"Suddenly it's looking like all the race-baiting and voter disenfranchisement and piling on the candidate winning in the big electoral states wasn't such a good idea after all"

Yes, hootowl, because one only needs to win a few big states to win the whole thing. None of the other states (like MI) are important.

Race-baiting and voter disenfranchisement? What the hell are you talking about? Are you a poor wounded PUMA? Wanna talk about baiting - the Palin choice was pure bait and nothing else for Xian fundies and soccer moms. (Republican men have been engaged in a different sort of -bating...)

What you call piling on is known in the real world as running an effective campaign.

You've posted your daily drivel here. You can collect your check from the McCain campaign and move on to another blog now.

Obama's strenghts in Michigan will be the Detroit area and the I-94 corridor. Count Grand Rapids (radical Republican stronghold) and all points north out for Obama. The state might very well go for McCain and for that it will have itself to thank when unemployment there reaches 15 percent under a withering Palin Administration in 4 years.

"Yes, hootowl, because one only needs to win a few big states to win the whole thing. None of the other states (like MI) are important."

- I was being sarcastic.

"Last I looked obama was not even competitive in the south, southwest, lower midwest and entire rocky mountain region."

- How long ago did you look? The south will probably not go for a Democrat in the next 50 years and they sure as hell won't elect a black man. (Many experts thing that Obama's race costs him about 6 percentage points.) The south and lower midwest are hardly bastions of intelligence, so none of this is surprising. However, NV, CO, and NM are reasonably in play.

"I'm not even going to argue about the obvious race-baiting and sexism the Messiah and his vapid supporters engaged and continue to engage in. It was not only despicable but in the end the alienation it created I still suspect will the Messiah."

- Who the fuck is this Messiah you talk about? The only people who use that term are angry PUMA's and moronic right-wingers. In the real world, Obama's supporters see him as someone who is far from perfect, but a dramatically better choice than the only other option (sorry indies) who will give us more of what we have had the last 8 years, and that's if we're lucky.

"The fact that even in the midst of the nations second Great Depression McCain still has a very good chance of being the next President proves it."

- Proves what? If anything, it proves how stupid people are. If an all-out Depression is a certainty, then perhaps Obama would be better off losing. McCain sure won't know what the hell to do other than remind us that he's some sort of a Maverick.

If Obama wins and we slide into a full-on Depression the likes of which we haven't seen since the '30's, people will blame him and either vote him out in 4 years or demand a recall (or worese...). There will also probably be some "look what happens when a minorty runs things" sentiment. Never mind that there isn't a circuit breaker in the wall of the Oval Office that the incoming President can just reset and all will be dandy. Never mind that this crisis has been years, if not decades in the making.

If things go totally to shit, the next President will bear the blame. To that extent, I said Obama might be better off losing. That's very different from saying America would be better off with a McCain victory.

Okay, hootowl, in your world it is inconceiveable that a segment of white Amreica (perhaps large enough in some regions to flip the electoral tally) will not vote for Obama because he's black - and you think I'm out of touch?

For those of you who have trouble reading English, I never said I was hoping for an Obama loss, only that if a total meltdown is indeed on the way, he might be better off losing than bearing the brunt of the blame for it. Again, this is very different from saying this would be remotely good for America.

... do so out of a solid understanding of economic policy (HA!) or did they just do so because Main Street was up in arms (as if Main Street has a solid understanding of how credit works on a global scale...) in an election year?

Does anybody know how many NAY votes came from Reps up for reelection?