REPUBLICAN. Almost all Dems have had enough of Republican rule over the last eight years. They not only will not vote for a Republican candidate they will go out and vote FOR a Dem candidate they despise because the alternative is worse. Don’t let the immediacies of the current campaign blind you to the effect that being a Republican punching bag for eight years has had on Dems.
Here is what Obama will have to do to defeat John McCain: play good defense. The Dems are not the ones responsible for the Iraq war, and most of all, they are not responsible (in the public’s mind) for the fact that gas is up to over four dollars a fucking gallon right now. The Republicans OWN those. All Obama has to do is respond immediately to any Swiftboating or similar sneaky shit from Karl Rove and his minions, and he’s got the election in the bag.
The only uncertainty I have is this: of course, McCain has the “I’ll never vote for a nigger” vote sewn up. But how effective, how widespread is the “It’s not that he’s black, but …” phenomenon among the independents who’ll decide the election? And how strong will it be in relation to: “want four more years of runaway gas prices, a horrible war, and economic incompetence from the Republicans?”
Those are the key questions as far as I’m concerned.
He wins Florida’s electoral votes by getting more popular votes there … at least in most years.
You really don’t understand how this works, do you?
Now DrDeth is asserting that he cannot do that without Hillary on the ticket. That is an opinion which (s)he is entitled to. He offers in support currently available polling data which shows that as of a period time before he has significantly campaigned in Florida, during which the Clinton forces are portraying Obama as conspiring with the Republicans to disenfranchise them. That data means very little as more is likely to change in Florida during the next period time than in many other states. Delegates will get seated and Obama will campaign there in particular. Amazingly his support grows where he shows up. So yes, he shows up there, he campaigns there, he wins votes. That’s how he does it. Florida may be a tough sell for Obama but I disagree that it is out of play without Clinton on the ticket or even that she’d help much there. Obviously none of us really know … well except for Elvis who knows all and for whom his post can be his cite.
Dr.D also makes the assertion that there is no electoral map that wins for Obama without winning Florida. I guess for Hillary supporters there are many states that you can’t win the White House unless you win … I’ve lost count, but generally they seem to be any state that Hillary does better in! No, that claim is certainly specious. There are many combinations that win without Florida and Florida has scarcely been the bellweather state.
