Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

The Friday Line: Which States Will Flip in 2008?

One of the major disagreements between Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) and Barack Obama (Ill.) is which of the two can more effectively broaden the general election playing field.

Clinton's campaign points to polling in Florida, Arkansas and Ohio that shows her running close to or ahead of Sen. John McCain(Ariz.); Obama's campaign makes the same argument for Iowa, Colorado, North Carolina and even ruby red Kansas.

So, who's right?

Welcome to the newest Fix Line where we try to answer just that question. Once a month -- in between ranking the top House and Senate races as well as handicapping the Veepstakes, we'll consider the ten states most likely to switch from Democrat to Republican (or vice versa) in the presidential election this fall.

Obviously, this Line -- like all the others -- is fluid and will change as events unfold. The state ranked number one today, meaning it is the most likely to switch from red to blue or blue to red in November, might fall far down the Line by the time the air grows crisp and the Catholic University field hockey season starts.

In other words, stay tuned. The Presidential Playing Field is meant as a conversation-starter not a conversation-ender -- so get to it in the comments section below.

To the Line!

Note: Please upgrade your Flash plug-in to view our enhanced content.

Roll over a state to see its 2004 presidential election result.

10. Missouri (Bush, 53 percent in 2004): The Show-Me State is one of the truest election barometers out there. Only once in the last 100 plus years has Missouri gone for a candidate who did not ultimately win the White House. Democrats seemed to be on the decline in the early part of the decade as Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) pulled out of the state in 2004 under the belief he couldn't win. (He lost to President Bush 53 percent to 46 percent.) But, since that election Democrats are on the move in the state -- typified by Sen. Claire McCaskill's (D) win over Jim Talent in 2006. The state is still conservative-minded on most social issues, however, which could make it something of a longshot for either Obama or Clinton.

9. Minnesota (Kerry, 51 percent): Most people think of Minnesota as a dyed-in-the-wool blue state, but Kerry carried it by only three points in 2004. Democrats blew the doors off Republicans in the Gopher State in 2006 by taking an open Senate seat and winning an upset victory in the 1st congressional district. The wildcard here, of course, is Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R-Minn.) who is almost certain to be in the final pool of potential vice presidential picks for McCain. If Pawlenty is picked, Minnesota is in play and could certainly move up the Line.

8. Florida (Bush, 52 percent): Heading into the 2004 election, it was assumed that Florida would be THE battleground between Bush and Kerry, as it was for Bush and then vice president Al Gore in 2000. The Sunshine State race wound up not being all that close; Bush took 52 percent and a winning vote margin of nearly 300,000. Since then Republicans have elected Charlie Crist governor -- another of the great-mentioned when it comes to McCain's veep. Our guess it that Florida in 2008 looks more like 2000 than 2004 -- especially if Clinton is the Democratic nominee.

7. New Hampshire (Kerry, 50 percent): In the 2006 election, New Hampshire was the epicenter of the rejection of Republican rule in Washington. Voters threw out both House Republican incumbents and re-elected the state's Democratic governor with 74 percent of the vote. In this election cycle, Democrats have their sights clearly set on Sen. John Sununu (R). And yet, it's hard to imagine this state not being competitive at the presidential level with McCain as the GOP nominee; Granite State voters created McCain in 2000 and saved him eight years later. There is real affinity there and, given the close result in 2004, the state is almost certainly in play.

6. Virginia (Bush, 54 percent): Just four years ago, you would have been laughed at by mentioning Virginia as a potential swing state in the general election. After all, the Commonwealth hasn't gone for a Democrat at the presidential level since Lyndon Johnson way back in 1964. But, the election of Mark Warner (D) as governor in 2001, which once looked like just a blip on the Republican radar, has turned into the seminal moment for the Democratic comeback in the state. Gov. Tim Kaine's (D) win in 2005 followed by Sen. Jim Webb's (D) upset victory in 2006 gave Democrats reason to believe again. The massive growth of the northern Virginia suburbs and the area's increasing Democratic lean makes Virginia truly a toss up. McCain's military background could well help him in the Hampton Roads area, but, if Obama is the Democratic nominee, the Commonwealth's 19 percent black population could also make a major difference.

5. Ohio (Bush, 51 percent): If Ohio in 2004 was the Florida of 2000, what will be the Ohio of 2008? The 2006 election was an absolute disaster for the state Republican Party as they lost the governor's mansion (badly) and watched as Sen. Mike DeWine (R) was defeated. Ohio Republicans now hold just one of the six statewide offices. While the disaster that is the Ohio GOP at the moment makes it very tough for them to win statewide races, McCain and the Republican National Committee will fund and build their voter identification and get out the vote effort. This is going to be a really good one.

4. Colorado (Bush, 52 percent): No state in the country has changed as fast as Colorado. Since 2004, Democrats have won an open Senate seat, the governorship and two U.S. House seats. The progressive movement in Colorado is as active, well funded, and ready to make a major push to turn the state blue in November. Registered Republicans still outnumber registered Democrats, but unaffiliated voters are a large and growing segment. McCain's ties to the west should help his cause but Colorado looks like it's moving in the opposite direction.

3. Nevada (Bush, 50 percent): Every four years the presidential campaign arrives in Nevada and finds an almost entirely new state. Nevada is one of the fastest growing states in the Union, with people from all over the country moving in -- most of them to Clark County (Las Vegas). As a result of the ever-changing electorate, it's tough to predict what November will hold for the two parties. But, the growing Latino population in the state should make Nevada a major target for Democrats. And don't forget that the state held a very high-profile presidential caucus in January -- a process that led to massive amounts of money spent by both Clinton and Obama on voter identification efforts. That investment should pay off in the fall.

2. New Mexico (Bush, 50 percent): President Bush won the state by less than 6,000 votes in 2004, a margin that looks like a landslide when compared to Gore's 365-vote victory in the state four years earlier. Gov. Bill Richardson (D) is one of the most politically savvy governors in the country and will make sure the party's get-out-the-vote apparatus is in tip-top shape for both the presidential election and the open seat vacated by Sen. Pete Domenici (R). Democrats enjoyed a 50 percent to 33 percent registration edge over Republicans at the start of the year; that is a considerable head start heading into November.

1. Iowa (Bush, 50 percent): The millions spent by the Democratic presidential campaigns in advance of the state's Jan. 3 caucus should give a HUGE boost to their party's chances in the general election. And never forget -- because Iowa voters won't -- that McCain skipped the state entirely during the 2000 nomination fight and campaigned only sparingly there in 2007 and 2008. Iowans take their place in picking the nominee very seriously and many aren't likely to forgive McCain for his blasphemy.

By Chris Cillizza  |  March 14, 2008; 6:00 AM ET
Categories:  The Line  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Wag the Blog: What to Do About Florida?
Next: FixCam: Choose Your Own (North Carolina) Adventure

Comments

mhtdx cxbrv hlom
http://ratetiti.fcpages.com/zyprexa-lilly-drug-rep-detroit.html zyprexa lilly drug rep detroit

Posted by: zyprexa lilly drug rep detroit | August 21, 2008 5:32 AM | Report abuse

mhtdx cxbrv hlom
http://ratetiti.fcpages.com/zyprexa-lilly-drug-rep-detroit.html zyprexa lilly drug rep detroit

Posted by: zyprexa lilly drug rep detroit | August 21, 2008 5:31 AM | Report abuse

ndliz jrgp darevz zjhsquy
http://ratetiti.fcpages.com/lexapro-use-in-teens.html lexapro use in teens

Posted by: lexapro use in teens | August 21, 2008 2:48 AM | Report abuse

mfyd pynkth yjdp axewjqz
http://ratetiti.fcpages.com/paxil-law-suits.html paxil law suits

Posted by: paxil law suits | August 21, 2008 1:36 AM | Report abuse

ijfpyv gaey lieabkg dasbg
http://ratetiti.fcpages.com/buspar-and-headache.html buspar and headache

Posted by: buspar and headache | August 20, 2008 11:55 PM | Report abuse

tobfgw docqfw kdzjoul
http://loangov.envy.nu/geodon-consumer-information.html geodon consumer information

Posted by: geodon consumer information | August 17, 2008 9:48 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: effexor withdrawal | August 17, 2008 2:58 PM | Report abuse

prjgwh kdtshw rotxvy eqzfvsm
http://knotlyri.lookseekpages.com/is-prozac-descibed-for-sleeplessness.html is prozac descibed for sleeplessness

Posted by: is prozac descibed for sleeplessness | August 17, 2008 2:51 PM | Report abuse

prjgwh kdtshw rotxvy eqzfvsm
http://knotlyri.lookseekpages.com/is-prozac-descibed-for-sleeplessness.html is prozac descibed for sleeplessness

Posted by: is prozac descibed for sleeplessness | August 17, 2008 2:48 PM | Report abuse

liwfk qpaxzdk teylvqc jwysgxd
http://grenaeiny.100freemb.com/paxil-short-gut-syndrome.html paxil short gut syndrome

Posted by: paxil short gut syndrome | August 17, 2008 10:18 AM | Report abuse

mvsluj pgvq qvpx orisphd
http://grenaeiny.100freemb.com/effexor-xr-375-mg-side-effects.html effexor xr 37.5 mg side effects

Posted by: effexor xr 37.5 mg side effects | August 17, 2008 10:07 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: elavil medication type | August 17, 2008 9:26 AM | Report abuse

aheq evgm kzqnx acpeg
http://internal.digitalzones.com/zyban-directions.html zyban directions

Posted by: zyban directions | August 17, 2008 1:26 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: cymbalta maximum dosage | August 16, 2008 11:58 PM | Report abuse

bdlqxc iylasnd ojgasve
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 9:33 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: levitra performance | August 16, 2008 2:04 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: effexor medication chat | August 16, 2008 3:09 AM | Report abuse

ldywu kivsnc barvp
http://moistnicky.1freewebspace.com/effexor-xr-and-wellburin-together.html effexor xr and wellburin together

Posted by: effexor xr and wellburin together | August 15, 2008 8:24 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: effexor wellbutrin | August 15, 2008 8:24 PM | Report abuse

ygvnw yfiprb mzue rnuv
http://imnipiteh.150m.com/adivan-vs-effexor.html adivan vs effexor

Posted by: adivan vs effexor | August 15, 2008 2:54 PM | Report abuse

slgw sdajkw qgmvihr
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 6:58 AM | Report abuse

ifas wtkn ntsm xuzpacv
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4853 propecia hair loss medication

Posted by: propecia hair loss medication | May 12, 2008 10:27 AM | Report abuse

ifas wtkn ntsm xuzpacv
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4853 propecia hair loss medication

Posted by: propecia hair loss medication | May 12, 2008 10:24 AM | Report abuse

esvzguk xjwfpe xqtk lexfc
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4738 how propecia works

Posted by: how propecia works | May 12, 2008 9:43 AM | Report abuse

esvzguk xjwfpe xqtk lexfc
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4738 how propecia works

Posted by: how propecia works | May 12, 2008 9:42 AM | Report abuse

mvlie kzjh dqnge ofisezn
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4542 buy cheap ultram wall

Posted by: buy cheap ultram wall | May 11, 2008 7:39 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: 50 mg ultram | May 11, 2008 6:14 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: 50 mg ultram | May 11, 2008 6:14 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: cheap online ultram | May 10, 2008 10:57 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: cheap online ultram | May 10, 2008 10:57 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: buy dir ultram | May 10, 2008 7:08 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: buy dir ultram | May 10, 2008 7:05 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: overdose ultram | May 10, 2008 4:04 PM | Report abuse

nfxdsi lpeb oycb vycmri
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 3:29 PM | Report abuse

uzxe qgjpn cnymahpvx jmfc weobpalmj qlhorysv ncexbygk http://www.wnfmkeuy.rehpfyoj.com

Posted by: xcbmyjhnu cbatxn | April 16, 2008 11:32 AM | Report abuse

ngtc dqyiz zkanvsui fkqdtrshb nlhg bfasxneru ftxraepw

Posted by: mkzxodcp gocdbmzqx | April 16, 2008 11:30 AM | Report abuse


Barack Obama's church reprinted a manifesto by Hamas.!!
Rev. Wright gave it a new title, "A Fresh View of the PLO/Hamas Arab Muslim Nazi Struggle."
There is no doubt that by reprinting this Hamas manifesto on the church bulletin, Wright supports this terror group.
The article
1.defended terrorism as LEGITIMATE resistance,
2.refused to recognize the right of Israel to exist
3.compared the terror group's official charter - which calls for the murder of Jews - to America's Declaration of Independence!!
The Hamas piece was published on the "Pastor's Page" of the Trinity United Church of Christ newsletter reserved for Rev. Jeremiah Wright . Google Obama's church, pastor's page, July 22, 2007)
Marzook, the author of this article, is a known terrorist and created an extensive Hamas network in the United States

Hamas is responsible for multiple acts of terrorist including suicide bombings and rocket launchings against civilian populations. It is listed as a terrorist group by the U.S.

Esraeli security officials have expressed concern about Robert Malley, AN ADVISER TO OBAMA, who has advocated negotiations with Hamas and providing international assistance to the terrorist group.


Barack Obama cannot just say "I didn't" know on this. And a "great speech" won't do either.
Obama is compromised on so many different levels that he simply cannot be trusted. His middle name should no longer be ignored. (well, didn't he say "Nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian people"? If you don't believe this, Google the statement. Didn't he say in Audacity of Hope, "I will stand with the Muslims?")

Barack Hussein Abdul al-Majid al-Obama for President of The United States! LOL
Un-freakin'-believable!!!


Go to:
http://tucc.org/upload/tuccbulletin_july22.pdf
Scroll down to page 10
__________________
As a culture, we lose our way when we abandon our Judeo-Christian heritage and foundation.

Never forget:
http://www.frugalsites.net/911/attack/

Posted by: cyberella | March 23, 2008 11:12 PM | Report abuse


Barack Obama's church reprinted a manifesto by Hamas.!!
Rev. Wright gave it a new title, "A Fresh View of the PLO/Hamas Arab Muslim Nazi Struggle."
There is no doubt that by reprinting this Hamas manifesto on the church bulletin, Wright supports this terror group.
The article
1.defended terrorism as LEGITIMATE resistance,
2.refused to recognize the right of Israel to exist
3.compared the terror group's official charter - which calls for the murder of Jews - to America's Declaration of Independence!!
The Hamas piece was published on the "Pastor's Page" of the Trinity United Church of Christ newsletter reserved for Rev. Jeremiah Wright . Google Obama's church, pastor's page, July 22, 2007)
Marzook, the author of this article, is a known terrorist and created an extensive Hamas network in the United States

Hamas is responsible for multiple acts of terrorist including suicide bombings and rocket launchings against civilian populations. It is listed as a terrorist group by the U.S.

Esraeli security officials have expressed concern about Robert Malley, AN ADVISER TO OBAMA, who has advocated negotiations with Hamas and providing international assistance to the terrorist group.


Barack Obama cannot just say "I didn't" know on this. And a "great speech" won't do either.
Obama is compromised on so many different levels that he simply cannot be trusted. His middle name should no longer be ignored. (well, didn't he say "Nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian people"? If you don't believe this, Google the statement. Didn't he say in Audacity of Hope, "I will stand with the Muslims?")

Barack Hussein Abdul al-Majid al-Obama for President of The United States! LOL
Un-freakin'-believable!!!


Go to:
http://tucc.org/upload/tuccbulletin_july22.pdf
Scroll down to page 10
__________________
As a culture, we lose our way when we abandon our Judeo-Christian heritage and foundation.

Never forget:
http://www.frugalsites.net/911/attack/

Posted by: cyberella | March 23, 2008 11:12 PM | Report abuse

Obama's connections to Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers, Tony Rezko, and Nadhmi Auchi pose some serious questions about his judgement. Unless he gives the go ahead to Michigan and Florida to hold new primaries,and of course he won't do that, he will be our nominee. If you don't agree with disenfranchising voters, please go to www.ipetitions.com/petition/votersunite and sign the petition. It only takes one minute to let the DNC know that we demand that our votes count.

Posted by: nchapman | March 22, 2008 7:20 PM | Report abuse

BOOKISHEMILY....McCain stopped the original deal because as head of the Armed Services Committee he had to hold hearings on ok'ing the deal. His staffer's did the figures and realized the deal was a rip off of 6 Billion dollars of the goverment.
The Air Force and Boeing came up with the lease idea to avoid having to go through the bidding process. The AF agreed to lease the tankers for 6 or 8 years at a set price then buy them outright. When the numers were crunched, it would have cost us 6 Billion more to do that than to just buy them outright to start with.
The Gao(I think) started an investigation and found secret money under the table and bribes by Boeing of AF officals. The procurment officer, a woman was to get a big paying job with Boeing as soon as the deal was signed. She went to jail along with a Boeing offical. The head of Boeing had to resign and 2 high ranking AF officers were demoted and 1 was kicked out.
So McCain did, as he claims, save the goverment 6 Billion dollars on that deal.

Thats when McCain told the AF they had to do the contract as a *bid* contract as was the norm. He did allow Boeing to bid on the project even though they had used bribery and other illegal tactics in the first deal. Mainly because Boeing is our only large military grade manufacturer of airplanes. They lost the bidding to Airbus.
Airbus will assemble the planes in Mississippi and another state, creating thousands of direct jobs and thousands more at businesses that will supply the new Airbus plants. Airbus agreed to 60% of the work being done in the US.

Boeing claims Airbus will *outsource* a lot of the work. What Boeing is failing to mention is that even less of the work would have been done here in the US if they had won because they outsource far more than Airbus will.

Posted by: joshuahaught | March 21, 2008 3:44 AM | Report abuse

CEFLYNLINE....look, get over your obcession with primary/caucus turnout. If you look at the last 24 years of primary history you see that the Democrats have almost always had a much larger turnout for their primaries, because except under Clinton in 1996 they have never had a popular incumbant running. There is no correlation between primary turnout and General election turnout, if their was, Gore, Kerryand Mondale would all have been President.
It means nothing. Yes the Democrats are excited this year(or were)and the Republicans have been down. But in November, the Rpublicans and all of the Independents will be out in force and it might be a very close election or since the Wright tapes came out and Obama talked about race but didn't explain why he has refused to disavow Wright himself and finally admitted that he had been present in church when Wright was giving a lot of these sermons(he has denied it at least 4 times prior) this could be a blowout for McCain if Obama is the nominee.

Thats the facts. Go to Realpolitics.com and check the daily tracking polls, Obama has dropped in all areas and McCain now beats him soundly in several states that are usually Blue.

Posted by: joshuahaught | March 21, 2008 3:27 AM | Report abuse

CEFLYNLINE....look, get over your obcession with primary/caucus turnout. If you look at the last 24 years of primary history you see that the Democrats have almost always had a much larger turnout for their primaries, because except under Clinton in 1996 they have never had a popular incumbant running. There is no correlation between primary turnout and General election turnout, if their was, Gore, Kerryand Mondale would all have been President.
It means nothing. Yes the Democrats are excited this year(or were)and the Republicans have been down. But in November, the Rpublicans and all of the Independents will be out in force and it might be a very close election or since the Wright tapes came out and Obama talked about race but didn't explain why he has refused to disavow Wright himself and finally admitted that he had been present in church when Wright was giving a lot of these sermons(he has denied it at least 4 times prior) this could be a blowout for McCain if Obama is the nominee.

Thats the facts. Go to Realpolitics.com and check the daily tracking polls, Obama has dropped in all areas and McCain now beats him soundly in several states that are usually Blue.

Posted by: joshuahaught | March 21, 2008 3:27 AM | Report abuse

CEFLYNLINE....look, get over your obcession with primary/caucus turnout. If you look at the last 24 years of primary history you see that the Democrats have almost always had a much larger turnout for their primaries, because except under Clinton in 1996 they have never had a popular incumbant running. There is no correlation between primary turnout and General election turnout, if their was, Gore, Kerryand Mondale would all have been President.
It means nothing. Yes the Democrats are excited this year(or were)and the Republicans have been down. But in November, the Rpublicans and all of the Independents will be out in force and it might be a very close election or since the Wright tapes came out and Obama talked about race but didn't explain why he has refused to disavow Wright himself and finally admitted that he had been present in church when Wright was giving a lot of these sermons(he has denied it at least 4 times prior) this could be a blowout for McCain if Obama is the nominee.

Thats the facts. Go to Realpolitics.com and check the daily tracking polls, Obama has dropped in all areas and McCain now beats him soundly in several states that are usually Blue.

Posted by: joshuahaught | March 21, 2008 3:27 AM | Report abuse

CEFLYNLINE....look, get over your obcession with primary/caucus turnout. If you look at the last 24 years of primary history you see that the Democrats have almost always had a much larger turnout for their primaries, because except under Clinton in 1996 they have never had a popular incumbant running. There is no correlation between primary turnout and General election turnout, if their was, Gore, Kerryand Mondale would all have been President.
It means nothing. Yes the Democrats are excited this year(or were)and the Republicans have been down. But in November, the Rpublicans and all of the Independents will be out in force and it might be a very close election or since the Wright tapes came out and Obama talked about race but didn't explain why he has refused to disavow Wright himself and finally admitted that he had been present in church when Wright was giving a lot of these sermons(he has denied it at least 4 times prior) this could be a blowout for McCain if Obama is the nominee.

Thats the facts. Go to Realpolitics.com and check the daily tracking polls, Obama has dropped in all areas and McCain now beats him soundly in several states that are usually Blue.

Posted by: joshuahaught | March 21, 2008 3:27 AM | Report abuse

Why would anyone on the GOP side turn up at the voting booths in places like Texas, as you mentioned above, when McCain already had the whole contest wrapped up? It's silly to bring up anything past Florida - when McCain gained the momentum that carried him to where he's at now. Huckabee was never a threat.

That said, there's no denying the general dissatisfaction among the conservative base with all the candidates, even back in Iowa. I think we need to look at George W. Bush and ask ourselves how he was elected for a second term. Many conservatives didn't care for him. They thought he was a mediocre president who wasn't very bright. Still, they voted for him over a real war hero, and I think that shows their willingness to look past their distaste for whoever's running and vote for them - if for no other reason than to stop the Democrats. Do you really think this won't happen in November? I've seen this happen before and, to be honest, I don't have a lot of faith in the American people to learn from their mistake.

Lastly, I have to say, I rarely pay attention to anyone pushing partisan politics. Is this really any different from the bs being pushed on us by organized religion? Are you advocating independent thought? It doesn't appear so.

Posted by: mahmud010 | March 17, 2008 7:02 PM | Report abuse

virginia is only in play if obama is the nominee. I think mccain will be able to turn blue states to red more than any of obama or clinton turning red to blue.

Posted by: walken101 | March 17, 2008 6:21 PM | Report abuse

Kansas will be an interesting case this year. Yes, it's unlikely to turn blue. But there are a series of factors that might make it a little purpler, and one of them is the lost Boeing tanker deal. It has made national news for a couple of days but has stayed on the front page of Kansas papers since the story broke. The Air Force changed the criteria for the bid at the insistence of John McCain, and if it turns out this was due to unethical dealings on his part--and even if it isn't--a handful of counties in south-central and southeast Kansas might lean blue. Of course Sebelius would help, though I doubt she'll be the nominee. And Obama was greeted here as a native son--Kansans are proud of their connection to him.

But it's the tanker deal that might make things interesting.

Posted by: bookishemily | March 17, 2008 1:27 PM | Report abuse

mahmud010:

Actually, my BIASES are obviously Democratic Party. My numbers are just numbers, and my conclusions are just from reading the numbers. When there is such a large discrepancy in voter turn out it mens something, and the only reasonable guess you can make is that it means Dems are voting about twice as often as republicans. How will that play in November? The usual guess is that people DO vote the same Primary to General election, unless they get disgusted and go away. That leaves guessing how the voters who aren't motivated enough to vote in the primaries vote.

Either large numbers of Republicans just don't care who their Party nominates, while almost all Democrats want their say, or the proportions ov voters in November will reflect the numbers in the Primaries.

Which brings us back to the conclusion that UNLESS the Republicans change an awful lot of minds, November will be a Democratic landslide.

So, just how will McCain change those minds. This morning it looks like the bear Stearns mess is driving a bear market. There isn't any countervailing good economic news. Iraq is still a mess. George's Foreign Policy is still apparently to aggravate the entire world. His domestic policy is still to do what the right most fifteen percent of the country wants. John wants change as long as none of the above changes.

You tell me what my unreasonable assumptions are.

Posted by: ceflynline | March 17, 2008 11:40 AM | Report abuse

Ceflynline, just to make it abundantly clear, I'm not a conservative. That much should be evident by my comments on CC's other posts. I do, however, appreciate the importance of questioning one's own pet assumptions and beliefs.

It seems clear to me that people who are into partisan politics don't really care a whole lot about looking deep into their biases and questioning their basic assumptions. When people on either side of the fence - liberal or conservative - resist looking at the weaknesses in their favorite candidate's campaign, it betrays this sort of ambivalence or even hostility towards examining their own principles and beliefs. This is the kind of thing that really makes me feel contempt for people like you in the political sphere and people like Obama's pastor in the religious sphere. Why should anyone listen to either of you if you can't even get past your own bs? While some of us, like myself, are more than busy trying to dissect the lunacy spewing from the mouths of our leaders, you're busy stumping for them. Again, why should anyone take you seriously?

Posted by: mahmud010 | March 17, 2008 3:18 AM | Report abuse

It seems the Clintons are apparently involved in the disappearance of the CFO of the Clinton Library Builder. Very suspicious


http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/Mar/14/clinton-library-builders-cfo-vanishes-leaving-ques/

Posted by: sbgamatt | March 16, 2008 11:32 PM | Report abuse

I think the Barack--Hillary back and forth on this thread should be summarily deleted. Don't you people have better places to go with that?

Cilizza has good points about Virginia, but as an Obama Democrat in Virginia sadly I have to disagree a bit. Northern Virginia is going to go crazy for Obama, but he's not going to get any more African-Americans than another Democrat would. They all get 90% anyway. The problem is whites. I love my fellow Virginians, and I know that they did elect Wilder once, but flipping from red to blue AND voting for a black man is a tall order for the Old Dominion. Remember that Webb--a perfect Democrat for Virginia--only beat a real knucklehead like Allen very narrowly in a horrible year for the GOP.

Posted by: jjohn | March 16, 2008 11:29 PM | Report abuse

Well, actually, I set up a data base in access, states, electoral votes, totals from 2004, that sort of thing, and put in the numbers from the Washington Post Reporting on each Primary. Since most are either Primary/Primary or Caucus/Caucus states, most are an easy comparison. Montana is hard because what got reported is (apparently) delegates earned, state, or something, because only some sixteen hundred votes show.
Iowa is hard to call because the Dems Caucused but the Reps had a straw poll.

one or two others have anomalous reports, but on the whole, based on participation in the Democratic contests compared to participation in the Republican contests, the Republicans are getting a shellacking to make AUH2O's rout look respectable by comparison. And remember, for republicans to crossover vote they have to ignore any Congressional, State, or local Republican contests they might have a stake in.

And John's "good press", like going to Iraq with Lieberman, is window dressing when it isn't out right farce. When he needs another major military escort to check out some local Potemkin village, it will blow up just like the last time.

Meanwhile after the U. S. Treasury propped up Bear Stearns, Morgan bought it at fire sale prices. Which Bizarre Securities firm will be next to go belly up, get Federal welfare, and end up owned by Morgan, Citigroup, or BancAmerica? Billions for Wall Street but not one cent for Health Care?

That isn't even going to play in Peoria. Good old Republican Peoria. Dirksen country.

Posted by: ceflynline | March 16, 2008 10:18 PM | Report abuse

~

Obama is not qualified to be president.

As a lifelong Democrat, I will vote for McCain before I vote for that man.

Of course, no one can say anything about him without being called racist.

But never mind that his 20-year pastor is ranting lunatic.

But he never heard any of that.

And he's a Harvard Law grad. Huh.

Face it people, you've been had by Barry Obama.

Just wait for the meltdown once he's the nominee.

~

Posted by: DickeyFuller | March 16, 2008 4:50 PM | Report abuse

Well....this thread started off well enough, and then...????

svreader, we get the point. You don't like Obama. Now shut up.

Posted by: jimoneill50 | March 16, 2008 6:26 AM | Report abuse

CEFLYENLINE....where do you get your info??? Daily Kos??? Because it's obvious your not based in a real world anywhere.

McCain has been front page almost everyday since cinching the nomination. He is getting so much positive coverage it's scary. Compare that to the headlines your two wonder kids are getting....totally negative, nut job Rev.'s and nut job former V.P. candidates, former slum lord, soon to be con friends and on and on.

Once again, there is no comparison or anything to see in a McCain Falwell connection. They agreed to speak nice to eachother, McCain gave his speech and hasn't seen Falwell since. But Obama the Messiah has been bosum buddies with Wright for over 20 years. He was married in his church by the Rev., the Rev. btized his kids, is his **spirtual** mentor, his inspiration(all Obama's words). Then to go on t.v. and say....**I have never heard him say those things in church or privately** ....I have never been in the church when he made those kinds of sermons**.....sorry, but almost no one, except the Obamabot's are believeing that. He made a statement last week basically saying he hardly talked to the Rev., but last year he told a different story in regards to a Rolling Stone interview....which time was he lying?? One of those 2 statements is a lie....which one?? This Wright thing is big and it will only get bigger once the w/e is over and the media realizes how far Obama dropped in the Rassmussion and Zogby daily tracking polls from Friday to Saturday. I think Clinton is behind this push about Wright and after trying to get the besotted media to pay attention for 3 months it's finally taking off. When you add this Wright stuff to what his wife has said about finally being proud of her country because people are voting for Obama and telling poor women on Ohio not to go to college because then you have to worry about repaying student loans on a paltry 961 thousand dollar a year income, then people start wondering just what Obama really does stand for. This is what comes of trying to run a race on platitudes and not solid positions

Posted by: joshuahaught | March 16, 2008 3:09 AM | Report abuse

CEFLYENLINE....where do you get your info??? Daily Kos??? Because it's obvious your not based in a real world anywhere.

McCain has been front page almost everyday since cinching the nomination. He is getting so much positive coverage it's scary. Compare that to the headlines your two wonder kids are getting....totally negative, nut job Rev.'s and nut job former V.P. candidates, former slum lord, soon to be con friends and on and on.

Once again, there is no comparison or anything to see in a McCain Falwell connection. They agreed to speak nice to eachother, McCain gave his speech and hasn't seen Falwell since. But Obama the Messiah has been bosum buddies with Wright for over 20 years. He was married in his church by the Rev., the Rev. btized his kids, is his **spirtual** mentor, his inspiration(all Obama's words). Then to go on t.v. and say....**I have never heard him say those things in church or privately** ....I have never been in the church when he made those kinds of sermons**.....sorry, but almost no one, except the Obamabot's are believeing that. He made a statement last week basically saying he hardly talked to the Rev., but last year he told a different story in regards to a Rolling Stone interview....which time was he lying?? One of those 2 statements is a lie....which one?? This Wright thing is big and it will only get bigger once the w/e is over and the media realizes how far Obama dropped in the Rassmussion and Zogby daily tracking polls from Friday to Saturday. I think Clinton is behind this push about Wright and after trying to get the besotted media to pay attention for 3 months it's finally taking off. When you add this Wright stuff to what his wife has said about finally being proud of her country because people are voting for Obama and telling poor women on Ohio not to go to college because then you have to worry about repaying student loans on a paltry 961 thousand dollar a year income, then people start wondering just what Obama really does stand for. This is what comes of trying to run a race on platitudes and not solid positions.

Posted by: joshuahaught | March 16, 2008 3:06 AM | Report abuse

CEFLYENLINE....where do you get your info??? Daily Kos??? Because it's obvious your not based in a real world anywhere.

McCain has been front page almost everyday since cinching the nomination. He is getting so much positive coverage it's scary. Compare that to the headlines your two wonder kids are getting....totally negative, nut job Rev.'s and nut job former V.P. candidates, former slum lord, soon to be con friends and on and on.

Once again, there is no comparison or anything to see in a McCain Falwell connection. They agreed to speak nice to eachother, McCain gave his speech and hasn't seen Falwell since. But Obama the Messiah has been bosum buddies with Wright for over 20 years. He was married in his church by the Rev., the Rev. btized his kids, is his **spirtual** mentor, his inspiration(all Obama's words). Then to go on t.v. and say....**I have never heard him say those things in church or privately** ....I have never been in the church when he made those kinds of sermons**.....sorry, but almost no one, except the Obamabot's are believeing that. He made a statement last week basically saying he hardly talked to the Rev., but last year he told a different story in regards to a Rolling Stone interview....which time was he lying?? One of those 2 statements is a lie....which one?? This Wright thing is big and it will only get bigger once the w/e is over and the media realizes how far Obama dropped in the Rassmussion and Zogby daily tracking polls from Friday to Saturday. I think Clinton is behind this push about Wright and after trying to get the besotted media to pay attention for 3 months it's finally taking off. When you add this Wright stuff to what his wife has said about finally being proud of her country because people are voting for Obama and telling poor women on Ohio not to go to college because then you have to worry about repaying student loans on a paltry 961 thousand dollar a year income, then people start wondering just what Obama really does stand for. This is what comes of trying to run a race on platitudes and not solid positions.

Posted by: joshuahaught | March 16, 2008 3:06 AM | Report abuse

CEFLYENLINE....where do you get your info??? Daily Kos??? Because it's obvious your not based in a real world anywhere.

McCain has been front page almost everyday since cinching the nomination. He is getting so much positive coverage it's scary. Compare that to the headlines your two wonder kids are getting....totally negative, nut job Rev.'s and nut job former V.P. candidates, former slum lord, soon to be con friends and on and on.

Once again, there is no comparison or anything to see in a McCain Falwell connection. They agreed to speak nice to eachother, McCain gave his speech and hasn't seen Falwell since. But Obama the Messiah has been bosum buddies with Wright for over 20 years. He was married in his church by the Rev., the Rev. btized his kids, is his **spirtual** mentor, his inspiration(all Obama's words). Then to go on t.v. and say....**I have never heard him say those things in church or privately** ....I have never been in the church when he made those kinds of sermons**.....sorry, but almost no one, except the Obamabot's are believeing that. He made a statement last week basically saying he hardly talked to the Rev., but last year he told a different story in regards to a Rolling Stone interview....which time was he lying?? One of those 2 statements is a lie....which one?? This Wright thing is big and it will only get bigger once the w/e is over and the media realizes how far Obama dropped in the Rassmussion and Zogby daily tracking polls from Friday to Saturday. I think Clinton is behind this push about Wright and after trying to get the besotted media to pay attention for 3 months it's finally taking off. When you add this Wright stuff to what his wife has said about finally being proud of her country because people are voting for Obama and telling poor women on Ohio not to go to college because then you have to worry about repaying student loans on a paltry 961 thousand dollar a year income, then people start wondering just what Obama really does stand for. This is what comes of trying to run a race on platitudes and not solid positions.

Posted by: joshuahaught | March 16, 2008 3:06 AM | Report abuse

AirNZ....McCain is 8 points down from Clinton in California and 11 points down from Obama in the latest Rassmussun polls yesterday. He most likely can't win, but for a Republican to be this close this far into an election year in California is unheard of. You my friend need to bone up on the daily tracking polls and then bone up on the candidates positions(oh wait, you can't for Obama because he dosen't have any). McCain has a good enviromental record, better than many so called Democratis enviromentalists, he is agianst pork barrel projects, has taken $0 of earmarks as a Senator(compared to Obama 789 million in only 3 years, and Clinto 2.6 million in 6 years), passed campaign finance reform, co wrote with Kennedy the most comprehensive immigration bill ever, and I could go on all night. You have the problem all dillitantte political pundits have, you have preconcieved notions of politicians without a clue as to who they really are. McCain is a conservative, but he has a very good moderate record, thats why Independents support him.
You need to spend some time going over the polls my friend. McCain is now ahead of both Democrats nationally and in Ohio(beats Obama badly), Pa., Michigan, Florida(beats Obama by 14 % there and Clinton by 8%), Mo.. In New Jersey he beats Obama, in Wisc. he beats both, in Colorado he beats both. This just shouldn't be. But it is and it's only going to get worse for the Democrats.

Arsonplus....I don't think Kansas is takable by the Democrats. And I am getting the distinct impression that Senator Claire McCaskell is going to be Obama's running mate if he wins. I just read a column last night giving out a unconfirmed hint at that. She would maybe bring him Mo. and she has bona fides among women, and white blue collar, groups he needs. Plus, she has been point person with the media for him a lot the last 2 weeks, so keep an eye on her.

Posted by: joshuahaught | March 16, 2008 2:47 AM | Report abuse

No way that McCain will win California. The Terminator Gov's wife is backing Obama, so don't expect much real Republican support from Arnold. Can't see him going to the mat with the Kennedy's. Plus, Obama portends to be a better friend to California as President than McCain. Hillary won the Dem Establishment vote and Hispanics in the primary which will go for Obama in the General; Independents and many Arnold Republicans will continue to support Obama as well. McCain scares the Hell out of many people in the Sunshine state, with his "Bomb Iran/100 Years in Iraq" rhetoric, his admitted ignorance about the economy, and his flaming temper.
None of this is cool in California.
Obama will beat McCain by several points in California, maybe more depending on his VP.


North Carolina is another state that could swing Democrat if Obama heads the ticket, especially if the Dems there pick a strong candidate to run against the waning Elizabeth Dole. Obama's demos--well educated, youth plus blacks--could do for him in NC what they did in Virginia, and tilt the Tar Heel state back to the Democrats in 2008. The May primary will tell more, but polls there consistently show Obama leading Clinton.


Posted by: morphnmomma | March 16, 2008 12:29 AM | Report abuse

I'd have to add:

Maryland
Tennessee
Kansas
North Carolina

MD may flip from lack of turnout if Clinton gets the nomination.

The TN GOP is acting spooked we should take them at their "word."

Obama is going to run with Warner or Sebelius and Sebelius could flip Kansas.

NC's research triangle hasn't been heard from electorally, and Obama will turn it out.

Posted by: arsonplus | March 15, 2008 6:17 PM | Report abuse

heartlandmoderategal: As Indianna goes so goes the Midwest? H Man, as Indiana goes it isn't even sure that so goes Indiana. And who cares about Kentucky. When Hillary or Barack carries Kentucky it just adds 8 electoral votes to the likely 400+ votes the Dems will already have. The rest of the Midwest has already voted, and Barack did very well Northwest ordinance states wise. McCain won't do at all well in Michigan. I doubt he will end up carrying Indiana. I doubt that he will carry a single state that did not succeed in 1861 that existed in 1865, and he may not have much lick in the Confederacy. But my numbers come from the voting totals reported in the Washington Post so maybe they are trying to hide something from the people.

Posted by: ceflynline | March 15, 2008 4:30 PM | Report abuse

mahmud010: "Another thing to bear in mind is, Hillary was barely able to carry Texas"

Barely carried Texas? against whom. Hillary more than doubled McCain's total. She out polled the entire Republican party by more votes than McCain got. Her close contest was with Obama and that wasn't particularly close. The Democratic turnout was apparently greater in this years primary than in the 2004 General election. Either all the Democrats in Texas turned out to vote, or there are a lot of new voters for the Dems available in the fall.

Still, all you good Republicans have to look at this election only in small bits and pieces because anyone who tries to look at the totals has to understand one thing.

Voters don't like Republicans all that well.

And the economy has seven months to continue tanking. Republicans can spin all they want, when the economy tanks before an election, the Party in the white House doesn't do well.

Note that JM is just a foot note in most press coverage of politics right now. Hillary and Barack have the Media's attention and will keep it to August and Denver. Every time John gets his face in the papers it won't be flattering and it will be him trying harder and harder to get conservatives to like him. Come Labor Day, John has to begin his run to the center with the testimony of every Fundamentalist Republican Mega Church preacher to show that he has sold what is left of his soul to the Radical Christian Right.

There won't be any morals legislation on Ohio's ballot to help him, either.

As of today, if the general election votes were to divide Republican/Democratic the way the completed primaries split, the Democrats would get 330 electoral votes and the Republicans 82. There are 43 electoral votes uncontested so far that are usually considered blue states.

Posted by: ceflynline | March 15, 2008 4:19 PM | Report abuse

I'm skeptical of Hillary's ability to win key states. A few of the "outrageous" conservatives like Rush and Coulter argue for Hillary, but I wonder how much of this is meant to ward off Barack Obama and his extreme liberal viewpoints. Will they consolidate around McCain after the Democratic Party finally nominates somebody, whether its Hillary or Obama?

Another thing to bear in mind is, Hillary was barely able to carry Texas even with the aid of Rush Limbaugh; in fact, it's debatable whether she even got the upper hand in Texas, when all was said and done. The average conservative American doesn't take Rush and Coulter seriously when they attempt to build up Hillary.

Hillary has a very polarizing personality. If she gets the Democratic nomination, you can count on a stronger McCain campaign bent on defeating her. The conservative principles of John McCain will become much more accentuated when he's debating a Democrat rather than a Republican. In the end, the reality of a liberal feminist in the white house will sink in and the conservative base will unite around McCain.

One last note. The scandal involving Obama's preacher is a big, big issue. It's the scandal the Clinton campaign was praying for and it could end up costing Obama the Democratic nomination. But even if Obama goes on to the general election, this is something McCain can use against him to score big. Barack Obama was the Democratic Party's greatest hope for a landslide victory in November - this scandal could change that. I think this year's election is going to be a lot closer than most people think.

Posted by: mahmud010 | March 15, 2008 3:14 PM | Report abuse

Sorry joshua, I DO know more about politics than you, guaranteed - period, done, end of story.....

McCain will NEVER be competitive in CA/NY...As soon as he starts preaching the social conservative non-sense, he'll lose both states by 15-20%...You can sell social conservatism crap in middle earth America, but that stuff doesn't fly in CA/NY...Why do you think Republicans TRIED to split CA's electoral votes last summer (thankfully it failed), cuz they know they have no chance in CA....Forget about the fact the governor is Schwartzengger, he governs like a Democrat, works well w/Democrats, & is a social liberal...If he tried to preach social conservatism, Phil Angelides would be the governor now..

Uhhh, as far as Rudy not doing well in FL, I'll let you in on little secret, Hillary Clinton is FAR more popular w/New Yorkers than he EVER was...THUS, she'll get the alot of votes from the snowbirds & the former NY'ers who are permanent residents of FL now...

Disagee 500% about Wright....Falwell's statements after 9/11 (gays, ACLU were to blame for 9/11) were the most vile comments I've ever heard in my life, 1000x worse than what Wright said....And you still don't get it: John McCain gave the commencement address at his university AFTER he called him an "agent of intolerance" in 2000 (flip-flopper) & after Falwell's despicable comments....If Republicans make a big deal out of Wright, there is plenty of material to after McCain on w/his association to Falwell...

You simply are clueless in politics if you think Democrats will have to spend alot of money in CA/NY to win...Lindsay Lohan would carry CA. & Howard Stern could carry NY against someone as far right as John McCain....So I'll just assume your first paragraph was an early April fools joke..

Posted by: AirNZ | March 15, 2008 10:11 AM | Report abuse

I thought I was done commnting, but I just read a comment by someone who knows so little about politics I had to answer.

AIRNZ.....First....I agree McCain will probably not win California or New York. But he will be very competitive in both states, causing either Democrat to spend money in what should be solid blue states.
You might want to ask Mayor Guiliani the Republican nominee....oh wait, he ISN'T the Republican nominee, I guess that big New York vote in Florida he was so sure of didn't pan out. McCain is solid in Florida, against either of the Democrats.
And your very, very wrong about Rev. Wright....nothing Falwell ever said comes close to the bile that Rev. Wright has been spewing for the last 5 years at least. Obama may have a really big time problem because of this guy. McCain wasn't attached at the hip to Falwell, but Obama is on record many times over the last 3 years as to how close he is to Rev. Wright, and for Obama to stand up as he did today and deny that he ever heard Wright give or that he even knew that Wright gave seermons like what is being shown on the news, just isn't credible. To many big shots in the media are already questioning his veracity. The biggest thing Obama had going for him was his so called **politics of hope** and a repudiation of the **politics of the past**....if he's disembling(and it looks a lot like he is) then he has just shot his main campaign theme in the butt.

Posted by: joshuahaught | March 15, 2008 5:32 AM | Report abuse

Vammap....you might want to ask President Kerry how well John Edwards helped him carry the South in 2004. If memory serves me right, they lost every southern state, including North Carolina(Edwards home state)

Someone above mentioned South Carolina possibly being good for Obama, while the state has a large black population and a very large percentage of the Democrat vote is black, this won't help Obama or any Democrat because the Republican vote is much, much larger than the Democrat and even if Obama took 100% of the Independents(which won't happen against McCain) he still couldn't overcome the Republican vote. The fact that South Carolina is so solidly Republican is the biggest reason why Sanford most likely won't be McCain's V.P..
Same in Florida, Clinton keeps citing some poll or another showing her beating McCain there, but it's just not going to happen. This state will be a solid McCain state no matter which of the Democrats win the nomination. That fact is one of the top reasons Gov. Christ won't be McCains V.P. either, along with his being single(no party has nominated a single man for V.P. or President since Clevelend in the 1880's) and those little rumors that keep popping up about him being Bisexual or Gay.

Colorado is a definate flip state I think. And thanks to Gov. Richardson and no really strong Republican Senate candidate New Mexico will probably go back to blue. Wisconson will go Democrat if Obama is the guy, otherwise it could go McCain. Minnisota stays blue. Michigan I think is a McCain catch and possibly Pa.. Ohio may be a lost cause, but since Obama lost to Clinton there, with the very heavy black vote in Franklin county and Cuyuhoga county, McCain could hold it red, if Obama is the nominee. In primary day interviews, voters in Ohio weren't bashful about flat out saying that they weren't ready for a black President, I didn't see that in any other state. Plus, part of my family is from Ohio, and when I go there to visit, the people are very nice, but a lot of them aren't in favor of blacks.

Posted by: joshuahaught | March 15, 2008 5:18 AM | Report abuse

Hey man, your "Top Ten" is bogus. Pennsylvania and Wisconsin are far more likely to flip than Minnesota or Virginia.

My lists assuming an Obama-McCain contest...

Obama most likely pick-ups:
1. Iowa
2. Ohio
3. Missouri

McCain most likely pick-ups:
1. New Hampshire
2. Pennsylvania
3. Wisconsin

I really think Obama will have a tough time picking up western states, such as New Mexico, Colorado, and Nevada (given McCain's immigration position, the fact that his social views are more in line with the majority of Hispanics, and the brown-black divide). An open question is whether McCain will be able to hold Ohio and/or pick-up Pennsylvania given his position on NAFTA, which is at odds with many Reagan Democrats in the region.

Obama will have to fight hard to hold Minnesota, Wisconsin, and New Jersey too.

Posted by: braveheartdc | March 15, 2008 3:21 AM | Report abuse

If Obama is the nominee, Democrats can kiss the mid-west goodbye. For a foreshadowing of this, keep an eye on the upcoming Indiana primary. My guess is Obama gets creamed in IN, and maybe in the slightly later KY primary, too.

Posted by: heartlandmoderategal | March 15, 2008 12:02 AM | Report abuse

Let's get something straight right now, there is ZERO!! chance that McCain will carry California or New York...McCain is WAY too socially conservative for either of those 2 states, & he will lose both states to either Clinton or Obama by at least 10%....You would have a better chance of finding a 3-bedroom/3-bath 4,500 sq. ft. house in Beverly Hills for $650,000 than McCain winning CA or NY.....(that size house in BH typically is $3,500,000+).....

Obama has good chance to win CO, NM, IO, NV, & VA....I doubt he wins Florida, but he could win Ohio....He should keep all the Kerry states...

Clinton i think is better in line to win OH & FL....ALOT of former New Yorkers now call Florida home & will certainly vote for her..In addition, all the snowbirds who have homes in both NY & FL, those people will fly down to FL Nov. 1 to vote for HRC there, as there votes aren't needed in NY, she'd win NY w/65% of the vote....

As far as the Obama/Wright controversy, most conservatives have short term memory....John McCain gave a commencement address at Jerry Falwell's Liberty University, & Falwell's statements after 9/11 were so replusive, that making the association of McCain/Falwell will be far worse than Obama/Wright....

Posted by: AirNZ | March 14, 2008 10:46 PM | Report abuse

The big battleground state is Ohio for the presidency. In a close election, Ohio always matters immensley. In a McCain vs. Obama race, Obama may be able to put into play Ohio, Iowa & Colorodo. However, the negative campaigning hasn't really started yet. When people really find out about Barack Obama's Pastor, Jeremiah Wright, voters in Iowa, Colorodo nor Ohio will take another view. Wright believes the Bible is written from an "afro-centric" point of view. Wright also says black American's shouldn't sing "God bless America" but "God damn America". A pastor spewing this type of venom from the pulpit of a church that Obama attends and is a member of, and Obama claims to be a uniter? Wright also claims the US is to blame for 9/11, not foreign terrorists. Obama looks at this man as a spiritual advisor. Don't think this won't be part of the campaign, b/c it is an issue. How a candidate believes is a real issue, so does Obama believe these things? He sits in a church under a man who claims these things. We will see, closer to the general, how Obama really does. Besides that, he talks about sitting down with enemy leaders of the USA...but draws the line on sitting down and talking to reporters from Fox news. He's a fake and will be exposed as a fake. McCain, on the other hand, has scars from the left & right for centric positions he's taken on immigration, campaign finance reform & the "Gang of 14" judicial nominee group. He's the centrist, Obama is a shady liberal attempting to hide who he really is until after he is elected. http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4443788&page=1

Posted by: bryant_flier2006 | March 14, 2008 8:15 PM | Report abuse

The big battleground state is Ohio for the presidency. In a close election, Ohio always matters immensley. In a McCain vs. Obama race, Obama may be able to put into play Ohio, Iowa & Colorodo. However, the negative campaigning hasn't really started yet. When people really find out about Barack Obama's Pastor, Jeremiah Wright, voters in Iowa, Colorodo nor Ohio will take another view. Wright believes the Bible is written from an "afro-centric" point of view. Wright also says black American's shouldn't sing "God bless America" but "God damn America". A pastor spewing this type of venom from the pulpit of a church that Obama attends and is a member of, and Obama claims to be a uniter? Wright also claims the US is to blame for 9/11, not foreign terrorists. Obama looks at this man as a spiritual advisor. Don't think this won't be part of the campaign, b/c it is an issue. How a candidate believes is a real issue, so does Obama believe these things? He sits in a church under a man who claims these things. We will see, closer to the general, how Obama really does. Besides that, he talks about sitting down with enemy leaders of the USA...but draws the line on sitting down and talking to reporters from Fox news. He's a fake and will be exposed as a fake. McCain, on the other hand, has scars from the left & right for centric positions he's taken on immigration, campaign finance reform & the "Gang of 14" judicial nominee group. He's the centrist, Obama is a shady liberal attempting to hide who he really is until after he is elected.

Posted by: bryant_flier2006 | March 14, 2008 8:15 PM | Report abuse

Repeat after me:

NO REPUBLICAN WILL TAKE CALIFORNIA.

(NOT FOR PRES. ANYWAY - & ARNOLD DOESN'T COUNT)

JUST NOT GONNA HAPPEN.

I LIVE HERE.

I KNOW.
--------------
You live there so you know how millions of people feel, wow, why aren't you running for president?

Posted by: PatrickNYC1 | March 14, 2008 7:53 PM | Report abuse

##############

Repeat after me:

NO REPUBLICAN WILL TAKE CALIFORNIA.

(NOT FOR PRES. ANYWAY - & ARNOLD DOESN'T COUNT)

JUST NOT GONNA HAPPEN.

I LIVE HERE.

I KNOW.

PLUS EVERYONE IS DISCOUNTING
THE ECONOMY'S EFFECT ON THE GOP.

IT'S GOING TO BE A TOUGH FALL
FOR REPUBLICANS ACROSS THE BOARD.

UNLESS HRC IS NOMINATED.
SHE'S THE WILD CARD.

###############

Posted by: imright | March 14, 2008 7:44 PM | Report abuse

"The Purpose of War is Peace"

Mitch mcconnell


Unintended? you be the judge. Fascists? you be the judge.

do not fear the fascists. Somebody's got to fight for america, while these people are destroying it.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 14, 2008 7:27 PM | Report abuse

Obama doesn't have to worry about Missouri. I live here, and I've got his back.

Posted by: rippermccord | March 14, 2008 7:03 PM | Report abuse

SORRY FOR ALL the posts earlier. Also, if I insulted anyone other than the clones here.

They think this is a fun game. Dividing america. turning neighbor against neighbor and grand fathers angainst grandsons.

this is not a game. Beware of anyone who says it is. We are a self-government. In a self-government we need all the real news we can get. With as little propoganda as possible. how can we make decisions when these fascist propogandists own all mediums? Radio, newspapers, cable news, websites. They ban who they choose and set the table and battle feild for us to rip each other apart. All for money. It's sick.

It used to be called treason , what these people do, at one time. to choose party or money over the will of the country (benidict arnold). Now it's "I know you are but what am I". Up is down. war is peace.

Reality exits. Even if insane people who do not acknowldege reality group together and say the sky is red. Reality persists. Propoganda does not create reality. Propoganda does not change the past (but can the future).

think about the future. Look at the big picture.

sorry for all the posts. These sabotuers for profit and fun are lost. do not hate them. Hold the mirror up. Help them re-join reality. They are scared. Change scares them. Understand that. But also remember what america is and was. our ancestors were not cowards, like they.

Obama had a speech once. his yes we can speach. He mentioned the fact that when this great nation was founded, no one would have bet on us. No one was thinking we can do it. How far we came from that point. How? Fear? Changing teh constitution out of fear? When, if THEY are the patriot's?

How many of these tough guys will be signing up to fight in president obama's army? Who are the patrioits now.

PAt TIllman (san jose, ca). Remember his life and his sacrafice. He is a true patriot. Fighting in a battle for his nation he did not approve of. Sacraficed all for his country. The gop (clinton included)? What do they ever sacrafice? they rape and pilalge. they divide and conquer. they reap huge rewards off this great nation. What do they ever sacrafice? Who do you hurt people who only care about money and power? You take it from them. Think about the future and presednece. Help the lost sheep. don;t hate them. They are lost. Their ignorance can only go to a point, before it's willful. At some point people must be cut loose if they don't love america and it's freedoms. Sent the gop to greenland i say. :) Just kidding (before someone snaps.)

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?,

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 14, 2008 6:44 PM | Report abuse

If Obama is the nominee of the Democratic Party, MI, WI, MN, PA, and OH are all in contention. He will do well in CO, IA, and VA - but McCain will put OR, NM, and CA, and NY (Jewish voters concerns and upstate can tilt this state with Long Island voters as in many Gov. races) into play and force them to defend turf. MO will be a bellwether, and probably leans Dem this year. My guess is that McCain easily defeats Obama and would carry FL, PA, OH, and MI. The bloom is coming off the rose of Obama and if anything happens in Pakistan during the summer, he is toast.

If Clinton is the nominee, the states that Kerry was contesting and the blue-red divide continue. Clinton would have the edge in that NY, PA, MI, OH, and FL would be receptive to her economic appeal, and she has never completely given in to the left wing nuts on military concerns. It would be close, but I would give the edge to Clinton over McCain.

Posted by: clawrence35 | March 14, 2008 6:37 PM | Report abuse

bondjedi, do you have a link? I actually have a life, so I really don't hit all the WaPo blogs every day. I'd like to see it.

Posted by: gbooksdc | March 14, 2008 6:35 PM | Report abuse

"No. My grandfather was the only one who escaped."

You said everyone was killed, but now your grandfather escaped. Get your story straight. You're a fraud and a liar who has crossed the line by supporting your BS with make-believe Holocaust victims.

Take your BS back to the Columbus dailies. All: svreader was outed here yesterday as writing the same sort of drivel, only in support of Obama and against HRC, contrary to what it spews here.

Posted by: bondjedi | March 14, 2008 6:27 PM | Report abuse

Comparing Obama and his supporters to Adolph Hitler and his followers is not only patently ridiculous but is deeply insulting to those who died under his regime...Jews, Catholics, gays, gypsies, the malformed, the mentally-challenged...
and is one of many reasons why I have no respect for svreader and his posts.

Hitlers are only possible in societies where information is suppressed and controlled. that's how propaganda can succeed...we need look only to the Arab countries where this is happening.

The hysterical tone and content of svreader's posts demands no respect whatsoever.

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 14, 2008 6:25 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Spectator2 | March 14, 2008 6:07 PM | Report abuse

Good article. I'll keep following it. This election is exciting.

Posted by: wanboredlatino | March 14, 2008 6:05 PM | Report abuse

paralysis by analysis ... of personal problems!

Since I am not a shrink I hope to see you some other time!

Posted by: trace-sc | March 14, 2008 6:05 PM | Report abuse

REZKO
HSU
SPITZER


All trash talk.

OBAMA speaks what he will do 2009.
NO foolish wars.College Tuition help.
World's esteem for USA and its Products.
New Homeownerships, jobs, no LOBBYs.....

VOTE OBAMA.

Posted by: tariqahmed | March 14, 2008 6:03 PM | Report abuse

PPS "Every member of my family in europe -- every single man, woman and child, were coldly murdered and wiped off the face of the earth by the Nazis" is inconsistent with "only my grandfather escaped." No one who'd had only their grandfather escape yould have said EVERYONE was killed.

Also, if your grandfather escaped -- say at 40 in 1945, that puts your birth year around 1965 (20 yr old dad). Which means you were 3 when Dr. King was shot. Kind of hard for him to have been your hero, eh?

Tell the truth, sv. it's the easiest story to remember.

Posted by: gbooksdc | March 14, 2008 5:57 PM | Report abuse

After browsing some WP's blogs I came to the conclusion that this country is on the verge of getting paralysis by analysis!

Posted by: trace-sc | March 14, 2008 5:55 PM | Report abuse

Wow. On one minute you lament the Holocaust
____________________________

JK --

I'm Jewish.

Every member of my family in europe -- every single man, woman and child, were coldly murdered and wiped off the face of the earth by the Nazis.

Your posts present a vivid reminder to everyone on these boards of how fanatics think about things, how shallow their thinking is, and just how little they care about the welfare of their fellow human beings.

Your karma is not what you think it is.

I'm very glad I don't have your karma.

Posted by: svreader | March 14, 2008 05:18 PM
____________________________

and the next you _ignore_ the moving story of a young kid shot down.

____________________________

gbooksdc --

Its obvious that you don't read what I post so I'm wasting my time, but here goes.

1. Obama got Rezko ... (blah blah blah)
____________________________

Two of the events that had the greatest effect on me was reading "Maus" and watching "The Sorrow and the Pity". "Maus" made personal the plight of individual Jews trying to escape the Holocaust, and "TSATP" brought home the fact that Nazism prospered not only because good people did nothing, but good people actively collaborated. And then, to add insult to injury, they wouldn't even admit it after the war, making up some nonsensical garbage about being in the resistance.

I don't doubt those people faced hard choices that are easy to second-guess from an armchair. But I would hope that I would have had enough humanity in me to have _tried_ do something, to have _tried_ to resist evil. If there isn't something in your life worth dying for, what have you to live for?

When you wrote "Your posts present a vivid reminder to everyone on these boards of how fanatics think about things, how shallow their thinking is, and just how little they care about the welfare of their fellow human beings", you indicted yourself. That's you, to a T.

The eternal optimist in me -- the part that hopes Obama can lerad us to a more civil place -- hoped I could connect with you, hoped that you would see the common human thread in that kid's story even as I see the common human thread in the Holocaust. But the grownup part of me -- the part that fears the effect of eight years of Clinton after 16 years of Clinton/Bush -- was pretty sure you are the soulless Clinton drone that you are, blogging and posting away in your little hovel, wasting your time and wasting what passes for your life.

Your conduct indicts yourself. That Hillary is supported, fervently, by people like you, people with no concern for the truth or for other human beings, generally motivated by hate of "the other", is the biggest endorsement for Barack Obama I can imagine.

Your hatred is so consuming, it has destroyed your sense of reality. You ARE pathetic. And I do pity you.

PS FWIW, I don't believe you about your family. There's no reference to any individual family member, like your grammy or your uncle, that someone who'd been personally affected by the Holocaust would have posted. Just like no real Ph.D. gets the details of his discipline wrong. You're a fake, and a liar. I can console myself with the knowledge that the pointlessness of your existence will reveal itself even to you when this campaign is finally over.

Posted by: gbooksdc | March 14, 2008 5:53 PM | Report abuse

"Issues are a handicap for Obama. So all we're left with are his pastor, his anti-American wife, and his Islamic upbringing." - USMC_Mike

Ah....now you start with the lies. The true sign of a coward afraid to debate on the issues. He was not rasied as a muslim and you know it, which makes you liar no better than Rush Limbaugh.

Which issue is a handicap for Obama?

His stance on the war and his stance to withdraw all troops within 1-2 years, a position 60% of Americans hold?

His support for universal healthcare?

His support for repealing Bush's tax cuts for the top 1%?

His support for ending overseas tax havens for corporations?

His support for increasing federal Pell Grants to combat the rising cost of college?

His support for the Employee Free Choice Act, which allows any workers who want to unionize to hold a vote and do so, which a vast majority of Americans support?

His opposition to giving phone companies who helped Bush illegally spy on Americans' phone calls retro immunity, which a vast amjority of Americans agree with him on?

His support for alternative energy expansion, and his paln to combat global warming?

You seem to be deluded into believing that the majority of Americans share your far, far right-wing crazy positions on issues like the war. You shouldn't kid yourself. Barack Obama is happy to talk about the issues and it is your guy McCain who is scared to debate the real issues.

Posted by: buckidean | March 14, 2008 5:49 PM | Report abuse


OBAMA will be loved and
voted in
ALL US STATES,
for THE PRESIDENT in 2008.

Posted by: tariqahmed | March 14, 2008 5:45 PM | Report abuse

... after all, winning is everything, isn't it?

Posted by: trace-sc | March 14, 2008 5:45 PM | Report abuse

""SVREADER,

Sorry for the loss.

But DAFUR, PALESTINE are the present not the past, holocausst.

How long will the JEWS cry NAZIS.
NAZIS party included JEWS. Why not those Jews protest then.If the JEWS were "wiped" out then how come they are in the Palestine??

Jews are extorting past losses from the present generation. This in not right."

You are another ignorant scumbag.

Posted by: Spectator2 | March 14, 2008 5:44 PM | Report abuse

mmm ... but I've heard these elements are the real thing, so why don't we think about it before discarding the idea?

Posted by: trace-sc | March 14, 2008 5:43 PM | Report abuse

from: Spectator2

"Did no one else see the news report that the military situation in Afghanistan is deteriorating?

Now why would that be happening? It couldn't be because we had to commit massive resources in Iraq before fully defeating the Taliban in Afghanistan, could it?"

Thank You Spectator2... I have been cautioning about this for nearly 5 years now.

Iraq is the wrong enemy, in the wrong place, at the wrong time.

While we pour needed resources and men into an erroneous occupation the Real Enemy gets stronger.

Posted by: AdrickHenry | March 14, 2008 5:42 PM | Report abuse

Don't get mad, I'm just joking!

Posted by: trace-sc | March 14, 2008 5:41 PM | Report abuse

SVREADER,

Sorry for the loss.

But DAFUR, PALESTINE are the present not the past, holocausst.

How long will the JEWS cry NAZIS.
NAZIS party included JEWS. Why not those Jews protest then.If the JEWS were "wiped" out then how come they are in the Palestine??

Jews are extorting past losses from the present generation. This in not right.

Posted by: tariqahmed | March 14, 2008 5:40 PM | Report abuse

There is a way to replace Hillary and Obama and still get the magic formula to beat the Republicans: nominate Condoleezza Rice for the D ticket!

A black woman with lots of experience!
Beat that!

Posted by: trace-sc | March 14, 2008 5:39 PM | Report abuse

wow bondjedi, what a nasty comment.

Posted by: Spectator2 | March 14, 2008 5:38 PM | Report abuse

mibrooks27 -- I don't think I would go so far as to say the latinos are racists (against blacks).

My extended (and I mean, huge) in-law family, mostly in San Antonio, Laredo, and some in Dallas, are life-long Dems, and not ONE of them will be voting for Obama (that I know of).

It doesn't have much to do with his race, as far as I can tell.

Although, the tension between the two communities is certainly unreported, in my opinion. Unfortunately, you can't academically study any broad generalities about blacks without being called a racist (meanwhile, Obama and his preacher can rant about rich white men all day long).

But you are right -- McCain wins the hispanic vote big, wins Florida, and wins the election against Obama.

I think the media love affair with Messiah Hussein Obama is coming to an end.

There is a [growing] list of scandals now.

Rezko
His Church
NAFTA
His "finally proud" wife

I can't wait for the hordes in the press corps to devour him.

There is a Clinton in the race, so it will assuredly happen.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 14, 2008 5:38 PM | Report abuse

Minnesota will go for the dem and the new senator will be Al Franken. The state is angry at Gov. Pawlenty - he's been away campaigning for McCain so much that the local paper announced, "The governor made a surprise visit to Minnesota yesterday..." He has also vetoed a popular transportation bill that was overridden by the legislature. Plus, just wait to get a load of his personal beliefs....really frightening considering McCain's age and bad health.

Posted by: SteveBurns1947 | March 14, 2008 5:36 PM | Report abuse

I don't think MN will flip, even if Pawlenty is McCain's running mate. Caucus turnout statewide Feb 5 was more than twice higher on the Democratic side than Republican. Attendance at our county DFL convention was record-setting, with many first-time delegates, myself included. The left is pretty energized here. Pawlenty is a local boy, but it is still McCain at the top of the ticket.

As an aside, Chris, regarding the Senate race there was a lot of enthusiasm for Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer, especially from the farther left sorts of folks, and very little enthusiasm for Mike Ciresi at our county convention. If that was true at other county conventions I'm not surprised Mike Ciresi dropped out when he did. The writing may have already been on the wall. Delegates were picked for congressional district conventions at our meeting, and none from our county were committed to him.

Posted by: pdech1 | March 14, 2008 5:35 PM | Report abuse

it seems to me that PA and Michigan should be considered top 10 battleground states

Posted by: lucciihs | March 14, 2008 5:34 PM | Report abuse

bondjedi --

No. My grandfather was the only one who escaped.

What kind of monster are you to even ask a question like that?

I almost didn't post about my family members that were killed by the Nazi's, but JK's comment was deeply offensive.

You are a real creep.

Posted by: svreader | March 14, 2008 5:34 PM | Report abuse

################


The first blogger is proof that Clinton/McCain supporters tend (statistically) to have less education than Obama supporters.

In no uncertain terms will McCain beat ANY democrat in California. It's not going to happen. (PERIOD). The war is a bigger issue out here than you think. With the president admitting we are hitting 'tough times' the GOP is dead here.

Just as no democrat is going to win Florida. Ever since Elian Gonzales the right wing fringe has taken over the state. And no democrat is going to win Texas until hispanics are a majority.

Obama will take: CA, NY, NJ,MI,MS,NM,CO,Conn., MA,MD, WA,Iowa,Connecticut,PA,VT,OR,HI,OH.

He doesn't need much else to get there. These are locks.
Bet the farm.

Obama is going to be the 44th POTUS.

#############

Posted by: imright | March 14, 2008 5:33 PM | Report abuse

In Arkansas, a new University of Central Arkansas poll has Hillary up by 15 over Sen. McCain in a general election match up (51-36). Sen. Obama would lose that same contest by 16 points (43-27). Nationally, new Gallup and NBC/Wall Street Journal polls have Hillary up over Sen. McCain (47-45).

Posted by: brigittepj | March 14, 2008 5:32 PM | Report abuse

The fact that people still shill for Obama after knowing what he did to the poor who supported him in Chicago speaks volumes about Obama's supporters.

Its scary.

They remind me of the "Hitler Youth" and Mao's "Red Guard"

The are madly in love with their leader, even though they have no idea of what iind of person their leader actually is, or what he has done.

Maybe that's why the armed forces says "get-em while they're young"

The young have too little life experience, and too little judgement, to make reasoned decisions about what to do, to think deeply about the effects of what they do, or to have any remorse for their actions.

Posted by: svreader | March 14, 2008 5:29 PM | Report abuse

"Every member of my family in europe -- every single man, woman and child, were coldly murdered and wiped off the face of the earth by the Nazis."

Um ... did the stork bring you then, or what? Think about it.

Posted by: bondjedi | March 14, 2008 5:25 PM | Report abuse

Did no one else see the news report that the military situation in Afghanistan is deteriorating?

Now why would that be happening? It couldn't be because we had to commit massive resources in Iraq before fully defeating the Taliban in Afghanistan, could it?

Posted by: Spectator2 | March 14, 2008 5:24 PM | Report abuse


What good has Republicans done in the past 8 years. MASSIVE WAR. HOUSING CLLAPSE, BANKING COLLAPSE. OIL $ 111.,JOBS OVERSEAS.......

The other party is the DEMOCRATIC PARTY of USA.

OBAMA has those sevetle & steller qualities to be in the WHITE HOUSE 2009.

BARAK OBAMA PRESIDENT ELECT 2008.

Posted by: tariqahmed | March 14, 2008 5:21 PM | Report abuse

JK --

I'm Jewish.

Every member of my family in europe -- every single man, woman and child, were coldly murdered and wiped off the face of the earth by the Nazis.

Your posts present a vivid reminder to everyone on these boards of how fanatics think about things, how shallow their thinking is, and just how little they care about the welfare of their fellow human beings.

Your karma is not what you think it is.

I'm very glad I don't have your karma.

Posted by: svreader | March 14, 2008 5:18 PM | Report abuse

"AT LEAST, he won't retreat. And that's why I'll vote for him."

Dude, there was this guy named Saddam Hussein, and he was a bad man, so the US invaded his country, and knocked the snot out of his army, and they found this guy Saddam hiding in a hole, then they took him to the basement and executed him. You might have read this in the papers, BUT WE WON THE FLIPPIN' WAR!!! There is no war, and no one to retreat from. Declare victory and get the hell out.

Forget me: Do you think McCain understands what's going on over there? He was on national TV in a Baghdad bazaar, wearing a flak jacket, with a division of Marines behind him on foot and in HumVees, armed to the teeth. He had a couple Apaches overhead, and in front of dozens of members of the world press ... SAID WITH A STRAIGHT FACE THAT IT WAS PERFECTLY SAFE TO WALK THE STREETS OF BAGHDAD!

You may disagree that victory has been achieved (although Bush said it was), you may disagree with Obama's plans, but if you think that McCain has any clue of the dynamic in the Middle East, you're mistaken. There could not be a worse candidate to vote for if you wanted someone with credibility on Iraq. McCain is an absolute dope on the subject.

Posted by: bondjedi | March 14, 2008 5:16 PM | Report abuse

To all our political pundits,be quiet.
A phenomenon , BARAK OBAMA will win every state. Just get to look at the results on TUE, NOV- 2008

Posted by: tariqahmed | March 14, 2008 5:14 PM | Report abuse

Chris, I have no idea as to the overall effect in the gernal election but the Latino vote will overwhelmingly go to McCain. If the Democratic nominee is Obama, and I hope it is, Latino's will vote Republican purely and simply becasuye he is black and they are, as a group, black hating racists. Take a look at some of the comments made by Latino leaders before they get edited out by the news casts. This may be troubling, but it is all too obvious.

If the Democratic nominee is Clintn, she might carry as much as half of the Latino vote based on her comment in Nevada to the effect that "no woman is illegal". THAT has play on the Spanish radio stations out here every day. Most Hispanics have really close family ties, are very religious, and are socially and fiscally conservative. (Except for the fact that they are illegal and do tend to have that strong anti-black racist streak, most are incredibly wonderful people. If we could work out a deal, swapping them for "Clintonistas", I'd take Mexico up on it in a heartbeat.) Clinton, the public face of "liberals" in general, are an anathema to everything these people believe so any Democrat is simply being delussional if they think they can count on general election support from Hispanic voters. My gut level guess is that Democrats get between 30 and 40% of Hispanic vote. McCain, as the Republican leader, is viewed as something of a hero and can be expected to pick up the majority of that vote for both himself and all Republican's (at least those that don't breath fire about deporting all illegals) this cycle. My guess is that Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Florida, Colorado, are all Republican locks. Once all is said and done, expect even California and Southern Illinois to be in play because of their large Hispanic populations.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | March 14, 2008 5:12 PM | Report abuse

New Mexico
Nevada

That's how I see it...

Posted by: llowe | March 14, 2008 04:50 PM

Hillary will win AK for sure.

Posted by: mul | March 14, 2008 5:12 PM | Report abuse

Pennsylvania may flip to the Republicans while Ohio flips to the Democrats. Most people aren't making that prediction (as it would be the reverse of the past), but I think it's a likely outcome.

Posted by: bwerbeloff | March 14, 2008 5:11 PM | Report abuse

bondjedi

You're new to this blog.

I am luke-warm, at best, to John McCain.

I almost considered voting for Hillary.

I agree,

Keating Five
Gang of 14
His Personal Life

Will all hurt him.

Not to mention immigration.

AT LEAST,

he won't retreat.

And that's why I'll vote for him.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 14, 2008 5:04 PM | Report abuse

You still don't get it reader. I do good work here. I am a christian man. I fight for my religon (that has been hijack by politicans) and my country (that has been hijacked by $ and treason)

I hope GOOD KARMA DOES COME BACK TO ME.

Somebody's got to fight for america and her ideals. Somebody's go to fight to remove the fascists and false prophets from chrsitianity. you moderates are to eager to sell-out than to fight. someone's got to do it. Someone who's not scared like you are of the gop.

My movemnt fought the gop. Still do. While you people were nodding yoru heads and allowing nazi's to take over like late 30's germany. If you had your way we would have took over the entire middle east and have our brothers and sisters dying to line your freinds and your pockets.

Someone's got to fight for america. I hope karma does come back

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 14, 2008 4:59 PM | Report abuse

these comments about Walmart and Hillary represent Walmart in 2008 not Walmart in 1978 when you make reference to. Sam Walton was a decent businessman and treated his employees fairly. His company began abuses practices in the 1990s when he develope melanoma and his children took over. I won't shop at Walmart, but to equate Walmart of 1978 with their abusive union bashing practices of 2008 is patently ridiculous.

"(including sitting mute on the board of, Walmart while they were union-busting) while she was first lady of Arkansas"

Unless the Clintons could have been prescient 30 years earlier and known how Walmart would be run in 2008 and willing to confront Arkansas's largest employer in 1978, your position fails to be in real time.

Posted by: leichtman | March 14, 2008 4:59 PM | Report abuse

"bondjedi -- judging from the time difference between your posts, it either took you hours to come up with that, or you were busy watching "The View". Either way, keep it coming. I'd rather you spend your days doing nothing on this blog than actually affecting the real world."

Because comparing the times messages are posted is a great way to spend the day. Now that you have admitted your rapt attention to my genius, let's have some answers:
- Why isn't McCain listening to his preacher when it comes to ethics?
- What is it with McCain's thing for lobbyists?
- How low can I set the price on my fund-raising dinner and still have Macko show up? I know his fee has gone up since he captured the nomination in the weakest GOP field since Harding, but will he come for a hundred bucks a plate? Fifty bucks? Ten bucks, plus the use of my jet?
- Will he throw a tantrum at Osama bin Laden?
- When he bombs Iran, will he at least get the price of gas down?
- Is it safe to walk the streets of Baghdad without a Marine division, fifty HumVees, and a flotilla of Apaches overhead?

Let's hear your answers to those pressing questions.

Posted by: bondjedi | March 14, 2008 4:58 PM | Report abuse

Which states are we flipping? All of them mentioned and more. Much to the clinton's and their true parties dismay. They will do anything to stop this. Likek the rest of the gop they like they habits nad are slaves to the past. When voting this time there will be no one for the gop to hide, this time. 06 was the tip of the ice berg. Majority rule remember. if you don't like that conecpt gop (as well as american freedom) you are living in the wrong country. you will remember what america and was come nov. Your gop sabtage and treason is coming to an end. Try as they and their moderate sell-outs, might

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 14, 2008 4:54 PM | Report abuse

JK --

Your own words discredit you, and your candidate, more than any other person's response ever could.

I wish what you will already receive.

Your karma.

Posted by: svreader | March 14, 2008 4:52 PM | Report abuse

(all regardless of the Dem nominee)

Safe R:
South Carolina
Georgia
Alabama
Tennessee
Mississippi
Louisiana
Texas
Oklahoma
Kansas
Nebraska
South Dakota
North Dakota
Indiana
Kentucky
Wyoming
Montana
Utah
Idaho
Arizona
Alaska

Safe D:
Hawaii
California
Oregon
Illinois
Michigan
Maine
Vermont
Massachusetts
Rhode Island
Connecticut
New York
New Jersey
Maryland
Delaware
Washington, DC

Likely R:
North Carolina
Arkansas
West Virginia

Likely D:
Washington
Wisconsin
Minnesota
Pennsylvania
Iowa

Pure Toss-up:
Florida
Virginia
Ohio
New Hampshire
Missouri
Colorado
New Mexico
Nevada

That's how I see it...

Posted by: llowe | March 14, 2008 4:50 PM | Report abuse

one more for sv. Then she can divide and conquer. Lie spin and discredit all day.

Gossip on sv. Us weekly is wating for your call.

"Great minds talk about ideas, average minds talk about things and small minds talk about people. "

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 14, 2008 4:48 PM | Report abuse

bondjedi -- judging from the time difference between your posts, it either took you hours to come up with that, or you were busy watching "The View". Either way, keep it coming. I'd rather you spend your days doing nothing on this blog than actually affecting the real world.

Proud -- nice post. Very true. Ha!

Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 14, 2008 4:42 PM | Report abuse

hahahahhahahahahah

he reads it so it's true. you got a source? "Channnel 5 news at 11."

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHA

You should write a book about obama. you got all the "facts".

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA

The msm media is the most trusted forum ever, right svreader. They never lie. Fox is strigoht from god, right sv.

the problem with your facts, is their not facts. They are gossip, they are heresay. They are hit pieces. You got nothing. If you did the media would be on it. And I'm not talking about your favorite staion here, fox. I'm talking real media. I'll wait for REAL facts and real issues and REAL concereate EVIDENCE.

your gossip and heresay belongs in us weekly and national enquier with the bat boy. not involved in politics where humans lives are at stake.

I hear us weekly is hiring reader. Call them up. do ufo and flying goat stories. If your going to lie and spina nd gossip and least make it entertaining

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 14, 2008 4:41 PM | Report abuse

JK --

You're in for a rude awakeing fella.

It clearly a total waste of my time to try to have an intelligent conversation with you.

Have fun shilling for Barry Obama.

You two deserve each other.

Posted by: svreader | March 14, 2008 4:37 PM | Report abuse

svreader:

Baruch sheptaranu.

I tried.

Posted by: mnteng | March 14, 2008 4:37 PM | Report abuse

JK --

Do you really think that everyone who doesn't worship Obama is a Republican plant.

You really need to get some help.

Obama isn't Jesus.

He might be Shiva.

Posted by: svreader | March 14, 2008 4:36 PM | Report abuse

caw caw caw. :)

No conflict of interest there sv reader. I'm sure readers will trust you and your diagnosis, doctor.

dive and conquer. Only works if you have credibility, which you and yours do not have. Nor do you want or crave it. No credibility, for you, makes you a propogandist. Yet your fine with that lot in life? WOW..

that is why I call you republcains. If you are propogating and you know it, well nevermind.

why waste my time on a dittohead. You don't want it. Enjoy you rcoming irrelevance gop. you sure have earned it. Don;t hurt any peaceful americans tough guys. You made yoru beds, you ahd your chance. No sleep in that bed for a generation. Stop the sabotage. stop the divide and conquer., gop.

you are only digging yourselves deeper and prolonging your irrelevacnce. You want relevance? accountability and credibility. without that you are done. Enjoy the cave. i hear it's nice in the fall.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 14, 2008 4:35 PM | Report abuse

gbooksdc --

Its obvious that you don't read what I post so I'm wasting my time, but here goes.

1. Obama got Rezko the funding for the slum repairs. He and Rezko were close friends and Rezko bankrolled Obama's campaigns.

2. 11 of the worst slums were in Obama's district.

3. Obama was supposed to follow up on the contract and never did.

4. When Obama became a US Senator he stilll did nothing about any of the 40 slums.

5. People died by FREEZING TO DEATH in Obama''s slums.

6. You probably won't read this.

7. If you do, it probably won't make any difference to you, JK, or the other Obama dead-enders.

8. I feel like throwing up just thinking that there are people like you.

Posted by: svreader | March 14, 2008 4:34 PM | Report abuse

"The pillars of American liberalism -- the Democratic party, the universities, and the mass media -- are obsessed with biological markers, most particularly race and gender.

They have insisted, moreover, that pedagogy and culture and politics be just as seized with the primacy of these distinctions and with the resulting "privileging" that allegedly haunts every aspect of our social relations.

They have gotten their wish. This primary campaign represents the full flowering of identity politics. It's not a pretty picture.

Geraldine Ferraro says Obama is only where he is because he's black. Professor Orlando Patterson says the 3 A.M. phone call ad is not about a foreign policy crisis but a subliminal Klan-like appeal to the fear of "black men lurking in the bushes around white society."

Good grief. The optimist will say that when this is over, we will look back on the Clinton-Obama contest, and its looming ugly endgame, as the low point of identity politics, and the beginning of a turning away. The pessimist will just vote Republican."

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjE4NzFjYTI1NDJhZWRhNjlmNDNjMThkZGVlYjVkMzI=

USMC? YOU LISTENING?

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | March 14, 2008 4:34 PM | Report abuse

Hillary doesn't have much time left. Then all these rush limbaugh sabotuers will have to reveal their true colors, like sv reader here.

She may drop out before pa. If nto after. She cannot win. She is realizing that soon her only hope is mccain's vp. The longer she goes on the more likely that is. Regardless she not representing the democratic party of the democratic movement. Which isn't a shock. She never has. so both go hand and hand.

She could have supported the movement and her party. She choos enot to. She chose the liebramn route. It was "safer" at teh time. Canculated risk. Risk/reward.

She has no one to blame but herself, for her lack of support. I don;t pity her at all. I hope she see's what her and her sabotuer followers are doing to the party/country. If they cared about anyone but themselves mybe they would drop out. We'll find out what she's doing after pa. If she stays in she's going for mccain's vp. Which willmake sv reader here happy, I'm sure.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 14, 2008 4:30 PM | Report abuse

Rush: Ok boys, here's the deal: black is white, up is down, the sun sets in the east. Got that?

USMC_Mike: Yes sir.

GOP: Whatever you say, sir.

Rush: Now, the Hillary deadenders have cawing like a crow as their sound. What would you boys like to do?

USMC: We could cluck like chickens! Or chickenhawks! What sound does a chickenhawk make?

GOP: How about braying like donkeys?

Rush: No, no. Those are both good, but chickenhawk hints too much at the typical GOP military service record, and some guy named svreader has the braying thing down, on multiple message boards, too. Hmmmm, let me think ... I know! Sheep! Can you two bleat like sheep?

USMC: Baa, baa!

GOP: Baaaaaah!

Rush: Perfect! Now hit those message boards. And stop by the pharmacy to pick up my "medicine" when you return for more orders.

USMC: Yes sir, yes sir, three bags full!

Posted by: bondjedi | March 14, 2008 4:29 PM | Report abuse

Dear svreader:

You're pretty pathetic.

I don't say that to run you down, I really don't. Either you are what you say you are -- a highly educated, very wealthy CEO who devotes so much free time to posting Clinton propaganda -- or you're not. If you are not, I feel sorry for anyone who has so little self esteem that they feel compelled to make up a fake background.

Whichever one, doesn't really matter. I just finished reading "http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/080312". It's about a black kid murdered by latino gangsters in LA. As I read it, I thought to myself "those are the people that support Hillary". I've gotten THAT caught up in this. And I noted that Mayor Villaraigosa, a strong Clinton supporter "gave a heartfelt speech about peace and unity, then ... snuck out halfway through the service."

But it isn't a black/brown thing. The black kid who died had Latino teammates, and they mourned his death, too. And as I read this, I was reminded that there really are bigger issues at stake that mean life and death to people who lack our advantages in life. Those are the people who Obama tried to help as a community organizer, but let's leave that aside for now.

If you _have_ all the power and contacts and money you say you have, and you really want a better world, why don't you stop wasting time posting to WaPo.com -- trust me, you're persuading no one -- and work with some of these organizations that could USE what you have at your disposal to give kids a better chance of escaping the ghettoes. Last I looked, there are a few right around your way.

Or you can go on bleating "Hillary Clinton would be a GREAT president!!!" and downing Obama. Your choice.

PS I'd recommend the article to anyone. And if someone can explain to me how electing Hillary Clinton would change things, honestly, I'd love to hear it. Let's talk issues, not someone's middle name or what their father may or may not have done.

Posted by: gbooksdc | March 14, 2008 4:29 PM | Report abuse

Obama Supporters --

Two wrongs don't make a right.

They never have, and never will.

The rest of us learned that long ago.

Posted by: svreader | March 14, 2008 4:29 PM | Report abuse

svreader -

Vote for Hope.

Vote for Change.

Vote for the Future.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 14, 2008 4:28 PM | Report abuse

JK --

You cover your ears and eyes when presented with any information on the real Obama.

You've fallen into a cult.

You need professional help to get yourself out of it.

Posted by: svreader | March 14, 2008 4:26 PM | Report abuse

Let me just say that if all of Hillary's "first lady" experience is relevant, then sign me up for the Michelle Obama campaign in 2016 or 2020. If nothing else, at least she doesn't appear to be schizophrenic.

Posted by: hypo | March 14, 2008 4:25 PM | Report abuse

"Your total lack of concern for other human beings makes me want to vomit.


Posted by: svreader | March 14, 2008 04:13
"

1. I have not and will not watch your lies and propgoanda

2. to blame obama for all the ailes of chicago is a touch much. I know of the rezko issue. It's nothing. If that's all you got, along with his preacher, I think yoru in deeper water than you know.

By your rational, the mayor is responsible. congressmen are always to blame. BUSH and his econmic policies are to blame.

OBAMA is not the sole cause of poverty in america. so your issue is poverty. Not obama. If you want to fight poverty we can talk. But obama is not the cuase of poverty.

I laugh at your acusation. I hesitiate to gie your posts ANY credibility. I know hillary's fix for poverty. I saw it and I don't like it. Affirmative action, is racism and slavery.

You want to fight for poor people svreader? So do I. Should we bring up the slums of arkansas and new york? I'm sure they have poor people their that I can exploit fo rpolitical gain, as you do. i wouldn't do that. I, and the bloggers here, are not as naive to believe any one person is the cause of poverty in chicago new york or america.

should we put up pictures of new york? Why isn't clinton making them all not poor? She's super-woman right? She can eliminate poverty in a single bound. :)

blame obama for everything. Link him to anyone. we'll see who buys it. You have your tricks and I have mine.

to me your a sad patehtic old woman. you and your propogandists do not differ in any way from bushs.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 14, 2008 4:23 PM | Report abuse

JK --

The facts are there, in full color, in the clip from Channel 5 news.

That not propaganda.

That the ugly truth about the real Obama.

Obama can't run away from the truth, and neither can you.

Posted by: svreader | March 14, 2008 4:23 PM | Report abuse

I realize "high tech lynching" is the phrase that Clarence Thomas used.... whether or not it applied to him, I certainly think it applies to Obama.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth_Hunter | March 14, 2008 04:10 PM
---------------------------
So are these the same people who were doing nothing but glowing pieces on Obama all year? Whe even today are going on about Spitzer and Ferraro but not the Wright story? If they praise him they are OK, if they question his associates they are racist murderers.

Posted by: PatrickNYC1 | March 14, 2008 4:23 PM | Report abuse

TruthHuntr, It's just like when an Obama economic adviser told the Canadians not to pay too much attention to Obama's anti-NAFTA populism or when Samantha Power told the BBC not to pay too much attention to Obama's current withdrawal plans for Iraq.

Obama says he's vehemently opposed to divisive rhetoric, yet his ranking committee-member and mentor, Pastor Wright, says that he is vehemently opposed to supporting our allies like Israel.

It seems that Obama says one thing and means another. What kind of judgement is that?

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | March 14, 2008 4:21 PM | Report abuse

TruthHuntr, It's just like when an Obama economic adviser told the Canadians not to pay too much attention to Obama's anti-NAFTA populism or when Samantha Power told the BBC not to pay too much attention to Obama's current withdrawal plans for Iraq.

Obama says he's vehemently opposed to divisive rhetoric, yet his ranking committee-member and mentor, Pastor Wright, says that he is vehemently opposed to supporting our allies like Israel.

It seems that Obama says one thing and means another.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | March 14, 2008 4:18 PM | Report abuse

Uh... Pennsylvania??? McCain is beating both Obama and Clinton. Do ya think that's maybe in the Top 10?

Thanks Jane and others for pointing this out.

Posted by: chris.jeter | March 14, 2008 4:18 PM | Report abuse

wpost4112 --

How can you support Obama knowing what he did in Chicago?

Isn't letting people freeze to death worse than calling people names?

Why do you give Obama a pass on what he did in Chicago, but are offened by what his pastor said?

To me that seems backwards.

Posted by: svreader | March 14, 2008 4:17 PM | Report abuse

"""Propaganda is a concerted set of messages aimed at influencing the opinions or behavior of large numbers of people. Instead of impartially providing information, propaganda in its most basic sense presents information in order to influence its audience. The most effective propaganda is often completely truthful, but some propaganda presents facts selectively to encourage a particular synthesis, or gives loaded messages in order to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented. The desired result is a change of the cognitive narrative of the subject in the target audience."

"

Beware of clitnon and her gop-like propogandists. How are what they do any differant than what rush or fox does? If fact they are the same people. Fear teh yale plan

"All U.S. presidents since 1989 have been Yale graduates, namely George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton (who attended the University's Law School along with his wife, New York Senator Hillary Clinton), and George W. Bush. Vice President Dick Cheney attended Yale, although he did not graduate. Many of the 2004 presidential candidates attended Yale: Bush, John Kerry, Howard Dean, and Joe Lieberman.

Other Yale-educated presidents were William Howard Taft (B.A.) and Gerald Ford (LL.B). Alumni also include several Supreme Court justices, including current Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.
"


time for change.

where would bush be without clinton to point the finger to? Would he have been impeached? Would the law applied to him a little more with the previous "leadership"? I don't think so. Lucky for bush that clinton came before him. How would he have justified his actions without clitnon to point the finger at? He would have been able to, is the answer.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 14, 2008 4:17 PM | Report abuse

svreader,

"The experience question"

HRC: Following a distinguished Yale law school career, a year or two at a children's advocacy clinic, 17 years of corporate law at the Rose Law Firm (including sitting mute on the board of, Walmart while they were union-busting) while she was first lady of Arkansas, 8 years as First Lady, including her botched health-care reform effort, 100 scandals, and a skimpy unofficial, non-substantive foreign policy involvement (which she is hopelessly exaggerating, and which Nobel Prize winner David Trimble called, referring to her claims of being involved in the Ireland peace accords, "a wee bit silly"), election to the Senate from a state she never lived in, based purely on her husband's being president, and a modest record in the Senate, most of which has been spent warming a seat so she could run for president. Total time in elective office: 7 years. Vote on the Iraq war resolution: Aye. Vote on the Levin amendment: Nay. Grade on management of her campaign (from me): C-

BHO: 2 years as a community organizer, a distinguished Harvard law school career, work at a public-interest law firm and teaching constitutional law at a Chicago law school, 8 years in the Illinois Senate, characterized by significant bipartisan achievements. Election to the US Senate on his own merits, with a prescient speech during the campaign outlining in advance exactly what actually happened after we invaded Iraq. Modest 3-year career in the Senate. Grade on management of his campaign: A-

All in all, pretty even, I'd say. Certainly no huge advantage to Hillary.

Posted by: jac13 | March 14, 2008 4:15 PM | Report abuse

Better than Giuliani v Clinton would have been!

(thanks for remembering)

Posted by: bsimon | March 14, 2008 04:05 PM
-----------------------------
Thank God the country woke up to see what we in NYC know, he was a fake and a mess in a bad dress. One ugly drag queen. I wonder if he wears Judy's clothes?

Posted by: PatrickNYC1 | March 14, 2008 4:14 PM | Report abuse

JK --

I'm not a Republican.

I'm beginning to think you are.

You still haven't watched the video, have you?

This isn't a game.

People died in those slums.

They died by FREEZING TO DEATH.

You just don't care, do you???

Please don't address any more comments to me.

Your total lack of concern for other human beings makes me want to vomit.

Posted by: svreader | March 14, 2008 4:13 PM | Report abuse

"I do think that Obama needs to make a speech about this whole matter"

Truth_Hunter,

As do I. And, that's all I've been saying in my posts.

We (citizens, voters) deserve to know. What about this guy does Obama like? What does he agree with?

Obviously, something, as you have pointed out (he CHOSE him for 20 years).

Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 14, 2008 4:13 PM | Report abuse

I remember over the summer, when there were a dozen candidates, bsimon (and others) posted that a McCain v. Obama candidacy would be "Good" for America, and for politics.

Will it still be?

--------------------

Well, I think "truth" is always good. I think either McCain or Barack will get us closer to it. I know that Hillary will not. I know that Bush has not.

The country is seriously sick. Economically sick, morally sick, physically sick, spiritually sick, politically sick.

I don't think any President will heal us...but a good President will facilitate our own self-healing. We are lazy and intolerant citizens. That needs to change.

Sending out $1000 checks is not change.
Legislating morality is not change.

I think Barack has a sense of the change we need. I just wonder if we are up to the challenges we face.

I just don't know.

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 14, 2008 4:13 PM | Report abuse

The right led by fox rush hannity and o'reilly already tried to jail patriotic non violent americans for fighting for this nation. how will clinton's republcain propogandists succed where her freinds failed?

this battle has been fought gop. you lost. NOT ONLY YOU HAS FREE SPEECH GOP. Tough it may feel that way. As much as you would love it, we're not in nazi germany, or africa. you can't jail those who disagree. If so what would keep rush and o'liely and fox on the air. If truth, liek I spread, get's you jail time. What happens to fox and rush and other slying for profit daily and inciting violence and hate agaisnt peaceful americans? That WAS A crime.

I know gop. up is down. white is black. war is peace. Truth should be silenced and the bringers of it should be jailed. Lies should be trumpted, along with hate and intolerance. the bringer sof the lies should make millions.

We'll see who buys your newspeack and doublethink gop. Not on this site you won't win

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 14, 2008 4:10 PM | Report abuse

USMC Mike, The "guy" is his pastor, so of course he performed Obama's marriage and baptized his children. Of course Obama gave money to his church. It's where Obama worships God....

I do think that Obama needs to make a speech about this whole matter, one much like Romney did about his Mormon faith. But then, perhaps you are already predisposed to not believe him.

PatrickNYC1... I realize "high tech lynching" is the phrase that Clarence Thomas used.... whether or not it applied to him, I certainly think it applies to Obama.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth_Hunter | March 14, 2008 4:10 PM | Report abuse

We're still waiting to hear from SCUM_Mike and GOPSockPuppet why they are so in tune with a preacher tangentially linked to Mr. Obama, but do not acknowledge Macko's preacher and his admonitions against adultery and hypocrisy. Maybe you guys are listening to the wrong preacher.

If you two want to have sex with Macko so badly, why not register as lobbyists?

Posted by: bondjedi | March 14, 2008 4:09 PM | Report abuse

JK --

Either you've never watched the video or you have no heart, no soul, and no humanity.

I'm a Democrat.

I sure hope you're not.

We need people who can both think and feel.

You don't seem to have any capacity to do either.

Posted by: svreader | March 14, 2008 4:08 PM | Report abuse

Wow, that was quick.

Maybe you're right.

I would have prefered a Huckabee v. Clinton.

We've got what we've got, though.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 14, 2008 4:06 PM | Report abuse

"Maybe you can share a cell in prison someday!!!


Posted by: svreader | March 14, 2008 03:49
"

Now my posts have earned me a spot in prison. Which is it you hate and think I should be jailed for. My support of obama. Or the free speah I exercise in supporting him and fighting for my country?

Someone got to fight for the country. clinton di fi and the moderate sellout dems sure did nothing. While you closet republcains we're doing nothing, many were fighting the gop and for america.

Jail me AND obama? you show your face gop. No one here is buying it. The bloggers here, other than the few new clinton bobble heads like spector and leachman, are smarter than you old folk. Nobody's buying your a democrat. No one's buying your garbage. Sell it elsewhere.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 14, 2008 4:05 PM | Report abuse

jac13 --

Watch the Video. Its well known in Chicago. If it was anyone but Obama he'd be in jail by now.

I suspect he'll be indicted after the book comes out.

Posted by: svreader | March 14, 2008 4:05 PM | Report abuse

"I remember over the summer, when there were a dozen candidates, bsimon (and others) posted that a McCain v. Obama candidacy would be "Good" for America, and for politics.

Will it still be?"


Better than Giuliani v Clinton would have been!

(thanks for remembering)

Posted by: bsimon | March 14, 2008 4:05 PM | Report abuse

wpost4112 --

You seem like a reasonable guy.

How can you support Obama at all, knowning how he shafted the poorest of the poor who voted for him, elected him, and that he was supposed to represent and look out for?

Racist comments by Obama's pastor are bad, but they pale compared to Obama's total lack of concern for the people who elected him.

What Obama did is the coldest thing I've ever seen.

Callng people names is nothing in comparison to arrogance, incompetence, and criminal negligence that leads to their death!!!

Posted by: svreader | March 14, 2008 4:02 PM | Report abuse

"It's a deal breaker for me and you know how strongly I support Barack."

I do know.

I repeat what I said some days ago,

I'm glad to have met an Obama supporter who doesn't gush.

It seems you and I are reluctant voters for our (presumed) candidates. How sad.

I remember over the summer, when there were a dozen candidates, bsimon (and others) posted that a McCain v. Obama candidacy would be "Good" for America, and for politics.

Will it still be?

Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 14, 2008 4:02 PM | Report abuse

TruthHunter writes "If you want someone who is trying to bring the country together, ... then Obama is your man."

See, that's the confusing part. Obama says he is against divisive rhetoric. He say he is a uniter. But for the last 20 years, Obama has contributed money to, voluntarily listened to, and publicly defended a cleric who routinely peddles racial warfare.

Sen. Barack Obama's pastor says blacks should not sing "God Bless America" but "God damn America."

This man , with a long history of what even Obama's campaign aides concede is "inflammatory rhetoric" was judged by Obama to be worthy of an important postion on a committee in his campaign for the presidency.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | March 14, 2008 4:01 PM | Report abuse

svreader,

If BHO is such a horrible person, how come you and your fellow HRC trollers -- oh, and the supermarket tabloids -- are the only people who seem to know it?

Posted by: jac13 | March 14, 2008 4:00 PM | Report abuse

'If you were so concerned with your taxpayer dollars, you wouldn't be so enamored with tax-and-spend Obama.'

the republican borrow and spend like a drunken sailor mode has got us into the hole we are now. i want someone with a brain who can get us out of it -- not more of the same with a bush retread.

Posted by: drindl | March 14, 2008 4:00 PM | Report abuse

svreader:

Dude, I've seen that post before too. Googling "Obama lies" will only slant the content of the links that come up. Why would I want to do that if I want to get a clear idea of Obama's relationship with Rezko? Granted, slogging through stories like this
(http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/rezko/805715,CST-NWS-rezko21.stng)
isn't really productive.

You still haven't answered the experience question though.

Posted by: mnteng | March 14, 2008 4:00 PM | Report abuse

I'm sorry claudia,

I'm not working hard enough for you.

I'll try not to take any more vacations.

Don't worry. I'll try to make sure no fanatic blows up your car tonight.

You keep on the hate blogs, general drindl.

Ignorant little woman...


(Not a sexist remark, as she has called Fix posters "Sad little man", "Jealous little man", etc.)

Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 14, 2008 3:59 PM | Report abuse

BTW, I disagree with the assertion that Hillary has racked up a big "Blue-State electoral vote lead" for November. As several posters have been saying all day, this is false logic, because, among other reasons, it gives her credit for states McCain won't carry anyway.

Posted by: jac13 | March 14, 2008 3:58 PM | Report abuse

wpost4112 -- glad you can see this as highly inappropriate, and a flaw.

I probably think it a bigger deal than you, but at least you can acknowledge it ain't a "good" thing.

--------------------

It's a major problem and he's got to fix it. I don't at all believe that Barack shares his opinions, but he can't keep him anywhere in his campaign and be taken seriously.

It's a deal breaker for me and you know how strongly I support Barack.

I hope he sees the light soon.

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 14, 2008 3:56 PM | Report abuse

drindl - they're not. I'm on some well-deserved leave.

If you were so concerned with your taxpayer dollars, you wouldn't be so enamored with tax-and-spend Obama.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 14, 2008 3:56 PM | Report abuse

Obama can never apologize enough for the people who froze to death in his Chicago slums.

Unlike most previous political scandals, Obama's scandal lead to the suffering and death of voters that had put Obama into office.

Obama doesn't deserve anyone's vote.

Obama is unravelling and it couldn't happen to a more deserving guy.

Its amazing that Obama supporters have never reference checked their guy.

The first time I checked him out in Washington I found out that he's bad news.

What he did in Chicago is much worse than I would have ever dreamed.

If we had made the mistake of nominating him it would have been a disaster.

We were lucky he turned down the VP slot or he would have been a stone around Hillary's neck.

He's bad news.

Posted by: svreader | March 14, 2008 3:56 PM | Report abuse

Truth_Hunter,

you're scraping.

"condemnation by innuendo and association."

It's no innuendo. The guy worships with this nut. He was married by him. His children were baptized by him. He has donated TENS OF THOUSANDS of dollars to him.

He supports him. There's no way around it.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 14, 2008 3:55 PM | Report abuse

'novamatt - keep with the playbook.

Never respond. Keep attacking.

You should have been a Marine. At least your "keep attacking" attitude could be put to productive use.'

and you are a Marine. and you follow the playbook. funny thing is, i didn't know that my taxpayer dollars were being used to pay a Marine to play on blogs all day.

Posted by: drindl | March 14, 2008 3:54 PM | Report abuse

Let's get a grip here posters. Obama is certainly undergoing a "high-tech lynching" at the moment.... condemnation by innuendo and association.
-----------------------
Isn't that the excuse Clarence Thomas used?
-----------
If you're looking for an excuse to not back Obama.... he's not the old guard, he wants to do things a new way, you don't agree with his policies.... please, don't drag him, the Party, and all of us through the mud on the way to the exit. Just don't vote for him.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogsot.com

Posted by: Truth_Hunter | March 14, 2008 03:51 PM
-----------------------
I don't think we are dragging him, it's his preacher that is.

Posted by: PatrickNYC1 | March 14, 2008 3:54 PM | Report abuse

mnteng --

If the real Obama was anything like his public image, he'd be a great guy and he'd have my vote.

The problem is that he's nothing like that.

The real Obama is a master manipulator, He has the extreme kind of skill in that area seen in cult leaders like Jim Jones and in serial killers like Jeffrey Dhamer.

Obama didn't care one bit about the poor people who elected him and lived in the slums he funneled $100M of taxpayer money to his friend and chief campaign contributor Tony Rezko for repairs, and the buildings were never touched.

Obama isn't any good at doing actual work.

He's a big talker. That's all.

He's also incredibly good at manipulating people by telling them what htey want to hear.

I checked him out in detail and the references I got back said don't touch him with a ten foot poll.

The guy is bad news.

Please d do your own research on the net, starting by googling "Obama lies"

He's a super-salesman master manipulator.

Obama doesn't deserve your or anyone's else's support.

Posted by: svreader | March 14, 2008 3:53 PM | Report abuse

In a piece on Newsweek's web site entitled, "Why McCain May Win," Michael Hirsh says,

"Both the Clinton and Obama camps do worry about the consequences in the fall, and Obama's advisers hope, wishfully, that the Clintonites will stop the bloodletting that they began. The likelihood, however, is that the Hillary camp will only step things up. She knows that while he leads in pledged delegates, by winning most of the big Blue states she has racked up a big lead in the potential electoral votes any Democrat will need to win in November. As Marie Cocco of the Washington Post Writers Group wrote the other day, 'In this sense, Pennsylvania is where Obama's back, and not Clinton's, is up against the wall.'

And so let us return to our St. Paddy's Day sermon. Children who are familiar with this nursery rhyme already understand more, perhaps, than the two leading Democratic candidates for president. To wit: 'There once were two cats of Kilkenny/Each thought there was one cat too many/So they fought and they fit, and they scratched and they bit/Till excepting their nails and the tips of their tails/Instead of two cats there weren't any.'"

Posted by: jac13 | March 14, 2008 3:53 PM | Report abuse

The man would never have become president.

Posted by: Spectator2 | March 14, 2008 03:32 PM
-----------------------------
Funny that's what many said about both Reagan and W.At least Mayor 9/11 is toast.

Posted by: PatrickNYC1 | March 14, 2008 3:52 PM | Report abuse

Let's get a grip here posters. Obama is certainly undergoing a "high-tech lynching" at the moment.... condemnation by innuendo and association.

If you want scandal McCain and Hillary both have dirty laundry. Why do you think Hillary is dragging her feet on her tax returns? And, not releasing her White House documents so we can't see she actually had no decision-making position, not even a security clearance.

Why does McCain, the anti-lobbyist crusader, have lobbyists in senior positions in his campaign and Senate office?

If you want someone who is trying to bring the country together, who is trying to stay on the high road while others play their race or fear cards and bulldoze the facts, then Obama is your man.

If you're looking for an excuse to not back Obama.... he's not the old guard, he wants to do things a new way, you don't agree with his policies.... please, don't drag him, the Party, and all of us through the mud on the way to the exit. Just don't vote for him.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogsot.com

Posted by: Truth_Hunter | March 14, 2008 3:51 PM | Report abuse

svreader:
I agree that the video is more graphic. Short TV segments have to be sensational to keep their ratings up so they can sell ads, etc. But I prefer to get as much information as I can so I can make an informed decision. Of course, the Sun-Times links provide more information than I'm willing to dig into -- Rod Blagojevich going to jail won't directly affect me.

Since you're a Clinton-backer, I'd like to ask you about the experience question. HRC claims 35 years of experience -- basically the entire time she's been out of law school. If that is the case, are you willing to grant BHO 17 years of experience, the amount of time since he graduated law school?

Posted by: mnteng | March 14, 2008 3:49 PM | Report abuse

JK --

The only voice in my head is the voice of reason.

The fact that you shamelessly shill for a man that let the poorest of the poor freeze to death because he was too busy potting his run for the presidency to do his job speaks volumes about your total lack of humanity.

You and Obama deserve each other.

Maybe you can share a cell in prison someday!!!

Posted by: svreader | March 14, 2008 3:49 PM | Report abuse

Chris,

As an interesting addendum to this great new Line, will you include the electoral math?

Thanks!

Posted by: montypython00 | March 14, 2008 3:47 PM | Report abuse

I thgouht they had no differance in the issues?

HAHHAHAHAHA

you show yoru face rush mibaugh sabotuer, clinton backers. Have fun. Play games amoungst yourselves. No one's buying it.

Enjoy your treason and irrelevance with your master rush. I don't hate you dittoheads. It's not your fault your dittoehads. You have to be. You cannot think for yourselves. I don't hate you clones. I just want to help you re-join reality and get out of conservative la-la land.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 14, 2008 3:47 PM | Report abuse

"I'm as hard-core a Democrat as you'll find anywhere.

The only exception I'll make is that if Obama's on the ticket, in any capacity, I'll vote for McCain and so will everyone else I know
"

HAHAHAHHAHAHAH

OOOOOOKKKKKAAAAAAYYYYY

Work out the voices in your head first. Them come take to others. :)

Are you sure your not leachman? Miss "I comment every politicain, regardless if I agree or not."

"I want to impeach bush and fought to impeach nixon."


OKKKKAAAYYY, double think gop. Get your head right first. Then blog to others, when you know where you stand. You look like a fool when you make conflicting statemnets like this. not that you care about credibility.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 14, 2008 3:45 PM | Report abuse

USMC_Mike, hope you're a little cooler-headed with a rifle than you are with a keyboard. I'd like to think we're all ultimately on the same team.

Happy weekend, all, I'm off to Florida for a few days to watch a little baseball, a sport where the grass is always green and the phenoms are always golden and the scoreboard never lies.

Posted by: novamatt | March 14, 2008 3:44 PM | Report abuse

Kudos to The Fix for a great new line.

Big trick here is to figure out which Dem gets the nomination. My calculations show Obama picks up 4 states (CO,FL,IA,NM) and loses 1 (NH) -- net +44 Electoral Votes; Clinton picks up 6 states (AR,CO,FL,IA,NM,NV) and loses 3 (MI, NH, WI) -- net +28 Electoral Votes. Probability of change:
1. New Mexico.
2. Iowa,
3. New Hampshire (McCain's all day!)
4. Colorado
5. Florida
6-9. (Only if Clinton is nominee) Arkansas, Wisconsin, Michigan, Nevada
10. My favorite longshot -- regardless of the question -- is Louisiana. Anything can happen in Louisiana.

Posted by: cybridge | March 14, 2008 3:40 PM | Report abuse

JK --

You complain about my posts but have clearly never read any of them.

If you did, you'd know I'm a man, not a woman.

What are you, a "eunuch?"

Posted by: svreader | March 14, 2008 3:38 PM | Report abuse

JK --

You're such an Obama-moonie you think I'm a Republican.

I'm as hard-core a Democrat as you'll find anywhere.

The only exception I'll make is that if Obama's on the ticket, in any capacity, I'll vote for McCain and so will everyone else I know.

I used to post in favor of a Clinton/Obama ticket.

Now that I know the kind of guy Obama really is, and what he did in Chicago, I wouldn't vote for him for dog-catcher.

Obama belongs in Jail, not the whitehouse or the senate.

Posted by: svreader | March 14, 2008 3:35 PM | Report abuse

ceflyn; I spent 2 months workin in the Strickland Shaker Hts office and felt the newrvousness in 2006 to defeat a weak Blackwell campaign. Ohio has been precarious for 20 years and you guys need to hold on to all of the progress you made in 2006, there should be no turning back. While there I also experienced the stern catholic antiabortion element that could turn on dems and undermine everything that you have accomplished. For Obama to succed in Cleveland he will have to expand his base to your blue collar, eastern european and irish community which I just don't see a natural connection. Pa and Ohio just don't seem to be Obama type states but you live there and presumably know more about your constituents but I think Obama in Ohio would be problematic but Mccain saying NAFTA is alright with him certainly won't play there either, Sherrod brown certainly understood that.

Posted by: leichtman | March 14, 2008 3:34 PM | Report abuse

"To think he was the front runner and had it not been for the smart man with the camera and the net he could be where McShame is."

He was the frontrunner like Rudy was the frontrunner. People just didn't really know him -- and that was especially so in this case.

He'd be there until his Jewish roots were exposed. The whole story of how his father, coach Allen, convinced his mother to hide her religion from his family and everyone else "to help his career."

Then there were the stories of him dragging his sister down the stairs by her hair, etc. The man would never have become president.

Posted by: Spectator2 | March 14, 2008 3:32 PM | Report abuse

novamatt - keep with the playbook.

Never respond. Keep attacking.

You should have been a Marine. At least your "keep attacking" attitude could be put to productive use.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 14, 2008 3:32 PM | Report abuse

That's not why she's here mnteng.

but thanks for trying. these propgoandists don't coem to change their ways and get facts. They don't come to be proved wrong. And to do so will only waste your time.

concentrate your efforts and idalogue on someone who's worth it. Someone who wants real convseration and political growth.

don't waste your time on gop propoganidsts who's only concern is lie spin and discreit, divide and conquer. he doesn't want facts or truth. He wants verbal battle.

Do you, of course. But these gop propogandists sent to sabotage by rush and the other fascist cultists, do nto care about credibility or reality. they come to break the post, not participate in it.

Leave the verbal battle to me. I fight these fascsits, so you don;t have to. It's not worth your time trying to bring them into reality. If they don't knwo what time it is now, they'll never know.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 14, 2008 3:30 PM | Report abuse

USMC_Mike, thanks for the hyperbole. I can always count on you.

Posted by: novamatt | March 14, 2008 3:29 PM | Report abuse

mnteng --

The video is much more specific and graphic.

The one thing it doesn't show is the bodies of the people who froze to death.

You'll see those on TV and in your local bookstore very soon.

Look for the book "Obama's Slums"

You might want to reserve a copy.

Most stores will probably run out very quickly.

Posted by: svreader | March 14, 2008 3:29 PM | Report abuse

wpost4112 -- glad you can see this as highly inappropriate, and a flaw.

I probably think it a bigger deal than you, but at least you can acknowledge it ain't a "good" thing.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 14, 2008 3:27 PM | Report abuse

People who support Obama have no idea of what kind of person he actually is.

Obama Supporters -- Please, Watch the Video.

The real Obama is a real jerk.

Obama let the people who elected him in Chicago rot in slums when he was supposed to get them decent housing after he funneled $100M to his friend Rezko.

It was Obama's responsibility to make sure his voters got what they paid for.

He didn't do his job.

He didn't care what happened to them.

He only cared about himself.

Does winning the primaries mean so much to Obama's cult followers that they abandon all principle?

How can they even THINK of supporting a man who did what Obama did in Chicago to the poorest of the poor who elected him???

Please Watch this report on Obama, Obama's slums, Rezko, and $100M of wasted taxpayer money, from Channel 5, Chicago's most respected TV news program.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDHsHM0laT8&feature=related

I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but the real Obama is a really bad guy!!!

Posted by: svreader | March 14, 2008 3:27 PM | Report abuse

svreader:
You keep trotting out the same post and YouTube clip. It's tiresome. For those who want to judge for themselves, here's a link to the Chicago Sun-Times (who have been doing most of the digging on Rezko).

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/rezko/index.html

I'd suggest starting with the following link:
http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/rezko/757340,CST-NWS-watchdog24.stng

Posted by: mnteng | March 14, 2008 3:25 PM | Report abuse

Obama supporters don't care how many poor people suffered and died in Obama's slums.

They only want to win.

They never even bothered to check out the guy they're pushing.

Its just a big game to them.

Its no game, Obama-nuts.

Thanks to Obama, innocent poor people suffered and died by freezing to death in Obama's slums.

Posted by: svreader | March 14, 2008 3:25 PM | Report abuse

We can post the same post all day svreader. You post your propoganda today.

I'll label it as this all day:

""Propaganda is a concerted set of messages aimed at influencing the opinions or behavior of large numbers of people. Instead of impartially providing information, propaganda in its most basic sense presents information in order to influence its audience. The most effective propaganda is often completely truthful, but some propaganda presents facts selectively to encourage a particular synthesis, or gives loaded messages in order to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented. The desired result is a change of the cognitive narrative of the subject in the target audience."

A fun game you republcains can play with yourselves all day. Cool. Will that amuse you more than ripping your country apart? Is that more fun than divide and conquer? I'm not a gop cultist so I don't know your doublethink and newspeak to the appropriate level. I'm based in reality and live in the real world.

I don't think through rush's twisted prism and fox's bobble heads. I think for myself. you gop dittohead cultists make no sense to me.

If you want to play a game today we can. I'll do that fo ryou. Then you can whine and cry and blame me for everything. Maybe someone here would pity you and shed a tear. Maybe you get a vote for clinton out of pity. You will get no pity from me, gop.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 14, 2008 3:24 PM | Report abuse

novamatt - that's not even 1% of what this guy has said.

Instead of telling us to read the Bible,

Perhaps you should do YOUR research on this nut.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 14, 2008 3:23 PM | Report abuse

JK --

The slums were in Obama's district.

Obama got Rezko the funding to do the slum repairs that were never done.

It was Obama's responsibility to follow up on the contracts.

Above all else, it was Obama's responsibility to take care of the people living in those slums.

They're the people he who supposed to represent.

Rezko was Obama's largest campaign contributor, and was Obama's close friend and advisor.

I guess if you want Obama so much that you're willing to forgive him for using hard drugs and commiting multiple felonies, the fact that poor people who voted for Obama fro
ze to death in his slums doesn't bother you at all.

I pitty you.

Posted by: svreader | March 14, 2008 3:22 PM | Report abuse

USMC_Mike - really? Do you know their relationship? Do you live in Chicago? Did you go to the Senator's wedding? Are you on his campaign plane, seeing who he gets advice from? Do you know how his finance committee is structured and what kind of input his pastor has in it?

No, you don't. That's my point.

------------------

Com'on John,
They do have a point here (amid the usual dirty hysteria). Barack has a close relationship with this church leader who preaches in the style of Jeremiah...a condemnatory prophet.

You just cannot appoint to your campaign a condemnatory prophet who is calling down damnation on this country if you expect to be elected to its highest office.

Prophets, both true and false, have their place, but not in a Presidential campaign.

This is Barack's Achille's heel and he must fix it asap.

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 14, 2008 3:22 PM | Report abuse

johndinhouston

-you've admitted this nut was at Obama's wedding, on his campaign plane, giving advice, and on his committee.

Obviously, Obama likes this man.

Obviously, he agrees with SOMETHING he has to say.

The voters need to know - WHAT, does he agree with?

Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 14, 2008 3:21 PM | Report abuse

I don't know if any of you all actually read the Bible, but you might want to try it and see what Isaiah and Jeremiah say about an Israel that had lost touch with God.

Here, take a look at Jeremiah 5: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah%205;&version=31;

Wright was speaking from a prophetic tradition that is and always has been a big part of the black church and of the evangelical church. The idea that the church is supposed to be some rah-rah-USA!-USA! place is sort of funny when you think about the Judeo-Christian tradition and about the church militant in the US specifically.

Posted by: novamatt | March 14, 2008 3:21 PM | Report abuse

leichtman: The fact that barak couldn't carry Cayuhoga County in a Democratic Primary bears no relation to whether he could carry it in a General Election. There isn't anybody on the lake plain who has any particular reason to like JM, except Republicans who like GB. Enough Dems will vote for either candidate, and enough others will vote for one or the other to carry Ohio. The question for us Buckeyes is who swings the most Republican Districts Democratic, and can either one give us a democratic House in the state? Prognosticate THAT correctly and your a true cognoscenti.

Posted by: ceflynline | March 14, 2008 3:19 PM | Report abuse

What will you people say when obama is your president? Will you continue to rip him up with lies and this garbage gop?

If so who are you not traitors? Treason is choosing money party or outside influnce over nation. for all your big talk gop.

this is all you have left.

treason:

"In law, treason is the crime that covers some of the more serious acts of disloyalty to one's sovereign or nation. Historically, treason also covered the murder of specific social superiors, such as the murder of a husband by his wife (treason against the king was known as high treason and treason against a lesser superior was petit treason). A person who commits treason is known as a traitor.

Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as: "...[a]...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]." In many nations, it is also often considered treason to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government, even if no foreign country is aided or involved by such an endeavour."

"Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers the individual subordinate to the interests of the state, party or society as a whole. Fascists seek to forge a type of national unity, usually based on (but not limited to) ethnic, cultural, racial, religious attributes. Various scholars attribute different characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: patriotism, nationalism, statism, militarism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, corporatism, populism, collectivism, autocracy and opposition to political and economic liberalism."

terrorism

"Official definitions determine counter-terrorism policy and are often developed to serve it. Most government definitions outline the following key criteria: target, objective, motive, perpetrator, and legitimacy or legality of the act. Terrorism is also often recognizable by a following statement from the perpetrators.

Violence - According to Walter Laqueur of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, "the only general characteristic of terrorism generally agreed upon is that terrorism involves violence and the threat of violence." However, the criterion of violence alone does not produce a useful definition, as it includes many acts not usually considered terrorism: war, riot, organized crime, or even a simple assault. Property destruction that does not endanger life is not usually considered a violent crime, but some have described property destruction by the Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front as violence and terrorism; see eco-terrorism.

Psychological impact and fear - The attack was carried out in such a way as to maximize the severity and length of the psychological impact. Each act of terrorism is a "performance," devised to have an impact on many large audiences. Terrorists also attack national symbols to show their power and to shake the foundation of the country or society they are opposed to. This may negatively affect a government's legitimacy, while increasing the legitimacy of the given terrorist organization and/or ideology behind a terrorist act.[10]

Perpetrated for a Political Goal - Something all terrorist attacks have in common is their perpetration for a political purpose. Terrorism is a political tactic, not unlike letter writing or protesting, that is used by activists when they believe no other means will effect the kind of change they desire. The change is desired so badly that failure is seen as a worse outcome than the deaths of civilians. This is often where the interrelationship between terrorism and religion occurs. When a political struggle is integrated into the framework of a religious or "cosmic"[11] struggle, such as over the control of an ancestral homeland or holy site such as Israel and Jerusalem, failing in the political goal (nationalism) becomes equated with spiritual failure, which, for the highly committed, is worse than their own death or the deaths of innocent civilians.

Deliberate targeting of non-combatants - It is commonly held that the distinctive nature of terrorism lies in its intentional and specific selection of civilians as direct targets. Specifically, the criminal intent is shown when babies, children, mothers, and the elderly are murdered, or injured, and put in harms way. Much of the time, the victims of terrorism are targeted not because they are threats, but because they are specific "symbols, tools, animals or corrupt beings" that tie into a specific view of the world that the terrorist possess. Their suffering accomplishes the terrorists' goals of instilling fear, getting a message out to an audience, or otherwise accomplishing their often radical religious and political ends.[12]

Disguise - Terrorists almost invariably pretend to be non-combatants, hide among non-combatants, fight from in the midst of non-combatants, and when they can, strive to mislead and provoke the government soldiers into attacking the wrong people, that the government may be blamed for it. When an enemy is identifiable as a combatant, the word terrorism is rarely used. Mass executions of hostages, as by the Nazi military forces in the Second World War, certainly constituted crimes against humanity but are not commonly called terrorism.

Unlawfulness or illegitimacy - Some official (notably government) definitions of terrorism add a criterion of illegitimacy or unlawfulness[13] to distinguish between actions authorized by a "legitimate" government (and thus "lawful") and those of other actors, including individuals and small groups. Using this criterion, actions that would otherwise qualify as terrorism would not be considered terrorism if they were government sanctioned. For example, firebombing a city, which is designed to affect civilian support for a cause, would not be considered terrorism if it were authorized by a "legitimate" government. This criterion is inherently problematic and is not universally accepted, because: it denies the existence of state terrorism; the same act may or may not be classed as terrorism depending on whether its sponsorship is traced to a "legitimate" government; "legitimacy" and "lawfulness" are subjective, depending on the perspective of one government or another; and it diverges from the historically accepted meaning and origin of the term.[14][15][16][17] For these reasons this criterion is not universally accepted. Most dictionary definitions of the term do not include this criterion.

"

"Propaganda is a concerted set of messages aimed at influencing the opinions or behavior of large numbers of people. Instead of impartially providing information, propaganda in its most basic sense presents information in order to influence its audience. The most effective propaganda is often completely truthful, but some propaganda presents facts selectively to encourage a particular synthesis, or gives loaded messages in order to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented. The desired result is a change of the cognitive narrative of the subject in the target audience."

That is all you gop'ers have left. Your treason and your irrelevance. Enjoy it. no one's buying yoru garbage anymore.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 14, 2008 3:16 PM | Report abuse

Why am I talking here? You people couldn't have reasonable discussion under penalty of good government.

Posted by: johndinhouston | March 14, 2008 3:15 PM | Report abuse

JK --

Everything I Post is True.

You push Obama without a clue of who he really is.

You've never even bothered to watch the news report about "Obama's slums" have you?

I thought so.

I post against Obama just like I would against any dangerous cult leader.

The fact that Obama's supporters are so rabbid about him without knowing anything about the actual history of the man they push on everyone else proves they're a cult, and a dangerous one.

Posted by: svreader | March 14, 2008 3:14 PM | Report abuse

drindl --

example (ĭg-zăm'pəl)
n.
A problem or exercise used to illustrate a principle or method.


Learn that one after you've learned "global".

Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 14, 2008 3:14 PM | Report abuse

USMC_Mike - really? Do you know their relationship? Do you live in Chicago? Did you go to the Senator's wedding? Are you on his campaign plane, seeing who he gets advice from? Do you know how his finance committee is structured and what kind of input his pastor has in it?

No, you don't. That's my point.

Posted by: johndinhouston | March 14, 2008 3:12 PM | Report abuse

If this had played out on the national stage, just imagine how ugly it would have gotten.

Posted by: Spectator2 | March 14, 2008 03:00 PM
----------------
Not from VA, live in NYC, but the Allen story got great coverage up here and all over the net. It was so much fun watching him implode. To think he was the front runner and had it not been for the smart man with the camera and the net he could be where McShame is.

Posted by: PatrickNYC1 | March 14, 2008 3:12 PM | Report abuse

Now their obama's slum. Rezko, and clinton backer, had nothin gto do with it now, huh?

Now obama owns and runs slums in chicago?

HAHAHAHAHHAHAAHHA

continue. Pathetic.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 14, 2008 3:12 PM | Report abuse

"Hillary will win the next primaries by a landslide, or Obama will drop out of the race before that."

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

you show yoru face. Continue with other stories or fairies and other events that will happen.

you have nothing svreader. Nothing. You post the same post ove rand over. you won't be silenced? By all emans. Not trying to silence you. I don't blog for right-wing propgoandists who come to lie spin and disccredit. I come for everyone else. Post your lies and garbage. Not like I haven't fought the gop and their sabotuer propogandists for years now. clinton's are the same as bush's.

But continue. I'm not trying to silence you. I'm just trying to point you out and marginalize you for the propgoandist you are. Do your thing. Show yoru face. Ignore me if you must while I destroy your weak propoganda and half truths.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 14, 2008 3:10 PM | Report abuse

dogsbestfriend --

The Obama you talk about your message doesn't exist.

Its a fantasy.

Watch the Video.

Its fromChannel 5 news, Chicago's most highly respected TV news program.

The real Obama is a real jerk.

Obama let the poorest of the poor people who elected him in Chicago rot in slums when he was supposed to get them decent housing after he funneled $100M to his friend Rezko.

It was Obama's responsibility to make sure his voters got what they paid for.

He didn't do his job.

He didn't care what happened to them.

He only cared about himself.

Does winning the primaries mean so much to Obama's groupies that they abandon all principle?

How can they even THINK of supporting a man who did what Obama did in Chicago to the poorest of the poor who elected him???

Please Watch this report on Obama, Obama's slums, Rezko, and $100M of wasted taxpayer money, from Channel 5, Chicago's most respected TV news program.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDHsHM0laT8&feature=related

I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but the real Obama is a really bad guy

Obama has a very carefully crafted image.

Its about as far from reality as can be imagined.

The real Obama is cold, calculating, and manipulative.

He only cares about himself.

The real Obama is crooked as a horse-shoe.

The real Obama let the people who elected him state senator suffer and die in Slums that he funneled $100M of Government money to his friend Rezko to repair, but were never even touched.

That's the real Obama.

He's arrogant, incompetent, and only cares about himself.

His carefully crafted image is as fake as Bush's was.

Will America make the same mistake again?

For all our sakes, I hope not.

Its astounding that anyone, especially any person of color, would support Obama knowing what he did to the last bunch of people stupid enough to buy his pitch.

The guy totally shafted his own people.

What a Creep.

Posted by: svreader | March 14, 2008 3:08 PM | Report abuse

"If my pastor/priest owns slaves, I don't care what his spiritual guidance is.'

I must have missed something.. Obama's pastor, a black man, owns slaves? Even in the era of hyperbolic excess, that's quite a statement. That's equaing the pastor's words to owning slaves. Or Obama to owning slaves.

The twisted way rightwinger's 'brains' work is always fascinting, albeit, repellent, to watch.

Posted by: drindl | March 14, 2008 3:07 PM | Report abuse

"I'm sorry? Did Senator Obama say that his pastor was going to be Vice President or something?'

No but not exactly the greatest image of a spiritual advisor to a Presidential candidate or Billy Graham.

seems like the right thing for sen Obama do have done was to get up and walk out when he heard such inflamatory language what I believe most Americans would have. Does he share such attitudes? Absolutely not but as a unifier he should be willing to walk out of such sermons and not wait for 6 years to condemn them.

Posted by: leichtman | March 14, 2008 3:06 PM | Report abuse

"I'm sorry? Did Senator Obama say that his pastor was going to be Vice President or something? Let's not jump to conclusions or throw all kinds of accusations against the wall quite yet - no one knows their relationship at all - every one has a different relationship with their church and the head of their church..boy, Chris' chat has just become the repository of mudslinging.

Posted by: johndinhouston | March 14, 2008 02:56 PM
"

Of course not. It's all these sad pathetic sabotuers have.

Of course obama is the only politicain who must deal with this. Like every other bogus "issue" these right wing propgoandists bring up.

Look at the bright side. If these sad atempts going through thrid and fourth parties are all they got, he must be pretty good.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 14, 2008 3:05 PM | Report abuse

"Not when the price of milk has doubled in a year and the price of gas has doubled in a year"

coincidentally the year right after the Dems got their hands on the congress. the Pelosi recession. want more? vote D!

Posted by: kingofzouk | March 14, 2008 3:05 PM | Report abuse

"If my pastor/priest owns slaves, I don't care what his spiritual guidance is.'

I must have missed something.. Obama's pastor, a black man, owns slaves? Even in the era of hyperbolic excess, that's quite a statement. That's equaing the pastor's words to owning slaves. Or Obama to owning slaves.

The twisted way rightwinger's 'brains' work is always fascinting to watch.

Posted by: drindl | March 14, 2008 3:04 PM | Report abuse

svreader wrote:
He is a classical narcissist.

-------------------------

LOL. What, does he speak Latin to himself?

Obama a narcissist? Well, we are all narcissistic to different degrees. I think you meant to say that he was a classic malignant narcissist.

And that would be unsupported by any facts. There aren't even any symptoms. Tendency towards arrogance, I'd buy.
One glaring sign of narcissism is the inability to endure criticism. And Barack has handled criticism flawlessly.

Now if you want to discuss the provable narcissistic pathologies of George W or Bil Clinton, have at it!

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 14, 2008 3:04 PM | Report abuse

Come November, the financial markets will be in such a bad state that there is ZERO chance of McCain winning.

The only question is which democrat can lead the nation out of some pretty depressing times.

Hillary is smart, she is well informed. But

*** she is a pitbull and at a time the nation has to heal relations in Europe, Russia and yes, Muslim countries (we need the oil), Hillary's style is absolutely the wrong one.

*** she is more secretive than even Bush, and the country is hungry for transparency. We need a president that treats us like adults instead of cutting deals behind closed doors.

*** Hillary is too indebted to special interest groups, she can't make the foreign policy decisions that will restore our credibility around the world. Her advisers are the same old, same old neocon crowd.

*** she believes in 'divide and conquer' instead of bringing the nation together. She has proven this in the way her campaign is trying to set hispanics against blacks, whites against blacks etc. This isn't what we need when we are possibly facing a DEPRESSION. The economic boom of the late 90s were purely a function of the web becoming commercial, so Bill can't take credit for it.

Obama attracts independents because he is smart, he hasn't sold out to special interest groups and he has the right approach with his foreign policy. He should bring Samantha Powers back and take us into a new direction.

Posted by: dogsbestfriend | March 14, 2008 3:04 PM | Report abuse

snarling

Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 14, 2008 3:04 PM | Report abuse

johninmpls:"Minnesota is the North Star State, not the Gopher State.

Just saying."

Well then, just who are the Golden Gophers?

Posted by: ceflynline | March 14, 2008 3:03 PM | Report abuse

JK --

The more Obama-nuts attack anyone who dares post the truth about cult-leader Barry Obama, the more we will post.

Our voices will not be silenced.

This isn't Soviet Russia or Mao's China.

Obama's supporters are still in denial about Obama's slums.

There's no sane reason to elect a man who let the poorest of the poor, the people who elected him, freeze to death.

It's not going to happen.

Hillary will win the next primaries by a landslide, or Obama will drop out of the race before that.

People know about Chicago. People know about Obama's slums.

The real Obama's a really bad guy, and now people know it.

Its over.

Posted by: svreader | March 14, 2008 3:03 PM | Report abuse

what's the difference between drindl and a snarling hyena?

none

Posted by: kingofzouk | March 14, 2008 3:02 PM | Report abuse

well said will.

Where else in america do you get rewarded the worse you do? Where else do you get raises if you are unable to do yoru job and are criminals? No place I've ever worked out.

They still will win some. Old people and habit and all. But why would they improve if afer all they;'ve done they still get elected? If only pepsi existed why woudl they ever improve their product?


The gop doesn't do accountabililty or credibility. Amounst themselves that is. That is why they are done. I'm sure they will have plenty of people to blame and poitn the finger at for their impending irrelevance (clinton's sabotage not withstanding).

We'll see who buys it. From voting so far it looks like the gop, their moderate sell-outs and their propogandists are finallty going to get that irrelevacne they've earned.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 14, 2008 3:02 PM | Report abuse

johndinhouston --

He's on his campaign staff.

He's his spiritual advisor.

He's had a 20 year friendship.

He married the two.

He baptized their babies.

We know their relationship.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 14, 2008 3:01 PM | Report abuse

Patrick: Since I don't think you're in VA, you might not be quite as familiar with some of us about Allen's reaction to the public disclosure of his Jewish roots. Talk about uncomfortable. Unlike Kerry and Wes Clark, for example, Allen bragged about the great pork chops his mother (still alive) makes. He acted like he was being outed for being gay. Finally he came around and talked about how proud he was of his mother, blah blah blah, but the damage was done.

If this had played out on the national stage, just imagine how ugly it would have gotten.

Posted by: Spectator2 | March 14, 2008 3:00 PM | Report abuse

If the real Obama was anything like his public image, he'd be a great guy and he'd have my vote.

The problem is that he's nothing like that.

The real Obama is a master manipulator, He has the extreme kind of skill in that area seen in cult leaders like Jim Jones and in serial killers like Jeffrey Dhamer.

Have you watched the video?

If you haven't please do and then come back to this note.

Please Watch this report on Obama, Obama's slums, Rezko, and $100M of wasted taxpayer money, from Channel 5, Chicago's most respected TV news program.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDHsHM0laT8&feature=related

Obama didn't care one bit about the poor people who elected him and lived in the slums he funneled $100M of taxpayer money to his friend and chief campaign contributor Tony Rezko for repairs, and the buildings were never touched.

Obama isn't any good at doing actual work.

He's a big talker. That's all.

He's also incredibly good at manipulating people by telling them what htey want to hear.

I checked him out in detail and the references I got back said don't touch him with a ten foot poll.

The guy is bad news.

Please look at the video and do your own research on the net, starting by googling "Obama lies"

He's a super-salesman master manipulator.

He doesn't deserve anyone's support.

Posted by: svreader | March 14, 2008 2:59 PM | Report abuse

You posted that post five times yesterday svreader.

we got it. your a rush limbuagh sabotuer. We got it. We don't need 5 of the same posts to prove whoa nd what you are. We got it clinton gop propogandists. No one here is buying it. Everyone else other than you left so you can play games amoungst yourselves. Lie to each other and pat yourselves on the back. No NON-gop propogandists is buying it. Your game is moot.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 14, 2008 2:57 PM | Report abuse

I'm sorry? Did Senator Obama say that his pastor was going to be Vice President or something? Let's not jump to conclusions or throw all kinds of accusations against the wall quite yet - no one knows their relationship at all - every one has a different relationship with their church and the head of their church..boy, Chris' chat has just become the repository of mudslinging.

Posted by: johndinhouston | March 14, 2008 2:56 PM | Report abuse

John MCain is so paranoid and so obbessed by himself he thinks 'terrorists' wil attack just to stop his righteous self from being elected? Yes, will all know the world revolves around mccain.

and as he himself says, he knows nothing about the economy.and we really need someone who's a bit sharper than himm to deal with this:

The United States has entered a recession that could be "substantially more severe" than recent ones, former National Bureau of Economic Research President Martin Feldstein said

"The situation is very bad, the situation is getting worse, and the risks are that it could get very bad," Feldstein said in a speech at the Futures Industry Association meeting in Boca Raton, Florida.

NBER is a private sector group that is considered the arbiter of U.S. business cycles.'

Posted by: drindl | March 14, 2008 2:56 PM | Report abuse

"If my pastor/priest owns slaves, I don't care what his spiritual guidance is.


Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 14, 2008 02:48 PM
"

so is obama his pastors slave or vice versa?

I can never keep up with the gop's mentality of lie spin and discredit. I never come to what really matters in you physco's minds because it changes every week.

Moveon "betryus" bad.

Rush: Any militray man who does not support the war is a "phoney soldier"

..

Foot tapping and prositution is fine in the bathroom and should be appluded.

Prostitu in a pro house is illegal and the man should be fired.

...

Perjury with the president over a bj bad. Should get impeached.

Perjury leaking of a cia agent is good and should be covered up.

I give up with the propogating fascists. you don't believe half the garbage that leaves your mouths. So why waste our time with people who lie know their lying and have no intintion of building any credbility..


I'm not sure how to deal with fascists who don't have or want credibility. What is a blogger with zero cred? A propogandist?

WOW. I say we quit caring about dragging these old style propogandist fascists along. We move on towards the future without them and their double think. Without gop sabotage.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 14, 2008 2:55 PM | Report abuse

bondjedi -- those who disagree with you are "scum".

How adolescent.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 14, 2008 2:53 PM | Report abuse

Obama has a long and well known history of telling one thing to one person or group and the opposite to another.

He talks big and delivers nothing.

H's a "master manipulator" that thinks he can "get over" on anyone and everyone.

People are starting to see the kind of Person Obama really is, and he's not a very nice one.

What he did in Chicago proves that he doesn't care about anyone but himself.

He is a classical narcissist.

His arrogance, ego, incompetence and history will be his downfall.

The real Obama is a really bad guy.

The floodgates of truth are opening and will drown his chances in a sea of nasty facts.

The Truth will be the end of Obama!!!

Posted by: svreader | March 14, 2008 2:52 PM | Report abuse

The truth will be the end of Obama!!!

Posted by: svreader | March 14, 2008 02:43 PM
-------------------
While I thought you were nuts when you started ranting about this I think this is going to hurt him, maybe even cost him the election. I also think you do yourself a great disservice by cutting and pasting all these long rants over and over on several pages. Most probably do what I do when they discover it's you, scroll on by.

Posted by: PatrickNYC1 | March 14, 2008 2:49 PM | Report abuse

Republican presidential candidate John McCain said on Friday he fears that al Qaeda or another extremist group might attempt spectacular attacks in Iraq to try to tilt the U.S. election against him. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA

Your done McCain we the American people are sick of this scare tatic
B U L L S H I T..
First your own party trashed you during the last 2 elections and now you try this crap. YOU CRAZY OLD COOT!!! We are scared, we are scared of REPUBLICANS that continue to KILL Americans for HUGH profits for the republican party the TRUE cut and run party.

NO REPUBLICANS IN AMERICA!!! Now that would be a GREAT country.

Posted by: 1-20-09 | March 14, 2008 2:49 PM | Report abuse

Which states?

All of them.

There are no Red States anymore.

Not when the price of milk has doubled in a year and the price of gas has doubled in a year, and the CEOs get richer and the middle class gets smaller.

The Blue Tidal Wave is going to wash America clean - and it will not stop for ANYTHING!

Posted by: WillSeattle | March 14, 2008 2:49 PM | Report abuse

Subconsciously or otherwise, SCUM_Mike and ProudToBeAMeatPuppet realize that this country will not lose a great leader due to SwiftBoating. The other day they applauded Larry Craig's actions in the mens room, today they stand up in support of adultery, thinking their craven attacks on a great man like Barack (learn how to spell that name, boys, because you'll be screaming it later). What's next, fellas - foot fetishes and spanking will determine our next President?

Bring it, though. I will not disappoint a sock puppet so eager to receive a lashing. This is the paper that brought down Nixon - do you think we'll have any trouble with a couple of deadenders like you?

Posted by: bondjedi | March 14, 2008 2:48 PM | Report abuse

Obama:

"I haven't seen the line."

"This is a pastor who is on the brink of retirement..."

"I profoundly disagree with some of these statements."

"Obviously, I disagree with that."

"Here is what happens when you just cherry-pick statements..."

"There are times when people say things that are just wrong."

This is called SPIN. (HRC style.)


"I profoundly disagree with some of these statements."

"PROFOUNDLY"?!?

I PROFOUNDLY disagree with slavery. If my pastor/priest owns slaves, I don't care what his spiritual guidance is.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 14, 2008 2:48 PM | Report abuse

"Sjkarpov19:There is a hidden "anti" vote in polls. If the two candidates are WASP's, then the polls are usually on the mark. But there will be a hidden anti-black vote and ant-women vote and for McCain an anti-elderly vote."

The problem with that theory is that to apply it you have to count the same votes twice.

There IS a strong anti non WASP-male contingent in the public, it makes up a big portion of the Republican base. It already votes, and posts on blogs saying "IF Hillary", or "If Obama" it will vote for McCain. You may assume it will vote McCain or stay home regardless.

As for how the Obama and Hillary factions will split, Hillary drawing old line Democrats as she does, the Dems who voted for her (as opposed to the Repubs who voted Against Obama) will still turn out. Obama's support is more problematical, but as long as Obama campaigns for somebody in the fall, they should mostly break for Hillary, excepting again the anti Hillary people.

The remarkable thing about this election is the huge turn out ratios in favor of Democrats in so many states that voted for Bush in 04. Quite obviously the splits won't be near as big in November, but in no blue state is there a swing towards Republicans, and in all but the smallest red states the swing to the Democrats in the Primaries looks awful large for John McCain to make up. Those of you who are finding polls saying McCain wins should be looking at polls that have an actual Democratic leaning to find hope in a poll that says JM is ahead. With the rise in Cell Phone only telecommunications ALL phone based polls, which means, essentially, all polls have a sample bias that pollsters haven't yet learned how to account for.

The real interesting analysis of the demographic shift will be to compare EQ's and EQ ratios for 2000 and 2004. Probably works for lesser offices as well.

Posted by: ceflynline | March 14, 2008 2:46 PM | Report abuse

I live in Virginia. It is definitely in play, more so for Obama than for Clinton. Kaine won the governorship handily; the same year the Dem candidate for A.G. came within 200 votes of beating the GOP candidate. (The Repubs won Lt Gov because we ran a weak candidate.) The George Allen defeat was definitely made possible by the macaca moment and other screw-ups, but make no mistake: as recently as two years earlier he might have been re-elected anyway. The state is definitely trending blue.

I'm for Obama, but I'll hold my nose and vote for Hillary if she's the nominee. For you disaffected Dems who say if your candidate isn't the nominee you'll vote for McCain, as I've said in this space many, many times, I have three words for you:

1. Iraq

2. Roberts

3. Alito

Posted by: jac13 | March 14, 2008 2:46 PM | Report abuse

'No, because his pacifistic tendencies and socialist, victim rhetoric are extremely left-wing and will not appeal to moderate Democrats.'

you apparently have never met one. nor do you know the meaning of the world 'socialist'

a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole

--nobody is advocating this. nobody.


'His extreme liberalism won't appeal to many people.'

LOL. you are a clueless tool. guess you don't read the newspapers about all the gigantic crowds of thousands he brings out, while mccian manages to barely bring in crowds of tens -- all of them old white men.

I realize that Wright is the particular radical right talking point this week, but it isn't going to stick any more than the phony 'islamic upbringing' did. Not as long as mccain continues to suck up to nutcases like one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qNi7tPanUA

Posted by: drindl | March 14, 2008 2:45 PM | Report abuse

Long time denizens of The Fix know me to be a strong supporter of Barack. And I think he has to repudiate the views his pastor. Strongly. The connection is too intimate. Not like Hagee at all. No way can he be connected to his campaign in any way.

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 14, 2008 2:44 PM | Report abuse

Obama and his supporters have overplayed their hand.

Obama's real record is dismal.

Clinton should demand Obama release detailed records of his hard drug use, including a list of all the people Obama bought hard drugs from, used them with, and sold them too.

America will never knowingly elect a President with a history of abusing hard drugs like cocaine or heroin.

While she's at it, Clinton should demand Obama release a full list of his prior sex partners of both sexes.

Since Obama supporters are always accusing Hillary of being a Lesbian, which she is not, Clinton supporters should return fire and force Obama to tell American know just how "exotic" his own sexual history is.

Obama is a fake and a fraud.

The sooner the American people find out the truth about Obama, the sooner his campaign of hype and guilt-tripping everyone will blissfully end.

Lets start with full disclosure of his relationship with Rezko.

The one he lied about on national TV during the debates.

Video of Obama's LIE be re-played over and over if Democrats make the mistake of nominating Obama for anything.

The truth will be the end of Obama!!!

Posted by: svreader | March 14, 2008 2:43 PM | Report abuse

judge:

This is weak.

"Q: What about this particular statement?

A: Obviously, I disagree with that."

How about asking, "What DO you agree with? Obviously something, as you donated $22,000 at a time."

or,

"Why did you invite him to give the prayer at your announcement to run, then cancel the night before?"

or,

"Why would you stay for 20 YEARS?"

Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 14, 2008 2:42 PM | Report abuse

Chris,

Have you seen the film, "Uncounted - The New Math of American Elections?" Information on it is available at http://uncountedthemovie.com/.

I viewed it on Wednesday night. It was damning of touch screen no paper voting machines, the huge numbers of undercounted and uncounted votes in the 2000, 2004, and 2006 elections. It drew stark comparsions between statistical indicators and counted votes in many states. It illustrated the frustrations prevalent in minority and Democratic leaning voting districts with their being not enough and broken voting machines, missing voter registrations between the primaries and general elections in a given year, and the incredibly long and frustrating waits imposed upon voters in selected districts, harassment of certain types of voters and voter in select districts, and much more.

It offered personal testimony from Republicans, Greens, Dems, and non-aligned individuals about voting machine code, locks, suspicious machines, and a lot of really scary information about how unreliable and easily tampered with and invisible touch screen machines can be and how they cannot be independently checked or audited to determine real voting behavior versus fraudulent and flipped votes. It covered Diebold's efforts to defraud the california government as to the safety and reliability of the Diebold equipment that California purchased.

The film made a strong case that laid out how different the votes should have been in Florida, New Mexico, Ohio, and other states in Presidential Election years 2000 and 2004. And showed that 2006 was just about as bad for lost votes. All the lost votes, always factored to Republican advantage.

It went on to discuss better ways and better equipment to be used in elections.

If any half of what is portrayed in the film is true, it is terrifying. The film pointed out that mainstream media ignored or glossed over many of the concerns and specifics raised about uncounted votes which would have changed the outcomes of the last 2 Presidential Elections and would have made a much greater Dem victory in 2006.

With this years 2008 elections in progress and leading to the General Election in November, will you factor these concerns into your reporting or are they just nonsense that should be flushed down a sewer? How credible is this film in your estimation? If it is credible, how can we lay men predict anything, when outcomes can be made by man and machine and by vote depression and loss?

I worked on an independent write-in campaign, against an incumbent, this past fall. We lost by 13 votes, but should have won on so many levels, if that election had been fairly run. It was the first campaign that I had worked upon in over 20 years, but I recall how elections were regularly rigged in various ways in nearby cities back in the 60's and 70's. Will America ever have fair elections? We have no real democracy, when so many elections have been tampered with.

Please help me understand how real the "Uncounted" film is or not? This is dire. Should everyone view this film or not? Thank you.

Posted by: kstokem | March 14, 2008 2:39 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: judgeccrater | March 14, 2008 2:38 PM | Report abuse

USMC, I was blown away after hearing this guy. I cannot imagine going back to hear that for 20 years.

I've been to many churches, and have been one of the only white people in the pews at times, but it was never like that. This is so far outside the mainstream, it's ridiculous.

Some of it sounds just like the Westboro baptist haters. Absolutely disgusting.

Can you imagine putting money in the plate year after year to hear that?

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | March 14, 2008 2:36 PM | Report abuse

Hillay is not going to win the nomination. Not going to happen. Crawl back in your holes for a generation rush limbaughs sabotuers. no on's buying it. Your playing mind games amounst yoruselves. The american people are laughing at you propogandists for power of profit. You had your chance gop (clinton includeD). You wasted it. The game is up. We see you sabotuers and traitors now. Move forward or move back? Enable of fight the fascists. Choose.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 14, 2008 02:22 PM

Our resident drug dealer proud. Trying to make sure she gets mazimum profits for her drugs. Very sad, what you traitors do for money. Not going to work proud. Your fascist cult is done. no one's buying it.

Medicine is not a profession to make a fortune off of anymore. soon it will go back to helping people as the goal. Poor drug dealers for profit like proud.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 14, 2008 02:13 PM

"Great minds talk about ideas, average minds talk about things and small minds talk about people. "


gOSSIP away children.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 14, 2008 02:02 PM
------------------------------
Small minds talk about people? Do you ever read the dribble you write? What a tool.

Posted by: PatrickNYC1 | March 14, 2008 2:35 PM | Report abuse

IA & NM were blue states flipped by Bush. They will both return to blue this year.

MO is a tough one. How can it turn blue without a huge black turnout in St Louis and to a lesser extent in Kansas City? Clinton cannot flip this state. But could Obama make the margin close enough in the rest of the state?

MN Pawlenty is not unpopular, but he is not exactly popular either. As an incumbent governor the voters need a reason to vote him out. But they also need a reason to vote for McCain and Pawlenty isn't it. MN will not flip.

WI should replace MN on the line. In 2000 & 2004 it was decided by a couple thousand votes. Clinton would need to make up the loss of black votes in Milwaukee (and to a lesser extent Madison & Racine-Kenosha) with votes from Regan Democrats in the Fox river valley or a general anti-Bush Republican vote. The problem is Wisconsin loves Mavericks (left or right) and McCain fits the bill.

FL should only be on the line if Crist is not VP. Even if he is not VP FL and VA would need a big anti-Bush/Republican vote for a Clinton candidacy if blacks stay home to protest her campaign's primary tactics.

I don't think you can make a flip-state line until you know the Democratic nominee and how much damage their primary battle has done to certain voter groups. On the flip side this line will be pointless if the electorate reaches a tipping point. If voters (except the rabid fringes) decide the economy is too bad and foreign policy is a mess and it is all the fault of the Republicans, every state but UT, ID & NE could be a blue state. I don't think we'll get there. I think voters will be sympathetic to a Democratic candidate, but won't vote blue automatically. However, I do think there is a chance of it.

Posted by: caribis | March 14, 2008 2:35 PM | Report abuse

And rather than turning away from this race-bating, hate-mongerer, Obama was MARRIED by him, had his children BAPTIZED by him, and DONATED $22,000, for 22 YEARS.

Obama *KNEW* (the same way lylepink KNOWS things) what this guy was all about.

He liked it, supported it, and wants more of it.

WOW.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 14, 2008 2:35 PM | Report abuse

"You show the exact kind of thinking that I believe needs to change: your opinion/beliefs don't matter you should only care about mine."

once again these types of discussions are a complete waste of your time and mine. I post examples of specific bipartisan legislation she has sponsored and esteemed Senators who feel she is bipartisan and you turn it into a personal attack. No one here has ever told you that your beliefs and opinions don't matter, no one. We just happen to disagree.

My thinking and beliefs don't need to change to accomodate you and vice versa.
I happen to believe that policy differences do matter. I happen to believe that experience be it 1 year or 35 years matters. You think a few years in the Illinois Senate and minimal time in the Senate is enough for uou. that is fine I can just tell you that I am not alone in this concern that there is an experience gap that all of the spinning won't change.

We come here to express our opinion, period. Not of them are only better or worthwhile than any other's. You have your reasons for supporting Sen Obama that is fine.
but as a lawyer and someone with experience in the corp world i can tell you that it matters quite a bit to your life and your community's not only who sits in the oval office but who sits on the US Supreme Ct and makes economic decisions which may effect your ability to pay your bills or have a job next year. Do i expect to change your opinion or to open your eyes and realize that Hillary is not evil or a monster. Probably not since that has been pounded into you and you are obviously unwilling to even objectively consider otherwise. While I am a staunch Hillary supporter, I listen to his speeches, read his web site and try as hard as it sometimes is to listen to his supporters views. Since this is such a close an emotional race I think the process deserves that attention. And yea I worry about healthcare as do millions of Americans. SS is solvent for another 30 years it will be resolved and requires very minor cost of living adjustment to make it solvent til 2100.

Posted by: leichtman | March 14, 2008 2:34 PM | Report abuse

I'm from MN and I highly doubt if MN will be anywhere near to going red....Pawlenty is a fairly suave politician, but don't see many people voting Republican this fall....Over 200,000 voters turned out for the democratic caucus, while only 50,000 went for the republican caucus.

Someone mentioned that Obama would mean that CA would be a toss up...also disagree on that since Republicans only had half the voters in the primary in CA than democrats (Obama's votes alone almost equaled all republican candidates combined)

I agree with that Iowa will likely go blue especially if Obama is the nominee.

Posted by: garrett.melchior | March 14, 2008 2:30 PM | Report abuse

Proud --

WOW!

I just heard some of those sound clips from Obama's "pastor".

Wow.

You're right -- someone needs to ask Obama about this.

Too bad no one will.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 14, 2008 2:29 PM | Report abuse

Allen could have been our first Jewish president too. Poor Macacawitz. LOL

Posted by: Spectator2 | March 14, 2008 01:34 PM
-------------------
Another good one Spec2

Posted by: PatrickNYC1 | March 14, 2008 2:29 PM | Report abuse

Nobody mentions Wisconsin? It was one of the closest states in 2000 and 2004.

Posted by: SilentCal | March 14, 2008 2:27 PM | Report abuse

"George Bush really believes -- and is outright telling us -- that when he orders private citizens to do something, and they obey, then it means that -- even if what they're doing is illegal -- they are acting "patriotically" and should be protected from all consequences. Are there any monarchs left anywhere in the Western World who even claim such a power -- to be able to order citizens to break the law? That's been a discredited "principle" since at least the Nuremberg Trials, yet this warped assertion of monarchical powers really is the central premise of the case for telecom amnesty. "

Glen greenwald


Are you fighting the red coat confederates or enabling them clinton supporters. Please enlighten me as to ho wyou AR ENOT enabling and strengthening the gop. Explain your actions, please.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 14, 2008 2:25 PM | Report abuse

bondjedi - I'd say it to yours

Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 14, 2008 2:23 PM | Report abuse

hillary's supporters are just as bad as bush's. In most cases the same people. We beat bush's propogandists and fascists. If clitnon supporters want to take up the battle WITH the gop against the democratic movement, by all means. If your not a democrat, are you now republcains clinton supporters?

Clitnon and her di fi moderates have done zero to fight the gop the last decade. ZERO, other than be a punching bag and the blame of all ills. Do the clinton's need us, the democratic movement, more than we need then? Yes they do. think about the future. Clinton's only future, after what she has done, is mccains vp hopeful. Then to be defeated by obama.

STabbed in the back. First you moderates sell-out to the gop and refuse to hold them to account. then you appologize and make money with them. Now you fight with them. you lay down with dogs you get fleas. You side and enable fascists you are fascists. Not because I say so. But by the definition of the word fascist. you are propogandists and terrorists for the same reason gop. Forget goodwins law. If you fit the definition of said word, that is what you are. Not because anyone calls you it.

you don;t want to be called fascist sabotuers, I have an Idea. Stop being that then. you don't want to be labeled as enabling the gop fascists? DON'T.

Hillay is not going to win the nomination. Not going to happen. Crawl back in your holes for a generation rush limbaughs sabotuers. no on's buying it. Your playing mind games amounst yoruselves. The american people are laughing at you propogandists for power of profit. You had your chance gop (clinton includeD). You wasted it. The game is up. We see you sabotuers and traitors now. Move forward or move back? Enable of fight the fascists. Choose.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 14, 2008 2:22 PM | Report abuse

"So all we're left with are his pastor, his anti-American wife, and his Islamic upbringing."

I bet you wouldn't say that to her face, you gutless punk.

Posted by: bondjedi | March 14, 2008 2:22 PM | Report abuse

drindl, "He has no more influence than any of the othrs."

Yeah right. He was selected to be the campaign advisor for Obama, by Obama. Wright was also selected to give a keynote speech at Obama's announcement, but the campaign pulled the rug out at the last minute to keep their close relationship hush-hush.

His influence on the Obamas is very evident, and it was his words "Audacity of Hope" on the cover of Obama's best-selling book. That is quite a bit more influence than your'e giving him credit for.

A 20 year relationship has a profound effect on a young man's ideas and worldview.

Just as Mitt Romney explained his faith and how it shapes his decisions and judgement, Obama's got some 'splainin to do about his close ties with this America-hating pastor and church for 20 years.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | March 14, 2008 2:22 PM | Report abuse

I once heard Hagee ranting and raving against the evils of adultery, hypocrisy, and barrotry. He has specifically stated that taking rides from lobbyists and later sleeping with them is against God's word. He also cautions against losing your temper and behaving like a crybaby.

GOP, you're right. Hagee holds absolutely no sway over Johnny Mack.

Posted by: bondjedi | March 14, 2008 2:19 PM | Report abuse

"Why can't GOP cowards like yourself argue against someone based on their positions on the issues?"

I'd be happy to talk about the issues.

(as previously posted)

Unfortunately, Obama doesn't want to talk about issues.

His extreme liberalism won't appeal to many people.

Issues are a handicap for Obama. So all we're left with are his pastor, his anti-American wife, and his Islamic upbringing.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 14, 2008 2:17 PM | Report abuse

leichtman, the comments that I make about Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina are based, not on partisanship and support for Obama, but because I have LIVED on all of those states and I know the people who LIVE there. Please advise as to why you consider yourself an expert.

Posted by: Lilly1 | March 14, 2008 2:14 PM | Report abuse

Pat robertson and Jerry faldwell?

the other hate and vioence inciting religous right?

Should we print their sermons word for word and sink any hope their candidates have? Like mccain?

Tsst tsst tsst, proud. Nobody's buying it. If all you got is third and fourth person garbage, your worse off than I thought. Can't you lie spin or discredit obama himself? If not he must be pretty darn good. If all you got is thrid person gripes.

Keep it up zouk, I mean proud. We'll see who buys it. Is that all you hannity rush clones got? WOW. Yoru party is done for a very long time if all you got is preacher sermons.

I'm going to dig up falwell and robertson's worst just for you. Nah, why waste my time on a propogandists who doesn't believe half of what she says anyway.

Our resident drug dealer proud. Trying to make sure she gets mazimum profits for her drugs. Very sad, what you traitors do for money. Not going to work proud. Your fascist cult is done. no one's buying it.

Medicine is not a profession to make a fortune off of anymore. soon it will go back to helping people as the goal. Poor drug dealers for profit like proud.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 14, 2008 2:13 PM | Report abuse

One issue a new president will be faced with are the openings that are likely to occur on the Supreme Court. If elected, McCain will ensure the high court remains conservative for the next three decades, placing many of our civil rights laws in jeopardy and returning us to the good ole boys days. Right now many of their decisions are 5-4 with the Conversatives banning together.

This can be the deciding factor on whether someone votes Republican or Democrat in the general election. I like Obama, but would vote for Hillary to ensure the supreme court isn't all conservative.

Posted by: Nevadaandy | March 14, 2008 2:13 PM | Report abuse

drindl:

No, because his pacifistic tendencies and socialist, victim rhetoric are extremely left-wing and will not appeal to moderate Democrats.

Don't go there.

Posted by: VegetablesPlease | March 14, 2008 2:12 PM | Report abuse

Have to imagine that a lot of the Red States will go to Obama if he;s the nominee. Moderates and indies are a tipping point.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by: parkerfl | March 14, 2008 2:11 PM | Report abuse

'Hagee is not an advisor to anyone's campaign, only a rogue supporter'

'Rogue?' what a joke. mccain practically begged the man to support him and has appeared with him several times. Wright is one of 130 black pastors who are supporting Obama as a group. He has no more influence than any of the othrs.

'Some of Wright's statements have raised eyebrows at a time the Internal Revenue Service is scrutinizing tax-exempt religious organizations for alleged violations of rules barring them from participating in political campaigns.'

and this is hilarious too when the religious right has been proseltying for republicans for 7 ears, without 'raising any eyebrows' with the IRS.

just more pot calling the kettle black. Hagee and Parsley have been breaking the tax laws for years.

Obama has no control over what wright says about him. But he has denounced some of the things Wright has said. McCain has never renounced a single word that either hateful lunatic charlatan Parsley or Hagee has uttered.

Posted by: drindl | March 14, 2008 2:10 PM | Report abuse

"I submit Hussein wins, with the gushing, fawning, fainting "fans" of this political "rock-star" who stands for "hope"." - USMC_Mike

Why do you have to refer to Barack by his middle name Mike? Are you that much of a coward and a bigot? I sure as hell hope that you are not really a Marine, as your sn suggests, b/c that would surely diminish my very high opinion of them if a bigot such as yourself is one. Why can't GOP cowards like yourself argue against someone based on their positions on the issues? Is it b/c you know there is no way you can win that way?

How often do you refer to John McCain as Sidney? Exactly.

Posted by: buckidean | March 14, 2008 2:10 PM | Report abuse

Vegetable: you mean because he's black?

Posted by: drindl | March 14, 2008 2:03 PM | Report abuse

Hagee is not an advisor to anyone's campaign, only a rogue supporter. Pastor Jeremiah Wright has been hand-picked by Obama to be in his campaign as an advisor. The difference is clear, even if you refuse to see it drindl.

Obama's longtime relationship with Wright is continuing to spark controversy, as voters try to have a better look at the D frontrunner and what he stands for.

"This is not just someone that Barack Obama has a casual relationship with," said Tom Bevan, executive editor of RealClearPolitics.com. He noted that Wright married Barack and Michelle Obama, and Wright's words were the inspiration for the title of Obama's book, "The Audacity of Hope."

"Barack Obama has not out and out distanced himself from all of these comments ... ," said Patricia Murphy, editor of CitizenJanePolitics.com. "It's unclear if he rejects all of these statements. I would assume that he does, but I think he is going to be pushed where he needs to come out and fully explain his relationship with his pastor."

Some of Wright's statements have raised eyebrows at a time the Internal Revenue Service is scrutinizing tax-exempt religious organizations for alleged violations of rules barring them from participating in political campaigns.

Prior to his retirement last month, Wright delivered commentary from the pulpit in which he praised Obama, as well as remarks focusing on the racial divide between Obama and Clinton.

"There is a man here who can take this country in a new direction," Wright said during his Jan. 13 sermon.

During a Christmas sermon, Wright tried to compare Obama's upbringing to Jesus at the hands of the Romans.

"Barack knows what it means living in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich white people," Wright said. "Hillary would never know that.

"Hillary ain't never been called a [n-word]. Hillary has never had a people defined as a non-person."

In a Jan. 13 sermon, Wright said:

"Hillary is married to Bill, and Bill has been good to us. No he ain't! Bill did us, just like he did Monica Lewinsky. He was riding dirty."

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | March 14, 2008 2:03 PM | Report abuse

Leichtman I didn't miss your comment. A handful of examples do not show that you are willing to work with others. I could cut and paste numerous instances where Obama has worked with other across the aisle. Just yesterday Obama, Clinton and McCain all co-sponsored a bill. It doesn't mean you are proactively reaching out to others...Hillary comes off as someone who will do anything for a vote-and she has demonstrated it this entire primary.

call me selfish but I prefer a known quantity who knows how to save our economy over a wish and a hope for unity.

What kind of known quantity is Hillary? She is a one and a half term senator. That is the entirety of her elected resume. Don't go touting 35 years of experience by osmosis.

You show the exact kind of thinking that I believe needs to change: your opinion/beliefs don't matter you should only care about mine. Hillary's divide and conquer politics doesn't accomplish much. You worry about healthcare, what ever happened to Social Security? Just another issue pushed to the side because it wasn't politically relevant. She brings about more partisanship and it appears she embraces the division. With Hillary there's nothing new under the sun. Perception matters; Hillary brings more angst to the table, no hope and no change.

Furthermore, you can sit here and speculate about Justice's all day...I am not electing a President soley on who they might appoint to the Supreme Court. Especially because they don't follow marching orders from those who appoint them. With Supreme Court Justices you don't necessarily know what you are gong to get.

Posted by: jnoel002 | March 14, 2008 2:02 PM | Report abuse

"Great minds talk about ideas, average minds talk about things and small minds talk about people. "


gOSSIP away children.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 14, 2008 2:02 PM | Report abuse

Chris, you need a better copy editor.

"likely to switch from Democrat to Republican" is incorrect. If you're using Republican as an adjective than the correct matching adjective is "Democratic."

Make this mistake again, and you'll be accused of echoing the GOP's linguistic strategy.

Posted by: LevRaphael | March 14, 2008 2:02 PM | Report abuse

"I can't see a single reason why any blue state should turn red, when 80% of the country thinks we're 'moving in the wrong direction...'"
_____________________________________

I can think of one big one: Barack Obama.

Posted by: VegetablesPlease | March 14, 2008 1:56 PM | Report abuse

"judge:

How about just looking at these posts? You wouldn't be thinking about "jkrish," "zouk," or "svreader," would you?

Back on PA, do you agree with me that BHO will close the gap there, based on past patterns, but probably still lose by 5-10?"

Jac13: sorry I didn't get back to you. Yes, we have examples right here on this page although He Who's Name Will Not Be Spoken has yet to make his usual blathering appearance.

I think BHO's PA support might even level off in the next week or two. I'm actually pleasantly surprised that HRC agreed to debate him in Philly. It helps him a lot more than it does her.

Posted by: judgeccrater | March 14, 2008 1:51 PM | Report abuse

"working together is an important issue:"

Working together is NOT an issue in and of itself -- it's one way of addressing issues.

What if Congress decided to work together, but only on issues like "Resolved: Puppies are cute." Would that satisfy you.

Posted by: Spectator2 | March 14, 2008 1:41 PM | Report abuse

obviously jnoel you missed my other comment where prominent US Senators have including Byrd and Leheay have said she has done exactly what you claimed she can't do. Work across party lines and actually get things done. read last sunday's NY Times where they interviewed US Senators who claim that Sen Obama has accomplished aand has very little to show for his time in the Senate.

I doubt I am alone in saying I am worried sick about my family's income, $4 gas prices, paying for healthcare, and a collapsing stock market. the last pres we had that said he was a unifer didn't have the knolwdge or expertise to run our nation. call me selfish but I prefer a known quantity who knows how to save our economy over a wish and a hope for unity, but again you did not explain how you would feel with Ted Olson replacing Justice Steven under McCainRepblicans will despise and turn on any Dem once they got into office. the reveared JFK was demeaned here in Texas by Repubs, I remember that distinctly so i suggest that you don't count on their changing their stripes if Sen Obama should become the Pres. That will probably last a few weeks before they turn on him for not immediately fixing all of W's screwups.

Posted by: leichtman | March 14, 2008 1:36 PM | Report abuse

Macaca was the catalyst for Allen's downfall but it still had to be taken advantage of and the electorate still had to think it was important. In other states Allen would have survived.

Allen could have been our first Jewish president too. Poor Macacawitz. LOL

Posted by: Spectator2 | March 14, 2008 1:34 PM | Report abuse

Chris - Where's the story about Obama's minister in today's WaPo. I can't find it. Go figure.

Posted by: waterfrontproperty | March 14, 2008 1:34 PM | Report abuse

'macaca' summed up allen in a nutshell -- a racist coward. only reason he was ever popular was because he never said what he really thought except to friendly cracker crowds. that era is over with camera phones and utube. and jim webb is a soldier and a true patriot.

here's some footage of Hagee -- man, he's even crazier than I thought. and McCain refuses to distance himself--seriously, watch this nut. he hates catholics hugely:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qNi7tPanUA

Posted by: drindl | March 14, 2008 1:29 PM | Report abuse

kilt: Sen Webb could not have taken advantage of the macaca moment without a terrific campaign team staff and hordes of dedicated volunteers. He ran a textbook well run insurgent campaign with the help of Mark Warner/Tim Kaine and a new dynamic in Va.

Posted by: leichtman | March 14, 2008 1:25 PM | Report abuse

You are not analyzing this properly. THis is not a normal election - Obama is changing this. IF he is the Dem candidate, he will either do very well, or totally crash and burn. I believe he will crash and burn - the excitement over the phoney slogans is over, and the fact his wife and minister both seem to hate America may play well with WaPo, but I assure you it won't play well among average Americans.

Posted by: pgr88 | March 14, 2008 1:24 PM | Report abuse

call me naive but my most impt issues are universal healthcare and the collapsing economy and ending the war.
Posted by: leichtman | March 14, 2008 01:06 PM

Those might be important issues to you...
However, not everyone thinks the same. Apparently I should just void my own thoughts and replace them with yours? Sorry that you don't believe working together is an important issue: but I don't see how any of your important issues will be solved (and solved effectively) unless our leaders work together. But again just my opinion.
It is going to take more than simply working with "independent" senators to get the job done right.
You might be wise to look at a few polls about how Americans feel about Hillary. Or talk to some non-democrats for a change; see how they feel about Hillary.

Posted by: jnoel002 | March 14, 2008 1:23 PM | Report abuse

Democrats blew off West Virginia in 2004? And where is that coming from? I saw Edwards and Kerry making stop after stop there and what I saw as wasting tons of valuable time and resources in west va(rather than spending more time at Ohio State), with a poor economy, and getting heckled by antiabortion zealots who would rather stop an abortion by an unwed teeanager than put food on their table.

Posted by: leichtman | March 14, 2008 1:21 PM | Report abuse

Chris, a large part of the "upset" victory in 2006 for Jim Webb in Virginia is easily attributed to George Allen's "macaca" comment. He was far ahead in the polls until then. The race was Allen's to lose and he managed to do just that by attempting an ad lib comment that got recorded and used rather well by campaign strategists.

Posted by: kiltedknight | March 14, 2008 1:20 PM | Report abuse

Perched atop a red-carpet altar, seated on a wide white and blue throne, Pastor John Hagee waits until the jazz band has quieted, the 125-member choir has left the stage and the soloist has moved the congregation almost to tears.

An emotional, energetic half-hour of song praising the glory of God passes. Then Hagee tells ushers at his 5,000-seat Cornerstone Church to take their positions.

With the dozens of men bearing glinting platters in the aisles, and six cameramen capturing the moment, Hagee instructs church members to hold their money toward the heavens. The thousands repeat after him: "Give and it shall be given."

"When you give, it qualifies you to receive God's abundance," he tells his listeners. "If God gives to you before you give to him, God himself will become a liar. ... If you're not prospering, it's because you're not giving."

"If you're not prospering, it's because you're not giving," he repeats.

For four decades, Hagee's message has motivated his members to give millions to his ministry.

And it is a message that has helped his nonprofit television arm, Global Evangelism Television, become a prosperous, global, moneymaking family enterprise that has netted millions year after year peddling prayer, inspirational books, tapes and the promise of prosperity.

Because he worked "80 hours a week" writing books, singing songs, meeting international dignitaries and answering the call to preach the word of God, John Hagee said: "I deserve every dime I'm getting."

Posted by: drindl | March 14, 2008 1:19 PM | Report abuse

Just curious: In the 2004 presidential campaign, did John Kerry and other Catholics denounce and reject Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict ) when he advised American Catholic bishops to refuse to give sacraments to Pro-Choice Catholic politicians?

Posted by: joy2 | March 14, 2008 1:14 PM | Report abuse

There aren't "Reagan Democrats" in West Virginia. The state barely voted for him in 1984 and voted for Carter in 1980. Bush only won the state because Democrats have blown it off in the last 2 elections.

Posted by: spike1518 | March 14, 2008 1:13 PM | Report abuse

from the Jewish weekly, the Forward:

'In March, when the American Israel Public Affairs Committee departed from past policy and gave Hagee a prime slot at its national convention in Washington, his new status in the Jewish community was confirmed. I am an admirer and supporter of Aipac, but this decision was a mistake for two reasons.

The first is the way that Hagee's appearance would be perceived on Capitol Hill. The central principle of Israel advocacy for half a century has been that support of Israel must be broad and bipartisan, and this means appealing to the Republican and Democratic mainstream and avoiding identification with controversial minorities in either party.

Second, and even more worrisome, was the question of how Hagee's Aipac speech would be interpreted by the Jewish community. My fear was that it would confer legitimacy on him and that local communities would be tempted to embrace him as Aipac had, in the process alienating many Jews, including most young Jews -- and this is precisely what has happened.

We know a great deal about Jewish young adults. We have learned from extensive research that these young people are often more socially liberal than their baby-boomer parents. They are pluralistic in their thinking, and they are tolerant of difference, especially differences in gender and sexual orientation.

They respond negatively to those who disparage other religious traditions and who make exclusivist religious claims. They are insistently centrist in their political views on the Middle East. And they are suspicious of a Jewish establishment that they see as too focused on money and insufficiently focused on values.

And so whom do we offer to these young people as a spokesman for Israel? John Hagee, who is contemptuous of Muslims, dismissive of gays, possesses a triumphalist theology and opposes a two-state solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. If our intention was to distance our young adults from the Jewish state, we could not have made a better choice.'

Posted by: drindl | March 14, 2008 1:10 PM | Report abuse

Since they are undeniably smart people who must realize they can't win the Democratic nomination this year it's becoming clear what Hillary and Bill Clintons strategy is. They intend to bash Obama to the point where he will be unelectable in the general thus giving the election and the White House to their friend, John McCain. McCain has already stated that he most likely won't run for re-election in 2012 because of his age setting the stage for a 2nd Hillary run. She will enter the Democratic primary that year saying "see, I told you so, I tried to warn you that Obama was unelectable."

The Clintons understand that the typical voter has a poor memory so they are banking on the hope that everyone in the party will have forgotten her campaigns antics this year and the unfortunate consequence for Obama in the general election.

It's a sad day when a person, or in this case a couple, is so driven by cynicism and a thirst for power that they are willing to sacrifice the good of the Country for their own ambitions and glory. If McCain is elected and we face another four years of Bush style leadership from the White House, both in foreign relations and the economy, the results will be disastrous. The Clintons undoubtedly understand this and see it as an opportunity for Hillary to ride to the Country's rescue on a white horse in 2012.

Posted by: dwarren | March 14, 2008 1:10 PM | Report abuse

Since they are undeniably smart people who must realize they can't win the Democratic nomination this year it's becoming clear what Hillary and Bill Clintons strategy is. They intend to bash Obama to the point where he will be unelectable in the general thus giving the election and the White House to their friend, John McCain. McCain has already stated that he most likely won't run for re-election in 2012 because of his age setting the stage for a 2nd Hillary run. She will enter the Democratic primary that year saying "see, I told you so, I tried to warn you that Obama was unelectable."

The Clintons understand that the typical voter has a poor memory so they are banking on the hope that everyone in the party will have forgotten her campaigns antics this year and the unfortunate consequence for Obama in the general election.

It's a sad day when a person, or in this case a couple, is so driven by cynicism and a thirst for power that they are willing to sacrifice the good of the Country for their own ambitions and glory. If McCain is elected and we face another four years of Bush style leadership from the White House, both in foreign relations and the economy, the results will be disastrous. The Clintons undoubtedly understand this and see it as an opportunity for Hillary to ride to the Country's rescue on a white horse in 2012.

Posted by: dwarren | March 14, 2008 1:09 PM | Report abuse

"The most important issue for me this election is getting our leaders to work together. Our next president needs to do a better job of promoting compromise and bipartisanship amongst congress. I do not see Hillary as having this capability'

call me naive but my most impt issues are universal healthcare and the collapsing economy and ending the war.
Actually Hillary has worked with Republicans in the Senate to help craft a stimulus bill, foreclosure protection caps, and with Lindsy Gramm to expand tricare and death benefits to our reserves. Quite a few independent senators have praised her bipartisan approach including the esteemed Robert Byrd, but if you wish to just repeat media caricaterizations of her that is certainly your right. Personally while I don't believe Sen Obama is qualified to be Pres I shutter to think of the right wing telling McCain who to pick to replace Justice Stevens probably someone like Ted Olson. Can you imagine that team, Olson/Alito/Saclia/Thomas/Roberts making constitutional decisions over the next 30 years?

Posted by: leichtman | March 14, 2008 1:06 PM | Report abuse

When Hillary first ran here for the Senate that was the case, but over the years she won over many people in upstate, who are very conservative.
Posted by: PatrickNYC1 | March 14, 2008 12:53 PM

That depends on your definition of "very conservative".

And doesn't that fly in the face of her ready on day one thesis? If it is going to take her years to win over people--how much can she really change? She would continue a divide in the country I believe Obama can heal. Too many, whether rightly or wrongly, have made up their mind and think of Hillary in terms of either really liking or really disliking. She doesn't have much middle ground.

Posted by: jnoel002 | March 14, 2008 1:04 PM | Report abuse

'In an interview with a Pittsburgh newspaper, Obama personally addresses the revelations that Obama's pastor said "God damn America":

Q: I don't know if you've seen it, but it's all over the wire today (from an ABC News story), a statement that your pastor (the Rev. Jeremiah Wright of Trinity United Church of Christ on Chicago's South Side) made in a sermon in 2003 that instead of singing "God Bless America," black people should sing a song essentially saying "God Damn America."
A: I haven't seen the line. This is a pastor who is on the brink of retirement who in the past has made some controversial statements. I profoundly disagree with some of these statements.

Q: What about this particular statement?

A: Obviously, I disagree with that. Here is what happens when you just cherry-pick statements from a guy who had a 40-year career as a pastor. There are times when people say things that are just wrong. But I think it's important to judge me on what I've said in the past and what I believe.'


Wright's involvement with Obama's campaign is honorary -- along with 130 other black ministers. Now, will John McCain denounce ANYTHING Hagee or Parsley have said? Anything?

'Renowned Faith Leaders Come Together to Support Obama'

Posted by: drindl | March 14, 2008 1:03 PM | Report abuse

Listen to the pastor of TUCC

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lY6qjeJ5mG8

Posted by: joy2 | March 14, 2008 1:00 PM | Report abuse

I think 2008 will resemble 2006 in that local effects will be overwhelmed by the national character of events on the minds of voters. That could lead to some very surprising results.

Second, I think it is a mistake to look at November results with a March perspective. Once the conventions happen, there will be a modicum of party unity on both sides. Certainly one can question whether the democrats coalesce after the nature of the battles between Clinton and Obama; or whether the republicans can all fit back under the Reagan coalition tent under the leadership of McCain. But the perspective needs to be a post-convention perspective. Conventions will have a unifying effect.

I think there are a couple of durable factors that will apply no matter how the issues in the previous paragraph are addressed.

First, this election will be about George Bush. The voters will be voting for change. McCain is vulnerable on this account no matter his adversary or his running mate. Historically, voters reject a party's third term in the presidency.

Second, it will be about the worsening economy. Again, McCain will be playing outside of his national security strengths. Tactically, supporting Bush's tax cuts is a blunder with the independents he'll need in bulk to win.

All of the other issues will absorb the media and blogs, but these two factors will be a gale in the face of McCain and republican candidates for office in general.

Most of the red states on Chris's list will flip. And I expect there will be a couple of surprises if Obama is the nominee. I don't think any blue states will flip, not because of any particulars strengths of the democratic candidates, but because of the favorable national atmospherics facing democrats in 2008. It will be a long year for republicans.

Posted by: optimyst | March 14, 2008 12:58 PM | Report abuse

Chris,
All states are NOT created equal.

The Line should include the electoral college votes of each state.

Florida is the biggest purple state.

Florida going blue is worth more than New Mexico, Iowa, Colorado, and Nevada combined.

The numbers don't lie.

Posted by: DRKetch | March 14, 2008 12:57 PM | Report abuse

bigben1986 - I assume the "not following everything your priest or [B]ible tell you to" is your willingness to support the execution of inconvenient, innocent children. Because Hussein Obama was quite liberal in the IL state legislature. He might as well have supported post-birth abortions, age 0-18 months.

I know your 21-22 year old mind may not comprehend how repugnant that is, and perhaps there are other things you don't like as well. Just hard to get past the one, to vote for this hope-peddling nutcase.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 14, 2008 12:54 PM | Report abuse

I do not see Hillary as having this capability. I believe she alienates and divides. I think she would be a terrible leader for America.

Posted by: jnoel002 | March 14, 2008 12:45 PM
---------------------------
When Hillary first ran here for the Senate that was the case, but over the years she won over many people in upstate, who are very conservative.

Posted by: PatrickNYC1 | March 14, 2008 12:53 PM | Report abuse

***************************
Hillary has High negatives and they are not going higher.
***************************

mul, I agreed with this idea at the beginning of this campaign, but I'm less and less certain about it every day. That may be accurate, or it may be a sign of the fact that I spend too much time reading about this stuff.

Posted by: rpy1 | March 14, 2008 12:49 PM | Report abuse

Guilt by association. Just because he is the pastor doesn't mean you follow everything he says. I am catholic and I don't follow everything my priest or my bible says. Problem with these big mouth pastors and supporters of Obama they couldn't keep their traps sealed. I am still an Obama supporter no matter what.

Posted by: bigben1986 | March 14, 2008 12:41 PM
-----------------------
Yea but you are not running for president. His staying in this Church for 20 years and having him celebrate his wedding is just obscene. I see this as a lack of judgement. I was going to vote for him but switched to Hillary when he picked three homophobic pastors to do fundraising in SC. I was going to look the other way if he got the nomination but looks like I may not have to, if this keeps up he will not get it.

Posted by: PatrickNYC1 | March 14, 2008 12:48 PM | Report abuse

This is, inarguably, one of the most short-sighted and naive comments I've heard in quite some time. How can you claim to be someone who is looking for a changing of the guard in the White House and offer support for John McCain if your candidate isn't the nominee?
Posted by: cam8 | March 14, 2008 12:28 PM

One thing to start, as you should see from this blog, nothing is inarguable.

But beyond that, I am hoping Obama is the nominee come November for the Dems. However, I will not vote for Hillary. If she is the nominee I will vote for McCain. Two main reasons bring me to my conclusion:
1. I don't see Hillary as any kind of change. She is politics as usual, and in my opinion, politics at there worst.
2. The most important issue for me this election is getting our leaders to work together. Our next president needs to do a better job of promoting compromise and bipartisanship amongst congress. I do not see Hillary as having this capability. I believe she alienates and divides. I think she would be a terrible leader for America.

Posted by: jnoel002 | March 14, 2008 12:45 PM | Report abuse

rp1 you are probably correct she will concentrate on Ohio and fla but the plan is to also win 1-2 states like W Virginia and Arkansas and the dnc selected Denver for their convention b/c analyst say the Rockie Mtn area is the best area for Dems. I don't see McCain connecting with pa bluecollar voters. With McCain at the top of the ticket I still see a lot of local guy sentiment carrying Az, nevada and unfortunately colorado for him regardless of it being Obama or hillary. and that would not make me happy b/c I have a lot of time invested in Colorado I just think the Mtn state strategy won't work against Mccain, I sincerely hope I am wrong.

Posted by: leichtman | March 14, 2008 12:45 PM | Report abuse

The problem with the analysis is the negatives.

Mac and Obama have low negatives. They will go up as people focus in on the election.

Hillary has High negatives and they are not going higher.

Any way 52 percent of people said they would feel comfertable with a black candidate. Some people lied and some might go for Obama anyway but with his preacher man talking about 9/11 I doubt that. It is all over the TV but the WP will not cover it.

Hillary can not get more than 53 percent Max. She runs better among hispanics and the "Reagen Dems", Jews that makes the south west, FL, and Ohio Penn good states for her. Obama will do better in Iowa, Minn and Wis.

Va is a pipe dream. Anything is the south does not look good. GOP had higher turnout in GA than the Dems. White dems are more racist than sexist in the south so think what all the whites will do in the GE.

Both can lose - Hillary will not lose big and Obama can't win big - too much baggage plus not seen as a Commander and Chief IMO.
I have been wrong before.

Posted by: mul | March 14, 2008 12:42 PM | Report abuse

Guilt by association. Just because he is the pastor doesn't mean you follow everything he says. I am catholic and I don't follow everything my priest or my bible says. Problem with these big mouth pastors and supporters of Obama they couldn't keep their traps sealed. I am still an Obama supporter no matter what.

Posted by: bigben1986 | March 14, 2008 12:41 PM | Report abuse

"Barack Obama chose this man to conduct his marriage ceremony, to baptise his daughters into the faith, and to advise his in his presidential campaign:"

I'm sure that if he had any advice for John McCain, it would be to stop cheating on your faithful, crippled wife and to stop lying to the country about campaign finance and lobbying reform. Can you find any YouTube sermons of his that address adultery and hypocrisy? If you do, I'll forward those to Macko's attention.

And stop ripping off Faux News or I'll report you for copyright infringement.

Posted by: bondjedi | March 14, 2008 12:40 PM | Report abuse

cam8 thank you for that mature post. many of us don't want McCain to be selecting a replacement for Supreme Ct justice Stevens are conflicted and hope we can reach your same conclusion by election day. let me just say we all understand and appreciate what you posted and are working on it.

Posted by: leichtman | March 14, 2008 12:37 PM | Report abuse

A few people asked earlier about electoral vote numbers. I've added those to the rollovers on the map above.

Posted by: AlysonHurt | March 14, 2008 12:37 PM | Report abuse

Pay attention to the voter turnout in all states through about Feb. 12, when both the Dem and Rep contests were still competitive.

The turnout numbers in these primaries was gigantic for the Dems. If you look at the big EV states that are typically blue (CA, NY, NJ, MA), the D vote was about double the turnout of the R's.

Obama or Clinton will carry these states. He garnered more votes in most of these primaries than the R winner and runner-up combined.

Posted by: cam8 | March 14, 2008 12:36 PM | Report abuse

leichtman, looking at John's data, I'll back off the Missouri angle. I lived in St Louis for three years, and thought that low African-American turnout in St Louis could hurt Clinton. I still think that's possible, but there are probably a bunch of HRC supporters who would switch over to McCain if Obama wins.

I'm still not convinced about CO, though. I don't think youth turnout will be as high there with HRC as it would with Obama. Plus, I think she'll follow the same strategy used by Gore and Kerry - ignore the vast majority of the country and focus all your money on Ohio and Florida (although PA will probably get in there, too). I think that's a bad plan this time.

Posted by: rpy1 | March 14, 2008 12:36 PM | Report abuse

A report from Iowa suggested that at their state convention next week that they may be reapportioning the Edwards delegates which may be 14. Edwards has about 56 delegates and seems to have no desire to endorse or release his delegates at this time. Anyone have any real info how these 56 crucial delegates will be apportioned other than rank speculation. I was an edwards supporter but have no idea when or if he will release his delgates and whether his delegates are then free to support anyone they want which may just end up being a 28/28 split.

Posted by: leichtman | March 14, 2008 12:34 PM | Report abuse

Quote: "What about Arkansas? I would think it would be a, if not the, top candidate if HRC is the Democratic nominee."

That's a laugh. Most can't stand HRC in Arkansas.

Posted by: wly34 | March 14, 2008 12:33 PM | Report abuse

Barack Obama chose this man to conduct his marriage ceremony, to baptise his daughters into the faith, and to advise his in his presidential campaign:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWvxTUy47Fk

He sat and listened to it for 20 years. He counseled with this man and sought his opinion. and maybe the worst... he took his children for their whole lives and exposed them to this man's preaching and thinking. So how do you think his kids feel about America?

Was that his best judgement as a parent? Was that his best judgement as a potential president of the United States?

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | March 14, 2008 12:29 PM | Report abuse

I would like to send a message to those posting on this site who give us this refrain (paraphrased):

"If (Obama/Clinton) is the nominee, I'll vote for McCain."

Why is that exactly?

This is, inarguably, one of the most short-sighted and naive comments I've heard in quite some time. How can you claim to be someone who is looking for a changing of the guard in the White House and offer support for John McCain if your candidate isn't the nominee?

I happily and proudly support Barack Obama for President. I will vote for Hillary Clinton if she comes out with the nomination. 95% of the positions that Clinton and Obama have on the issues are so close to each other as to be identical. I understand the difference between campaign politics and reality. I ask you to do the same.

Posted by: cam8 | March 14, 2008 12:28 PM | Report abuse

Chris Cilizza suffers from a problem common to experts everywhere - his detailed knowledge took so long to amass that some of it is always out of date. So he's like a general who's finally completely mastered the tactical problems of the last war, just in time for a new and completely different one.

CC was sure, like most people, that Hillary Clinton would be the next Dem nominee. I'm not criticising him - I've almost certainly lost $200 betting on Hillary myself. But it looks like he (and I) were wrong.

I now believe that ALL of the states on this list, except possibly Fla, will be blue. None of these rustbelt states are going to trust McCain with their jobs. We are heading for the mother of all recessions, and McCain has practically admitted he has no answers.

Some people are touting Michigan as a possible GOP win. McCain couldn't even win the GOP primary in Michigan.

The key for me is the astonishing Democratic turnout in the primaries. Take South Carolina:

Last Democratic SC primary (2004), total number of votes cast: 292,383
Last Republican SC primary (2000), total number of votes cast: 565,704

Democratic SC primary of 2008, total number of votes cast: 532,227 (up 82% since last primary)
Republican SC primary of 2008, total number of votes cast: 431,196 (down 24% since last primary)

On Super Tuesday, 14.6 million people voted in Democratic primaries, and just 8.3 million in Republican primaries.

What's more, every previous election in modern history has been fought with a giant GOP financial advantage. Now, the boot is on the other foot.

The times are changing. Frankly, I could even imagine Obama winning both Carolinas and Louisiana.

Posted by: bourassa1 | March 14, 2008 12:23 PM | Report abuse

rp1 I especially know Colorado b/c I worked in the communications and legal team in Denver in '04 and have many activists friends still in Denver who I have spoken with recently.obama won colorado by carrying the very blue city of denver. Denver is very progressive and voted 71% for JK. My Obama friends which may disappoint you have told me that they have no problem with Hillary as many of their friends have told them they just feel that Sen Obama is more progressive and like him better. the key to Colorado I can fully assure you will be with the culturally conservative Hispanic voters in Pueblo and the rural parts of the state where salazar did well. I have no doubt Hillary will do just as well in Denver its the northern part of the state that is more rural that is more problematic; Colorado Springs being a total waste of time. Hillary lead in Mo. until the inner city Kansas City votes came in after midnight and gave Obama an extremly slim 10,000 vote margin out of several million, not exactly the landslide you alude to. Are you suggesting that Claire Macaskle wouldn't support Hillary in Nov, I truly doubt that she is a true blue Dem

Posted by: leichtman | March 14, 2008 12:22 PM | Report abuse

ecotopian - I saw your polls. Btw - if Washington went for McCain, that would be a flip. It's a big state with lots of rural voters, but Seattle/Tacoma keep it a reliable blue state. I'm skeptical about McCain winning, especially since he had primary/caucus (yes, we are like Texas somewhat) trouble.

The poll maps in your links do show Nebraska on the bubble. Sen. Nelson from Nebraska is reported as saying that he would prefer Obama, because he is the candidate most likely to tip the state Blue.

And GOP and USMC, are you ready for another day of pastings? While you half-heartedly skewer drindl for ad hominem attacks and non-arguments, you still haven't responded to the true story about McCain's domestic woes. I know there are a lot of commercials during Rush, so it's hard to get your opinions when you need them.

Posted by: bondjedi | March 14, 2008 12:16 PM | Report abuse

In a poll released March 6, Survey USA polled 600 voters in each of the fifty states to determine how the two Democratic potential candidates Obama and Clinton would match up against the known Republican candidate McCain.

Here are CC's ten states re-ordered in the likelihood that the Obama would carry them and that Clinton would carry them, based on the poll results

If Obama is nominated:
1. Ohio (Bush, 51 percent) Obama leads by 10.
2. Iowa (Bush 50 percent) Obama leads by 9.
3. Colorado (Bush, 52 percent): Obama leads by 9.
4. Minnesota (Kerry 51 percent) Obama leads by 7.
5. New Mexico (Bush 50 percent) Obama leads by 7.
6. New Hampshire (Kerry, 50 percent) Obama leads by 5.
7. Nevada (Bush, 50 percent): Obama leads by 5.
8. Virginia (Bush, 54 percent): Obama leads by less than 1.
9. Florida (Bush 52) Obama trails by 2.
10. Missouri (Bush 53) Obama trails by 6

If Clinton is nominated:
1. Ohio (Bush, 51 percent) Clinton leads by 10.
2. Florida (Bush, 52 percent): Clinton leads by 9.
3. Minnesota (Kerry 51 percent) Clinton leads by 4
4. New Mexico (Bush 50 percent) Clinton leads by less than 1.
5. Missouri (Bush 53) Clinton trails by 4.
6. Iowa (Bush 50%) Clinton trails by 5.
7. Colorado (Bush, 52 percent) Clinton trails by 6.
8. New Hampshire (Kerry, 50 percent) Clinton tails by 8.
9. Nevada (Bush, 50 percent) Clinton trails by 8.
10. Virginia (Bush, 54 percent) Clinton trails by 10.

Here are states where both Clinton and Obama appear to safely lead: California, Connecticut, D.C., Illinois, New York, Ohio, Rhode Island, and Vermont.

Here are states where both Obama and Clinton lead, but Obama leads by more: Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, New Mexico, Washington, Wisconsin.

Here are states where both Obama and Clinton lead, but Clinton leads by more: Massachusetts.

Here are states where Obama leads, but Clinton trails: Iowa, Colorado, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oregon, Virginia.

Here are states where Clinton leads, but Obama trails: Arkansas, Florida, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, West Virginia.

Here are states where both Obama and Clinton trail, but Obama is within 5: Alaska, Nebraska (Obama leads for 2 of the 5 electoral votes), North Carolina, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas.

Here are states where both Obama and Clinton trail, but Clinton is within 5: Missouri, Tennessee.

Here are longshots for the Democrats where Obama trails by less: Indiana, Montana. Kansas is even, but Obama may have a campaign advantage with his Kansas roots and a slightly larger percentage of undecided.

Here are longshots for the Democrats where Clinton trails by less: Kentucky, Mississippi, Oklahoma.

Here are states that appear to be safely Republican: Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana, Utah, Wyoming.

Posted by: john | March 14, 2008 12:15 PM | Report abuse

Let's all get real here. Any Democrat has a high probability of winning California, New York, and New Jersey. Unfortunately, the more negative the Democrats become towards one another the better McCain will look in the primary season. The problem with the Democratic primary going on too long is that the attacks against Obama become more negative. McCain is already the nominee of the Republican Party and has all the past major Republican presidential nominees (Giuliani, Romney, Huckabee, and Thompson) supporting him in one form or another.

If Obama is the nominee in July or August, it will be harder for Hillary to come out and support Obama and still have her supporters believe her. Hillary can't spend 9 months trying to tear Obama down, then spend 2 to 3 months saying, 'yeah I like him and he would make a great president'.

In order to put more states into play, the Democratic Party (i.e. superdelegates) needs to end the nomination process as June 7th (the last Democratic voting contest) approaches.

Posted by: ajtiger92 | March 14, 2008 12:12 PM | Report abuse

You forgot Washingto State and Oregon in your mix of states that might flip. Polls have shown that if Clinton wins the nomination, both states go to McCain. However, if Obama is the nominee, he wins both states.

I refer you to here to see what I mean:

http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/2008/03/06/electoral-math-as-of-030608-obama-280-mccain-258/

http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/2008/03/06/electoral-math-as-of-030608-clinton-276-mccain-262/

I suggest you try again with your analysis. I found it wanting.

Posted by: ecotopian | March 14, 2008 12:07 PM | Report abuse

Yet another non-answer

Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 14, 2008 12:06 PM | Report abuse

Another preacher who McCain actively courted -- John Hagee:

"All hurricanes are acts of God, because God controls the heavens. I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God, and they were recipients of the judgment of God for that.

The newspaper carried the story in our local area, that was not carried nationally, that there was to be a homosexual parade there on the Monday that the Katrina came. And the promise of that parade was that it would was going to reach a level of sexuality never demonstrated before in any of the other gay pride parades.

So I believe that the judgment of God is a very real thing."

Hagee also said, in the same interview, "Islam in general -- those who live by the Koran have a scriptural mandate to kill Christians and Jews."

And the pastor suggested in a book called "Jerusalem Countdown" that, as Sarah Posner puts it, "military confrontation with Iran is foretold in the Bible as a necessary precondition for the Second Coming."

You see, God wants us to bomb Iran. Not it all makes sense.

Posted by: drindl | March 14, 2008 12:04 PM | Report abuse

"drindl - Pastor Wright given a top committee position in Obama's presidential campaign, Rev parlsey was not. That's the difference between a supporter and an advisor. How does one account for that judgement call, knowing how divisive this man's ongoing rhetoric is."

Don't bother - general drindl won't answer.

She'll likely fling an insult or two, then get back to her hate sites (or soap operas).

Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 14, 2008 12:01 PM | Report abuse

leightman, the Clinton campaign has seemed to forget this, but there are important states besides FL, OH, and PA. Important *swing* states.

I like Obama's chances better than Clinton's in: WI, MN, IA, MO, NC, VA and CO.

So there's more here than just FL, OH, and PA.

Posted by: rpy1 | March 14, 2008 12:01 PM | Report abuse

austinbigboy2000, I echo USMC's condolences, and offer a tremendous THANK YOU for your family's service to our country. We will not forget those who made the ultimate sacrifice, now or ever.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | March 14, 2008 11:55 AM | Report abuse

I am generally an Obama supporter but I think Chris has left out Pennsylvania. I think that based on Hillary's expected margin in the upcoming primary, I am concerned that McCain would beat Obama in Pennsylvania. Obama currently beats him in national polls, but those are just polls.

Posted by: jctk | March 14, 2008 11:55 AM | Report abuse

darredon: Cuyahoga Cty comprises a large part of inner city Cleveland along with Eastern European influences. I presumed that Sen Obama did well there. Are you reporting otherwise from Ohio, if so that is troubling. If he can't carry cuyahoga cty he can kiss Ohio good by in the general.

Posted by: leichtman | March 14, 2008 11:54 AM | Report abuse

Obama will have a tough time dis-associating himself with the racist Pastor Wright. If he didn't believe the things this guy was preaching then why did he stay in the congregation for 20 years and listen to it?

Posted by: Atlanta1 | March 14, 2008 11:54 AM | Report abuse

I agree with your choices, with two exceptions: Minnesota will stay Democratic.

And - ready for this - the District of Columbia may go to the GOP column if Obama is seen as being denied the nomination if he has the delegate lead and the popular vote going into the convention.

If that's the case, the dominoes will start to topple and McCan't will become the next president. And we may lose the Senate in the process.

Follow the rules folks...or it's just going to get uglier.

Posted by: CaptainJohn2525 | March 14, 2008 11:53 AM | Report abuse

drindl - Pastor Wright given a top committee position in Obama's presidential campaign, Rev parlsey was not. That's the difference between a supporter and an advisor. How does one account for that judgement call, knowing how divisive this man's ongoing rhetoric is.

Now it is becoming very clear why Michelle Obama has never been proud of America; she's been listening to that hate-America screed for 20 years! It is mind-boggling how one could go back to hear more of that year after year, and yet claim to be against divisive rhetoric.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | March 14, 2008 11:50 AM | Report abuse

blert: an obama supporter posted here yesterday that Sen obama needs to be spending time in fla repairing his image there; if he is the nominee he will need to either win or at least be competitive in fla. If your post is viewed by superdelegates as being correct that Hillary can win in Fla in Nov. and has already proven her strength and across the bd political support in Ohio, then that in itself is the best argument for her to be the nominee. How can we reject a candidate as our nominee the candidate who looks strong in the general election deciding states of either Fla or Ohio in place of a nominee who may win more red problematic red states.
I fully agree with Chuck Todd who has said that Sen Obama is starting to look more and more like either a 55% or 45% candidate in the fall and I don't particulary care for another potential Dukakas type fiasco.

Posted by: leichtman | March 14, 2008 11:50 AM | Report abuse

Welcome to Ohio--Archie Bunker Land!
Put Ohio in the McCain column. The Primary showed Clinton winning by 10 points. In 2006 the voters opted for a White Dem over a Black Republican.

BO might have lost Ohio to Clinton by only 10 points but look at this: He only won 5 OUT OF 88 COUNTIES--and he lost the largest, Cuyahoga.

He will definitely get all the Black vote but the White and Hispainc votes outside of the large cities will go to McCain.

Posted by: darredon | March 14, 2008 11:49 AM | Report abuse

austinbigboy2000 -- I'm sorry for your loss.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 14, 2008 11:41 AM | Report abuse

As long as you're "educating" us on Macko's domestic history, GOP, how about the story of McCain's first wife, crippled in an auto accident and faithful while he was in 'Nam, and how he ran around on her as soon as he got back, then dumped her?

As cynical a move as it was, even Hillary stood by her man. As the GOP wonders if Hillary's domestic life translates to a presidency, the nation should ask how quick Macko will dump the electorate after he is finished screwing them?

Posted by: bondjedi | March 14, 2008 11:41 AM | Report abuse

A theologist deconstructs Parsley and his dominionism. Scalia is also a dominist, btw:

'Albert James Dager, of the apologetic ministry Media Spotlight, says Dominion teaching is predicated on three basic beliefs:

"1) Satan usurped man's dominion over the earth through the temptation of Adam and Eve; 2) The Church is God's instrument to take dominion back from Satan; 3) Jesus cannot or will not return until the Church has taken dominion by gaining control of the earth's governmental and social institutions."31

Michael Moriarty further explains Dominionism and Parsley's connection:

"In any event, the new charismatics continue to stress the need for the church to exercise dominion over society. Power-packed conferences like Dominion '90 (July 29-Aug. 3, 1990), hosted by Pastor Rod Parsley and World Harvest Church in Columbus, Ohio, serve to raise the consciousness of the church to the responsibility to take dominion over society. Some charismatics claim that 'God told them' that Jesus will return in our generation 'if' the church becomes more responsible in its dominion pursuit."32

Since it will take the power and the mighty coming of Jesus to establish the Kingdom, dominionism is a figment of man's imagination though a lucrative one. It's a tired old hat that is preached ad infinitum by the likes of other Pentecostal superstars as well, including Benny Hinn, Kenneth Hagin and Rodney Howard-Browne. The "day of creative miracles" or "the day of dominion" is always just on the horizon, but it never seems to arrive. It is, in part, the bait which keeps the devotees of these Charismatic leaders perpetually nipping at their hooks."

http://www.pfo.org/parsley.htm

Posted by: drindl | March 14, 2008 11:40 AM | Report abuse

Colorado may have just taken a step closer to blue. Headline in this morning's Denver paper: BLM rejects Roan Safegards.

Colorado Democrats blast the decision on oil and gas drilling on the plateau. The Bush admistration rejected environmental safeguards proposed by Gov. Bill Ritter...sparking outcry from environmental and political leaders...

Coloradans of all political leanings do love their environment. If the local pols exploit this, it could become a major talking point in CO in the GE.

Posted by: KDale2640 | March 14, 2008 11:39 AM | Report abuse

"If Hillary is the nominee - the red to blue flip comes down to how many of conservative, white, working class Democrats she can hang onto in the general election. To assume that just because they voted for her in the primary they will vote for her in the general election is dangerous and the Democrats would be foolish to count on these voters."

CKalish you are right -- some of them may have voted for her because they just don't like black people. Sad but true. Those people are still a factor. They can't be counted on to vote Dem in the general election if Obama is the nominee either.

Posted by: amy_e | March 14, 2008 11:38 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: leichtman | March 14, 2008 09:38 AM


The key to Colorado is the Independents.

Chris says that the GOP has a registration edge over the Dems, and that the Independent registration is growing. He somehow missed that Independents already outnumber either Republicans or Democrats.

The Dems have had the edge recently among Indies at the state level, but Kerry couldn't make the sale with this group.

And Colorado Springs is not just religious conservatives (Dobson), but also a military town. Support for McCain there is likely to be enthusiastic.

Posted by: J | March 14, 2008 11:38 AM | Report abuse

no more silly than using barack's name. he had nothing to do with it-- you see he was very young at the time. now here's rod parsley, whom Mccain courted heavily for his support:

'I just love to talk about your money. Let me be very clear -- I want your money. I deserve it. This church deserves it."

Rod Parsley (An Empire of Souls, pg. 35)

The power of the prayer cloth

"I believe this is your time to receive the tangible transfer of God's miracle-working power, and I want to encourage every one of my Breakthrough Partners and friends to send a prayer cloth along with your prayer needs to be prayed over. When I return your prayer cloth to you, I believe the tangible transfer of God's creative power will flow into your life and birth your miracle! I believe God, Himself, will anoint you to reap a mighty harvest of your physical, spiritual and financial needs..."

Rod Parsley (World Harvest Church Website: Birthing Your Miracle 7/14/99)

"Every year we receive testimony after testimony of glorious healings, deliverances and salvations as a result of these super-saturated scraps of cloth we receive from around the world. Don't miss this opportunity to receive the tangible transfer of God's anointing into your life."

Rod Parsley (World Harvest Church Website: Birthing Your Miracle 7/14/99)

The 100 fold theory

"People have said that it's selfish to ask God to give a hundredfold return on the seeds sown in the financial realm. No it's selfish not to expect the hundredfold return.

Rod Parsley (God's Answer to Insufficient Funds, 1992 pps 56-57)

"I'm talkin about your money you know one of the greatest things that is going to happen in the year 2,000 we're about to see the church rise up with a revelation that only this generation has ever been given of God's word concerning high finances in the kingdom of God and we are just about to see the greatest transfer of wealth out of the hand of the wicked into the hand of the just."

'high finances in the kingdom of god' -- if that isn't the most blatant christian heresy i've ever read, i don't know what is.

Posted by: drindl | March 14, 2008 11:37 AM | Report abuse

"the global nature of the 'threat' is mostly coming frm Saudi Arabia"

global
adj 1: involving the entire earth; not limited or provincial in scope;

Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 14, 2008 11:37 AM | Report abuse

Drindl

You hit the nail on the head. Here's how a grandmother responded when asked a question about what the coward should do when he left office.

Three hundred and sixty-five days a year, in the wind and snow of winter and the heat and humidity of summer, let him tend to the graves of the almost 4,000 men and women who have given their lives in the debacle of Iraq. They honored their oaths, obeyed their commander-in-chief and sacrificed their lives of promise to a lying, unprincipled warmonger. He can begin at the grave of my grandson, Lcpl Jonathan W. Collins, killed in action on 8/8/2004.

Posted by: austinbigboy2000 | March 14, 2008 11:36 AM | Report abuse

Considering that Clinton has poisoned the well in Florida by vowing to seat its delegates, forcing Obama to take a muted stand against doing so, Obama will have a very difficult time there if he is the nominee. Clinton, I think, could beat McCain in Florida. Thanks to Clinton, however, Obama probably cannot.

Posted by: blert | March 14, 2008 11:34 AM | Report abuse

"your envy is showing, little man..."

Thanks for the update, general drindl.

Stick to the playbook:
-Attack anyone who disagrees.
-Refuse to give argument or answer questions.
-Repeat until you're believable.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 14, 2008 11:34 AM | Report abuse

McCain may be loved in NH (by some) but in the primary I think it was just as much a deep distrust of Romney (the flip-floppper from next door in MA) that got him his victory.

Regardless, since New Hampshire has a very popular Democratic governor (70% in the polls), the Bush regime and the kiss-ass Republicans in Congress have been like maggots under the skin (which is why both Repub reps got zapped - and Sen. Sununu is about to), and the dramatic increase in liberal voters in the southern tier population centers -- all makes it more than likely that NH will be going Democratic this year no matter who heads the ticket.

Posted by: washpost16 | March 14, 2008 11:33 AM | Report abuse

For me it comes down to following the votes from the primaries to the general election and asking: who keeps his/her votes and who doesn't??

1. If you voted for Obama in the primary will you vote for him in the general election? Depends - if you're a republican who voted in an open primary and you were just messing with the Democrats,probably not; otherwise, I would put those primary votes down as pretty solid for Obama in the general election.

2. If you voted for Clinton in the primary will you vote for her in the general election? Again, depends. If you are a true blue, liberal Democrat the answer is most likely, yes. On the other hand, if you are a so-called "Reagan Democrat" - maybe not. There was an article in the NYT this week about Clinton's roots in Scranton, PA. Clinton needs these voters and voters like them to win the PA primary (just as voters like them helped her win Ohio). But these folks are pretty conservative on social issues (e.g., abortion, gun control) and national security. So, given a choice between John McCain or Hillary Clinton - who do they pick? Unless the Republicans do something really dumb, like completely ignore the economic concerns of these voters, my money would go with McCain.

3. If you voted for Obama in the primary will you vote for Clinton in the general election? Probably, yes. But, again, it depends. Many Obama supporters (like me) have been alienated by recent tactics on the part of the Clinton campaign. Alienated enough to stay home or vote for McCain or Nader?? When push comes to shove? My guess would be that most of us will suck it up and vote for Clinton.

4. If you voted for Clinton in the primary will you vote for Obama in the general election? See #2 above. True blue liberal democrat? Yes. Reagan Democrat? Would not bet on it.

If Hillary is the nominee - the red to blue flip comes down to how many of conservative, white, working class Democrats she can hang onto in the general election. To assume that just because they voted for her in the primary they will vote for her in the general election is dangerous and the Democrats would be foolish to count on these voters.

Posted by: ckalish | March 14, 2008 11:32 AM | Report abuse

drindl, Congratulations on looking really silly. The name is a family name, and his family is one of high military distinction.

Both McCain's grandfather and father were admirals in the United States Navy.

Here's some other interesting facts about John McCain:

John and Cindy's youngest daughter was adopted from an orphanage run by Mother Teresa.

Bridget was 10 weeks old when they first met her while doing humanitarian relief work in Bangladesh.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | March 14, 2008 11:31 AM | Report abuse

I think Arizona is a very crucial swing-state. Note that McCain only got 47% in the primary in his home state. Obama lost to Clinton by 8 points, but I think he might have a good chance to win against McCain in AZ.

Posted by: joy2 | March 14, 2008 11:30 AM | Report abuse

Hard to believe USMCMike and GOP are back, after the thrashings handed out the other day. I thought they took the day off to come up with some fresh, critical material. Nope, they were obviously glued to Faux News Channel, licking their wounds, waiting for their orders.

Anyways, to the adults in the crowd, Missouri and Virginia are looking good for Obama in November, and our prediction is they will be to 2008 what Ohio was to 2004. Ohio is too wacky to predict. Its voters fell for the moral argument in 2004, and were seduced by campaign chicanery on 3/4. God only knows what will appeal to Buckeye Staters in November.

Posted by: bondjedi | March 14, 2008 11:29 AM | Report abuse

I tell you what? Obama should and have to reject, not just denounce his relations with his radical friends with radical ideas and behaviors like Obama's Pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Mr. Rezko, and Mr. Farrankun. He should and have to do it formally to the public. Otherwise, his campaign is dead now. I don't' think that Americans like or accept a person with such background to run the White House. Period.

For instance, I will not vote for Obama if he does not formally reject and denounce his relation with these radical ideas and behaviors. I will vote for John McCain if Hillary lost democratic nomination, even though I still believe that Obama is a very promising and outstanding young man, because I just feel uncomfortable with Obama's attitude. I am worrying about what Obama would do if he was elected as American president.

This is really nothing about race, nothing about gender, nothing about who you are. Americans will question and challenge everything, not just issues about a candidate who is running for the presidency. And they should. Americans even think the issue of presidential likeability might be an issue, let alone these ideological and religious issues and conducts.

I was shocked by watching this ABC video, and I believe most Americans will be shocked too.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4443788&page=1

Look at what Obama's Pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright says. Obama's Pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright says blacks should not sing "God Bless America" but "God damn America." And the United States brought on the 9/11 attacks with its own "terrorism." And Obama has a lifetime close friendship with Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and has a lifetime close friendship with Mr. Rezko, which something very special.

I am totally shocked. I can not believe it. And I can not images how Obama keeps on his presidential campaign without saying anything or doing anything about it. To me, he wastes his time and he has no chance to win if Obama does not formally reject and denounce this kind of relation.

Posted by: NoWorry | March 14, 2008 11:29 AM | Report abuse

Missouri - The Dems do better with Obama. The Billary baggage will turn off too many of the socially conservative swing voters. And so will her negative campaigning style.
Minnesota - Again the Dems do better with Obama. There are many independent voters here that will play to McCain's "maverick" strength. Only Obama has a good chance of fighting for these voters.
Florida - Clinton will do better here for the Dems. There are many older women and that plays to her strength.
New Hampshire - Obama is better for the Dems again because to the large base of independents. Even though Hillary won the primary I believe NH voted for her more to keep the race going and out of sympathy.
Virginia - Obama helps the Dems here. If it's McCain vs. Clinton, McCain cleans her clock. McCain vs. Obama is a toss-up.
Ohio - Doesn't matter if it's Hillary or Obama, the Dems will win.
Colorado - Obama helps the Dems here as well. CO has many progressive young people - this plays to Obama's strength to lead a change in politics.
Nevada - Clinton does better here for the Dems. A growing Hispanic population and an influx of retirees plays to here strengths.
New Mexico - The Dems will win here regardless of who their nominee is. Bill Richardson will ensure this.
Iowa - The Dems do better with Obama. The Clinton's campaign's games with the delegate count (e.g. saying caucuses are not democratic) will not play well with these voters.

Overall, the Dems do much better with Obama.

Posted by: snoopy7765 | March 14, 2008 11:28 AM | Report abuse

Minnesota is the North Star State, not the Gopher State.

Just saying.

Posted by: JohninMpls | March 14, 2008 11:27 AM | Report abuse

CPCook, I'm with your friends. McCain vs Obama would be a tough call for me. I've voted Dem for 30 years but I like McCain and I don't like Obama at all. He sounds too preachy and at some of his rallies he's a total cheerleader. I find that patronizing and superficial. He may be able to whip up a crowd, but so can any average WWE wrestler. I want a commander-in-chief, not a head cheerleader.

Posted by: amyedmonds916 | March 14, 2008 11:26 AM | Report abuse

joy2- as a military officer, I don't think military officers should publically endorse anyone, or use their office as leverage to make a political statement.

The same goes for journalists, actors, and other public figures. But, we see how well that works right?

Proud: "USMC, One of the issues is Obama's judgement."

I agree with you. My post was saying that I would prefer not to have to resort to his insane pastor, but we have no choice, as he refuses to argue any issues. And so, we agree. And, when he finally gets pinned to the wall on what he believes, you and I shall agree yet again.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 14, 2008 11:26 AM | Report abuse

'Who'd have thought that 19 guys with boxcutters could instill so much fear in so many hearts for so long.'

Constant fear and rampant paranoia are a permanent party of the rightwing mindset, bsimon. They know there's always something out there waiting to get them...

'Getting that rank is just as political as running for office.'

your envy is showing, little man...

the global nature of the 'threat' is mostly coming frm Saudi Arabia, where the radically conservative form of Islam that bi ladin belongs to [Wahhibism] is funded and taught.

You should ask John Sidney McCain III about it -- maybe he knows, although I doubt it. Yes, that's right -- Sidney is his middle name.

JOHN SIDNEY MCCAIN III. yes, i think we should defiitely use their middle names when disucssing them. I especailly like Sidney McCain because it sounds like an ineffectual pantywaist.

Posted by: drindl | March 14, 2008 11:25 AM | Report abuse

W now speaking on the economy. Watch the DOW tick down with every word out of his mouth repeating what GOP came here and told us yesterday, that the economy is in great shape and extremely strong.

Posted by: leichtman | March 14, 2008 11:23 AM | Report abuse

USMCMIKE...or perhaps the military leaders are sick of the mess Bush has made and his disregard for the troops on the ground. And, I don't recall any great love for Bill Clinton from the military, do you?

Anyway, here is what a couple of Obama's supporters had to say:

"I spent a career involved in coalition warfare, and I am keenly aware of the importance of working with allies," said Brigadier General (Ret.) James Smith (USAF). "Senator Obama brings a powerful approach to dealing with national security challenges by truly leveraging multinational relationships. He brings a new face of America to the rest of the world."

"Senator Obama has a profound, even scholarly knowledge of our Constitution and he has the deepest respect for the rule of law. As a career naval officer, I trust his judgment, his temperament, and his ability to analyze complex international situations and relationships and to make military decisions that are in the best long term interests of the United States," said Admiral (Ret.) Don Guter (USN). "It will take the powerful leadership of Senator Obama to forge the consensus we need to right our ship of state, restore our honorable place in the world, and secure the safety of our nation."

Shall I go on?


Posted by: joy2 | March 14, 2008 11:21 AM | Report abuse

The list shows that the race is indeed close.

It's an important analysis, because this is what the Democrats really have to focus on for November, who is going to win enough "toss up" states to get to the White House?

The ultimate goal is to win the electoral college.

Posted by: camasca | March 14, 2008 11:21 AM | Report abuse

Lilly as an Obama supporter speculates that "Obama wins Virginia, not Hillary; Obama wins Oregon, not Hillary. Obama wins Washington State, not Hillary"

That is like my saying Obama will not win either Ca or New York, which helps my candidate but which is nonsense.

Mark Warner is one of the smartest politicans I have known. Lilly do you think he would commit political suicide by ticking off 1/2 of the Va Dem base and not go full out for Hillary or obama. And are you suggesting that either Gov Kaine or Jim Webb would do any less for Hillary in the fall? certainly we can come here and spin and speculate for our candidate but that really ads nothing to the discussion other then to make our post look more partisan.


Again Lilly if you think that the progressive states of Oregon or Washington will reward Sen McCain for shipping their Boeing jobs to Europe, b/c Hillary is the nominee, you are speaking only as a partisan rather than making any kind of objective logical argument on behalf of your candidate.

Posted by: leichtman | March 14, 2008 11:19 AM | Report abuse

this list seems to paint a very rosy picture for Dems. 8 of the 10 are Republicrat states; and, as noted, Minnesota is HIGHLY questionable. Since the last two electoral college votes have been close, flipping just a couple of these could bring the Dems to full power. What's interesting is that few are talking about the fact that D's are going to increase majorities in both the House and Senate; McCain will be in very treacherous waters if he wins, since he will have to continue his balancing act for 4 more years. I would seem him as a one-termer! BO could turn out to be a one-termer, along the lines of Bush Sr. (mediocre) or an all-time great, greatest since FDR (exclude JFK b/c of only 3 years in office). HRC will be WJC all over again; not bad, but forever standing in his shadow.

Posted by: gso-chris | March 14, 2008 11:19 AM | Report abuse

"I would prefer to argue that ... Obama is wrong on the issues, which he is."

USMC, One of the issues is Obama's judgement. He is claiming to have superior judgement than his opponents, yet he choses this pastor who hates America to be on his national committee for the campaign for the highest office in the land. That is an important issue.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | March 14, 2008 11:19 AM | Report abuse

Chris Cillizza, You stated that the "wildcard" is Pawlenty, however, Pawlenty barely held Minnesota in the last election, as posted above by another poster, Pawlenty barely squeaked out his own second term in office: Pawlenty took 46.7% of the vote; Hatch took 45.7; and Hutchinson took 6.4%. Pawlenty cannot give McCain Minnesota, as posted above by yet a different poster. Just lately, or on Super Tuesday, Romney won Minnesota and he was followed by Huckabee with McCain a far behind third. Of course, Pawlenty is not well-vetted and could certainly be an unpredictable factor as a "potential vice presidential" pick for McCain. "If Pawlenty is picked, Minnesota is in play and could certainly move up the Line" which will allow the corruption in Minnesota to come into play where Pawlenty's "secret meeting MN Supreme Court Justice/s selections" can be viewable where former MN Senate Majority Leader Dean Johnson had secret meetings with two (2) MN Supreme Court Justices surnamed Anderson. Pawlenty appointed two (2) out of the three (3) MN Supreme Court Justices with the surname of Anderson.

Posted by: gouldnen | March 14, 2008 11:17 AM | Report abuse

From people I talk to I have a hard time believing Hillary can win any state. I find many people, (white people) will sit at home on election day if Hillary is the nominee so the swing states may swing even more. There is a lot of anger towards the Clintons and I don't think Hillary can beat McCain except maybe in her own state of New York. If somehow Hillary was the nominee and they put a token Black person on the ticket, I think it would backfire. As much as the Clinton campaign wants to make it an antiwoman thing it isn't it just is an anti-Clintons thing. They wore out their welcome and America is ready to move on.

Posted by: info4 | March 14, 2008 11:16 AM | Report abuse

Mark you didn't mention possible running mates for Democrats. I think Webb as a running mate for Clinton would help tip Virginia, with his local appeal and military creds. My choice for a running mate for Obama would be Richardson. He'd bring breadth of experience, New Mexico voters, and possibly tip Florida in the Dems' favor because he's Hispanic. His military creds might also help push Virginia out of the purple and into the blue.

Posted by: amyedmonds916 | March 14, 2008 11:13 AM | Report abuse

"why do so many retired Generals and Admirals endorse him"

Getting that rank is just as political as running for office.

Why do it? Can you say, cabinet post?

Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 14, 2008 11:08 AM | Report abuse

If Obama is so "ill-prepared" to be Commander-in-Chief, why do so many retired Generals and Admirals endorse him?
On Wednesday, for instance:

"CHICAGO--Citing his judgment and ability to lead, admirals and generals from the United States Army, Navy and Air Force that together have served under the last nine Commanders-in-Chief today announced their endorsement of Senator Barack Obama for president.


In offering their endorsement, the generals and admirals recognized Obama's judgment to oppose the war in Iraq before it began, his respect for the Constitution and rule of law, his leadership on behalf of America's servicemen and women and his ability to conduct the diplomacy necessary to restore America's standing in the world."

Look it up in Chicago Tribune.


Posted by: joy2 | March 14, 2008 11:06 AM | Report abuse

CPCook writes, of Obama
"he sorely losses among other ethnicities."


Not true. Results have differed in each state; if I'm not mistaken, he beat Sen Clinton in most demographic categories in both WI & VA, excepting elderly white women.

Posted by: bsimon | March 14, 2008 11:03 AM | Report abuse

You forgot to put New york, New Jersey and Pennsylvania in the REVERSE flip column. if Obama is the candidate, McCain, who is a relative moderate who has always been popular in these states, will win at least one or more of these. Except among African Americans, Obama is considered very liberal and will not do well here. And even if Obama CAN hold those basic Democratic "must win" states, he will do so only by spending the money he would have needed to run a viable campaign in the "flip" states that YOU list.

Posted by: dyinglikeflies | March 14, 2008 11:02 AM | Report abuse

"Why couldn't this happen under my administration?"

Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 14, 2008 10:56 AM
-----------------------------
Did Clinton say that? When? I'm surprised because you would think that the NY Post would have beat that into the ground. While I never buy that rag people in my office do and that would have been front page.

Posted by: PatrickNYC1 | March 14, 2008 11:01 AM | Report abuse

To vammap... Maybe we are saying the same thing here, but it is not as if the country is not ready for a black president. I think USA is ready for a black president, but I don't think it should be Obama. Despite attempts to showcase Obama as transcending racial divides, he doesn't. It is the 90% of the black votes that makes him competitive, but he sorely losses among other ethnicities.

BTW, the Spitzer news should make one more cautious about Obama. How much do you know about Obama? Clinton has been vetted since 1992. It is now 2007, so it has been 15 years. There is certainly more confidence for somebody who has been vetted for 15 years.

Posted by: CPCook | March 14, 2008 10:58 AM | Report abuse

Maybe we should we be glad they have gotten off the Muslim slander, but now they're ranting that Obama isn't the RIGHT KIND OF CHRISTIAN. Sheesh! So much for religious freedom! I happen to be a UCC member and one of the things I love is the openness and freedom to worship in whatever STYLE fits the congregation. We still follow the same scripture as all other Christians. In my congregation we are very much into the Arts. So we incorporate Music (jazz and classical), Dance, Visual Arts, etc., into our worship. Why is it so surprising that a UCC church, on the south side of Chicago - once the most segregated city in the north - would choose to celebrate their African roots in expressing God's word?

Haven't we had enough of Bush's right-wing, fanatical, judgemental, bible-thumping, hypocricy? God help us!

Posted by: joy2 | March 14, 2008 10:57 AM | Report abuse

(thankfully, it didn't)

Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 14, 2008 10:57 AM | Report abuse

"He has the balls after dodging the draft to say he envies the soldiers who are there"

That almost reminds me of another President, who also dodged the draft, and whose initial reaction on 9/11 was

"Why couldn't this happen under my administration?"

Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 14, 2008 10:56 AM | Report abuse

They know Obama and Clinton are ill prepared to handle the great international issues of the day. They both have secured F's in handling their campaigns. When the world is laughing at you over a pathetic campaign how can you expect to garner their respect as an international leader?

Posted by: bobbywc | March 14, 2008 09:59 AM
----------------------
Funny all I have read about people overseas is that they are following this campaign very closely. As for pathetic, I would say that for Obama to be where he is, considering race in this country is pretty amazing.

The real pathetic thing is who we have now as our 'leader'. He has the balls after dodging the draft to say he envies the soldiers who are there? Who ever wins in November I'm just glad that idiot is going to be sent to his ranch.

Posted by: PatrickNYC1 | March 14, 2008 10:52 AM | Report abuse

Here in Nevada, Obama beats McCain, Clinton loses to McCain. Why -- in 2004 (and I made the calls so I can speak with some authority on the matter) John Kerry lost because about 15-20% of the registered Democratic men voted for Bush. And, believe me, that 15-20% is not going to like Hillary any better.

Obama wins Virginia, not Hillary; Obama wins Oregon, not Hillary. Obama wins Washington State, not Hillary. And, furthermore, I would add this audacious prediction, Obama puts North Carolina and South Carolina in play!!!! Hillary loses them both.

Minnesota is a slam dunk for either

Posted by: Lilly1 | March 14, 2008 10:51 AM | Report abuse

"Things are going rather well" in Iraq? 12 US soldiers killed this week

What "objective" standard to you suppose we use?

While the loss of life is a tragedy, it is actually quite small, relatively speaking.

12?

How many college girls were murdered this week by roaming thugs?

Half that.

Be careful on the freeway today.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 14, 2008 10:50 AM | Report abuse

I agree with USMC_Mike. Obama is very good in diversionary tactics. Look at the headline yesterday about him sending taxpayer dollars to his friend. BTW, he also attempted to give $1 million toward his wife's group, but that got killed. For a somebody who is trying to "CHANGE" Washington, I think he is a very fast learner. Anyway... instead of explaining the funneling of funds to his friend (and he should also explain the $1 million attempted money to his wife), he focused on saying that Clinton should also disclose. What kind of an excuse is that!!! I would say hypocritical at best. BTW, did anybody notice that at the beginning of the campaign he would say that he has no lobbyist in his campaign. When Clinton called him about it saying that his chairman is a lobbyist, he changed his tune to say that he has no federal lobbyist. I would bet that eventually, he would probably say that he has no "Vietnamese federal lobbyist" in his campaign. Oh well.. at any rate, many democrats vote(d) for him. If any consolation, many republicans (and democrats) also voted for Bush. So, if you eventually feel stupid voting for Obama, you can use his reasoning... hey somebody else also voted for him.

Posted by: CPCook | March 14, 2008 10:49 AM | Report abuse

"How great is that?"

Not as cute as the new lingo ("Progressive").

Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 14, 2008 10:47 AM | Report abuse

USMC_Mike -

"Things are going rather well" in Iraq? 12 US soldiers killed this week, a Christian bishop kidnapped and murdered (THIS is the democracy our soldiers have died and are dying to nurture?), 200,000 Christians fleeing their homes because of sectarian violence run rampant -- surge or no surge? Maybe compared to Afghanistan -- which we abandoned too soon for this fiasco in Iraq -- things might be going "rather well," but by any objective measure, all that the surge has accomplished is to push the violence to other parts of the country while the Malaki government dithers and accumulates millions of dollars in foreign bank accounts that should be getting spent on reconstruction.

It's a disaster by any measure other than Pentagon war-game analysis on a Stratego board.

Posted by: jac13 | March 14, 2008 10:46 AM | Report abuse

"And I say "our" enemy because they would slit your throat just as quick as they'd slit mine if they could."

Who'd have thought that 19 guys with boxcutters could instill so much fear in so many hearts for so long.

Posted by: bsimon | March 14, 2008 10:46 AM | Report abuse

*******************************
I'm looking forward to a real battle of ideas, not just a battle of warm-fuzzies.
*******************************

Eh, I guess I have to admit I'm a fan of the warm-fuzzy battle. I mean, at the end of that, not only are you warm, you are fuzzy! How great is that?

Posted by: rpy1 | March 14, 2008 10:45 AM | Report abuse

theseventen writes
"With Michigan, there's the delegate problem for the Dems and McCain performed quite well there this year and in 2000."

I think the 'delegate problem' is overblown in MI & FL, with regards to affecting gen election turnout. I can't imagine voters would be so short-sighted to 'punish' a party's candidate in the general, because their state party screwed up during the nominating process. Then again, voters have gone for Bush, twice, so perhaps I am, once again, naive in my estimation of general election voters.

Posted by: bsimon | March 14, 2008 10:45 AM | Report abuse

drindl - no where in your answer did you acknowledge the global threat we face.

In fact, your sarcastic quib, although "cute" (kind of like the word "progressive"), typifies your complete LACK OF UNDERSTANDING of the nature of our enemy.

And I say "our" enemy because they would slit your throat just as quick as they'd slit mine if they could.

PS

"I beleive, rather i know, that there are strongholds..."

How did you come upon this truly vital piece of national intelligence?

Do you work for the CIA?

Or did KOZ tell that to you, general drindl?

Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 14, 2008 10:43 AM | Report abuse

"Harping on this issue simply seems like an attempt to make BHO look scary and is untethered to the equally scary people that support McCain. Some of whom are in Congress."

I would tend to agree with this.

I would prefer to argue that Hussein Obama is wrong on the issues, which he is.

Unfortunately, he has intenionally steered the discussion away from "the issues". HRC's race-bating hasn't helped.

I'm looking forward to a real battle of ideas, not just a battle of warm-fuzzies.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 14, 2008 10:38 AM | Report abuse

"What it boils down to . . . is that both sides have repellent supporters if you go far enough up/down the chain."

Posted by: judgeccrater | March 14, 2008 10:32 AM

judge:

How about just looking at these posts? You wouldn't be thinking about "jkrish," "zouk," or "svreader," would you?

Back on PA, do you agree with me that BHO will close the gap there, based on past patterns, but probably still lose by 5-10?

Posted by: jac13 | March 14, 2008 10:38 AM | Report abuse

Which states flip depends an awful lot on the candidate on the D side. I think that low African-American turnout could hurt HRC quite a bit in PA and MI, for example, but she'd probably be able to flip Arkansas. Supporters of hers probably believe she can flip FL, too. I'm skeptical about that.

I think Obama would be more likely to flip MO than HRC, and can continue shoring up Dem support in the upper midwest (I'm thinking of WI, MN, IL, IA, MI). McCain would be tough in the southwest, but I think Obama could take CO, too.

Posted by: rpy1 | March 14, 2008 10:37 AM | Report abuse

'Just say what you mean - that our troops are raccist, raping thugs, savaging "the countryside" (as Hussein Obama said), killing innocents, for blood oil, Darth Cheney, and American Imperialism.'

gee, mike, i never said any of that. what other fever dreams and hallucinations are you having this morning -- what else are the voices in your head saying?

'Our enemy is in every corner of the planet.'

yeah, and probably under your bed, too, pally. you guys just stay peeing your pants terrified all the time, don't you?

'.) You have repeatedly said our "real" enemy is elsewhere (Pakistan, Suadi Arabia, wherever).

***Is your misunderstanding of our enemy so vast that you actually believe they are localized to ONE location?***

I beleive, rather i know, that there are strongholds -- terrorist training camps in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, yes. And that is where terrorists are disseminating from, and being trained, equipped, financed.

Remember chump, one of the reason we are allegedly in Iraq was to keep iraq from becoming an alqueda stronghold -- like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan already are.

With your tiny IQ you aren't fit to prosecute making a sandwich.

Posted by: drindl | March 14, 2008 10:37 AM | Report abuse

"What's also tough to measure, jac13, is BHO's ability to grow on people. If he ever gets around HRC I'd expect he'll be able to go back to appealing to voters on a broader, non-partisan basis."

That comment is a cop-out, judge. My dog standing next to HRC looks better.

I don't know how much longer he can grow on people before they treat him as a cancer.

My in-laws in San Antonio, all big Bubba Clinton fans, and life-long Democrats (except in the Reagan years), all voted for Huckabee, and have vowed to vote McCain over Obama. They see him as an empty suit.

Of course, McCain will carry TX regardless, but I was surprised to learn that they came to this conclusion "all on their own", so to speak.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 14, 2008 10:34 AM | Report abuse

"Have you listened to this pastor preach?" No, and I haven't listened to Hagee or Parsley preach either. Well, I have caught a few seconds of Parsley while channel surfing. Ugh. Shades of channel surfing when I was a kid in FL; "gimmee that old time religion, gimmee that old time religion...."

What it boils down to, Proud, is that both sides have repellent supporters if you go far enough up/down the chain. I don't agree that BHO has given that guy "a key spot on his steering committee" since you and I both know exactly how much "steering committees" are worth. Nada. Harping on this issue simply seems like an attempt to make BHO look scary and is untethered to the equally scary people that support McCain. Some of whom are in Congress.

Posted by: judgeccrater | March 14, 2008 10:32 AM | Report abuse

One big assumption by Obama is that Hillary's votes are transferable to him. I don't think that this is the case. Based on conversation with friends in California, many would rather vote for McCain than Obama. Given that my friends are diverse, this makes sense given that Obama's core constituency is the black voters. It is funny to think that it is actually Clinton who is more acceptable across racial divides.

Posted by: CPCook | March 14, 2008 10:30 AM | Report abuse

bpp: McCain has a real Boeing/Airbus problem in Washington state and the misperception that their voters will forget McCain's shipping off their jobs to Europe and then rewarding him in a matchup against eithe Clinton or Obama is patently ridiculous and represents a naivity about Washington state politics. I hope the nominee doesn t waste their time or resorces there as JK ridiculously was sucked into doing. Last time I checked W had about a 20% approval rating in Washington state and to suggest they would support McCain makes zero sense, against Obama or Hillary.

Posted by: leichtman | March 14, 2008 10:28 AM | Report abuse

Proud - I don't understand why what someone's pastor says makes that much of a difference. They're different people, right? Has Obama said those things? Moreover, as many other posters have pointed out, perhaps people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, given McCain's propensity to pander to racists, bigots, and the religious right crusaders who want to wipe Islam off the face of the earth. Are you not worried about McCain's advisors simply because you like him, even if their rhetoric is just as empty and vapid as that of Obama's preacher?

Posted by: alterego1 | March 14, 2008 10:28 AM | Report abuse

Chris writes
"If Pawlenty is picked, Minnesota is in play and could certainly move up the Line."

Hogwash. Pawlenty's star is falling, in MN. He suffered his first veto override last week, on transportation funding. A bridge fell down & he still refused to raise the gas tax (untouched for 20 years!) to fund basic infrastructure maintenance. The MN electorate has awoken to the fraud of borrow-and-spend fiscal irresponsibility; a McCain-Pawlenty ticket, much to their embarrassment, is unlikely to carry MN, even against Clinton, should the Dems nominate her.

Posted by: bsimon | March 14, 2008 10:27 AM | Report abuse

"It's unknowable whether all Democrats will come home once a nominee is chosen; and we also can't measure the effect of Bush fatigue and the war as a drag on McCain."

What's also tough to measure, jac13, is BHO's ability to grow on people. If he ever gets around HRC I'd expect he'll be able to go back to appealing to voters on a broader, non-partisan basis. And his numbers should, as we've seen a zillion times already, start to creep up prior to the GE.

OH/PA and NJ do disappoint on the 'racial' side of things, don't they? Which side of the Civil War were they on again? Another unknowable is whether the D primary vote for HRC based on race constitutes an R vote for McCain in the GE.

Posted by: judgeccrater | March 14, 2008 10:24 AM | Report abuse

This is the man who Obama quoted in chosing a title for his book. I think a more appropriate title would've been "Audacity of Hate".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPjVp3PLnVs&eurl=http://redstate.com/

There's that judgement of his, at work again making important decisions, like who to consult for advise on running a presidential campaign.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | March 14, 2008 10:23 AM | Report abuse

Good article. Thanks. I'll be following this if you continue it.

Posted by: eco-pharm | March 14, 2008 10:22 AM | Report abuse

I would not put Montana on a top 10 list. But many things are different about this election.

For one thing, Hillary Clinton just confirmed she will attend the Montana Democratic Party's Mansfield-Metcalf dinner, set for April 5 in Butte. State party officials expect Barack Obama's campaign to confirm his attendance shortly.

That is unusual attention in Montana. One has to go back decades to find the last major candidate vist to the state from either party.

There is irony in this. The Montana Republicans abandoned the primary and went for a February 5 closed caucus this year in an effort to be more influential in the nominating process. That strategy flopped. The Montana caucus was but a footnote in the big multi-state prtimary. No major candidate visited at all. Just one surrogate, Mitt Romney's son, visited the state.

The Montana Democrats held to the June 5 primary and now have both major candidates coming here.

I'm not saying this, by itself, will turn the state in the November election, but the visit of Clinton and Obama gives the person who will be the Democratic nominee unprecidented exposure here. I believe in the 50-state camapign. Don't count Montana out.

Posted by: AlaninMissoula | March 14, 2008 10:21 AM | Report abuse

judge, Have you listened to this pastor preach? I cannot believe someone would chose to sit there year after year and listen to it if they didn't agree. This goes to his judgement.

Obama elevated this man, this man who hates America and disparages our allies, he elevated him to a key spot on his steering committee. THAT is what I question.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | March 14, 2008 10:20 AM | Report abuse

drindl,

while I appreciate your constant posts about how badly the war in Iraq is going, I must ask you:

1.) Why isn't the media banging the retreat drum anymore?

(HINT: Because things are going rather well).


2.) You have repeatedly said our "real" enemy is elsewhere (Pakistan, Suadi Arabia, wherever).

***Is your misunderstanding of our enemy so vast that you actually believe they are localized to ONE location?***

This is exactly why well-intentioned liberals (or "Progressives", whichever is most fashionable) are NOT QUALIFIED TO FIGHT THIS WAR.

We face the most decentralized, post-modern enemy yet. Simply saying "We should focus more on X country rather than Iraq" conveys a tragically simplistic view of this war.

Our enemy is in every corner of the planet.

Please, stop masking your true anti-American, anti-military agenda, General Drindle.

Just say what you mean - that our troops are raccist, raping thugs, savaging "the countryside" (as Hussein Obama said), killing innocents, for blood oil, Darth Cheney, and American Imperialism.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 14, 2008 10:19 AM | Report abuse

Edwards couldn't even carry NC for the Kerry-Edwards ticket in '04, so I agree he adds nothing. If it's HRC, Strickland is a likely choice (and maybe if it's BHO, except that he needs someone with foreign policy chops -- like Biden or Richardson).

I agree with other posters about Virginia, but would add that Northern Virginia (sometimes called "occupied Virginia" in the Southern/Southwestern part of the state) is almost like a different state. There are still a lot of conservative, gun-rights, "values" voters in the other parts of the state, lots of Christian fundamentalists and the like. That said, I still think it goes blue this time, but I wouldn't call it a lock.

I also agree that OH/PA/NJ could be troublesome for Obama, because of what I'll politely call "racial issues." It's unknowable whether all Democrats will come home once a nominee is chosen; and we also can't measure the effect of Bush fatigue and the war as a drag on McCain. Most surveys I've seen place McCain ahead in PA. For what it's worth, Survey USA's 50-state polls had HRC/BHO each beating McCain 50-40 in OH, and NJ a toss-up for BHO and leaning HRC.

P.S. vammap, I must say I wish I were able to be as sure about my candidate's chances as you are about yours, but I just don't see it. I don't think Obama's got it locked up by any means, but I do think he has to be favored at this point.

Posted by: jac13 | March 14, 2008 10:13 AM | Report abuse

Regarding NM, Chris - you didn't mention the possibility of Richardson being picked for VP, and how that might affect the race.

I think he'd be a strong choice for either Clinton or Obama, given his foreign policy and executive experience, not to mention his Hispanic heritage. How might his presence on the ticket affect not only NM, but other states with large Hispanic populations?

Posted by: mwallace8831 | March 14, 2008 10:09 AM | Report abuse

what a dismal clusterf*ck this is:

'While the much-touted Sunni Awakening has increasingly been ignoring al-Qaeda in Iraq, and has decided to attack Iraqi forces instead, Moqtada al-Sadr's military leaders of his Mahdi Army have broken with the extension of a ceasefire reaffirmed last month, and are concentrating on driving police forces out of the major southern cities.

The latest round of violence began when Sadr insisted on his militias carrying arms in the city of Kut in order to defend themselves against interloping Sunni tribes and elements of the Islamic Virtue Party - an offshoot of Sadr's party who no longer recognize the cleric as leader. This is the first significant breach of the latest six-month truce signed in late February between his followers and U.S. commanders.

The story's at Azzaman.com:

So far the fighting has involved his militias and Iraqi forces. But the latest clashes in Kut prove that Iraqi troops are no match for Sadr's heavily armed militia.

Police and security forces have fled the city and are reported to be regrouping for a counter attack.

Iraqi troops have asked for reinforcements but it is not clear whether U.S. occupation troops will interfere.

Eight people are reported to have been killed and scores wounded in the latest fighting.

More acts of violence were reported in Basra where one of Iraq's top surgeons, Dr. Khalid al-Mayahi, was murdered in his clinic.'

Posted by: drindl | March 14, 2008 10:07 AM | Report abuse

We refrain from the personal attacks, but a defense may be in order.

At 9:46 "ProudToBeGOP" reported that she is a "...military souse." We believe that she is not a souse, but, rather, a spouse.

Posted by: MoreAndBetterPolls | March 14, 2008 10:07 AM | Report abuse

MoreandBetter, Palin is a good example, but remember she actually won a primary first. I haven't heard of any real intraparty challenges to Stevens or Young. I guess the GOP can hope that they may be indicted or arrested before Election Day...

Posted by: uckeleg | March 14, 2008 10:05 AM | Report abuse

CHRIS: You're correct in that Iowa will likely flip, but for reasons different than those you've outlined. Despite what you might think, Iowans-at-large aren't so petty that they would shun McCain because he didn't campaign there.

No, Iowa will flip Democratic IF Obama is the nominee, because the caucus showed Iowans are after a candidate who's genuine. Obama was perceived as being genuine, so he won. And however you feel about Huckabee's policies, he was seen as being genuine so he won. McCain struggled in the GOP caucus because he's flipped on so many positions as to seem inconsistent in their eyes.

But if Hillary is the nominee? Then Iowa-at-large might well go for McCain. The polls in Iowa tend to indicate that, and even a diminished McCain seems more genuine than Hillary, who seems prone to swapping personas on a weekly basis.

It's not about being territorial, it's about the attempt to find a candidate who's genuine. Obama has that, and to a lesser extent McCain does. Hillary doesn't.

Posted by: larsvpearson | March 14, 2008 10:05 AM | Report abuse

uckeleg, Alaska will turn out its crooks for reformers, that is why Gov. Palin (R) was elected, and she has been cleaning house.

But the reformers are likely to be Rs.

The NRA ratings for these Democrats is lower than for Sen. McCain. Males outnumber females substantially in Alaska. The native American population knows Sen. McCain as a true friend. Alaska has no reason to vote for these Democrats.

Posted by: MoreAndBetterPolls | March 14, 2008 10:03 AM | Report abuse

"I don't know about you, but I usually listen pretty closely to what my pastor says."

Umm, I don't, because I'm not a mindless sheep...'

exactly.

Posted by: drindl | March 14, 2008 10:02 AM | Report abuse

Proud: yes, yes, Obama is the Really Scary Black Person Candidate. How many times are you going to try to sell that perspective? Works well with bigots but that demographic is limited in size.

Agree with Mark; J's suggestion of http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/ is excellent. Talk about detailed!

Posted by: judgeccrater | March 14, 2008 10:02 AM | Report abuse

It is so way too early to ask this question. F or now I see more states going to McCain as independents turn away from Obama and Clinton for failed campaigns.

Maybe the cowardness of Obama and Clinton to take down Iowa when it would have matter is a good thing. It has allowed us to see just how incompetent both of the candidates are. The world is looking at the US in despair. They know Obama and Clinton are ill prepared to handle the great international issues of the day. They both have secured F's in handling their campaigns. When the world is laughing at you over a pathetic campaign how can you expect to garner their respect as an international leader?

Posted by: bobbywc | March 14, 2008 9:59 AM | Report abuse

People are forgetting race and gender. There is a hidden "anti" vote in polls. If the two candidates are WASP's, then the polls are usually on the mark. But there will be a hidden anti-black vote and ant-women vote and for McCain an anti-elderly vote.

Obama who is the likely nominee has to know that he needs a 5 point cusion in polls to be secure about winning the general election. My bet is that mcCain wins based on white voters dumping Obama.

Posted by: Sjkarpov19 | March 14, 2008 9:59 AM | Report abuse

Good luck getting Minnesota to turn red!

While it is true the demographics of state have shifted, and Bush did well here in 2004, Kerry won the state by 3pts while losing nationwide by 3pts.

If Obama cannot win Minnesota, chances are he didn't get 220 electoral votes.

Posted by: mnitaliano | March 14, 2008 9:58 AM | Report abuse

Proud, he doesn't wear it on his sleeve or let it dictate his public policy positions, you know, like screwing around with Israel and the Middle East so that Jesus will fly down on his spaceship or whatever these lunatics believe when they refer to the "Rapture." Big difference.

Posted by: uckeleg | March 14, 2008 9:57 AM | Report abuse

I like North Dakota and South Dakota. It's always puzzled me why, with the same sort of demographics as rural Minnesota and Iowa, they tended to vote so heavily R in national elections and then send so many D's to Congress.

A pretty good case could be made too that Kansas might flip, especially if Obama chooses Sebelius as his running mate. The R party there has been thrashing around for a decade now in an epic struggle between moderates and the far right, and the D's have done a good job peeling off moderate voters, especially in and around the I-70 corridor from the KC suburbs to the Little Apple and in Wichita and Hutch.

Also, if you've been following the SUSA presidential approval numbers over the last few years, you know that Kansas was among the first of the ruby-red states to really turn decisively against Bush. Kansas, like the rest of the prairie midwest, is more populist than it is conservative, and the combination of moderate disdain in the suburbs and populist mistrust in the rural reaches could be bad for McCain. The right message and the right messengers, and Kansas could go blue.

Posted by: novamatt | March 14, 2008 9:56 AM | Report abuse

oh please, proud. you ain't got a leg to stand on, when McCain has actively courted the support of several divisive, hateful, not to mention lunatic, quasi-religious fanatics whom he calls 'spiritual advisors' -- one who calls the catholic church 'the great wh*re' --oh here's the guy's [Hagee's] favorite joke, btw: Q. what's the difference between a woman and a snarling hyena? -- A. lipstick. McCain refuses to denounce him and still says he is 'honored' by his support.

and then there's Rod Parsley, another cheesy televangelist, who is begging and praying for the end of the world, for the US to attack Iran, to bring on a nuclear holocaust that will kill all humankind and cause the 'second coming.' McCain is honored by his support too.

Now, good old Lloyd:

'WASHINGTON - A group of Democratic members of Congress yesterday sought an explanation from Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates as to why the Pentagon allowed a top defense contractor in Iraq to avoid paying Social Security and Medicare taxes for thousands of American workers by hiring them through two Cayman Island subsidiaries.

"The Pentagon needs to explain how our security is advanced by forming a coalition of the willing tax dodgers in the Cayman Islands," said Representative Lloyd Doggett, a Texas Democrat.'

Posted by: drindl | March 14, 2008 9:56 AM | Report abuse

What are Bush's job approval ratings in these states? If McCain is going to be running with such close ties to the current administration, he is inevitably going to find it difficult to run away from its failures. It is currently very difficult to compare the likely Democrat vs McCain as the Dems are still in the midst of their primary season while McCain is running the early part of his General campaign.

When Hillary finally gives up the ghost, and is forced by Democratic party elders to quit the race, provided she hasn't given Obama a bloody nose it is going to be one of the most interesting election campaigns of modern times, probably THE most interesting election of modern times.
Contrasting Obama's fundraising, charisma and youth vs McCain's experience and character will provide the backdrop for the future of the USA. Engagement with the international community to salvage the reputation of the nation, or continuation of Bush's foreign policy, with all of its inherant flaws?

Clinton is the poison pill for all downticket Democrats in Red states. The sooner that the good people of Pennsylvania realise this, the sooner we can get on the offensive vs McCain. Until then he will bash away at both Clinton and Obama, end result = Dem's loose in 2008.

Posted by: pr8mrh | March 14, 2008 9:54 AM | Report abuse

I have looked at this data too and what i am seeing is the potential for much bigger shifts...there is polling that suggests that Clinton would lose Michigan and the pacific northwest states of Washington and Oregon, to McCain while picking up Arkansas and West Virginia...

there is also data that suggests that Obama would pick up all the states mentioned above, and North Dakota as well as 2 of the 5 votes in Nebraska due to the unique way they delegate their electoral college votes by congressional districts.

Posted by: bpphil | March 14, 2008 9:53 AM | Report abuse

Uckeleg, Well your "mindless sheep" Obambi sat there for 20 years and nodded his head while listening to that pastor, and he the used his exceptional judgement to put him on a top spot in his steering committee for the presidential campaign.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | March 14, 2008 9:53 AM | Report abuse

And seriosly, Proud, is this left-wing rant about 9/11 any worse than the right-wing rant about 9/11? That it was God's "will" because of the gays, single mothers, brown people or whatever bull those deranged moonies like Robertson, Fawell, Hagee and MANY others were spewing on NATIONAL TELEVISION?

Not to mention McCain actually CAMPAIGNS with these jacka**es on the trail!

Posted by: uckeleg | March 14, 2008 9:53 AM | Report abuse

ProudtobeGOP - keep at this tenuous link yourself. It's all you've got. At last count, McCain wasn't really a peachy-clean Christian. He cheated on his first wife numerous times, and married a woman 20 years his junior with whom he started an affair while married to his first wife. Isn't there a commandment about that?

Posted by: alterego1 | March 14, 2008 9:51 AM | Report abuse

"I don't know about you, but I usually listen pretty closely to what my pastor says."

Umm, I don't, because I'm not a mindless sheep...

Posted by: uckeleg | March 14, 2008 9:50 AM | Report abuse

I don't know about you, but I usually listen pretty closely to what my pastor says.

There are some areas in the Bible that are not absolutely clear cut, and my pastor is human, too, but he usually gets it right.

If my pastor were preaching things that were clearly contrary to the Bible and contrary to what I observed in the world around me, I'd go find another church.

So it is that I have to wonder what Barak Obama is taking away from church services at his church for the last 20 years, Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago.

According to an ABC News article, here's the kind of theology the Reverend Jeremiah Wright preaches:


"The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, God damn America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people," he said in a 2003 sermon. "God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme."

In addition to damning America, he told his congregation on the Sunday after Sept. 11, 2001 that the United States had brought on al Qaeda's attacks because of its own terrorism.

"We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye," Rev. Wright said in a sermon on Sept. 16, 2001.

That is one of the most offensive comments I've ever heard, and as a military souse I'll tell you one thing - veterans of WWII and their fellow military memebers do not take kindly to being slandered in this fashion. Not only is it factually innaccurate, it is outrageous coming from someone standing at the pulpit.

I question the judgement of someone who would go back to hear more of that for 20 years and continue to put the offering in the plate for that kind of message.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | March 14, 2008 9:46 AM | Report abuse

Love the new line!

My list:

1. Iowa: as CC said, done deal.

2. NM: agree on this one as well. The narrow margins in both 00 and 04 suggest that any type of strong national wind will win this state easily

3. NH: I know 06 was an utter disaster for NH R's, but for some reason they love McCain there (buy into the Bullsh*t express or something)

4. CO: the shift in this state has been remarkable, and Obama seems to do really well there

5. VA: each year, VA gets closer and closer to completely seceding from the Confederacy and the GOP...

6. Ohio: I'm not as slam-dunk on this one as CC. Yes, 06 was a tough year for the Reps, but it should have been much worse. More House Repubs survived than any one thought (Chabot, Pryce, Mean Jean). I think Obama will have difficulties in the OH-PA-NJ area unfortunately

7. MI: Like NH, another state that for some reason really likes McCain. Add Willard to the ticket, and I think McCain is really competitive there. (Just what that state needs economically--more years of Republican rule)

7. NE: I know, crazy. But I do think Obama has a great shot of picking up a CD or two in NE, and get some EV's under their odd system.

8. MO: Obama has a decent shot there, but as CC mentioned, there are a lot of social Moonies in the state, especially in the SW, that will make a win hard.

9. FL: I was really surprised by Bush's easy victory there in 04. And the state just seems to be getting redder. This state, along with AR, are the two states where I think Clinton would run significantly better than Obama.

10. PA: I'm from there, specifically the Philly suburbs which usually determines the outcome in the state, and McCain is very popular there, and as I mentioned with OH, I worry about these states coming around to a black candidate, quite frankly.

I'm not seeing the changes that CC mentions on NV and MN, although the ground game that the Dems built is a compelling argument. MN went back to solid blue in 06 (Pawlenty was clearly headed towards defeat when his lackluster Dem opponent imploded right before the election), and I don't think it's going to shift.

I'd also keep an eye on WI, OR and maybe WA for the Repubs, and WV for the Dems. I also think Alaska could stun everyone. They're finally waking up to how corrupt their Republicans are, and I think could break for Obama in a big way.

Posted by: uckeleg | March 14, 2008 9:45 AM | Report abuse

I think the number of Red states you list as up for grabs is flawed. No way Fl is in play if Obama gets the nomination. In addition, if anyone in the liberal media plays the tapes from Obama's racist Pastor, there could be many more Blue states in play in Nov.

Posted by: Atlanta1 | March 14, 2008 9:44 AM | Report abuse

What about ND? I know Clinton won't campaign there but with 3 of 4 statewide electeds being Democrats and Obama adopting Deans 50 state strategy, shouldn't ND be a candidate for switching?

Posted by: bfulton | March 14, 2008 9:44 AM | Report abuse

Don't make an argument novamatt, readers might have a heart attack. Just stick to the playbook.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 14, 2008 09:11 AM

Ha. The next big powerpoint presentation I have to make, might need to borrow you for your powers of projection.

Posted by: novamatt | March 14, 2008 9:44 AM | Report abuse

I don't think the election is going to be close this year. Whoever wins will win by wide margins and take several "red" or "blue" states.

Posted by: cliffmerrell | March 14, 2008 9:44 AM | Report abuse

The problem with the big state thesis put out by the Clinton camp (see vanmap) is that a democrat winning these states in a primary means nothing to the general. Vanmap's delusions aside, there is practically no way that big blue states like California, New York, or Illinois will go for a McCain-Bush ticket this year. You could have run a goldfish against Bush in those states in 2004, and it would have won. Those states are blue because they are reliably Democratic Party states, not because they are reliably Clinton states. More to the point, though, the big blue state argument misses a fundamental point - using it we have LOST the last two presidential elections. When you play for 271 delegates, then you allow the GOP to concentrate its resources picking up only one of your states, just as they did with Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004. Thus, Clinton's general election strategy (only win the big blues) is a proven loser. Obama can likely put more states in play, like NC, which means that even if he ends up losing them, he spreads out the GOP's resources and stands a greater chance of putting the GOP on the defensive, rather than offensive, in a money fight they cannot win.

Posted by: alterego1 | March 14, 2008 9:39 AM | Report abuse

LOL, that's funny! Do you think you're blatant bias has escaped anyone WaPo? Like any of those red states would vote for Obama. Give me a break. Primaries are not caucuses, and racism doesn't leave the Republican heart from a hand-holding churchy sing song. Obama will win nomination because press is shoving it down our throats, because a segment of guilty white America is enamored with the thought of having a black president, and because Obama is using mob tactics among his supporters to run a campaign off of white guilt. It will be Pesident McCain in January 2008.

Posted by: DPoniatowski | March 14, 2008 9:39 AM | Report abuse

Kerry lost Colorado in '04 in a very close election there b/c he did not do well with conservative hispanic voters in Pueblo and rural parts of the state. I was told that by the John Kerry hispanic communications director while working with her in Denver. JK blew out W in Denver with almost 71% of the progressive Democratic vote. Colorado Springs is likely uninspired by John McCain which was the other troubled area of the state, but I feel that the key to winning Colorodo this time is which candidate can turn out the hispanic voters including culturally conservative hispanics in Colo who make up a large part of that voting base in Colo where we did not fare well with in '04.Ted Strickland owes a good part of his political career to roads Bill Clinton delivered to him to save his congressional seat, and in '06 Bill raised millions for Governor Strickland in several major Cleveland fundraisers. Hillary is beloved in Shaker Hts. Whether Sen Obama can capture these same sources of support in 2 critical states is certainly open to debate b/c he too has his loyalist in Cleveland and certainly my second home Denver. Virginia seems like a no brainer for either, with Mark Warner, Jim Webb, Tim Kaine an enthusiastic Arlington democratic base the GOP needs to be very concerned about maintaining Va although McCain will certainly do well in the Norfolk area I would think. Would Tim Kaine support Hillary in the fall, I don't doubt it and correctly Mark Warner stayed on the sidelines during their primary but I see Virginia as the first secure new Democratic state in the fall regardless who the nominee is but obviously their young voters love B.O., and I believe the GOP and people like Congressman Davis reluctantly know they are now trouble in the southern state of Va.

Posted by: leichtman | March 14, 2008 9:38 AM | Report abuse

The magnitude of the alleged fraud staggered Republicans, who are bracing for the final accounting from the forensic audit in six to eight weeks. Many said they expect a total far greater than the minimum cited yesterday.'

Posted by: drindl | March 14, 2008 09:25 AM
--------------------
Here's Ward's backgound from today's NY Times. 'Mr. Ward was named treasurer of the national Republican committee in 2003 after serving for several years as an assistant treasurer. He had also been a partner in a political consulting firm, Political Compliance Services, that worked in 2004 on behalf of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, the group behind advertisements attacking the military record of Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, the Democratic presidential nominee.'
These people are a class act.

Posted by: PatrickNYC1 | March 14, 2008 9:36 AM | Report abuse

"PollM, here's the question you need to be asking:

Who attracted the most annoying supporters: Ron Paul or Hillary Clinton?

Posted by: novamatt | March 14, 2008 08:42 AM

"

the obamasses

Posted by: newagent99 | March 14, 2008 9:35 AM | Report abuse

One has to wonder about this *judgement* that Obama says he has, when he puts Rev. Jeremiah Wright on a steering committe in his presidential campaign, and when he goes back to hear the same sermons for 20 years. This is the man whom the Obamas chose to marry them in the church and they chose him to baptise both of their daughters.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86ZJYfyCRXc&feature=related

I question the judgement of someone who says they "deplore divisive rhetoric" and yet they go back to listen to this every week for 20 years! Then he put the pastor in a top committee role in his campaign. I seriously question the judgement of that.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | March 14, 2008 9:35 AM | Report abuse

If you look on Rasmussen.org you will find out that a generic Democratic candidate holds a 247 to 229 advantage in th electoral college, with 62 votes from five states (among them Michigan) in the toss-up column.

Other polls quoted by Realclearpolitics.com give McCain a slight advantage in Pennsylvania.

Also, polls constantly put McCain at 5 to 9 points ahead of Clinton and Obama in Florida.

Do you notice all this in the present column? Have you read about Michigan or Pennsylvania among the potential flippers?

Nope. Somehow I am not surprised.

Posted by: petru.clej | March 14, 2008 9:33 AM | Report abuse

I concur with mark in austin... thank you.
Please submit to the Democratic superdelegates. Let them see how important Pennsylvania is.

Posted by: AB68 | March 14, 2008 9:29 AM | Report abuse

Thank you, J.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | March 14, 2008 9:26 AM | Report abuse

not content just on screwing the rest of the country the NRCC decides to screw itself--republican corruption and incompetence, the gift that keeps on gving:

'The former treasurer for the National Republican Congressional Committee diverted hundreds of thousands of dollars -- and possibly as much as $1 million -- of the organization's funds into his personal accounts, GOP officials said yesterday, describing an alleged scheme that could become one of the largest political frauds in recent history.

For at least four years, Christopher J. Ward, who is under investigation by the FBI, allegedly used wire transfers to funnel money out of NRCC coffers and into other political committee accounts he controlled as treasurer, NRCC leaders and lawyers said in their first public statement since they turned the matter over to the FBI six weeks ago.

"The evidence we have today indicated we have been deceived and betrayed for a number of years by a highly respected and trusted individual," said Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), the NRCC chairman.[...]

The magnitude of the alleged fraud staggered Republicans, who are bracing for the final accounting from the forensic audit in six to eight weeks. Many said they expect a total far greater than the minimum cited yesterday.'

Posted by: drindl | March 14, 2008 9:25 AM | Report abuse

"Who attracted the most annoying supporters: Ron Paul or Hillary Clinton?"

Wrong match-up.

Ron Paul v. B. Hussein Obama for most annoying supporters.

I submit Hussein wins, with the gushing, fawning, fainting "fans" of this political "rock-star" who stands for "hope".

Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 14, 2008 08:59 AM
-------------------
Good one. I'll vote if he gets the nomination but his supporters are the worse. Then again so are his attackers.

Posted by: PatrickNYC1 | March 14, 2008 9:19 AM | Report abuse

'President Bush let his inner adventurer out while discussing the state of the war in Afghanistan with military and civilian personnel. While those in Afghanistan detailed the logistical and diplomatic problems via teleconference, the President took a much more whimsical approach to their mission. Via Reuters:

"I must say, I'm a little envious," Bush said. "If I were slightly younger and not employed here, I think it would be a fantastic experience to be on the front lines of helping this young democracy succeed."

"It must be exciting for you ... in some ways romantic, in some ways, you know, confronting danger. You're really making history, and thanks," Bush said.

"envious'? Oh my God. Has there ever been a bigger as*hole than this pathetic simian? Has a stupider creature ever cursed the ground he walked on?

Funny how when he had his chance to fight, to have a 'fantastic experience' he peed in his pants, ran from it like a little girl. He went AWOL, deserted, ran and hid under Daddy's bed.

How frightening it is to have a man this childish and delusional as president--christ.

Posted by: drindl | March 14, 2008 9:18 AM | Report abuse

Chris, I second the suggestion that you include electoral vote totals next to each state so we can add or subtract those we agree might flip.
Also, what about Pennsylvania? Some polls have shown McCain ahead there.

Posted by: jane.lockhart | March 14, 2008 9:16 AM | Report abuse

For whatever it is worth, herewith is The Fixes list and a new meaningless metric, the Party Enthusiasm Quotient, which is the Party vote total in the primary divided by the Party vote for President in 2004.

Missouri 654 404
Minnesota 147 46
Florida 481 485
New Hampshire 844 720
Virginia 673 284
Ohio 811 371
Colorado 118 50
Nevada 26 105
New Mexico
Iowa 3 157

Note that since Iowa held completely incomparable contests, its results don't mean much. Nevada was also a state where the two types of caucusing aren't comparable. Florida, where the Dems were doing it just for the practice still almost has more Dem enthusiasm than Rep. When New Mexico Republicans vote we can complete this table.

Using the EC's the top ten states to switch are: (1 to ten)

Mississippi
Texas
North Dakota
Louisiana
Kansas
Virginia
Tennessee
South Carolina
Oklahoma
Ohio

Mississippi had a 4 to 1 ratio of Democratic EQ to Republican EQ. Probably due to the fact that the Republican race was over and the democratic race wasn't. Texas has a ratio of 3 to the democratic side.

My current calculation is Dems take 435 Electoral votes., regardless of candidate.

Posted by: ceflynline | March 14, 2008 9:13 AM | Report abuse

Don't make an argument novamatt, readers might have a heart attack. Just stick to the playbook.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 14, 2008 9:11 AM | Report abuse

If I'm doing the math right - if the top three states on the line flip, and nothing else changes, it is a 269-269 tie. Is that likely? No. But it shows an electoral tie can happen in very plausible set of assumptions. There should be a requirement that the number of EV's is odd.

Posted by: dh67956 | March 14, 2008 9:09 AM | Report abuse

Oh, good one, USMC_Mike. Your commitment to recycling is admirable.

Posted by: novamatt | March 14, 2008 9:08 AM | Report abuse

"If Edwards becomes Hillary VP which would be his smartest move, because he is young and could eventually run for P,"

Not only does Edwards add NOTHING to the ticket (come on, another do-nothing SENATOR?),

How many decades can one man "run for P"? Isn't 1 enough?

Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 14, 2008 9:00 AM | Report abuse

"Who attracted the most annoying supporters: Ron Paul or Hillary Clinton?"

Wrong match-up.

Ron Paul v. B. Hussein Obama for most annoying supporters.

I submit Hussein wins, with the gushing, fawning, fainting "fans" of this political "rock-star" who stands for "hope".

Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 14, 2008 8:59 AM | Report abuse

vammap,
I think you've made your point by now.


drindl,
Relating to the "blue flipping red" question, one thing to remember is the old adage that "all politics is local". Especially if this election turns more on domestic issues than 2004, local conditions and personalities can have an impact.


All,
An interesting site that looks at this stuff is here:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/

The site does blocks of 5000 simulated runs based on polls, statistical analysis, past performance, etc, as explained in the FAQs. Whether one agrees with it or not, it is interesting reading.

Posted by: J | March 14, 2008 8:58 AM | Report abuse

I can't see a single reason why any blue state should turn red, when 80% of the country thinks we're 'moving in the wrong direction...'

And when we remain bogged and deadlocked in a deadly war on the Iraqi people... oh the useless press -- 'possible doubt'. can you say 'the surge is not working'? it was supposed to be OVER by now and all the extra troops back home. they aren't. it was designed to help the Iraqi govenment achieve certain benchmarks by a certai time. they haven't. in other words, all we have done is spend more money and lives to achieve nothing that we can point to. violence is up again, even with the extra troops. we could go on like this forever. and probably will, until no one will loan us any more money.

'In a sign of possible doubt about the success of the surge, Gen. Petraeus has told the Washington Post that "no one" in the American or Iraqi governments "feels that there has been sufficient progress by any means in the area of national reconciliation."'

Posted by: drindl | March 14, 2008 8:46 AM | Report abuse

Chris, how about adding the number of electoral votes in brackets after each state, which will help us neophytes understand the relative importance of each of the states?

Cheers

Posted by: ChicagoIndependant | March 14, 2008 8:46 AM | Report abuse

These speculations are a lot of fun but totally meaningless. In this violent world, a single event can turn the election in an instant. As we all remember, four years ago it merely took a TV spot by Osama bin Laden on the night before the election, and Kerry was toast.

Posted by: dunnhaupt | March 14, 2008 8:45 AM | Report abuse

PollM, here's the question you need to be asking:

Who attracted the most annoying supporters: Ron Paul or Hillary Clinton?

Posted by: novamatt | March 14, 2008 8:42 AM | Report abuse

1. "The Democratic presidential primary race is essentially tied."

Obama has a 5% lead in delegates. In the general election a 52% - 47% win is not anything to sneeze at. [If you are George Bush, a 50% - 49.2% loss is not bad as long as a politicized Supreme Court is looking out for you.]

2. "Obama cannot win big states because Clinton beat him in them."

X beats Y in the primaries. This says nothing about how X or Y might fare against Z in the general election. For example, McCain is not necessarily going to win CA and NY or even OH. It depends on how the voters see him against the Democratic nominee at the time they start paying attention to presidential politics -- about 2 weeks from the election day.

3. "In every political conflict, both sides are equally right and equally wrong -- always."

Not really. [Why? The laws of probabilities strongly suggest such an even outcome is highly unlikely.] The journalistic adherence to this false evenhandedness has done incalculable damage to the good guys and has proven a boon to the bad guys.

Posted by: hollywoodog | March 14, 2008 8:41 AM | Report abuse

"Obama is attempting to crack open Pennsylvania's closed party primary, initiating a program to flip the registrations of independent and Republican voters to Democrat."

This is how Obama has won so far. Common sense tells you that is not going to fly in a National election. Those Republicans will vote Republican.

This says alot about Hillary's BLUE state wins and why Obama is ahead, because he has sermonized and hocus pocused his way through this race...

Posted by: vammap | March 14, 2008 8:30 AM | Report abuse

Lot's of possibilities that Chris did not mention depending on who the candidates are, but I agree with the above poster that takes Minn off of the list. I would also add Mo and Ohio to the no go list. If Clinton is the nominee, I think she would have a good to excellent chance in Arkansas and West Va. For Obama, Va approaches a lock and as a sleeper, I think Indiana could flip, with a massive turnout in the chronically underperforming NW part of the state...Jackie

Posted by: rfowler2 | March 14, 2008 8:24 AM | Report abuse

It benefits Hillary, the closer we get.

Posted by: vammap | March 14, 2008 8:23 AM | Report abuse

Everyone is assuming Obama is going to win. What a laugh. Based on Hillary winnning:
If Romney is on the ticket as VP that could improve things for McCain since the entire party of ultras don't want him; Hillary could take all except CO, MO and Virginia.

If Edwards becomes Hillary VP which would be his smartest move, because he is young and could eventually run for P, than her stock goes up again in all the red and southern states Obama won. That's the plan. It's why Edwards is so quiet.

Posted by: vammap | March 14, 2008 8:21 AM | Report abuse

The closer this contest gets to the DNC in Denver, whom does it benefit the most?

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=1880

.

Posted by: PollM | March 14, 2008 8:14 AM | Report abuse

As I've already posted, all Hillary has to do is win 3 states, to put the vote up to the Super Heroes. That's why the Obama camp doesn't want the votes counted.

There's a NYTimes article this am,What do Hillary R. Clinton's big state victories mean about racial divide? Maybe the more applicable question to ask is why is Barack only winning red states, many with black only populations?

Instead of talking about Obama's pastor or his Rezko ties, the NYtimes is talking about his free spirited, wandering mother.

So much for the media adoration and coronation....

Again, Obama will not win, so no one has to worry about him losing all the BLUE states Hillary has already won.

Get with the program Obama Camp....the USA is not ready for this Black Candidate for Pres

Posted by: vammap | March 14, 2008 8:12 AM | Report abuse

I just have to look at the Google stats and web page hits to see that the race is actually closer than ever (Add in "specific states by clicking on the charts);

Hillary vs. Barack:
The Google Factor...

http://newsusa.myfeedportal.com/viewarticle.php?articleid=57

The problem for Hillary is at this point, is that she is so far behind in delegates that she will need 20+ point wins in most all remaining primaries...

Posted by: davidmwe | March 14, 2008 8:01 AM | Report abuse

Why even ask the question, everyone knows that all of America is Obama Nation.

Posted by: kl305 | March 14, 2008 7:58 AM | Report abuse

What about Arkansas? I would think it would be a, if not the, top candidate if HRC is the Democratic nominee.

I think Michigan might be a good candidate for a switch - because the economy is tanking and the state is dominated by Democrats. North Carolina probably not. While its state politics are fairly progressive, Republicans dominate in federal elections. I would say Edwards' win there was a fluke (and a narrow, 51-48 one at that). Barring Edwards, Republicans have won statewide at the Republican level - consistently and comfortably - since 1986, when Democrat Terry Sanford won his Senate seat there.

YesWeCanForFREE - I don't buy your argument. If having lots of Republican governors was any indicator whatsoever of Presidential leanings, then states like West Virginia, North Carolina, Indiana and Kentucky would become swing states too, because they only rarely elect Republican governors; and Massachusetts, Connecticut and Rhode Island, which have tended to elect more Republicans than Democrats recently, would be possible red states. I think we know that is not the case.

In addition, California's large hispanic bloc is hardly a sure bet for McCain. Bush was also supposedly popular with Hispanics - getting a higher percentage of them nationwide than any Republican before him - and also has never been far-right on immigration. Despite this, Bush lost California by a large margin in 2004. I don't see how McCain can substantially improve upon Bush's showing.

Finally, the counterexamples to the neighboring-state argument are too numerous to count. George W. Bush lost New Mexico; Clinton lost Oklahoma, Texas and Mississippi while Dole was losing Missouri; and Al Gore even lost his home state (and all neighboring states). Finally Michael Dukakis lost Connecticut, New Hampshire, and Maine by large margins. I think McCain's proximity to California might matter if California were a 50-50 state, but there is no evidence that it is even close.


Posted by: jmd87 | March 14, 2008 7:55 AM | Report abuse

I'm curious to know what everyone thinks about West Virginia, North Carolina, Wisconsin, and Michigan flipping. With Michigan, there's the delegate problem for the Dems and McCain performed quite well there this year and in 2000. North Carolina is probably the most progressive Southern state as a whole, which Obama could put in play. West Virginia has a ton of Reagan Democrats, which Clinton could appeal to. And Wisconsin is simply a state that is more purple than blue.

Posted by: theseventen | March 14, 2008 7:44 AM | Report abuse

A couple of notes about Virginia. D turnout will be at its maximum, thanks to at least three US House seats that could flip from R to D, competitive D's running in the other 8 seats, Mark Warner's run, and some local stuff relating to transportation spending that the R's are to blame for.

I don't know about R voters. The Marshall/Gilmore primary promises to be a barnburner, the anti-immigrant forces have to be disappointed with McCain, and it looks like we won't have a gay-bashing measure on the ballot this time.

If you look at the returns from the Drake/Kellam race in VA-2 from '06 and then the General Assembly returns in Hampton Roads from last year, it's pretty clear that military voters are no longer reliable R's. In fact, they're getting to be downright swingy. McCain will likely not get anywhere close to the totals from active-duty voters that Bush did in '00 and '04.

So, long story short, Virginia looks pretty good for Obama this fall. It might be time to start thinking of the commonwealth as a bluish shade of purple.

Posted by: novamatt | March 14, 2008 7:36 AM | Report abuse

Have to say Chris from what I've read MN looks more likely to stay blue. You have a very good chance of Franken winning the Senate race and last years bridge accident hanging over Pawlenty, maybe not enough to lose a VP slot but McShame has many other choices.

Posted by: PatrickNYC1 | March 14, 2008 6:58 AM | Report abuse

Yes, I believe that Obama would have a harder time winning California aginst McCain than Clinton.

Plain argument everyone is talking about is: John Kerry won California against Bush. Why not Obama? Obama is not running against Bush. He is running against McCain.
If Obama is the nominee, we will hear California moving from likely to toss-up column in November election.
Washington politicians (including Obama/Dasshle) have no clue about California mystery . They have elected more Republican Governors than Democratic Governors in last 36 years. They have not elected any black candidate in state wide election in couple of decades now.
Who is John McCain for California? He represents as a default US Senator for California republicans since Pete Wilson. Traditionally Senator McCain has done very well among latino voters in Arizona. California latino voters are very similar to Arizona voters. In fact, they move around a lot and they have all kinds of families between Arizona and California. They are also familiar with McCain immigration plans.

Biggest prize Senator McCain has in California is his Big Enchiladas endorsement from non other than Governor "The Terminator". Governor Arnold is still extremely popular in California, also among latino voters. In fact, Governor Arnold received more latino votes than Democrat Senator Feinstein in last election.

If Senator McCain wants to carry California in November election, he needs to get campaign ROLODEX from Governor Arnold and move his campaign headquarter to San Bernardino, California. That's where winning campaign begins for Senator McCain and bye bye for Senator Obama (if he is the nominee).

California voters will trust McCain more than Obama. Obama will loose California in November election.

Posted by: YesWeCanForFREE | March 14, 2008 6:57 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company