Clinton's Swing-State Advantage

[Toro]

What does qft mean?

quoted for truth

 

[maneal]

Wow... I missed a lot haha.

Ok, lets clear a few things up.

If Clinton gets the nomination, she is a better match-up against McCain. The problem with any national polls at this time is that:

1) No Democratic Nominee
2) No VP's

I will agree that Arkansas would be a "swing state" if Clinton was the nominee.

The Problem with Obama is that he can not win the swing states that Hillary has won. We can see this by the large amounts of voters who voted against Hillary (who is supposedly "out" of the race) in those states. According to exit polls (which polled actual voters) a good amount of Hillary voters will not vote for Obama (especially in swing states) and a number of voters will not vote for Clinton. This poses a problem for the Democrats in November. Now this could change with a VP selection, but I can't see a Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton ticket.

Obama will take an electoral beating in the General Election in states that he needs to win (Penn, W. Virginia, Ohio) as well as possible losses in New Mexico and New Hampshire. The polls are often skewed by the liberal media who takes them. The reality is simple: Democrats can't beat a Moderate who shares values of both sides. Even though I am part of the base of the Republican Party (True Conservative), and even though McCain's nomination alienates the base, I do know that the Moderate section of the party, the independents, and the TRUE (now considered moderate) Democrats will turn away from the ultra-liberals and vote for McCain. He shares values that moderate democrats and other centrists share.

Let's also remember that the Democratic Primaries are not over yet, and even if Florida and Michigan are counted the way they voted, NEITHER of them will have the EITHER magic number needed to clinch the nomination. Then the back-room deals begin. Cases for why each candidate is better than the other, etc.

Let's not get haughty and say this is over, because its not.

 

[Ravi]

I'd like to think the DNC would come to its senses and convince them to run as Clinton/Obama and not Obama/Clinton because, IMNSHO, not only would that be an unbeatable combination but it would also guarantee 16 years of Dems in the White House.

But I seriously doubt that the DNC can tie its own shoelaces much less come up with an actual strategy to push its agenda.

 

[Nate Peele]

I am going to take a break from my usual political conversation to talk about the 5th game of the NBA’s Western Conference finals which are happenning tonight. The Lakers lead the Spurs 3 games to 1, but regardless of who wins tonight in LA the Spurs should be the Western Conference Champions because they have the best chance of beating the Eastern Conference Champs. Furthermore, if David Stern and the NBA do not let the Spurs represent the West I will not watch the finals.

1. The Spurs have more experience in the finals - The Spurs have been in the finals in 3 of the last 5 years. They know what it takes to win. The Lakers will have to learn how to win.

2. The Lakers rely on a running game - The running game is a fickle style which is usually not successful in the playoffs. The Spurs have a better half court game. ESPN acknowledged this in picking the Spurs to beat the Lakers 4 games to 2 http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playof...ingSpursLakers

2. All fouls should count - At the end of Game 4, Brett Barry of the Spurs was bumped by the Lakers Derrek Fisher and no foul was called. After the game the NBA apologized for the non-foul. The Spurs lost the game 93-91, but if the foul had been called Barry is an 82% free throw shooter. He would have made the shots and the Spurs would have won. This game must be awarded to the Spurs.

3. Spur fans will not support the Lakers - Los Angeles is a team with fans all over the country. These fans love basketball and will watch the finals no matter who is in it. The Spurs are from a smaller city in Texas, if the Spurs are eliminated their fans will not watch the finals.

In the interest of fairness, the Spurs must be crowned Western Champs. I hope David Stern will act before things get ugly. Anyway, that’s my sport rant. Now I can get back to discussing politics.

 

[maneal]

I'd like to think the DNC would come to its senses and convince them to run as Clinton/Obama and not Obama/Clinton because, IMNSHO, not only would that be an unbeatable combination but it would also guarantee 16 years of Dems in the White House.

But I seriously doubt that the DNC can tie its own shoelaces much less come up with an actual strategy to push its agenda.

I don't think this would be an unbeatable ticket. The moderate Democrats may still pick moderate McCain over Liberal Hillary / Obama, in any combination.

Plus, just like the Democratic Run Congress currently, 4 or even 8 years of dems would prove why we dont elect them to the presidency often (in recent history in their current state).