Does anyone seriously expect Obama to lose New York, Massachusetts and California?

I find the idea that he would do to losing them in the primary rather amusing. Are all the Democrats there going to actually vote for McCain? Unless you buy into something that ridiculous then why does it matter what states he wins in the primary?

...candidate who can deliver those, so yea, I guess that's what they're saying. I find it rather amusing myself.

moreso with Obama. Also, Obama helps out down-ticket candidates much more EVERYWHERE, whereas many of them DO NOT WANT TO CAMPAIGN WITH HILLARY.

x

OH-Against a dem opponent.
PA-Crystal ball
FL-

In 2000 and 2004 we went Democratic, in fact PA had more counties go for Kerry than they did for Gore and in 2006 We replaced Senator Rick Sans-scrotum and Congresswoman Malicious Hart with Bob Casey and Jason Altmiere respectively. Whoever the dem nominee is there is good grassroots democratic organization around here, it will likely go to a Dem no matter who it is in 08!

Where the anchorman says that the country might elect its first black president and they cut to a scene of a quiet suburban McMansion lined street and everyone runs out of their houses and join in this big screaming herd running down the street.

...your point? :shrug:

What will McCrazy win?

Better question.

Any many others i know feel the same. In NY.

Hillary.

I can understand people not wanting to vote for them, but I am truly interested in how Obama indicated to you, your family and friends that he's not interested in your votes.

Why should I be interested in anyone who has disdain for a group I belong to? I will see if I can locate exactly what he said but it was words to the effect that baby boomers haven't any value and their time is done. It is hard to vote for someone who insults you.When you insult a voter you are telling them you don't want their vote.

I found quotes like this from Dreams from my Father offensive:
He states that while he found it "painful"to entertain a politics that indulges "rage towards whites generally" because it "contradicted the morality my mother taught me that character counts more than race and distinctions have to be made between individuals of goodwill and those who wished me ill". He states that this framework of morality his mother taught him was"perhaps a framework that blacks in this country could no longer afford.".

In another place he writes"For many blacks times were chronically desperate.If nationalism could create a strong and effective insularity, deliver on its promise of self respect, then the hurt it might cause well meaning whites, or the inner turmoil it caused people like me. would be of little consequence."

If he feels that hurt he may cause me is of "little consequence" , I don't really see how that is encouraging me to vote for him.

I was proud to support John Edwards because he pledged to stand up to the corporations and the health care industry. I was shocked and insulted, when, in Iowa, in a variation of John's "seat at the table comments, Barack , instead of supporting those ideas, "guaranteed "corporations and the health care industry a "seat at the table".As a person who is struggling with a health condition the fact that he, unlike Edwards, is willing to start negotiating with these corporations who victimize us, by giving them something, causes me to feel insulted and betrayed. To begin by giving means, as John Edwards said, "they will eat all the food". This is not the way to bargain. To give parity to our abusers is saying you don't want our vote.

He also wants a continuation of the "reach across the aisle " politics that have been proved ineffective with Pelosi and Reid.He wasn't even able to do it himself in the US Senate.
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. "Reaching across the aisle doesn't work." That is why we are "still" in Iraq. Barack isn't an agent of "change" he is the status quo in a different guise. It is insulting to think that he feels we don't recognize that.

No. I don't feel Barack wants my vote. He wants to be elected it is true but not by people like me. People such as myself should just crawl off and disappear.That is the way he makes me feel.

Until he left the race, Edwards was my preferred candidate, as well, though I loathed his 2002 AUMF/Iraq vote (especially having failed to read the full NIE), largely for the same reasons you state. Edwards was the only candidate truly speaking to the root cause of our problems, and with the strength I've been longing to see in Democrats.

Sometime during the campaign, I heard Nader on The Young Turks quote Frederick Douglass, and thought it nailed JE's campaign perfectly:

"If there is no struggle there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom and yet depreciate agitation…want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightening. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters…. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will." -- Frederick Douglass, 1857

I've taken a different PE (post-Edwards) path, but respect your choice -- however much I'm pained by it. I prefer Obama's campaign mostly because of its modeling of the Dean 50 State Strategy -- its effort to broaden the Democratic Party, leaving no states or elections uncontested, reaching out to independents and disaffected Republicans (I don't think anyone expects the 25%ers to budge, nor do I really want them on my side). Short of John's full frontal assault on the powers-that-be, the attempt to build a working majority (following the 50 State approach) is something I believe can work.

And I hear your comments regarding Obama's statements, and I appreciate your relating them, but, being a different person with different experiences, I have a differing impression of them -- but certainly won't presume to argue the merits of either.

Peace and respect.

pained by the situation i find myself in. I really wish there was some way I could find to be able to support Obama if he should be the nominee and thus far, I haven't found a reason to enable me to do so.

The thoughts I shared are only part of the reasons I have problems with him but those were the few I wanted to share.
Thank you again for the willingness to listen.

Should you care to annoy yourself, here's a commentary I just read on Obama that I thought insightful, but also interesting in that its author makes some "boomer"-related comments of the nature, I believe, that seem to have caused you "angst", shall we say, and that I find ignorant (at least in my inference of their meaning).

Here's the direct link, so you can avoid the GD:P vitriol, should you care to read it ...

An hour and a half with Barack Obama

It's by Marc Andreessen, co-developer of the first widely-used web browser, NCSA/Mosaic. (this means something to geeks, and makes us nostalgic; and doesn't really mean his opinion is any more valuable than your dog's, errr... cat's)

I voted for him and so did my entire family. So I guess our votes cancel out yours, huh?

I doubt you and your family would anyway.
So that is a surprise to nobody.

nomination. That illustrates the impasse we are at.

he has far more support than the few in your family and few others who say they will stay home. the other candidates sure didn't get their support either. certainly not more than Obama that they are the only thing that matters.

It is around 20% on both sides. Either way, it could cost us.

this always happens. there are always a few people who will not vote for a candidate if their candidate dind't make it.

it's happening with McCain, Bush, Kerry and every person that runs.

so far Obama is winning far more than any of the few examples people post about their friends or family staying home.

it sure isn't showing in the election results.

vote for the nominee". I have never seen such high numbers. 20+ % on both sides? I have never seen such lifelong Dems involved. My point is folks who would never ever consider doing such a thing are now considering it.And in a year we could win. It is a very different situation.For myself, I have never before even "considered" not voting for the nominee. In 30+ years. Ever.It isn't showing yet because the popular primary vote is still close and folks are still voting for their candidates.What counts is the GE.

this year there is an even greater increase in turnout. so for all the assholes that want to stay home if Obama is the Nominee for whatever reason, whether it's because they are bigots, bitter their candidate lost, or just assholes there will be an even greater number of people who turnout to vote than before.

there are many people who never voted before who will vote this time.

I saw this with Kerry in 04. I remember people saying that about Bradley in 2000. It happens every election. There's nothing special about this one.

... and going with Nader.

But I have lots of family members who aren't good Dems. They vote for the man each time and not the party. (They're not party purists or party faithfuls.) But they would all vote for Hillary if she is the nominee...but they would never vote for Obama...especially since they still remember the Maverick. I'm trying to re-educate them, but so far I'm not having much success. That's just an example of what's going on in some blue states.

Frankly, if they ever read all the posts on DU that say they won't vote for Hillary if she wins...I wouldn't blame them.

you? I don't like Clinton but I will vote for her should she be the nominee because of the court nominees.

I just am "blue dog" supporting Obama for the most part; but if Hillary takes this by hook or by crook; I will work both sides of the fence. I will not just "vote down ticket". I will suggest to all the college kids that my wife works with; that voting Nader is a great idea. When the guys i work with start talking about choosing McCrazy, I will encourage them instead of defending the Dem candidate.

I think Hillary would as far as policy and ability goes, make a fine president. If she continues her tactics she is employing; she is going to cut off her own nose and leave Barack setup for 2012.

I have been concerned about how many people I have talked to who are Democrats or lean Democrat but say they won't vote for one candidate or the other. Hopefully some of that will die down after we have a nominee. I don't know if this is normal for people to feel that way at this stage or if it's something to be concerned about.

I will vote for Clinton if she gets the nomination, but I was surprised to hear my mom say yesterday that she probably won't. Hopefully she will come around if New Jersey looks competitive.

I was even more surprised on Saturday, when I talked to a past president of my local Young Dems chapter who said he wouldn't vote for Clinton if she got the nomination despite lagging in pledged delegates.

Whichever one winds up as the nominee there's going to be people staying home and we could lose the Senate. If you can't convince someone to support whoever the nominee is, at least try and convince them they need to go and vote in the other races.

I think of it more in terms of :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

But that's just me ...

Good question with and easy answer. :hi:

The people who make this claim are either full of shit or stupid.

He will not win Ohio or Florida and he would need one of them to win the general.

The superdelegates better support Clinton, not Obama, or we're looking at President McCain.

maverick BS and it will work don't forget who the Governor has been for many years California loves repug governors.

That doesn't mean we are winning those states. Governors have nothing to do with how a state votes in federal elections.

Sure, he'll win some counties there, but he will never, ever carry those 2 states...

Remember, Schwartzenegger is rather socially liberal, if he was socially conservative, he'd never be the governor...

:shrug:

Lautenberg is hardly popular, and he's expected to win easily. NJ elects any Dem, even ones they hate. Obama is no doubt popular there then people like Corzine and Menendez who have no problems winning.

Hillary would win against McCain by 50% to 39%, if it's between Obama & McCain then it's a toss up. Plus, 25% of Hillary supporters would vote for McCain over Obama and some others wouldn't vote at all.

There were many polls in 2004 that had Kerry and Bush tied in NJ. One SUSA poll even had Bush up 4. Kerry won by 6. Haven't we learned anything from polls this year?

http://uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/CAMPAIGN/2004/polls.php?fips=34

They elect plenty of Republicans. Hell, Kean would be Gov now if he hadn't made that asinine Mafia remark. Christy Whitman, Kean, Jr., etc.

What people have to realize is that McCain is just the sort of Republican NJ Republicans like: he's perceived as a moderate here. They like moderates.

With Christine Todd Whitman, and she won with under 50% by about a point. And she won her previous term as Governor with similar numbers. Hardly impressive.

Yes, NJ elects plenty of Republicans, but not statewide. Kean Jr. has never won statewide, or any other Republican in more than a decade. The fact that parts of NJ elect Republicans says little about the state at large, after all parts of Utah and Idaho elect Democrats.

:eyes:

New Jersey has the Democratic machine and that will put either Clinton or Obama over the top.

I grew up here and I now live here again. I think there's a very good chance of Senator Obama losing NJ in the GE. Polls and the "tax Republicans" in my family make me think this.

NJ is a strange state: very progressive in some ways, and very much not in others.

NT!

with their feet and sit out the election like they do every single year.

The majority rules, and the majority is apathetic about politics.

By God, what else do I need?

I mean, doesn't everyone in America know that's what America stands for?

it seems from the polling. If they didn't vote for him the first time..why should they vote the SECOND TIME.

Oh...you mean if he's the Last Dem Candidate Standing? ....well...then maybe they would...I'm not sure.:shrug:

than McCain winning CA....It absolutely will never happen, social conservatives will NEVER carry California....:banghead:

it's desperate flailing from Camp Hillary.

Hillary and Obama winning by huge margins.

So California is in play if Obama is the candidate.

The majority of Hispanics in California are Democrats and they will vote for Obama if he is nominated. Somewhere along the line this myth of Obama being unable to court the Hispanic vote in the general election has formed, which is completely untrue. He will win the Hispanic vote in California and he will win the state. By more than 10 points. Guarenteed.

hate Hispanics, that's how they define themselves.

Put him on record about the fence and immigration and he loses one of two demographics.

If he says he's for it he alienates the Hispanic and Latino vote.

If he says he's against it, then neocons stay home or vote third party.

The demographic breakdown puts Obama over either way.

then you don't know a damn thing about Republicans.

If Mexicans are in play, then other demographics will shy away from McCain.

When talking politics, I think it's a bad idea to monolithically just say "hispanics". You're talking about distinct immigrant groups that all have their own values and to some degree ... rivalries.

but the reality is that McCain won the Republican nomination running on this platform. It is absurd how Hillary's opponent's overestimate Republican hatred of Mexicans and underestimate their antipathy toward blacks.

Lotta experts on California out there in Atlanta, are there?

by electoral votes.....

Hillary v McCain

Solid Clinton--77 (eleven or more points): AR, DC, IL, MA, NY, RI
Lean Clinton--126 (six to ten points): CA, CT, FL, ME, MD, OH, VT
Toss Up--135 (five points or less): DE, HI, IA, MI, MN, MO, NJ, NM, OR, PA, TN, WA, WV, WI
Lean McCain--136 (six to ten points): AL, CO, KS, KY, LA, MS, NV, NH, NC, OK, SC, TX, VA
Solid McCain--65 (eleven or more points): AK, AZ, GA, ID, IN, MT, NE, ND, SD, UT, WY

Obama v McCain

Solid Obama--163 (eleven or more points): CA, CT, DC, HI, IL, ME, MD, NY, RI, VT, WA, WI
Lean Obama--66 (six to ten points): CO, DE, MA, MN, NM, OH, OR
Toss-up--186: (five points or less): AK, FL, MI, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NC, ND, PA, TX, VA
Lean McCain--25 (six to ten points): IN, MO, MT
Solid McCain--98 (eleven or more points): AL, AZ, AR, GA, ID, KY, LA, MS, OK, TN, UT, WV, WY

Obama Poll Hillary Poll

Obama is well within the margin of error for many other large states like Texas, Florida and NJ.

people think it's impossible

but it's not

along the coast, north to south, it's almost solidly blue

go inland a bit, and it's red, very red

to wit, the republicans have been trying to create proportionality in the GE, no more winner take all....

but even though they haven't succeeded yet.....California could be in play

Hispanics are a huge voting bloc, and they find McCain's immigration stance tolerable

and there are lots of Clinton supporters (anecdotal, but nonetheless) who will not vote for Obama if he's the nominee

California is NOT going to be "in Play" this fall. California is not going to vote for an anti-choicer who promises to keep troops in Iraq for 100 years.

Sorry.

They don't have any "white guilt", just hard feelings.

So... any white person who is voting for Obama (or any black candidate) must be doing so out of "white guilt"?

And what the fuck do you mean by "hard feelings"?

Geezus Christ on a pogo stick.

I guess they got infected with my non-existent white guilt (I'm European originally and nobody in my country has ever owned slaves). Clinton's main advantage among these two groups was that she started with way better name recognition.

as his VP.....McCain is too socially conservative for California, if you throw in Romney on his ticket, he'd be lucky to get 37% in CA.....

Social conservative shit doesn't fly in CA!!

They love the Bush tax cuts and want more. They fear al-Qaeda and are proud of our troops fighting them in Iraq and preparing to take the fight to the enemy HQ... in Iran! They can't stand balanced budgets. They don't give a shit about the economy there. They want a tough guy, a staight talkin' tough guy. They approve of interfering in a woman's control over her own body--they don't call Boston the cradle of liberty for nothing, you know! "Pack the court!" those Southey's shout whenever they think of John McCain--a man in temperament and vitality so much like their beloved JFK.

Yep, you nominate Obama, and Massachusetts goes at least a maroony shade of red.

LOL. You're describing the land of Ted Kennedy as is if it's Alabama. Also the state with 0/10 Republican Congressmen, 85% of the state legislature Democrats, and gave Gore his second highest numbers in the country outside of DC (and Kerry his highest but it was also his home state.)

Lose Massachusetts and you've basically lost every other state in the country. Hell, Massachusetts was once the only holdout other than DC for McGovern.

...that worries about what the uninformed and bigoted citizens will do. They're non-issues. He's running a mobilization campaign. And the voters he awakens will nullify all the neocon, racist or xenophobe votes you may have in your families or social circles.

So don't sweat it. Just donate.

but the hypothetical reasons for that happening don't have as much to say about his losing them in the primary as what happens later on down the line, particularly with respect to damage control.

What I've seen thus far in that regard hasn't been promising -but hopefully, as the campaign draws out, there'll be opportunities to learn -so that if the nomination does come his way, the campaign won't blow it, as others have in the past.

Obama will get the votes from some of his supporters (most of his base consists of traditionally unreliable voters, so odds are that many of them won't go to the polls) He'll pick up about two thirds of the Hillary voters, but most Independents and the rest of the Hillary people will choose McCain. Fear is usually about uncertainty. If people are already afraid, they'll choose the person they feel they know, even if they don't always agree with them.