Letters to the Editor
-
Who Writes 10 Letters Per Day, Every Day for Twelve Days ?
It might be someone with a lot on her mind. It might be someone paid by the word. It might be someone with a lot of time on her hands. It might be KateTex.
-
Quite possibly, YES!
HRC has won CA, NY, TX, OH and other states that tally 263 electoral votes in all. Obie has won in states that total 193. And most of those are hard core red reep states, that will not go his way in the fall. They will go to McCain, because the white conservatives in those states will outnumber the blacks that went for Obie in the primaries. THAT is your basic math!
standing ovation. Good God. Till now I thought I was the ONLY one around who still believed in the associative law of arithmetic.
re California and New York haven't elected a Republican in decades. Are you claiming they'll go for McCain if Obama takes the Democratic nod, just because Hillary won the primary? On what basis do you make this claim?
NY: Quite possibly yes.
CA: Definitely a swing state still. Most voters are independent, McCain fares well with indepedents and hispanics, who will decide the electoral fate of California by any reason. Hillary fares very well with hispanics but not Obama. Case in point even in Illinois Obama only got 50% of the hispanic vote and on the national avg he only gets about 15%. Hispanics are hard to poll and they generally don't particpate in leftie talk boards. Do you really want to take it on faith that despite some compelling evidence to the contrary that they will switch their allegiance to Obama. The same is true of NJ incidentally, another state Obama lost with a very large hispanic composition.
Now can any Dem win an election without California and New Jersey. I sure as hell don't see how, but if you do show me the math.
NY: Well, if you hadn't noticed Mrs. Clinton is extremely popular in NY, that's ALL of NY, not just NYC and composes a lot of independents and Republicans that well could vote McCain instead. NYC, excluding Long Island is the only solidly Dem area of NY, and if you remember that's the place that had Mayor Guiliani and now Mayor Bloomberg (R) and (R). There is no guarantee that NY is going to go Dem. It didn't for McGovern, Mondale, etc.
So considering that we're witnessing a campaign of unprecedented vitriol, and IMO an intraparty racical division that may never heal, do you really want to just take it on faith that Obama can count on winning these important states that he lost handily in the primary?
I wouldn't.
-
This should put an end to the, "Obama lost California and New York," bullcrap
These polls were taken March 6th.
Here is how Obama fares in the General if the contest happened today:
http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/2008/03/06/electoral-math-as-of-030608-obama-280-mccain-258/
And here is how Hillary would fare:
http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/2008/03/06/electoral-math-as-of-030608-clinton-276-mccain-262/
Note that Obama wins California by 11 points, and New York by 14 points.
Furthermore, note that Texas is actually only separated by one point if Obama is the nominee (47% to 46%), while Clinton gets smashed by seven points. In my lifetime, the vote in Texas has never been that close (I live in Austin). It usually goes about 60/40 for the right winger.
I fully expect that you loons out there that think McCain is gonna win CA and NY are gonna keep at it. Expect to see these polls thrown in your face each and every time.
-
@ShawnWM
Okay, so now we have some hard numbers versus your armchair speculation.
What say you?
-
Poll Data
The problem, Iconoclast, is that the difference between Hillary and Barack's performance against McCain in that poll you cite is well, well, within the margin of error of the poll. So the poll really doesn't show anything.
The second problem is that the election will not be held today. Voters from New York are much more likely to be shifted away from Obama than from Clinton, whom they know for years and love. Obama may be in the infatuation stage with many NY voters right now. By contrast, they've been married to Clinton for years and will renew their vows next time.
-
Weasel words
The problem, Iconoclast, is that the difference between Hillary and Barack's performance against McCain in that poll you cite is well, well, within the margin of error of the poll. So the poll really doesn't show anything.
Way to handwave. You claim that Obama can lose CA and NY in the general. I point out that he has solid leads of 11% and 14% in each. So you try to obfuscate and point out that the difference between Obama and Clinton's support is within the error margin, as if that has anything to do with his performance vs McCain, which, as you know is well outside the margin of error.
The reason the difference in support in those states between Obama and Clinton is within the margin of error is because they're both Democratic states, and are going to vote Democratic in the general election, something you'd admit if you were honest. Instead:
The second problem is that the election will not be held today. Voters from New York are much more likely to be shifted away from Obama than from Clinton, whom they know for years and love. Obama may be in the infatuation stage with many NY voters right now. By contrast, they've been married to Clinton for years and will renew their vows next time.
Groundless speculation. Yes, Clinton is loved. McCain is not. You're just making up stories out of whole cloth to fit your conclusion, that Obama is going to lose the general. Even when faced with hard statistics showing that you are wrong, you don't give up.
Ya, okay, the election isn't today. You don't know what is going to happen any more than anyone else does, you just want your horse to win.
She's out, man. Get over it, and come on over to our side of the fence. We'll welcome you with open arms.
-
Kate Tex
"...Obama's stance(s) on the war seem patently political, calculated moves intended to advance his career with regard for ethics and lives lost coming in a poor second. He's gotten a lot of mileage from the Iraq business, but only because he's chosen to beat Hillary Clinton to death with it, with complicity on the part of the media, and the willingness of his supporters to do a certain amount of squinting."
Oh, so, in the middle of a patriotic fervor so great that Bush had a 90 pct approval rating and while we were fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan with the full backing of a nation, Barack Obama made a career move by opposing the administration backed proposal to invade Iraq--and ticking off the reasons for his stance?
Great googamooga...what'd he have? A crystal ball?
And Hillary? Signing off on a war that she was against before she was for it [in essence, her rationale for signing up on Bush's War Resolution] along with 76 other senators and a majority of Congressman?
Oh, yeah...that was a profile in courage.