Hillary wins OH, TX, RIFollow

Electoral-Vote.com has an interesting map up today (culled from SurveyUSA) showing individual McCain vs Democrat X polling in each state rather than national polling. Both Clinton & Obama would defeat McCain* but the methods are a little different. Neither one picks up "southern" states although Clinton gets Florida. Obama picks up a wider array of states including the entire West Coast (Clinton loses Wash & Ore), Colorado, N. Dakota, Michigan, Iowa & Virgina. Both win the Democratic bastion states of New York, Illinois & California and both win Ohio. Strangely, it looks as though Obama loses his quasi-"home" state of Kansas but ties in Nebraska. Clinton's other big score over Obama besides FL is Pennsylvania.

It backs up* the common assertation that either Democrat will win the blue anchor states and dispels my notion* that Obama might pick up some southern states via African-American turn-out. Obama's map looks a lot "safer" in that Clinton's victory depends entirely on a Florida win. I'm not sure what the state polling there looked like. (Edit: The SurveyUSA site shows her up 51-42 in FL)


*Yes, it's a poll from seven months out. Yes, I know things can easily change.

Edited, Mar 7th 2008 8:31am by Jophiel

By Jack Layton? No one takes him or his party serious on a national level. Especially after their debacle provincially in Ontario years ago.


And fixed.

Obama is the best choice for diplomacy.

Although Foreign Policy crisis are important, we have a Domestic crisis going on between Democrats and republicans that will stagnate the government. Hillary is one of the problem. She will work against republicans just because they are republican...Obama will listen and consider their ideas. Its funny how that approach is core to being an american and yet so alien to traditional republicans and democrats.

Torrential

In other election news, physicist and political novice Bill Foster (D) defeated Jim Oberweis (R) in a special election for ex-House Speaker Dennis Hastert's seat. Given the strong Republican leanings of the district, it was an exceptional upset.

Edited, Mar 8th 2008 9:57pm by Jophiel

Well, this comment just gave me whiplash...

Either you've completely drunk the Koolaide and honestly believe that a policy of appeasement is the right "choice", or you have no clue what you're talking about...





The left does not compromise. At all. That's the problem.




Yup. But I don't think you understand the underlying forces pushing her to do this.




What on earth gives you this idea? He is farther to the left then Hillary. He is more liberal. He's adopted almost word for word the policies and ideology of the farthest left political groups. His foreign policy? Right out of the far left anti-war guys. His economic platform? Right out of the labor union and far left "entitlements for all" school of thought. His education platform? Practically a cut and paste from the teachers unions. Environment? Right off the far left environmentalist sites.


He's not going to be a unifying force. Unless you think that "unifying" means forcing everyone to live in a world that adopts far left ideas of course!



Er? Apparently, you and I disagree completely on what is "core to being an American"...

He's cheating on you!

To massive uproar and anger from "the left".

I didn't say that Democrats didn't compromise. I said "the left", as in "those crazy liberal folks who give the Dems power".

Over the last 15 years, the political environment on the left has gotten so "us versus them" that Dem politicians are forced to adopt increasingly more radical positions in order to appease their base.

Why do you think Lieberman got pushed out? Because he wasn't sufficiently Democrat in his thinking? Or because he didn't follow along with the increasingly "liberal or nothing" ideology that has increasingly taken control of your side of the political spectrum.



Yup. Exactly my point. The proof is in the pudding Smash. Some talkative folks on the Right bash Republicans for being moderate, but "the people" on the right apparently don't agree with them, and voted in an extremely moderate Conservative like McCain to be their nominee.

On the Left, as you say, it's exactly the opposite.


Which side is causing the rift again? And what on earth makes anyone think Obama is the solution? He's the "golden boy" of the very people creating that rift.

Most of the far left is Greens anyway. Or they're socialists but call themselves Independents to avoid getting slammed for being commies.

I prefer to refer to myself as a "dirty socialist".

Nexa

Um... Whatever Smash. Doesn't change the point one bit. Barack Obama appeals to the most liberal of Democrats. Those most outraged about the war in Iraq. Those most opposed to the Bush tax cuts. Those most desirous of nationalized health care. Those most in favor of full gay marriage. Those most pro-choice. Those most in favor of significant policy changes in the face of global warming.

I could go on, but you get the idea. Basically. People who think like you.


Now. Understanding that, how can anyone in their right mind suggest that Obama somehow represents a move to heal the rift between Republicans and Democrats? His core support comes directly from groups that are most opposed to positions that Republicans care about, and most in favor of those that Republicans dislike the most.

He's arguably the most divisive candidate in play right now. By a good margin. Do you seriously disagree with this?

*snif*

Ah, G. On occasion, you tickle my funny.

Um... Whatever Smash. Doesn't change the point one bit. Barack Obama appeals to the most liberal of Democrats. Those most outraged about the war in Iraq. Those most opposed to the Bush tax cuts. Those most desirous of nationalized health care. Those most in favor of full gay marriage. Those most pro-choice. Those most in favor of significant policy changes in the face of global warming.

I don't find him very appealing at all, neither does anyone as far "left" as me. I find him more appealing than Clinton as candidate, is that what you were failing to communicate there? I don't think that's much of a statement, really, as vitrually everyone but 55 year old Catholic women find him more appealing than her as a candidate. That's why he's going to be the nominee. I find him appealing only partially because he's more in line with what I believe on many issues than she is but OVERWHELMINGLY MORE SO because he'll motivate new voters, carry downticket races expanding the majority in Congress, and increase the standard of living and liberty for everyone in the country more than any other candidate.

Isn't that the point, after all? There's no real self interest for either of us in a Presidential election. You being a middle class armchair general ***** without the wealth to be effected by economic policy or defense policy who doesn't care about any issues, and me being an anarcho-syndicalist who will be disappointed by anyone to the right of Hugo Chavez, it's really about what's best for the country.

That's obviously Obamma by any objective measure. He's young and vital and a gifted orator. His race will gain massive amounts of capital internationally, and can be used diplomatically as a club by State in many parts of the world. He has few real practical policy differences with McCain if we're going to be honest. Both of them will essentially do whatever the Fed wants on the economy, both of them aren't going to withdraw troops from Iraq in any substantial measure. I suppose he'll appoint SCOTUS justices more likely to uphold civil liberties and the right to privacy, which could be a problem for a neo-fascist brain washing victim like you who blindly supports mornic parts of your party platform, but aside from that, it's about style more than substance here.

Obama's style makes the US stronger. You know this, of course, but are too terrified to ever admit it. It's ok, little one, we know when you're in that voting booth alone, you'll pull the lever for the brother. It's all good.