And there you go, saying whatever you like. QED.
Or were you about to point us to some better data?
So when exactly will you start to look at the democratic front as a united front? Can we begin talks on how the nominee will beat McCain in the fall? Or should we wait?
You don’t need my permission or anybody else’s to start a thread wondering what Obama’s path to an EC majority will be. I look forward to your thoughts on the matter.
“IS going to happen”??
You’re saying the Dem insiders are going to make Hillary the nominee, in the Democratic Party’s first ‘smoke-filled room’ deal since 1968?
I guess that IS what you’re saying.
And not even, ‘this might happen’ or ‘this could happen’ but “that’s what IS going to happen.”
Can I borrow your crystal ball? If you can use it to sneak a peek from the Democratic Convention in August, I want to flip to the August stock quotes for a moment. Cushy retirement, here I come!
No, because it doesn’t exist yet. That doesn’t make your data any more valid.
I’ve pointed out a couple pretty major areas of concern in your data. Do you have rebuttals for why we should still consider it valid or should we just dismiss those concerns because you might mockingly say “You’ll say whatever you like”?
One great thing about valid data is that it’s defendable.
At this point in the game, there’s no better guide, and even that’s a relatively weak one.
I’ve dismissed “the only data there is” only after you’ve defined “the data ElvisL1ves prefers” as “the only data there is.”
So yeah, I dismiss the data you prefer, because it sucks. It’s the same data that said in June of 2004 that South Carolina was competitive. :rolleyes:
If you don’t know when the last time is that a Presidential candidate has won the popular vote by more than 1%, but lost in the Electoral College, then there’s not much point in continuing with you.
It’s really hard for a swing of a few percentage points in the national popular vote to not swing some states with it. It’s not like these are unrelated phenomena.
But right now, states are flipping all over the place from one poll to the next. Small samples, a race that doesn’t have much definition yet, all that.
What do we know at the state level? That most of the states that went for Kerry in 2004 will go for Obama this time, and most of the states that went for Bush in 2004 will go for McCain this time. That’s it.
Oh, gimme a freakin’ break. You were saying it was all about November, and I’m saying your ‘evidence’ that Hillary’s the stronger November candidate is bullshit. I reject and denounce my use of ‘invincible,’ if that makes you feel better. Fercryinoutloud.
Lessee: assuming arguendo that there’s a point to debating state polls at all, the polls in the past month (about as far back as you’d want to go in this rapidly-changing election season) have Obama ahead in PA, and behind by 1% in each of OH and FL.
“[T]ry to find a way for Obama to come from behind in any of them”? Man, I just can’t see it. No fuckin’ way! 
Besides, he only needs one out of three, and he seems to be in fine shape to accomplish that. Obama has plenty of routes to 269 without going through Florida and Ohio.
My point exactly. Thanks.
No.
This has been another edition of simple answers to simple questions.
RTF you do know that those rooms are now no smoking? Otherwise carry on.
BTW, the Chicago Cubs have the second best record in all of Major League Baseball right now. From this available data they have the second best chance in the league of winning the World Series! Whoo Hoo!
Not a fair analogy. Standings in baseball actually have some validity, the Cubs have a chance to keep playing and may really do it; Clinton OTOH is already past the expiration date.
I do wonder if there are any Clinton supporters here who are willing to seriously discuss the process of pivoting to the general even as a hypothetical.
And if anyone is curious about what Obama’s path to an Electoral majority may look like there is an active discussion of it in the “Forked” thread. Please join us there. To recap though, IMHO the question is whether he plays it safe and goes with a Strickland or a Rendell as a VP choice to secure Ohio and/or Pennsylvania (the 50 plus one approach) or sticks to his guns and risks it all aiming for an electoral blow-out leaving no state uncontested, trying to pull off even some previously red Southern states and Western ones, and minimally making McCain use up resources defending them (the 50 state strategy). Such a decision would come with a different sort of VP selection that assumes the base will rally and that he can win PA and/or OH without having to give that chip away. I suspect the latter and despite the fact that it comes with greater risk to his success it assures greater Congressional gains, better inroads for future elections, and the possibility of winning with a perceived mandate and a solid Congressional majority. Others think it will be a squeaker no matter what.
*Most * people learn in life that simple answers are very often wrong, and to be suspicious of them. Reagan made exactly the same point you are in his debate with Mondale, for instance - is he your ideal of intellectual honesty?
Apparently you’d just like every problem, every challenge to your way of thinking, to simply go away with a handwave, but real life isn’t like that, as you may come to find out.
The rest of your post was sheer fancy for which serious replies are useless.
My dear Elvis, that was a conclusion, based on the arguments that preceded it.
Conclusions are often simple; it’s the getting there that’s the interesting part. If you want to dismiss all that, and pretend that the statement of the conclusion is the argument, then I can’t help you.
No, but if he was “asserting that there is no huge and obvious electability edge for either” Hillary or Obama, as I did, then I’d give him high marks for his crystal-ball skillz.
Either of you two ever play tennis with a cue ball? It doesn’t work, but it’s fun to watch.
Carry on. 
But only one of them brought a racquet.
Somebody call the Whaaaaambulance!
A quick trip to MyDD and the like reveal that a few hardcore Hillbots are still holding on. Tell me, at what point will you stop complaining, and get in line to vote against McCain? This is really starting to get pathetic. Everyone has moved on but the slim minority of Democrats.
Myself, I’m here for ElvisLives’ acerbic style debate.
Incoming ad Hominem in
3…
2…
1…
Scroll up for spoke-'s last post. Think about it a little, and try again.
Then maybe one, just *one * of you can try to show us how Obama gets up to 273 EV’s. That would be just a little more useful, to him as well as to the Fight Against Ignorance, than the kind of gleeful but childish bashing you’re using instead.
- Where’d 273 come from? It’s 269.
- Most obvious route: Kerry states + IA and any 2 out of 3 of CO, NM, and NV.
- There are plenty of others, including winning OH or FL where the only recent poll in each state has Obama trailing McCain by a gargantuan 1%.
- If he wins the popular vote by 1%, he’ll pick up 269 somewhere. Ask me if I care where.
- That’s enough EC analysis for here. I’ll save more detailed analysis of EC prospects for a thread devoted to that purpose, rather than one devoted to last week’s primary.
Well, what did we finally decide? Does West — Obama flooded with superdelegates, Edwards endorses Obama, Bush attacks Obama, Obama slams McCain, Obama endorser Ted Kennedy in hospital — Virgina matter?
There’s a guy named Al who might like to discuss that with you.
Even so, you have to hope for Obama to get some breaks and pick up some significant support where he doesn’t already have it. WV and the rest of the upcoming primaries, possibly excepting only OR, should show he just might not be able to. He has to figure out how, and anybody’s ideas about how to do that without simply dismissing working-class whites as racists would help the discussion, too.
But congratulations on at least starting to face the little matter of “winning” with a bit of seriousness. I did have my doubts, and for that matter still do.
Sorry, I can’t get him that missing 0.5% of the popular vote to boost him up to a 1% lead. Much as I wish I could.
Not necessarily. The only recent FL and OH polls have him within the MOE; as far as we know, he could be ahead in both.
At any rate, Obama’s currently ahead by 5% nationally, per RCP. And he’s got piles and piles of money. What do you do with that? You don’t focus on specific states. You play in in all but a handful of safe states on either side, then see where you catch fire.
And ultimately, it’s going to be message that wins this election. Any Dem could have drawn a big distinction between McCain on tax and economic issues, and their alternative. Obama can draw a similarly big distinction on foreign policy too, and take the initiative there. (You notice he’s not sitting still for GOP bitch-slaps here.) If Obama owns the economy, and can present a credible alternative on foreign policy, rather than doing GOP-lite as Hillary would have, he’s golden.
Oh, don’t worry, I ‘started’ to do that long ago.
You obviously do get the point, even though the only reply you can muster for it is snark, not thought.
As already pointed out, he needs breaks to go his way. That bit of information supports that.
To repeat an earlier question, so what?
Just like the last two? :dubious: You ought to know by now how that can get twisted, and you also ought to know by now how badly Obama has been at deploying countermeasures. Any expectation that this election will be somehow be different is not reality-based. It is instead a repeat of traditional Dem thinking that depends on the electorate simply coming to its senses and recognizing our superior policies, our superior candidates, and our superior morality, and that every fourth November leads to wondering what the hell happened instead. That’s followed, btw, by a group singalong of “Won’t Get Fooled Again”, even though some of us know too many others of us will *too * get fooled again, as this thread evidences.
So what lesson *does * the WV result hold for you? Is there anything at all you think you or Obama could learn from it, anything it indicates he would even need to do, much less how to do it? :dubious:
The point is that Gore doesn’t have grounds to disagree with me.
All you are doing is speculating. I don’t plan on rebutting meaningless speculation.
Actually, I agree with that.
At this point, we don’t have a clue as to what the race will actually look like. We don’t know what issues or themes emphasized by which candidate will resonate with which voters, or which attacks on which candidate will find traction with which groups.
Until then, we not only don’t know what the map looks like, but Obama’s 5-point lead is untested.
But the same would be true with Hillary v. McCain, too. Knowing how either race would play out from here is complete speculation.
My point exactly. Until we see how the attacks and counterattacks play out, we don’t know what the terrain of this election really is.
Actually, that’s one area where I’ve been pleasantly (and quite genuinely) surprised by how well he’s done. He responded quickly and ably to Bush’s smears before the Knesset the other day. His handling of the Wright affair seems to have gotten that to the point where, when the GOP raises it in the fall, everyone will go, “yeah, yeah, heard all that, got something new?” (And the net is that, despite the last Wright round’s recentness, he’s still the aforementioned 5% ahead in the polls.) Clinton wins big in WV? Obama pushes it off the news cycle with Edwards’ endorsement.
So I’m afraid we’ll have to agree to disagree about that, because I’m seeing a guy who’s got game in this department.
Different from what? It’s like the old joke structure, where you’ve got three guys walking into a bar, or whatever: two to set the pattern, and the third to break it. Two elections isn’t enough of a pattern to regard as immutable. The 1992 and 1996 maps looked very different from those of 2000 and 2004.
Sorry, but I’m using the term in the broad sense, that would include Wright, Swiftboating, not inhaling, and Willie Horton.
So do we know yet what the dominant messages of this campaign are? Hell, no. You don’t know what they’ll be, and neither do I. What I do know is that (a) both Hillary and Obama have strengths and weaknesses as candidates, and it’s hard for me to make a comparison between them on those grounds that I feel is reliable; and (b) I’d much rather see Obama in the White House.
Yes. Long before WV, we’ve known that the best predictor of whether a nonblack voter would vote for Hillary or Obama is age. The obvious means of ensuring that this doesn’t become a problem for Obama in the general? Point out that McCain, like Bush, has wanted to privatize Social Security for many years, and has reiterated that desire in the present campaign:
Yep, that’s gonna play well with middle-aged (and older) blue-collar types.
I should add that whatever lesson Obama needs to learn from WV isn’t strictly a WV lesson, although WV and KY fall into its wheelhouse. It’s a lesson about the purple areas on the black-and-purple map at the link.