Dems, Reps Agree: Obama Tougher Opponent for McCain

[Ramo]

Unfortunately, popular vote doen't matter; electoral vote does. And since Obama and Clinton are both likely to win all the states Al Gore won in 2000, what really matters is the ability to win either Ohio or Florida; Clinton still has a better shot at beating McCain in those two states than Obama does.

Clinton's stronger in those states, but Obama's stronger in other swing states (CO, NV, VA, IA). Also, it's likely that Obama would be better funded. After all, Obama at least doubled Clinton's take during his worst month of the campaign...

My position all along has been that the Dem will win, but that Obama has longer coat-tails, particularly in areas that have competitive or semi-competitive Senate races. VA, CO, AK, NH, MN, OR, and NC would probably benefit from Obama, and only KY from Clinton. NM, ME, MS, LA, and TX are probably washes...

There's an off chance that Clinton could be better for the House (lots of competitive races in NY, NJ, OH, and FL), but I don't think the contrast is that big (since there are competitive races everywhere, and Obama would be more inclined to compete in a broader playing field), and racking up a larger House majority is just gravy for the time being.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Ramo
My position all along has been that the Dem will win, but that Obama has longer coat-tails, particularly in areas that have competitive or semi-competitive Senate races. VA, CO, AK, NH, MN, OR, and NC would probably benefit from Obama, and only KY from Clinton. NM, ME, MS, LA, and TX are probably washes...

There's an off chance that Clinton could be better for the House (lots of competitive races in NY, NJ, OH, and FL)...

Yeesh, you pay that much attention to local races? What do you do for a living, just OOC?

[SlowwHand]

Clinton isn't going to beat Obama, and Obama isn't going to beat McCain. I'll tell you again, there are 2 choices.
A) Hope McCain does well, because that's what's best for us, or
B) Hope the Democrats have their stuff together in 4 years if he doesn't succeed.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Clinton isn't going to beat Obama, and Obama isn't going to beat McCain. I'll tell you again, there are 2 choices.
A) Hope McCain does well, because that's what's best for us, or
B) Hope the Democrats have their stuff together in 4 years if he doesn't succeed.

The election is several months from now. Several months ago, as it happens, you seemed pretty sure that Clinton was going to beat Obama, and that McCain was toast (http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...13#post5137013).

Predicting the outcome with certainty this far out is a fool's game.

[SlowwHand]

I never in my life picked Clinton. Never. Period.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

You picked her. Not as in "I want her to win the nomination," but as in "I think she wil win the nomination." It's right there in your post.

[Dinner]

I voted for Bill in 1996 but was to young to vote in 1992.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly

Predicting the outcome with certainty this far out is a fool's game.

Bosh and Igloodude seem to be the only folks in that thread with any chance of winning any prizes.

[Ramo]

Yeesh, you pay that much attention to local races? What do you do for a living, just OOC?

Grad student studying fluid dynamics. I spend (and therefore waste) vast amounts of time in front of a computer...

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly


Nah. They're going to seat Florida -- Dean has said as much. And it's a brilliant move. It'll give Hillary a few more delegates, but not enough to matter. It'll add to her popular vote total, but not enough for her to pass Obama there, either (especially since her formerly commanding lead in PA has collapsed to the point that it's now barely outside the margin of error). Once they seat Florida, Hillary still loses and now can't claim she was robbed. Dean

I'll believe it when I see it.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
Nah. They're going to seat Florida -- Dean has said as much. And it's a brilliant move. It'll give Hillary a few more delegates, but not enough to matter. It'll add to her popular vote total, but not enough for her to pass Obama there, either (especially since her formerly commanding lead in PA has collapsed to the point that it's now barely outside the margin of error). Once they seat Florida, Hillary still loses and now can't claim she was robbed. Dean

Doesn't that also put Obama further away from winning on pledged delegates if the excluded states come in? What happens to the people that voted in Michigan? Are the votes they cast relegated to the trash?

[chequita guevara]

I voted SWP in 92 and 96. I voted Nader in 2000, and SP in 2004. I will be voting SP again in 2008.

[Dinner]

My complete voting history: Couldn't vote in 1992 but if I could it likely would have gone to Ross Perot. 1996 I voted Clinton, 2000 Gore, 2004 Kerry, and in 2008 I'll be voting Obama. If Hillary swindles her way into the nomination then I'll be casting my useless vote for the Green Party.

[David Floyd]

I actually think McCain has the election sewn up. Remember, popular vote does matter, in individual states, and if enough Democrats stay home rather than voting because they are sick and tired of the political infighting amongst the Democrats, then "Blue States" such as Nevada and New Mexico could swing to the Republicans. The longer the Democratic nomination battle goes, the better for McCain.

If Obama wins (I think we can discount Clinton at this point), this country is S-C-R-E-W-E-D. How does a trillion dollars in new spending sound? It sounds like a ****ing disaster, to me, but that's the level of what Obama is proposing. Obama in the White House would result in the further shredding of the Constitution, a larger deficit, an unimaginably conciliatory foreign policy, and a weakening of the US military.

I won't go so far as to say that teh terrorists want Obama to win, but I guarantee you that McCain would be a lot stronger fighting international terrorism - particularly state sponsored terrorism - than would Obama.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Doesn't that also put Obama further away from winning on pledged delegates if the excluded states come in? What happens to the people that voted in Michigan? Are the votes they cast relegated to the trash?

Because the Dems use a proprtional method rather than a winner-take-all method to award delegates, Hillary's win in Florida will only slightly close the pledged delegate gap between her and Obama. Obama's currently 162 delegates ahead of Hillary in the pledged delegate race, and seating Florida will only close that gap slightly; Obama will still have a lead of well over 100 pledged delegates going into the convention.

Michigan's a different story, for two reasons. First, unlike Florida, Obama wasn't even on the ballot there, because he, like Hillary, had agreed with the DNC decision not to seat the delegates and pledged not to seek them. Second, unlike Florida, the governor of Michigan is a Democrat, and Dems control the House; so Michigan Democrats have no recourse to Florida Dems' (absurd, in my opinion) claim that they never meant to defy the DNC and were tricked into it by those wascally Wepublicans. Florida's situation is messy enough to warrant a second look, but Michigan Democrats well and truly f*cked themselves. Not only should the DNC tell them this in no uncertain terms, but Gov. Granholm and House Speaker Dillon should publicly acknowledge that the blame rests entirely with them and that they agree they should not be let off the hook. Pissed off Michigan Dems should take their revenge on their own state politicians, not the DNC.