Obama camp sees possible win without Ohio, Fla. (right . . . . )

[Wretched Excess]

with all this talk of bounces this morning, it is worth mentioning that he has gotten virtually no bounce at all from clinching the nomination.

[Jim]

with all this talk of bounces this morning, it is worth mentioning that he has gotten virtually no bounce at all from clinching the nomination.

you can thank HRC for that.  I'm hoping she can keep her profile up up through the convention.

[Wretched Excess]

with all this talk of bounces this morning, it is worth mentioning that he has gotten virtually no bounce at all from clinching the nomination.

you can thank HRC for that.  I'm hoping she can keep her profile up up through the convention.

it's either that, or it's the fact that the democrat party doesn't have a coherent, overarching political philosophy, or even a set of philosophies, that unite them, or at least forcibly bind them together.  rather, they are a brawling and unnatural conglomeration of competing special interest groups based on class, gender, race, labor status, sexual orientation, &etc.  And if that is true, then having a primary showdown between representatives of their two biggest special interest groups may not have been a very good idea after all.  the only reason they were as united as they were in 2004 was their hysterical hatred of george bush, and he isn't on the ballot this year (although BHO does try to drag him into the conversation every 10 minutes).

[Jim]

with all this talk of bounces this morning, it is worth mentioning that he has gotten virtually no bounce at all from clinching the nomination.

you can thank HRC for that.  I'm hoping she can keep her profile up up through the convention.

it's either that, or it's the fact that the democrat party doesn't have a coherent, overarching political philosophy, or even a set of philosophies, that unite them, or at least forcibly bind them together.  rather, they are a brawling and unnatural conglomeration of competing special interest groups based on class, gender, race, labor status, sexual orientation, &etc.  And if that is true, then having a primary showdown between representatives of their two biggest special interest groups may not have been a very good idea after all.  the only reason they were as united as they were in 2004 was their hysterical hatred of george bush, and he isn't on the ballot this year (although BHO does try to drag him into the conversation every 10 minutes).

ergo the mantra that McC is just Dubya's 3rd term...

and that he's old

and a baby killer

[WinOne4TheGipper]

If they have to give up both these states, then they are beginning to see they cannot win.

Isn't it the case that if a candidate wins 2 out of the three of Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida, that they've always won the general election?  I've heard it said, but haven't taken the time to research it.

[WinOne4TheGipper]

Dan Rather will have to kneecap McCain to keep McCain from running away with 46 states.

It could change, but as it stands now, given past trends, 49.  All but Vermont.

Vermont?  What about Massachussetts?  Are you assuming that Romney will be the veep?

[franksolich]

Vermont?  What about Massachussetts?  Are you assuming that Romney will be the veep?

No, I'm not assuming anything.

What I'm doing is looking at this from the "what if the worst happens" angle.

What if Barry "Goldwater" Obama flops?

All he's got is Vermont in the bag; he'll take Vermont no matter how badly he flops.

What if John McCain flops?

John McCain's got the backbone, the spinal column, of America--North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas--in the bag (and don't bother asking about certain other states too) no matter how badly he flops.

Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and all the other corrupt machine-driven blue states are up in the air, actually, depending upon how badly Barry "Goldwater" Obama flops.  If he flops big time, they're ours.

I'm not God, but I'm pretty sure Barry "Goldwater" Obama's going to flop.

How badly, it's too early to tell.

I've lived through presidential campaigns since I was a little lad, remember.

[Jim]

If they have to give up both these states, then they are beginning to see they cannot win.

Isn't it the case that if a candidate wins 2 out of the three of Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida, that they've always won the general election?  I've heard it said, but haven't taken the time to research it.

ergo the OTHER obamatron mantra that the old electoral map is meaningless

and that the kids will actually vote this time
and that all you need is hope

[Wretched Excess]

If they have to give up both these states, then they are beginning to see they cannot win.

Isn't it the case that if a candidate wins 2 out of the three of Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida, that they've always won the general election?  I've heard it said, but haven't taken the time to research it.

ergo the OTHER obamatron mantra that the old electoral map is meaningless

and that the kids will actually vote this time
and that all you need is hope

"kids" actually showed up in record numbers in 2004, they were just swallowed up by an overall huge turnout, including by our base.  basically, to actually make a difference, what they need to hope for is that the kids show up, but everyone else stays home.

[WinOne4TheGipper]

Vermont?  What about Massachussetts?  Are you assuming that Romney will be the veep?

No, I'm not assuming anything.

What I'm doing is looking at this from the "what if the worst happens" angle.

What if Barry "Goldwater" Obama flops?

All he's got is Vermont in the bag; he'll take Vermont no matter how badly he flops.

What if John McCain flops?

John McCain's got the backbone, the spinal column, of America--North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas--in the bag (and don't bother asking about certain other states too) no matter how badly he flops.

Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and all the other corrupt machine-driven blue states are up in the air, actually, depending upon how badly Barry "Goldwater" Obama flops.  If he flops big time, they're ours.

I'm not God, but I'm pretty sure Barry "Goldwater" Obama's going to flop.

How badly, it's too early to tell.

I've lived through presidential campaigns since I was a little lad, remember.

I would disagree with you.  New York, Massachussetts, Vermont, Rhode Island, and Connecticut are all pretty much in the Obama column right now.  I don't care how badly Obama flops, those states aren't going to McCain.  

Also, a third party candidate might end up costing McCain some votes in states he would otherwise be expected to win.  For example, at this point, I know that my vote for McCain will largely depend on whether I like his veep pick or not, because I do not like him.  I could very well start looking at the Libertarian and Constitution Parties if McCain doesn't make good decisions in the next few months.

[franksolich]

I would disagree with you.  New York, Massachussetts, Vermont, Rhode Island, and Connecticut are all pretty much in the Obama column right now.  I don't care how badly Obama flops, those states aren't going to McCain.

Key words there, "right now."

You're making the mistake of assuming the political situation is static, that it's going to be the same in November as it is right now.

[Jim]

If they have to give up both these states, then they are beginning to see they cannot win.

Isn't it the case that if a candidate wins 2 out of the three of Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida, that they've always won the general election?  I've heard it said, but haven't taken the time to research it.

ergo the OTHER obamatron mantra that the old electoral map is meaningless

and that the kids will actually vote this time
and that all you need is hope

"kids" actually showed up in record numbers in 2004, they were just swallowed up by an overall huge turnout, including by our base.  basically, to actually make a difference, what they need to hope for is that the kids show up, but everyone else stays home.

you sure about that ?  my recollection at the time was that it was about the same as a percentage of potential ones.   partly a matter of college kids going back to school and no longer near the voting booth and the usual apathy sinkng in once the campaigns start going (getting negative and promises start getting un-promised etc).

relying on the kids is like relying on spitballs to hold off the Huns.

[WinOne4TheGipper]

I would disagree with you.  New York, Massachussetts, Vermont, Rhode Island, and Connecticut are all pretty much in the Obama column right now.  I don't care how badly Obama flops, those states aren't going to McCain.

Key words there, "right now."

You're making the mistake of assuming the political situation is static, that it's going to be the same in November as it is right now.

By saying right now, I meant that you could take at least those states to the bank.  You're right, anything could change, but if they do, I see no reason why Vermont is any more likely to stay with Obama than all the other states that are at least as liberal as it is.

[Wretched Excess]

If they have to give up both these states, then they are beginning to see they cannot win.

Isn't it the case that if a candidate wins 2 out of the three of Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida, that they've always won the general election?  I've heard it said, but haven't taken the time to research it.

ergo the OTHER obamatron mantra that the old electoral map is meaningless

and that the kids will actually vote this time
and that all you need is hope

"kids" actually showed up in record numbers in 2004, they were just swallowed up by an overall huge turnout, including by our base.  basically, to actually make a difference, what they need to hope for is that the kids show up, but everyone else stays home.

you sure about that ?  my recollection at the time was that it was about the same as a percentage of potential ones.   partly a matter of college kids going back to school and no longer near the voting booth and the usual apathy sinkng in once the campaigns start going (getting negative and promises start getting un-promised etc).

relying on the kids is like relying on spitballs to hold off the Huns.

well, it was inarguably "up", but like a lot of things how much it was up depends on how you want to dice the numbers.

as I recall, 18-24 was up double digits, but 18-29 was up even more than that.  depends on what you want to call "young", I suppose.  but yeah, turnout was was up across the board in 2004, including the younger demographics.  now, was it the tsunami that they were predicting?  no, probably not.  will it be this election cycle?  hard to say.  the dems have been predicting a flood of 18-2(whatever) year olds for the last three elections.  the numbers in the primaries were up dramatically for that demographic, but trying to extrapolate the turnout for the general election based on primary turnout is fraught with peril.

but I certainly wouldn't arbitrarily write them off as "no shows" at this stage.

[Jim]

If they have to give up both these states, then they are beginning to see they cannot win.

Isn't it the case that if a candidate wins 2 out of the three of Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida, that they've always won the general election?  I've heard it said, but haven't taken the time to research it.

ergo the OTHER obamatron mantra that the old electoral map is meaningless

and that the kids will actually vote this time
and that all you need is hope

"kids" actually showed up in record numbers in 2004, they were just swallowed up by an overall huge turnout, including by our base.  basically, to actually make a difference, what they need to hope for is that the kids show up, but everyone else stays home.

you sure about that ?  my recollection at the time was that it was about the same as a percentage of potential ones.   partly a matter of college kids going back to school and no longer near the voting booth and the usual apathy sinkng in once the campaigns start going (getting negative and promises start getting un-promised etc).

relying on the kids is like relying on spitballs to hold off the Huns.

well, it was inarguably "up", but like a lot of things how much it was up depends on how you want to dice the numbers.

as I recall, 18-24 was up double digits, but 18-29 was up even more than that.  depends on what you want to call "young", I suppose.  but yeah, turnout was was up across the board in 2004, including the younger demographics.  now, was it the tsunami that they were predicting?  no, probably not.  will it be this election cycle?  hard to say.  the dems have been predicting a flood of 18-2(whatever) year olds for the last three elections.  the numbers in the primaries were up dramatically for that demographic, but trying to extrapolate the turnout for the general election based on primary turnout is fraught with peril.

but I certainly wouldn't arbitrarily write them off as "no shows" at this stage.

2000 http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/voting/p20-542/tab04b.xls
2002 http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/voting/p20-552/tab05-2.xls
2004 http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/voting/cps2004/tab05-2.xls

2000 tot 23915 reg 12122 voted 8635
2002 tot 27277 reg 10470 voted 4697
2004 tot 27808 reg 14334 voted 11639

ok, when you're right you're right, percentages high
but numbers low, perhaps thats what I was remembering
but even if you quadruple them would that change anything ?

BHO is going to have to have every single black show up and vote 90+% for him to have a chance at offsetting what he loses because he's who he is.
2004 tot

[Hawkgirl]

No way will he win Florida...the majority of South Floridians will go to McCain because of his age (we have lots of senior citizens) and because he's not Black.
The cubans in Little Havana will vote R.
As for North Florida, NO WAY will they go Democratic...they still fly the Confederate Flag on the turnpike, have a "warning" sign after the GA/FLA border which states "Floridians will use force if you tresspass"  (I'm paraphrasing, but you get the gist).  We are strong protectors of the 2nd ammendment here..no way will a socialist stand a chance.

[Rebel]

No way will he win Florida...the majority of South Floridians will go to McCain because of his age (we have lots of senior citizens) and because he's not Black.
The cubans in Little Havana will vote R.
As for North Florida, NO WAY will they go Democratic...they still fly the Confederate Flag on the turnpike, have a "warning" sign after the GA/FLA border which states "Floridians will use force if you tresspass"  (I'm paraphrasing, but you get the gist).  We are strong protectors of the 2nd ammendment here..no way will a socialist stand a chance.

Yeah, the Pan Handle and South Ga might as well be their own state. 

I'll be down in Mexico Beach this weekend on a fishing trip.

[Hawkgirl]

No way will he win Florida...the majority of South Floridians will go to McCain because of his age (we have lots of senior citizens) and because he's not Black.
The cubans in Little Havana will vote R.
As for North Florida, NO WAY will they go Democratic...they still fly the Confederate Flag on the turnpike, have a "warning" sign after the GA/FLA border which states "Floridians will use force if you tresspass"  (I'm paraphrasing, but you get the gist).  We are strong protectors of the 2nd ammendment here..no way will a socialist stand a chance.

Yeah, the Pan Handle and South Ga might as well be their own state. 

I'll be down in Mexico Beach this weekend on a fishing trip.

North Georgia wouldn't vote for Obama either.  I have a vacation house up there in Dawson county.  I'll give someone $20 if they can find a black shopper at the Walmart off of 400...