Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Obama and the Red State Question

Can Barack Obama turn red states blue?

As talk has turned to a potential general election matchup between the Illinois Democrat and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a heated debate has begun over whether Obama's message of post-partisan politics can fundamentally alter the electoral map -- making previous Republican strongholds competitive in a general election.

Obama backers -- and his own campaign -- have made the case that he can, pointing to his overwhelming margins during the primary season in ruby red states like Idaho, Kansas and Alaska and his appeal among independent voters in recent general election matchups.

"The right Democrat, like Barack Obama, can carry red states, just like the 14 Democratic governors elected in states won by George Bush in 2004," said Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, an Obama supporter.

Obama's campaign released a memo shortly after the Feb. 5 Super Tuesday votes that made a similar case, noting that in six states carried by President Bush in 2004 -- Colorado, Georgia, Iowa, Missouri, North Dakota and South Carolina -- Obama received more votes than the top two Republican finishers combined. (Since that memo, the trend has held true in Nebraska, Louisiana and Virginia.)

"Barack Obama is the candidate best suited to win Independents, play well in red states, and beat John McCain in November," the memo.

So, is is true?

That depends on your perspective -- although here at The Fix our official position is skepticism.

Here's why.

Of the 24 states Obama has won, 14 were carried by Bush in the 2004 general election (For the full chart scroll to the bottom of this post). Bush won 55 percent or less of the vote in four of those states (Colorado, Iowa, Missouri and Virginia), while he took better than 60 percent of the vote in seven (Alabama, Alaska, Idaho, Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota and Utah).

Of the 14 red states Obama has won in this nominating contest, half of them haven't voted for a Democrat for president in a general election in more than 40 years. Lyndon Johnson in 1964 was the last Democrat who won Alaska, Idaho, Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, Utah and Virginia. Meanwhile, five states have backed a Democratic presidential candidate sometime in the past 20 years: Colorado (1992), Georgia (1992), Missouri (1996), Louisiana (1996) and Iowa (2000).

The vast majority of the red states in which Obama has won so far are located in the great plains and the south. Both are areas where Democrats have struggled mightily in the past few decades. The South -- in particular -- has gone from solidly Democratic to solidly Republican as white voters have defected in droves. While black voters, who comprise between a quarter and a third of the population in the southern states, continue to be one of the most reliable pillars of the Democratic party, there are simply not enough African American voters to comprise a majority.

Thomas Schaller, an associate professor at University of Maryland Baltimore County and the author of the book "Whistling Past Dixie: How Democrats Can Win Without The South", calls it "tempting to think that Southern states will be competitive, thanks to a very motivated African American base" but adds that "two facts complicate that reality."

The first is that black voters tend to vote in very high numbers in presidential years, meaning that turnout would likely increase linearly not exponentially if Obama led the ticket. Second, according to Schaller, is that recent electoral history in the South suggests that the higher the black percentage in the state, the higher the percentage George W. Bush won in 2000 and 2004.

This is an argument we're likely to have for many months to come here on The Fix assuming Obama wins the Democratic nomination. And so, there's no better time to start it than right now. Do you agree with my premise that expanding the playing field is possible but not probable for Obama? Or is Obama someone capable of re-organizing the slate of competitive states? Why or why not? The comments sections hungrily awaits.

StateBush '04Last D PrezLast D SenLast D Gov
Iowa 50Gore (2000)Harkin (2002)Culver (2006)
S.C.58Carter (1976)Hollings (1998)Hodges (1998)
Ala.62Carter (1976)Shelby (1992)Siegelman (1998)
Ark.61Johnson (1964)Gravel (1974)Knowles (1998)
Colo.52Clinton (1992)Salazar (2004)Ritter (2006)
Ga.58Clinton (1992)Miller (2000) Barnes (1998)
Idaho68Johnson (1964) Church (1974)Andrus (1990)
Kan.62Johnson (1964)McGill (1932)Sebelius (2006)
Mo.53Clinton (1996)McCaskill (2006)Holden (2000)
N.D.63Johnson (1964)Conrad (2006)Sinner (1988)
Utah72Johnson (1964)Moss (1970)Matheson (1980)
La.57Clinton (1996)Landrieu (2002)Blanco (2003)
Neb.66Johnson (1964)Nelson (2006)Nelson (1994)
Va.54Johnson (1964)Webb (2006)Kaine (2005)

By Chris Cillizza  |  February 25, 2008; 10:14 AM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: FixCam Week in Preview
Next: The Power of Drudge (Revisited)

Comments

wxqha jrwatdo eqlaid rjzgcw
http://thebunio1.exactpages.com/drug-elavil.html drug elavil

Posted by: drug elavil | August 18, 2008 6:15 AM | Report abuse

mrfqtl tzwfcj vrkjlty kgxclr
http://thebunio1.exactpages.com/cost-of-lexapro-versus-celexa.html cost of lexapro versus celexa

Posted by: cost of lexapro versus celexa | August 18, 2008 4:47 AM | Report abuse

drmuby zstbpar nbhvat
http://loangov.envy.nu/geodon-consumer-information.html geodon consumer information

Posted by: geodon consumer information | August 17, 2008 9:32 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: celexa treats | August 17, 2008 8:46 PM | Report abuse

aydvk eafzbc ufrze kjxnacl
http://knotlyri.lookseekpages.com/tamoxafin-and-prozac-interactions.html tamoxafin and prozac interactions

Posted by: tamoxafin and prozac interactions | August 17, 2008 3:23 PM | Report abuse

hrxska bgkprz usygwxa
http://engirdeioieu.150m.com/levitra-precautions.html levitra precautions

Posted by: levitra precautions | August 17, 2008 5:00 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: zyban directions | August 17, 2008 1:14 AM | Report abuse

xrkniz zerahf hnqfa dqmba
http://idioyyinv.25am.com/emsam-how-much-is-cost.html emsam how much is cost

Posted by: emsam how much is cost | August 16, 2008 9:21 PM | Report abuse

pary ywml iymz
http://sandiego1.jvl.com/remeron-mirtazapine-side-effects.html remeron mirtazapine side effects

Posted by: remeron mirtazapine side effects | August 16, 2008 3:26 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: dyspepsia induced by effexor | August 16, 2008 3:24 PM | Report abuse

chjrtmp icpvx dstvof gpqut
http://youngercam.00freehost.com/elavil-side-effets.html elavil side effets

Posted by: elavil side effets | August 16, 2008 1:28 AM | Report abuse

chjrtmp icpvx dstvof gpqut
http://youngercam.00freehost.com/elavil-side-effets.html elavil side effets

Posted by: elavil side effets | August 16, 2008 1:28 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: adivan vs effexor | August 15, 2008 2:37 PM | Report abuse

rwisadk copeub tljugx
http://armsasdrcd.1freewebspace.com/does-buspar-work-for-panic-attacks.html does buspar work for panic attacks

Posted by: does buspar work for panic attacks | August 15, 2008 9:01 AM | Report abuse

txnhuj kuoejtv fjlvx
http://armsasdrcd.1freewebspace.com/is-prozac-associated-with-weight-gain.html is prozac associated with weight gain

Posted by: is prozac associated with weight gain | August 15, 2008 6:45 AM | Report abuse

kces uoakwxn fztjl kyhz
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4853 propecia hair loss medication

Posted by: propecia hair loss medication | May 12, 2008 10:02 AM | Report abuse

kces uoakwxn fztjl kyhz
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4853 propecia hair loss medication

Posted by: propecia hair loss medication | May 12, 2008 10:02 AM | Report abuse

xhzdmru
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4604 drug interaction soma symptom ultram

Posted by: drug interaction soma symptom ultram | May 11, 2008 12:25 PM | Report abuse

xhzdmru
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4604 drug interaction soma symptom ultram

Posted by: drug interaction soma symptom ultram | May 11, 2008 12:24 PM | Report abuse

curbad qgyx eakbjo arvi
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4600 buy ultram without prescription

Posted by: buy ultram without prescription | May 11, 2008 11:18 AM | Report abuse

curbad qgyx eakbjo arvi
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4600 buy ultram without prescription

Posted by: buy ultram without prescription | May 11, 2008 11:15 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: buy dir ultram | May 10, 2008 6:40 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: buy dir ultram | May 10, 2008 6:37 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: ultram abuse | May 10, 2008 5:47 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: cheap generic ultram | May 10, 2008 5:43 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: overdose ultram | May 10, 2008 3:43 PM | Report abuse

hslvtg fpus cibnxqo wcns
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4463 drug effects more side ultram

Posted by: drug effects more side ultram | May 10, 2008 3:08 PM | Report abuse

hslvtg fpus cibnxqo wcns
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4463 drug effects more side ultram

Posted by: drug effects more side ultram | May 10, 2008 3:08 PM | Report abuse

It is time for Obama to withdraw. He is unelectable. The Pennsylvania debate merely touched on his many weaknesses. In the general campaign these can no longer be avoided--and it won't be because Hillary Clinton stayed in the race, although those who dislike her will spin it that way. The Republican election machine is quite capable of ferreting out the ammunition they need to defeat him.

Posted by: Lake Person | April 23, 2008 7:29 AM | Report abuse

hqtuo biwhklx hxketr dcrufom zxjogv vimqgxyw yeiqjtg http://www.prwvhyz.sjed.com

Posted by: ebug zhakeq | April 16, 2008 11:30 AM | Report abuse

cxzbwtfq ldcaesgbu ntgszce hubyk hryeq exgj jtlu

Posted by: dytajh txsoac | April 16, 2008 11:29 AM | Report abuse

The Republicans are doing a great job at setting up the Democratic party. Democrats will permit anyone to caucus not so for rep caucuses. If Obama wins the nomination John McCain will win the presidency if Clinton wins then she is the next president.

Posted by: pttywatson | March 8, 2008 2:25 PM | Report abuse

Red states turn blue? That's a presumptuous question. What matters is if Hillary can win without threatening to hold her breath until her face turns blue.

Posted by: bondjedi | March 5, 2008 11:01 AM | Report abuse

Perhaps third party candidates will play a part in November. It may be to a small degree or a large degree. Nader announced he will be running. With the impressive fund raising Ron Paul has done, my opinion is he will make a run with a third party. He ran in '88 as a Libertarian. I think there is at least an outside chance that some evangelicals and others who are uncomfortable with McCain might look elsewhere. I haven't heard the latest about Bloomberg, but I think he might run. These possibilities can "take votes away" from both Democrats and Republicans. If the main candidates are Obama and McCain, it can also make for a very interesting battle over independents. Just thought this was worth some discussion.

Posted by: nac2m | February 27, 2008 1:49 AM | Report abuse

Please check the statistics presented in the table. All of the statistics for Arkansas are incorrect. The most recent Democratic President supported by Arkansas was Clinton, not Johnson. We currently have two democratic senators: Pryor and Lincoln. The current governor, Mike Beebe, is also a democrat.

Obama is charismatic, but there are a lot of unknowns. The circumstances are not unlike those three decades ago, after the voters were weary of the Viet Nam war, political corruption, and inflation: a charismatic, likeable, but largely unknown democrat named Jimmy Carter was elected.

Posted by: mahgahret | February 26, 2008 3:01 PM | Report abuse

There is only two questions that require proper answers that havn't been addressed by the meda while polling about the voting differences between each states rules (voting in primarys or by caucaus). That is (1)"Ask those attending the rallies if they intend to support and vote in the caucaus, (2) Then ask those voteing in primarys if they attended a ralley. Any comment? ---ihpen

Posted by: ihpen | February 26, 2008 2:50 PM | Report abuse

Common sense would say that without a significant shift in blue population to a red state, why would a Bush won red state vote for Obama?

Posted by: lorddunsmore | February 26, 2008 2:24 PM | Report abuse

Strategically, it is significant that he can simply contest the South. McCain may win in the South, but he'll have to spend time and money to do so.

That said, Obama changed the rules of the game in the primaries. He may be capable of doing so again.

And a black-evangelical coalition in the South is one possible arrangement that the traditional media is least well-equipped to notice or predict.

Posted by: carringtonward | February 26, 2008 12:06 PM | Report abuse

scratch webb's degree in economics; that's wrong.

Posted by: parkerj | February 26, 2008 12:03 PM | Report abuse

Chris, I think Obama has that broad appeal Reagan had. As such, he will be able to take "some" red states.


Evangelicals are wavering in their loyalties. African Americans are voting in higher numbers than ever before. Swing voters will have a choice between two stances on the war and healthcare, each powerful, and both favoring the Democrats this year.


The Republicans forged a union between people with extremely divergent interests. Blue collar. Wall Street. Evangelicals. Fiscal conservatives. This year, if managed correctly by the Obama-Democratic teams, there will be a continued split among evangelicals, swing voters should fall their way, and the blue collar crowd will to begin questioning the Republicans service to them.


That said, at least a half dozen red states to turn blue.

Posted by: info | February 26, 2008 12:01 PM | Report abuse

if obama can get virginia senator jim webb to join him on the ticket, the conservative red states will become that much more competitive.

- webb brings needed heft to the concern that obama is lacking experience in military/foreign affairs issues. he might even be an antidote to it.

- webb also serves as insurance to the ticket should terrorists provide an october surprise. if obama does not have a military guy standing with him, a paniced electorate might run to mccain.

- webb will help in virginia - a red state that could be swung to obama.

- besides the geographical advantage, webb could help with the military FAMILY vote in NC and SC. he's passionate on boosting veterans' rights and addressing the needs of their families.

- webb's resume balances mccain's - both annapolis grads ... and webb did better academically.

- webb's undergrad degree in economics will be a plus on what might be The Big Issue in the fall.

- webb's service in the reagan administration should be attractive to the old reagan democrats to tell them it's ok to come home.

- AND, webb doesn't mind talking bad about bush one bit.

Posted by: parkerj | February 26, 2008 11:37 AM | Report abuse

We might as well be honest and admit that an Obama candidacy would be a huge leap into the dark -- we simply don't know how many voters, or where, might be influenced by his race, his middle name, photos of him wearing a turban, etc.

As an Obama supporter -- or, more precisely, as someone who despises the modern conservative movement and every foul lie it stands for -- I worry most about the northeast blue states. Ed Rendell may have been politically incorrect when he noted that many white voters (aka the Reagan Democrats) are still not willing to vote for black guy, but truth is his defense. I live in a blue collar area in PA and racism and kneejerk wave-the-flag "patriotism" is very much alive here (although the administration of President Mission Accomplished has tampered the latter somewhat.)

Bottom line: Obama had better pick off some traditional red states, because I think he may lose a few of the traditionally blue ones.

Posted by: PeterPrinciple | February 26, 2008 10:50 AM | Report abuse

Obama will be crushed in the GE, imo.

He will win NO southern state and probably only Illinois in the midwest.

He will probably win the west coast and the northeast, but not PA.

Posted by: seustis | February 26, 2008 10:25 AM | Report abuse

According to a pollster in Austin [Bordie], 15% of Rs who intend to vote R in the Fall claim to be voting in the TX D primary for BHO.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 26, 2008 8:54 AM | Report abuse

Mark Twain said : Liars figure and figures lie.
Desraili (sp) said; There are liars, damn liars and statisticians
Your figures don't take into account the "population" of "new" voters. The democratic primary count has exploded beyond linear growth to what some consider almost exponential. Take Hawaii; 4,000 last election to over 36,000 this primary. Put it on a graph and it looks exponential. Meanwhile the republican voter numbers are relatively static if not slightly depressed. You can not superimpose ole statistics on this new motivated population in the alleged "red' states.

Posted by: wcochran | February 26, 2008 8:41 AM | Report abuse

The point isn't whether Obama can win Texas or Kansas, it's whether he can compete there. If McCain has to spend resources to defend Texas, where he is only up by 8 pts., he can't be fighting for Ohio or Florida. On top of that, Obama can help Democrats win Congressional seats, Senate races and governorships by campaigning in places like Texas, where Cornyn is a very weak incumbent. Even Kansas has a Democrat.

Obama also has a very good chance to win in Colorado, Iowa, Missouri and Virginia. He is leading by 5 in Virginia, and no Democrat has won Virginia since 1964. Just winning two Southern states would put McCain in a difficult situation.

Democrats played a very foolish game in 2004. They nominated a weak candidate who couldn't articulate their main issue: the foolishness of the Iraq War. Kerry played the Red-Blue state game and lost an election he should have won. DNC Chair Howard Dean played the 50-state game and won big in 2006.

Clinton is criticizing Obama for abandoning Kerry's losing strategy in favour of Reagan's winning strategy. Who would you rather be on election night: Reagan or Kerry?

Posted by: AxelDC | February 26, 2008 8:19 AM | Report abuse

Of course Obama won't sweep the reddest states. He doesn't need to. What he can do that Hillary cannot is make the purple states blue and the light red states purple. I'd certainly rather he fight McCain for Missouri and Colorado and Florida than have Hillary have to fight him for Iowa and Michigan and Pennsylvania.

Almost as importantly for implementing their very similar agendas is the question of who would be elected with a bigger Democratic majority in Congress. Having Hillary on the ballot will bring every Republican to the polls, even those who don't like McCain, and while they're there they'll vote for Republican senators and congressmen too.

Posted by: light_bearer | February 26, 2008 6:36 AM | Report abuse

My take as a 44 year old white male from North Carolina who is a lifelong Democrat and fervent Obama supporter (yes! I already have the bumper sticker)

First, while African Americans do not make up the majority of the population of any state, they could, if sufficiently enthusiastic, make up the majority of VOTERS in most Southern states. For example, in North Carolina, African Americans make up about a quarter of the adult population, but only about 50% of the overall population will vote in a Presidential election.

But, second... African American voters will not have to win for Obama by themselves -- they will have significant help from their white Democratic friends and neighbors. Though Chris is right about white voters fleeing to the Republicans in droves since the Civil Rights era, those who have any reason to flee are "done fled" as we would say in the South:) The remaining white Democrats are ardent and committed progressives and liberals, and make up a good 1/3 or more of the white population. Every white Southerner who feels "different" from the surrounding Christian conservative ethos, whether because they are just temperamentally inclined to tolerance, are not fond of religious fundamentalism, are gay, feminist, or just plain artsy, all find their way to the welcoming shores of the Democratic party.

... And better yet, third, the tide is turning TOWARD, not away from, Democrats due to demographic shifts. White Southern Democrats are overwhelmingly urban, better educated and younger than their Repub counterparts. And guess what? The South is steadily becoming more urban and better educated and well, each year some of the old die off. This is the story of Virginia turning blue, which for some reason the media treats as an inexplicable phenomenon on a par with the Virgin Birth. Pure demographics, mainstream media -- wake up and smell the coffee!

So... I won't speak for other parts of the country, but Obama can, and I have every reason to believe, WILL, win states in the South now consigned by recent history to the "Safe Republican" column. I can't wait!

Posted by: rjciardo | February 26, 2008 2:24 AM | Report abuse

I don't know if Obama can turn red states into blue, but I know who can't...

Hillary.

Posted by: m.darrell | February 26, 2008 1:38 AM | Report abuse

It is getting interesting
If we believe firmly in the early polls or even later in spring or early summer.
John Kerry would have been president without having to campaign.
Many votes that Democrat picked up now, could be all gone in election.
Go ahead keep attacking NAFTA and put 27.5 % tax on Chinese products etc. Dem comes out with laughable policies daily.
We as an immigrants tend to pro Democrat but now McCain looks much much more attractive. I do not see how Dem could even carry California.

Posted by: vau500 | February 25, 2008 11:29 PM | Report abuse

Senator Obama can carry Missouri, Montana, Georgia, Colorado, Virginia, Arkansas, Louisana, and Nevada. Those are all considered red states and are not a reach. He'll carry all of the midwest for sure except for North and South Dakota. Plus east and west coasts.

Posted by: GraceMN | February 25, 2008 11:24 PM | Report abuse

Socialism We Can Believe In (finally!) - Obama '08

Posted by: freedomfred | February 25, 2008 10:46 PM | Report abuse

I give up - is this guy running for preacher????? Is he leading the white folks too?

I'm not so sure. I think he has a hidden agenda. Never mind that - he doesn't say very much of anything here. He speaks in his "black" accent. Claims his career and "very existence" is the result of black marchers. He's trying to convince these black people he is one of them!!! '

'an obama administration will be one of talk and no action. he is soooo boring when he's not on the float. he talks in circles that mean nothing.'

wow--brain surgeons! you better get another job, CC, your blog has hit rock bottom.

Posted by: drindl | February 25, 2008 9:56 PM | Report abuse


kingofzouk.

an obama administration will be one of talk and no action. he is soooo boring when he's not on the float. he talks in circles that mean nothing.

triple talk. repeat the question, explain the problem, give no answers.

he won't even make it that far anyway. obamabambi in the headlights if he stood alone.

Posted by: Thinker | February 25, 2008 9:27 PM | Report abuse

I give up - is this guy running for preacher????? Is he leading the white folks too?

I'm not so sure. I think he has a hidden agenda. Never mind that - he doesn't say very much of anything here. He speaks in his "black" accent. Claims his career and "very existence" is the result of black marchers. He's trying to convince these black people he is one of them!!! It's too much. He doesn't feel black. He doesn't mention his white grandfather... just his African roots. He's trying to convince these people. When really his success in life is more the result of his white mother, white grand parents, and the criminal Rezko who bankrolled his years in the Illinois Senate. 1.6 million dollar house thanks to this criminal - and he flipped it and made more money. Ask him about that.

He goes on and on in this video like he's telling you something we don't already know. Maybe he thinks all these black folks in the audience are stupid. He sure thinks his Obaman-bot fan club members are. What a joke he is. Even has to read the things he's saying here. He's not inspired - inspiring. He just likes to hear himself. Gad. I don't.

But really - above everything else, get a load of the black accent he puts on. Doesn't talk like this in Ohio or at Dartmouth College, or in New Hampshire.

What a phony, phony man.

Enjoy this Obama speech in Alabama!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9r-XG_VJZDw&feature=related


Here is another video where he speaks perfect English with no racial accent.
He also reads every word from a piece of paper and admits the Senior Senator wrote thie bill. He goes on to tell us more things we already know. I guess he's reiterating for the founding father that Congress oversees the President. He's approving. He has absolutley nothing to say.
He's a piece of work. Empty suit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dc6I3jnTRe0&feature=related

Did you know he smokes cigarettes? He does! Great example for the kids.


Go Whoopie!!! She switched to Hillary !!!

Posted by: Thinker | February 25, 2008 9:25 PM | Report abuse

Politicians and analysts assume previous conditions and precedents rule -- until they demonstrably don't. There's good reason for that, but 2008 is a year in which prior models will not hold. Don't know if that's an anomaly or a pattern yet, but something's afoot.

Above all, it's the W factor. Add to that the $9 trillion in debt. All I can tell you is that people are sick and tired of the reddest red / bluest blue dynamic. Obama's the one candidate out there willing to use the word "purple," and he's being handsomely rewarded for it.

Yes, Alabama will go for McCain 60-40 if Republicans can turn Obama into Pelosi. But that ain't happening.

Posted by: starthom | February 25, 2008 9:08 PM | Report abuse

Email Suggests McCain Protected GOP Friends From Abramoff Probe

Did McCain Obstruct Justice?

McCain Received $100,000 From Firm Of CONVICTED FELON Abramoff Notoriety

February 12, 2008 02:38 PM
On the stump, Sen. John McCain has touted his work tackling the excesses of the lobbying industry to bolster his reputation as a "maverick" reformer.

"Ask Jack Abramoff if I'm an insider in Washington," McCain often contends. "You'd probably have to go during visiting hours in the prison, and he'll tell you and his lobbyist cronies of the change I made there."

But how much change did McCain actually effect? And is he all that removed from Washington's special interests?

A review of campaign finance filings shows that the Arizona Republican has accepted more than $100,000 in donations from employees of Greenberg Traurig, the very firm where Abramoff once reigned.

Those donations include several thousand dollars from registered lobbyists who represent, or have represented, businesses such as NewsCorp, Rupert Murdoch's media empire;

Spi Spirits, a Cyprus based company that has fought with the Russian government for the rights to the Stolichnaya vodka brand name; El Paso Corp, a major energy company; General Motors;

and the Essential Worker Immigration Coalition, a group of businesses and trade associations "concerned" about the shortage of lesser skilled and unskilled labor.

All told, McCain has received more than $400,000 from lobbying firms, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. And among his major fundraisers ("bundlers") 59 have been identified as lobbyists by the non-profit organization Public Citizen.

MCCAIN
IGNORED A SAM WARNING IN VIETNAM

From a recent copy of Newsweek magazine, I learned an interesting fact about McCain.

When he got shot down over North Vietnam, he had sufficient warning that a SAM was tracking him to jink and avoid the missile.


Instead, in a fit of rage or stupidity or just plain idiotic stubbornness, McCain stayed on course, kept his eye on the target, and got his pretty little airplane blown all to smithereens.


He was shot down, captured, and endured five years in a North Vietnamese prison because he was unwilling to LISTEN TO A SAM WARNING AND TAKE PREVENTIVE ACTION!

This is not the kind of person we need as President. This is the kind of 'leader' that would 'lead' the United States right over the brink of disaster.

Author Message shotgun
ALIPAC Apprentice 2

Posted by: YTTP | February 25, 2008 8:48 PM | Report abuse

Because any of these polls has been accurate so far. Bloody hell, stop with these stoopeed goddamm polls.

Posted by: guyfawkes | February 25, 2008 8:13 PM | Report abuse

Even the pundits on msnbc (Chris Matthews) admitted that the votes in Virgina that Obama got, over 1/2 of them would be McCain votes in the fall. I have noticed that every since McCain locked up the nom. for the gop, Obama's numbers have been better. I have also read on many blogs that gop member are doing this because they realy feel he will be the easier person to beat.

If Obama is the nom I will hold my nose, and vote for McCain. After all, I live in Michigan, Obama don't want our delegates seated and counted. Even though his campaign called my home non stop a week before the primarys to get me to vote "uncommited". NO VOTE NOW, NO VOTE IN THE FALL.

The gop will eat him alive.

Posted by: rose48809 | February 25, 2008 7:29 PM | Report abuse

There are no "Red" States.

There are only Obama states, states that are mostly Obama, and those that are somewhat Obama.

The Blue Tidal Wave will wash America clean.

Posted by: WillSeattle | February 25, 2008 7:20 PM | Report abuse

Money, organization, and Iraq will sweep Obama into the White House in '08.

The 'red' state numbers matter because when given the time (read Hillary needs to leave soon) and money Obama's organizing skills have dominated. The sweep since Feb. 5 haven't all been caucuses...he can turn out folks at the polls too. On top of that, I can not see McCain bringing the excitement necessary to overcome Obama in swing states. In fact, McCain's machine in the fall will look about as energized as the Clinton machine now.

I'll save my state predictions 'til closer to November but I'd bet by then, the polls will be validating this mantra: Money, Organization, and Iraq...and all that amazing rhetoric can turn some purple states blue!

Posted by: angiefaye | February 25, 2008 6:38 PM | Report abuse

'I see drindl had to go to wikipedia to figure out what a recession was.'

but recessions don't exist, according to zouk, you see.

which is it?

'If Barack wins, the populace will be crying "uncle" in two years as they struggle to regroup from oppressive taxes, regulations, restrictions and 'government's tightening stronghold of unrestrained power'.

hmm... government's tighening stronghold of unrestrained power.. sounds like -- GW Bush, don't it? The 'unitary executive' or -- dictator is more like it.

and this from a guy who wants his own government to spy on him. why don't you just give them the keys to your crummy basement apartment?

Posted by: drindl | February 25, 2008 6:27 PM | Report abuse

Chris -

The point of Obama doing so well in the red states isn't so much that he'd win most of them in the general, it's more important that repubs have to defend them and defend them heavily.

You're also missing the point about congressional seats in those states. A candidate like Obama doing well enough in the GE in a particular red state, pushes close races over the tipping point.

You need to open your idea of what winning really means.

A 50 State strategy isn't just about winning outright, it's about expanding and respecting Democrats everywhere (and independents) everywhere, even in red states and all of whom will be needed to fight for the things we want to get done. Ignore them and they ignore you later.

The reason Democrats have been in the minority for so long is because the DLCer's cast off place that believed they couldn't win as if people in those states didn't matter. And THOSE people said F.U. to Democrats.

It's why Hillary isn't winning (or going to win) the nomination.

She/her supporters have no respect for states they can't win in.

Her 10 state strategy has been her undoing.

Posted by: Junglered1 | February 25, 2008 6:05 PM | Report abuse

Iowa is a swing state; one of just 3 that switched between 2000 and 2004. Clinton won it twice. So far the polling shows Obama ahead there.

Colorado has clearly been trending blue. Bush didn't win it by big margins in either of his elections, and it's in play for 2008.

You mislabeled Missouri as Ky. MO is a classic swing state. Gore and Kerry couldn't compete there, but with a more Democratic national mood, it's also in play this year. It voted for Clinton twice.

VA is also a clearly blue/purple trending state. It's in play mainly because of changing demographics.

The other states are longshots, yes, but with Dean championing a 50 state strategy, and Obama raising 3 times as much as McCain, it seems like there could be money to mail and advertise on TV in those states. Often we lose them simply because we write them off and don't campaign there; consider Indiana in 1996. It doesn't seem implausible to me that with such a strong Democratic climate this years, we could win some of these red states if we contest them. It's only been since 1992 that we won GA and MT for example.

Posted by: jon.morgan.1999 | February 25, 2008 5:56 PM | Report abuse

Comprise means "is composed of".
I think you should be using "constitutes" instead.

Posted by: JayinPa | February 25, 2008 5:55 PM | Report abuse

"When you resort to name-calling, it shows you have no ground on which to stand. It's childish, and speaks volumes about you.
It makes you sound like a typical, mindless right-wing kool-aid drinker. "


I detest name calling so as a committted Lib, I will resort to....you guessed it - name calling.

and this is one of the more rational ones.

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 25, 2008 5:45 PM | Report abuse

"Because I thought maybe you were going to use logic in your thoughts. It might have made for an interesting discussion. But like so many, you are only interested in dismissing those who disagree your assessment and then resort to name calling."

Oh please. I never said Obama would win any of those states. You were just arguing with a strawman. In fact, my very first post of the day on this board said the whole article was irrelevant, because Obama just needs to hold the Kerry states and win Ohio.

Posted by: Spectator2 | February 25, 2008 5:42 PM | Report abuse

If Barak wins, the populace will be crying "uncle" in two years as they struggle to regroup from oppressive taxes, regulations, restrictions and government's tightening stronghold of unrestrained power. And that huge money-making machine known as "baby boomers," will begin to slowly grind to a screeching halt as young retirees realize they would much rather spend the rest of their lives doing what they want, not what the government dictates. That young, impressionable group of new voters will be expected to pick up that slack, receiving paychecks that barely cover expenses and their altruistic nature will turn ugly with greed as they realize they have nothing to show for giving the government 50% of their hard earned money. They will expect their young president to have the answer and his response will be to tax and spend more and more.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/column.aspx?UrlTitle=the_perfect_storm_for_conservatives_if_they_dont_blow_it&ns=NinaMay&dt=02/24/2008&page=2

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 25, 2008 5:40 PM | Report abuse

kingofzouk: Do you think you could actually defend your points without name-calling? Or is that too much for your brain to grasp?
When you resort to name-calling, it shows you have no ground on which to stand. It's childish, and speaks volumes about you.
It makes you sound like a typical, mindless right-wing kool-aid drinker.
If that's what you want, fine.
I read numerous intelligent conservative posts on this forum, but yours aren't included.
How sad for you.

Posted by: vegasgirl1 | February 25, 2008 5:27 PM | Report abuse

The Fix is not focusing on the central front of the campaign: Obama will absolutely expand the map, forcing McCain to expend time and resources defending "home" turf and while diverting resources from FL,OH, PA; I expect Obama to sweep those states plus push MO, CO, VA, GA, NE into the Democratic column. McCain has to defend the economy and the war -- never mind immigration, where he and Obama are closely positioned. Even Reagan would have to sit this one out - this is going to be a blowout. Advantage: Obama.

Posted by: stivnik | February 25, 2008 5:27 PM | Report abuse

LOL, idiot, you've just devote a good bit of time to the topic.

Posted by: Spectator2


Because I thought maybe you were going to use logic in your thoughts. It might have made for an interesting discussion. But like so many, you are only interested in dismissing those who disagree your assessment and then resort to name calling.

Have a nice day.

Posted by: clawrence35 | February 25, 2008 5:26 PM | Report abuse

"I am not going to argue with you over if Obama can be competitive in KS, ID, MT, ND, SD, Alaska or any number of 'red' states. If you want to devote time and resources to trying to show your competitive, you go right ahead. I wouldn't want you as my campaign manager."

LOL, idiot, you've just devote a good bit of time to the topic.

Posted by: Spectator2 | February 25, 2008 5:14 PM | Report abuse

clawrence- I knew there must be at least one thinking person on this site. thanks for your input. it is best to ignore those moonbats spectator and drindl. trying to have a logical discussion with them is like eating jello with a knife.

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 25, 2008 5:14 PM | Report abuse

Spectator2 your clearly delusional. I am not going to argue with you over if Obama can be competitive in KS, ID, MT, ND, SD, Alaska or any number of 'red' states. If you want to devote time and resources to trying to show your competitive, you go right ahead. I wouldn't want you as my campaign manager.

Obama is a fraud - an empty vessel that people define with their own aspirations at this point (and many of those aspirations were anyone but Clinton - unfair to her - but that is life).

The Rezko trial and all the 'just words' that Obama has uttered this past year are going to define him. He is still unqualified to be Commander in Chief, and events will shift the focus of the general election campaign. He hasn't got a chance in hell of 'switching' many of these red states, and I doubt if he can carry many of the states that Gore and Kerry did.

Posted by: clawrence35 | February 25, 2008 5:11 PM | Report abuse

"The only reason they are mentioned is because Obama won their respective caucus. That's it. It is not that the states have shown any dramatic demographic shift or political earthquake has happened. Many of the Obama 'supporters' in some of these 'red' states just voted for Obama because they so strongly dislike Senator Clinton. That doesn't mean they are going to elect Obama as the next president.

You and you alone seem to be mentioning these states."

Your first statement contradicts your last. Better try again.

Posted by: Spectator2 | February 25, 2008 5:00 PM | Report abuse

Chris,

You are either biased towards Republicans (maybe....) Or not looking at poll numbers and Obama MOMENTUM.

Check out Rasmussenreports.com to see all the states Obama ALREADY leads or ties McCain - including Ohio, Colorado,Missouri, and Nevada.......

He hasn't even started really campaigning yet and his numbers tend to increase highly when he does so.

You should research a bit better Chris.....

-DJ in Boston

Posted by: darrenwallach | February 25, 2008 4:59 PM | Report abuse

cillizza writes an article solely based on circular logic:
he writes-

"two facts complicate that reality."

The first is that black voters tend to vote in very high numbers in presidential years, meaning that turnout would likely increase linearly not exponentially if Obama led the ticket. Second, according to Schaller, is that recent electoral history in the South suggests that the higher the black percentage in the state, the higher the percentage George W. Bush won in 2000 and 2004.

more persuasive facts:
obama is wholly different from recent our long-term history in our country. (comparison to LBJ) ?
you point out that in many states he doubles the top R votes- but don't forget overall turnout among D's is higher. ( how else can you project whether a state is trending D or R) ?
if HRC or mccain had shown these trends would you write a similar column ( I doubt it).

overall weak or dishonest analysis which will get refuted in Nov.

Posted by: jacade | February 25, 2008 4:56 PM | Report abuse

The only reason they are mentioned is because Obama won their respective caucus. That's it. It is not that the states have shown any dramatic demographic shift or political earthquake has happened. Many of the Obama 'supporters' in some of these 'red' states just voted for Obama because they so strongly dislike Senator Clinton. That doesn't mean they are going to elect Obama as the next president.

You and you alone seem to be mentioning these states.

Posted by: clawrence35 | February 25, 2008 4:56 PM | Report abuse

I think McCain can win CA, NY, DC and MA.

When was the last time anyone -- even diehard GOPs -- mentioned these states?

Doh???

don't ever take a liberals argument to its logical conclusion unless you want a big laugh.

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 25, 2008 4:54 PM | Report abuse

"Spectator - the currently reigning most ignorant moonbat, now goes on to confuse rate of increase with total rate to try to make a point. I think you Libs should stay away from numbers and economics. we all know you have no understanding of them."

More proof of what a moron zouk is.

Only a complete and utter nitwit would brag about gains when the previous president had much larger gains. It just makes the braggart's hero (Bush) look more inept.

But go right ahead, ace. Keep reminding everyone of the Bush record, so McCain can run on it.

Posted by: Spectator2 | February 25, 2008 4:53 PM | Report abuse

what the hell has happened over the past 8 year?

•umm, 4000 americans and countless iraqis dead in iraq?
•a surplus turned into the biggest deficit ever
•a recession

i could go on, but why bother.

Posted by: claudialong | February 25, 2008 04:01 PM

According to drindl, we were in a recession at 4:01 pm. when it became obvious that she had no clue what she was talking about, as usual, she cut and pasted:
forecast a U.S. recession this year more than doubled in three months, to 45 percent,
Posted by: claudialong | February 25, 2008 04:44 PM

Now we are forecasting a recession instead of living in one. a lot can change in 40 minutes.

notice less than half of the economists are predicting this, the spin the moonbats would have put on it if it favored their loony aspect.

another day of drindl economics.


Posted by: kingofzouk | February 25, 2008 4:52 PM | Report abuse

"if you seriously believe that any Democratic nominee has a chance of winning a general election in KS, ID, or Alaska - it is not me who is missing the point, it is you."

That proves that you indeed do miss the point. When was the last time anyone -- even diehard libs -- mentioned these states?

Posted by: Spectator2 | February 25, 2008 4:50 PM | Report abuse

I see drindl had to go to wikipedia to figure out what a recession was.

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 25, 2008 4:48 PM | Report abuse

""The idea that any Democrat is going to carry Kansas, Idaho, or Alaska is laughable"

Once again clawrence misses the point. If these reddest of red states are even being discussed, the GOP candidate is in deep trouble.

Posted by: Spectator2"

Discussed by whom? A few liberals on a blog? This is what President Clinton was talking about with 'false hopes' - if you seriously believe that any Democratic nominee has a chance of winning a general election in KS, ID, or Alaska - it is not me who is missing the point, it is you. I am very skeptical of polls 8 months out that show Obama 'ahead' - remember, 8 months ago Clinton was way 'ahead' in the polls.

Personally, I hope the Republicans are in trouble. The Democratic Party has done a good job of recruiting good congressional candidates, and I hope many of them win. I just think Americans will make the right choice for President and elect Senator McCain. No matter how hard they try, the Democrats are not running against Bush (a race they could win) and both Clinton and Obama don't strike me as good general election candidates. Obama can not sustain the cult over the summer - that I am sure of - and McCain is not going to let the Dems pull off their own version of swift boating after what Rove and Bush did to him in SC. This is his shot, and he isn't going to screw it up.

Posted by: clawrence35 | February 25, 2008 4:46 PM | Report abuse

Spectator - the currently reigning most ignorant moonbat, now goes on to confuse rate of increase with total rate to try to make a point. I think you Libs should stay away from numbers and economics. we all know you have no understanding of them.

for example, you think it is a good idea to raise taxes in a down economy.

you think it is a good idea to have 1% of the people pay all of societies cost, if it gest you the votes.

you think it is a good idea to continue with a losing health and retirement ponzi scheme.

you think that lowering gas prices will lead to conservation.

you think the government can control and set prices, wages, benefits, etc.

you think government is efficient and frugal and much more effective than private forces.

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 25, 2008 4:46 PM | Report abuse

I find it interesting that Colorado seems to be almost universally described as a "strong red" state.

Yes, Bush won it both times, by single digits.

While he was doing so in 2004, the Dems took a majority in both houses of the state legislature, the Congressional delegation, and took a Senate seat (Salazar). In 2006 the Dems expanded their majorities in the state legislature and won the Governor's office. They stand a good chance of winning the second Senate seat (Udall).

Is the confusion because Dobson is in Colorado Springs? Yes, Colorado Springs is overwhelmingly GOP territory. But it is the 2nd largest city in the state, not the largest. The overall electorate is a bit different.

In Colorado, there are more registered Independents than either Democrats or Republicans. The Independents will determine who wins the state. Lately, they've been moving in the Dems' direction. Kerry couldn't make the sale (in an otherwise Dem year), but Obama probably can.

Posted by: J | February 25, 2008 4:45 PM | Report abuse

Feb. 25 (Bloomberg) -- The proportion of economists who forecast a U.S. recession this year more than doubled in three months, to 45 percent, according to a survey by the National Association for Business Economics.

Posted by: drindl | February 25, 2008 4:44 PM | Report abuse

In macroeconomics, a recession is a decline in a country's gross domestic product (GDP), or negative real economic growth, for two or more successive quarters of a year.

An alternative, less accepted definition of recession is a downward trend in the rate of actual GDP growth as promoted by the business-cycle dating committee of the National Bureau of Economic Research.[1] That private organization defines a recession more ambiguously as "a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months." A recession may involve simultaneous declines in coincident measures of overall economic activity such as employment, investment, and corporate profits. Recessions may be associated with falling prices (deflation), or, alternatively, sharply rising prices (inflation) in a process known as stagflation. A severe or long recession is referred to as an economic depression. A devastating breakdown of an economy (essentially, a severe depression, or a hyperinflation, depending on the circumstances) is called economic collapse.

Posted by: drindl | February 25, 2008 4:43 PM | Report abuse

"Are there any non-loons on this site?"

Classic zouk performance:

One cut and paste job

One stale list of right-wing talking points

Insults until his shift ends.

Posted by: Spectator2 | February 25, 2008 4:41 PM | Report abuse

I guess there's no such thing as an "economist" either, since that's whose calling it a 'recession'


Loony drindl then posts an entire article which never mentions the word recession.

and that folks is how she/it arrives at her conclusions. Yes indeed, it is a mystery how the liberal "mind" works.

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 25, 2008 4:40 PM | Report abuse

This question seems ridiculous to me. Can Obama turn red states blue? Hell no! Not against McCain in a general election. Va, Colorodo, NC, SC, Ga., Alaska, Ark., Nebraska & so on are all very Republican states that will go McCain in November. Well, I wouldn't say Va. & Colorodo are very Republican, but they will go to McCain in November none the less. Shaffer is gonna win in November, too. He will beat out Udall in Colorodo. With McCain on the ticket, New Mexico will be in play to keep Domenici's seat. Wilson or Pearce will be competitive vs. Udall come November. Also, Liendrieu will lose to either Kennedy or Dardene, hopefully Dardene, in November. In Va., Mark Warner will help the D nominee by scorching Gilmore to pick up John Warner's old seat. It won't be enough, though, as McCain will take Va. In SD, if the R's can find someone, it could turn competitive but I still think Johnson wins. I think a McCain vs. Obama could be a different type race: Pa. could go McCain & Obama could win Iowa. Conn. could go McCain. This could be a very different race.

Posted by: bryant_flier2006 | February 25, 2008 4:38 PM | Report abuse

Are there any non-loons on this site?

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 25, 2008 4:38 PM | Report abuse

no attacks on the homeland
--> other than NYC, PA and Pentagon
record expansion of the economy
--> of trade deficit and national debt
record low unemployment
--> stagnant income in middle class
huge surges in productivity
--> in plant closings
record expansion of wealth
--> Billionaires still for Bush, except for -->the ones who actually care about their -->country, like Gates and Buffett.
record low inflation and interest rates
--> record high foreclosures and gas prices
foremost military in the world
--> world's first billion dollar plane crash, but don't ask for body armor, "you go with the army you got."

Posted by: optimyst | February 25, 2008 4:27 PM | Report abuse

'they like to throw around the term "recession", although no such thing exists, displaying their total ignorance of all things economic.'

LOL. i mean seriously, omigod. stop killing me. what a riot. I guess there's no such thing as an "economist" either, since that's whose calling it a 'recession'

'NEW YORK (Fortune) -- Another winter writedown storm hit Wall Street Monday. Shares in Citi, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac sank after analysts predicted another round of multibillion-dollar losses at the struggling financial firms.

The expected writedowns, which reflect rising loan defaults and sharp declines in indexes tracking debt-related securities, come as falling house prices and a slow economy weigh on U.S. consumers. Shares in Citi (C, Fortune 500) dropped 2% after Oppenheimer analyst Meredith Whitney slashed her full-year earnings forecast to 75 cents a share from $2.70 previously.

Whitney, who made headlines late last year by being the first analyst to predict Citi would cut its dividend - which it soon did - said the bank's profits will be hammered by Citi's need to reduce the value of loans and bonds on its balance sheet. The analyst, who rates the stock the equivalent of sell, predicts "further writedowns to their carrying values of [collateralized debt obligations] related to sub-prime mortgages, further writedowns from leverage lending commitments, and further writedowns associated with on balance sheet consumer loans."

Posted by: drindl | February 25, 2008 4:26 PM | Report abuse

"The idea that any Democrat is going to carry Kansas, Idaho, or Alaska is laughable"

Once again clawrence misses the point. If these reddest of red states are even being discussed, the GOP candidate is in deep trouble.

Posted by: Spectator2 | February 25, 2008 4:25 PM | Report abuse

Once again, compared to homeownership gains under Clinton, homeownership gains under Bush have been much smaller. More of those pesky facts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeownership_in_the_United_States

Posted by: Spectator2 | February 25, 2008 4:22 PM | Report abuse

Colorado (1992), Georgia (1992), Missouri (1996), Louisiana (1996) were won by Democrats in those years only because Ross Perot siphoned off enough votes from the Republican nominee to deny the Republicans victories in each state.

If Obama is the Nominee of the Democratic Party, you can add a bunch of states in the rust belt that will be competitive. MN, WI, MI, PA, and NY all have a high enough number of conservative Democrats and Independents in their rural and sub-urban areas who will be receptive to McCain's message. You can add these states to MO and OH as true toss ups.

Much of the hopes to be competitive in the West are also a toss up with McCain on the ticket (he will give the Latino population pause before they vote automatically for the Democratic ticket).

It will also be interesting to see if the Jewish community puts the security of Israel ahead of domestic concerns.

One thing is for sure, the Democrats have taken what should have been a walk in the park and turned it into a real horse race this year. If Biden was the nominee, or practically anyone else other than Clinton or Obama, this was their year.


The idea that any Democrat is going to carry Kansas, Idaho, or Alaska is laughable - I don't care what the primary turn out was, it is not anywhere near the general election turn out or whom voters will end up voting for. I voted for Clinton in the primary - I will vote for McCain in the general. I know I am not alone.

Posted by: clawrence35 | February 25, 2008 4:22 PM | Report abuse

Thanks for the welcome to the halls of Ignorance--I assume you are their King? I am just an ambassador from the world of Reality. :)


Posted by: chadibuins | February 25, 2008 04:12 PM

you need to talk to drindl, she is the reigning queen of all things ignorant and moonbatty, as I am sure most of you already know. But I think spectator is aiming for her throne. he/she/It has been particularly stupid of late, never venturing beyond a one line attempt at humor, which reliably falls flat.

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 25, 2008 4:22 PM | Report abuse

'I see the moonbats are more vigilent than ever in their use of empty lies and talking points.'

Then why are you here, zouk?

LET'S ALL ASK TOGETHER -- WHY ARE YOU HERE, ZOUK?

and that rudy, boy that was some campaign. what a winner - just like you.

Posted by: drindl | February 25, 2008 4:21 PM | Report abuse

Spectator -- Spot on with the Rudy comparison. Bravo.

Posted by: esmerelda123 | February 25, 2008 4:20 PM | Report abuse

does anyone ever notice that the Lib "retorts" are oh so much like Obama. all talk and no facts to back them up.

they can't becuase the only links that confirm what they are saying lead to the Daily Kos.

they like to throw around the term "recession", although no such thing exists, displaying their total ignorance of all things economic.

they like to boo hoo the dollars drop but ignore the export bonanza and tourist influx.

they like to claim all the wealth went to the rich but never back that nup with anything but sweet Obamaesque lies.

Yes, there is a record home ownership in america today - over 60% except in certain districts such as Pelosi's where economics have been stifled by government and liberal monkeying.

and another "brilliant Lib economist" declares that low infation and low interest rates are somehow bad for the nation. Must be the Carter school of thought.

don't expect any rational arguments or logic based refutations. they don't exist in the moonbat community.

and this is one prediction you can take to the bank.

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 25, 2008 4:16 PM | Report abuse

"Zouk--it is conservatives with their addiction to myth that dismiss complex issues and wave the flag and propoganda in order to "scare up" votes."

That quite nicely encapsulates the spectacular failure that was the campaign of Rudy Giuliani, Zouk's former favorite GOPer.

Posted by: Spectator2 | February 25, 2008 4:14 PM | Report abuse

Zouk--it is conservatives with their addiction to myth that dismiss complex issues and wave the flag and propoganda in order to "scare up" votes.

Thanks for the welcome to the halls of Ignorance--I assume you are their King? I am just an ambassador from the world of Reality. :)

Posted by: chadibuins | February 25, 2008 4:12 PM | Report abuse

"I see the moonbats are more vigilent than ever in their use of empty lies and talking points."

More projecting by the cretin zouk.

For newbies: Whenever zouk insults you, there's a 99.99 chance that he does exactly what he is insulting you for. This is a case in point.

Posted by: Spectator2 | February 25, 2008 4:09 PM | Report abuse

mccain seems to be a little confused about iraq:

'In a townhall meeting today, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) was asked about the status of the situation in Iraq. McCain, who notoriously said last month that U.S. troops could be in Iraq for another 10,000 years, said "the war will soon be over":

'That reminds me this 100 year thing. I was asked in a town hall meeting back in Florida, how long would we have a presence in Iraq?

My friends, the war will be over soon, the war for all intents and purposes although the insurgency will go on for years and years and years. But it will be handled by the Iraqis, not by us, and then we decide what kind of security arrangement we want to have with the Iraqis.'

For years, McCain has misjudged the length of conflict in Iraq, repeatedly telling the American public that the war will be over soon. Some lowlights:

I think the victory will be rapid, within about three weeks. [MSNBC, 1/28/03]

It's clear that the end is very much in sight. ... It won't be long. It, it'll be a fairly short period of time. [ABC, 4/9/03]

We're either going to lose this thing or win this thing within the next several months. [Meet The Press, 11/12/06]

Although McCain says "the war will be over soon," he still wants to keep U.S. troops in Iraq for hundreds of years, even acknowledging that the Iraq insurgency will simultaneously "go on for years and years and years."

To recap, here's what McCain said in January about the length of an Iraq occupation: "one hundred years, one thousand years, ten thousand years or until the earth collapses under global climate change."

maybe he's stressed out or something....

http://thinkprogress.org/?tag=Iraq

Posted by: drindl | February 25, 2008 4:09 PM | Report abuse

that was one example, dip. Show us the calculations behind your claim or kindly STFU.

Posted by: Spectator2 | February 25, 2008 4:08 PM | Report abuse

Mul said:
If you want to use Civil War era race categories that is your choice

Not sure what you meant by this--I'm talking about the way I see my son and brother-in-laws get viewed on a constant basis--well past the Civil War by my count.

by the way I am a white Obama supporter who is not operating on outrage or playing race cards.

there is more than one way to "be black"--a fact I have seen illustrated personally by my wife's family--her father is very much a black man; but according to your descripton, he wouldn't qualify either--

Posted by: chadibuins | February 25, 2008 4:07 PM | Report abuse

I see the moonbats are more vigilent than ever in their use of empty lies and talking points.

In one post they remove credit for the chief exectutive, in another they lay blame for all the world's woes.

Just another example of the arrogance of the left. they actually think they can perfecly control the weather, the war, the economy, morality, racism, health, retirement, etc.

spectator - the most uninformed of the bunch, thinks that wealth is measured by the DJIA.

chad - a newcomer in the halls of ignorance, follows the pattern closely, by dismissing complicated issues in a three word sentence. No wonder he likes Obama so much - no nuance required, only cultish fealty.

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 25, 2008 4:07 PM | Report abuse

"If I married a black women and went back to Hyde park would I be black."

I need more information. Is your father from Kenya? How dark is your skin?

Posted by: Blarg | February 25, 2008 4:02 PM | Report abuse

King of Lies:

no attacks on the homeland (if you don't count 9/11)

record expansion of the economy (followed by a record detraction)

record low unemployment (more credit to Starbucks, Wal-Mart, and McDonald's, where all those jobs are coming from, than Dubya)

huge surges in productivity (in China and India)

record expansion of wealth (for the top .01% of the nation)

record low inflation and interest rates (good for the economy like steroids is good for baseball stats)

foremost military in the world, only one capable of insurgent action (I'll give you that one, but only because a dem landslide in '06 forced Dubya to put the keys into Gates' hands)

Nkorea, Libya, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran all better than they were previously (then why is it necessary to invade/occupy them?).

France, germany, Italy, england, Australia, Japan all stronger allies than ever, east europe trying to get in. (I thought it was Mexicans trying to get in?)

Two superb judges sent to Supreme court (Maybe, but Roberts and Alito have both voted against conservative pet issues like torture, big business, abortion, and electoral reform).

We look forward to your next post. It's much easier to get the idiot fringe's opinion through you than have to wade through the Joint-ritis and gold speculation commercials on Rush and Savage.

Posted by: bondjedi | February 25, 2008 4:02 PM | Report abuse

"You forgot 'record home-ownership'

Or aren't you guys touting that accomplishment any more?"

Since we're in the midst of the worst housing market in at least 25 years, touting that "accomplishment" might provoke some rather uncomfortable questions.

Posted by: Spectator2 | February 25, 2008 4:01 PM | Report abuse

'It must be difficult to be zouk. Pity him.'

I do. He must be a masochist to spend whole days on a blog where everyone thinks he's a moron and tells him so.

"what the hell has happened over the past 8 year?

•umm, 4000 americans and countless iraqis dead in iraq?
•a surplus turned into the biggest deficit ever
•a recession

i could go on, but why bother.


Posted by: drindl | February 25, 2008 4:01 PM | Report abuse

no attacks on the homeland--Sept 11 not even 7 yrs old yet
record expansion of the economy--wow and funny how that recession we've been flirting with nis finally catching up with us
record low unemployment--still want that one?
huge surges in productivity--yet the most overworked, unhealthy population in the industrial west
record expansion of wealth--for the wealthy
record low inflation and interest rates--I am not even going to go there on this one
foremost military in the world, only one capable of insurgent action--that and the fact that insurgents--Seder's army--decided on a truce fire
Nkorea, Libya, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran all better than they were previously. how do you define better??????
France, germany, Italy, england, Australia, Japan all stronger allies than ever, Would they agree with this?
east europe trying to get in. Yeah!! we're better than Soviet Russia!!!!
Two superb judges sent to Supreme court And our children's children will mourn the decisions and erosion of the Constitution and Bill of rights that they put forth.

Posted by: chadibuins | February 25, 2008 4:00 PM | Report abuse

I'm looking forward to McCain campaigning on the Bush record, as outlined by zouk.

Posted by: Spectator2 | February 25, 2008 4:00 PM | Report abuse

"record expansion of wealth"

wonder what this is based on. zouk's peyote usage, most likely. Stock market is up a whopping 17 percent -- over 7 years! -- under bush, vs. 227 percent under clinton.

Posted by: Spectator2 | February 25, 2008 3:59 PM | Report abuse

Mul: your "sort of black" comment is "sort of offensive".

Look I am not some white kid from the suburbs (I am white sort of). Obama supporters live on Outrage.

If you want to use Civil War era race categories that is your choice.

He did not grow up with and was not raised by African Americans (thats in his book). He does not talk like MLK unless he tries. He lives in the Hype Park area. It is geographically but not really the South Side. He is viewed as a black man but by ethnicity is not (that makes him sort of black). If I married a black women and went back to Hyde park would I be black. No but my kids probably would be I did not make the rules.

Posted by: mul | February 25, 2008 3:59 PM | Report abuse

hmmm...it's interesting that everything on Zouk's list, other than supreme court judges, is pretty much out of the control of the chief executive...and as far as overall quality of judges, he's one for two - roberts has a sharp legal mind, but the other pinhead is a robotic conservative without an original legal thought in his life

Posted by: johndinhouston | February 25, 2008 3:57 PM | Report abuse

"Two superb judges sent to Supreme court"

saith the noted judicial expert, zouk.

Posted by: Spectator2 | February 25, 2008 3:57 PM | Report abuse

a pack of non-thinking, unimaginative lemmings...

Posted by: johndinhouston | February 25, 2008 03:50 PM

I found them - drindl. spectator, esmerelda, tony, blarg, chad, archer, jedi, etc.

This website is like a watering hole for moonbats. and that is just in the last half hour.

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 25, 2008 3:57 PM | Report abuse

"what the hell has happened over the past 8 year?"


Then there's that 'record weakness in dollar'. Who'd a thunk the Loony would reach parity with the US dollar?

Posted by: bsimon | February 25, 2008 3:56 PM | Report abuse

"what the hell has happened over the past 8 year?"

You forgot 'record home-ownership'

Or aren't you guys touting that accomplishment any more?

Posted by: bsimon | February 25, 2008 3:55 PM | Report abuse

"what the hell has happened over the past 8 year?

no attacks on the homeland"


Well, except for that one.

Posted by: bsimon | February 25, 2008 3:54 PM | Report abuse

It must be difficult to be zouk. Pity him.

Posted by: Blarg | February 25, 2008 03:38 PM


Yep, envy and pity, the prime motivators of the Dem party.

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 25, 2008 3:52 PM | Report abuse

well, heck KOZ, then go find you a pack of non-thinking, unimaginative lemmings...

Posted by: johndinhouston | February 25, 2008 3:50 PM | Report abuse

what the hell has happened over the past 8 year?

no attacks on the homeland
record expansion of the economy
record low unemployment
huge surges in productivity
record expansion of wealth
record low inflation and interest rates
foremost military in the world, only one capable of insurgent action
Nkorea, Libya, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran all better than they were previously. France, germany, Italy, england, Australia, Japan all stronger allies than ever, east europe trying to get in.
Two superb judges sent to Supreme court

I understand you Libs desire to reverse every one of these trends, but at least be honest enough to admit it.

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 25, 2008 3:47 PM | Report abuse

I have decided Zouk is actually a Democrat, here to spout the least imaginative repetitive Republican party-line doctrine to paint it as rife with ignorance so that more intelligent people (Republicans and Democrats alike) can respond with a vengeance, thereby strengthening the electorate and indirectly encouraging the election of a Democrate to the White House. Thanks, Zouk. Good to see you again. Keep up the good work, because you are doing wonders.

Posted by: esmerelda123 | February 25, 2008 3:46 PM | Report abuse

Obama doesn't have to turn many red states blue to win the election, obviously, based on 2000 and 2004. It is unlikely he will win in November many of the states he has won in the primaries (Kansas, Idaho, Georgia, to name some obvious examples). But he will certainly contend in all purple states, which are the states that have decided our recent elections, and I would predict win many of them: Iowa, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Nevada, Florida, Ohio, Missouri. And he may turn some solid red Bush states into the blue column: Virginia, Colorado, perhaps Arkansas. He doesn't have to carry Utah or Texas or Wyoming to become President. I don't understand why you'd be skeptical of his ability to do this much.

Plus, it's not just who becomes President that matters. How about a ticket leader that may allow Democrats to pick up key Senate seats in many of the above states--Virginia, Colorado, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Colorado, plus Minnesota--and not an anchor (Clinton) who will limit Democratic gains this year. Many Supreme Court justices may ride on the balance of power in the Senate in the next 4-8 years...

Posted by: hughesy826 | February 25, 2008 3:44 PM | Report abuse

Stats not in play -

Kansas, ND, SD, SC, VA (I don't think so).
Posted by: mul | February 25, 2008 03:30 PM

You're right VA is not in play, Obama will win in VA by a comfortable margin.
Every neighbor or friend I talk to, who voted for Bush in 2004, would rather abstain than vote for McCain. The GOP is going to find itself sans base in the Commonwealth.

Posted by: jnoel002 | February 25, 2008 3:42 PM | Report abuse

I see the pack of unimaginative, non-thinking jackels has not dispersed.

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 25, 2008 3:42 PM | Report abuse

Zoukster-

In January, 2001, George W. Bush started an administration well-laden with "experienced hands" of government with certifiable track records of competency.

That said, you still can't explain what the hell has happened over the past 8 years, can you?

I'm still waiting for the WMD's to be uncovered.

Posted by: tony_in_Durham_NC | February 25, 2008 3:39 PM | Report abuse

Zouk is in a complicated position. His persona requires him to never agree with the Democrats on anything, and to insult them at every opportunity. For months, he was pre-emptively insulting the Democrats for choosing Hillary Clinton as their nominee. But that didn't happen. (Note: None of zouk's predictions ever come true.) So now he's forced to praise Hillary, after spending most of 2007 pasting in a dozen articles per day bashing her, in order to continue insulting the Democrats.

It must be difficult to be zouk. Pity him.

Posted by: Blarg | February 25, 2008 3:38 PM | Report abuse

YES claudialong GREAT post again!

Posted by: chadibuins | February 25, 2008 3:36 PM | Report abuse

"I can show you GW Bush in any number of silly ethnic costumes if you wish. GROW UP."

None sillier than this one: http://www.differentstrings.info/images/bushkakis2.jpg

Posted by: Spectator2 | February 25, 2008 3:35 PM | Report abuse

'When the proof is apparent that Obama has never bridged a divide, has been the most partisan senator in DC, that he is beholden to trial lawyers, then things will even out.'

hilarious. i'm surprised that people this trite, simple-minded and misinformed can even write a sentence.

king of kook back -- too bad. it's so tedious to have to scroll past his loooong idiotic screeds. as far as the guy above ranting about obama's 'ethnic costumer' -- he was visiting a country in Africa and wore their traditional costume, as is common for visiting politicians. I can show you GW Bush in any number of silly ethnic costumes if you wish. GROW UP.

Posted by: drindl | February 25, 2008 3:34 PM | Report abuse

Mul: your "sort of black" comment is "sort of offensive".

He may be disparaged because he doesn't fit some typical white stereotype of what a black man is supposed to be--or the fact that his mother is white; but HE self-identifies with the black community, has married a black woman and is raising his daughters in the black community.

And if all that wasn't enough--let him walk into any store and see how "black" he is if someone doesn't recognize him as who he is, they'll be sure to recognize him as a black man.
******************************************
Zouk--you are drinking the kool-aid too, Obama is and has proven he is more than rousing speeches and flowery words. And it is awful funny to me how selective conservatives are with Obama when they sent a rich daddy's boy borderline idiot to the white house for eight years straight.

Posted by: chadibuins | February 25, 2008 3:33 PM | Report abuse

Stats not in play -

Kansas, ND, SD, SC, VA (I don't think so).

Obama might put Wisconsin and Pa in play for the republicans.

Mac is from the SW and Hispanics like him. That makes him strong in that area and Obama has shown no real appeal so far - lost NM, AZ, and NV.

Posted by: mul | February 25, 2008 3:30 PM | Report abuse

do you Libs realize that Obama has carried all the Red states in the primaries. these are disgruntled Dem voters who never have a say in any Dem politics. they are sticking their collective thumbs in your eyes. the actual states that go Dem in the general election all went for Hillary, the almost sensible candidate in comparison. In the general they will consider McCain instead of the Dukakais, gore, Kerry, Mcgovern, Carter wing of the party that has can't win an election any more.

you have fooled yourselves (again) into nominating an unelectable through and through extreme liberal. We do not want to soak the rich to pay for everything under the sun with a big cut for the bureaucracy as it passes through. We never do.

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 25, 2008 3:29 PM | Report abuse

Missouri, Virginia, and Iowa are real possibilities. Forget the rest. If Obama wins these states, he will have a comfortable margin of victory.

Posted by: hubwhid | February 25, 2008 3:28 PM | Report abuse

I see the Dems are so desperate to grasp power that they are willing to put all their chipson the high school prom king. no experience, no stature, just pretty speeches and flowery prose. It is no surprise that the youth, who are easily swayed and immensely gullible, go for this guy as well as all the old washed up hippies, still trying to refight the 60s.

Obama is nothing but a return to the failures of the Carter years. If you look longingly forward to getting trampled by mid-east dictators, interest rates through the roof, taxes beyond robbery, big government nannyism and nothing to back it up but rousing speeches, by all means, elect Obama.

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 25, 2008 3:23 PM | Report abuse

Yes Obama is running in part on Big lies. The media has been helping. This piece is very very late in coming.

Obama is not going to get 60 senators. He will have a very hard time in the Upper South (he is sort of black). Does not connect well with working class whites, Jews, or Hispanics. That makes Florida a bad state for Obama. Also the industrial midwest and the southwest or not good Obama states. Black voters are in states that are solidly blue or red (Maybe Georgia is in play). Mac does what Obama speaks except for the War. Bold, reform, works across party lines.

Hillary has her problems too but so does Obama. The Dems have the issues but that has not helped very much.

Posted by: mul | February 25, 2008 3:20 PM | Report abuse

To Kingofzouk,

Where do you get your ideas of Obama from? He talks about personal responsibility, for example, helping college students with their costs, but, he tells them, "you have to be responsible too", that they have to give back in the form of community service. Sounds pretty American to me. His healthcare plan is different than Hillary's, she wants another government mandate, comparing it to Social Security. Social Security is just a computer at the Treasury Department that spits out checks every month. No one wants the same government that couldn't run Walter Reed Medical Center to run the entire health care system. Obama just wants to make it more affordable to those that can't afford it. Sound pretty American to me. The Bush/McCain team have bankrupted us. Remember the Soviet Union, they put all their money into their military and ran the country into the ground. We can't afford to take care of everyone all over the world, and have permanent bases everywhere. President Washington warned about getting too involved in other countries affairs, and President Eisenhower warned about the military/industrial complex, aka Halliburton, who are spending untold billions. McCain obviously doesn't understand Washington and Eisenhower, Obama sure does, sounds pretty American to me. As far as our country not being broken, it isn't broken, but it is going broke. McCain doesn't seem to get this, Obama does, sounds pretty American to me...

Posted by: gckarcher | February 25, 2008 3:18 PM | Report abuse

Chris, you have hit on my favorite subject.

As I have maintained before in this forum, so-called "Red States" are available if a Democrat wants to work for them. Take my state of Montana: Max Baucus won 60 percent of the vote last time. I find it hard to believe that those voters cannot be persuaded to vote for the national ticket.

But we have been ignored in presidential campaigns since 1964. Candidates have not come in person. They do little advertising.

But one would be denying history to say Montana and other states in the inland west can't vote Democratic. There was a time in the early 20th century that Montana and the prairie states east of us were solid Democratic country. No one could imagine that a Republican could win here. But that changed.

Why it changed could fill a book, but it did change and can change again. But the change will be a lot slower if the Democratic party and it's national candidates continue to ignore these states. We have already demonstrated a move back to Democratic circles in the recent races for Governor and Senator in the inland western states.

Posted by: AlaninMissoula | February 25, 2008 3:18 PM | Report abuse

tear it up tony_in_Durham_NC !

Posted by: chadibuins | February 25, 2008 3:15 PM | Report abuse

Who is more likely to win swing states such as Ohio, Florida, & Nevada in the general elections?

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=1773


.

Posted by: PollM | February 25, 2008 3:12 PM | Report abuse

You have for Arkansas as "Knowles" is that Tony Knowles. He's alaska's govenor in 1998.

Posted by: PLuv | February 25, 2008 3:06 PM | Report abuse

Zouk--

You're off-topic and just trying to get attention.

I am baffled at why so-called "conservatives" cherish the loss of our rule of law? What's "conservative" about burning both the Constitution and The Bill of Rights?

I'm tired of "conservative" leaders who act like frightened little girls whenever there's a security problem. "oh, oh, oh, we have to suspend habeas corpus! oh, oh, oh we have to torture! oh, oh, oh we have to outsource the military to blackwater and halliburton! oh what will we do? what will we do?"

Go stick your nose back in your bible. Old Testament, obviously.

Posted by: tony_in_Durham_NC | February 25, 2008 3:04 PM | Report abuse

"Lyndon Johnson in 1964 was the last Democrat who won Alaska, Idaho, Kansas, Nebraska"
Johnson himself may have accurately predicted this election when, having signed the Votings Rights Act of 1965, he said he feared the Democrats would lose the South for 50 years. That time frame has passed, and it would be immensely fitting if Obama reconstucts that broad Democratic coalition. (Chuck Hagel for Dem VP nominee!)

Posted by: Manrico1 | February 25, 2008 3:02 PM | Report abuse

Polls from past winters (along with actual winning percentages)...

Feb 2004
Kerry 53 (48)
Bush 46 (51)

Edwards 49
Bush 48


Feb 2000
Bush 50 (48)
Gore 45 (48)

McCain 55
Gore 39


Jan 1996
Clinton 48 (49)
Dole 49 (41)

What that tells us is that polls at this time of the election cycle really mean little. What we can be reasonably sure about is that Obama will have to explain his positions in a little more detail and that will hurt him (as he is somewhere between the most and tenth most liberal senator in Congress), McCain will have to do better at fundraising if he wants to be competitive, and there will be some surprising allegations on one or both candidates between now and November. The Clinton arguement of words over substance will have some impact for all those R's considering voting for him. By the time November rolls around, I would think it would be difficult for a conservative to vote for Obama, staying home being the most likely scenario. Obama is the trendy pick now and it is his election to lose. We'll see if his veneer sticks or not.

Posted by: dave | February 25, 2008 3:02 PM | Report abuse

1. Obama is not beating Clinton using republican voters. He is getting up to half of the registered Dems, and a large chunk of the Independents where the primary or caucus is "open".
2. Obama and Clinton are generating a huge INCREASE in voter turnout, in primaries. (The republican turnout is fairly normal). The notion that these new voters are primarily motivated by antipathy to the democratic candidates, and will vote Republican in the G.E. is far-fetched. Believe it at your peril. Certainly in the initial primaries thru Super Tues, when the Rep. candidate remained in doubt, the vast majority of republican-leaning voters were voting R, not Obama.
3. All polling and speculation to date has been that Obama presents the greater challenge in the G.E. So, either you are arguing R-leaning voters would vote in a primary to make things tougher in the G.E., or that teh conventional wisdom was all wrong, that Clinton is the more daunting challenge. Again, believe it at your peril.
4. There is certainly danger for Obama in losing some of his center-left/right coalition to McCain in the G.E. But if the alternative for the Dems is Clinton, who has even less of a fighting chance in the center against McCain, Obama seems the more logical "choice". (I'm not choosing, just arguing).
5. The left-side base appears quite divided in choosing between two STRONG candidates for their views, not a McCain/Huckabee lesser-of-2-evils choice presented to the other side. Obama's not gonna lose that base support come November. But, go ahead and believe it.

Posted by: LowellHoughtonIII | February 25, 2008 3:01 PM | Report abuse

Of course picking over the 'red' states listed the ones that are identified as possible victories also tend to be the larger electoral college states in the group (MO, VA, CO, IA) while apart from the deep south the rest of the states have the slightest marginal effect (3 or 4 EC votes).

Posted by: cmsore | February 25, 2008 2:53 PM | Report abuse

King of Zouk said:
"We did this by the sweat of our brows and the energy of our people."

Let's not forget at the time this was definitely true--the people were "our people" because they were owned. America was built and amassed wealth because of free slave labor.

that is the flaw in the conservative diatribe, too prone to myth making, and overlooking realities--for example how Clinto paid more attention and did more to fight Al-Queda and Bin Laden--how upon leaving office the CLinton admin advised continued diligence in anti-terrorism, especially Al-Queda and Bin Laden; and the fact that the Clinton admin virtually handed a negotiated talk with Kim Jong Il over to Bush 43 to complete, whoch he totally scorned because he was too busy playing cowboy and getting back at Saddam for daddy. And as far as Iran, while JC does hold partial blame for being weak back in the '70's he has more than tried to correct his fault by working on peace and diplomacy in the middle east; and funny how if it is all Jimmy's fault we didn't have such issue with it when we were selling arms, pushing money and what else under the "father of modern conservatism" Reagan--It has only been since Bush/Cheney and their non-attempts at diplomacy that Iran has gotten to be the issue it is.

Posted by: chadibuins | February 25, 2008 2:51 PM | Report abuse

Of the states that you list, I think that the only realistic wins for Obama (against McCain) would be: Colorado, Missouri, Virginia, and also Kansas (if he picks its Gov. as VP). Iowa will be very close.

Posted by: SWadvocate | February 25, 2008 2:47 PM | Report abuse

Very good point, buchel. The Democrats are probably going to have a huge money advantage in the general. (Judging by their huge advantages in fundraising so far, both for the primaries and House/Senate campaigns.) The DNC can promote Obama in all 50 states, and scare the RNC into spending their scarce money defending states that are traditionally red. That strategy wouldn't work if Hillary was the nominee, because she's not a credible candidate outside of traditional Democratic strongholds.

Posted by: Blarg | February 25, 2008 2:41 PM | Report abuse

whoopee - zouk is back with his unique brand of annoying cut and paste posts.

Posted by: Spectator2 | February 25, 2008 2:40 PM | Report abuse

The question about which red states Obama could actually flip is only a small part of the general election narrative. What's most important is what becomes possible.
The possibility that he could win in so many of these red states means that McCain would have to spend money defending "home turf" rather than just camping out in FL and OH for the entire 2 months of the general election.
I remember Chuck Todd on MSNBC talking a week or two ago about a conversation he had with a republican strategist. The strategist said Obama couldn't win say, Mississippi, but he'd make it single digits, which would force McCain to spend money there.
Compare this with Hillary's "insult 40 states" strategy and it should be obvious to any democrat why Obama is the dems best chance of winning the general.

Posted by: buchel | February 25, 2008 2:37 PM | Report abuse

Usually I agree with Chris' analysis, but I think in this case his analysis is quite shortsighted. He is only looking at recent elections and ignoring two important factors: organization and money.

We often forget that in 2004, had Rove and the Republicans not organized such a masterful ground game (getting the evangelicals, Moonies and other loons to register to vote Republican), Bush would have been CRUSHED in the general.

Obama is clearly going to have a superior organization--he will have volunteers, organizers and grass roots support like we've never seen. McCain will be lucky if he can get his party's base to even VOTE for him, let alone run the GOTV efforts.

Obama is also going to significantly outraise McCain. McCain is the nominee-in-waiting, and by all accounts, he STILL can't raise money, whereas Obama breaks records on a monthly basis.

Barring any huge shocks, Obama will win handily. I'd say he'll carry MO, VA, IA, NM and possibly CO, OH and/or FL.

Posted by: uckeleg | February 25, 2008 2:35 PM | Report abuse

This is really simple guys! For the most part either CLinton or Obama would win the true blue states but with Clinton she has shown that she is only strong in the bluest of the blues and therfore has virtually no chance at picking up any red states or even "purple" ones.

Obama is much stronger in these states and wouldn't have to win many to win a sizable majority in the fall. So he wins blues plus a few and she wins just blues. How is there still skepticism?

Posted by: johnhodson | February 25, 2008 2:32 PM | Report abuse

King of Kook - I have heard that conservative philosophy is less about sincere ideology and rationalizing selfishness and greed. I was never so cynical to believe that, because the niceness and hope you lampoon so clumsily would not let me be convinced that jackals like Rush, Hannity, blah blah had a real audience.

Whoops. I was wrong. Are you a Joint-ritis fan, too?

Posted by: bondjedi | February 25, 2008 2:32 PM | Report abuse

Some posters are incorrectly labeling New Mexico a Red state. It is a Purple state - the very definition of a battleground state. IMHO Obama kills McCain in New Mexico.

Posted by: NMModerate1 | February 25, 2008 2:27 PM | Report abuse

Well Mr. fix, you and the rest of the beltway insiders have been 99% wrong for the most of this election cycle, and I percieve that trend continues.

I think Obama can absolutely win the red states because the NEO-CONS and fundamentailst wack jobs are not voting in droves, for one thing.

Regardless, the point is mute because hillary can't win a single red state - she ENERGIZES those who hate. She inspires religious fundamentalist wack jobs to go to the polls... TO VOTE AGAINST HER.

Hillary has a snowball's chance in hell of winning ANY red state, and we the voters who have not swallowd her cool-aid know it.

I submit to you that the next president is Barack Obama.

Posted by: onestring | February 25, 2008 2:25 PM | Report abuse

"Of all the analysis, there is only one point that will matter in November: security and experience."

Really? Then the 2008 race was over when Biden and Dodd dropped out? Presumably you told everyone to not bother voting since McCain obviously had it all sewed up. Golly, why don't they listen to you?

And McCain (much better on both security and experience) beat Bush during the 2000 R primaries. Oh, wait, that didn't happen either?

Maybe you should try predicting the past before you attempt to predict the future. It helps you not look like a fool in the present.

Posted by: judgeccrater | February 25, 2008 2:25 PM | Report abuse

In the cognitive dissonance of the left, the consequences of applying that insipid philosophy as demonstrated by Carter and Clinton is lost. The shattering attacks of 9-11 were conceived and pre-positioned under the nose of a self-absorbed and scandal-distracted President Clinton; his Middle East diplomacy was a sham and crumbled in short order. Iran is the danger that it is today because of President Carter's foolish foreign policies. He continues to enable brutal thugs in the Middle East, where his recent book sells well, just after Mein Kampf. Consequences are inconvenient things. When Democrats look back in fondness to those times, it is the power that they miss; they dare not point to their achievements......

Yet the truth of America is far different once you escape the ideological pandering and the supportive bias of a devious and self-serving press. Even as the public is bombarded with falsehoods, the truth filters through, especially when the reality of day-to-day life so often contradicts what our television screens tell us. Our economy bustles along, with inevitable ups and downs, but remains strong. Americans live better than ever before. As a nation, we live in the best of times, a place that the rest of humanity covets. We did this by the sweat of our brows and the energy of our people. We have more education, more luxury, more life options, more of everything good and far less of everything bad, less disease, less poverty and less struggle than ever before. We have prosperity, we have employment, we have technology. Hope is what America is all about; hope that has every expectation of success. Consider the millions that are desperate to get here. Even our poor have cars, appliances and entertainments. Our concern for them is not hunger but obesity. Never before in the history of mankind has this contradiction existed.


Ignore all those facts. What Obama tells us distills down to this: if we were nicer, if we were more generous, if we were better people, if we played better with others, if we gave more to the disadvantaged in the world, then we could fix this country (which sounds perfectly rational if your starting assumption is that it is broken). He claims he loves this country, and he just wants to help it reach its potential. In this, he is like a selfish husband, who says he loves his wife, but just wants her to have different hair, a different figure and a different voice....

An Obama administration will be one of historical revision, of faltering American values, of ideologues crafting "progressive" policy, of radicals telling citizens how to live, what to drive, what to eat and what to believe. They will tell us that the constitution is a living document and should change to reflect the times. They will tell us that we must pay more and more for the common good. They will take away our choices and make more and more of us dependant. Obama's will be an administration of concocted class warfare, of racial exceptionalism and of pro-Islamist bias, and in the name of redefined justice and revolutionary inclusiveness, America will lose part of her soul and more of her freedoms. For all his rhetoric of hope, change and "coming together," we still live in a perilous world. In a time of Islamic terror and nuclear proliferation, an Obama presidency will undermine America as never before.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/02/the_fierce_urgency_of_lies.html

Oh no - reality re - emerges from zouk.

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 25, 2008 2:24 PM | Report abuse

xaplaines--you are just plain wrong.

While I know Obama is not going to win over everyone--I also do not think those who are behind him are just delusional or misinformed.

And, while pundits, like our friend The Fix, get a bad wrap, and maybe though to are human-I think it is imprtant to point out they must know something--maybe they're not 100% correct, but I don't think the Nat'l media is giving Obama a free ride--I think that Obama has just been openly honest and forthcoming--Even when criticized for only "providing words" he explained and didn't apologize and used it to his advantage----Has anyone else noticed how many times the message board on signs at Hillary's rallies have changed???

Posted by: chadibuins | February 25, 2008 2:21 PM | Report abuse

"The first is that black voters tend to vote in very high numbers in presidential years, meaning that turnout would likely increase linearly not exponentially if Obama led the ticket."

The other side of this statement needs to be brought out into the open: R turnout would likely decrease linearly not exponentially when McCain leads the ticket. Ask both sides of the question, CC, don't just repeat the CW created in a WaPo article from last week. Enhanced black voting may certainly win parts of the South for BHO if the R voters stay home in droves. Or if they crossover and vote for BHO.

BTW, I don't believe this nonsense that ALL of the crossover R voters are going to switch back to McCain in November. I'd agree that some will but saying that all of them will is delusional. We were seeing R's crossover to BHO in polling conducted way back before IA when there were still a dozen or so D and R candidates.

Posted by: judgeccrater | February 25, 2008 2:19 PM | Report abuse

"Many Independents crossed to vote for Obama because it is my firm belief, and I think the general election will bear me out (having lived through 1972), that the Republicans want to run against Obama."

Of course, it's also possible that many independents crossed over because they prefer Obama to the dish of crap served up by the GOP this year. Ask yourself: if the GOP were so organized that it can mobilize voters not just to vote for the Dems, but also for the correct dem (what if they crossed over and voted for Hill or Edwards?), don't you think it would be even easier to get them to come out in masse in November? In other words, why would the GOP waste its money on such a loony conspiracy scenario as the one you present? And unless the GOP is speaking to independents and party faithful in code, there is no evidence that what you imagined happening actually happened.

Posted by: bondjedi | February 25, 2008 2:18 PM | Report abuse

xplanes, I think you're misinformed.

Firstly, Obama's 'native dress' is blue jeans and a flannel shirt.

Secondly, Pawlenty (note spelling) can't deliver MN for McCain. Pawlenty won because his opponent is a short-fused hothead that flipped out at the media two days before the election after his running mate botched a question on ethanol in a farm community. This in a three-person race. Current matchups have Obama beating McCain in MN by 9 points, McCain over Clinton by 9.

Posted by: bsimon | February 25, 2008 2:16 PM | Report abuse

xplanes: It's amazing that Obama managed to win so many closed primaries with only 15-20% of the Democratic vote.

Posted by: Blarg | February 25, 2008 2:15 PM | Report abuse

Arkansas last voted for a Dem Prez in 1964? Have you forgotten the Clinton elections?

Posted by: RWinLA | February 25, 2008 2:15 PM | Report abuse

Of all the analysis, there is only one point that will matter in November: security and experience. Obama cannot win a national election and everything on this site is pure speculation. First of all, as Geraldine Ferraro points out in her op-ed piece in the NY Times, the percentage of Democrats who actually voted for Obama is probably in 15-20% range. That's Democrats. Many Independents crossed to vote for Obama because it is my firm belief, and I think the general election will bear me out (having lived through 1972), that the Republicans want to run against Obama. Oh, yes they do. Of course, they are not saying that now. Why? The Democratic left wing is shooting the party in the foot without the Republican machine having to do a thing. A fine example of what I am talking about is the picture that The Drudge Report put on its site. People were outraged but why? Because it showed Obama in his ethnic native dress? Because it was real? Because there is something bad about being in the costume of your ancestors and your heritage? The outcry was amusing to me. Because every Obama supporter insulted their candidate by the very fact they thought it was a dirty trick. Really? It is this kind of thing that will bury Obama little by little. My guess, he will lose 40 states, and I'am being generous. One national security crisis and his candidacy will be over. Big time. McCain's secret weapon, in my opinion, is that he will get the Hispanic vote. That gives him the Southwest at the very least and Texas at a minimum. Remember this, Hillary won the big Democratic states, not Obama. I know many Democrats who will not vote for Obama because of his lack of experience. I agree with that premise. As for the South, there is no way Obama can get the South, not in his dreams. Independents will go with McCain and the right wing will show up for McCain. Oh, by the way, if McCain selects Powlente (?) from Minnesota, you can add that to the Republican column.

Posted by: xplanes | February 25, 2008 2:06 PM | Report abuse

To answer this question, first you have to decide whether McCain will be playing offense or defense. The 4 "ripest" states for McCain to flip based on 2004 narrow margin for Kerry are: Wisconsin (.38% margin), New Hampshire (1.37%), PA (2.5%), Michigan (3.4%). If anything, the trends since 2004 in these states and the national mood of Bush fatigue suggest that the margins will increase for the Dems in the blue states.

So this suggests that McCain will be playing defense, trying to hold on to the narrow electoral edge that Bush had in 2004. He'll be struggling to hold 8 states won by Bush with narrow margins: Iowa & New Mexico (less than 1%), Ohio & Nevada (less than 3%), Colorado & Florida (about 5%), Missouri (7.2%) and Virginia (8.2%). I'd suggest that all 8 of these states will be heavily contested. Interim contests for governor and the senate show favorable trends in Ohio, Missouri and Virginia. It is questionable how red any of these states are. Democrats in Florida have a registration edge of Republicans by nearly a half million. Any number of factors indicate that McCain will have his hands full against a headwind in 2008. And he may also be at a fundraising disadvantage whether the campaigns are publicly financed or not.

My conclusion: the battle this fall will be waged in states carried by Bush in 2004, and McCain will lose at least 5 of them and will pick up no blue states.

Posted by: optimyst | February 25, 2008 2:05 PM | Report abuse

Comparing the states that Obama has a great/good/ok/slim chance in to the recent red/blue/battleground split he pushes deeper and has a better chance than the simple Kerry plus one.

Of course, Kerry+1 looks like it has at least a slight possibility of being carried by a dead dog considering the Ohio GOP has close to imploded since the last presidential election. (Wasn't it the governor being incompetent and corrupt and leaving with a 9% approval rating or some such? Bob Taft? or am I remembering incorrectly?). I'm not sure the GOP has a real chance at any but a very small handful of D states this year.

Posted by: cmsore | February 25, 2008 2:04 PM | Report abuse

Oops, she might also pick up MO. Still, Obama has a much stronger electoral position state by state and could easily get over 300 EV. Though let's see how this overblown media backlash plays out and how the nomination campaign concludes.

Posted by: Nissl | February 25, 2008 2:02 PM | Report abuse

W/ Obama as the candidate, there's a chance to pick up a few of these states. With HRC, there's virtually no chance. I specifically think that MO, IA, VA will definitely move into the "D" column. I think Obama has an outside chance in KS but it would be no more than a 30-35% shot. What is being overlooked, however, is that even IF Obama doesn't win all of these states, the Republicans will absolutely have to spend more time & $$ defending them than they have had to in the past. Republicans playing defense in a lot "base" states does not bode well for them....

Posted by: cliffordmc | February 25, 2008 2:02 PM | Report abuse

I think Obama would have a shot for some of the electoral college votes from Nebraska. We are break electoral college votes out by the winner statewide and by congressional district. At the very least, Obama would win CD2 based in Omaha. I think with a large margin in CD2 he could also win the statewie vote. This gives Obama between 1 and 3 electoral college votes from Nebraska, McCain is guaranteed at least 1 electoral college vote from CD3 based in rural Nebraska. I think Obama only beat Clinton in that region 52-48% in the caucuses. With the right VP choice (Daschle/Sebelius), I could see him taking Kansas or South Dakota.

Posted by: owherald | February 25, 2008 2:02 PM | Report abuse

Esmerelda said:
"I alternate between laughter at how his campaign will be over then and fear that he will then win."

I SO understand that unique situation.

Posted by: chadibuins | February 25, 2008 1:58 PM | Report abuse

I still think McCain may do something nuts like pick Huckabee for a running mate, and I alternate between laughter at how his campaign will be over then and fear that he will then win. This whole season is just insane. I have no idea how adding Huckabee on the ticket with McCain would affect Obama's chances in the red states. But, Obama does not need to really do much to pull this out of the water with ease.

Posted by: esmerelda123 | February 25, 2008 1:57 PM | Report abuse

I think it is important to point out that the comparisons with Reagen are not about ideology.

I don't think anyone thought Reagan was anything but a conservative--I think the point that is made is at the time Reagan's conservatism represented hope and the american ideal--especially "how we want to view ourselves." Americans like being LIKED. We want to be seen as helpful and generous--which is one reason Bush's approval ratings are SO low.

The Reagan comparison to Obama is more about capturing a wider swath than previously touched. Reagan (like him or not) did a great job of healing the Rep party after Watergate by getting Reps and America to believe in the VALUES he put forth and identified with--"The Shining City on the Hill--It's Morning In America Again"

Obama is capturing that same message--that is why the Obama campaign could stand the chance of winning a Reagen-esque landslide--NOT by capturing (or recapturing) the same voters as Reagen, but appealing to Americans as American's first--party members second.

Posted by: chadibuins | February 25, 2008 1:54 PM | Report abuse

thecrisis writes
"Obama only won the Iowa caucus by 8 points but now he's 17 points over McCain, who is 9 points over Clinton. That's a 26 point disparity between Obama and Clinton in Iowa."

Yo, Crisis, good info, but, sad to say, you double-count the gap between Clinton & Obama. She gets 40, he gets 53. 13 points that apparently represent the critical swing voters, as that's how much McCain's numbers move too.

Posted by: bsimon | February 25, 2008 1:54 PM | Report abuse

Polls show Obama with large leads in IA, where more money has already been spent than will be spend in the general. He also has leads of 7%+ in NV, CO, and NM. Polls are mixed but generally favorable in MO and OH, and mixed in VA. No polls in NC. Just a 6 point deficit in KS, and he may pick Sebelius as VP. Those are Obama's pickups right there. Out of all of those states, Clinton would have to bank on OH. She has huge deficits in all of the rest not to mention being behind in Kerry 2004 states like OR, MN, WI. I'm not sure exactly where you're going with this Chris.

Posted by: Nissl | February 25, 2008 1:50 PM | Report abuse

Chris, you're usually pretty savvy, so I trust the context of your question.

But as others have pointed out, it's also up to McCain to not screw things up for his side, although I'm not sure his base thinks much about anything.

I live in a red-to-purple state and I can see many Bush supporters are pretty embarrassed by their boy at 1600. I think Obama comes across better as a fiscal conservative than Hillary (besides, no one likes the baggage she brings to this contest, sad to say). Democrats still have a reputation for levying taxes (even though in the coming years it will be to make up for over-spending by a GOP-led President and Congress, how's that for investing in the future?.)

If Bush and Karl Rove could stay out of this election by not invading Iran or letting a terrorist action "slip" by, I think Obama has a better chance in some of these states than other Democrats, past or present.

Posted by: tony_in_Durham_NC | February 25, 2008 1:48 PM | Report abuse

My guess is that with the local Repub indictments and Sen. Stevens on the ropes, Alaska is actually in play for the Dems. Not that it matters, since Obama will have been declared the winner by the networks long before Alaska's returns come in. States like MO, IA, CO, VA, etcetera, will fall easily to Obama. Republicans will be very busy in places like LA and TX trying to keep local R officeholders from being dragged down by the ticket.

The big difference in an Obama and Clinton candidacy is that, just as she concentrated on only a handful of states to hopefully win the nomination and would tragically do so again as a general election candidate, Obama will have a 50 state campaign that will increase Dem margins in most legislatures and Congressional delegations.

Posted by: Stonecreek | February 25, 2008 1:48 PM | Report abuse

Chris,

I have only one poll to show you:

Iowa: McCain vs. Obama
Selzer & Co (DMR)
McCain 36, Obama 53 = Obama +17

Iowa: McCain vs. Clinton
Selzer & Co (DMR)
McCain 49, Clinton 40 = McCain +9

Fresh from realclearpolitics.com as of today. Obama only won the Iowa caucus by 8 points but now he's 17 points over McCain, who is 9 points over Clinton. That's a 26 point disparity between Obama and Clinton in Iowa. Don't forget, every state that Obama won in the nomination process will feel even greater momentum into the presidential election. Obviously Iowa is still surging more and more for Obama, even though they caucused long ago.

Two more fresh polls:

Ohio: McCain vs. Obama
SurveyUSA
McCain 44, Obama 47, Und 9
Obama +3

Virginia: McCain vs. Obama
SurveyUSA
McCain 45, Obama 51, Und 4
Obama +6

Posted by: thecrisis | February 25, 2008 1:46 PM | Report abuse

I think the analysts in your piece are correct--it would be very hard for Obama to win in the red states. Not only that, I think there's a mistake in perceiving independent voters as a rather monolithic group. I'd bet that Obama's indys represent mostly younger voters that have never wholly identified with a political party, are more ideological--to the left of moderate Dems, would not be likely to vote GOP in Nov, and would not represent the political center, the way we think of independents. I'd bet the OTHER independents trend older, less ideological, could more easily vote for either party, and are less represented in the primary votes. This would presumably include a lot of older industrial union voters (current, former--laid-off--or retired) in states that Dems have to win. In other words, I doubt that the independents that are coming out to vote for Obama in the primaries are the independent (or Democratic) voters (or their actual or philosophical offspring) who came out to vote for Reagan...
Is there any way to get crosstabs on the exit polls?

Posted by: cmv99 | February 25, 2008 1:46 PM | Report abuse

Barring an October surprise terror alert, I can see Obama winning everything Kerry did, plus Ohio - and that's obviously enough to win.

But the possibility that he might carry some previously red states (my picks: Iowa, Colorado, Virginia, Missouri, maybe North Dakota and even Kansas if Sebelius is on the ticket) is exciting. And if chadibuins' optimistic prediction is realized, I think he'll have popular support that's both wide and deep - maybe enough to actually make the "changes" both he and Clinton have been campaigning on.

Claiming to be post-partisan is not enough - the legislative branch on both sides of the aisle will need to hear a clear mandate from voters. If he doesn't win big, I regretfully predict "more of the same" in spite of his best intentions.

Posted by: -pamela | February 25, 2008 1:41 PM | Report abuse

I agree with bsimon--I think more Americans (while weary and wary of ALL media) would trust any of those over FOX or the Coulter/Limbaughs?????

I totally think America (while not liberal) is much bluer than has been shown by voter turnout in the last decades of elections.

Posted by: chadibuins | February 25, 2008 1:41 PM | Report abuse

Cornell1984 writes
"it is obvious that most Americans no longer respect the WaPo, NY Times, CNN, NBC, etc. and will get their info elsewhere."

Cornell, I think you're fooling yourself. But, for the sake of discussion, where do you expect that Americans, generally, and the all-important swing voters, specifically, will get their info?

Posted by: bsimon | February 25, 2008 1:38 PM | Report abuse

N Dak may be a long shot--but I'm going for it.

I also think Idaho and the other Plains will be competitive, I just think they'll be mostly red at the end of the night.

(Anyone else DONE with the winner take all Electoral College System???)

I think Florida will go RED if Crist is on the ticket or very visible in the campaign--I think he is too popular here--again his tax cut ammendment won on a night with record turn-out of Dem voters. However, like in the Plains, I think Obama will be competitive till the end; and could perhaps pull it off with the right arguments and coalitions--mainly in S. Florida, as N and W Florida is more ruraland "southern" and too racially divided to establish a real coalition for Obama up in this neck of the woods.

Claudialong--I SO agree with you about the Reps--check out my blog
http://roastedreligion.blogspot.com/2008/02/conservaties-should-be-ashamed-and-yet.html

Posted by: chadibuins | February 25, 2008 1:35 PM | Report abuse

I see at least 3 to 4 states on that list that could easily flip in the general election (CO, MO, IA, and maybe VA) and that does not include Ohio. (MO because I think the African American vote will make the difference in the numbers.)

And on this is one VERY important missed by the Fix. If Barack flips 3 of the 4 of those red states listed above plus OH, and wins all the states that Kerry/Gore won, then he'll win the election easily.

Posted by: rhinohide | February 25, 2008 1:33 PM | Report abuse

If Americans only had to left-wing media to have Obama's so-called unity theme drummed into their head, maybe the MSM would get their candidate in (SNL so perfectly spoofed the libs in the media) But it is obvious that most Americans no longer respect the WaPo, NY Times, CNN, NBC, etc. and will get their info elsewhere. When the proof is apparent that Obama has never bridged a divide, has been the most partisan senator in DC, that he is beholden to trial lawyers, then things will even out. Americans are not getting the truth from WaPo, which today parodies the Obama is a uniter" BS.

Posted by: Cornell1984 | February 25, 2008 1:32 PM | Report abuse

Election landslides and economic recessions are often identified the same way...that is, obvious only after they're over. I'm not predicting a landslide here but wouldn't be surprised---more and more of the factors are falling into place. Biggest is R base staying home...if that's the general trend, it changes everything, everywhere.

There is at least one exception to "changes everything, everywhere," and that's Idaho. Just read a Dan Popkey column in the Idaho Statesman in which he mentioned Idaho has been Obama's best performing state so far...Obama picked up 4 of 5 Idaho Democrats in the recent caucuses. As an Idaho native, I might restate that as Obama picked up 4 of THE 5 Idaho Democrats...

Posted by: malis | February 25, 2008 1:30 PM | Report abuse

I doubt this election has blowout written all over it. 1996 should have been a blowout but Clinton didn't even garner 50% of the popular vote.
Posted by: mac8081 | February 25, 2008 01:19 PM

I disagree with your comparison to 1996, the Republicans had just taken back congress a few years before in 1994.
The Republicans are nowhere near that energized for this election.

It could be 60% for Obama.

Posted by: jnoel002 | February 25, 2008 1:28 PM | Report abuse

Chris,

While I would agree that no Democrat could achieve some sweeping sea change in the red states listed, I'd also ask, exactly how many of these states do you think Obama needs to win?

Just take the following experiment - assume Obama takes the same states as John Kerry, plus the states here that look most ripe for a switch: IA, CO, MO (which I think you have as Ky. by mistake), VA and LA. These account for 49 electoral votes, so it switches Kerry's 286-251 loss to a 300-237 win for Obama - and that's without carrying OH or FL.

I think you might also be able to argue that even if he only has a small chance in states like KS, AL, and GA, he'll likely be able to devote resources there if his fundraising advantage keeps up. Even a perceived red state appeal could create a strategy where McCain would be forced to play at least a little defense in these states, which would take precious resources away from the actual battleground states.

Posted by: faberman.jason | February 25, 2008 1:24 PM | Report abuse

'I am wondering who is black water backing in this campaign, any body know?'

you kidding? they're uberhawks. mccain of course. they beleive they're Crusaders and we haven't left the 11th century.

Posted by: drindl | February 25, 2008 1:22 PM | Report abuse

I doubt this election has blowout written all over it. 1996 should have been a blowout but Clinton didn't even garner 50% of the popular vote. This has shades of 1996 all over again unless Hillary wins the nomination. Then it's 2000 all over again. McCain to win is going to need a pretty strong running mate but I have no clue who would want to ride those coattails. I'm thinking a one term president no matter if it's D or R.

Posted by: mac8081 | February 25, 2008 1:19 PM | Report abuse

I am wondering who is black water backing in this campaign, any body know?

Posted by: dewanitum | February 25, 2008 1:18 PM | Report abuse

Let's take Idaho, where Obama won 80% of the vote, as an example. Obama is not going to turn Idaho over to the Democrats. Nothing in the state's demographics suggests that he could, and the caucus numbers, while tallying impressive percentages for Obama, were not really all that strong in terms of bodies. Granted that many of these are small, rural counties, nonetheless, Clark County tallied a total of six votes in its caucus; Caribou County, 23 votes, and so on. These are areas where a Republican candidate will earn 3-1 or 4-1 support or better over a Democrat.

The right Democrat can swing states that are already close, but don't expect the electoral map to change that much.

Posted by: blert | February 25, 2008 1:17 PM | Report abuse

I agree with some of the people above, that if Israel attacks Iran, republican base will turn out and vote for McCain. Everybody knows its in interest of Israel to have republican win general election. If you really want to know, look at advisors McCain. Most of Rudi Guliani's advisors were hawk neo-cons and after he dropped out, hawks switched to McCain. I think one of the conservative magazine did a huge story on this.

The American Conservative magazine
Title: Declaring Forever War

Posted by: dewanitum | February 25, 2008 1:15 PM | Report abuse

'Let's just say your girl Hillary brings it out in people.'

just about any Dem does.

Think about it CC. The vote was almost exactly split in 2004, while this year looks like it will bring out millions of new voters, overwhelming Dems. The numbers tell the story. Dem turnout will be record-breaking.

Posted by: drindl | February 25, 2008 1:15 PM | Report abuse

As to the previous comment, that people voted for Obama because they know McCain had enough votes etc, or that they disliked Hillary or that Obama is easier to beat, these are all false. Where is the proof? It seems rather condescending to assume that people voting for Obama don't have a better reason than that. Truly, when people vote, they don't run down a laundry list of positions and see who gets the most checks, they look at the overall person. Who is he/she as a person? Is he/she a leader, someone I respect? Ronald Reagan won many Democrat voters not because they agreed with all of his politics, but because he offered a positive vision of our country and it's people, unlike Jimmy Carter. This is why Hillary is losing. She keeps playing the victim. No one will vote for their president out of pity for them. Her final salutation at the last debate was more victimization. The final question was something to the effect what was your biggest challenge or hardest time in your life. She started out by saying she knew all about challenges and hard times, playing herself up as a victim of the politics of the 90's, when in fact she was one of the chief instigators. She cries foul that the right wing and the healthcare lobby ruined her healthcare plan (her plan, not ours, which was the problem), she devised a plan with Ira Magaziner in secret, put on a closed conference in which the participants were lead to her conclusion, and then she really felt the Senate and House should just accept it because she is Hillary and she knows what's best for us. Well, the members of the House and Senate represent millions of voters and have minds of their own. Late moderate Republican John Chafee of Rhode Island (Lincoln Chafee's Dad), Senator John Chafee went to Hillary with a group of moderates and a plan that they wanted to negotiate with her, and move the debate forward. It wouldn't have solved the entire crisis, but healthcare is too intricate and complex to be fixed by one big act of Congress. Anyway, she dismissed Chafee out of hand and others who also wanted to work with her. This was only because they were wrong and she was right, and she spent the next 14 years victimizing herself on this. The Democrats lost the House (first time in 40 years) and Senate in 1994, because Clinton wouldn't work with Republicans. He forced a tax hike through, which was one of the reasons the voters spurned him in 1994. As for McCain, he is going to lose also. Everytime he comes on t.v after winning a primary, he gives this fear mongering and war mongering tale of woe. Some people think that if there is another terrorist event this year, that it will help McCain and hurt Obama. The opposite may very well be the case. Obama can argue that the Bush/McCain policies of fear aren't making us any safer, which they aren't. No one wants to discuss why they hate us or how to extricate us from Iraq, which is totally inflaming the middle east region. Cuba is another example. Clinton and McCain won't talk to Castro until he meets their conditions. When Nixon went to China, they were a communist dictatorship, and they still are one, today, a lot less communist perhaps, but still a dictatorship. Nixon realized that capitalism could be the tool to slowly democratize them, and it is slowly happening. Why isn't this philosophy used with Cuba? Why the disparity? Canadian and European tourists are sitting on Cuban beaches while I am writing this. Why not normalize relations and go from there. It is this stupid and blind arrogance of the older generation that people are turned off by. People see in Obama someone that will sit down and dialog and communicate. It can only get better from there.

Posted by: gckarcher | February 25, 2008 1:15 PM | Report abuse

chadiuins - No Dak going blue? That's an unusual pick. The rest seem plausible. Where do you have FL?

Posted by: bsimon | February 25, 2008 1:14 PM | Report abuse

I think Obama will win in Reagan-like fashion because of the new demographics he brings to the polls and the right wing is having trouble getting votes for McCain.

I think if you consider those two factors this election has blowout written all over it.

Posted by: jnoel002 | February 25, 2008 1:11 PM | Report abuse

"Oh yeah - the Dukakis-in-the-tank photo op of this season will be Macko standing in the Baghdad market with a flak jacket surrounded by Marines and armored humvees, telling the world how safe it is to take a stroll through Baghdad."

Good comment. That picture is sadly hilarious.

Posted by: Spectator2 | February 25, 2008 1:09 PM | Report abuse

My take as to the "color" of states in Nov:

Iowa --BLUE
S.C. --BLUE
Ala.--RED
Ark.--RED (esp if Huckabee is on the tick)
Colo. --BLUE
Ga. --BLUE
Idaho --RED
Kan. --BLUE(esp if Sebelius is on the tick)
Mo. --BLUE
N.D. --BLUE
Utah --RED
La. --BLUE
Neb. --RED
Va. --PURPLE in a long fight, but BLUE by the end of the night

Posted by: chadibuins | February 25, 2008 1:08 PM | Report abuse

"How can you be paid for such silly articles. Every election is a new roll of the dice. You would like us to think we are bound to our past, and your thoughts are just plain fixed in the past."

What a moronic comment. Elections are not "rolls of the dice." When states have voted the same way for 40 years, that's called a "pattern."

But, as I just noted, it's irrelevant. Obama doesn't need hard-core "red" states like Kan or Neb. He just needs a couple purple states, or a big one like Ohio, where I really cannot see the Dems failing, barring an utterly inept campaign. Talk about your low-hanging fruit!

Posted by: Spectator2 | February 25, 2008 1:07 PM | Report abuse

While I do think that the past voter trends are true, I also think that it is completely possible that Obama can win in several traditionally R states. The more moderate CO, SC, IO and others are all in play with Obama as the nominee because of the sheer numbers that he draws to the polls. With depressed voter turnout on the R side (as we've seen all during the primary) and Obama drawing record numbers of people to the polls, the gap closes between the "majority" Republicans and Dems. The key here is, we shouldnt be looking at the numbers of registered voters, we should be looking at LIKELY voters. With 9 out of 10 blacks voting for Obama, and the youth vote actually participating in this election, Obama can form a coalition that will come out to the polls for him (excitement here helps) and put him over the top. Blacks in southern states may not form a majority of registered voters, but they are going to turn out disproporionately in 08, making stronghold R states swing states.

Posted by: tatyana | February 25, 2008 1:07 PM | Report abuse

I am an Obama supporter, one of the little people taking my wallets shavings and donating them to him.

That being said, I think Obama will have a decrease in "Obamacan" support when he and McCain start going head-to-head after the primaries and his policies start taking a larger role in comparison to his rhetoric. I think his red state appeal is tangible, but I don't see him taking more than, say, Iowa, Kansas, Colorado, and Virginia and maybe some African American-heavy southern states like South Carolina, Louisiana, and Georgia. I think the Conservative McCain-haters will default to McCain in fear of a "nanny state," just like those Obama supporters who say they will vote for McCain if Hillary wins the nomination will suck up there pride and vote policy over principles (I am a part of this latter group).

But, you know, that's still enough to win.

Posted by: schencks84 | February 25, 2008 1:06 PM | Report abuse

"If she actually made some proposals like this and addressed the effect of not just preventing more outsourcing, but of getting jobs to *return*, I might even vote for her. I am not holding my breath."

I'd like to compliment mibrooks for what for him is keeping an open mind. May be too late for Clinton, though. Most likely we'll just have to become Obamanuts to kick the GOP out of the WH.

Posted by: Spectator2 | February 25, 2008 1:05 PM | Report abuse

bsimon, you may be skeptical, but that's the story I heard from dozens of people, both in Virginia and California.

By many people, McCain was widely viewed as having it locked up (at least to the extent that Obama is viewed as having his locked up now) once Florida was done.

Posted by: JD | February 25, 2008 1:04 PM | Report abuse

Once again proving my point that R's are motivated chiefly by hatred/fear...

Posted by: claudialong | February 25, 2008 12:56 PM


Let's just say your girl Hillary brings it out in people.

Posted by: JD | February 25, 2008 1:02 PM | Report abuse

Attacking BEFORE the election is sorta dumb. You attack the day AFTER the election.

The purpose of terrorism is "message", not military conquest.

If the Israelis so wish to help Republicans, by sheding blood in a military strike,who am I to utter a squeak.

Posted by: rfpiktor | February 25, 2008 12:40 PM

rfp, don't try to use logic to divine the strategies of terrorists (or Israelis, for that matter). Things happen when they happen. Taking such an extraordinary step would be the result of intel pointing to an imminent threat; maybe an Ahmadinijad purchase or creation of a nuke, something like that.

Similarly with an Al Quaida attack. Remember when Osama threated NYC, DC, LA, and Chicago (all blue states, ironically) if Bush won re-election last time? How'd that work out for them?

Posted by: JD | February 25, 2008 1:01 PM | Report abuse

Oh yeah - the Dukakis-in-the-tank photo op of this season will be Macko standing in the Baghdad market with a flak jacket surrounded by Marines and armored humvees, telling the world how safe it is to take a stroll through Baghdad. I don't know how Mack can with a straight face proclaim to have national security credentials better than anyone, especially someone who can say cradibly that he was against the war from the get-go and knew what a quagmire it would be.

Posted by: bondjedi | February 25, 2008 1:01 PM | Report abuse

"Many many people who would never vote for a D in November decided to cast their votes for Obama, believing that a) McCain has it locked up so a vote for him is wasted, b) Obama is easier to beat, or c) any chance to drive a dagger into HRC's heart is a chance to be seized upon."

Once again proving my point that R's are motivated chiefly by hatred/fear and that's about it. Oh yeah, greed.

Posted by: drindl | February 25, 2008 12:56 PM | Report abuse

This entire tax issue is so bogus - government is not free -

Instead of blaming NAFTA how about tax laws which allow a business to write off 100 of investment in new capital to absorb profits so that until they break even they pay no taxes.

How about stopping the bogus discount taxes capital gains which do not help the economy. Stock market capital gains is greed and do not help the economy. I say raise capital gains on bogus capital gains such as the stock market and bring capital gains taxes to zero for people who really invest in real capital improvement - factories - RD which lead to high tech manufacturing which stay in the US.

But blaming NAFTA is so much easier.

Bobby Wightman-Cervantes

Posted by: bobbywc | February 25, 2008 12:55 PM | Report abuse

I think there's a definite possiblilty in reddish purple states like Ohio, Colorado, Nevada, Virginia, and maybe North Carolina. Thie bigger issue for crossover won't be that he'll actually win deep red states like Mississippi, Alabama, or Alaska, but that he'll be able to actually contest them. The past few cycles the Republicans haven't had to play defense in the deep south or other areas where they were assumed to win, by Obama opening the race up to a 50-state competition, he can force Republicans to allocate more funds where they otherwise wouldn't (especially given the funding disadvantage this year for Republicans across all their committees), thereby making all the purple states more vulnerable. He wins all of Kerry's states, picks up half of those purple states, and suddenly the race isn't nearly so close as we've seen recently.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | February 25, 2008 12:54 PM | Report abuse

JD writes
"Many many people who would never vote for a D in November decided to cast their votes for Obama, believing that a) McCain has it locked up so a vote for him is wasted, b) Obama is easier to beat, or c) any chance to drive a dagger into HRC's heart is a chance to be seized upon."

I am skeptical that this statement is true for a significant number of voters. It doesn't pass the smell test that significant numbers of voters crossed over in order to eliminate the competition - particularly given the closeness of the GOP race. McCain hasn't had the nomination 'locked up' for very long - some argue he doesn't yet. If we allow the possibility, for the sake of argument, its still only relevant to the results in WI & VA. Even then, the anecdotal data implies just as many Repubs voted for HRC to get the easier opponent, as voted for Obama, out of dislike for HRC. The theory is bunk.

Posted by: bsimon | February 25, 2008 12:53 PM | Report abuse


This would be funny if it weren't pathetic. Our SecDef tells Turkey military force will not solve terrorist problems in Iraq, only political and economic iniatives. Funny, world, huh?

'Today's Associated Press reports the following:

'Turkeys' military assault into northern Iraq will NOT SOLVE the terrorist problem there, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said today, calling for greater POLITICAL and ECONOMICAL INITIATIVES by the Turks to win over supporters of the Kurdish rebels.'

Will anybody mention this REVERSAL of the Sec of Defense (therefore President Bush's policy) on the way to solve terrorism problems in Iraq?"

Posted by: drindl | February 25, 2008 12:52 PM | Report abuse

I think you underestimate how different this campaign is from anything we have seen in a very long time. As well as the strength of the candidate himself.

It's doubtful Obama will be able to win more than a few 'red' states (many of which, btw, are rapidly becoming 'purple'), but he only has to win a few to wrap up the Electoral College. He surely has a lock on the most populous coastal states already.

You are also discounting the many younger voters Obama has energized to cast their ballots.

In short, I think you're a bit off the mark on this one.

Posted by: CaptainJohn2525 | February 25, 2008 12:52 PM | Report abuse

How can you be paid for such silly articles. Every election is a new roll of the dice. You would like us to think we are bound to our past, and your thoughts are just plain fixed in the past.

Posted by: paulnolan97 | February 25, 2008 12:52 PM | Report abuse

Some of that data is wrong. Bush got 54% in Arkansas, not 61%. And he got 60% in Kentucky, not 53%.

In 2004, Bush had a margin of less than 10% in Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio, and Virginia. The national climate is far more favorable to Democrats right now. (Low approval rating for Bush, big gains in 2006, candidate who's popular with the base, better fundraising, etc.) If the vote shifts by just a few percent in those states, Obama will win them.

The red/blue dichotomy is mostly a creation of the media anyway. Almost every state has a mixture of Democrats and Republicans in state offices, and even federal offices. The red/blue split is based entirely on the last 2-4 presidential elections, which isn't enough data points to establish a trend. This election will have very different results from 2004; hopefully it will make pundits stop referring to states by colors.

Posted by: Blarg | February 25, 2008 12:50 PM | Report abuse

illary Clinton has exactly one chance to turn this race around. She would need to become a *believable* populist. In the present economy, that might just be enough to pull off wins in the remaining primaries. She would end up sounding like John Edwards and might even go so far as to say that she would ask him to be her VP.

To be concrete about all of this she would need to announce taxes on corporations at 100% of salaries for every H1-B guest worker they hire (or, better yet, do away with the H1-B and L-1 visas entirely - 90% of new engineering hires are from India on those visas while unemployment for even better qualified American workers is now closing in on 50%!), add sky high taxes and fees and tariff's on goods and services that are produced as a result of outsourcing, add punitive taxes on companies for outsourcing jobs (make them pay for the unemployment and retraining of any workers laid off as a result of outsourcing for four years). Add special taxes on investments that result in outsourcing, guest workers. Add special taxes on investments in companies that outsource jobs or hire guest workers. In other words, use tax laws to force companies and Wall Street to at least pretend they care about this country. If they don't, make them bleed!

If she actually made some proposals like this and addressed the effect of not just preventing more outsourcing, but of getting jobs to *return*, I might even vote for her. I am not holding my breath.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | February 25, 2008 12:48 PM | Report abuse

Spectator2

Obama can win all the states that Kerry won, you can tack on Colorado, Nevada, Missouri, Iowa, Virginia and its over. Other possible movers are North Carolina, New Mexico, Kansas, Ohio, and Arkansas. I would not be surprised if Texas was competitive either.

Posted by: sjxylib | February 25, 2008 12:46 PM | Report abuse

typo: I meant Kerry in that last line.

Posted by: mac8081 | February 25, 2008 12:45 PM | Report abuse

As a Texan I say Texas is up in the air. Hillary cannot win Texas - but Obama could - he has managed to anger the Latino leadership this is bad - if he can get blacks to register and somehow heal the rift with the Latino community Texas could go Democrat in November.

TO carry over from my previous post - people are worried about his position on NAFTA - at least McCain, unlike Hillary and Obama are telling people the truth about the job losts - most are never coming back to the US - this plays well in South TExas where NAFTA is the bread and butter of the economy.

On jobs, some company in the US is manufacturing socks (available at walmart) here in south Texas a man went to Germany and saw a new way to manufacture block (big building item in LRGV) he brought the technology to the LRGV and now he cannot keep up with the orders.

Maybe innovation is a better option to blaming NAFTA for everything.

Bobby Wightman-Cervante

BObby Wightman-Cervantes

Posted by: bobbywc | February 25, 2008 12:45 PM | Report abuse

So here we go with this spin...

CC- please. Have an original thought. Stop using the bush numbers from 2004. He would lose in a landslide to anyone today. 80% of the country thinks we're headed in the wrong direction, 2/3 think we should get out of Iraq yesterday, and most economists beleive we're in a recession.

Oh, the pundits in the msm will do everything they can do destroy Obama, but do you really think the public wants four more years of what the republicans have been doing to this country? I don't.

Posted by: drindl | February 25, 2008 12:44 PM | Report abuse

Chris, I agree with you about the South, but the midwest/plains states are a different story. You also didn't talk about the southwest specifically, but I think it will be a key region in the next few elections.

Specifically, I see chances for Obama in Missouri, Iowa, Kansas, and Colorado. And while Obama may win some southern states, I'd hate to see the Democratic party start chasing after that again.

Posted by: rpy1 | February 25, 2008 12:44 PM | Report abuse

JD | February 25, 2008 12:20 PM

Attacking BEFORE the election is sorta dumb. You attack the day AFTER the election.

The purpose of terrorism is "message", not military conquest.

If the Israelis so wish to help Republicans, by sheding blood in a military strike,who am I to utter a squeak.

Posted by: rfpiktor | February 25, 2008 12:40 PM | Report abuse

Chris,
Ever think about doing a Friday Line like this? Like where you rate which state are most likely to swap from 2004?

Just a thought.

Posted by: pnm4 | February 25, 2008 12:39 PM | Report abuse

The issue is not so much that Obama can carry ALL of the red states, but merely that he can carry ANY of them (something that Hillary would not be able to do). The 4 states with the lowest percentages for Bush (IA, CO, KY and VA) are all possibilities for Democratic pickups with Obama as the nominee and an extremely motivated Democratic electorate. I for one think he will definitely win IA, CO and VA.

Posted by: acope27 | February 25, 2008 12:39 PM | Report abuse

This is pretty much irrelevant. Obama just needs to hold the Kerry states and win Ohio. If a Dem can't win Ohio this year, the party might as well disband.

Posted by: Spectator2 | February 25, 2008 12:38 PM | Report abuse

Lets see. We have a 71 year old who thinks we should stay in Iraq for 100 years, and who admitted during the primaries, according to Mitt, that he does not know much about the economy. Plus, he agrees with many of the policies of a President who is one of the most disliked and unpopular in history. Also, McCain has taken some very unpopular positions with his conservative base

The comparison should not be to 2000 and 2004 where the Democratic nominees ran poor races. Try 1976 when the electorate was disgusted with Watergate and the pardon.

Obama will not only win, but he will help many Democratic senators and congressman win and will have a working majority in congress. The turnout in the Democratic primaries evidence the dislike of the policies of this administration and this dislike will yield a huge turnout for Obama in November.

Posted by: ddcegan | February 25, 2008 12:37 PM | Report abuse

I concur with JD's comment. Not that it would appear in any poll question, but I bet if the voters were asked why they voted for Obama, it would be b) or c) in JD's options. The dislike for Hillary is such that folks want her out of the picture for the general election then they will vote for McCain. He is going to try to hammer Obama on foreign policy similar to how Bush (and his swiftboat allies) hammered Obama in 2004.

Posted by: mac8081 | February 25, 2008 12:37 PM | Report abuse

The only question Barack may have to answer concerning red states is his margin of victory. John McCain will prove to be a mill stone around the GOP's neck - no amount of spin by Rove's legatees will be able to conceal that McCain is a four-flusher who's only real skill is talking out of both sides of his mouth. The NYT flap last week was just the tip of the iceberg, and this fine paper was able to queer his spin in a matter of hours with evidence of Macko's double dealing. He's surrounded by lobbyists, and the party line espoused by Brit Hume, Bill Kristol, et al in recent days that Macko was surrounded by lobbyists as head of the Commerce Committee but never succumbed to their temptations is a hoot. Barack has had a harder time with Hill & Bill than he will with Johnny Mack.

Posted by: bondjedi | February 25, 2008 12:33 PM | Report abuse

Sen. Obama becoming Pres. Obama will be automatic.

As I said before, the money race is THE race. The little people are voting with their wallets for Obama. The little people have carried Mr. Obama to Texas, I am sure all the "experts" saw that coming.The Obama Express is taking off and will land on the White House come January '09. Signed, sealed, delivered.

Worry not your bean counting heads. Barack Obama is here to stay. Do not miss the train, it will be fun. Has it not been already?

Posted by: rfpiktor | February 25, 2008 12:26 PM | Report abuse

Obama has been amazing in the broadness of his support as of late. For instance, on the internet;

Barack vs. Hillary- The Google Effect:
http://newsusa.myfeedportal.com/viewarticle.php?articleid=47

Posted by: davidmwe | February 25, 2008 12:24 PM | Report abuse

When you hear that Obama had more votes than such-and-so for the GOP in the primaries, you need to take those numbers with a mountain of salt. Many many people who would never vote for a D in November decided to cast their votes for Obama, believing that a) McCain has it locked up so a vote for him is wasted, b) Obama is easier to beat, or c) any chance to drive a dagger into HRC's heart is a chance to be seized upon.

My initial feeling is that Obama can make a few of the red states competitive, but external circumstances in Sept/Oct will determine whether he's tilting at windmills. For example, an Israeli pre-emptive strike on Iran would greatly help McCain, as would a terrorist attack on the US or an ally.

Posted by: JD | February 25, 2008 12:20 PM | Report abuse

I think that the chart listing the states that Bush won and then the Democratic senators and governors listed Ky as having Mo's governor and senator.

Posted by: prhamlin | February 25, 2008 12:17 PM | Report abuse

Chris, you've only analyzed half the race. Its not only about whether Obama can attract voters, its also about whether McCain can attract voters. If we look at the Bush margins, what drove those? Was it the evangelicals? The fiscal conservatives? The military/security vote?

Looking at the evangelical vote, it seems there's a sea change happening, where the new generation of evangelical leaders are distancing themselves from the GOP - and from taking sides in politics. If the GOP can't rally the evangelicals - and it sure looks like McCain won't - what kinds of margins will they have in those reliably red states? On the economy, 7 years of Bush - during most of which he had a GOP Congress - have turned federal surplusses into deficits & a pending stall in the economy, if not an outright recession. Will tax cuts for the rich rally the base?

The GOP generally & McCain specifically have a long uphill climb this year. Facing Obama rather than Clinton adds to the difficulty.

Posted by: bsimon | February 25, 2008 12:13 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company